Downtown - courtesy of Gord McKenna
Once in a while, I’ll have someone assume that the air quality in Fort McMurray is terrible, due to the fact that we’re a resource-based town… so I quickly ask them to show me the data from their local air-monitoring stations so we can take a look at their own, home-grown air quality. I usually get a blank stare back. “Um, what? Maybe we could check the paper?”
Wood Buffalo Environmental Association
You see, whenever we want to see how our air is, we can go to the WBEA (Wood Buffalo Environmental Association) and check out what the nearest monitoring station has to say for itself. So for instance, as of 3:00 p.m. today, station #6 up in Timberlea was showing this data:
|Temp @ 2m
||11.13 deg. C
|Wind Speed @ 10m
|Wind Dir. @ 10m
Air Quality Index
Now I’m not pretending to understand what that all means, but the “Air Quality Index” rating of 22 from that station shows me that the air it’s reporting fits into the highest rating possible of “Good” (a score of 1 to 25). And it changes every hour. Try that with your newspaper.
If I compare the average data, let’s take the really tiny particles in the air (Particulate Matter – PM2.5), of station #6 to some other stations around the province, I can see that we’re lower than all of the Calgary and Edmonton stations – and that’s just pointing out a few. In fact, that’s about as good as Genesee or Lethbridge. Check out the WBEA’s How Does Our Air Compare section if you don’t believe me.
Anyway, just one more thing you now know about Fort McMurray. If you keep coming back to read this blog, can you imagine what you’ll know in a year?
Posted in fort mcmurray
Tagged air, air quality index, calgary, edmonton, emissions, fort mcmurray, genesee, lethbridge, regional municipality of wood buffalo, wbea, wood buffalo, wood buffalo environmental association
(Thanks to Kyle Harrietha, who earlier on today posted this article via his Twitter account. You should think about following his feed.)
I’ve often thought of the oil sands as an easy target for opponents. It’s relatively localized (the industry is not spread across the continent), there are some great opportunities for photographs, and some of the numbers floating around seem mind-boggling to the general public (this vs. this). I think it’s low-hanging fruit, and it’s being picked on because it’s an easy target.
Don’t get me wrong – the development of the oil sands does have an impact on the environment. How can it not? Is it as bad as some say it is? No, I don’t believe so. Is there room to improve? Yes. Is it a stereotypical “villain”? I’m not so sure…
“Not the Villain”?
“Oil sands not the villain activists claim“, is written by Dr. Roslyn Kunin, and was posted yesterday over at Troy Media. (about Dr. Kunin)
Dr. Kunin (briefly) brings up several points that bear discussion, but the three main points revolve around another fossil fuel, coal, the reclamation of open pit oil sand mining, and the reintroduction of wood bison to the Fort McMurray area.
Here’s an excerpt:
“…do you ever hear all the activists who claim to be so concerned about the environment mention coal? I don’t. Instead, they pour all their voices and their vitriol out on the oil sands in Alberta. Yes, oil production in the tar sands is less efficient than more conventional oil production, but industry experts measure the carbon footprint to be only five per cent to 15 per cent higher and not the three times greater that some activists claim…”
It’s a short piece, but a worthwhile read nonetheless.
Read the full article @ Troy Media