Canadian oil sands pollute nearby lakes. Report is blow to Keystone pipeline.

Oil sands production in Canada has contaminated surrounding lakes with substances linked to cancer, according to a new study. The scientific findings may help the case against building Keystone XL, a pipeline that would connect Canadian oil sands with American refineries. 

Todd Korol/Reuters/File
A worker holds a cup of crude oil to be tested at the Cenovus Foster Creek SAGD oil sands operations near Cold Lake, Alberta, in this July 2012 file photo. Production at the Athabasca oil sands has increased dramatically over the past 30 years, reaching about 1.5 million barrels a day in 2010.

Production at the world's third largest source of oil has polluted surrounding waters with toxic substances, according to a new study. The findings add fuel to a fiery debate over a proposed pipeline connecting Canadian oil sands with US refineries.

Lakes as far as 56 miles away from production facilities near Fort McMurray, Alberta, show unnaturally high levels of substances linked to cancer. Researchers say they are the result of roughly half a century of development at the Athabasca oil sands.

While concentrations of carcinogens remain low compared with those found in urban lakes, scientists at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, called the findings, released Monday, "worrying" and warned of future effects from the spread of oil sands contaminants.

“We’re not saying these are poisonous ponds,” John Smol, a professor and the study's lead author told The New York Times. “But it’s going to get worse. It’s not too late but the trend is not looking good.” 

It is worrying because oil sands production near Fort McMurray is on the rise. In 1980, Canada was producing the equivalent of 100,000 barrels of oil a day. By 2010, it had risen to 1.5 million barrels. By 2025, it's slated to increase again to 3.7 million barrels per day.

Monday's findings may bolster support for those who say treatment of the oil sands – a viscous form of oil – poses serious environmental threats. The same day the report was released, protesters assembled at locations across the United States to oppose the construction of Keystone XL. The pipeline would transport the Athabasca oil sands product to refineries in the US for the production of gasoline and other fuels.     

President Obama has delayed making a final decision on issuing permits for the project, citing a need for greater study of its potential environmental costs. Last December, a Texas judge briefly ordered TransCanada Corp., the company behind the project, to stop work on the pipeline, after a property owner challenged the company in court.

Monday also brought some good news for Keystone advocates, who say the pipeline poses minor environmental risk and major economic reward. In its final evaluation for Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman, the state's Department of Environmental Quality concluded that the pipeline's construction would bring in $481.1 million in economic benefits and 4,560 new or existing jobs to the state of Nebraska.

The report also found "minimal environmental impacts" as a result of the pipeline's construction and operation.

Opponents emphasize the effect of what comes out of its construction and operation.

"If burned, tar sands spells 'game over' for a livable climate and would harm community drinking water and farmers’ livelihoods across the region," reads the website of Tar Sands Blockade, the group behind Monday's protests.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.