The anti-oil sands industry

Environmental pressure groups have sprouted up across the country in an effort to undermine Canada’s oil sands industry. They portray themselves as righteous defenders of the good, protecting Canadians from the forces of greed and exploitation. But a closer look at these groups reveals a sobering truth: the movement is as much an “industry” as any other and is not above manipulating of science and public opinion to achieve its objectives.

The anti-oil sands campaign is organized, well-funded and follows a distinct pattern. Groups like Greenpeace, Sierra Club and Environmental Defence release frequent reports raising alarm about the environmental impacts of the oil sands industry, which are dutifully reported by media. Without a swift rebuttal, these “studies” become accepted as gospel and are repeated by radical environmentalists in their media talking points around the world.

Take, for example, a damning report released by U. S.-based Natural Resources Defense Council claiming that between six and 166 million migratory birds will be lost due to oil sands development in Alberta’s boreal forest over the next 30 to 50 years. The report, entitled “Danger in the Nursery,” garnered extensive global media coverage despite being shot full of statistically invalid data. For starters, the range of numbers is so broad it’s statistically invalid. The report even claims the black scoter, a type of duck, has declined due to oil sands development, although the closest the scoter nests to the oil sands are 1,300 kilometers away, near Hudson Bay.

Prominent ecologist Dr. Kevin Timoney, one of the report’s reviewers, exposed another hole, this one about bird deaths at oil sands’ tailings ponds. In an editorial published last month in the Edmonton Journal, Timoney pointed out how the report “assumed that peak [bird] landing rates exist 24 hours per day for 100 days.” In reality, peak landing rates only occur during migration, which is 1-3 weeks per year, and not for 24 hours a day. Timoney had “discussions with the lead author” to explain the flaw in the method of estimating bird mortality. “I recommended that they either delete the section or use an approach that was scientifically credible,” he wrote. “The authors evidently chose to ignore the advice.”

Financial Post