A study found numerous discrepancies between the data the Albert Energy Regulator released publicly and the information it gathered from oil companies about spills. Waste byproduct goes into a tailings pond at an oil sands operation near Fort McMurray, Alta., on Sept. 17, 2014.Todd Korol/Reuters
A new study by an Alberta ecologist has found that the province’s energy regulator lacks the data required to assess and manage the environmental impact of tailings spills, and has underestimated the number and volumes of spills in the oil sands.
Kevin Timoney’s study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, examined the Alberta Energy Regulator’s management of bitumen tailings spills, analyzing data from 514 spills between 2014 and 2023. He then compared information in the AER’s public database with the evidence the regulator gathered for those spills.
Dr. Timoney found numerous discrepancies between the data AER released publicly and the information it gathered from oil companies about spills, he said in an interview Monday, including a lack of data to corroborate AER claims that tailings spills caused no adverse environmental effects.
He also found that the footprint of spills recorded by the AER was “unrealistically small” relative to spill volumes. As such, he asserted that the total recorded spill volumes from tailings ponds in Alberta’s oil sands underestimate the true rates.
“The AER’s failure to gather credible and relevant environmental data, conduct routine on-site inspections, and protect ecosystems from harm is inconsistent with its regulatory responsibilities,” Dr. Timoney wrote in his study.
“As a result of chronic mismanagement since 1967, ecological risks will persist for decades. The true magnitude of the ecological impacts of tailings spills may never be known.”
The AER says on its website that staff inspect tailings facilities on a scheduled basis multiple times a year and by incident-based inspections, investigations or audits.
Its technical staff also prepare an annual state of fluid tailings report “after reviewing each operator’s report in detail to ensure that the tailings management activities of the reporting period align with all approvals and actual field performance and activities,” it says.
But Dr. Timoney said that the data don’t back up the regulator’s claim of routine inspections. According to his analysis, only 3.2 per cent of tailings spills are inspected. Further, he found that about half of the spill sites with photographic documentation showed evidence of environmental harm.
He also found no evidence to support the regulator’s assertion of perfect recovery in 75 per cent of tailings spills.
The AER said subject matter experts will review the study’s data for a more comprehensive response, but stressed that it routinely conducts inspections to ensure that releases have been cleaned up and remediated in accordance with regulations.
Dr. Timoney said Monday he undertook the study in the wake of questions around AER transparency, after water tainted with arsenic, dissolved metals and hydrocarbons leaked from tailings ponds at Imperial Oil’s Kearl facility.
Environmental data-gathering from the oil sands has been abysmal since the 1960s, he said.
“Wherever we’ve looked in terms of the science, we see that the effects are much more far-reaching than the government or the industry is letting on,” he said.
“It’s a huge worry, because we don’t know what is happening underground, in the groundwater, to the soils, to the vegetation, because in the vast majority of cases, the data are simply not being gathered.”
Dr. Timoney found instances of spill volumes that were unrealistic, incorrect dates and locations that were far from the actual incident; in one case, about 200 kilometres away.
“In all respects, the data that the AER report are suspect,” he said.
“Something as simple as spill locations, the information that they provided was not sufficient for a member of the public or scientists to go out and find these spills because they’re so inaccurate. If you don’t know where the spills are actually occurring, then how do you follow them over time?”
A 2020 report by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, an international organization created under the North American free-trade agreement, found strong evidence that tailings ponds are seeping into groundwater.
The question of how Alberta’s oil sands will eventually be cleaned up – and who will pay for it – has drawn increasing attention over recent years.
According to numbers released by the AER in October, the regulator now holds about $1.71-billion in security, compared with estimated liabilities of $57.3-billion. Even though the estimated cost of mine cleanup has jumped more than 100 per cent since 2018, the money being held to cover the bill has grown by only 17 per cent. And last year, that cash came solely from coal companies, according to AER data.
Oil-sands mining companies have added just $1 to the pot since 2010, because they’re not required to post additional reclamation security payments until they reach the point where they have less than 15 years of oil reserves remaining.
Editor’s note: A previous version of the photo caption with this article incorrectly described oil going into a tailings pond. Processing waste goes into tailings ponds, not oil. This version has been updated.