Investigation: Are the Oil Sands killing First Nations? (Part 2)

By Jake Cardinal

This is Part 2 of an investigative series on the Impact of Oil Sands on First Nations People by Jake Cardinal. Part 1 appeared in the June edition of Alberta Native News.

(ANNews) – On December 3, 2024, representatives for the First Nations of Mikisew Cree, Fort Chipewyan Metis Nation, and Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN) provided testimony to the House of Commons. They alleged that the Governments and Departments of Canada were engaging in environmental racism against their Nations. Most notably, they claimed that the Government of Canada had attempted to offload ownership of a “dock” — and therefore fiscal responsibility and liability — onto the Nations without notifying them of the potential/confirmed environmental risks associated with the surrounding waters.

COVER UP ALLEGATIONS

They would cite a 2017 report, in which representative Taylor Bachrach stated: “contaminants like arsenic, nickel, benzene and hydrocarbons were present on the site. These are known to cause all sorts of medical conditions … including cancers, liver failure, autoimmune diseases, leukemia and keratosis.”

While not made aware of the toxicity levels during their negotiations, the Nations were offered ownership and $25 million in funding to fix up the dock themselves. However, they said the dock was Transport Canada’s official position because it operated as their only emergency exit — one which the government threatened to decomission should the offer not be accepted. After refusing the offer, the government of Canada told ACFN Chief Allan Adam that any attempts to fix up the dock would result in his arrest and subsequent incarceration.

While this testimony goes on for some time, there is a single matter of importance: the allegations of an institutional cover-up regarding claims of toxic waste spillage. To determine whether or not these allegations could be proven false, a general overview of the history and position of major players in the oil sands industry is needed.

A HISTORY OF DRAINAGE

Tailings seepage has occurred in the region since at least 1967. However, as stated in a 2007 health study done by the Nunee Health Board Society (NHBS), “finding information to document these spills is no small task.” Therefore, while some spills will be mentioned, there could be and most likely are other incidents known and/or unknown to the general public.

The first recorded oil spill covered in this article occurred in 1967, when a power failure resulted a flooded flare accumulator at the Suncor (formerly GCOS) plant. It is quoted that the oil “overflowed the accumulator into the flare pond and then overflowed the flare pond into a rather inaccessible heavily wooded slough area.”

The company and its operating personnel would not become aware of this incident until a complaint was issued to the government in March of 1968. By then however, heavy surface run-off into the Athabasca river had already occurred. When an investigation was conducted, they posited the “Oils and Grease concentration was estimated to be 20,000 mg/L.” In addition to this, a “black layer of oil” had accumulated half a mile downstream from the plant along the west side of the river.

In 1970, a Suncor pipeline broke and approximately 3 million barrels of oil were spilled, with “appreciable quantities” reaching the river. It was said that the oil was visible in certain parts of the lake for six days. While the company claims to have engaged in an investigation, no documentation of it having occurred was found. This was confirmed by an independent study referenced in the NHBS report, which “found no evidence had been made to stop the downstream flow of oil, during which time the slick had travelled some 240 km en route towards Lake Athabasca and the vicinity of Ft. Chipewyan.” It further states: “there is justifiable reason for the existing controversy and a need for further investigations… The actual impact of the spill remains to be seen.”

In the 1980s, there were at least two reported oil spills from Suncor operations, however documentation for either is hard to come by. A spill in 1981 has only one documented source. The second spill in 1982, while an investigation was conducted, provided only a “single page terms of reference, dated 17 March 1982,” according to the NHBS. Despite calls for further studies at the time, no further information has been publicly documented.

Eye-witness accounts of possible oil spills were also listed in the NHBS study, however due to the amount of testimonies and in the interest of time, they will not be referenced.

Efforts to conduct analysis on the Athabascan environment have also been riddled with a lack of information and unreliable investigation techniques. Analyses of the water had only recently been collected, meaning comparisons to data from previous studies was difficult. Furthermore, the research methods provided “large data gaps and too few observations for the data to be meaningful.” The study also wrote: “failure to consider earlier oil and grease data creates an institutional amnesia and limits the ability to assess change.”

While there are more examples, it is worth noting that the above spills were compiled in a single study written in 2007, and that the feasibility of accounting for every incident in a comprehensive document is next to impossible.

Furthermore, accounting for the spills themselves alone does little to appoint responsibility towards any institution — government or otherwise — and places the blame upon human error. However, as seen in the below paragraphs, liability extends much further, practically into the heart of Alberta’s modern-day position.

RESEARCH

In 1973, the Alberta Department of the Environment (ADE) released a report detailing the outcomes and dangers associated with the use of oil sands’ tailings ponds. In their reports, along with many other claims, it is directly stated that: “all of the flora and fauna habitat will be destroyed wherever a tailings pond is established,” and that “there will be some ambient effects upon surface water, ground-water and atmosphere.”

By this point however, the province of Alberta had already been engaged with oil sands development research as far back as 1919. In fact, the Industrial Resource Council of Alberta, which would later become the Alberta Research Council (ARC), had experimented with bitumen separation methods and launched a pilot plant in 1923.

By 1929, the process of bitumen separation would become a patented process.

Thus, it can then be concluded that the provincial government was aware of the negative and dangerous effects of toxic bitumen waste long before the release of the 1973 ADE report. The ARC were themselves listed as a contributor/participant, which confirms wholeheartedly that the government knew the potential risk factors from that point on — while also implying that the presentation of the research/information could have been skewed in some manner.

However, despite the release of the report, it merely signalled the beginning of the government’s open-support and investment into the oil sands industry.

THE WINNIPEG AGREEMENT

The companies present during initial oil sands operations were Great Canadian Oil Sands Ltd. (GCOS) and the Syncrude consortium — a group of American companies made up of: Imperial Oil, Atlantic Richfield (ARCO), Royalties Oil and Cities Services.

While Syncrude’s first plant was producing 12,000 barrels a day in 1967, it would be another decade before their next operation, the Mildred Lake facility, would officially open.

In their budget report of 1978, the Alberta Government stated the “need to extend self-reliance on oil and gas,” and that it would be “important to extract as much oil as technologically possible from all deposits.” The primary drivers being global crises caused by the Yom Kippur war and the Iranian revolution, which led to the instability of Canada’s oil supply and prompted the country to prioritize a self-sufficient oil industry.

By then however, in 1974, ARCO had withdrawn investments from further development of Mildred Lake due to rising costs, which were nearing $2 billion, and disagreements regarding the royalty structure implemented by the Alberta government.

To keep the project from collapsing, federal and provincial governments purchased the 30% deficit in 1975. This was known as the Winnipeg Agreement.

The agreement saw the federal government acquire a 15% stake in the facility; Alberta at 10%; and Ontario 5%. Notable figures involved were Peter Lougheed; Bill Dickie; Merv Leitch; Bill Davis; Donald Macdonald; Gordon Sellars; Jerry McAfee; and Bill Daniel.

During that same year, the provincial government’s Alberta Energy Company (AEC) went public, emphasizing “the sale of $75 million in shares to Albertans, matching the investment by the Province of Alberta.” This allowed Canadians to purchase half of all shares in the company themselves, which essentially held them financially dependent and liable for the actions of oil sands’ operators — as well as other extraction activities the company was involved in.

According to the Petroleum History Society, Lougheed is quoted as saying: “It was obvious that the oilsands were owned by the people of Alberta. We consistently and constantly made sure that the industry understood that the Government of Alberta was the owner and we weren’t just there in a supervisory or regulatory way. We were extensively involved because we were the owners.”

With public financial support, the aforementioned events secured the government’s future dependence on the oil sands, as well as that of every day Albertan citizens who purchased shares in the company. What followed was years of industry propped up by millions of dollars in government funding and tax cuts for oil sands operations that would see the province become completely dependent on its oil production. All the while understanding the negative environmental and human impacts it would have in the territories of operation.

In 2022, the Alberta government stated there were 138,000 people actively employed in the “upstream energy sector.” And in 2024, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) and Statistics Canada recorded an historic 4 million barrels of bitumen produced and sold per day in November.

Jake Cardinal is a Local Journalism Initiative Reporter.