here is the article regarding the study as it appeared on my server this morning...

Oilsands mining linked to Athabasca River toxins

30/08/2010 10:49:39 PM

CBC News
High levels of toxic pollutants in Alberta's Athabasca River system are linked to oilsands mining, researchers have found.

Upstream and undeveloped sites exposed directly to the McMurray Geologic Formation, the natural source of the oilsands, did not show high levels of pollutants.

The study led by Erin Kelly and David Schindler of the University of Alberta also found that levels of the pollutants cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, silver and zinc exceeded federal and provincial guidelines for the protection of aquatic life in melted snow or water collected near or downstream from oilsands mining.

"They're all elements that are known to be very toxic at low concentrations," Schindler said. He added that natural levels of some elements are already high in waters in that area.

"Adding more is certainly not going to do the ecosystem any good."

Researchers at Queen's University in Kingston, Ont., and Juneau, Alaska-based Oceana, a non-profit group focused on water quality issues, also contributed to the report. The study was funded by the Tides Foundation and the Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation, two non-profit groups with an interest in environmental projects.

Residents downstream from the oilsands have expressed concerns that pollution in the river may be causing increased cancer rates.

However, the Regional Aquatic Monitoring Program, or RAMP, a joint industry-government environmental body that monitors water in the Athabasca River and its tributaries, said in its 2009 report that generally, "water quality was similar between [test] stations located within and outside oil sands development and when compared to conditions prior to development."

The program has reported the pollutant levels occur naturally because of erosion of the natural geologic formation that contains the oilsands and are not caused by human activity.

Goal to test claims of monitoring program

The authors of Monday's study said they wanted to test those claims.

As of 12:30 p.m. ET, RAMP had not responded to requests for comment from CBC News.

RAMP's findings have been questioned in the past, but critics did not have any data from independent studies to compare to the program's data, the paper said.

The new findings confirm "the serious defects" of the monitoring program, the study concluded. It added that detailed monitoring, including the ability to distinguish the sources of the contaminants, is "essential" to control the potential impact of pollutants on human health.

Schindler said the levels of pollutants found by his study were easily measurable and "any program that cannot detect these levels has to be considered incompetent."

He called for Environment Canada to take over monitoring.

The researchers collected water from more than 35 sites in February and June 2008 along the Athabasca River, its tributaries, the Athabasca Delta and Lake Athabasca. They accumulated winter snowpack from 31 other sites in the region in March 2008.

The researchers chose sampling sites upstream and downstream from oilsands mining, with both within 50 kilometres of oilsands developments and near undeveloped oilsands sites.

They then tested the samples for levels of 13 elements listed as priority pollutants under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Water Act.

My reaction - Duh, really?

The industry and their governmental divisions will write this off as more eastern/granola crunching nonsense, and we will continue on.

But then, I'm pretty pessimistic these days.  Maybe I'll be wrong.  That would be nice.

The Alberta government is rebutting this study by saying the pollutants were entering the Athabaska River system at that point long before the oil sands were mined.

I first worked in Ft. MacMurray back in 1974. The groundwater tasted of bitumen back then and your cup of tea had a oil slick on the top. An old friend told me that this was true back in the fifties, when the town was a tiny river port.

The tar sands are closest to the surface where they are mined. In other areas, it is deeper underground and, thus, less likely to pollute the groundwater.

The real problem is finding people to study this issue who do not have preconceived opinions.

 I think that it is difficult to study it as Judd has pointed out, the water has always been oily there.

However, whether the oil leaches naturally or not, it seems this study supports the idea that the project makes it worse.

That should lead to more work on containment.

There is alot of oil there, oil that doesn't need to be shipped thousands of miles and oil that doesn't need to be taken from the gulf or heaven protect us, from the arctic.

It does seem blatantly obvious that such a large industry can only hurt the environment.  But big money will not get spent without a lot of research demanding it.

Are there any unbiased researchers on such a hot topic???

Farmboy and I laughed at this "shocking" revelation.  Of course it's polluting and Eddy's remark that the Alberta Govt is taking this seriously is because Albertans are tired of rolling their eyes at him.

That said, I'm willing to lower my standard of living to keep the environment cleaner and I'm hopeful that our friends in the east are equally as willing.  Shutting down the oilsands will affect all Canadians and I hope we'll stand behind a decision to have less. 

Excellent observations -- much better than made by the journalists.  I especially appreciate Beshpin's comment.  Mining of any kind disturbs soil. Disturbed soil releases a wide variety of materials into the air and water.  I would appreciate a similar study being done on the diamond mines in the Arctic, the coal mines in the prairies and mountains, and the mineral mines across our country.

I am a keen environmentalist and I was embarassed by Schindler's report --its deficiencies were blatantly obvious to anyone who has paid attention to water quality reports over the past 40 years.  Mercury was a natural contaminant in the Athabasca system and several lakes in eastern Alberta that had no obvious man-made source back in the 70s.  Once this report has been thoroughly examined, it will be one more black mark against environmentalists for shoddy studies and reporting.

are you suggesting that this report should not be taken seriously until we examine all the other mines and see what kind of pollutants they are tossing out into the environment first?? 

what deficiencies would those be??

the study isn't saying that the contaminants weren't there, though... its saying that the tar sands mining has made them HIGHER.  some contaminants are thousands of times higher now. 

LOL!!!  well, i'd suggest that you need to actually try and understand what the report is saying first, before you dismiss it as 'shoddy'. 

for a self proclaimed 'keen environmentalist', i'm amazed at how easily you dismiss this... what is your suggestion as to how the tar sands should be handled, jim??

Mining polutes. Oil sands are bitumen and sand.  When the poduct has been removed, you are left with sand. Water travels easily through sand and moves downhill.  I have been to several mine sites in that area.  There are open pit and sag-d operations, which do not disturb the surface. I believe there is a will to mine while doing the least damage to the environment as possible. However, the older areas of the mine do not show that this was always the case.

All the boycott talk about the oilsands is only talk. There is not going to be any slowing of development there, but it will be ramping up to a much higher level. That is a fact.  We are at the top of possible worldwide production of oil and nothing can be done about that.  The day that consumption outstrips production is fast approaching and it will be a shock to all of us who depend on oil.

youtube or search: peak oil

if you are talking about me, i'm not an easterner... i am from saskatchewan.  i'm currently in ottawa, but before the month is out i will be living in winnipeg.  in fact, my son was born in alberta - we lived there for 5 years.

not much eastern about me, i'm afraid... i guess you will actually have to challenge me on the merits of my arguement, rather than attempting to throw up smoke screens by insulting where i live.

I knew you bled green.

RevMatt started the East-West discussion.

I live in Calgary too, and sold drill bits and equipment into oilfield as well as Canadian open pit mines for about 23 years.  I do have some guilt regarding how many mountains have been moved over that time. On another thread, you mentioned a hot dog place near downtown, I think in SW.  What was it called?

Thanks,

Maybe Geo and I can meet you there one of these days.

Is Peter's Drive In still making the best burgers in the West?

i'd have to go with 'burger baron' on north albert in regina. 

Judd...Peter's Drive-In is still a huge going concern on 16th Ave...you can feel your arteries clogging just by driving by!

Sighsnootles: the way the report was presented in the press --I have to admit I did not read the actual report -- there was no reference to how the Athabasca River has always picked up many of the pollutants through that stretch.  I agree that mining has almost certainly increased the release of pollutants into the river.  The report focused on toxic metals;  I didn't hear of any reference to cyclic hydrocarbons and other pollutants that mostly come from the refining process, and these are at least as big a concern as the toxic metals.  The press did not refer to "thousands of times" as much contamination.

When environmentalists make what seem to be strident claims that don't  match the actual data, it takes away public attention from the data itself which is unfortunate. 

Not only is there no possibility of any Canadian government closing down the oil industry in Alberta, we will very soon be opening the Arctic to instensive drilling at the deepest levels ever. Then watch the results.

If any Canadian government put serious restriction on Alberta oil, there would be a well-financedcampaign to separate Alberta from Canada, with a service press cheering it on.

If you doubt it, take a look at how come the US was able to build the Panama Canal when that wasn't American territory.