Oilsands study was rush job: critic
Society report based on faulty research: article
OTTAWA – The lead author of a Royal Society of Canada report about oilsands development in Alberta has agreed to review the 2010 study following criticism it was plagued with errors and overlooked environmental and health impacts of the industry’s operations.
The decision follows the publication Friday of a commentary by Alberta scientist Kevin Timoney that was based on an analysis of a single chapter of the Royal Society report, examining water-related impacts of oilsands development.
“We will be responding by some means to everything he has raised,” said Steve Hrudey, a professor emeritus in analytical and environmental toxicology at the University of Alberta’s faculty of medicine and dentistry, who led the Royal Society study.
The original assessment has been regularly cited by industry and government officials since it was released in December 2010, to counterclaims from downstream communities, including First Nations groups, who allege pollution from oilsands development is caus- ing health problems and unusually high cancer rates in their population. But Timoney alleged in the commentary, published in an Iowabased journal, Environmental Science and Technology, that the Royal Society authors had misreported data, used outdated research and downplayed the potential impact of seepage of contaminants from oilsands tailings ponds into the environment.
“The RSC report provided a simplistic and incomplete treatment of how industrial activities may impact the aquatic environment,” Timoney, who has studied the oilsands region for decades and specializes in studying the ecology of wetlands, wrote in the commentary.
The commentary also questioned the Royal Society’s dismissal of public health concerns from downstream communities, suggesting that the 2010 analysis gave a “superficial treatment of the data.”
“The report’s skepticism about contamination was not based on a thorough or careful analysis,” said Timoney’s commentary.
Hrudey acknowledged some corrections could be made to the Royal Society report following a review.
“Given that we took 14 months, start to finish, to produce our report and Dr. Timoney has had 14 months since Dec. 15, 2010, to review one chapter (out of 11 in our report), it would not be surprising if he were able to find something that should be corrected,” Hrudey said. “If we do, it will be corrected.”
Recently released secret documents from the highest levels of the federal government have warned environmental damage from industry could be permanent, posing a “financial risk” to Alberta.
The federal government also has indicated it plans to move forward this year with draft climate-change regulations that would address the industry’s greenhouse-gas emissions that are rising faster than any other sector in the Canadian economy. But successive governments and environment ministers have repeatedly pledged to deliver regulations over the past decade, without implementing a concrete plan.
While Timoney suggested the Royal Society authors had overlooked potential mistakes because it rushed to finish the report, Hrudey also confirmed that time constraints and the sheer volume of evidence and data were obstacles in conducting their assessment.
The Royal Society report also highlighted the lack of information about potential impacts of oilsands development, prompting the federal and Alberta governments to improve monitoring programs through a new plan that is estimated to cost about $50 million per year.