Oilsands victory in Europe

‘ Ambitious’ environmental review ‘ suffered in its execution’

Canada won the first round Thursday in its fight to stop Europe from branding Alberta oilsands oil as more polluting than conventional oil. The battle is far from over, however.

A key section in a high- profile Royal Society of Canada report that cast doubt on potential environmental and health effects of oilsands development in Alberta was plagued by “misinformation” and “out of date” data, says a new analysis to be released Friday by Alberta scientist Kevin Timoney.

“Although the RSC report was an ambitious attempt to provide a comprehensive review, it suffered in its execution,” Timoney wrote in the commentary published by Environmental Science and Technology, an Iowa- based journal that describes itself as an authoritative source of information for professionals in a wide range of environmental disciplines. “Overall, the RSC report falls below the level of scholarship expected from the Royal Society.”

The Royal Society released its report in December 2010 after 14 months of research and analysis of the evidence. Their findings were welcomed by government and industry officials, who responded to some of its concerns through the recent adoption of a stronger monitoring program.

But the industry and government also said the Royal Society study showed some critics of oilsands development were exaggerating harmful effects on human and environmental health in the region.

After completing his analysis of the Royal Society’s conclusions about industrial effects on water, Timoney, who specializes in the ecology of wetlands, concluded the authors had rushed through the exercise while ignoring many public research papers and evidence on contamination and consumption concerns affecting natural bodies of water in the region.

“The literature review on surface water quality, impacts on aquatic organisms and fisheries, and potential pathways to human exposure was superficial,” said Timoney’s analysis, which was conducted on his own time over three weeks, without any funding. “The report’s skepticism about contamination was not based on a thorough or careful analysis.”

Steve Hrudey, a lead author of the 2010 report, said he and the other authors would review Timoney’s findings and respond to them, but acknowledged they would not have been able to consider all research available at the time of publication and were prepared to make corrections if necessary.

“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,” wrote Hrudey, a professor emeritus in analytical and environmental toxicology at the University of Alberta’s faculty of medicine and dentistry, in an email to Postmedia News. “If we do, it will be corrected.”

Timoney’s scathing commentary, which was reviewed by other scientists, added that the Royal Society’s acceptance of controversial data from an industry- led monitoring program in Alberta also undermined its report’s credibility.

“The RSC report was prepared under time constraints ‘ in a remarkably short period of time,’” said his analysis.