A lack of reliable scientific information about what happens when crude oil is spilled into rivers or the ocean and a fragmented system of response plans is hindering Canada’s efforts to prevent and clean up oil spills, says a major report by the Royal Society of Canada.

The lengthy report was written by a panel of seven experts on oil chemistry, behaviour and toxicity.

Case studies, including B.C.’s Pine River pipeline break and the April leak of fuel oil into Vancouver’s English Bay, showed delays in response time were common, with causes ranging from poor communication and coordination among government agencies to lack of preparedness.

But the main problem was an absence of reliable scientific data.

“There is a critical need for a coordinated and integrated database of information relevant to the assessment of risk of oil spills in Canada,” says the report.

Groups do not always share information and response scenarios can be unrealistic, according to the panel, which is recommending the formation of a joint government, industry and academic research program to come up with a national database to provide accurate information when an oil spill occurs.

“There is an urgent need in Canada to develop science-based guidance and protocols for oil spill impact, risk assessments and clean-up,” the report says

Sometimes the quality of existing data is questionable, the panel found. For example, pipeline leaks usually take hours to discover rather than minutes, so scenarios based on instant identification of a problem are unrealistic.

Panel chair Kenneth Lee, oceans and atmosphere director at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Perth, Australia, said in an interview that Canada has relatively stringent rules and processes, but they would be improved by a coordinated approach to research in key areas, such as the behaviour of different types of oil, pre-spill baselines, new techniques and the effectiveness of spill response options.

Lee would not speculate on the cost of a national research program or how it would be put together

“We are scientists so we come up with the recommendations. The policies and putting things in place are not our decision,” he said.

Behaviour of Diluted Bitumen Needs More Research

An area pinpointed as needing more research is spill behaviour of diluted bitumen, the tar diluted with condensate that flows from the Alberta oilsands to the B.C. coast.

“It is not a product that is the same every day,” said Lee.

“Depending on the chemistry, some sinks and some floats even under the same conditions. There are a lot of complex interactions and we need that kind of data to make decisions,” he said.

The report acknowledges that heavy oils and dilbit present problems as they do not easily evaporate or dissolve in water.

“Thus their potential damage to the environment, waterfowl and fur-bearing animals is greater. Clean-up of heavy oils and bitumen is extremely difficult for both marine and inland spills because of their specific gravity, viscosity flash point properties and high asphaltene content,” the report states.

Weather and wave action will also affect the behaviour of the oil.

“Every oil spill is different,” Lee said.

The report points out that more research is needed to look at the effect of oil spills on sensitive ecosystems such as Arctic waters and wetlands and the effectiveness of spill response in remote areas.

“Investigations of oil spill effects in Arctic Canada must include collaboration with indigenous peoples to ensure that traditional knowledge is incorporated into our overall understanding of the risks of oil spills in northern locations,” it says.

Sociological factors should also be part of the equation because of public concerns over returning beaches or rivers to their pre-spill state.

Spills should be used as an opportunity to gain information for the national database and that means funding and teams of researchers should be in place and ready to go before the spill occurs, said Lee, who is also advocating for conducting research through small controlled spills.

With Canada producing more than 3.7 million barrels of oil every day, there is always the risk of a spill and the panel suggests the focus should be on prevention of large spills and rapid and effective response to smaller ones.

The questions that need to be asked are whether the risks are acceptable and whether they can be handled and to make those decisions accurate scientific data is needed, Lee said.

The RSC expert panel report was commissioned by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association.

Image: Western Canada Marine Response Corporation

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Secrecy surrounding pipeline emergency response plans will soon be the subject of public consultation conducted by the National Energy Board (NEB), according to the board’s CEO Peter Watson.

As the CBC reports, speaking to a group of business leaders in Vancouver on Monday, Watson said, “Canadians deserve to be consulted on the transparency of emergency management information for NEB-regulated pipelines.”

Pipeline operator Kinder Morgan recently made headlines for refusing to disclose emergency response plans for its TransMountain pipeline expansion project, which would nearly triple the capacity of the existing line. Kinder Morgan refused to release an unredacted version of the emergency plan despite repeated requests from the province of B.C.

As DeSmog Canada first reported, the same emergency response plans were released in full to the public in the U.S. for portions of the pipeline that extend down into Washington State.

Redacted from the B.C. plans were contact details for company officials and first responders, information regarding spill response measures and cleanup equipment as well as spill response timelines for each unique segment of the pipeline.

Kinder Morgan argued disclosing the documents in B.C. triggered "security concerns." The NEB ruled the company was within its right to keep the information secret, leading some to question the legitimacy of the federal pipeline review process.

Now, Watson said the NEB wants to rethink the disclosure issue.

"There may indeed be some specific information that should be kept confidential,” he said, “but I believe that we have been too conservative in our approach to this issue to date."

"And to tell you the truth," he added, "I haven't been happy with the amount of emergency response information that pipeline companies or the NEB has been sharing with the public."

Watson said the recent bunker fuel spill in Vancouver’s English Bay put a spotlight on spill response capacities.

"I do not believe we have a choice on this matter," he said. "We need to help ensure that everybody involved in an emergency response for a leak in an existing pipeline knows what their role is — and how to deliver on that role, when something serious happens."

The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA) recently announced its would form a new task force to address public concern over disclosure rules.

“A number of our members have faced significant public pressure to disclose all information contained in emergency response plans,” Jim Donihee, chief operating officer with CEPA, said.

“The CEPA task force will work to support that by establishing clear principles and guidelines that seek to find the right balance between the public’s right to know, the privacy of personal information and the security considerations also required for public safety.”

Image Credit: NEB

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA) is working hard to undo damage caused by pipeline company Kinder Morgan’s refusal to release oil spill response plans in British Columbia. The company’s lack of disclosure angered the province of B.C., especially when it was revealed that Kinder Morgan released detailed spill response plans in Washington State for portions of the pipeline that extend across the border.

The pipeline association recently announced it would form a task force to address the issue, hoping to waylay growing public concerns by developing “guiding principles” for disclosure.

“A number of our members have faced significant public pressure to disclose all information contained in emergency response plans. The CEPA task force will work to support that by establishing clear principles and guidelines that seek to find the right balance between the public’s right to know, the privacy of personal information and the security considerations also required for public safety,” Jim Donihee, chief operating officer with CEPA, said.

In the case of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline, the company argues it shouldn’t disclose spill response plans — even to the province of British Columbia, which has requested the plans during the National Energy Board Review of the Trans Mountain pipeline — because of “safety concerns.”

DeSmog Canada first published the documents Kinder Morgan publicly released in the U.S., comparing them to similar documents severely redacted or completely withheld in B.C.

Since then, the story has been covered in the Globe and Mail, the CBC and the Canadian Press, forcing Kinder Morgan and the National Energy Board (NEB) to defend the company’s actions.

NEB spokesman Darin Barter said the board was considering making public pipeline emergency plans mandatory for energy companies.

“Our chairman is not very happy that there’s a lack of transparency around these emergency response plans,” Barter said. “Canadians deserve to have that information. There’s a public will for that information. Industry needs to find a way to make that information public.”

In a recent letter to Enbridge, the NEB expressed concern over the company’s requirement that municipalities sign non-disclosure agreements before emergency plans are released.

“I am concerned that Enbridge’s practice of requesting NDAs is not consistent with the principle of regulatory transparency that guides the board’s regulatory approach,” NEB chairman Peter Watson said in a letter, available on the NEB website.

Watson said he would like to know how Enbridge would proceed with a municipality unwilling to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

Despite the NEB’s recent push for increased transparency, the board ruled Kinder Morgan was within its right to deny the province of British Columbia detailed spill response and emergency plans for the Trans Mountain pipeline.

When B.C. asked the NEB to compel Kinder Morgan to release the plans, the board refused.

As DeSmog Canada reported, the plans withheld in B.C. included contact information for first responders and company officials and outlined access to oil booms, pumps, hoses and storage tanks and other supplies needed in the event of an oil spill.

Canadian Energy Pipeline Association vice-president Pay Smyth said the group is seeking disclosure standards that will satisfy the public demand for disclosure while protecting personal information of company employees and first responders.

“This is by no means a PR exercise,” Smyth told the Calgary Herald. “We are treading new ground here. Industry recognizes that Canadians have the right and the need to know and we’re going to make sure they have access to information.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

This post is part of a series. For Part 2, click here. 

What do we know about dilbit? Since coming on the scene, the mixture of tar sands crude and a lighter substance such as natural gas condensate has been a matter of much speculation. How does it behave in pipelines? Does it float in water or sink?

Now, Canadian oil producers are saying that diluted bitumen (dilbit) has gotten a bad name. They are seeking clean up its image with an industry-funded report claiming that the tar sand mixture is no more dangerous to pipelines than some conventional crude oil.

The report, entitled “Dilbit Corrosivity,” was prepared by UK’s Penspen Group for the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA). It seeks to debunk arguments like those made at the hearings on the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline, that dilbit’s high viscosity, acidity, and level of sediments could cause corrosion that would leave the areas around pipelines more vulnerable to spills. It argues that, because dilbit is no more corrosive than other forms of heavy crude, no special plans need to be made to prevent spills.

“Some of the literature is ill-informed and wrong: both Dilbit and Synbit in a crude oil transmission pipeline environment is no more corrosive than comparable heavy sour crudes and in many cases may be less corrosive,” it reads.

“Consequently, there are no significant additional implications for corrosion control in a pipeline carrying Dilbit and Synbit as part of pipeline integrity management over and above what is already standard practice.”

Anthony Swift, an attorney with the National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) disagrees with this characterization. He argues that Penspen’s findings are not new and describes the CEPA report as a “rehash of a number of flawed government and industry studies intended to promote tar sands.”

He points to a 2011 NRDC report that states, “There are many indications that DilBit is significantly more corrosive to pipeline systems than conventional crude. For example, the Alberta pipeline system has had approximately sixteen times as many spills due to internal corrosion as the U.S. system. Yet, the safety and spill response standards used by the United States to regulate pipeline transport of bitumen are designed for conventional oil.”

Speaking over the phone from DC, Swift says the CEPA report’s first mistake is to compare dilbit to heavy crude. He believes it would be far more beneficial to compare dilbit to West Texas Intermediate, a lighter crude that is considered the benchmark for crudes in North America and “represents the types of crudes that have historically moved on the North American pipeline system.”

Swift also takes issue with CEPA’s claim that the typical temperature of a pipeline carrying dilbit is 17 to 40 °C and that the Keystone XL pipeline will operate at 26 to 48 °C. He says that public documents on TransCanada’s application for the Keystone 1 had a top range of 70 °C and those for the Keystone XL pipeline had an average operating temperature of 60 °C.

This is a crucial issue because dilbit tends to be more viscous than conventional crude oil and that viscosity can lead to higher pipeline temperatures. Those higher operating temperatures have been linked to rises in both internal and external pipeline corrosion of the kind the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found after 2010 the Kalamazoo River spill.

It should be noted that CEPA is the group responsible for a 2011 letter to the Harper government outlining some of its preferred changes to environmental regulation, which Greenpeace obtained to last year via an Access to Information request.

Sandra Burns, CEPA’s manager of communications, later authored a blog post in the Huffington Post arguing that their lobbying strategies were well within reason and that bills C38 and C45, which included many of their suggested changes, would reduce the number of studies on “activities that were benign or whose effects were well understood and mitigated through standard practices.”

The new report seems to argue that CEPA considers transportation of dilbit through pipelines one of those benign practices.  It concludes that “corrosion mechanisms in pipelines are well understood and are the subject of continuous investigation both in the field and laboratory to fine tune that understanding.”

Should regulators take their word for it? Swift says absolutely not. He says that the NTSB, “have attributed several major pipeline accidents in the States to federal safety regulators delegating too much of their oversight to the pipeline operators they're supposed to be regulating.”

He believes that too often the trend is to seek an explanation for a spill after it has happened rather than preventing it through careful research.

“It's sort of the difference between a safety net and a coroner,” he explains. “More often than not we're seeing regulators diagnose the cause of death in a pipeline spill rather than engaging to ensure one doesn't happen to begin with.”

Image Credit: Dilbit spill in Kalamazoo River from Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.