Electric Vehicles and Forever Chemicals - The Real Environmental Impact of the EV Movement

Governments and many individuals (EVangelists) promote the use of electric vehicles as the spotlessly clean solution to the global climate "crisis".  One would almost think that there is absolutely no negative environmental impact to the growing and government-mandated use of electric vehicles.  That said, recent research by Jennifer Guelfo et al in Nature Communications shows that there is a rarely reported environmental impact of lithium ion batteries that are used to energize the growing global fleet of electric vehicles.

  

The article, entitled "Lithium-ion battery components are at the nexus of sustainable energy and environmental release of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances" examines the use of these chemicals that are released during lithium-ion battery manufacturing, usage and disposal.  According to the article, lithium-ion technologies incorporate a class of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) known as bis-perfluoroalkyl sulfonimides (bis-FASIs).  These compounds are also used in non-stick cookware coatings, windmill coatings, semiconductors and photovoltaic cells.  More to the point of this posting, ionic liquids, including the Li+ salt of bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide (bis-FMeSI), are used as a primary or secondary lithium-ion battery (LiB) electrolyte. The Li salt of bis-FMeSI is also incorporated as an anti-static agent in polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) composites which are used in LiBs as electrode binders and as part of the separator between the cathode and anode.  Up to 96 percent of bis-FMeSI is recoverable which is wonderful, however, studies estimate that as little as 5% of LiBs are currently being recycled.  Between now and 2040, the growing use of lithium-ion batteries for transportation could result in an estimated 8 million tons of LiB waste by 2040 meaning that there is potential for the widespread environmental release of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances including bis-FMeSI during the lifecycle of lithium-ion batteries.

  

The authors of the study collected surface, tap and groundwater samples along with sediment and soil samples from 87 locations near Cottage Grove, Minnesota (MN), USA, Paducah and Louisville, Kentucky (KY), USA, Antwerp, Belgium, and Salindres, France between January and October of 2022.  These locations were chosen because of their proximity to manufacturing facilities (3M) that produce PFAS or are located in a downstream location.  It is important to note that PFAS are very mobile in aqueous environments and can move long distances from their source as was found in the samples taken for this study.  In fact, these chemicals have been found in the environment all around the world, including the Arctic.  Snow and soil samples used in this study exhibited significant concentrations of bis-FMeSI suggest that there is atmospheric deposition of bis-FMeSI.  The authors also found that there is a potential significant end-of-life issue with lithium-ion batteries with bis-FASIs detected in untreated landfill leachate.  While the source of the bis-FMeSI in the leachate cannot directly be confirmed, it is likely that increasing use and disposal of LiB technology will increase the concentration of bis-FMeSI over time.

 

Here is a quote from the discussion section of the paper with my bolds:

 

"This study demonstrates an international release of LiB-associated PFAS (bis-FASIs, particularly bis-FMeSI) to soil, sediment, and surface water and that concentrations of these compounds in the parts per billion are common, near manufacturing areas. When coupled with low-level detections in three Chinese seawater samples and characteristics consistent with vPvM classification, this suggests bis-FASI release is global. Furthermore, atmospheric emission of bis-FMeSI, as suggested by the MN data, may facilitate long-range transport of this subclass of PFAS. Toxicity data demonstrated that bis-FMeSI could change behavior and fundamental energy metabolic processes of aquatic organisms at low ng L−1 levels, suggesting that even relatively low-level concentrations will be of concern for aquatic vertebrates and invertebrates. In addition, the use of bis-FMeSI and other PFAS in LiB-enabled consumer products will lead to environmental contamination at end-of-life disposal (i.e., municipal solid waste landfills)....

 

In general, the challenges associated with bis-FASI occurrence, mobility, ecotoxicity, and recalcitrance are similar to those that have been realized for other PFAS; however, the potential for ongoing and increasing release of bis-FASIs resulting from exponentially growing demand for LiBs is distinct." 

  

Let's close this rather technical posting with these thoughts.  Per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances or PFAS are a chemical family of over 10000 chemicals that do not appear in nature, they are persistent man-made (anthropogenic) chemicals which break down very, very slowly over time.  This has earned them the moniker "Forever Chemicals".  According to Chemtrust, the negative impact of these these chemicals can:

 

1.) Interfere with the reproductive system and the development of the foetus

2.) Impact the immune system and have been linked to reduced responses to vaccines in children

3.) Promote the development of certain cancers (e.g. kidney and testicular cancer)

4.) Interfere with the hormonal system (so they are called endocrine disruptors)

As noted in this posting, PFAS are found globally.  Here is a map showing contamination sites across Europe to give you a sense of the scale of the problem:

 

In conclusion, when you hear your local politician tout the greenness of electric vehicles, keep in mind that the batteries powering these vehicles contain "forever contaminants/forever chemicals" that will have a significant negative impact on life on Planet Earth and that the growing mandated use of EVs will only worsen the problem.  I would also recommend that you remember that the vast majority of politicians have absolutely no training in chemistry and the ultimate impact of their decisions on the global environment.

Mark Carney Part 1 - The Environmentalist

While many people around the world have absolutely no idea who Mark Carney is, Canadians and citizens of the United Kingdom are very familiar with this gentleman.  As former Governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, two of the world's most influential advanced economy central banks, Mr. Carney is a leading figure in the world of central banksters.  As though that weren't enough, this darling of the global ruling class is also doing his best to influence the global response to climate change.  In part one of this two part series, we'll look at Mark Carney the "environmental evangelist" followed by an examination of his links to the global aristocracy in part two.

 

Let's start with this announcement from the United Nations, soon to be the world's sole parliamentary body if they have their way with the rest of us, dated December 1, 2019:

 

From the information that is available online, it would appear that while Mr. Carney has extensive experience in the field of finance, he has limited or no formal training in environmentalism, climatology, chemistry, physics or any of the sciences that are involved in formulating an educated response to impacting the world's climate, however, like his ruling class peer, Mr. Bill Gates who just happens to be the world's foremost expert on epidemiology, vaccinology and human health in general, one should never let a lack of training get in the way of forcing your ideas on the rest of humanity.

 

Here's what I could find regarding his qualifications:

 

Since his retirement from the heady and cloistered world of central banking at the end of 2019, Carney now happens to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Nature Conservancy of Canada, a Canadian non-profit conservation organization.  One would think that this would give him ample opportunity to flaunt his environmental and science credentials, however, such is not the case as shown here:

 

 

With that background behind us, let's look at some interesting comments that were made by Mark Carney during his tenure as climate "czar" for the United Nations.  Here is an interview of the Special Envoy that appears on the United Nations website dated January 2021:

 

Here is the first question:

 

"You have said that the goal of net zero is the greatest commercial opportunity of our time. Why?"

 

And, here's his answer with my bolds for emphasis throughout:

 

Climate change is an existential threat. We all recognize that, and there’s increasing urgency around it. But the converse is, if you are making investments, coming up with new technologies, changing the way you do business, all in service of reducing and eliminating that threat, you are creating value. And what we have seen increasingly, spurred initially by the Sustainable Development Goals, accelerated by Paris, and then by social movements and governments, is societies putting tremendous value on achieving net zero. Companies, and those who invest in them and lend to them, and who are part of the solution, will be rewarded. Those who are lagging behind and are still part of the problem will be punished.

  

How these companies and investors will be punished, he does not say but it is a rather threatening statement given his stature in the world of finance.

 

Here is another question:

 

"Why is mandatory carbon disclosure by large companies so important?

 

Here's his response:

 

"We all know that what gets measured gets managed. Climate change is not yet consistently measured, although the private sector has moved in this direction since Paris. We now need to make measurement and disclosure mandatory. That’s a priority of the UN COP26 climate conference in Glasgow at the end of this year."

 

And, the follow-up question:

 

"How do small companies figure in this?"

 

And again, his answer:

 

"If I’m running a company committed to net zero, what does that mean? It’s not just disclosing and managing the emissions in producing my product. It’s also the emissions involved in the energy I use, and the emissions all the way through my value chain, in other words, the emissions of my suppliers, many of whom are small businesses, as well as the emissions from people using a product. That company becomes responsible for disclosing all of those, and it has an incentive to manage all of those down. So it has an incentive to work with small businesses or choose those working towards lower emissions. 

 

If multinational companies focus on their emissions all the way across their value chain, many parts of which are based in developing countries, they have an incentive to invest and help reduce emissions there as well. It is quite powerful. That’s how emissions reductions can be pulled through economies and across the world."

 

So, in other words, even small companies will be expected to calculate and disclose their carbon footprint, an issue that will prove to be extremely expensive for very small family-run businesses who supply goods and services to megacorporations.

 

Let's close with this advice from a central banker on how we can all get involved in the global climate agenda, albeit, not at his level since he is far more important that we can ever hope to be:

 

"We all have a role in this adjustment. One of the most basic roles we have as individuals is asking questions. The bank that has our money, what’s their position on climate change? How well are they managing relative to net zero? If they give an answer you don’t like, you can move your money to an institutions that is part of the solution. 

 

One other thing, I’m not a politician. But I’ve worked around them many times, and when constituents ask questions it is very powerful. It tells politicians what people care about. Don’t assume that your politician cares about this issue as much as you do. But they will the more you and others raise it with them. And now is the time, because climate is becoming a mainstream issue, and a lot of big decisions are being taken."

Since we appear to be heading toward a cashless society funded by a universal basic income, the point about moving your money to another bank may prove to be moot.

 

I do agree - a lot of big decisions are being taken, unfortunately, the climate decisions being made by governments on our behalf are, at best, first order thinking where the ultimate impact of the decision is not considered (i.e. forcing us into electric vehicles but not considering where the electricity is sourced, where the plastic to make the vehicle is sourced and how the vehicles and the lithium batteries that power them will be managed once the batteries reach the end of their life cycle).

 

Should you happen to be interested in the entire interview, here it is:

 

While Mr. Carney's pontifications sound relatively reasonable, let's take a brief but only partial look at his personal impact on the climate.  Thanks to the Bank of England, here is a copy of Mark Carney's expenses for the period from January to December 2019, noting in particular the number of flights that he took:

 

 

In 2019, Mr. Carney took 26 flights (in business class) on official business for the Bank of England to various destinations around the globe, travelling as far as San Francisco.  In addition, there were 11 rail trips within Europe.  This does not include trips that were paid for by other parties on his behalf.  I dare say, that's quite a substantial carbon footprint, isn't it?

  

Let's summarize.  As you can see, Mark Carney is another of the global elite who preaches what he does not practice.  It's quite easy for the ruling class to tell us what to do regarding cutting back on our personal greenhouse gas emissions; it is quite another thing for the oligarchs who live by a totally different set of rules that benefits them commercially or personally.  With Mark Carney's growing influence in the global environmental/financial movement, you can be certain that you will hear from him or about him as time passes.  In part 2 of this posting, I will take a look at Mark Carney's connections to various ruling class organizations, some of which have plans in place for global domination.

Born Contaminated - Our Toxic World

A study, Pre-Polluted by Canada's Environmental Defence examines the contaminants that are found in the blood of newborns in two of Canada's largest urban centres.

Let's first put our chemical world into perspective.  At this point in time, there are 84,000 chemicals in use in North America. Around the globe, an estimated 143,000 chemicals are in use.  In Canada, only 200 of these chemicals have been reviewed for their impact on human health and the United States EPA has reviewed only 200 chemicals since 1976.

Scientists tested the umbilical cord blood from three newborns whose mothers live in the Greater Toronto/Hamilton areas and found a rather surprising cocktail of contaminants.  While the actual sample size is very small, the results mimic those found in larger studies undertaken in various nations.   The chemicals that were screened for in this study include the following groups:

1.) Dioxins and Furans: byproducts of waste incineration and manufacturing processes including the bleaching of paper and production of steel, in herbicides and pesticides and in the processing of oil.  These chemicals are ingested through food because they accumulate in the food chain and are both persistent (they do not break down substantially over time) and accumulative (they accumulate in our bodies over our lifetime).

2.) PBDEs (polybrominated diphenyl ethers): used as flame retardants in furniture, mattresses and electronic goods.  These chemicals build up in the body's fat tissues and are highly persistent in the environment.

3.) PFCs (perfluorocarbons): used as non-stick coatings, food packaging and water resistant fabric treatments (i.e Gore-tex and Teflon).  These chemicals are extremely persistent.

4.) Organochlorine Pesticides: legacy chemicals that were used in agricultural operations (DDT is an example).  The use of these chemicals was banned in Canada in 1970.  They are highly persistent and highly toxic and are accumulative through the food chain.

5.) PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls): used as coolant fluid in electrical transformers and electric motors.  The production and importation of PCBs has been banned in Canada since 1977.  These chemicals also build up in the body's fat tissues.  These chemicals are highly accumulative, highly toxic and are very persistent.

6.) Lead: byproduct of paint, tire weights, metal smelters and impurities in products including lipstick.

7.) Methylmercury: byproduct of coal burning, mining and manufacturing as well as compact fluorescent light bulbs and thermometers.

  

Now, let's look at the results of the in utero exposure to these chemicals.  Keep in mind that a fetus absorbs more of a given chemical per unit of body weight because of their small size.  As well, since the fetus' organs are in a constant state of development while they are in utero, their organs are not as efficient at flushing the chemicals out of their system and their blood - brain barrier is incompletely developed, meaning that chemicals can pass into the brain fluid.

Here are the results showing the number of chemicals of each family found, how many samples of the three contained these chemical families and the potential physiological impact of the chemicals :

1.) Dioxins and Furans: two chemicals were found in all three samples.  These chemicals can cause problems with reproduction, the immune system, skin disorders (choracne), elevated levels of diabetes, heart and kidney disease and cancer.

2.) PBDEs (polybrominated diphenyl ethers): twenty-two chemicals were found in all three samples.  These chemicals are thought to be endocrine disruptors, can cause cancers, reproductive and development disorders and can damage the thyroid gland which regulates the development of the fetal brain.

3.) PFCs (perfluorocarbons): two chemicals were found in one sample.  These chemicals can cause cancer and disrupt hormones.

4.) Organochlorine Pesticides: ten chemicals were found in all three samples.  Considering that the use of these chemicals was banned in 1970, their persistence in the ecosystem is nothing less than shocking.  Chronic exposure can cause damage to the reproductive system, skeletal abnormalities and neurological damage.  They are also classified as carcinogenic.

5.) PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls): ninety-six chemicals  were found in all three samples.  Again, considering that the production and importation of these chemicals has been banned in Canada since 1977, it is surprising how persistent they are.  PCBs are reported to cause many kinds of cancer, nervous system damage, birth defects, immune and cardiovascular system damage.

Of the 137 chemicals that were found in the umbilical cord blood as noted above, 132 are reported to cause cancer in animals or humans, 133 cause development and reproduction difficulties in mammals and 110 are considered toxic to the brain and nervous system.  On top of that, the synergistic impact of the chemicals acting in combination has not been studied but could make the situation substantially worse.

6.) Lead: was found in all three samples.  Lead is a neurotoxin and can damage nearly every organ in the body, particularly the nervous system.  Lead contamination can also result in decreased mental ability, reproductive defects and developmental delays.

7.) Methylmercury: was found in all three samples.  Mercury is transformed by micro-organisms into methylmercury which accumulates in the bodies fatty tissues, particularly in fish.  Mercury is a developmental toxin, neurotoxin, respiratory toxin and reproductive toxin.  Minamata Disease is an extreme example of mercury contamination. 

The present and future impact of many of these chemicals is frightening.  We are already seeing elevated levels of cancer in hormone-sensitive body tissues including testicles, thyroid, prostate, ovaries and breasts, possibly related to increased exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals.  Actions by government to ban the use of some of these chemicals is needed, particularly in the case of flame retardant PBDEs.  Experience with the persistence of both PCBs and organochlorine pesticides tells us that these chemicals will long outlive us and that actions taken now may provide us with a very limited measurable environmental response for decades to come.

Brooklyn's Very Own Valdez (times two)

Updated May 2015

The Greenpoint Oil Spill is one of the largest oil spills recorded in the United States, and, interestingly enough, very few people have ever heard of it. I only came across it while searching for a list of the world's largest oil spills. While it doesn't rank up there in the public conciousness with the Exxon Valdez (unless you live in Brooklyn), the spills after Gulf War One or the BP Deepwater Horizon, it is even more frightening in many ways because it took place in a very densely populated urban area.

The Greenpoint neighbourhood of Brookyn, New York City, has for many years had an industrial area located along Newtown Creek which discharges into the Hudson River. From the 1860s, the area became home to the oil refining business. By the turn of the 20th century, many of the 50 smaller refineries had been absorbed into the Standard Oil Trust owned by the Rockefeller family. Standard Oil eventually became Mobil after the breakup of the Trust in 1911 and Mobil became ExxonMobil in 1999. The company used the refineries until 1966; at their peak operation, the complex could refine over 1 million gallons of crude oil daily, producing gasoline, fuel oils and kerosene. Mobil also used the facilities as a bulk storage and distribution centre until 1993. As well, Amoco (now BP) and Paragon Oil (Chevron/Texaco) had facilities in the area. It is assumed that the oil spill did not take place in one event, rather, it took place during nearly a century and a half of industrial activity in the area. Leaking tanks, pipelines and an explosion that destroyed more than 20 acres of the storage tanks in 1919 contributed to the problem. From circumstantial evidence, it appears that ExxonMobil is primarily the responsible party for the majority of the spill volume.

Here's an screen capture from Google Earth showing the Greenpoint neighbourhood. Manhattan is along the left side of the photo and Newtown Creek runs roughly east-west through the centre of the photo. If you zoom in, you can see the abandoned lands where the refineries and tanker farms were located on the banks of the creek and the residential area just to the west of the brownfield.

Here's an air photo showing the Mobil refinery along the banks of Newtown Creek in the 1950s:

On October 5th, 1950 an underground explosion took place in the Greenpoint neighbourhood. The blast was powerful enough to destroy a ten foot section of pavement, shoot manhole covers up to 30 feet into the air, shatter the windowpanes of over 500 buildings and injure three people. Investigations after the explosion showed that gasoline had leaked into the local sewer system and ignited but it would be decades before the massive extent of the problem became apparent.

The spill was re-discovered by accident in 1978 when a U.S. Coastguard helicopter flying over the area happened to notice a plume of black oil flowing out of a bulkhead into Newtown Creek. A boom was set up in Newtown Creek to capture the leaking oil; in the next 6 months, nearly 200,000 gallons of oil was collected. It was originally estimated that an area of 55 acres was contaminated. Studies done in 1979 by the Coast Guard estimated that 17 million gallons of oil-based product consisting of degraded gasoline, naptha and fuel oil had leaked into the underground likely during the late 1940s and that it sat on top of the water table in a layer varying between inches and nearly 25 feet in thickness. In some cases, the hydrocarbons lurked just feet below the ground surface. Fortunately, the toxic layer is capped by an impermeable layer of clay. The source of most of the spill was thought to be Mobil's Newtown Creek refinery. As further studies were done in later years, the affected area was doubled in size and it now appears that up to 30 million gallons of oil and related products may have been spilled. To put the spill of between 17 and 30 million gallons of oil-related product into perspective, the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989 released about 10.5 million gallons of oil according to ExxonMobil.

After the study was completed, the Coast Guard installed recovery sumps that stopped leakage to the surface but did not recover any of the spilled product. Initial actions by Mobil involved setting up small scale oil recovery operations in 1979 and working with the Coast Guard at installing containment booms to capture the oil floating in the Newtown Creek. Initially, no cleanup benchmark was set by the State of New York and no penalties were assessed. Meaningful action on the cleanup did not take place until 1990 when the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and Mobil agreed to a basic cleanup of the site. Unfortunately, the cleanup only involved remediation of the surface; no obligation was put in place requiring Mobil to clean up the contaminated soils. Meaningful cleanup efforts began on the site in the mid-1990s when Mobil installed new pumps to remove groundwater and contaminants. By 2004, it is estimated that between one quarter and one half of the spill had been recovered although the percentage recovered is difficult to assess. At this point, there are three recovery systems operating in the area, two of the systems are owned by ExxonMobil and one is owned by BP.

The area was tested by an ExxonMobil contractor in 2007 and confirmed the presence of high concentrations of methane gas and benzene. As well, high concentrations of chlorinated solvents have been noted in the area. The concentration of methane gas is high enough in some areas that it has reached the level of being explosive making construction in the area quite dangerous. Fortunately (or not depending on your viewpoint), the EPA reports that in other areas, the methane concentration is so high that insufficient oxygen is present to allow ignition. In light of these discoveries, ExxonMobil has committed to development of a vapour extraction system to reduce the health hazards associated with living in the Greenpoint neighbourhood.

Since 1978, approximately 8.8 million gallons of oil and related products have been recovered from the soils beneath Greenpoint and from Newtown Creek. It is unlikely that more than 70% of the spilled oil products will be recovered and even recovering that amount will take at least another 2 decades.

In February 2007, the New York Attorney General's Office filed a notice of intent to sue ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron and other companies for violating federal acts by creating an endangerment to health and the environment. The non-profit environmental watchdog group Riverkeeper also threatened to sue ExxonMobil in 2004 for failing to properly treat the oil-stripped groundwater they were discharging into Newtown Creek. ExxonMobil reacted by basically shutting down their extraction wells for 3 months until an agreement was negotiated regarding water discharge. In addition, a class action suit has been filed on behalf of Greenpoint residents seeking $58 billion in damages from ExxonMobil, Chevron/Texaco and BP.

While the media was able to grab our attention day after day with the BP Deepwater Horizon spill, this story makes me wonder what lurks beneath the ground in many other areas of North America where refineries have operated for decades. We know that the underground storage tanks in our local service stations can leak and create environmental hazards; decades of refinery spills can add up to something far, far worse.

References:

The EPA report on the Newtown Creek/Greenpoint area can be found here.

June 25th - A Special Day for Syncrude

In light of the recent ecological disaster related to oil industry activity in the Gulf of Mexico, I thought I'd post about a serious issue that's facing Canada's own oil industry.

A news item from May 2010 that did not receive a lot of coverage in the national media is the court case in Alberta where Syncrude has been charged under Canada's Migratory Bird Act for the deaths of over 1600 migrating ducks in their Aurora Project tailing pond on April 28th, 2008. Initial reports suggested that only 500 ducks had died, however, as time went on, it became apparent that the deaths totalled more than triple the original estimate. It took both the Alberta and Federal governments nearly 9 months to lay charges in this case. The trial began on March 1 in St. Alberta just north of Edmonton and ended 2 1/2 months later on May 12th, 2010.

The Syncrude tailings ponds are used to store the water, sediment, toxic heavy metals and bitumen that result from the tar sands washing process; the hot water washing process is used to separate the viscous crude oil from the sand that contains the tar. The Syncrude Tailings Dam, the largest barrage dam by volume in the world, surrounds the tailings ponds; roughly 500,000 tons of tailings are produced daily. Currently, the tailings ponds in the Fort McMurray area cover over 130 square kilometres according to CTV. Syncrude hopes that the tailing ponds can be reclaimed by 2023 although the following screen caps from Google Earth show that reclamation will be, at the very least, a daunting task because of the gargantuan size and the rather toxic content of the ponds.

Here is the Syncrude Aurora mine where the bird deaths took place. Notice that the eye altitude on the photo is 26.7 kilometres. The width of the roads on the photo give some sense of the scale of the ponds:

Here is a Google Earth screen cap showing both the Syncrude Mildred Lake and Suncor operations just north of Fort McMurray. The eye altitude on this photo is 46.87 kilometres (20 kilometres higher than the first photo) so the tailing ponds are actually far larger than at the Aurora site. You can also get a sense of the areal extent of boreal forest that has been destroyed by the mining process:

Generally, to discourage migrating water fowl from landing on the tailings ponds, propane-fired air cannons are used. Here is the webpage that outlines Syncrude's Waterfowl Protection program. On the day in question back in April 2008, the air cannons were not functioning, allegedly because heavy snowfall resulted in a deployment delay. When the birds landed in the ponds, they became entrapped by the floating bitumen and could not escape. The birds either died by immediate drowning or struggled to get out of the toxic soup that entrapped them until they died in misery some time later. Syncrude also claims that a shortage of personnel and vehicles prevented timely setup of waterfowl deterrents. In fact, Syncrude's Bird and Ecology Team originally consisted of 13 members and had been allowed to dwindle to only 8 members because of attrition, many of whom apparently were not on site at the time of the incident. As well, only one of the teams four trucks were available. It's hard to imagine how such a mammoth operation had a shortage of both vehicles and personnel but I guess it's all in how Syncrude sets its priorities.

Robert White, the lawyer for Syncrude, told Judge Ken Tjosvold, that the matter should have been handled in provincial court. He claimed that "this was a denial of fairness, justice, common sense and decency". I'm sure that each and every one of the 1600 birds would agree with his statement. Mr. White also claimed that under current regulations, there is a zero tolerance for bird deaths. Here is another of his comments:

"If, therefore, Syncrude is guilty of this crime, the government is complicit and the industry is doomed...I am not sure everyone has understood those are the stakes in this case. It's because, first of all, we didn't let anything loose into the environment, and second, if the Crown can make this statute say what it doesn't, we're done. If by having a tailings pond we're guilty of this charge, we have to stop having tailings ponds...There would be two options: break the law (by operating tailings ponds that would inevitably kill birds) or shut down."

In other words, if the judge finds Syncrude guilty, even one bird death could potentially lead to the laying of additional charges in the future since, as the law stands now, there is a zero tolerance for waterfowl deaths. Basically, the result of a guilty verdict would be that continued operation of the tailings ponds would expose Syncrude to unestimable liabilities because they could potentially be continuously in breach of the law. Mr. White's comments make it seem as though the oil sands industry is holding itself hostage to the demands of the courts which, in reality, may not really be that far from the truth.

Judge Tjosvold expects that he will hand down his final ruling on June 25th, 2010. If found guilty, the Syncrude case will set a precedent for future charges against other oil sands operators including CNRL and Suncor who also have tailings ponds associated with their oil sands operations. It could also mean that every time in the future that there are water fowl deaths associated with these tailings ponds, additional charges could be laid.

Under the Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, the maximum penalty is $500,000 and under the Canadian Migratory Birds Convention Act the maximum fine would be $300,000 and six months imprisonment for company executives. The fact that prison sentences are a possibility has to send cold chills down the spines of Syncrude executives although I suspect it is highly unlikely any of them would cast their shadow anywhere near a federal facility.

It will be interesting to see the final outcome of this case, especially in light of the fact that it will set a precedent for all present and future operations in Canada's tar sands.

I'll be keeping an eye on the outcome.

References:

Vancouver Sun

Yahoo Finance News