Dear Editor
I attended, and was one of the organizers of, the Sept. 19 meeting held at the North Battleford Public Library at which Ricardo Segovia of E-Tech International and Resurgence Environmental presented his report "Independent Primary Assessment of Husky Energy Oil Spill into North Saskatchewan River.”
After reading John Cairns' report of that meeting, "Independent assessment of spill paints grim picture." I thought I must have been at a different meeting than he was. So I have decided to give my account of that meeting.
"E-Tech International is a non-profit organization based in New Mexico, U.S.A., that provides environmental technical support to communities in less industrialized countries on the potential environmental impacts of large development projects. We work closely with partners in Indigenous federations; local, state, and national governments; civil society; academia; and industrial professionals, as well as with the companies proposing or conducting the development. E-Tech is transparent in approach and becomes involved at the request of the communities and only when we feel our presence can positively influence the lives of community members." Source: www .etechinternational.org.
E-Tech International provides technical assistance to ResurgenceEnvironmental, a technical collective that provides consulting services to communities in Canada.
Segovia is a hydrogeologist working for E-Tech International and Resurgence Environmental. He has been involved in environmental evaluations and community training in Ecuador and Peru. Formerly, he worked as a groundwater consultant in Vancouver, B.C. He holds a Bachelor of Science in Geological Engineering and is presently completing a master’s degree in ecology.
Following the Husky spill of diluted bitumen into the North Saskatchewan River near Lloydminster a small group of citizens, who were concerned about the lack of information coming out of Husky and the government, contacted E-Tech International/ Resurgence Environmental to come and do an independent assessment. In August, Segovia and his team were in Saskatchewan interviewing people in the affected communities and taking samples of sediment from strategic locations along the river between Tobey Nollet Bridge and Cumberland. ALS Global, a lab in Saskatoon, did the analysis of the samples. The E-Tech team chose to take sediment samples rather than water samples because one month had elapsed since the spill, allowing the lighter solvents to evaporate from the surface of the water and the heavy crude to attach to sediment and submerge. They were able to confirm the presence of toxic chemicals at the Cecil Ferry (20 kilometres downstream from Prince Albert) and at Tobey Nollet Bridge near the spill site. People can access their full report at: http://bit.ly/2cl1Uv2.
There were 50 people in attendance at the Sept.19 meeting to hear Segovia's assessment, to ask questions and to voice their concerns. They were people from all walks of life —farmers, teachers, social workers, homemakers , to name a few. There were elders and youth, First Nation and non-First Nation. They were all there because of their concern about the health of our river. They had serious and thoughtful comments and questions in a discussion that lasted over an hour following Segovia's presentation.
The concerns of those present included:
• the delayed response from Husky in detecting the spill that allowed the oil to travel further downstream than it would have if they had responded immediately;
• delayed notification to affected communities;
• lack of transparency from Husky - no raw data from testing that Husky has done that can be analyzed independently;
• the need for ongoing monitoring and testing of both the water and the sediment all along the affected area from Tobey Nollet Bridge to Cumberland Lake and the Delta, with raw data made public;
• the need for Environmental Impact Assessments to be done on any proposed oil projects and on pipelines;
• the need for stronger regulation of the oil industry by government as self regulation by industry is not acceptable;
• the need for higher standards of pipeline construction especially where pipelines cross or are adjacent to bodies of water;
• the need for increased funding and increased staff to the provincial regulators so they can carry out regular inspections of pipelines;
• how to protect ourselves, our families, our animals when toxicity levels in the water will remain for years to come due to submerged heavy crude oi; and
• what next steps can we take to protect the water for future generations.
Segovia drew a comparison between the Husky spill into the North Saskatchewan River on July 20, 2016 and the Enbridge spill into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan in 2010. Although the Enbridge spill was larger, it was similar in the type of oil spilled (diluted bitumen) and the type of affected waterway. The lighter constituents evaporated quickly and a large portion of the oil then became submerged. It then became the difficult choice for communities and regulators of whether to attempt to remove the submerged oil by dredging or other means (a huge disturbance in itself) or to leave behind contaminants that can resurface for many years. In the case of the Kalamazoo River, the recovery of submerged oil continued over the spring and summers of the following two years. They have only reached a final settlement with Enbridge this past summer, a full six years after the spill.
Here in Saskatchewan, the Water Security Agency has said that about 88 per cent of the spill has been recovered. However, they have also said it is difficult to know how much of the oil is at the bottom of the river. David Schindler, a scientist at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, says that in most cases of oil spills into waterways only five to 10 per cent is ever recovered. The rest evaporates, sinks or escapes along the shoreline. So there is conflicting information about how much oil is still in the river. Regardless, this spill is far from over.
The Water Security Agency has given North Battleford and Prince Albert the go ahead to restart using the river water in their water treatment plants saying that the water is safe as long as it is treated properly. However, Segovia advises everyone to take additional precautions by putting a carbon filter on their drinking water tap and also on their showers because the PAH group of chemicals is absorbed through the skin. He also advised to not let your dogs go in the river.
People have legitimate concerns. This contamination of our river should never have happened. Yes, people are critical of the industry whose priority is profit not people and critical of our government that is cutting the budget of the provincial regulators and moving more and more towards a situation of self-regulation by the industry. As citizens in a democracy it is our civic duty to speak out when we believe something is not right. We have to preserve clean water for everyone now and in the future, and not just for people who have access to high tech water treatment plants. We have to protect the water for the organisms that live in it or the fish will die. We have to protect the water for all the animals, wild and domestic, who have to drink from it. This has to be top priority for everyone.
There is no place for promoting divisiveness in the community — an attitude of "us" and "them" — as is apparent in the wording and tone of Cairns' article. We are all in this together. Water is life. Without water there is no life, period!
Anyone who wants to help as we move forward in raising awareness and lobbying government, or who just wants more information, can call me at 306-445-1451.
Elizabeth Cline
North Battleford
