Tag: RAMP

Straight Outta Edmonton: Alberta Environment Minister Rob Renner on Oilsands Environmental Monitoring

“The fact remains that there are naturally occurring substances in the water. And if we had never set foot in the region those kinds of results would still be there.” — Minister Rob Renner, September 1, 2010.

“The RAMP that’s been there for a long time has done an admirable job.” — Minister Rob Renner, September 1, 2010.

“This is one of the most extensively monitored regions in the world.” — Minister Rob Renner, December 9, 2009.

(Start video @4:51)


Federal Oilsands Environmental Monitoring Advisory Panel

“The minister asked the panel whether or not Canadians had a first-class state-of-the-art monitoring system in place in the oilsands. In the view of the panel, the answer is no.” — Liz Dowdeswell, panel chair.

“Until this situation is fixed, there will continue to be uncertainty and public distrust in the environmental performance of the oilsands industry and government oversight.” — Liz Dowdeswell, panel chair.

2010 RAMP Peer Review

“The existing Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program is not sufficient to detect changes brought about by the industry. The report said the program is not asking the right questions or monitoring the right things. The report said only one of RAMP’s nine objectives has been met while another has been partially met. Four others have not been met and there is not enough information to judge progress on the final three.” — Edmonton Journal, January 31, 2011.

Provincial Oilsands Water Data Monitoring Review Committee

“Failure to detect PAHs in the sample cannot be a reflection of available analytical technology between 1990 and 2007. Although it is likely that concentrations in the river are generally low, it appears the laboratories Alberta Environment used do not have the capability of measuring the low concentrations of PAC found in the water…

Taking into consideration all data and critiques, we generally agree with the conclusion of Kelly et al. that PACs and trace metals are being introduced into the environment by oil sands operations…

We think Kelly et al.’s study, in spite of some uncertain statements on loadings and risks, has been important in pointing out deficiencies in current monitoring programs in the oil sands area. We believe it is in the best interests of the public and the oil sands industry to make sure all monitoring programs are conducted with scientific rigor and oversight.”

.

Continue reading

Straight Outta Edmonton: Overhauling RAMP

For 13 years, the Alberta Government has relied on the Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program (RAMP) to assess the impact of the oilsands. From resource development to environment, RAMP plays a significant role in developing provincial policy.

2004 RAMP Peer Review:

  • “Reviewers reported serious problems related to scientific leadership and a lack of integration and consistency across components with respect to approach, design, implementation, and analysis.”
  • “lack of details of methods, failure to describe rationales for program changes, examples of inappropriate statistical analysis, and unsupported conclusions.”
  • “No ability within RAMP to assess oil sands development impacts on the Athabasca River in an integrated way.”

2010 RAMP Peer Review:

  • “The reviewers believe the existing program does not successfully address the three key questions posed in (the review goal) section: the present program is not sufficient to detect changes if they occur; the present program cannot sufficiently identify potential sources resulting in the change(s) if changes are detected; and not all of the appropriate questions are being asked by the RAMP program and appropriate criteria being monitored to answer those questions.”

Although many have questioned RAMP’s scientific validity, generally along the same lines as the program’s two external peer reviews linked above, the Alberta Government did not act on these criticisms until two academic studies published by Dr. Erin Kelly and Dr. David Schindler. The studies, published in 2009 and 2010, documented high levels of oilsands industrial pollutants, including PACs (carcinogens) and heavy metals, being discharged into the Athabasca River Basin.

The studies contradicted RAMP, which claimed industrial pollutants were negligible and environmental toxins were naturally occurring, and as a result, federal and provincial panels were struck to investigate the contradictions. The federal panel examined the scientific validity of RAMP and reported in late December that the criticisms leveled against it were accurate — the program was utterly incompetent and was unable to adequately assess the environmental impact of the oilsands.

Before the provincial panel reported its results (scheduled for release February), Alberta Environment Minister Rob Renner announced that RAMP would be overhauled to ensure that the province would have a competent, science based oilsands environmental monitoring program. However, the oversight committee charged with creating the new program came under attack, as critics slammed the appointment of more industry representatives than scientists, the lack of aboriginal inclusion, and the selection of Hal Kvisle as co-chair (many question Kvisle’s lack of scientific credentials, ‘unique’ environmental conservation perspective, and support of lax regulatory standards for industry).

Although it’s too early to speculate whether the Alberta Government is sincere in its commitment to create a competent oilsands monitoring program, history and the province’s initial steps indicate that it will have to do more than just promise an overhaul, but actually demonstrate it — externally.

More on RAMP:

Continue reading

Straight Outta Edmonton: Overhauling RAMP

For 13 years, the Alberta Government has relied on the Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program (RAMP) to assess the impact of the oilsands. From resource development to environment, RAMP plays a significant role in developing provincial policy. 2004 RAMP Peer Review: “Reviewers reported serious problems related to scientific leadership and a

Continue reading

Straight Outta Edmonton: The Case for Science in Developing the Oilsands

“The debate about oil-sands extraction has become polarized, with players cast as either totally against, or for developing the sands rapidly without regard for environmental consequences. Both positions are based on very little evidence. A more moderate approach, with the pace of development based on solid environmental science, would be better in the long run.”

— Dr. David Schindler, “Tar Sands Need Solid Science,” Nature, November 25, 2010.

I support the Alberta Oilsands. I believe they are fundamental to the future prosperity of this province and Canada as a whole.

However, I don’t agree with how they are being developed. Our current development strategy fails to fully appreciate the tremendous value and responsibility that comes with the oilsands, in terms of the economy, environment, and legacy for future generations. From royalty rates to environmental monitoring, there are serious issues with the efficacy and consequences of current regimes.

A major issue is the lack of credible, scientific, peer-reviewed oilsands data to inform the public and policy makers on how to exactly develop the resource. How are Albertans expected to effectively participate in policy discussions concerning development when accurate information and studies are hidden from them? How are politicians able to develop an adequate long-term vision of the resource when they rely on pseudoscience?

Without accurate, scientific data, decisions are left to be made by individuals influenced by propaganda or innuendo. As citizens, we cannot allow the province to continue governing like this, particularly with projected development expected to expand significantly within the next decade. As Dr. David Schindler outlines in the above mentioned article, the stakes are too high.

Continue reading