Category Archives: Energy and Resources

Uhhh, About Those Pipeline Safety Claims: Bad week for Canadian Oilies

Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Tar Sands, ,
Share

From the Natural Resources Defence Council Blog – May 9, 2011

by Josh Mogerman

It has been a very bad couple of weeks for the Canadian oil and pipeline industries.

This weekend, the Keystone pipeline popped, spilling more than 20,000
gallons of tar sands oil and sending a 60’ spout into the air from a
pumping station in the Dakotas. The line remains closed. It is the 10th
spill on the line, which has not been in operation for a full year yet
despite being advertised as a safe, modern pipeline that would “only”
have 1.4 spills per decade. Ooops. This spill comes on the heels of a
much bigger pipeline failure in Alberta where 1.2 million gallons of oil
were spewed in the Peace River region last week. It is the worst spill
in Canada since 1975 and it illustrates a lot of the oil infrastructure
issues that we have been hammering on for some time.

Regarding last week’s spill, the Globe and Mail noted, “The spill raises new questions about the health of Alberta’s aging pipeline system.” Us too. Though Alberta’s regulators panned our report Tar Sands Pipeline Safety Risks
when it came out earlier this year (only to later admit they hadn’t
read it before responding), the event eerily echoed many of the concerns
we raised. While we do not know what was spilled near Peace River
(initial indications are that it was not tar sands oil), we do know a
bit about the pipeline that failed. Again, from the Globe and Mail:

“It’s the second major spill from the Rainbow line, whose owner is a subsidiary of publicly traded Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. (PAA-N61.98-1.00-1.59%)
In late 2006, 7,500 barrels leaked from the pipe, which travels 770 km
from Zama, Alta. to Edmonton. At the time, an investigation determined
that “stress corrosion cracking, fatigue cracking and external coating
failure caused the release.” These issues are often related to age; the
Rainbow line was built in 1966. It is designed to carry 220,000 barrels
per day; last year, it averaged 187,000 barrels per day.”

We also know that the line carried an array of oil products: from the
light sweet crude that most of us picture when we think of oil, to the
heavy DilBit that is the subject of the report.

And that is interesting.

The “stress corrosion cracking” noted in the previous Rainbow spill
is a hallmark of lines moving high sulphur fuels like DilBit, according
to NRDC pipeline expert Anthony Swift. We will be watching to see if
that comes into play when the CSI work is done to figure out the source
of this failure, but our report makes clear that the unique chemical
composition of DilBit makes corrosion-related breakdowns in pipelines
carrying the nasty stuff much more likely.

What is clear from this event and last summer’s Kalamazoo River spill
is that the Canadian oil industry doesn’t do itself a lot of favors.
The Keystone and Rainbow pipeline incidents are likely to give a lot of
people pause—many of whom have been assured repeatedly of the safe
status of North America’s oil pipelines to quell concerns over some
projects that the industry desperately wants: Keystone XL (a
pipeline from Alberta to Houston) and the Enbridge Gateway pipeline
(from Alberta to the British Columbia coast). Both are designed to open
up foreign markets for the tar sands oil that currently can only go to
Canadian and US markets. In both cases, there is fierce pushback along
the pipeline routes from folks reasonably concerned about spills and
especially impact on water resources.

The Keystone spill is particularly damning in that it makes clear
rosy safety predictions made by TransCanada (who would also build the
Keystone XL line) simply cannot be substantiated. The spill really was
the perfect opportunity for the pipeline company to prove its claim that
a spill on their system could be stopped in 12 minutes. Instead,
despite the fact that this occurred at one of their pumping stations
instead of a far-flung field where detection or access would be harder,
it reportedly
took 30 minutes to turn off the flow, 2.5 times the company’s claims.
It would not surprise me if landowners along the proposed pipeline path
were wondering if other safety claims were off by a factor of 250%.

And anyone watching the Alberta or Michigan spill has also been given
real reasons for pause.  The lack of transparency and slow response
have been surprising (heck, even Alberta’s Premiere Ed Stelmach, oil
industry apologist in-chief, has been criticizing the Rainbow pipeline response)
where no public announcement about what kind of oil had been spilled
was made for over a week. The initial size of the spill and proximity to
wetlands were discounted. This followed the spill in Michigan, where
the mere fact that tar sands oil was even involved was vehemently denied
until OnEarth magazine and Michigan Messenger
exposed the truth. Come on guys—fess up. Instead of investigation,
there is denial and defensiveness pretty consistently which doesn’t do
anyone any good. It hinders a quality cleanup, endangers public and
first responder health, as well as undercutting the public trust.

Blaming the victims doesn’t help much either. The brusque, uncivil
response to legitimate concern from folks near the Peace River spill is
also counterproductive. Check this out from Greenwire (subscription required):

“Just because there is an odor doesn’t necessarily imply there are
health-related issues,” said Environment Minister Rob Renner, who sent a
mobile air monitoring unit to the area.

…

“Whoever is saying that really doesn’t care what is going on,”
[Brian] Alexander [principal of Little Buffalo School on Lubicon Cree
First Nation, which is at the spill site] said. “They don’t care about
people’s well-being.”

Tsk, tsk.

Pipeline industry spokespeople like to say, “Oil is oil.” They repeat
it constantly. But that is simply not true. These spills make clear
that the industry needs to do more work to figure out how to move DilBit
safely. We cannot afford to add nearly 2,000 more miles of liability
for oil that a study commissioned by DOE shows
we don’t need. With a decision looming from the Obama administration on
Keystone XL, it seems pretty clear with the events of the last couple
weeks that the new pipeline should wait.

Read original article

Share

Civil Disobedience in the Offing to Protect BC’s Environment

Energy and Resources, Pipelines and Supertankers, WATER, , ,
Share

One is not supposed to anticipate lawbreaking, much less say that one will participate. Interesting that as I write this, it is the 71st anniversary of Winston Churchill becoming Prime Minister of Britain. I claim no resemblance to the great man – I only say that I learned from him that candour is the only sensible, and indeed honest, way to deal with problems.
 
I must tell you, then, that there will be civil disobedience all over the province if the governments proceed with BC’s Fish Farm Policy and its Energy Plan and, with federal blessing, with the pipelines and tankers taking the bitumen from the Tar Sands over BC’s wilderness and down our coast in tankers.
 
Let me set forth the problems about which I intend to be candid:

  1. Our wild salmon are in extreme danger and much of that danger comes from salmon farms with the profits going overseas. Closed containment is rejected by the farmers as being too expensive. Think on that. What they’re clearly saying is “in order to run our business we need British Columbians to absorb the cost of going to closed containment!” They say, plainly, that the cost to BC must be your environment and your wild salmon.
  2. Independent Power Producers (IPPs) are ruining our rivers with their dams, roads and transmission lines.
  3. BC Hydro, on direct orders from the Liberal government must make sweetheart deals with these IPPs by which they must pay them more than double what Hydro (through their export arm Powerex) can sell it for – or use it themselves instead at 9-12 times what BC Hydro can make the power for themselves.
  4. IPP power is produced during the run-off when BC Hydro doesn’t need the power and thus must accept this private power at a huge loss.
  5.  Because of the foregoing BC Hydro must pay IPPs, over the next 20-40 years over $50 Billion – rising with each contract – for power they don’t need. (When the Clark government says we need IPP power to make BC self sufficient they are lying through their teeth).
  6. Virtually none of the IPP profits stay in  BC and the jobs, after construction – mostly from outside the communities where the projects are built – are custodial only.
  7. Both the federal and BC governments support Enbridge building two 1000+ km pipelines from the Tar Sands to Kitimat, one for bringing the bitumen (i.e. Tar Sands gunk) to Kitimat, the second to take the natural gas derivative that is mixed with the bitumen so it is sufficiently liquefied to pass through the pipeline, back to Alberta. Because there is no timeline involved, a burst pipe is not a risk but a certainty.
  8. Kinder-Morgan, who owns the existing bitumen pipeline from the Tar Sands to the the Burrard Inlet near Vancouver, wants to more than double its capacity – meaning a dramatic increase in supertankers carrying bitumen right by Vancouver, the Gulf Islands, and Victoria.
  9. When (not if) a pipeline bursts there is nothing Enbridge or Kinder-Morgan can do except shut off the supply with all the gunk already in the pipeline going onto the lands and creeks it passes. One can readily see that every second after a rupture, the spill will be aggravated. Enbridge’s record in these matters is appalling – their dumping of bitumen last summer into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan being but one example.
  10. These pipelines pass through some of the last wilderness left in the world and there is no way tEnbridge can patrol over 1000 km of pipe in this wilderness and even if they did, nothing can be done about the bitumen in the pipes for days or longer if there’s a rupture.
  11. The Federal and Provincial governments have already agreed to approve huge tankers taking the bitumen down the BC coast – probably the most dangerous coast in the world and, again, it’s not a risk of loss and catastrophic consequences but a certainty we’re dealing with. Prime Minister Harper compares this coastline with the Atlantic coast or the Great Lakes!
  12. Finally, I feel compelled to mention that I learned recently the BC Liberal government is quietly designing a wolf “management” (read “slaughter”) plan that will likely sanction, among other horrors, the killing of wolves from helicopters under the pretense of protecting caribou populations. I dealt with this crap when I was Environment Minister in 1979, instituting a ban on the slaughter of wolves; clearly the forces in favour of this arcane practice never let up.

Here is the kicker: The public has virtually no say as to whether or not these projects will proceed.
 
The only public input permitted is the right to go to the environmental assessment process which comes after the decision to go ahead has been made, and then only to make suggestions about environmental rules to be followed.
 
Here’s what I said earlier: “I must tell you, then, that there will be civil disobedience all over the province if the governments proceed with BC’s Fish Farm Policy and its Energy Plan and, with federal blessing, with the pipelines and tankers taking the bitumen from the Tar Sands over BC’s wilderness and down our coast in tankers.”
 
Now let me pose this question: Is there any way these projects can be stopped without people picketing and going to jail?
 
And whose fault will that be – The Cassandra who predicts what will happen or the governments which not only permit but actively support the environmental crimes, and bankruptcy of BC Hydro, brought on knowingly and heedlessly by these governments?

Share

B.C. aboriginal groups prepare pipeline protest march – groups meet in Calgary over proposed Enbridge pipeline

Energy and Resources, Pipelines and Supertankers, Tar Sands, ,
Share

From the Calgary Herald – May 10, 2011

by Dina O’Meara

CALGARY — Representatives of B.C. First Nations
and union groups gathered in Calgary to protest a proposed bitumen
pipeline from Alberta to the coast of B.C., setting the stage for a
colourful Enbridge annual meeting.

The
Calgary-based pipeline and energy company is promoting the $5.5-billion
pipeline, with associated marine terminal, as a nation-building project
which will open needed new routs to Asia.

Opponents
say the massive 1,172 kilometre line threatens pristine lands and key
waterways along its proposed route across the Rocky Mountains, as well
as the challenging waters of the northern B.C. coast.

A
group will be marching through downtown Calgary Wednesday morning to
Enbridge headquarters to voice their concerns ahead of Wednesday’s
annual meeting.

“I’m very concerned about the
risks that the Enbridge pipeline and the tankers off the north coast
post to the industry and our communities as a whole,” said Arnie Nagy,
president of Prince Rupert’s Local 31 United Fishermen and Allied
Workers Union.

Nagy’s family has been fishing
the region for generations. The coastal waters are known to be
treacherous, and any tankage break would decimate marine populations as
well as put thousands of people out of work, he said.

Nagy,
also a member of the Haida First Nation, was in Calgary along with the
Yinka Dene Alliance, a group of five First Nations with territories
spanning the proposed route, to raise awareness about their concerns
over possible oil spills on the proposed pipeline.

In
December the Alliance publicly rejected Enbridge’s offer of an equity
stake in the project, and banned the pipeline from its traditional
territories.

Members of the alliance met with Enbridge executives and board members Tuesday to discuss their views.

Concerns
were heightened last year after an Enbridge oil pipeline ruptured in
Michigan, spilling 19,000 barrels of sour oil into waterways leading to
the Kalamazoo River. Weeks later, another Enbridge line ruptured in the
Midwest, further bruising the company’s reputation.

And
on Tuesday Enbridge confirmed a segment of its Norman Wells pipeline
system in the Northwest Territories, sprang a small leak, releasing
about 407 litres of oil in the remote area.

While
the Yinka Dene group declined commenting on Tuesday’s meeting with
Enbridge until the following day, an company spokesman characterized it
as a dialogue.

“This is part of an ongoing
process,” Paul Stanway said. “We’ve been talking to Aboriginal
communities and Aboriginal representatives now for a number of years
about Northern Gateway and this is a continuation of that process.”

Chief
executive Pat Daniel, John Carruthers, president of Northern Gateway,
and the 13-member Enbridge board met with alliance members, he said.

The
meeting was an opportunity for executives and board members to hear
concerns from communities along the proposed pipeline route, and tell
Enbridge’s side of the story, Stanway said.

Read original article

Share

Three weeks after crash, Goldstream River remains blighted by fuel spill

Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas
Share
From the Times-Colonist – May 6, 2011
by Judith Lavoie

Three weeks after a Columbia Fuels tanker truck crashed and spilled
thousands of litres of gasoline and diesel into the Goldstream River,
pools of fuel-polluted water remain at the edge of the famous
salmon-bearing stream.

Experts, who say the smell and sheen on
shoreline pools may linger for months, are mulling over the best way to
return the river to its original state with the least disturbance to the
fish.

“It’s a very delicate place and we are trying to walk that
line,” said Graham Knox, environmental emergencies manager for the B.C.
Environment Ministry.

For now, the people involved in the cleanup
have agreed to continue intensive monitoring and to change absorbent
booms in the river weekly until it is decided whether the cleanup should
be more aggressive.

“If we dig up all the stream bed and cart it
away with big machines and dump trucks, there will be more damage to the
river and it will remove all the micro-organisms. Is that better than
having some product in the river that is continuing to break down?” Knox
asked.

Complicating the cleanup are emerging coho salmon fry
swimming in pools where fuel has soaked into organic material. Coho
remain in the river for a year.

Ian Bruce, Saanich Tribes
fisheries consultant, who worked the river Friday with technicians from
Quantum Murray, the company hired by Columbia Fuels to clean up the
spill, said some areas where hydrocarbons are caught behind booms still
smell strongly enough to cause dizziness.

“And recent surveys have
found gasoline has soaked into sticks and roots, and we want to try and
remove it without dispersing it,” said Bruce, watching as tiny fish
sped to the surface to feed as he tried to remove a fuel-soaked root
ball.

“The textbook on this hasn’t been written yet,” he said.

It
is now assumed most surviving chum have made it to the ocean, but the
level of pollution in the river bed is one element in the cleanup
equation.

“If [returning fish] deposit eggs, is there going to be an effect on the eggs?” Knox said.

“We have to do the most good and the least harm.”

Saanich
Peninsula First Nations, who held a healing ceremony, with offerings to
their ancestors, beside the river Friday afternoon, want to ensure
nothing is done to harm the future viability of the river, which
provides food and ceremonial salmon.

“We need to ensure things are being done to address the long term,” said Tsartlip Chief Wayne Morris.

One positive sign is that test drillings of soil beside the Malahat, where the crash occurred, show low readings, Knox said.

Once
the site is clean and there’s no risk of another plume of fuel moving
towards the water, a certificate of compliance will be issued.

However, Columbia Fuels will remain responsible for all costs.

The company is negotiating directly with First Nations, and other costs are being assessed, Knox said.

Columbia
Fuels is working through about 750 claims from people affected by the
closing of the Malahat for almost 24 hours after the spill.

“They are predominantly for people who had to seek shelter for that night,” said marketing director Andrea Voysey.

“The range is from $100 to $150 on average.”

Some cheques have already gone out, but others are still being assessed.

“We
really are trying to be fair and treat everyone the same. We have only
sent rejection letters if there’s no basis for the claim,” Voysey said.

The driver remains on leave from the company because no charges have been laid, Voysey said.

The
33-year-old driver was released by West Shore RCMP on a promise to
appear in court June 16, where he will face a charge of assaulting a
police officer.

The investigation is continuing, said Const. Julie Chanin, West Shore RCMP spokeswoman.

Read original article
Share

Alberta pipeline spill could take years to clean up – Major wetland contamination feared

Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Tar Sands,
Share

From the Edmonton Journal – May 6, 2011

by Elise Stolte

The 28,000 barrels of crude oil spilled into a
wetland near Peace River will likely take years to clean up, especially
if oil soaks into the subsoil or groundwater, said a managing director
of the Pembina Institute, an Alberta-based energy and environment
think-tank.

“One big spring snow storm or rainfall and we could be
facing a large contamination issue, and that’s normal weather for that
region,” Chris Severson-Baker said. “I wouldn’t be surprised if clean up
takes more than a year or two. There will be a lot of soil and
vegetation that will be saturated with oil.”

The worst Alberta spill in 35 years happened on the Rainbow pipeline, which runs 770 kilometres from Zama to Edmonton.

The
pipeline, built in 1966, ruptured previously in 2006, when it was run
by a different company. That time, 7,840 barrels of oil leaked into a
creek south of Slave Lake.

When the Energy Resources Conservation
Board issued a report on the spill in May 2007, workers were still
trying to remove all of the contaminated soil and water.

The
company was told to reduce the pressure in the pipeline by 20 per cent
until it checked out 22 other sites identified as at risk.

It was
also told to run two inspection devices inside the length of the
pipeline to ensure there were no further weaknesses in the metal, and to
fly the length of the pipeline with an airplane twice a week to watch
for small leaks. Those conditions, applicable only on the southern
portion of the line, were lifted in March 2010, said board spokesman
Davis Sheremata. They never applied to the northern portion of the line,
where last week’s leak occurred.

Corrosion on the outside of the
pipe caused the 2006 rupture. Officials still haven’t determined what
caused this most recent break.

The portion that leaked is now
being tested by an engineering firm in Edmonton. Sheremata said it’s
important to determine if the piece of pipe broke because of the overall
integrity of the line or if it was a problem only with that particular
spot. Even if the latter was the case, the board will have to look at
the whole line to be certain it won’t fail elsewhere when it is allowed
to resume operations, he said.

Stephen Bart, vice-president of
operations for Plains Midstream, could not say how much oil was running
through the pipeline when it broke. Nor could he say whether the section
in question had ever been replaced or refurbished.

Severson-Baker
said the most recent spill highlights the need for the ERCB to take an
active role in deciding how long Alberta’s aging pipelines should
continue to operate.

“I don’t think it’s fair to say you can keep
them running forever,” he said. “This is the second time this pipeline
has had this problem. More can and should be done.”

The number of
pipeline breaks dropped 50 per cent in the last 15 years, mainly because
of new devices that run through the inside of the pipe and scan the
walls for weaknesses.

The Rainbow pipeline was scanned once a
year. When information is available on what caused the Peace River
rupture, Kenny said, the association will help its members upgrade
safety practices to take that into account.

Premier
Ed Stelmach has argued Alberta needs to develop new markets, which
includes building pipelines to the West Coast and a new one through the
central United States.

The recent spills will have an impact on
residents evaluating the risks of letting oil companies run pipes across
their land, said Severson-Baker. “If we in Alberta are going to be very
convincing, we have to demonstrate that we have a very robust system to
manage pipelines in Alberta.”

Stelmach called the spill
“disappointing,” but said he has confidence in the ERCB’s ability to
monitor the clean up and ensure pipeline safety across the province.

Alberta’s
aging pipeline system is challenging for the industry, but the
application of new technology is mitigating that risk, he said. “New
technology, new materials -there is so much improvement in pipeline
construction and monitoring.”

The spill will likely affect
discussions about a new pipeline to the coast, Stelmach said, “but
overall I do know that the world needs energy. We are going to get that
energy to them, and as far as I’m concerned the ERCB is doing an
excellent job.”

William Whitehead, chief of the Woodland Cree, owns a trapline that crosses the contaminated wetland.

“That’s
the main stream; it’s a little creek there,” he said. “Good thing they
had that beaver dam on there, eh? If they wouldn’t have had that beaver
dam, God knows where that oil would have flowed. Probably down to
Lubicon Lake. It’s not far from there.”

The area around Lubicon
Lake has been set aside by the province as the future reserve of the
Lubicon Lake First Nation, if their 40-year-old land claim is ever
settled.

Whitehead called on the companies involved to attend a
community meeting in Marten Lake, a tiny community that is even closer
to the spill than Little Buffalo.

“Let (people) know what they’re going to do,” Whitehead said. “Then they would feel secure.”

Read original article

Share

Financial Post: Conservative Majority Win Energizes Sector

Canada, Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Tar Sands, , ,
Share

From the Financial Post – May 3, 2011

by Claudia Cattaneo

Stephen Harper’s big election sweep bodes well for Canada’s energy sector — but that doesn’t mean it will get a free pass.

While the Conservatives are now in a position to make decisions, they
are facing a strong NDP opposition with a big Quebec voice, as well as
continuing input from the large constituency of players with a say in
the energy agenda, from provincial governments to the environmental
movement.

“The worst thing the energy sector can do right now is to assume: ‘We
submit a laundry list and we get it.’ It’s not real,” said a senior
energy industry lobbyist.

“There will still be a lot of opposition influence, so things like
oil sands, climate change, are still issues. People shouldn’t think they
go away.”

Still, some immediate threats to industry expansion are off the table.

Plans to develop new markets for Canada’s oil in Asia are not likely
to be hindered by a ban on oil tanker traffic off northern B.C. coast
any time soon. During the campaign, Mr. Harper said he did not favour
formalizing the ban, which is supported by many British Columbians
worried about possible oil spills and was embraced by opposition
parties.

However, uncertainty over the Asian push remains in areas outside
federal control, such as B.C. First Nations and environmental
organizations opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline proposed by
Enbridge Inc.

Access to Asian market is key to industry growth.

“The current markets for oil and gas produced in B.C. and Alberta are
almost entirely continental, and those markets are in trouble,” Roger
Gibbins, president and CEO of the Canada West Foundation, said in a
statement Tuesday, calling for a full public discussion over whether
local communities should be able to block West Coast access of major
resource projects.

A cap-and-trade system proposed by the NDP and the Liberals is
probably on the back burner now, although other climate change
initiatives will continue to be a priority, with the lead coming from
outside Ottawa — the United States, interest groups, provincial
governments and even industry itself.

Rick George, president and CEO of Suncor Energy Inc., Canada’s
largest oil sands developer, suggested as much Tuesday when said he
expects progress on greenhouse gases to be made on many fronts,
including industry initiatives to reduce impact on air, land and ground.

“We are not the only oil company that feels like that and that are
making big investments in R&D and making a difference,” he said in a
conference call in response to an analyst question about his
expectations on greenhouse gas legislation now that the Conservatives
have a majority.

Ottawa’s support of the oil sands will also continue, but Ontario’s
contribution to the Tory majority will likely bring a more balanced view
of oil and gas development at the cabinet table.

Some Tory moves could even upset the oil patch. The Tories are now in
a position to move forward with the elimination of the Accelerated
Capital Cost Allowance for oil sands investment by 2015, which was
proposed in the budget and is worth $490-million. The Tories also
promised increased monitoring of environmental impacts.

Also, don’t rule out greater scrutiny of foreign takeovers, as more
energy companies court partners to accelerate development of projects,
whether in the oil sands in Alberta or in shale gas in British Columbia.

Now that he can, Mr. Harper may even be persuaded to take on the
development of a Canadian energy strategy, an initiative supported by
many groups, from think tanks to environmental organizations.

The problem is whether Mr. Harper wants to go down a road where
finding common ground and real solutions may be bigger than his newfound
majority.

Read original article

Share

Alberta pipeline leak largest since 1975

Energy and Resources, Oil&Gas, Tar Sands,
Share

From The Globe & Mail – May 3, 2011

by Nathan Vanderklippe

A major pipeline oil leak is the largest in Alberta since 1975, the province’s energy regulator says.

About
28,000 barrels poured out of the Plains Midstream Canada Rainbow
pipeline 100 kilometres northeast of Peace River, the Energy Resources
Conservation Board said Tuesday, four days after the spill occurred. The
spill raises new questions about the health of Alberta’s aging pipeline
system.

The spill represents 40 per cent more than the 20,000 barrels that
leaked from an Enbridge Inc. pipe last summer, in a spill that fouled a
Michigan river and cost that company hundreds of millions to clean up.
It’s bigger than the 19,000 barrels that spilled from a BP Canada line
in 1993, but smaller than a 41,000-barrel leak in 1975, on a Bow River
Pipeline Ltd. facility.

“It’s certainly a very significant leak,” said Davis Sheremata, a spokesman with the ERCB.

It’s the second major spill from the Rainbow line, whose owner is a subsidiary of publicly traded Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. (PAA-N61.55-1.43-2.27%)
In late 2006, 7,500 barrels leaked from the pipe, which travels 770 km
from Zama, Alta. to Edmonton. At the time, an investigation determined
that “stress corrosion cracking, fatigue cracking and external coating
failure caused the release.” These issues are often related to age; the
Rainbow line was built in 1966. It is designed to carry 220,000 barrels
per day; last year, it averaged 187,000 barrels per day.

After the
previous leak, operators of the pipeline were ordered to lower the
system’s pressure, increase ground surveillance and conduct internal
line inspections.

The new spill occurred in a remote forested
area, and crews had to build several kilometres of road to access it.
The oil is largely contained on the 30-metre-wide pipeline right-of-way,
the regulator said, although some has escaped into a nearby wetland.
None has reached running water. The nearest residence is seven
kilometres away, and the ERCB noted that pipeline failure rates had been
in decline.

Critics say Alberta’s aging pipe network is a cause
for concern. The Plains spill comes within a week of a leak on a gas
line near Fox Creek, that killed a maintenance worker who inhaled deadly
sour gas, which is laced with hydrogen sulphide. In late April, another
leak on the Trans Mountain pipeline system, which is also an aging
pipeline, spilled a small amount of oil into an unnamed creek.

The
Rainbow spill was detected by Plains Midstream crews early in the
morning on April 29, the ERCB said. The Alberta regulator does not
assess fines based on the amount spilled.

“What we do is we have
an enforcement ladder ranging from fairly minor infractions, where we’ll
increase audits and inspections, right up to shutting a facility in,”
he said. “When you stop a company being able to generate revenue and
employ people, we find we get results very quickly with them taking
steps to get themselves back in compliance.”

It’s not clear what
punishment, if any, may be used against Plains Midstream, whose outage
has caused customers such as Penn West Petroleum Ltd. to truck and store
crude, Bloomberg News reported.

Read original article

Share
Hydraulic Fracturing operation in northeast BC

How Well Are We Regulating Hydraulic Fracturing in BC?

Energy and Resources, Fracking, Oil&Gas,
Share

I became interested in the “Fraccing” issue when I paddled the Peace River last year as part of the annual Site C protest. During my visit to Hudson’s Hope I was advised by community leaders to look at the Talisman operations on the Beryl Prairie Road and to visit the company’s water withdrawal sites at the Williston Reservoir and on the Peace River. My quick tour of these operations convinced me we have serious public policy issues that are not being addressed by the current government’s aggressive development of BC’s shale gas resources.

Subsequent research and discussions with people who have been paying attention to unconventional gas development for some time has led me to believe that BC must learn from other jurisdictions that are taking a more cautious and thoughtful approach to the use of hydraulic fracturing to extract shale gas. Unfortunately, two BC Ministers have discounted any calls for more public scrutiny or a more precautionary approach to fraccing in BC’s Peace Region. Both claim that BC has some of the best regulations in the world and, therefore, there is no need for concern.

So it’s “drill baby drill” for BC.

Unfortunately, the facts do not support the Ministers’ contention about the strength of BC’s regulations. While the province does have a new Oil and Gas Activities Act and the structure of BC’s Oil and Gas Commission (OGC) has been examined by other jurisdictions, the heart of BC’s regulatory framework is “results based” rather than “prescriptive” – meaning the industry basically self-regulates within a loose framework of objectives set by government.

Two documents available on the OGC website clearly illustrate weaknesses in BC’s regulatory framework: the Failure Investigation Report on the 2009 Encana Swan Wellsite leak and a 2010 Safety Advisory on “communication” between drilling operations.

The 2009 failure and leak at the Encana Swan Wellsite resulted in the release of 30,000 cubic metres of sour gas. Residents reacted to the leak and evacuated the area before Encana was able to verify the leak was occurring and initiate emergency procedures or notify appropriate emergency agencies.

The Failure Investigation Report concludes that “the Emergency Response Plan used by Encana was not updated with current information,” that Encana failed “to follow established procedures for well cleanup monitoring,” that Encana’s “monitoring equipment at the site did not provide” timely communication of the leak to Encana personnel, and that the setup of their emergency shutdown valve “did not enable remote or automated shut in of the failed piping.”

The OGC issued twelve directives to Encana and states in its report that “Encana has provided a satisfactory response” to each directive; however, the real question is why Encana’s shortcomings were not discovered prior to a catastrophic failure.  The answer: the industry self-polices. The OGC presumes that each and every company will protect the health and safety of citizens – until they don’t, then the OGC investigates to find out why.

Unfortunately history, especially recent history, and especially the history of this particular sector, does not warrant this level of trust. To truly protect the public interest BC need more proactive oversight of the industry than failure investigations.

The second example of the inherent weakness of BC’s current regulatory regime can be found in the OGC’s May 20, 2010 Safety Advisory “Communication During Fracture Stimulation.”

This Advisory points out that when a horizontal well is “stimulated” during a fraccing operation an adjacent horizontal well can be “kicked.” Translation: the toxic fluids used to blast open the shale formation at one wellsite can go further than they’re supposed to (up to 750m further according to the Advisory) and end up blasting their way into an already active well, causing that well to blow out. In the OGC’s own language “communication” between wells can “result in suspended production, substantial remediation costs and pose a potential safety hazard.”

The OGC was “aware” of 18 such incidents in BC when it published its Advisory in 2010 and noted all were dealt with successfully. More telling though is the following statement in the Advisory: “Fracture propagation via large scale hydraulic operations has proven difficult to predict. Existing planes of weakness in target formations may result in fracture lengths that exceed initial design expectations” (emphasis is mine).

Given the OGC’s admission of the high degree of unpredictability of fraccing operations and the threat to public safety that “communication” between operations poses, it seems reasonable to expect that the OGC would have established an enforceable regulation creating a safe buffer zone to prevent “communication” and “kicks” from occurring. Not so, the OGC’s Advisory simply recommends that “operators cooperate through notifications … where fracturing takes place within 1000m” of other operations and reminds operators of their obligation to report any “communication between fracture operations” to the OGC.

That’s why the OGC’s document is called an “Advisory:” it is restricted to simply advising competitive companies that they need to cooperate in order to protect the public interest.

Along with more deliberate oversight of the industry, BC clearly needs more prescriptive regulations over an industry that relies on a process that is highly unpredictable and which poses potential safety hazards every time a well is “stimulated.”

Over and above these obvious weaknesses in the regulatory regime are a host of other issues which require more investigation and caution rather than a “drill baby drill” mindset by Ministers: overall public health and safety issues, water use and regulation, cumulative land use impacts, first nations rights, and climate change impacts to name a few.

Rather than discounting reasonable calls for more caution and public input into hydraulic fracturing by claiming BC is already well regulated, the government should use the current downturn in the natural gas sector to conduct a full public review of this sector to ensure BC does have the right regulatory regime for this relatively new and highly unpredictable approach to extracting natural gas from BC’s deep shale bed formations.

Bob Simpson is the Independent BC MLA for Cariboo North

Share
Fish Lake - which Premier Christy Clark would see destroyed for a mine

Batten Down the Hatches! Time to Focus on Saving BC

Canada, Energy and Resources, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Western Canada, ,
Share

BC is a special place – so much so, its specialness requires no justification to those of us fortunate enough to have been born here, nor to those who’ve had the good sense to flee other parts of Canada and the world to make this their home. But BC’s uniqueness extends beyond its breathtaking geographical features, its iconic fish and wildlife, and its rich cultural diversity. We’re not Quebec – but we’re every bit as distinct  on this side of the Rockies from the rest of the country. I’m a proud Canadian – but I’m also a dyed-in-the-wool fourth generation British Columbian and I care very deeply about this particular province, as I know do many of my fellow British Columbians.

And so, in the aftermath of a federal election which granted Stephen Harper his fabled majority, it is crucial that we British Columbians now turn our attention to British Columbia. Our last defence of the environment and public interest here lies with our next provincial election.

In a country as large as ours, with a federalist system in which provinces hold a significant share of constitutional, budgetary, and governing responsibilities, the relative impact of a government on the lives of its people increases the closer to home it gets. The lion’s share of our daily services is provided by municipalities and regional districts; while most of our health care, education, and major resource decisions are made by the Province. I don’t point this out to downplay the importance of federal politics in shaping our society, but to remind BC voters that an even more momentous decision awaits us in the coming months or years (depending on Ms. Clark’s fancy), when we return to the polls to decide the future of BC.

It’s difficult for any concerned environmentalist here not to cringe when contemplating what Stephen Harper will now attempt to do to this province of ours – with regards to oil pipelines and tankers, natural gas fracking, fish farms, federal support for private power, etc. – but that’s nothing compared with the prospect of a renewed mandate for a BC Liberal government, which is even further right wing than Harper & co.

If you don’t believe that, look to Taseko Mines’ proposal to destroy Fish Lake in the Chilcotin region for a gold and copper mine. The application sailed right through BC’s paltry environmental assessment process, only to be halted in Ottawa by the Harper government.

Not even they could overlook the mountain of evidence from DFO and myriad scientific, conservationist, and indigenous interveners that suggested the ecological trade-offs were simply too great. The company had told the BC Liberal government it just had to destroy the lake, or the mine wouldn’t be economically viable – which the Liberals accepted without question. The company maintained this position until the very day after the feds rejected its plan, at which point – lo and behold! – it suddenly realized it could build the mine, make a healthy profit, and keep the lake! I believe that’s what Charlie Sheen calls WINNING!

But who was there, just one day before this extraordinary admission from Taseko Mines, to suggest that as premier she would impose on the prime minister to reverse his environment ministry’s decision and allow the company’s original lake-destroying plan? Christy Clark, who it now appears – and I never thought I’d find myself saying this – may be even further right than Gordon Campbell (making her a full two shuffles to the right of Harper)!!

Not only does this incident illustrate how stark, raving anti-environment, anti-public, and anti-First Nations the Clark administration is (it was the Tsilhqot’in people who led the fight to save their lake and territory from the mine), but it pokes a hole in the Liberals’ perceived economic competence – which the NDP needs to be able to undermine if they are to form government this time around. The BC Liberals allowed themselves to be fooled by a mining company, claiming it needed to destroy the lake, when it didn’t. The only difference was an extra $300 million in pure-profit dividends to shareholders, for cutting corners at the environment’s expense.

It’s the same story with private power in BC – another prime example of the financial folly of this government, made all the more comical by their sudden head scratching as to how on earth rates for Hydro consumers can be going through the roof after 10 years of prudent economic stewardship by their government. How could it be? We must strike a task force to get to the bottom of this! Of course, it has nothing to do with the $50 Billion of unnecessary, environmentally damaging private river power contracts we’ve signed at 2-3 times the market rate! (Note to Task Force: let’s be sure to leave that stone unturned).

So to those fiscally conservative folks in BC who went with Stephen Harper, I suggest we need to hedge our bets and install a progressive provincial government. With the combination of the 75-80% of citizens opposed to oil tanker traffic on our coast, backing up the the strong, unified First Nations opposition to Enbridge, plus the international attention building on the issue and a government on side in Victoria, I like our chances for protecting our coast from a catastrophic oil spill. But that provincial representation is essential in this equation. With both the feds and province walking in lockstep – or trying to outdo each other on who cares least for the environment – for the next four years, we’ll be in trouble.

So let’s not be suckers for the old myth of BC Liberal economic superiority. Let’s look critically at their staggering deficits and debt increases. Let’s acknowledge the NDP delivered better job growth throughout their decade in power (believe it – it’s a fact). Let’s admit that the Liberals have a ridiculous BC Place Stadium roof, a billion-dollar convention centre boondoggle, and wildly over-budget highway spending to the NDP’s fast ferries. Let’s agree that, regardless, jobs and economic growth can’t come at the expense of our environment and the public interest. Let’s survey the the political landscape, take stock of Harper’s victory and what that bodes for BC – and be smart about our future.

We may have several months or several years – or anything in between – but a provincial election is coming in BC and there’s a hell of a lot more riding on it for us British Columbians and our treasured environment than the federal one we (or half of us anyway) just voted in.

It’s time to batten down the hatches and save BC!

Share

Not a Good Night for BC’s Environment

Canada, Energy and Resources, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, WATER, Western Canada, , ,
Share

It was not, over all, a great night for environmentalists in BC with the very notable exception of the election of Elizabeth May as the first Green Party MP in our history. She will find that she has taken on the responsibility of being one of BC’s main spokespeople on environmental matters and The Common Sense Canadian looks forward to working with May and, of course, those other MPs who feel as we do about the environment and related issues. I make no apologies for not calling the election correctly – if I did that I would spend half my lifetime apologizing!
      
As the old saying has it, if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. So it is with us who have taken environmental issues on as a lifetime issue. It’s not that we don’t see, understand and have passion for other issues – rather that we see the environment as being urgent. If we get it wrong over the next few years – and the BC government and the Harper government have got it wrong – then the damage is forever. You simply cannot restore wild salmon runs or erase the damage of a catastrophic oil spill. On the economic side of the environment issue, if you lose your public power to private interests as we seem determined to do, it’s gone forever.
 
It must be stressed that we are not opposed to change where it is demonstrated to be in the public interest. We’re not Luddites out to destroy the “cotton ‘gin’” although any study of that time makes one very understanding of those who saw their livelihoods vanish to an unmanned factory that used to employ them. But – and this must be stressed – the environmental destroyers with their fish farms and private river monstrosities are not destroying jobs that exist – they are pleading the employment they bring as justification for their schemes. After short term construction jobs are over, the only jobs are as caretakers.
 
It’s not as if these huge companies bring us something we can’t do for ourselves – quite the opposite. Our wild salmon have sustained communities for generations and, in the case of First Nations, for eons. These fish farm companies use our resources to make fortunes for foreign shareholders.
Consider this: Fish farmers tell us that they can’t go to self contained methods because it’s too expensive.
 
Why is it too expensive?
 
Because they don’t have to pay for their farm now because we the people and the environment bear all the expense.
 
This is the same with private power companies – not only do they not make a sou for our province, not only do they not make power we can make ourselves for much cheaper, not only do they destroy our rivers, they do it at our expense. We pay their overhead!
 
This it is with bringing Tar Sands in pipelines across our province then down our coastline in tankers – we pay their overhead by taking all the risk!
 
The point I’m forcing is that it isn’t just a “green” issue but an economic one. We British Columbians pay all the overhead of fish farms, private power projects, pipelines and tanker traffic! And there’s nothing in it for us!

But don’t let me deceive you. If we were making bundles out of these deals I would oppose them with every effort I could summon. I would do so because it’s plain wrong. These fish, rivers, ecologies are like trust funds. They don’t belong to us.
 
Speaking for Damien and myself, The Common Sense Canadian, far from being set back by a Tory government, are challenged – and we love challenges. We see a number of MPs in a position to fight and well motivated for the battle ahead.

People vote in elections for many things. It is our challenge to see that when we have the next provincial election, saving our fish, our rivers, our public power, our wilderness and our coastline are front and centre issues.
 
 
 
 

Share