By Dene Moore, Canadian Press August 2, 2012

VANCOUVER – The National Energy Board says it will increase safety audits on Enbridge  in the coming months based on a damning report into the company’s conduct before and after a spill from one of the Calgary-based company’s pipelines in Michigan.

Board chairman Gaetan Caron issued a public letter on the board’s website noting that the federal regulatory body has reviewed the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board’s report into the massive spill into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River in 2010.

In the letter, Caron said the board will thoroughly review the U.S. agency’s report, but in the meantime, the board has been reviewing Enbridge’s management practices.

“In the next weeks and months, we will be conducting safety audits to review and confirm that improvements, particularly to their control room practices in Edmonton, are satisfactory,” Caron wrote.

In a letter to company CEO Patrick Daniel dated July 26, the board advised that it plans to inspect the company’s Edmonton control room on Aug. 8 and 9 and discuss implementation of onshore pipeline regulations.

The complete U.S. transportation board report will be available in several weeks, it noted, and findings may prompt additional follow-up compliance activities.

The investigation into the Michigan spill has focused unwanted attention on Enbridge as it champions a 1,177-kilometre pipeline that would deliver crude from Alberta’s oilsands to tankers in Kitimat, B.C., for shipment to Asia.

In recent years, the National Energy Board has conducted approximately 25 compliance checks per year on every aspect of Enbridge’s management system and imposed two precautionary pressure restrictions on Enbridge pipelines, both of which remain in effect.

In June 2011, the board issued a restriction on Enbridge’s Norman Wells to Zama pipeline, noting that the company initially reported that approximately four barrels of oil were released in a pipeline leak near Wrigley, N.W.T., on May 20 of that year, but ultimately revised that to up to 1,500 barrels.

The order also admonished Enbridge for its communication with the local community over that spill.

But nothing issued so far by the federal regulatory agency has come close to the scathing preliminary report by the U.S. transportation safety board, which likened Enbridge’s response to the Kalamazoo spill to “Keystone Kops,” saying the company missed opportunities to prevent the 2010 spill and then bungled the response.

Three million litres of crude leaked into the river.

Another spill last week from the company’s Line 14 pipeline running through Grand Marsh, Wisc., dumped roughly 1,200 barrels of oil into a field that is part of the pipeline right-of-way.

B.C. Environment Minister Terry Lake announced Thursday the provincial government will take the opportunity as an intervenor to ask some tough questions of the company when federal environmental review hearings resume this fall.

Lake said the government wants to know more about the increased safety measures Enbridge recently announced it would take to prevent a spill, and more details about how much liability Enbridge and its partners will take on in the event of an oil spill.

Last month, the province announced it could only support the pipeline project if it met five criteria

“We know that you can’t reduce the risk to zero. What we’re saying is that we think you can develop resources in British Columbia in a sustainable way,” Lake told reporters in Vancouver.

“We need evidence to show that you can reduce the risk to an acceptable level. That is entirely separate from the fair share of fiscal benefits, because there is no price that is worth taking a risk with the environment, whether it’s on the coast or the land.”

Lake said it’s up to Enbridge to convince British Columbians that they have acceptable safety measures in place.

The province is looking at other jurisdictions around the world, including Norway and Alaska, to see what kind of measures and regulatory processes are in place to prevent spills, or failing that, to ensure companies pay for the clean-up.

Ultimately, critics say the greatest risk from the project lies offshore in the oil-laden super-tankers that will be traversing the Pacific, and that is federal jurisdiction. And the Conservative government has made no secret of its support for the project.

Lake said he’s met with the federal environment and fisheries ministers to outline provincial concerns.

“We’re at the early stages of this, so I suspect that those discussions will take place,” he told reporters. “They just have to take place. These are conditions that we’ve laid down as mandatory for us to consider this, so those things will have to occur.”

Enbridge chief executive Patrick Daniel is confident the company can meet all of the safety demands by the B.C. government.

“We feel absolutely confident that we can do that,” Daniel said during a conference call Thursday to discuss the company’s latest quarterly results.

Environmental review hearings are set to resume this fall, and final arguments in the process are scheduled for March and April next year.

© Copyright (c)

By Kelly Cryderman and Chris Varcoe, Calgary Herald August 1, 2012

CALGARY — A new pipeline battle between the Alberta and B.C. governments could soon be raging over the expansion of an old oil line that runs to the West Coast.

While public attention is focused on Enbridge’s controversial Northern Gateway pipeline proposal, B.C. Environment Minister Terry Lake stresses his government also expects a planned expansion of the existing Trans Mountain line to meet five conditions for heavy oil transport in the province.

That includes a demand that B.C. receives its “fair share of the fiscal and economic benefits” of proposed pipelines that move Alberta bitumen to port, reflecting the environmental risks facing the province.

“This is not about having a fight with Alberta. This is about standing up for British Columbia and having a conversation about a new type of commodity,” Lake said in an interview Tuesday. “What we’re talking about here is a huge expansion and also product that is a little bit different in heavy oil, rather than the typical product that moves there through (Trans Mountain) at the moment.”

The B.C. government has made headlines by demanding a greater share of the benefits of pipelines that cut through its territory — including the proposed $5.5-billion Enbridge pipeline — as one of conditions to support any project. Other points relate to environmental protection and First Nations issues.

In a public spat that dominated last week’s premiers meeting, Alberta Premier Alison Redford ruled out any chance the province will pony up royalty revenue belonging to Albertans in exchange for B.C. project support.

B.C. Premier Christy Clark shot back that Northern Gateway is effectively dead if Alberta doesn’t want to talk about additional compensation.

While Gateway has commanded most of the headlines, Kinder Morgan Canada has proposed a $4.1-billion expansion to its 60-year-old Trans Mountain line. The proposal would allow the company to more than double its current capacity, transporting 750,000 barrels of oil per day to Burnaby, mostly from the oilsands.

The expansion would also increase tanker traffic in Vancouver’s Burrard Inlet. If Trans Mountain is expanded, Lake said Alberta would gain most of the economic benefits and “there would likely be a fiscal imbalance there as well.

“We know if you’re moving that much heavy oil, the fiscal benefits to Alberta and to Canada are significant. And again, the risks still would be borne disproportionately (by)British Columbia.”

Alberta deputy premier Thomas Lukaszuk said Tuesday the Redford government is open to talks, but is not going to negotiate on the “fair share” of the fiscal and economic benefits that B.C. is requesting — no matter what the project.

He said his government is focused on promoting high environmental standards and the economic benefits of pipelines to Canada as a whole.

“It is abundantly obvious that if we compete domestically, we cannot be competitive internationally,” Lukaszuk said.

“There will be no one-off discussions. That has been very clear.”

The deputy premier added discussions about environmental standards don’t mean an “exchange for dollars.”

“We would go much further being partners in developing mutual resources than perhaps hindering each other from doing so.”

Kinder Morgan expects to file the necessary facilities applications with the National Energy Board in late 2013, and the expansion will take place by late 2017, if timelines are met.

Andrew Galarnyk, director of external relations for Kinder Morgan Canada, said his company will look at what they can do to make improvements to pipeline safety and spill response procedures.

“We’re going to work with the B.C. government to satisfy their conditions, to the extent that they are ours to satisfy,” Galarnyk said in Calgary.

“But we don’t view this product to be any more dangerous than the products that we carry through the line now. And we do carry bitumen though the line now.”

However, the line expansion would see “a larger volume of the heavier products that would go through.”

The Trans Mountain pipeline first opened in 1953 and moves some refined products, such as gasoline and diesel, as well as lighter and heavier grades of crude oil.

[email protected]

[email protected]

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

 Original source article: Pipeline war with Alberta escalates as B.C. adds Trans Mountain expansion to ‘fair share’ list

By Todd Richmond, The Associated Press August 1, 2012

MADISON, Wis. – U.S. officials are demanding Calgary-based oil giant Enbridge submit a re-start plan before it can re-open a pipeline which spilled thousands of gallons of crude in Wisconsin last week.

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration announced Tuesday it has blocked Enbridge’s Houston-based subsidiary from reopening the 687 kilometre line.

Administration officials must approve a re-start plan that establishes leak patrols and details co-ordination with local emergency workers before the company can resume operations.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement that he plans to meet with company officials soon.

He said they’ll have to convince him why the pipeline should continue to operate without an overhaul or complete replacement.

The pipeline carries crude oil to Chicago-area refineries. It ruptured Friday, spraying about 1,200 barrels, or about 50,400 gallons, of crude into a pasture just east of Grand Marsh, Wis., in Adams County. The cause of the spill is still unknown.

“Pipelines operate safely across the country every single day,” LaHood said. “That’s why accidents, like the one in Wisconsin, are absolutely unacceptable.”

Enbridge (TSX:ENB) said it’s not unusual for the administration to issue such an order and the company is already working on complying.

Enbridge spokeswoman Lorraine Little said in an email that repairs to the pipeline should be complete by Thursday and the company is preparing a re-start plan.

“The safety of people who live and work near our pipelines and the environment is Enbridge’s top priority,” she said.

Enbridge officials said the spill was quickly contained and no one was hurt.

State Department of Natural Resources spokesman Ed Culhane said the pasture’s owner and his wife, as well as a woman, her daughter and her mother were evacuated from two homes near the rupture because the air was full of benzene, a chemical that can cause cancer.

Some cattle and horses also had to be rinsed off, he said.

The company managed to vacuum up between 12,600 and 21,000 gallons, Culhane said. The pasture doesn’t have any surface water, he said, and no wildlife was affected.

The company is currently working to skim off the contaminated soil and dispose of it and the company’s contractors are beginning to test ground water for contamination, he said.

The pipeline safety administration issued a nine-page order requiring Enbridge to submit the re-start plan.

The order also calls for additional corrective measures, saying the line crosses multiple rivers, highways and population centres.

The requirements include completing an analysis of the failed pipe; contracting with an independent operator to evaluate the company’s procedures, maintenance history and repair decisions; submitting a plan for long-term testing on the line; and submitting monthly reports on testing and repairs.

The order also questioned the company’s pipeline integrity program, noting tests performed during the pipeline’s construction in 1998 revealed defects in seams in multiple locations and that the pipeline ruptured in January 2007, spilling 63,000 gallons of crude in Clark County.

Another Enbridge pipeline ruptured in July 2010, spilling more than 840,000 gallons of crude near Marshall, Mich.

Province ‘always ready to speak on behalf of Alberta’s interests’

 By Karen Kleiss, Edmonton Journal July 31, 2012

EDMONTON – Environmental groups are geared up to oppose a pipeline that would ship Alberta bitumen to Eastern Canada, opening another front in the public-opinion wars provincial and industry officials are already fighting in B.C. and the United States.

Days after Canada’s National Energy Board approved the first of two Enbridge requests that will bring Alberta crude to refineries in Central Canada, environmental organizations went on the offensive.

They alleged the Calgary-based pipeline company plans to use its Ontario lines to move Alberta bitumen through Central Canada and on to international markets, and urged Ontarians and Quebeckers to demand a public debate.

“If Ontario is to facilitate expansion of the oilsands, then let’s have an open, public debate and proper public scrutiny,” said Albert Koehl, an Ontario-based Ecojustice lawyer who argued the environmental case against Enbridge’s proposal before the National Energy Board.

“We see the obvious impacts of climate change, and at the same time we’re marching full speed ahead on expansion of the tar sands, and these two things have to be reconciled.”

The protests came after Enbridge on Friday won approval to reverse the flow of Line 9A from Sarnia, Ont., to Westover, near Hamilton. In the fall, the company will apply to reverse the flow of Line 9B, from Westover to Montreal.

The lines could eventually carry Alberta oilsands-derived crude to refineries in Ontario and Quebec. From Montreal, Alberta crude could also be exported internationally via the United States, the St. Lawrence Seaway, or through a new pipeline to refineries in Saint John, N.B.

Proponents of that existing west-to-east line once believed it could help establish new markets for Alberta oilsands producers while circumventing environmental opposition to construction of the new Gateway and Keystone pipelines in British Columbia and the United States, respectively.

But environmental groups made it clear Monday they will fight plans to use the existing lines to ship Alberta’s oilsands-derived crude.

“It is not a slam-dunk,” said Steven Guilbeault of Equiterre, a Quebec-based environmental group. “This is a 40-year-old pipeline that wasn’t built to handle the tar sands,” he said, highlighting corrosion and pressure concerns.

Quebec’s environment minister responded Tuesday, pledging his province will “take a very strict approach” to pipeline projects and will carefully review requests under Quebec laws.

“It is important to protect waterways, wetlands and drinking water sources,” Quebec Environment Minister Pierre Arcand said in a statement. “Environmental issues remain central to our concerns.”

He reiterated his commitment to strictly monitor the risks associated with the presence of any pipeline in Quebec, and said the ministry “intends to seek a seat at the table” during NEB hearings.

Enbridge spokesman Graham White said the lines will be used primarily to ship light crude, but that they are safe for transporting oilsands-derived crude, should the need arise.

“We are … ensuring the line is at some point capable of carrying heavier products … because of the expanding oilsands production,” White said. “We want to have that flexibility.”

White said there is no evidence to suggest oilsands-derived crude causes more corrosion inside pipelines than any other product. He pointed to the recent report from the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, which excoriated Enbridge for its failures but explicitly ruled out internal corrosion as a cause for a massive spill in Michigan.

He said the company is in the process of doing “integrity digs,” excavating the pipelines and testing to ensure it is sound.

The Alberta government acted as an intervener in the NEB hearings on Enbridge’s Line 9A, but made no formal submissions.

In its application for intervener status, the province said it was interested in the proceedings because “the application may impact the marketing of Alberta’s crude oil.

“Alberta will be particularly interested in understanding commercial impacts and benefits associated with the proposed application,” the province said.

Asked whether Alberta has any plans to address the debate in the east, Alberta Energy spokeswoman Janice Schroeder said in an email that “the decision is a federal regulatory decision about a pipeline between two locations in Ontario. Alberta was not involved in that hearing, and it is a commercial decision best addressed by the company and the regulator.

She said the province is “always ready to speak on behalf of Alberta’s interests.”

[email protected]

twitter.com/ablegreporter

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

Increase for regulated rate will add $30 to average monthly electricity bill

 By Dave Cooper, Edmonton Journal July 31, 2012

EDMONTON – Power rates for Edmonton-area consumers without contracts will jump almost 28 per cent in August — from 9.03 to 11.54 cents per kilowatt hour, the highest since February.

The 2.51 cent increase will push up the average household’s monthly power bill by about $30.

By comparison, the rate last August hit 12.9 cents, while the rate for August, 2010, was 8.3 cents. Transmission and administration costs make up the other half of the average power bill.

“There are two periods each year when we see higher prices in the wholesale power market, when it is really cold or really hot,” said Epcor Utilities spokesman Tim LeRiche.

Epcor buys power for 600,000 city and regional customers under the regulated rate option (RRO). The firm has been trying to convince the province to let it purchase power over a longer period — more than the five to 45 days in advance of the delivery month. Firms which offer contracts oppose the move.

“While August is high, we have already bought some power for September delivery and feel the RRO rate could subside then.”

LeRiche said the July 9 Edmonton blackouts, when power prices hit the maximum of $999 per megawatt hour for a four hour stretch after four generators went down within a few hours, had no effect on monthly average wholesale prices.

“We had already bought our power for August at that point, and the average was still around $50 MWh.

Market demand is behind the wholesale price jump for August since all of Alberta’s generators are operating normally.

Epcor does not sell contracts, but the other large players — Calgary’s Enmax and Direct Energy — both sell power contracts to consumers.

However, there are plenty of smaller firms and co-ops that are now part of the mix for consumers who want contracts, says Nick Clark, managing partner of Utility Network & Partners Inc.

His company operates what is called boutique retailing, with nine retailers operating under his umbrella, using common back office services.

“In the past, the major barrier to entry in Alberta’s deregulated market has been the massive complexity in data processing, metering, load settlement, customer billing. We automated these functions and today we provide a number of retailers all over Alberta with an easy way to plug into the concept of cloud computing and use our centralized data hub for processing transactions,” said Clark.

Five new small independent retailers will start offering retail prices to consumers soon.

They are: Island Energy, focused on the Edmonton market, and run by Harold Seibert who also owns a satellite communications network focused on ethnic programing; Peace Power in Grande Prairie, run by Chad Mielke, a young entrepreneur; Northern Lights, the competitive retail arm of North Parkland REA operating out of Lac La Biche; Sponsor Energy headed up by Carolyn Martin and Peter Piliounis, a venture focused on creating a retail business linked to fundraising initiatives; NewGen Energy, founded by David McDonald, Jim Floyd and Larry Peters, will be initially focused on the farming and irrigation community in southern Alberta.

The current small firms using Clark’s services are Adagio, Brighter Futures, Bow Valley, E. NRG, Milner, Mountain View, Spark, Spot Power and Vector.

[email protected]

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

By Keith Gerein, Edmonton Journal July 30, 2012

EDMONTON – Alberta’s wheat and oat farmers are set to receive new representation this week as grain producers across Western Canada prepare for the beginning of an open market.

To coincide with the end of the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly on Aug. 1, the province has created two new agencies: the Alberta Wheat Commission and the Alberta Oat Growers Commission.

“They will be advocates for their producers on all issues related to that commodity and they will also fund research and market development projects they deem to be important,” Agriculture Minister Verlyn Olson said Monday.

The new organizations will be bankrolled with refundable service charges applied to grain sold in the province.

For the new wheat commission, a fee of 70 cents per tonne should generate $3.5 million a year. The oat commission will charge 50 cents per tonne, raising about $140,000 per year.

Producers can fill out a form to get their money back, but it is believed most will support the initiative, said Kent Erickson, co-chairman of the steering committee for the wheat commission.

It will replace two other organizations: the Alberta Winter Wheat Producers Commission and the Alberta Soft Wheat Producers Commission. Olson said those two agencies represented only five per cent of the grain grown in the province, while the new commission should represent closer to 100 per cent.

Under the wheat board monopoly, wheat and barley farmers had to go through the board to export their products. The end of that monopoly has created opportunities but also challenges on how research and marketing will be handled, Erickson said.

“We need an organization that is going to provide some leadership on improving the competitiveness and profitability.”

Both new commissions will start with interim boards of directors. Elections for board seats are expected to be complete by early 2013.

[email protected]

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

By Mike De Souza, Postmedia News July 30, 2012

OTTAWA — An American climate scientist who published research behind the iconic “hockey stick” graph of rising global temperatures in recent decades is speaking out against a major pipeline expansion project due to its potential link to rising carbon dioxide emissions from Alberta’s oilsands industry.

Michael Mann, a professor from the meteorology and geosciences departments of Pennsylvania State University, joined U.S. conservation groups on Monday in urging the Obama administration to “level the playing field” in its review of Alberta-based TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL project, which would open up new markets for Canadian oil by transporting it to refineries on the gulf coast of Texas.

“The bottom line is that if we don’t take into account the environmental degradation associated with the climate change impact of some of these decisions then we’re not operating on a fair playing field when it comes to our energy choices,” said Mann in an interview with Postmedia News.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government has described Alberta’s bitumen deposits as a “strategic resource” that creates thousands of jobs and makes up about two per cent of the Canadian economy. But his government has repeatedly delayed plans in recent years to regulate the industry’s impact on global warming.

Several Canadian government departments recognize the oilsands represents the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. Recently released internal briefing notes from Natural Resources Canada have also noted that the industry’s expansion is “inconsistent” with Harper’s international commitments to reduce the country’s annual greenhouse gas emissions to 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020.

Mann said that extracting oil from a “pretty dirty petroleum source like the tarsands,” without factoring in all of the climate-related costs, makes it artificially cheaper than cleaner sources of energy.

The message coincides with a new editorial in the New York Times that urged the U.S. government to consider what the pipeline could “spill into the skies,” as it continues a review that was extended last year by President Obama.

Mann, who recently published a book called “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars” — describing his research linking global warming to human activity and the resulting political and personal attacks — also was among ten climate scientists who warned U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a July 17th letter that it would be “neither wise, nor credible,” to omit global warming impacts from its review of the pipeline project.

“The vast volumes of carbon in the tarsands ensure that they will play an important role in whether or not climate change gets out of hand,” the scientists said in the letter. “Understanding the role this large scale new pipeline will play in that process is clearly crucial.”

The warnings appear to contrast with a recent commentary published by University of Victoria climate scientists Andrew Weaver and Neil Swart, who estimated that emissions from consumption of bitumen as a fuel were lower than emissions from other fossil fuels such as coal. Weaver and Swart’s analysis, which did not examine production or refining emissions from the oilsands industry, found that the bitumen resource in Alberta contains enough greenhouse gases to raise average global temperatures by 0.36 C if it is fully exploited.

Weaver later said that the commentary was meant to argue that consumption of all fossil fuels must be slashed to limit rising global temperatures and climate change.

Conservation groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council say that about 400,000 people submitted comments to Clinton’s department during a public consultation period for the review, urging the government to consider climate change in the scope of its analysis.

“The more we know about Keystone, the less it makes sense,” said Anthony Swift, a policy analyst from NRDC, during a media conference call on Monday.

[email protected]

twitter.com/mikedesouza

© Copyright (c) Postmedia News

Original source article: “Hockey stick” climate scientist challenges Keystone XL pipeline

The Canadian Press July 31, 2012

A former federal environment minister has joined the mounting fracas around the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, arguing the project is not in Canada’s best interest and that Enbridge is the “last company in North America” that should be permitted to do the job.

But David Anderson does not agree with his First Nations groups and environmentalists that have harsh words for the position taken by British Columbia’s premier, instead lauding Christy Clark for playing her cards right.

“This harrumphing and huffing and puffing and ‘Christy Clark doesn’t understand it’ — she’s smart as a fox on this one,” Anderson said in an interview after joining several anti-pipeline activists who called on the premier to take a tougher stand.

“She understands that the whole concept of royalties must be brought up and we’re going to have to shake that tree pretty hard and we don’t know what’s going to fall out of it. She’s started that debate. No one has dared do it since Trudeau.”

Last week, Clark walked out of talks at an annual premiers’ meeting that included discussion about crafting a national energy strategy.

She declared Alberta must negotiate sharing economic benefits, just days after her ministers announced five preconditions that must be met in order for the province to even begin to consider shoring up its support.

Clark and opponents of the pipeline agree Alberta stands to gain the lion’s share of economic benefits while B.C. takes on most of the environmental risks.

Clark has not clearly stated how much more she wants in exchange, or whether it would be skimmed from royalties. However, the government has said it’s not interested in taxing Enbridge any further.

The $6-billion twin pipeline would flow crude from Alberta’s oilsands to a port on B.C.’s west coast for export to Asia.

Regardless of his view that Clark has deftly handled the situation, the Victoria-based former Liberal cabinet minister came out swinging against Calgary-based Enbridge.

“Enbridge clearly has a cowboy culture quite inappropriate for building a pipeline in one of the most sensitive parts of the world,” said Anderson, citing a series of Enbridge spills, one as recently as Friday in Wisconsin.

He said the company has demonstrated “years of inadequate behaviour,” highlighting the oft-cited report by U.S. investigators that describes employees’ response to a calamitous leak near Michigan’s Kalamazoo River in 2010 as the “Keystone Kops.”

And he was critical of the company’s failure to give the National Energy Board the names of the companies that will be contracted by Enbridge to get the bitumen from Alberta to Asia.

“We have not got the right regulatory system to analyze this effectively, they have not done an effective job in asking for information from the company, the company itself is not the right one and the place they want to put the port and pipeline is one of the worst,” Anderson said.

A spokesman for Enbridge did not respond to a request for an interview.

But Clark’s demand that B.C. receive greater compensation for potentially agreeing to take on the risk of an oil spill as a result of the pipeline didn’t impress Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs.

The money doesn’t matter, he said.

“No way, absolutely no way, will we allow or tolerate” the project, he said.

“We will fight this through the Joint Review Panel, which we are doing. We will fight this proposal in the courts and if necessary, we will oppose this proposal on the land itself.”

Phillip called the struggle to shut down the project the largest issue he’s ever had to deal with, characterizing it as “more significant” than both the 1990 Oka and 1995 Ipperwash land disputes in Quebec and Ontario.

The premier has been criticized both for not taking a strong enough stand and also for getting involved at all, with some experts arguing the project is ultimately a matter of federal jurisdiction.

B.C. Environment Minister Terry Lake has suggested the province could block the pipeline by refusing to grant upwards of 60 permits or not allowing access to hydro power.

Prof. Jamie Lawson, at the University of Victoria, said technically Ottawa, could trump B.C.’s qualms by declaring the project to be of general advantage to Canada, or to two or more provinces.

“But that is something that means the federal government would be overriding provincial powers,” he said. “And I think the federal government in recent years has been hesitant to use [it.]”

© Copyright (c) The Province

Original source article: Enbridge pipeline not in Canada’s best interest, former environment minister says

Reuters July 29, 2012

 WISCONSIN – Canada’s Enbridge Inc. raced on Sunday to repair a major pipeline that spilled more than 1,000 barrels of oil in a Wisconsin field, provoking fresh ire from Washington over the latest in a series of leaks.

The spill on Friday, which comes almost two years to the day after a ruptured Enbridge line fouled part of the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, has forced the closure of a major conduit for Canadian light crude shipments to U.S. refiners and threatens further reputational damage to a company that launched an over $3 billion expansion program just two months ago.

Enbridge said it intended to begin repairs to Line 14 late on Saturday after making “excellent progress” in clean-up, allowing for visual inspection of the line. But it still did not know what had caused the incident and provided no estimated on when the 318,000 barrels per day Line 14 might resume service.

An image of the site posted on Enbridge’s website showed a patch of damp, blackened earth near a stand of trees about one-third the size of a football field. It found some oil on two small farm ponds, but said they did not connect to moving waterways and that drinking wells did not seem to be affected.

Although the spill appeared to be relatively small and quickly contained, it comes at a delicate time for Enbridge, which suffered another leak in Alberta, Canada a month ago and endured a scathing report from U.S. safety regulators over its handling of the Michigan incident in 2010, with employees likened to the “Keystone Kops” for their bungled response.

“Enbridge is fast becoming to the Midwest what BP was to the Gulf of Mexico, posing troubling risks to the environment,” U.S. Representative Ed Markey, the top Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee, said in a statement.

“The company must be forthcoming about this entire incident, and deserves a top-to-bottom review of their safety culture, procedures and standards,” said Markey, an outspoken critic of increasing imports of Canada’s heavy oil sands crude.

Just two months ago, Enbridge kicked off one of the most sweeping expansions in its history, announcing a multibillion-dollar series of projects aimed at moving western Canada and North Dakota oil to Eastern refineries and eliminating costly bottlenecks in the U.S. Midwest.

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), which has the authority to prevent Enbridge from restarting the line, said it had launched an investigation. Officials from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources are also on site, Enbridge said in a statement.

Line 14 is a 24-inch diameter pipe that was installed in 1998, making it a relatively new line. Enbridge said it had been inspected twice in the past five years.

TWO LANDOWNERS, ONE HOUSE ‘COVERED’

In most cases, smaller pipeline leaks can be repaired quickly, although regulators may require significant work if they find any cause for alarm. Following the leak in Michigan two years ago, one line was shut for more than two months.

Enbridge said two landowners had been affected and that one family had been relocated for their safety and comfort, but that most of the spill was restricted to the pipeline right-of-way. It kept its estimate of the spill at around 1,200 barrels — about as much as would fit in six very large oil tanker trucks.

“The house right next to where the pipeline broke got covered with oil,” said Patrick Swadish, who lives just about a mile northwest of the spill site in a rural area of mostly farmland about 80 miles north of the college town of Madison.

Oil trucks, Enbridge vehicles and about a dozen crews were working in the area, which had been cordoned off by sheriff deputies. Local law enforcement officials said they had been told it may take up to 30 days to clean the area.

Enbridge also said it had briefly shut down two larger adjacent lines — the 400,000 bpd Line 61 and the 670,000 bpd Line 6A — but both were pumping again within a day. Together with Line 14, they form the backbone of Lakehead, a 2.5 million bpd network that is the main route for Canadian exports.

Another line, the 180,000 bpd Line 13, which carries diluent from Chicago to Edmonton, Alberta, would be restarted once it was confirmed it had not been impacted by the release, it said.

PREVIOUS SPILLS

Just weeks ago, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board blasted Enbridge’s handling of the July 2010 rupture of its Line 6B near Marshall, Michigan, which led to more than 20,000 barrels of crude leaking into the Kalamazoo River.

The NTSB said it found a complete breakdown of company safety measures, and that Enbridge employees performed like “Keystone Kops” trying to contain it. The rupture went undetected for 17 hours.

U.S. pipeline regulators fined it $3.7 million for the spill, their largest ever penalty.

The incidents, plus the most recent spill in Alberta, have caused furor just as the company seeks approval for its C$6 billion Northern Gateway pipeline to Canada’s West Coast amid staunch opposition from environmental groups and native communities that warn against oil spills.

© Copyright (c) Reuters

Reuters July 28, 2012

CALGARY – Canada’s Enbridge Inc. said an oil spill in Wisconsin had forced it to shut down part of the main pipeline system delivering Canadian crude to U.S. refiners on Friday, a fresh blow for a firm already facing fierce criticism from regulators.

Almost two years to the day after a major spill on a different part of its network, Enbridge shut down Line 14 after a leak that it estimated at around 1,200 barrels of oil. The 318,000 barrel per day (bpd) line, part of the Lakehead system, carries light crude oil to Chicago-area refineries.

“Enbridge is treating this situation as a top priority,” said Richard Adams, vice president of U.S. Operations at Enbridge. “We are bringing all necessary resources to bear.”

The cause of Friday’s spill was undetermined and Enbridge Energy Partners said it had no estimate on when flows would resume. Line 14 is one of four lines that ship mainly Canadian crude via Lakehead, a 2.5 million bpd network that is the principle route for Canadian exports.

The news will not help Enbridge build public trust in its network, which has come under scrutiny following several high-profile incidents, including a spill in Alberta last month and a massive leak in Michigan two years ago.

Just weeks ago, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board delivered a scathing report of Enbridge’s handling of the July 2010 rupture of its Line 6B near Marshall, Michigan, which led to more than 20,000 barrels of crude leaking into the Kalamazoo River. U.S. pipeline regulators fined it $3.7 million for the spill, their largest ever penalty.

The incidents have caused furor just as the company seeks approval for its C$6 billion Northern Gateway pipeline to Canada’s West Coast from Alberta amid staunch opposition from environmental groups and native communities that warn against oil spills on land and in coastal waters.

This month, Enbridge Chief Executive Pat Daniel acknowledged in an interview with Reuters that the criticism of the company, especially from the U.S. regulator, makes it more difficult to convince Canadians to support Northern Gateway.

KEYSTONE COPS

In its report earlier this month, the NTSB said it found a complete breakdown of company safety measures, and that Enbridge employees performed like “Keystone Kops” trying to contain it. The rupture, which went undetected for 17 hours, spilled more than 20,000 barrels of heavy crude.

The board said the main failure was due to multiple small “corrosion-fatigue cracks” that grew over time to create a breach in the pipe over 80 inches long. It said Enbridge knew for years that the section of pipe was vulnerable.

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, or PHMSA, said its probe uncovered two dozen regulation violations related to the leak, which spawned a massive clean up that the company has estimated will cost more than $700 million.

In response to the report, Enbridge said it believed its personnel were trying to do the “right thing” at the time.

Enbridge said Line 14 was a 24-inch diameter pipe that was installed in 1998, making it a relatively new line. In most cases, smaller pipeline leaks can be repaired quickly allowing operations to resume pumping, although regulators may require significant work if they find any cause for alarm. Following the leak two years ago Line 6B was shut for over two months.

No injury was reported at the line, which is near Grand Marsh, Wisconsin, Enbridge said.

© Copyright (c) Reuters