Avatar and Oilsands

Category: General oil sands topics

posted by Oilsands Questions

Saturday, December 26, 2009 9:30 AM

How is AVATAR different than the development of the oilsands in Canada? The mining operation looks shockingly similar. Even the machines are identical and the fire out of the smoke stacks. The native people in Northern Alberta were also wiped out by settlers who wanted to use the area's resources. Now the traditional land and sacred areas of the natives are dug up and destroyed for oil, a valuable resource. Meanwhile, the Europeans ignore the land treaties they signed long ago with those natives and do little as aboriginal Cancer rates near the development are 30% higher than they should be.... something the government and companies spent years trying to cover up with first lack of action, then bogus studies. It was only after the media and international pressure forced them to do a proper investigation that they confirmed the high rates of illness. But people continue to die, no one knows if the oilsands causes the illness and the development for this valuable resource is allowed to continue. Please tell me how the movie storyline and what has happened is different?

Reply to this post
posted by Tony from CAPP   Sunday, January 03, 2010 3:50 PM
Tony here from CAPP. I give Avatar four and a half stars! It’s a great must-see science fiction/fantasy film with fantastic cutting-edge special effects and CGI (Synopsis and ratings at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0499549/).

This isn’t the first time (and probably not the last) that the tarsands have been compared to something evil in a sci-fi movie. I agree that a very brief scene at the beginning of the film showing large dump trucks and a distant factory does look a little similar to our oilsands mining operations. The scene looks equally similar to other industrial projects like cement or coal operations. Unlike the movie, oilsands mining trucks do not return from excavating with arrows lodged in their tires. I doubt Northern Alberta First Nations would appreciate that comparison. For me the downside of the film was its obvious, predictable and utterly extreme stereotypes of natives vs. capitalists. And I had to chuckle at the name of the superficial mineral being mined: “Unobtanium.” Really? (The word has its own interesting history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium)

Oilsands Questions, you make some strong and serious allegations when you say “The native people in Northern Alberta were also wiped out by settlers who wanted to use the area's resources.” Wiped out? In July 2009, the Alberta government released a fact sheet with information about Alberta’s Aboriginal population (8% of Alberta’s total), First Nations populations living where oil sands are found (13 First nations, 15,500 people), along with Aboriginal benefits and employment within the oilsands. This fact sheet also includes a “community impacts” overview with a summary of the Alberta Cancer Board’s comprehensive peer-review of claims that cancer rates are higher than normal near the oilsands ( Read the fact sheet here: http://bit.ly/8DiX50 )

To your point on the media pressuring proper investigations on high rates of illness, read more on the issue of Dr. John O’Connor’s false claims as reported by the National Post on November 11, 2009 ( http://bit.ly/q0uOa )

Unfortunately, many agenda-driven groups have filled the web with over-the-top unsubstantiated claims and comparisons that have created misinformed confusion, even personifying the tarsands resource as some evil sci-fi monster. Their argument has become so polarized, that even obvious facts from credible sources are ignored or labelled – as you call them - bogus cover-ups.

You can find credible and statistically valid information about the oilsands right here on this website under the overview and issues sections, as well as on www.capp.ca and at http://oilsands.alberta.ca . Even with all this valid data and information readily available, the same extreme misinformed agenda-driven comparisons continue. Why do some refuse to believe this information?

I'd say there is one part of the movie's storyline that isn't different. For me the perpetual disbelief by oilsands detractors is summed up nicely by one of Avatar’s most memorable lines: “You cannot fill a cup that is already full.” (www.capp.ca/avatar)

Reply to this Comment
posted by stacybr   Thursday, January 07, 2010 3:52 PM
Great post Tony.

I've found more people discussing how Avatar is more like Disney's movie Pocohantas than it is a reflection of the oil sands. Here is a link to an interesting adaptation; http://tinyurl.com/yhszkrb.

To add to your comments, I would like to encourage everyone who is concerned about any situation in the oil sands to research all sources of facts from several different points of view. Then engage in open and honest dialog with lots of different people. There are forums such as this one that will present alternative fact based points of view.


Reply to this Comment
posted by Tarsandbeetle   Thursday, January 07, 2010 5:20 PM
As one who has lived in Fort McMurray since 1995 and worked in heavy oil for most of my professional life, it disturbs me that folks have such a narrow, and biased view of what is happening in the region and in the oilsands.
I have never seen fire coming out of any of the "smoke stacks", all facilities have flare stacks that burn off the sour gases and waste gas that cannot be recycled back into the process.
All of the industry players in the oilsands employ a number of the local natives and have hiring policies to support and hire natives when possible, this includes hiring native owned and ran companies when possible.
As an outdoorsman as well I have canoed a number of the rivers in the area and have seen oil running down the banks from the natural deposits that are exposed due to weathering, and these are miles from any oilsand development.
All of the companies work very hard to reclaim the land to as good or better condition that it was before the oil was removed from the area, a lot of times it is even better because the oil has been taken out and therefore making the ground even better able to support plant life.
Companies in the area are continually researching and looking for more environmentaly freindly ways of extracting this valuable resource from the ground and have made great strides to make the facilities more effecient and environmentally friendly.
More people die in car accidents everyday driving in our cities and on our roads that from any illness that maybe attributed to the oilsands.
As a person who works and lives in the area I am proud to say that I work there and that I am involved in this cutting edge industry.
Folks need to get thier facts start and know what they are protesting before they do so.
Tony's comments are right on the money!

Reply to this Comment
Very similar to Avatar
posted by lookingfortruth   Monday, March 15, 2010 7:19 AM
Hi Tony
Well crafted piece of PR you have prepared in response to the question to make it sound like a personal response. I can see the folks at CAPP took this issue quite seriously given the amount of mistruths and double speak you have been able to weave into your response.

First, many native people died after settlers arrived and their social structures were destroyed. If you have never heard of Small Pox or residential schools than perhaps you may need to retake your primary and secondary school education.

Another interesting mistruth is about the cancer rates in Fort Chipewyan. That in itself was an interesting bit of PR whitewash with the Media Director of the Cancer Board being listed as a principal investigator of the study. Never heard of that being done before. If that doesn’t tell the world this had nothing to do with science and instead was all about PR, I’m not sure what would.

Second, it was an incomplete study. The actual physicians on the ground, including the then president of the Fort McMurray Medical Association, as well as the current doctor in the Fort Chipewyan, both criticized the study as incomplete. The president of the medical association said it was designed to miss numerous cancer cases and none of the physicians in Fort McMurray who actually treat the patients were consulted by the researchers.

It was a half hearted examination at the best and even then it found cancer rates in the community are 30% higher overall than they should be. How do you explain that? Are you suggesting that the authors of the study are wrong when they say the cause could be many things, including environmental causes, and more study is needed? Does your industry group knows better than them and the illness has nothing to do with the oilsands? Sorry, can I please see your medical degree in epidemiology? A degree in spin doctoring doesn’t count.

I agree there is one big difference between Avatar and what is happening in the oilsands. We are talking about humans here, not some alien species. My question to you is, given the unanswered question of what is making these fellow humans sick, what are YOU and what is your group doing now to investigate the elevated cancer rates? Please list the steps you are taking, because just as the money focused miners were so concerned about the natives in Avatar... I’m sure you are also deeply concerned about the welfare of other human beings.
Please list everything concrete your industry is doing now to investigate. This should be interesting.
I find it also interesting that you keep focusing on Dr. O’Connor when his predictions that cancer rates were elevated were in fact true. Maybe not correct on some specific cancers, but he was absolutely correct on the overall cancer rate. Are you disputing this? And why do you keep focusing on him when others including the President of the area’s medical association, clinicians in Fort McMurray and even the head nurse in Fort Chipewyan voiced the exact same concerns? Though of course not as loudly as O’Connor. They started doing this way back in the early 90’s. Of course these concerns were ignored by government despite the EUB, at the time, saying an investigation into health concerns in Fort Chip is needed. Do you dispute this as well? How do you spin that?

These points alone discredit your comments, and show that your reaction is written by a spin doctor who hasn’t thought deeply about any of this or researched anything more than a talking point. In the end of your days you personally are going to have to live with yourself for standing by, collecting a fat cheque and doing nothing. Meanwhile, the land of natives is destroyed and they die slowly with no investigation because it might get in the way of development. Good luck with your conscience. I hope it’s worth the money you make.

Guess there seems to be more in common with Avatar than it appeared originally. Even the characters involved have similarities.


Reply to this Comment
Offside
posted by Tony from CAPP   Wednesday, March 17, 2010 11:38 AM
Hi “lookingfortruth”

You don’t know the facts. You make several assumptions. And you’ve chosen to make this a personal attack on me. You’re offside.

Why do you assume I think studies into Fort Chip community health are complete? Wrong.

CAPP and our members have long advocated for a comprehensive health study.

It’s clear from your note that no matter what we do, you and people who share your sentiment will never believe in a study funded or completed by industry. For that reason we think it’s very important that studies are from a credible and objective third party with zero ties to industry or activist organizations. Do you agree?

Importantly, Dr. O’Connor was not discredited by the Alberta Cancer Board Report. He was investigated by his own peers at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (CPSA) who ultimately found – and I quote – “mistruths, inaccuracies and unconfirmed information” as well as (another quote from the report) “a number of inaccurate or untruthful claims.”

Have you seen that report? Here it is, linked through the National Post:
http://www.nationalpost.com/documents/091111-oconnor_misconduct.pdf

I find it hard to believe that you did not see this report considering the national media coverage of its findings.


Here are two more articles from the National Post:

Kevin Libin: Exposing John O'Connor is all part of the oilsands conspiracy
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/11/kevin-libin-exposing-john-o-connor-is-all-part-of-the-oilsands-conspiracy.aspx

National Post editorial board: The power of misinformation and paranoia
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/11/national-post-editorial-board-the-power-of-misinformation-and-paranoia.aspx


Understand this. Industry shares and respects Dr. O’Connor’s concern and care for the people of Fort Chip. For the record, he himself drew no direct lines between his perceived community health concerns and the oil sands. Here’s his quote after the release of the report from his peers at CPSA:

"From Day 1 I said, 'Could this be related to bad luck, bad lifestyles, genetics? Or could it be related to environmental influences?" he said. "I'm happy we can now move on and get to the bottom of what's happening." Read more here: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=2204160

We agree and want to move forward. That’s why we continue to advocate for a conclusive health study.

And back to your personal attack on my conscience. Really offside there “lookingfortruth.” You might disagree, but - ultimately - Eywa won’t be judging either of us.

Reply to this Comment
Facts please, not deflection
posted by lookingfortruth   Monday, March 22, 2010 8:15 AM
Thanks for your posting and response. Good to have this forum.

I think anyone reading this will be looking for more proof from you.

Please tell me which 'facts' are incorrect.

This is in response to your line 'you don't know the facts'

Please tell me which of the facts are incorrect. I would encourage you to ensure you have your facts absolutely correct because it will be very easy to show each and every fact in the posting is correct, contained in government documents, and it could be embarrassing to you. I would suggest you may want to rely on more than briefing notes or one Toronto based media outlet (as it seems you do) to support your points. I’ll let others judge the credibility of that outlet.

Also please provide proof for :

"CAPP and our members have long advocated for a comprehensive health study."

Why did Shell and CNRL then not fund the baseline health study that they promised to in formal discussions with the EUB in 2004? Please provide proof to support your point about this ‘advocacy’ by your industry. Perhaps show us some documents produced by CAPP that advocated for this study when concern first emerged in the 90’s and then again internationally 4 years ago.

Also still waiting for you to list what your industry is doing to determine why people have a 30 percent higher cancer rate than expected in Fort Chip? I doubt anyone would find it acceptable to say... sorry not our responsibility, it's government's.

Even if those affected don't believe your studies, a responsible human would hopefully ensure they are not causing harm to others. If there was even a risk that you could be causing harm to others, especially one causing deaths, hopefully you would do your own investigation to sooth your conscience. No? Please list exactly what your industry has done over the last 10 years to determine if the cancer rates are linked in any way to industry. Keep in mind the water testing done, until recently, has been described by very credible scientists in peer reviewed science journals as a farce and inadequate. Also the environmental management group charged with studying these things was described by government and key stakeholders as ineffective. Please expand beyond these or provide peer reviewed proof of the quality of their work.

I commend you for clearing the air about O’Connor and his refusal to link the disease to the oilsands. Too bad your PR people didn’t verbalize this when the investigation report was ‘leaked’ and in particular your association didn’t voice this support when the investigation was taking place. Do you wish O’Connor had not spoken out? Do you think there ever would have been a study, even half hearted as it was, proving cancer rates were elevated by 30%? Nice to focus on the whistleblower’s credibility when in fact he was correct overall and his decision to speak out has created a hot potato for your industry. Again, he was not the only one saying these things by far, many other health professionals including the head of Fort Chip’s health authority said the exact same things. O’Connor just said it more loudly and actually got some attention.

It’s easy to deflect answering the questions by accusing those asking of personal attacks. I encourage you to actually answer the questions asked and provide some independent (non-media) proof of your claims and statements.

Looking forward to this information.

This is apparently why you folks created this website.

Reply to this Comment
posted by Cal   Wednesday, March 24, 2010 9:48 AM
This is Cal from Canadian Natural. I would like to respond to the health study and Canadian Natural’s involvement with the community and the health study in particular.

A health study has been completed and is publicly available on the Alberta Cancer Board’s web site (http://www.albertahealthservices.ca/files/rls-2009-02-06-fort-chipewyan-study.pdf). This study was peer reviewed and that report is also publicly available on the Cancer Board’s web page. I won’t attempt to summarize the report, I suggest that both documents be read in their entirety. The issue of cancer occurrence is complex and the report explains it very well. I have included the press release from the Cancer Board at the end of my post.

Canadian Natural and Shell worked with the community to develop the scoping for the health study, not the report itself. The Government of Alberta committed to conducting the study and this was supported by Canadian Natural as the appropriate process as experts in cancer studies are needed to be engaged and an international peer review gave the report a high level of credibility. There was also the concern that a report funded by industry would be perceived to be manipulated. We wanted the report to address the concerns of the community in an unbiased manner.

Below is the press release on the cancer study.

EDMONTON – A study of the cancer incidence in Fort Chipewyan finds levels of the rare cancer cholangiocarcinoma are not higher than expected. Of the six suspected cases reported by community physician Dr. John O’Connor, two are confirmed cases of cholangiocarcinoma. Upon review, three of the reported cases were found to be other cancers; another was not a cancer.

“The community was seriously concerned,” says Dr. Tony Fields, Vice President, Cancer Corridor, Alberta Health Services. “To address their concerns, Alberta Health Services undertook the most stringent analysis possible. This way, we can follow up on increased levels that are even borderline statistically significant.”

Fifty-one cancers in 47 individuals were found in Fort Chipewyan between 1995 and 2006, compared to 39 cancers expected. The cancers that were higher than expected were biliary tract cancers as a whole, cancers of the blood and lymphatic system, and soft tissue cancers. Only when biliary cancers were grouped together did they reach a significant level, three cases over a 12-year period. Other cancers were at or below expected levels.

“I believe the community should be reassured that numbers are not as high as reported,” says Fields. “These results were based on a small number of cases - there is no cause for alarm but there is an indication that continued monitoring and analysis are warranted.”

An increase in observed cancers over expected could be due to chance, to increased detection, or to increased risk (lifestyle, environmental or occupational) in the community.

“We will need to do ongoing monitoring in Fort Chipewyan over the coming years to see if these are continuing trends,” says Fields.

The study, conducted by Dr. Yiqun Chen, was reviewed by independent experts from Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, as well as two Canadian Aboriginal researchers, one of whom was recommended by the Nunee Health Board Society in Fort Chipewyan.

“We are confident the study is sound,” says Dr. Fields. “Seldom does a scientific study answer all our questions. Instead, research often points us to where we need to look next. Working with the community we will take those next steps to finding answers.”

The complete report and reviewer comments are available at www.albertahealthservices.

Reply to this Comment
Still no answers....
posted by lookingfortruth   Friday, March 26, 2010 10:03 PM
Interesting CAPP still won't answer the rather basic series of questions about what you have been doing to 'advocate' over the last decade.

If you are suggesting that your scoping of a study somehow caused the Cancer Board to do the investigation... you have no understanding of actual series of events that led to their decision. What they did and what CNRL promised the EUB it would do are totally different things.

Also see below.... Though issuing a press release will hopefully have more effect than the Na'vi in Avatar asking the humans not to dig up their tree.

FIRST NATION Rights impacted by Alberta Regulations; no Consultation. First Nation Leadership is concerned about future survival of its Members.

(Fort Chipewyan: March 19, 2010) –The Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation is asking why the Alberta Government continues to move forward with its plans and approvals without meaningful Consultation on the ACFNs section 35 Rights. Numerous Government and Regional initiatives are underway without adequate consultation with the ACFN. ‘When will Alberta Wake up and Address our Concerns?” Chief Adam asked.

“There has been no assessment of impacts to ACFN constitutionally-protected uses of the Athabasca River and surrounding areas, nor has there been adequate involvement of the ACFN in the development of these Initiatives” says Chief Adam. ACFN members have used the Athabasca River for centuries, yet in the past few decades our members have witnessed a significant deterioration. This change is limiting our traditional uses and limiting our practice of Treaty and Aboriginal Rights.

Land Use Planning for Northeastern Alberta is underway whereby the Government is developing plans for five main land uses in the Lower Athabasca Region: Bitumen Extraction and Production; Transportation and Infrastructure; Forestry; Conservation; Recreation and Tourism. The ACFN is being ignored and cannot understand why their constitutionally-protected rights and uses have not been identified as a priority. Contrary to the principles of consultation, the Provincial planning process is secretive; the Government has refused to disclose their advice sheets on Aboriginal Impacts. The ACFN wants assurance that traditional uses on the lands in the Region will be protected. Alberta has given us no assurances that they will consult in a transparent manner; worse they have not even developed criteria and thresholds to assess impacts on our rights or done the studies which would allow them to properly consult and assess such impacts.

These ACFN Concerns are well known by the Alberta Government which continues to dismiss and ignore them. The ACFN is now publically stating these concerns in the hope that attention will be given to address them adequetly. Chief Adam states: “What is happening to us here is just a start and will eventually happen to the rest of the planet, what is happening here is where the stone hits the ponds and ripples out eventually affecting everyone”.

“We are worried” says Chief Adam “there is uncertainty with what the future holds for us. Our way of life is impacted, we are being moved further and further away from areas we use to practice our Treaty and Aboriginal Rights”.

The ACFN is warning the rest of the world about these impacts. Our position is that our Nation must be able to continue to exist within our Traditional Lands and must be able to continue practicing our Treaty and Aboriginal Rights. We cannot do so if our concerns are not respected and dealt with in a meaningful, fair and transparent way.

For Further Information:

Chief Allan Adam, ACFN, 780-697-3730.



Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation

Tel: (780) 697-3730

Toll-free: 1-888-420-7011

Fax: (780) 697-3500


Press Release for Immediate release – (Fort Chipewyan: March 16, 2010)

FIRST NATIONS OFFERED TAINTED BISON MEAT WITH LEAD AT LEVELS ABOVE WHAT IS SAFE FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION

First Nations have been given and offered tainted bison meat from a nearby Industry developer. The communities of Fort McKay and Fort Chipewyan were given and offered Free Bison Meat, only to have the bison meat recalled for lead levels above what is considered safe for human consumption. They claim that the poisonous meat came from one animal and The Fort McKay First Nation, Health Canada, Alberta Health and Alberta Agricultural are suggesting that the rest of the meat is safe. Yet as a precautionary measure, Dr. Brent Friesen, Medical Officer of Health, Alberta Health Services, Fort McMurray, and Dr. Simon Sihota, Regional Environmental Public Health Manager, Health Protection Directorate, First Nation and Inuit Health Branch, Health Canada, Edmonton, advise that any ground meat from the Dec 2009 harvest should be collected and sent for analysis for lead content.


The Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation is now asking how this could happen. Why is our First Nation offered free bison meat that turns out to be unsafe for consumption? “Generating contaminated meat and offering it to the First Nations people is a cruel act of total disrespect to the dignity of the people of Fort Chipewyan” Chief Adam said. This contamination casts a dark cloud upon the claims that the oil sands companies are able to safely reclaim lands destroyed by oil sands mining. This contamination comes after the discovery of heightened rare cancer rates in a 2009 report released by the Alberta Cancer Board and a report released by Dr. Schindler2009 showing Athabasca River contamination is improperly measured.


On a related note, there is a free roaming herd of Bison near the ACFN Reserve lands which our members use for consumption purposes. Yet Alberta chooses not to manage this threatened bison herd in a manner to protect it from development. “The buffalo are not protected and industrial developers are running them off the lands scaring them with helicopters and planes” Chief Adam said. Drilling and Exploration continues where these herds of bison roam and live.

The ACFN members are afraid to hunt traditional foods and consume waterfowl birds for fear they may be contaminated by Development. We fear that ducks and geese which have landed on a tailing pond continue to travel north and are consumed by our members. What does ACFNs’ future hold with regards to health and wellness of our Membership? What does the future hold for ACFN’s continued existence in the face of Alberta’s plans for Development? There is great uncertainty with the safety of the Traditional foods we consume.


For Further Information:

Chief Allan Adam, ACFN, 780-697-3730.
--
George J. Poitras
Mikisew Cree First Nation
tel. 780.239.6166


Stacy Richter
posted by stacybr   Friday, March 19, 2010 5:42 PM
Hey there lookingfortruth,

The 'Avatarsands' campaign is more of a PR tool than any response CAPP or other industry advocates have posted. Undoutbtedly, the campaign has reached it's objectives and more.

The conglomerate behind the 'Avatarsands' campaign is using a well known marketing strategy that co-ordinates specific campaigns around high profile one-time events. The Olympics is probably the most obvious event to gain exposure for political platforms. You may have noticed many protesters demonstrating against issues that had very little to do with the Olympics with a goal to gain much desired international exposure for relatively little expense.

This is exactly the strategy for the group behind the 'Avatarsands' advert. Avatar is the highest grossing movie of all time and garnered incredible audiences worldwide. The google search trends reveal that the index search of the term 'avatar' ranges from 1.25-1.5x the average volume of any search term.

The cleverly designed 'Avatarsands' advert uses this information to get exposure. Congrats, objective achieved. PR strategy (not spin) has been used effectively.

I feel you are mixing up the intention of the campaign. The campaign strategy's objective, presumably, is to bring attention to the matter, NOT factually describe it. Clearly. This is good PR bringing attention to the opinion of a certain group. Many ENGO's are very proficient in this respect.

CAPP's PR strategy, or 'spin' as you incorrectly refer to it, is also effective. It brings attention to a point of view that balances the discussion. Once an issue is unearthed (pun intended), dialogue, transparency and collaboration will bring about improvements.

I know first hand how passionate the industry is about responsible development of natural resources. And yes, they all sleep well at night knowing that in their heart of hearts, the industry is working diligently to improve in environmental practice and this takes time.

I know the professionals working for the ENGO's or other advocacy groups realize that the discussion is not personal and routed in facts. I hope you are able to follow their lead and participate in constructive debate.


Reply to this Comment
posted by Cal   Thursday, April 01, 2010 5:35 PM
This is Cal from Canadian Natural again. I would like to clarify what was the outcome of the 2003 hearing into the Horizon Oil Sands Project and the Energy and Utilities Board (EUB) Joint Panel Decision Report findings. The Decision Report is publicly available on the ERCB web site and I recommend that anyone interested in all the findings read the document. I have a quote from the report on the matter of health effects from the project that specifically addresses concerns raised by the Mikisew Cree First Nations (see below). This is a summary of the views of the panel based on the evidence they reviewed and a recommendation for a human health study. The report clearly defines the responsibility to be with the Alberta Health and Wellness (AHW) and Health Canada (HC).
Canadian Natural participated to proactively work with the community and to facilitate the health study. Clearly the impetus for the study by two government agencies was already established through the hearing process and Canadian Natural makes no claim that any work by Canadian Natural caused the Cancer Board investigation.
Quote from Decision Report 2004-005
18.6 Views of the Panel
Potential effects of the project on human health are considered in the Panel’s analyses for other sections of this report, particularly in the sections that relate to air and water quality. The Panel notes that AHW and HC raised no concerns with respect to the effect of the project on human health. The Panel has considered the information brought forward by CNRL and the interveners and concludes that there are unlikely to be significant adverse effects on human health.

In view of the number of concerns that were registered by interveners regarding their observations of declining health, the Panel recommends that AHW and HC consider undertaking a regional health study primarily dealing with First Nations, Métis, and other aboriginal people.

Reply to this Comment
Thank you Cal...
posted by lookingfortruth   Tuesday, April 06, 2010 10:39 AM
Thanks for your honesty and for clarifying this. It is welcome and appreciated and validates that CAPP created this site to have open and honest discussion. As the name I chose suggests... truth is what I’m after and it’s good you are on this site addressing and talking about the actual issues.

As you say, the things CNRL said it would do did not result in the Cancer study. They are different things.

Incidentally if as you say, you scoped the study and then left it to government.... What did CNRL do to ‘advocate’ that the government do this investigation at the time? How many letters did you send? Meetings did you hold?

Also like Tony from CAPP did, by clearing the air that Dr. O'Connor never publicly linked what was going on in the oilsands to the high rates of Cancer, you should also be commended for acknowledging a key point that has been lost in the spin.

The concerns about health in this community surfaced long before O'Connor came on the scene and were of such a magnitude that even the EUB, of all organizations, recommended further investigation.

Of course this didn't happen. You can see why people are drawing parallels with Avatar.

No investigation was done until it became an international embarrassment and threatened development of the oilsands.

My question still remains, what are you at CNRL doing now to find out if your industry is in fact contributing to these high rates of diseases? These diseases are killing people. Are you concerned?

Do you think it’s ethical to stand by and wait for the slow cogs of government to do an investigation when CNRL and other members of CAPP have the resources to do it properly, openly, with full transparency using independent scientists?

I can tell you... That’s how you gain the trust from those looking for the truth. Those who hope humans at least treat other humans with dignity and respect.


Reply to this Comment
posted by Cal   Wednesday, April 07, 2010 10:42 AM
This is Cal again. As I wrote earlier, I encourage reading the cancer study report and the peer reviews of the report, they provide the scientific analysis of the health concerns and cancer risks in Fort Chipewyan. They also support further study by scientists to address the health concerns of the community. Excerpted below is a statement from a peer review that puts in context the current issue and the support for further study:

“…the author’s conclusion, that the results justify progression to the next step, is absolutely sound. In terms of managing risk perceptions, the message to communicate to the community (and to the government agencies) is simply that a possible exposure cannot be excluded and escalation to the next step is justified. The community should be very reassured by this. However, it is important to emphasise that such escalation is not evidence that an environmental exposure exists (or existed in the past) – indeed that remains the least likely explanation. Perhaps one could go a little further and point out more definitively that the absence of measurable excess cancer risk in women and children makes an environmental (non-occupational) exposure unlikely in the extreme (the elevated female lung cancer risk notwithstanding). If anything at all, the results suggest that some males who lived in the community at the time their cancer was diagnosed, may have been occupationally exposed in the (often distant) past.”

Canadian Natural works with communities where we operate and we assist on many different issues and do so through direct participation with the communities, working with other companies and with governments. Examples include the initiative in Fort Chipewyan to work with the community and the health authority to identify the health concerns which was a precursor to the cancer study. We supported and funded a fish health study to assess concerns for local food. We have also worked with the community to document and preserve Traditional Knowledge and important factor in assessing change in the environment.

Canadian Natural, as you have pointed out, is not seen by some people as a credible source for studies and therefore we assist in helping the community. The studies need to be conducted by credible scientific experts in cancer studies. This has been done with a recommendation for further study. Our experience is that we need to be removed for the community to accept studies on the environment. We conduct studies through organizations that the community participates in or helped to develop. The studies through organizations such as the Regional Aquatic Monitoring Program and the Wood Buffalo Environmental Association, despite being peer reviewed by international scientific experts, are continually criticized because of industry involvement.

You ask if we care, you ask if we are ethical. I can only speak for myself at that level of question and the answer is yes. In 1996 I promised a prominent member of the Fort McKay community, Bertha Ganter, that I would work with her to make a difference. We did, and the work we started continues today, working with the community to document Traditional Knowledge and impacts from oil sands development. I also meet with community members of Fort Chipewyan and we involve them in understanding our operations, to see our project and its impacts and to work with us to make things better.

Canadian Natural takes a proactive approach to reduce impacts, sulphur recovery is the highest in the industry, capturing 98% of emissions. Water use is the lowest because we are able to recycle around 90% of the water through innovative technology. We work to improve our operations and to minimize impacts. And, we work with the communities to understand health concerns such as the fish health study. We have also taken a lead role to understand impacts to moose populations and we are working with other companies to promote community involvement into that program.

Reply to this Comment
The whole situation is so sad....
posted by lookingfortruth   Tuesday, May 04, 2010 6:43 PM
I encourage everyone to read the cancer report prepared by the government. Especially the back sections which contain all the juicy information (why would it be upfront?)
Look for the information about the industry and government's inaction and long standing concerns. As well as ALL of the peer reviews, They raise far more questions than answers.


The Other Oil Disaster: Cancer and Canada's Tar Sands

Gina Solomon
Senior Scientist, Natural Resource Defense Council
Posted May 3, 2010

Today I was privileged to be an invited guest of the community of Fort Chipewyan, Canada. I can't blame you if you've never heard of "Ft. Chip" - after all, there are only 1000 residents, and it's only accessible by plane or boat. But you should hear about it, because what happens there will affect all of us.

The town has been suffering for more than ten years from surprisingly high rates of cancer. A local doctor sounded the alarm, and eventually the government did an investigation. The government's press release at the time the cancer study was released made it sound like there was no problem: "A study of the cancer incidence in Fort Chipewyan finds levels of the rare cancer cholangiocarcinoma are not higher than expected."

The results of the cancer study were never presented to the community, and the government claimed there was no problem. That's where I came in. One of my colleagues asked me to peer review the Alberta Health Services cancer investigation. To my surprise, the actual report did not align with the headlines:

Overall, the report found a 30% increase in cancers in Ft. Chip compared with expected over the last 12 years;
Leukemias and lymphomas were increased by 3-fold;
Bile duct cancers were increased by 7-fold;
Other cancers, such as soft tissue sarcomas, and lung cancers in women, were also elevated.
I'm not sure who wrote the press release for the government, but it sure weren't the scientists who actually did the investigation.

It wasn't just the elevated cancer rates that got my attention, however. It was also the types of cancers seen. Leukemias and lymphomas have been linked in the scientific literature to petroleum products, including VOCs (volatile components of petroleum), dioxin-like chemicals, and other hydrocarbons. Biliary cancers have been linked to petroleum and to PAHs (chemicals in tar and soot). Soft tissue sarcomas are very rare and lethal cancers that have also been linked to dioxin-like chemicals and hydrocarbons. It's an interesting pattern -- almost all of the cancer types that were elevated have been linked scientifically to chemicals in oil or tar.

It's especially interesting because little Ft. Chip is located downstream from the largest tar sands mining and oil production operation in the world. Other scientists who also presented their findings to the community today revealed significant increases in toxic metals, PAHs, and related chemicals in the water and sediments of the river downstream from the tar sands.

About 200 community members filled the hall where the scientists and physicians presented their findings. Then the community members spoke. Elders from the Mikisew Cree Nation and the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation decried the lack of action by the government and industry. Other community members talked about their own cancer diagnoses, or about the problems they were seeing in the fish, ducks, and wildlife they hunt for food. One man brought a deformed fish to the researchers, asking that it be tested for contaminants. The meeting was long, intense, and important. These people are concerned about their livelihood, and their lives. They are also concerned about the state of their rivers, the lake, and the wildlife.

Afterward, as I flew back to Edmonton on the tiny plane, I looked down on miles of pristine boreal forest dotted with lakes and entwined by rivers. Then the tar sands operations came into view - vast scars on the land, massive sulfur piles, smokestacks creating huge plumes into the sky, and enormous tailings ponds next to the river glimmering with an oily sheen; tailings ponds that are almost certainly leaching contaminants into the Athabasca River, which carries them down toward Ft. Chip.

As I prepare to head down to the Gulf Coast, I wonder what will happen here in Canada. Will the newfound distaste for offshore oil drilling be a boon to the tar sands, thereby worsening the ecological and health situation up here? Or will the public realize that petroleum comes with a price that is too high to pay, and move toward a safer energy future?

Reply to this Comment
Careful Consideration
posted by Tony from CAPP   Monday, May 10, 2010 12:55 PM

Yes I agree Looking for Truth. Everyone should read the entire report, including the back sections. Lots to consider. It's sad when people think the whole situation is only as simple as a Hollywood movie.

Reply to this Comment
Government scientist forced to apologize
posted by lookingfortruth   Friday, July 02, 2010 9:56 PM
Preston is the government's 'go to' guy when it comes to speaking with scientific authority about the oilsands to the media and public. It's a sad day.

Alberta gov't scientist apologizes for saying researchers 'lied'

Study examined mercury levels in fish near oilsands
By Alexandra Zabjek, edmontonjournal.com



EDMONTON — A senior provincial government scientist has apologized to a pair of Alberta researchers for alleging they lied in their research about the environmental impacts of the oilsands industry.

Kevin Timoney and Peter Lee had threatened legal action against Preston McEachern, head of science, research and innovation with Alberta Environment, if he did not retract and apologize for statements made during a presentation at the University of Alberta earlier this year.

McEachern challenged details of their 2009 study, "Does the Alberta Tar Sands Industry Pollute? The Scientific Evidence," which was published in The Open Conservation Biology Journal.

McEachern said the researchers "chose to remove data" from 1985, 2003 and 2004 when examining mercury concentrations in fish in the Athabasca River. McEachern presented a slide to criticize Timoney and Lee's work entitled "How figures can lie," according to a copy of the presentation kept by the researchers.

McEachern said if the data was "properly" analyzed it would show no trend in the contaminant concentrations of fish, according to an audio recording of the presentation.

" It's one thing to disagree, it's another to say a person has lied or suppressed data," said Timoney, principal researcher with Treeline Ecological Research, who holds a PhD in ecology.

Suppressing data is "forbidden" in scientific research and Timoney found the comments deeply offensive.

He said scientific debates are typically settled through more research, more data gathering and in a generally more "respectful" manner.

"Those kinds of false and defamatory statements can definitely send a chill over the entire scientific community," said Lee, adding that is particularly the case for scientists whose work contrasts the prevailing ideas of industry and government.

Both Timoney and Lee, the executive director of Global Forest Watch Canada, said they did not have data for the three years McEachern referenced. Following the University of Alberta presentation, they contacted McEachern for substantiation of his claims, but said they received no reply.

In a letter dated May 20, lawyers retained by Timoney and Lee asked that McEachern retract his statements, which they called defamatory; promise to refrain from similar statements in the future; and pay $1,000 to cover their legal costs. They threatened legal action seeking damages for defamation if no action was taken.

McEachern responded via his counsel on June 11.

"I apologize for the statements made about you in and during my PowerPoint presentations," he wrote. "Referring to your 2009 study published in The Open Conservation Biology Journal, let me say that i) you did not lie, ii) you did not choose to remove data from your study, iii) you did not actually remove data from 1985, 2003 and 2004."

McEachern went on to say: "The statements in my presentations that you did these things were false and I regret very much that I made these statements."

He also promised to take down the slides in question from several websites, including the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada.

McEachern was not available for comment Monday.



Read more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/scientist+apologizes+saying+researchers+lied/3182210/story.html#ixzz0sa1sAGhu

ReThink Research
posted by Tony from CAPP   Friday, July 16, 2010 11:51 AM
Oops. ReThinkAlberta pulled its anti-Alberta anti-Oilsands ad due to a major factual error. But, in their words, “it’s not a big deal.”

ReThinkAlberta didn’t research very well.
It’s a sad day.


.
http://www.660news.com/radio/660news/article/78371--anti-oilsands-campaign-contains-major-mistake

Anti-oilsands campaign contains major mistake
Kevin Usselman and Radana Suk Jul 16, 2010 08:01:01 AM
Corporate Ethics International admits it's new "rethink Alberta" tourism campaign protesting tarsands development and pollution is not totally accurate.

Spokesperson Michael Marx tells CTV the ad has been pulled and a correction is in the works.

At the centre of the dispute is the size of the area the tarsands are destroying.

Corporate Ethics stated it was twice the size of England, when in fact it's less than the size of one England.

The billboard and on-line campaign is urging Americans and Europeans to put off trips to Alberta until the environmental problems associated with the oilsands are addressed.

Sierra Club Canada Executive Director John Bennett tells 660News the mistake is not a big deal and is not a blow to the environmental movement.

Bennett says it's refreshing to hear somebody admit they "messed up" and they will correct it.

He says while some of the facts and figures over oilsands development can be disputed, there is no arguing it's a major source of pollution and action is needed now to reduce its environmental footprint.


Reply to this Comment
posted by Paul d'Haene   Saturday, July 17, 2010 1:06 PM
Don't expect Michael Marx and his colleagues to tell the truth. They will not reply to reasonable questions and they are completely unwilling to discuss scientific facts. They simply believe in the manmade global warming theory (end of discussion). They refuse to look at the fact that Mann and Jones have been proven to be politically driven zealots rather than science driven researchers ... they have knowingly misrepresented their research data, which has dicredited them completely in the eyes of many scientists. Michael Marx also likes to quote "studies" done by the Pembina Institute which is nothing more than a propaganda outfit -- I say that because they have told me that they will NOT discuss or debate the science behind the manmade global warming claims ... they only report information from "scientific sources". Now I take them at their word, which means they do not understand the science ... and yet they express all kinds of opinions and write all kinds of articles and issue all kinds of warnings about manmade global warming. They present themselves to the public as people who understand the science (but admit privately they do not) which should make everybody wonder about their credibility (as for me, my communications with them have shown me they are nothing more than environmental zealots pushing a political agenda based on a Hoax).
And those are the people Mr. Marx quotes.
Don't expect thes folks to ever want to look at the truth (the whole scientific story).
I am eleted that most of the postings on this site (though many times in disagreement) are at least sticking to real facts. That is so very refreshing compared to dealing with people like Michael Marx. By the way, as I told him, it is so Orwellian that he would call his organization Corporate Ethics International and yet use unethical approaches, sinister innuendo and out right lies to promote his radical views on environment (not based on science but on an unfounded theory).
Maybe he will reply to me now ?

Reply to this Comment