Alberta oilsands monitoring needs to be clearer to public: review

Environmental monitoring in theoilsandsneeds to bebetter focused and turn more data into information the public canuse to understand what's happening in the region's ecosystem, anindependent review of the system has concluded.

The review, released Monday, said the federal and provincialgovernments need to form a better idea of what the $50-millionmonitoring program is intended to accomplish.

"It's very hard to hit the target if you haven't defined what the target is," said PhilipHopke, chairman of the six-member paneland head of an air monitoring centre at New York'sClarksonUniversity.

"For example, is the air monitoring really relevant to what theeco-toxicitypeople need to have in order to assess whether theoilsandsis causing ecological damage? That question hasn't,apparently, been looked at."

Hopkegives the JointOilsandsMonitoring Program a solid "B"grade for dramatic improvements in research on howoilsandsdevelopment affects the local environment.

• Oil spills' environmental impact: Knowledge gaps cited in new report
• Study shows oilsands tailings ponds releasing toxic chemicals into air
• Oilsands monitoring deal inked by Ottawa, Alberta

More sampling is being done over a wider area and on an expandedset of contaminants, Hopke said.

Research designs make sense and themethods used conform to international standards.

But he said scientists involved in studying air, land, water andbiodiversity need to do a better job of talking with each other.

"The problem we see is that integration of the activities acrossthe four components and within the four components is prettylimited."

Intense criticism

The program was set up in 2012 after intense criticism of how theAlberta government was doing the job. It was designed andimplemented by federal and Alberta scientists.

Scientific studies indicated that, while overall levels remainedlow, contaminants in the land and water around oilsands developmentswere increasing.

The review the first into the three-year-old program alsoconcluded it needs to convert its data into conclusions on whichpolicy-makers can base decisions.

Referring to air pollution, it says "insufficient attention hasbeen paid to the comprehensive analysis and interpretation of thesedata."

On biodiversity: "Limited analysis or integration of results hasbeen done. It was evident to the panel that the implementation of(the program) has been rushed."

"They haven't done a very good job yet of pulling the piecestogether," Hopke said.

Fred Wrona, Alberta's chief scientist with the program, said someof that assessment and analysis has begun since the panel began itswork.

"We hope to have very significant analyses being done not onlylooking at the three years of data we've collected but also lookingat historical information," he said.

More integrated approach

"We're embarking on a more integrated approach in terms of howwe're going to be doing our planning and the design of theprogram."

Wrona said bringing together two levels of government, multipledepartments and scientists from many disciplines has been a hugetask.

"We need to do a much better job to produce a much moreintegrated plan, making it clear to everybody what the objectives ofthe program are and how the information will be used and by whom in terms of making the data and conclusions much more policyrelevant."

Wrona said the program's first report bringing together differentscientific disciplines should be out in the fall.

The panel's findings were echoed by both industry andenvironmental groups.

Terry Abel, director of oilsands for the Canadian Association ofPetroleum Producers, said his group has expressed concerns beforeabout the need for more integration, analysis and coherence inmonitoring.

"We actually agree with a lot of the recommendations of thatpanel," he said.

Simon Dyer of the clean energy think-tank Pembina Institute saidmuch more work needs to be done.

"Their stakeholders are hungry for synthesized information aboutthe impacts."