Examining 5 Oilsands Claims By Daryl Hannah

Daryl Hannah Oil Sands

First Posted: 09/02/11 11:47 AM ET Updated: 11/02/11 06:12 AM ET

Actress and activist Darryl Hannah was arrested this week in Washington D.C during a protest against extending TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry oilsands crude from Alberta through six U.S. states to refineries in Texas.

On Wednesday, Hannah appeared on CBC's Power & Politics to debate Alykhan Velshi, founder of Ethicaloil.org, a website devoted to defending Canada's oil industry.

During the debate, Hannah made claims about the oilsands, some of which CBC News investigated:

Claim 1.: "It's well-documented that the tar sands itself is one of the world's largest ecological atrocities and disasters."

The Royal Society of Canada (RSC) released a 414-page report last year entitled Environmental and Health Impacts of Canada's Oil Sands Industry. It was written by scientists and academics and targeted oil companies, the federal and provincial government and environmentalists.

The report addressed the question of whether the oilsands is "the most environmentally destructive project on earth."

The report compares the oilsands to a number of other industries. In terms of toxic emissions, for example, it says the oilsands industry ranks fifth for mercury, sixth for cadmium, eighth for lead and eighth for four carcinogenic pollutants.

The industry would have to increase its emissions by five-fold to become the first ranked industrial emitter of air pollutants and toxic emissions, the RSC said, something "no foreseeable oilsands growth scenario" would lead to.

The academic group also found that no evidence had been demonstrated that the industry is a major polluter of surface waters, although groundwater is less certain.

They did note the substantial impact of open pit surface mining and a need for more rapid reclamation of disturbed areas. But they said "the claim by some critics of the oil sands industry that it is the most environmentally destructive project on earth is not supported by the evidence."

Claim 2.: "The contribution to the carbon in the atmosphere is unprecedented."

The report acknowledges reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the oil sands poses a challenge to Canada and that the industry is the country's fastest growing source.

But it said the oilsands makes up about five per cent of the country's total emissions, compared with 16 per cent for fossil fuel-fired powered generation and 27 per cent for transportation, based on 2008 data.

In terms of global emissions, the oilsands contributes .08 per cent. the report found.

Claim 3: "I've been hearing about how many people have cancer that live downstream from the tar sands project"

Hannah is referring to the residents of Fort Chipewyan who live downstream from the oilsands. Concerns were first raised in 2006 by a local doctor about supposed elevated cancer rates in the town. In 2009, the Alberta Cancer Board said cancer rates were 30 per cent higher than expected.

But the RSC report noted that the doctor was later criticized by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta for making "a number of inaccurate and untruthful claims."

International experts who looked at the Alberta Cancer Board study also found that the increase in cancer incidence was not evidence that an environmental exposure was the cause.

"There is currently no credible evidence of environmental contaminant exposures from oilsands reaching Fort Chipewyan at levels expected to cause human cancer rates."

However, the Alberta government has said it will further study the issue.

Claim 4: "It has poisoned every one who's lived downstream from it."

The report found that "environmental contaminants at current levels of exposure are unlikely to cause major health impact for the general population." It added that projected emissions from expanded operations are not likely to change that expectation.

Claim 5. "TransCanada, who's building this pipeline has told people in [the U.S.] that they're going to be taking their land through eminent domain if they don't agree to the terms."

Hannah is referring to TransCanada's threat to go to court to expropriate parts of U.S. land from landowners who oppose the Keystone XL pipeline on their property.

While the company has said it's trying to work out agreements with the landowners, it has admitted it would go to court as a "last resort" to force a deal.

TransCanada spokesman Terry Cunha told the Associated Press in April that landowners who agree to easements with TransCanada will receive payment when they sign the agreement, and Cunha said landowners would keep the money even if the project isn't approved. Plus, the ranchers and farmers retain ownership of the land.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST CANADA BUSINESS

Actress and activist Darryl Hannah was arrested this week in Washington D.C during a protest against extending TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry oilsands crude from Alberta through...
Actress and activist Darryl Hannah was arrested this week in Washington D.C during a protest against extending TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry oilsands crude from Alberta through...
Filed by Daniel Tencer  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 37
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
spinnerator
08:45 AM on 09/03/2011
I don't see this report giving the tar sands a clean bill of health, just debunking Hanna's rhetoric hardly the same thing. Nobody reading this could honestly say the numbers are nice, just not apocalyptic.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
spinnerator
08:27 AM on 09/03/2011
Daryl Hannah, has been actress has a degree in which of the Sciences??? Why does the media give a soap box to every empty headed celebrity with some New Wave crackpot opinion? I find nothing about her online to suggest she is qualified to be anything other than a pretty face on tv.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paul Stacey
Kill guns, not children.
04:22 PM on 09/04/2011
This is exactly why; she's a pretty face, some of her claims are exaggerated, she perhaps isn't well informed on the subject. A great brush to tar the whole protest with.
07:19 PM on 09/02/2011
maybe its time as canadaians to start kicking out the american oil companys turn off the oil ,water , eletrcity an natrul gas an the other nice gifts the states get from canada an let them find there own fresh water for a change, in L.A. San Fran, and the rest of cali. is hard to see through that smog, i mean air, you all complain but what is that , the fuel you are putting in your cars,what warming your houses, oh ya oil an gas from canada,oh an jobs tis eay to jump on the band wagon when you are not very well educated about you subject
06:16 PM on 09/02/2011
Looks like its safe to go back to smoking too
05:04 PM on 09/02/2011
Eco Warriers: You need a re-think if you want to change the hearts and minds of your fellow citizens. A quick read of these comments show that any counter to clearly exagerated celebrity/protester claims are labelled as oil compnay propoganda. Even a venerable liberal media icon like the CBC is called a neo-con mouthpeice for quoting a study that that attempts to frame the debate using science instead of rhetoric. Normal, taxpaying voters have long ago tuned the out over-the-top, impending doom, act-now-or-die rants that seems to be your preferred method of communicating. Treat your fellow citizens with respect for their intelligence and native good sense and they might stop ignoring the important message you are trying to convey.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
opprobrious
More speech. Less Flagging.
04:25 PM on 09/02/2011
"The report compares the oilsands to a number of other industries. In terms of toxic emissions, for example, it says the oilsands industry ranks fifth for mercury, sixth for cadmium, eighth for lead and eighth for four carcinogenic pollutants."

Oh well if it's only ranked fifth, sixth, eight and eighth we have nothing to worry about. [rolls eyes]
04:19 PM on 09/02/2011
Daryl Hannah claims that the tar sands is "one of" the world's largest ecological atrocities and disasters. The article goes on to say that a study had refuted that it is not "the" worst project in the world, only 5th, 6th, 8th and 8th in terms of mercury, cadmium, lead and carcinogenic pollutants. That would clearly back up Ms. Hannah's claim that it's"one of" the worst, but in a poorly attempt at spin, the article seems to be saying that she's wrong?

It aslo claims that the carbon emmission level is not unprecedented, since the tar sands "only" represents 5% of Canada's entire carbon emmissions and fossil fuel powered generating stations produce 16%. But there are over 800 power stations in Canada creating 16% of the emmissions and one project with 5% - that at least comes close to unprecedented in my books.

I'm not a fan of Daryl Hannah's diatribe, but trying to discredit her with poor spin doctoring like this is very poor journalism.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
opprobrious
More speech. Less Flagging.
04:25 PM on 09/02/2011
This is the Harper government's CBC.
04:42 PM on 09/02/2011
Really? You think the CBC is a mouthpeice for the Harper Government? Really?
03:43 PM on 09/02/2011
It seems to me that this "analysis" corroborates at least 4 out of 5 of Ms. Hannah's statements, leaving only the comment about poisoning "everyone" downstream as being somewhat hyperbolic. On everything else, the author seems to just really be saying, "it's not so bad", while acknowledging that there is a factual basis for every statement Ms. Hannah made. The degree of criticism of tar sands extraction is a matter of opinion and Ms. Hannah is entitled to her point of view.

The author's post is just propaganda spin.
03:39 PM on 09/02/2011
Dirty oil?You bet.But as an alternative to the BP spill in the gulf ,as an alternative to oil supply management from the middleast it may the lesser of other evils.Until we learn to wean ourselves off hydrocarbon resources we are stuck with some ugly choices.
03:38 PM on 09/02/2011
Wait a second -- the report on which all this 'fact' debunking article is based was written "by scientists and academics and targeted oil companies, the federal and provincial government and environmentalists".

Why would targeted oil companies or the provincial & federal governments be involved in writing a report unless it is not meant to be an independent report? All levels of government and the industry itself have vested interests in the revenue generation of the tar sands.

Furthermore, did the involved scientists and academics disclose their funding sources in this report? And finally were there any independent participants who were involved and subsequently refused to sign the final report or resigned from the process altogether?

While the statements made by Daryl Hannah may indeed be overly simplistic or even wrong, I expect the CBC to at least rise above the usual media practice of "sharing both sides" under the pretence of the "public's right to know all the facts". There are no facts at all in this article.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
giantsteps
03:30 PM on 09/02/2011
Typical activist-keep your mouth shut until you know the true facts. Plus coal burning in the states produces much more CO2 than the oil sands.
03:24 PM on 09/02/2011
Darryl you are no Julia Roberts
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Alain Posteur
03:23 PM on 09/02/2011
Darryl Hannah is hot. Does that contribute to global warming?
02:57 PM on 09/02/2011
WOW!
Thank you CBC for the lovely spin job here! Not hard to understand who sign's your paycheck....

Ok it may be debatable exactly where on the "ranking" list the oil sands finds themselves... but they are still quite comfortably within the top 10! Well beyond moot, I would say! We are still talking about heavy metals, toxicity and carcinogenic substances! Maybe we should bring back "mild" & "light" ratings on cigarette cartons while we are at it! (Sarcasm)
I would like to see a private inquiry into how much of taxpayer money, Both the Alberta and Federal governments have spent trying to discredit the multitude of "private" inquiries which have all found damning, frightening and alarming facts, and evidences as to the true impact the oil sands are having on plant, animal and human life!
02:50 PM on 09/02/2011
This article is disgusting spin for the Oil Sands. Ms Hannah's comments were taken unfairly out of context. Do they take into account the damage from the total amount of bitumen that is harvested from the oilsands (future projections of the environmental impact of all that CO2 production)? Much of Ms. Hannah's concern about water contamination was about the spillage that is more likely to occur when transporting bitumen (because it requires heating of the product) and the resulting damage to aquifers that the pipeline will traverse (should it burst in the wrong place). It is this damage she was referring to..not the local damage to water systems from the oil sands production.
Shame on Huff Post for printing this misleading drivel/spin.