Honestly, Dr. Sinead Earley seems very close to what I’ve been trying to emulate for a while. I have not seen a presenter in such a distinctly academic and professional setting so effortlessly represent what some might call stereotypical millennial ideals—interdisciplinary investigation; awareness and sensitivity of affected minority peoples; implicit feminist methodology; a critical view of historically-celebrated-but-actually-problematic ventures—the Full Monty. It was exciting to see the kinds of priorities set by a researcher closer to my own demographic, and I left quite encouraged as to the quality and integrity that I will hopefully get to witness in the work of my colleagues as our careers progress.

Throughout her presentation, Dr. Earley illuminated the misguided undertaking that was the construction and almost immediate abandonment of the Canol Pipeline, which was only in operation for roughly 15 months at the tail end of the second World War. While outlining the history surrounding the projects—both her own and that of the pipeline—she made sure to keep several points at the forefront. She asked us to consider, “who is that really decides the final fate of the land?”, and made the argument that most environmental remediation projects are largely driven by “capitalist interests and further commodification of nature”—when it’s all just continued resource extraction, who really benefits? This was a view of remediation that I hadn’t actively considered before; most projects to restore natural systems are shown in a highly positive light, without explicitly addressing the harmful colonial prowess that caused the habitat degradation in the first place.

At the same time, Dr. Earley also showed impressive self-awareness of not only her position—one of racial, educational, and able-bodied privilege—but a critical eye of her own discipline, stating that it was not up to her or her team to decide if the remediation project was actually substantial or merely a symbolic gesture. Granted, the removal of harmful industrial materials, such as batteries, telegraph lines, and fuel barrels is no small feat and a large undertaking in and of itself; but a shrewd look at the actual, tangible outcomes of such a project is unusual and, in my opinion, a valuable kind of self-analysis that other research endeavors could perhaps benefit from adopting. It reminded me of my own project: I was fortunate to hear the opinions of Kokanee from the Tsay Keh Dene community—essentially, that Kokanee are for the most part an unwanted species within the Williston watershed. Including the cultural view of a project as part of an interdisciplinary approach would surely be valuable in making the best decisions for further ecosystem management.

Dr. Earley ended her presentation with the same finesse she showed throughout, even in the face of—in one instance—an interrupting questioner. She took into account the observations of another audience member, and showed active interest in incorporating said person’s view of her documentary’s script. I’m not sure I would have asked in front of the audience, but I would have loved some insight into how she overcame any fears and insecurities throughout the course of her project; like the Canol trail itself, I’m sure it was no easy ride.