Evaluations in oilsands inconsistent, review finds

Dozens of oilsands environmental studies are marred by inconsistent science that’s rarely subjected to independent checks, says a university study.

“It doesn’t make any sense,” says University of British Columbia biology professor Adam Ford, who published his findings in the journal Environmental Reviews.

In 30 different assessments filed between 2004 and 2017, Ford found each study considered different factors in different ways. Few independently checked their conclusions. And those who did were notably less confident about the industry’s ability to restore what it had disturbed.

Ford says it all means the thousands of pages piled in the offices of the Alberta Energy Regulator reveal little about the overall health of one of the most heavily industrialized landscapes in Canada.

Energy companies planning to build oilsands projects must file an environmental impact assessment. Such assessments generally take representative species and consider, based on expert opinion, how development would affect different aspects of their habitat. Ford found 35 different species were studied. Only one — moose — appeared in all 30 assessments.

Some assessments looked at species groups; some didn’t. Some differed on their definition of wildlife habitat.

Moreover, the ways used to evaluate industrial impact were all different. Some 316 different mathematical models were used to measure habitat and they came up with different results from each other 82 per cent of the time.