Tailings ponds near the Alberta oil sands are most definitely a wicked problem. Little is known about their precise impacts and the research that has been done is highly contested. While certain parties allege that these tailings ponds seep into and contaminate the soil and water systems, thereby negatively affecting vegetation and its consumers’ health, both energy companies as well as government refute these claims and insist that there are no health risks due to the tailings ponds (Tailings, Aboriginal People). Among those that do believe there to be a problem, there are multiple theories on how to solve it, ranging from chemically neutralising these ponds to shutting them down altogether (Schor). In addition to this, it is difficult to predict how these actions, or lack there-of, would impact the environment and business relationships until they are implemented for a significant time.
Social opinion is also split. Some of those who live nearby, particularly along the Athabasca river and including several First Nations groups, are concerned about their health as well as that of their local ecosystems and would like to see environmental considerations improved (Cryderman and McCarthy). However, there are others whose economic well-being depends on the energy companies who use these tailings ponds and so believe in providing them with comfortable conditions and minimal costs in an effort to retain them for as long as possible. These proponents include not only locals, but also people living in major centres such as Edmonton and Calgary where the economy is highly dependent on the continued presence of these companies. The same logic applies to the continued government support as well. It is a classic example of the common “economy vs. environment” debate, as those who rely on the money generated by the oil sands have concerns that increased environmental regulations, and the costs associated with them, could drive companies out of an already volatile situation. With so many different stakeholders, views of the problem, solutions and other processes involved, tailing ponds are a wicked problem indeed.
I constructed my mind map in the simplest way I could–a list of stakeholders, negative arguments and supporting arguments. The list of stakeholders is massive, from opponents to proponents and from locals to outsiders, and is the primary reason for the issue’s complexity. First Nations groups reliant on the Athabasca River for both water and food, such as the Mikisew Cree and the Athabasca Chipewyan, are concerned with its increasing pollution because it severely impacts their traditional ways of life and forces them to purchase food commercially (Cryderman and McCarthy). Other First Nations, like Fort McKay, are heavily employed in the oil sands and thus might want more favourable business conditions to maintain their jobs (Aboriginal People). The energy companies are of course most concerned with profit margins and thus want to maintain their liberal use of tailings ponds. All three levels of government generally want to retain these companies due to the economic stimulus they provide. As such, they are hesitant to impose restrictions, despite environmental costs. Supporters, or likely more accurately “those opposed to intervention,” follow the same train of thought, preferring to minimise complications for the energy companies their livelihoods depend on. Rightly or wrongly, they believe that increased regulations may negatively impact these companies’ presence in the area and therefore result in economic shrinking. At the same time, other governments along with international institutions are concerned with this environmental mistreatment and continually lobby the government to take action (Weber, NAFTA Watchdog).
Environmental and health costs are numerous but contested. A number of toxins have been identified in tailings, which enter the ecosystem in numerous ways. Some toxins evaporate into the air which contributes both to greenhouse gas emissions as well as degradation of the air that both wildlife and humans breathe. The toxins also get absorbed by the soil, affecting its quality and thus that of the vegetation that grows in it. This contaminated vegetation is than eaten by livestock, which is in turn consumed by humans, resulting in health problems including cancer. Through the soil, the toxins find their way into the water system, which again impacts the wildlife that drinks it (Linnitt). This particularly affects the First Nations communities living along the polluted Athabasca River because they are no longer able to hunt the local wildlife as they traditionally have done, since it has been contaminated from drinking the river water.
At the best of times, cleanup of tailings ponds is time consuming and expensive. But it is also often challenging and full remediation cannot be guaranteed (Weber, Oil Sands Giants) However if the pollution increases to more dramatic levels, impacts on the local ecosystems may be much more serious, for example the destruction of a species or plant. If that happens, full ecosystem recovery would be very difficult.
Works Cited
“Aboriginal People.” Alberta government. Government of Alberta. N.d. Web. 23 Sept. 2015.
<http://oilsands.alberta.ca/aboriginalpeople.html>
Cryderman, Kelly and McCarthy, Shawn. “Oil sands pollutants contaminate traditional First
Nations food: report.” The Globe and Mail. Phillip Crawley. 7 Jul. 2014. Web. 23 Sept.
- <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/oil-sands-pollutants-affect-first-nations-diets-according-to-study/article19484551/>
“Key Oilsands Projects.” Oilsands Review. JuneWarren-Nickle’s Energy Group. N.d. Web.
23 Sept. 2015. <http://navigator.oilsandsreview.com/listing>
Linnit, Carol. “Environment Canada Study Reveals Oilsands Tailings Ponds Emit Toxins to
Atmosphere at Much Higher Levels than Reported.” Desmog Canada. N.p. 28 Nov.
- Web. 24 Sept. 2015. <http://www.desmog.ca/2014/11/28/environment-canada
study-reveals-oilsands-tailings-ponds-emit-toxins-atmosphere-much-higher-levels
reported>
Schor, Elana. “Reclaimed Dump Sparks Oil Sands Sustainability Debate.” The New York Times.
The New York Times Company. 16 Aug. 2011. Web. 24 Sept. 2015.
<http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/08/16/16greenwire-reclaimed-dump-sparks-oil
sands-sustainability-44003.html?pagewanted=all>
“Tailings.” Pembina Institute. The Pembina Institute. N.d. Web. 23 Sept. 2015.
<http://www.pembina.org/oil-sands/os101/tailings>
Weber, Bob. “NAFTA watchdog wants to probe oil sands tailings.” Maclean’s. Rogers Media.
8 Aug. 2014. Web. 24 Sept. 2015. <http://www.macleans.ca/politics/nafta-watchdog
wants-to-probe-oilsands-tailings/>
Weber, Bob. “Oil sands giants granted more time for cleanup after missing targets.”
Financial Post. National Post. 12 Jun. 2013. Web. 24 Sept. 2015.
<http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/oil-sands-giants-granted-more-time-for-cleanup-after-missing-targets?__lsa=e6bb-8bae>
