Pembina Institute’s recent report (PDF) on risks posed by oil sands development in the Mackenzie River basin is not only inaccurate, it makes several serious claims that cannot be allowed to stand uncorrected.
Pembina: “In addition to tailings seepage, there has been no successful reclamation of tailings to date. As it stands, these toxic tailings lakes pose a threat indefinitely.”
Suncor has already achieved a solid surface with its first ever tailings pond, Pond 1. These before and after pictures show what has been achieved. Over 140,000 trees have been planted on top of the former pond already, and a further 460,000 will be planted this fall. As per provincial regulation, we are required to reclaim any lands we disturb and this is what we are doing.
2007 - Liquid surface
2010 – solid surface supporting living trees
Pembina: “Tailings dams have a 10-fold greater probability of failure compared to conventional dams.”
The comparison of dam failure potential rates is misleading, as it compared two already very low rates of failure (0.01 percent vs 0.1 percent). It also ignores the extensive level of engineering, monitoring and independent consultant and government review of today’s oil sands tailings ponds.
Pembina: “Tailings lakes seep waste water into the groundwater below and/or around containment dikes or tailings lakes… An estimated 1,600 cubic metres (1.6 million litres) of toxic tailings waste water seeps from the Tar Island Pond into the Athabasca River each day."
Pembina’s figures are based on a model, not actual data. Like the tailings dykes, groundwater and the surrounding area are closely monitored for effective environmental management purposes. Field monitoring results (actual data) do not support any finding that seepage is occurring.
Responsible development of the oil sands requires ongoing engagement with stakeholders and transparent reporting of our efforts, such as through our Report on Sustainability. We welcome discussion about environment-related impacts of oil sands development. Informed dialogue though, is only possible with the benefit of solid scientific peer-reviewed scientific analysis, much of which is sadly lacking in Pembina’s report.
