The Ongoing Oilsands Debates

Date: January 15, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Place: 2609 19th Ave SW, Good Companions Centre
Hosted by: Canadian Federation of University Women (CFUW, www.cfuw.org)

This event, entitled "Brakes On, Brakes Off", was a one-hour debate between Terra Simieritsch, policy analyst and advisor on the Alberta oilsands at Pembina Institute (www.pembina.org; see also www.oilsandswatch.org for oilsands-specific information) and Shell Canada's public affairs representative Janet Annesley.

I won't go into a blow-by-blow account of the debate; it was interesting/encouraging that both parties cited, essentially verbatim, the same facts and figures. Annesley effectively skirted the issue of cumulative impacts, choosing to focus on a strict representation of Shell Canada's part in the oilsands business and highlighting the fact that on the recent Pembina and WWF oilsands report, its Muskeg River Mine operations scored the highest grade of all those rated in the report (see http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/OS-Undermining-Final.pdf). As Simieritsch pointed out however, it remains a rather dubious achievement when the highest grade was 56%.

Some points raised by Annesley included:
1) Shell has never been a fan of unfettered oilsands development.

2) There are three truths regarding energy resources today:
a) demand continues to increase, especially in China and India as they develop
b) Conventional resource availability is decreasing
c) Climate change impacts are a reality; in her words, "the debate is over", and cautionary principles dictate that we must take action.

3) "Disappointing millions by stopping economic growth is not our plan."

While #1 is pretty subjective (i.e. open, but difficult, to debate), #2 is unequivocal. It's #3 where the issues come to a head. What does the avoidance of "disappointing millions" and "stopping economic growth" really mean, on the ground? This is where Pembina takes up.

The argument is really that at present, the growth is (or was, prior to current economic pressures - which, as an aside, was actually only officially recognized as a recession last Friday - http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE5DA173CF930A35751C1A966958260), in practice, essentially unfettered. Leases have been handed out to companies without prior environmental assessments, while the real impacts of increased water and land use, costs of reclamation, and effects on rural communities, subsistence lifestyles and wildlife populations remain essentially unknown.

On Tuesday, January 27th I attended an information session hosted by the Alberta Wildlands Association, called "In Situ Oil Sands Extraction – Impacts on Groundwater and Wild Lands." This event brought together Wallace King, an oil and gas geologist who has worked in the industry for 30 years, and Carolyn Campbell, a well-known Calgary conservationist from AWA. The message here was that in situ extraction, which will be required for 80% of the oilsands reserves in the area, places enormous underground aquifers, which drain directly into the Athabasca River, at significant risk. Should a blowout ever occur in an active well, the many exploratory wells used to locate the most suitable sites for extraction will act as serious points of weakness that would allow contamination of the aquifer. In addition, the access roads, well pads, and supporting facilities (electricity, pipelines, construction) fragment existing habitat that is required for survival of many sensitive species, particularly woodland caribou (whose largest herd has already been reduced by 50% through development in their local range), marten, and wolverine. In addition it provides access to more resilient, opportunistic species such as deer, followed by wolves and increasing predation pressure on caribou.

During both of these talks, several key points were made:

1) There should be a moratorium on new leases in oilsands development until it can be assured that development can continue sustainably, which means that
a) critical water sources, such as the Athabasca River and underground aquifers, will not be placed at risk;
b) it will be recognized that the risk of irreversible ecosystem damage alone (e.g. toxification of water supplies, destruction of wetlands, extinction or endangerment to species) is sufficient cause to withhold further development;
c) the rights and wishes of First Nations and subsistence-lifestyle communities in these areas will be respected, which means that they will have a right to continue to exist in the lifestyle in which they choose, with their health, the health of their children, and of their future not placed in jeopardy.

2) Reclamation is as yet a new science; we don't yet know how to replace the ecosystem function of an intact peatland boreal forest, nor of a wetland. Will we ever be able to rebuild, within a generation (or even a foreseeable amount of time) what was created over thousands of years? "Wet ground" - some water, cattails and a few ducks - does not a wetland make, and these areas require appropriate protection and conservation in order for both humans and the environment to continue to benefit from their services - water purification, habitat for wildlife, uptake of carbon dioxide, as well as the simple "soft" benefits of our own enjoyment and non-destructive use of wildlands.

3) Pressure needs to be put on governments first. It is fundamental that there is sound, strong legislation in place to uphold a higher standard than the current one, in order that both the environment and economic stability be protected for ALL Albertans and Canadians. And it is crucial that that legislation is enforceable, and enforced, rather than subjugated to the current economic climate.

Alright, so that was much longer-winded than I'd thought it would be - and much less thorough than I'd hoped. If I could depart with one message it's that we all get out there, get talking about these issues, keep ourselves informed from all sides and known about these issues, which affect us all.

A Not-So-Brief Introduction

I've long resisted the idea of a blog, for numerous reasons. I find it hard to believe that with the advent and proliferation of Facebook that anyone really bothers reading individual webpages anymore. Why spend time jogging between one person's site and another in order to catch up on everyone's comings, goings and most recent profound or (as my mom puts it) not-so-profound musings - requiring (egad!) having to remember all of those different URLs, or have them all cluttering up the handy little tag bar in your browser - when all that can be accomplished, more or less, through a single handy little website like Facebook.

Well, I guess I've finally caved: I need my own site. I need to express myself in more than just "Notes" and "Current status" headlines in which I describe myself in the third person. (This point alone creeps me out enough to consider striking out from the cozy confines of FB into the wider, scarier, more personalized beyond of blogs and personal webpages and whatnot).

I also need to do so without the temptation to just casually (and "quickly" - ha!) check in on all of my far-flung friends, old acquaintances, acquaintances of acquaintances, etc., peruse their 23 photo albums, rouse my jealousy over X's travel photos or Y's hiking adventure last summer... so maybe this will do it. On the other hand: maybe it'll just be one more way for me to avoid attacking that monstrosity of a data file I constructed last summer during my research project in Peru.

In any event, I can't promise it'll be profound, informative, or even interesting, but I'll aim for at least a two-out-of-three sort of average and see how it goes. I've gone with Ecolophilia; as both a nod to and a departure from Biophilia - okay, maybe a lame attempt to be original (or just to pick an available blog name) - but also recognizing that the human fascination with the natural world is not stirred solely by things biological, but by the entire system in which they function. Furthermore... since I'm busy talking and thinking and learning about ecology, it seemed a more appropriate way to go.

When I return I'll be writing about the superb debate I was privileged to attend last night in Calgary's southwest Good Companions Centre, hosted by the North and South Calgary chapters of the Canadian Federation of University Women. Featured were the Pembina Institute's oilsands specialist and policy analyst Terra Simieritsch, and Shell Canada's public affairs spokesperson Janet Annesley. Kudos to both women for keeping it both civil and professional on a pretty heated topic that is raising a lot of attention in Alberta, Canada, and around the world.

'Til then!