By Staff
August 18, 2105
BURLINGTON, ON
The fate of tar sands pipelines across the country – including Enbridge’s Line 9 that runs through Burlington – is now in the hands of whoever wins the October 19 federal election.
Despite full support from the Harper government and direct Conservative assistance to Enbridge via Mike Duffy, no increase in pipeline transport of Alberta bitumen anywhere in Canada has occurred since the Conservatives won a majority four years ago.
The Enbridge pipeline monitoring site on Walkers Line – looking west. Enbridge can control the flow of oil through this location from their control rooms in Edmonton. Does that make the line safer? The satellite dish in the upper left handles the signals
Enbridge officials have now acknowledged that they won’t be able to submit hydrostatic testing results of Line 9 until the end of the year to the National Energy Board (NEB). Analysts calculate that the repeated delays to the project launched three years ago have added $100 million to the company’s costs of reversing the direction of flow in the 40-year-old pipe and increasing its volumes by 25 percent.
Since the NEB ordered the hydrostatic testing in three small sections of the pipeline in response to pressure from municipalities and the Ontario government, another huge pipeline leak in Alberta has business commentators suggesting that further oil sands pipes “look doomed”. The 5-million litre Nexen spill from a brand new state-of-the-art pipeline leaked for up to two weeks before being discovered in mid-July.
The 1200 km proposed Northern Gateway tar sands pipeline across northern BC to Kitimat has NEB approval but faces multiple First Nation lawsuits and is widely seen as having no hope of being built. The Keystone XL pipe across the border into the United States has been waiting more than three years for a decision from President Obama that’s predicted to be a refusal. A plan to twin a Kinder Morgan pipe from Alberta to Vancouver is tied up in an NEB review and has seen dozens of protestors arrested and vows from municipal mayors that they will prevent the project from proceeding.
Part of a May 2014 demonstration against the upgrading of a pipeline.
The main blockage has been massive public opposition, especially in British Columbia and particularly from First Nations. The dismantling of federal environmental laws and the discrediting of the National Energy Board (NEB) have also played a part in delaying or halting projects that appeared almost certain to proceed. Provincial and municipal governments as well as federal opposition parties are saying thorough environmental reviews must now occur including consideration of both upstream and downstream climatic impacts of expanded tar sands extraction.
Those factors have converted municipal and provincial governments into pipeline obstacles – with the most recent evidence filed last week when the Ontario Energy Board concluded that the risks of the proposed Energy East pipeline from Alberta to New Brunswick outweigh the benefits to the province and that it will drive up natural gas prices.
“There is an imbalance between the economic and environmental risks of the project, and the expected benefits for Ontarians,” warns the Ontario regulator. “The primary concerns of Ontarians are about pipeline safety, and the impact of Energy East on their lakes, rivers and drinking water in the event of a spill.”
The report puts additional pressure on the NEB which has elected to proceed with a review of the 4600 km pipeline despite not yet receiving complete information from the proponent, TransCanada Pipelines. The credibility of the NEB continues to be severely challenged, with another hit last week over the withdrawal of 25 participants in the Board’s review of the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline from Alberta to Vancouver.
It has not been a good time for pipe line companies anywhere in the country – Enbridge’s Line 9 was to be upgraded to handle chemically altered bitumen from the Alberta tar sands is going nowhere fast.
This NEB review had earlier been denounced by the mayors of Vancouver, Burnaby and several other municipalities as well as by the former heads of both BC Hydro and the Insurance Corporation of BC. The most recent accusations of unfairness came after a Kinder Morgan consultant was appointed to the Board by the federal government.
Other recent blows include revelations of spying on peaceful pipeline opponents that have led to a lawsuit against the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and last week’s Guardian expose that the federal government has secretly spent millions on tar sands advocacy. Court disclosures of Mike Duffy emails show him secretly meeting with Enbridge apparently on behalf of Prime Minister Harper.
The Gazette is indebted to CATCH (Citizens at City Hall) in Hamilton who publish regularly about Hamilton civic affairs that is not generally available in the mass media.
After the timeline you left out:
Did Enbridge have proper notice that the pipeline was susceptible to leaks?:
2008: An internal Enbridge inspection identifies 140 corrosion defects on 6B.
2009: Another internal Enbridge inspection identifies 250 more corrosion defects on 6B.
You left out:
No, not if the shutoff valves are still on the wrong side of the rivers. What happens to the dilbit that is in the pipe between the leak at the river and the shutoff valve, which could be up to 1 km. away? It goes into the water, along with all the other dilbit that spills until Enbridge notices it in Edmonton.
To see how long that can be, refer to this timeline from the Enbridge Kalamazoo dilbit spill:
This should have come after the first paragraph.
Re: >The Enbridge pipeline monitoring site on Walkers Line – looking west. Enbridge can control the flow of oil through this location from their control rooms in Edmonton. Does that make the line safer? July 25, 2010
5:57 p.m.: Workers in Enbridge’s Edmonton, Alberta, control center prepare to take 6B offline for scheduled 10-hour shutdown; first alarms triggered.
9:25 p.m.: Calhoun County residents began dialing 911 to complain of noxious odors.
July 26, 2010
4 a.m.: Controllers in Edmonton try to restart 6B as scheduled; alarms sound.
5 a.m.: Controllers shut down 6B.
7:10 a.m.: Controllers try second restart; more alarms sound.
7:48 a.m.: Controllers shut down 6B again. 2008: An internal Enbridge inspection identifies 140 corrosion defects on 6B.
2009: Another internal Enbridge inspection identifies 250 more corrosion defects on 6B.<
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120626/timeline-dilbit-diluted-bitumen-marshall-michigan-kalamazoo-enbridge-pipeline-6b-oil-spill
There are a number of prominent misrepresentations and significant factual errors in this article. The Burlington Gazette made no attempt to contact Enbridge for this story. I have attempted to counter the most egregious errors as follows: Firstly, Mike Duffy provided no assistance to Enbridge whatsoever in any project or “pipeline transport of Alberta bitumen” as alleged in the article. Enbridge is on the public record in stating that all contacts were initiated by Mr. Duffy and at no time did Enbridge solicit Senator Duffy’s help to lobby the federal government. In the interest of clarity, we also took the extra step to notify the Prime Minister’s Office at the time, that Senator Duffy did not represent Enbridge or our interests. This is misrepresented twice in the story.
Secondly, Line 9 is not a “tar sands pipeline.” The destination refineries in Quebec are both light oil refineries and that is the primary product the line will carry: processed light oil. Thirdly, It is absolutely and provably untrue to make the statement “no increase in pipeline transport of Alberta bitumen anywhere in Canada has occurred since the Conservatives won a majority four years ago.” Enbridge has successfully implemented and completed several Canadian Mainline expansion projects during that time to increase oil sands crude market access in both the U.S. and Canada. In fact, since 2011 we have increased our operational capacity from 1.5 million barrels a day to more than 2.5 million barrels a day, much of that in heavy oil products including dilbit, and we continue to ship record volumes. This information is easily available in our public financial filings and on our website. It is also covered regularly in news media.
The caption for the map visual is incorrect. Line 9 was not “upgraded to handle chemically altered bitumen…” pump stations were converted to allow the line to flow in its original direction and to safely accommodate more capacity. Whether a transmission pipeline carries heavies, like diluted bitumen, or lights, the specifications are identical.
There is a tremendous amount of scientific and factual evidence that Enbridge has provided on this project and this line to regulators, municipalities, First Nations, landowners and the public. We would encourage anyone who is interested to review information that has been submitted to the NEB and is available on their public website, or to visit our website that explains in much more detail how we manage things such as the products on our lines and the integrity and safety of our pipelines, or how we assemble a plan for emergency response. A productive discussion can only occur through an objective understanding of these facts. Line 9 is an essential service for the people of Southern Ontario and Quebec and it is our responsibility to operate and maintain it safely.
Graham White
Enbridge Pipelines
Good article.