Oilsands impact to receive national academic scrutiny

Wikimedia Commons

THE PRICE OF OIL Mildred Lake Syncrude produces 350,000 barrels of oil a day.

The debate surrounding the costs and benefits of the Alberta oilsands is a polarizing topic, but a panel assembled by the Royal Society of Canada has made it its mission to put bias aside and find the best course of action for the resource.

Many groups internationally and locally have condemned the oilsands for its detrimental effect on the environment and health of people and wildlife in surrounding areas.

Industry has downplayed the damage being done, hoping to protect its stake in the estimated 173 billion barrels of oil recoverable with current technology.

“The public debate is obviously quite split. Most of the information that's out there is coming from sources that have an agenda, being from the oilsands or opposing it for a variety of reasons,” said Steve Hrudey, panel chair and professor emeritus in environmental health sciences at the University of Alberta. “We just felt there was a need for the public to have access to a review from people who don't have a stake in that outcome.”

The panel has convened 10 experts from a wide array of disciplines, including air quality, pollution control technology, aquatic toxicology and ecology, land reclamation, public health, and resource economics.

“Given the discussion about serious environmental and health impacts, we need to know what the evidence supports in terms of how serious these impacts are, [and] can they be mitigated within the economic benefits of the industry,” Hrudey explained.

Groups that have been vocal opponents of further oilsands development welcome a more public debate, especially with contributions from academia.

“Data’s being collected, but it isn't being widely disseminated or analyzed. I think that will contribute to the debate, but I think what else it will also demonstrate is how many unanswered questions there actually are,” said Simon Dyer, oilsands director at the Pembina Institute, a group which has the mandate of advancing sustainable energy solutions.

“It’s likely we need a pause in oilsands development and a cap on expansions while we address some of these unresolved issues,” he continued. “It would be very helpful if the academic community engaged much more deeply.”

That’s precisely the goal of the new panel, which plans to release a report on its findings in early 2011.

“What academics are supposed to do is to look for the truth and be faithful to the truth,” Hrudey explained. “Our task is to try and describe the way things are, but what society’s going to do with that evidence is really a societal decision. We believe those types of decisions should be made on an accurate assessment of the evidence, not on something that's biased one way or the other.”

The industry welcomes analysis from this "very credible and science-based group," stated Travis Davies, public affairs advisor for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

"We’ll do as much as we can in terms of what we can supply anything [the panel] request from us in terms of data, and we’ll obviously stand behind the findings," Davies said. "The fact that Canadians expect a high degree of environmental performance and sustainability that balances with the economic and energy supply issues the oilsands also have an impact on is pretty telling on where industry needs to be on this."

The newly assembled panel doesn’t have the resources to conduct its own research, but will instead judge the merit of what’s already out there, Hrudey noted.

“The panel will be bringing our own understanding of issues to the table, and then deciding on a process. It's really when we’ve got the evidence at hand that we'll be identifying [our priorities],” he said. “It’ll be a question of looking at everything that's out there and critically assessing credibility.”

A detailed review of evidence couldn’t come soon enough, Dyer argued.

“In many ways we’re 10 years too late in terms of assessing the impact of the oilsands and developing a plan going forward. Unfortunately, the industry isn't waiting for environmental rules or a clear plan,” he said.

Hrudey is confident that the meticulous method of review used by the group will earn it due attention.

“This panel has been initiated on behalf of the Royal Society. It's not funded by any external organizations, there's no commitment [to action] made by any parties. I guess we wouldn't expect that,” he said. “If we do a balanced job of getting the facts out there, and if we can't reach consensus on issues, which may happen, then we'll spell out what the disagreements are and that openness and frankness should speak for itself [...] If we do a good enough job, then maybe it will be compelling so they'll have to listen.”