Life in Canada

EDMONTON - A new study shows that heavy metals including lead and mercury which are being released from oilsands facilities into the air and water of northern Alberta are already above levels considered hazardous to fish.

The study, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, takes aim at the province's environmental monitoring and dismisses government claims that the contaminants come from natural sources.

"Contrary to claims made by industry and government in the popular press, the oilsands industry substantially increases the loadings of toxic (priority pollutants) into the Athabasca River and its tributaries via air and water pathways," concludes the report.

But while the Alberta government accepts that some contamination may be coming from industry, it says there still isn't enough information to know if that's the main source.

"It's very difficult in many cases to attribute water-quality trends to one particular factor," said Kim Westcott of Alberta Environment. "It's quite a complicated thing to tease apart."

In 2008, David Schindler's team set up monitoring stations on the Athabasca and several of its tributaries. Some stations were upstream of both the oilsands and its facilities. Others were in the middle of the bitumen deposits but upstream of industry, and the rest were downstream of both.

The team found that heavy metals did not increase until the streams flowed past oilsands facilities, especially when they flowed past new construction.

"As soon as there was over 25 per cent watershed disturbance we had big increases in all of the contaminants that we measured — just stripping of the soil and trees in preparation for mining or building," said Schindler.

The contaminants were also being emitted from ongoing operations, the research found.

Schindler found metal levels increased in spring, as would be expected if a winter's worth of deposition on snow and ice were being flushed downstream during the melting season.

The metals involved include not only lead and mercury — both neurotoxins — but also cadmium, copper, nickel, silver and seven other metals considered priority pollutants by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Levels of the metals remain below human health thresholds. But concentrations at some test sites at some times of the year are already greater than those set by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment to protect marine ecosystems — sometimes much greater.

Cadmium levels ranged between 30 and 200 times over the guideline. Silver levels were 13 times higher than recommended at one site, and copper, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc were five times the suggested limit.

Those toxins are being passed along to animals eaten as food, said Schindler.

"Any animal that browses in the area is going to be taking in higher levels of the same contaminants," he said.

Caroline Bampfylde of Alberta Environment said early results from government data taken at 11 sites in the area in 2009 aren't conclusive.

"There isn't really a consistent pattern, across metals or across locations," she said. "There isn't a consistent signal."

As well, she said 33 years of monitoring at the Athabasca Delta, far downstream of the oilsands industry, has shown no increase in contamination.

The Alberta government has long maintained that contaminants increase near oilsands mines because that's where deposits are most concentrated. It contends the higher metal levels are the result of the Athabasca eroding natural outcrops of bitumen.

Schindler pours scorn on that theory and is harshly critical of the government's Regional Aquatic Monitoring Program.

"There should be very little trust in propaganda put out by the Alberta government," he said. "It's almost as if they've taken the textbook in how to develop a long-term monitoring program and violated every rule," Schindler said.

Westcott defends the government efforts.

"The RAMP is a comprehensive program," she said. "It's not a perfect program, but I think it will be very interesting once we have Dr. Schindler's data to compare that to the RAMP."

The program is much improved since the less-than-flattering results of a 2004 peer review, she said.

Westcott added that the Alberta Research Council is in the middle of a study using isotope analysis to finally pin down how much of the heavy metals in the Athabasca come from industry. A similar study using another form of chemical signature is being conducted on hydrocarbon emissions.

Schindler said it's time the federal government stepped in.

"(Environment Canada) delegated it to the province, which they shouldn't have been doing, and the province in turn delegated all the monitoring to industry itself."

Liberal MP Francis Scarpaleggia, who helped write the party's report on the water and the oilsands after a two-year study, agreed that Ottawa has abandoned the issue.

"The federal government has devolved its constitutional responsibilities for protecting fish-bearing freshwater in the oilsands region to the Alberta government, which in turn has given self-regulatory powers to the industry," he wrote in an email.

Provincial programs, he said, "have proven unable to properly monitor the water-pollution effects of oilsands development or establish proper rules."

Federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice said federal scientists are working with Alberta on environmental monitoring, including assisting in the chemical signature study.

"We will continue to work with the Alberta government to monitor the development and growth of the oilsands in an environmentally responsible manner."

New Democrat MLA Rachel Notley said Schindler's study further damages Alberta's environmental credibility at a time when it's under international attack. She said it's time the province changed its approach to monitoring and enforcing rules rather than mounting public relations campaigns.

"That's the only true, honest way to fix our reputation. And up until now, the government has been playing a smoke-and-mirrors game while effectively acting as part of the oil industry's public relations team."

Schindler's study is the latest to take aim at environmental monitoring in the oilsands region.

He released a paper last December based on the same research that showed hydrocarbon pollution is nearly five times greater and twice as widespread as industry figures say.

Other studies suggest that greenhouse gas emissions from the oilsands are being underestimated by nearly a quarter. One paper blamed increased soil acidification on the industry.

Where is the River
Athabasca River originates at the toe of the Athabasca Glacier, between Mount Columbia, Snow Dome and the Sir Winston Churchill Range, in Jasper National Park, at an altitude of approximately 1,600 meters (5,249 ft).

The river flows along icefields, through gorges, offers wildlife habitat on its shores and adjacent marshes. National and provincial parks were established to protect this habitats and landscapes, such as Jasper National Park, Sundance Provincial Park, Carson-Pegasus Provincial Park, Obed Lake Provincial Park, William A. Switzer Provincial Park. The river also crosses the southeast limits of Wood Buffalo National Park. Its course is marked by rapids, impeding navigation south of Fort McMurray.[5]

The Athabasca River travels 1,231 km (765 mi) before draining into the Peace-Athabasca Delta near Lake Athabasca, south of Fort Chipewyan and Wood Buffalo National Park. From there, its waters flow north as Slave River into the Great Slave Lake, which discharges through the Mackenzie River system into the Arctic Ocean. The cumulative drainage area is 95,300 km2 (36,796 sq mi).[2]

Many communities are located on the banks of this river. Among the larger ones are Jasper, Hinton, Whitecourt, Athabasca and Fort McMurray.

August 27th, 2010

Canada’s federal government made an important announcement this week. It was kept deliberately quiet: with a news release issued at 4:45 pm on a calm Tuesday in the middle of the late-summer news “dead zone.” But it should set alarm bells ringing for anyone concerned with the anti-democratic direction of global trade law.

read more

Alberta miffed that some U.S. retailers are boycotting or avoiding oilsands oil

EDMONTON - Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach is miffed at some U.S. retailers for saying they will boycott oilsands-derived fuel or encourage their suppliers to use low-carbon alternatives.

"Unfortunately, these retailers have chosen a course of action without first talking to us about our environmental commitment and the efforts of thousands of Albertans working for government, industry and academic institutions to reduce the impact of oilsands development,” Stelmach said in a release Friday.

On Thursday, Walgreens announced that it will no longer buy fuel for its transportation fleet that is derived from the oilsands. The Gap, Timberland and Levi Strauss also said they will either give preference to suppliers who use low-carbon fuels or encourage their transportation providers to do so.

The premier says he intends to send a letter to the CEO of each of the corporations.

Stelmach said Alberta is the only jurisdiction in North America with mandatory greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for large emitters.

"As a government, we intend to show what others will not — that we are responsible energy developers. We are also ready and willing to discuss their concerns."

An Edmonton business group also reacted angrily Friday to the U.S. retailers' decision, calling for a boycott of their products in retaliation.

Alberta Enterprise Group Tim Shipton said companies such as the Gap create greenhouse gas emissions by shipping their products long distances.

"It's high time to say, 'no way,' " Shipton said in a release.

Meanwhile, Greenpeace spokesman Mike Hudema said industry and government should respond by making changes.

"PR campaigns aren't going to stem the tide of companies and individuals turning away from this devastating industy," he said.

The environmental group Forest Ethics says it will continue lobbying other Fortune 500 corporations in the U.S. to turn their backs on oilsands oil.

Last February, organic grocer Whole Foods and retailer Bed, Bath and Beyond also announced policies for encouraging their transport contractors to reduce their carbon footprint.

A spokesman for Forest Ethics said the campaign is part of "the financial war" over the oilsands.

A coalition of environmental groups is also funding the so-called Rethink Alberta campaign. That effort involves billboards across the U.S. and England that target Alberta's tourism industry. The message is that Alberta is threatening its natural beauty by the way it regulates resource development.

Industry and the Alberta government have responded with campaigns of their own, spending millions on TV and print ads detailing the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on problems such as cleaning up the oilsands tailing ponds

Summerfallow at the highest level since 1999

Summerfallow, namely land on which no crop will be grown during the year, was estimated at 12.1 million acres, an increase of 93.9% from the 6.2 million acres reported in 2009. Summerfallow area has not been this high since 1999, when it was 15.0 million acres.

In Saskatchewan, 9.7 million acres were reported, an increase of 135.9% compared with 4.1 million acres in 2009. Much of the increase occurred in the East and East-central districts, where respondents reported severe flooding during the May and June seeding period. Manitoba reported 760,000 acres, an increase of 60.0% from 475,000 acres in 2009. Alberta remained unchanged at 1.6 million acres.


Get ready for a real heist in Prices..and not because of the shortage..but by opportunist companies which of course the Govt will tax...Neat eh...

Acute-care hospitalizations and Aboriginal identity in Canada, 2001/2002

Health disparities between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal populations in Canada, including differences in life expectancies, have clearly been established. Nothing has been or is planned to stem this disgrace. A variety of sources has been for many months and still is currently used to measure and document these disparities, yet information gaps persist. Because of limited coverage and sample sizes, reliable health information that reflects the diversity in Canada’s Aboriginal population is not always available. I wonder why..?

Hospital discharge records contain information about serious morbidity and include populations not regularly covered by national health surveys. However, Aboriginal identity information about patients is not recorded consistently across the country in hospital administrative data. Convenient or what...!

By assigning 2001 Census data for small geographical areas to hospital discharge records from the 2001/2002 Hospital Morbidity Database, this report provides estimates of morbidity serious enough to require hospitalization. Acute-care hospitalizations of people living in areas with a relatively high percentage of Aboriginal residents are compared with hospitalizations of residents of areas where the percentage of Aboriginal residents is low. Variations by predominant Aboriginal identity in these areas—First Nations, Métis and Inuit populations—are also explored.

Factors that potentially underlie differences in hospitalization rates between residents of high- and low-Aboriginal areas are determined by adjusting for urban/rural residence and area socio-economic characteristics.
Key findings

* Residents of areas with a relatively high percentage of Aboriginal people had significantly higher hospitalization rates, compared with residents of areas where the percentage of Aboriginal people was low.
* Hospitalizations of patients from areas with a high percentage of Aboriginal people had a significantly younger age distribution than did hospitalizations of patients from areas with a low percentage of Aboriginal people.
* The highest hospitalization rates were among residents of areas where the predominant Aboriginal identity was First Nations.
* Hospitalization rates for respiratory diseases, injuries and mental disorders were much higher among residents of areas with a high percentage of Aboriginal people.
* Urban/Rural location and housing conditions had the strongest associations with differences in hospitalization rates between residents of high- and low-Aboriginal areas.

Michigan oil spill caused by 5-foot tear in pipeline
'Largest pipeline leaks in recent U.S. history'

CALGARY, Alberta (Reuters) - Oil that fouled a Michigan river system spewed from a rip less than five feet long in an Enbridge Inc pipeline, a company executive said on Saturday after crews extracted the ruptured piece.
The pipeline, part of Enbridge's system that carries most of Canada's crude oil exports into the United States, ruptured nearly two weeks ago near Marshall, Michigan, and there is still no estimate when it might be restarted.

Looking at the length-wise tear does not provide enough information to determine what caused 800,000 gallons of heavy crude oil to spill into the Kalamazoo River system, said Steve Wuori, president of Enbridge's liquids pipelines division.

Under the watch of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, crews extracted a 50 foot (15 meter) section on Friday and it is being shipped to Washington for analysis, officials said.

"I would think it will be late tomorrow before the replacement section is welded into place," Wuori told reporters in conference call to discuss the incident.

Authorities must approve Enbridge's restart plan before it can resume shipping crude on the 190,000 barrel a day pipeline, called Line 6B. Even then it will likely run at reduced rates.

The Environmental Protection Agency had enforcement officials at the excavation as they investigate whether Enbridge was negligent in the period leading up to the July 26 spill, EPA administrator Susan Hedman said.

The pipeline serves refineries in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Ontario that produce more than 700,000 barrels a day. At least three plants have cut output and others have been forced to seek supplies on alternate pipelines.

The spill represents one of the largest pipeline leaks in recent U.S. history. It arguably gained increased profile against the backdrop of the much bigger BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

So now we know.

Following release of the US government's latest estimate, the Deepwater Horizon disaster is confirmed as the biggest ever accidental release of oil into the oceans.

US Oil Spill

* Biggest ever, but how bad?
* Timeline: BP oil spill
* Controlling a robot claw
* Oil dispersant 'not more toxic'

It exceeds the 1979 Ixtoc I leak - also in the Gulf of Mexico. It's comfortably bigger than tanker releases such as the Torrey Canyon and Amoco Cadiz, and 20 times the size of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill with which it is often compared.

Now that BP finally appears to have the flow under control, an important question - perhaps the most important of all - is being asked: it may have been the biggest, but was it the worst?

It is a simple-sounding question, but devilishly hard to answer.

What impacts are we talking about - on the coast, on the ocean surface, or the sea floor?

Which species are we including - fish, shrimp, insects, plants, birds, whales, turtles - or some combination of them all?

Are we looking long-term or short-term, local or regional - and are we to include or exclude impacts from the use of chemical dispersants and fires and the other containment measures?

One thing that is clear is that different parts of the Gulf coast have seen very different levels of impact.
Damaged grasses Grasses in the wetland regions show damage - but they may recover

Two weeks ago, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) announced that so little oil was being seen in a zone covering more than 26,000 square miles (67,000 sq km) - a quarter of US territorial waters in the Gulf - that fishing could safely re-start.

Yet in other areas, particularly along the coast, people are struggling daily to nurse oil-soaked birds back to health.

Many commentators were saying during the early days of the episode that the ecological impacts would depend largely on the vagaries of winds and tides; and so it has proven.

Noaa has said that about three-quarters of the 4.9 million barrels leaked into the Gulf waters has already vanished from the area - through evaporation, capture, burning, or dispersion.

But that still leaves more than a million barrels at sea.

As a formerly significant US figure said in the context of a different Gulf: there are known unknowns, and unknown unknowns.
Danger zone
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

Once it makes to it to shore it is causing an impact on our most sensitve ecosystem that is extremely difficult to clean up”

End Quote Paul Anastas EPA

Andy Nyman, an associate professor of Wetland Wildlife Ecology at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, has spent years conducting laboratory and field research into the possible impacts of oil spills on the coastal wetlands that are so vital as nurseries for fish and shrimp, nesting grounds for birds and as coastal defences.

"It's going to be difficult to pick up the impacts of the oil spill and separate those from natural seasonal variability," he says.

"Impacts we'll be looking for in the short term include the loss of wetland grasses and reductions in fish and other things that live in the water.

"In the longer term we could see reduced productivity in these populations, but we may not be able to detect it because the annual variations are quite large."

He relates taking two trips along the coastal fringe in recent weeks.

In one zone, they could see virtually no impact on the grasses. In the other, a stretch of coast about 10km (six miles) long showed significant damage, with swathes of grass brown and shedding leaves.

Yet on many plants, new green stems were sprouting - just as happened on the grasses in Professor Nyman's experimental plot after he had coated them in oil to see how they would perform.

It looks like to me at least, that the US government has had a 32 billion dollar Windfall at the expense of BP. I just bet the accounting for the money is very poor as usual. Look at the Irag aid accounting..8 Billion dollars never to be seen again.