The Tar Sands Mini Showdown at SEJ

On Thursday, October 15, a panel gathered in Missoula, Montana during the Society of Environmental Journalists’ annual conference to discuss the Tar Sands development in Northern Alberta. Present were Preston McEachern, Section Head of Science and Research, Alberta Environment, Peter Hodson, Department of Biology and School of Environmental Studies, Queen's University, Andrew Logan, Director of the Oil and Gas program, CERES, and Janet Annesley, Vice President, Communications, for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. The moderator was Hanneke Brooymans, a seasoned tar sands reporter based in Edmonton.

If fully developed, the tar sands will directly impact more than 2,000 square kilometres of northern Alberta. From the ducks that died in the tailings pond near Fort McMurray to questions now being asked about human health and safety for those living near the developments, the sands are an indisputably difficult and controversial way to extract oil from the earth. Estimates are that two barrels of water are used for each barrel of oil extracted. And the polluting effects of fracking, drilling and disposing of used water are well documented.

Andrew Logan admits to standing in the grey area of a very black and white fight, and states his case in a quiet but persuasive voice. “The economics of the tar sands are somewhat tenuous at best. Our concern is, once you begin to layer in other costs: carbon, water scarcity, cleaning tailings ponds and rehabilitating land, then the scale of the liability and the full cost of the development is too much. Our investors want to see the tar sands project looked at more holistically.”

Is it only money that will change people’s minds? The Beaver Lake Cree are in process of  launching a Constitutional challenge against the Canadian government for violation of their treaty enshrined right to hunt, fish and gather on their traditional lands. With the advent of the tar sands, caribou herd numbers in the area have plummeted. Rather than make do with environmental protests or boycotts, the Beaver Lake Cree have decided, using famed Woodward and Company Law firm, to fight the tar sands using the Canadian Constitution.

Logan continues with a list of statistics. Only a quarter of the projects have any plan for water use. Pollution in the Athabaska River may be the direct result of nearby oil industry operations and not a naturally occurring source. “What we’re looking for is a frank discussion of the problems and the possible solutions for these projects.” It’s a case of ‘show me’ versus ‘trust me,’ and despite assurances from Preston McEachern, there isn’t necessarily a reason to be greatly optimistic. What we’re seeing right now in the tar sands development, says Logan, does not give anyone huge confidence that we’ll get the answers we’re looking for.

Janet Annesley is a practiced and cool speaker, at least at first. Half the remaining investable oil in the world lies in the tar sands, she says, we need to realize we’re all in this together. “The world needs energy. And the reality is that only a small percentage of our energy needs can be supplied by alternative energy sources.” She quotes James Cameron, who while visiting the sands recently apparently said, “this resource could be a blessing or a curse.” It becomes obvious very quickly which side of this quote she’s trying to work.

What’s surprising is that the panel is comprised of two tar sands proponents, the CERES representative and only one scientist. In the US, I can’t help thinking that we must look a little like a bumbling, unconcerned populace. There are many scientific studies that show the sands are not doing harm to the environment. The trouble is, many of these studies are paid for by the petroleum producers themselves, or by the Alberta government, whose hands are so deep in the oil pot that they cannot possibly be called an impartial body. And studies that show an opposing view are reluctant to say, definitively, that there are links between the tar sands and wide spread pollution or health concerns. Better disclosure, as the Logan says, will help bring opposing studies greater validity. As well as better planning and longer term thinking. He’s right. How can the government simultaneously guard the environment while supporting the tar sands development?

The panel talk concludes on an uncertain note, and I hope that questions from the conference participants will bring more to light. “Our science,” says Peter Hodson, “may not be capable of producing the answers that we need at the present moment.”

The first question from the audience concerns an article in the local Missoula paper this morning. Giant rakes needed for the tar sands projects are being shipped up small highways from the Western United States up to Alberta. This backyard concern takes up almost a third of the question period. There are no questions about caribou habitat or tailings ponds and there is only one about health effects for people living near the tar sands.

So I stand up, state my name, and ask for thoughts on the Beaver Lake Cree’s case and the destruction of caribou habitat. The only person who comments is Janet Annesley. Who says exactly what one would expect. Who says the law suit concerns the government, not the companies she represents. Who says that she has ongoing discussions with First Nations in the area and greatly respects the fact that treaties are enshrined in the constitution. But who avoids talk of the case itself, or of the caribou. 

So I lean down to Marty Cobenais, Pipeline Organizer with the Indigenous Environmental Network, who has just beckoned me across the room to whisper the real answers in my ear. We’re nodding and whispering, and the next thing I know, Janet is calling to me from her microphone. “Excuse me. I’m answering your question but it doesn’t even look like you’re listening to my answer. Are you even listening to me? I’m putting a lot of effort into my response.” The moderator blushes. An electric charge goes through the room. A woman in the audience has my back before I can respond, “Why, is there going to be a quiz?” Everyone laughs. “I’m putting a lot of effort into trying to understand you,” I counter, lamely, but with more than a little pleasure. Janet Annesley’s face sets, and she wraps up.

No one else addresses the question of the caribou, or the three hundred Cree who have been brave enough to face off against oil giants such as Suncor and Shell Oil. Afterward, I am inundated by smiling conference attendees, who assure me Janet has shown her true colours. True, perhaps, but until we get this issue out to the entire world, a not just to a few supporters in England and across our own country, I’m just a shit disturber facing off against a single representative for the giants.