Former TransCanada employee and engineer Evan Vokes, who released thousands of pages of records after he was dismissed by the corporation in 2012, believes that a newly acquired internal email shows his managers tried to discredit him for raising the alarm on their safety practices.

Vokes obtained the email in Feburary 2014 through access to information legislation, reports Mike De Souza for InsideClimate News. Most of the message was censored by TransCanada before release, but the first line clearly mentions "managing the EV [Evan Vokes] credibility issue."

"My understanding is that we have been reasonably successful at influencing authorities [redacted] and pointing out EV is disgruntled, and actually had the responsibility to correct these same matters and did not," reads the email, dated July 26, 2013.

TransCanada has not disclosed the identity of the employee who wrote the email or the "authorities" referred to in it. "We are not going to debate interpretations of the wording used by TransCanada staff members in old emails or private records," spokesman Davis Sheremata told InsideClimate News.

The previous records released by Vokes document internal safety issues raised within the energy company over its operations in Canada, as well as in the United States, where it hopes to build the proposed multibillion-dollar Keystone XL pipeline project. Vokes submitted the records as evidence when he appeared before a Canadian Senate committee hearing on energy policies in 2013.

The U.S. State Department, which is reviewing the Keystone XL project, declined to comment on whether they'd discussed Vokes with TransCanada. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration also declined to comment on the email.

Vokes believes TransCanada's management tried to discredit him because they got "fed up" with his allegations that the company was saving money by skimping on safety inspections and repairs.

 Pipeline section marked 'junk' by TransCanada. Photo by Dave Whitley via Flickr.

A pattern of dismissal 

"There are literally thousands of cracks in the system but they sit there until somebody disturbs them," Vokes told InsideClimate News in an interview. "Whether it's the ground or frost, construction in the area, or a farmer doing work, suddenly all these substandard construction techniques can become a major problem because they were never dealt with during construction."

Vokes's records include discussions that took place within TransCanada about safety concerns that management dismissed. In a January 2011 email exchange, an engineering technologist, Russell Wong, was told by management to "stop these e-mails" when he warned them not to hire a welding company based on its poor performance history. Another engineering technologist asked whether the company would provide inspectors to examine the Keystone pipeline in a June 2011 email. Manager Tom Hamilton, in charge of quality and compliance for Keystone, wrote "Ha ha ha" in his email response.

Another series of internal emails from June 2011 between Vokes and other engineers and managers documents how TransCanada employees were unable to find records on the company's welding procedures for months, after they were reqested by provincial regulator Alberta Boilers Safety Association.

In another June 2011 email, Vokes himself was told by David Taylor, a manager of materials and engineering, to stop raising concerns and "accept where we are and become aligned with where we are going as a company."

TransCanada said that it could not comment on Vokes' eventual dismissal or whether the managers in the emails were disciplined, because of privacy and confidentiality issues.

Breaking pipeline safety regulations and whistleblower protections in Canada

Vokes collected most of the records over his five years working at TransCanada, where he specialized in "non-destructive" examination of pipeline infrastructure using tools and visual inspections. His complaints about pipeline safety led the National Energy Board (NEB) to conduct an audit of TransCanada's operations, released February 2014. The NEB found no immediate safety concerns, but concluded that TransCanada was breaking Canadian pipeline regulations in areas including "Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment and Control…Inspection, Measurement and Monitoring; and Management Review."

Another audit on TransCanada's management, released April 24, found that the company's management wasn't meeting requirements to protect concerned whistleblowers like Vokes.

When asked by InsideClimate News about the email concerning Vokes, the NEB said that TransCanada did not try to interfere with the audits.

"At no time during numerous interactions between board staff and TransCanada staff did the company attempt to influence the board on the character of Mr. Vokes," NEB spokeswoman Erin Dottor said in an email. "The source of any complaint or issue identification in no way impacts the NEB's commitment to take action to mitigate or prevent potential hazards to public safety or environmental protection."

Keystone XL future uncertain

The controversy surrounding the proposed Keystone XL project has brought TransCanada's safety record under close scrutiny. The company's existing Keystone pipeline, which runs from Alberta to Oklahoma, has suffered at least 35 leaks or other incidents since it opened in June 2010. If built, the Keystone XL pipeline would transport 830,000 barrels per day (bpd) of oilsands crude from Alberta to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast, crossing several sensitive U.S. water sources. Oilsands development is currently the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Canada.

The Obama administration's decision on Keystone XL has been continually delayed since the project was first proposed in 2008, and has met with opposition in both the United States and Canada. The final decision on the project isn't expected till November, owing to the latest hurdle–an ongoing court case over the pipeline's route through Nebraska.

Dave Domina, a lawyer representing Nebraska landowners challenging the Keystone XL pipeline's route, said that "TransCanada has a tug-of-war going on between environmental safety and profit." He said that the emails acquired by Vokes probably couldn't be used in the court case, however, though they come into play if the state is forced to restart the approval process.

Meanwhile, Vokes has been notified by the federal privacy commissioner's office that it is reviewing the censored portions of the documents released by TransCanada to him, after the company agreed to an audit. The privacy commissioner's investigator will be meeting with TransCanada management face to face after the materials are reviewed, though the company has asked that Vokes not be present.

Image Credit: TransCanada promotional video screen cap

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.

More than 100 scientists and economists "concerned about climate change and its impacts" signed an open letter Monday calling on U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry to reject the proposed Keystone XL pipeline project, which would transport oilsands crude from Alberta to refineries on the Gulf Coast, mainly for export.

The signers "urge [President Obama and Secretary Kerry] to reject the Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline as a project that will contribute to climate change at a time when we should be doing all we can to put clean energy alternatives in place."

The letter, signed by prominent leaders in science and economics, is the latest addition to an already strong and growing opposition to the Keystone XL project in the U.S., including 2 million public comments sent to President Obama and a previous open letter signed last month by over 200 business leaders and entrepreneurs asking for the rejection of the pipeline.

The signers write:

"As you both have made clear, climate change is a very serious problem. We must address climate change by decarbonizing our energy supply. A critical first step is to stop making climate change worse by tapping into disproportionately carbon-intensive energy sources like tar sands bitumen. The Keystone XL pipeline will drive expansion of the energy-intensive strip-mining and drilling of tar sands from under Canada's Boreal forest, increasing global carbon emissions. Keystone XL is a step in the wrong direction."

The signers remind President Obama and Secretary Kerry of their previous commitments to combating climate change, and reiterate that "evidence shows that Keystone XL will significantly contribute to climate change."

The letter emphasizes that fuels from oilsands crude result in higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than fuel from conventional oil. The Keystone XL pipeline would open up overseas markets for higher-polluting oilsands fuels, causing "a sizeable expansion of tar sands production and also an increase in the related greenhouse gas pollution."

President Obama and Secretary Kerry have yet to make a final decision on Keystone XL. The U.S. State Department's Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) on the pipeline, released in January, has been criticized by environmental groups as flawed and narrow in scope.

As the open letter observes, "the State Department environmental review chose an inconsistent model for its 'most likely' scenarios, using business-as-usual energy scenarios that would lead to a catastrophic six degrees Celsius rise in global warming," a potential rise that, the signers note, "has no place in a sound climate plan."  

A decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline, write the signers, would be one "based on sound science," given the 8.4 billion metric tons of CO2e emissions the pipeline could produce over its expected 50-year lifespan.

"These are emissions that can and should be avoided with a transition to clean energy," states the letter.

The signers in the letter include Nobel Prize winners Dr. Philip W. Anderson and Dr. Kenneth J. Arrow, environmental activist and broadcaster Dr. David Suzuki, several authors for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment reports, Fellows of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) including Dr. James McCarthy and Dr. Richard Norgaard, and Fellows of the Royal Society of Canada (FRSC) including Dr. Mark Jaccard, Dr. Lawrence Dill, among numerous other lauded scientists and economists.

The public can add their voice against the Keystone XL pipeline to an online petition hosted by the National Resource Defence Council (NRDC).

Image Credit: maisa_nyc / Flickr

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.

In its largest capital project in history, Enbridge plans to do what Transcanada so far can't — ship more than half a million barrels of heavy oil across the U.S. border without President Barack Obama's direct approval.

Late Monday evening, Enbridge announced plans for its largest capital project in history— a $7 billion replacement of its Line 3 pipeline.

The existing Line 3 pipeline is part of Enbridge’s extensive Mainline system. The 34-inch pipe was installed in 1968 and currently carries light oil 1,660 km from Edmonton to Superior, Wis. 

While the Line 3 pipeline currently has a maximum shipping capacity of 390,000 barrels of light crude oil per day, pumping stations along the line have a much larger capacity (and can accommodate heavier oils). Enbridge plans to take advantage of this. Under the company's replacement plans, the new Line 3 pipeline will be widened by two inches, and built "using the latest available high-strength steel and coating technology." By the time it goes into service in 2017, Line 3 will ship 760,000 barrels of oil across the border every day, nearly double what it currently moves. 

At the same time, the new Line 3 will be designated as ‘mixed service,’ allowing it to carry a variety of different types of oil from heavy to light. Speaking on a conference call with investors and media this morning, Enbridge CEO Al Monaco said "my lean would be more towards the heavier side, but it will carry both."

Line 3 will continue to operate at full current capacity during the construction period. All construction is expected to occur within the existing pipeline corridor.

No presidential permit required (because it already has one)

Unlike the Keystone XL pipeline or its predecessor Line 67 (also known by its more jovial name ‘Alberta Clipper’), this project is classified as "replacement" or "maintenance," meaning it operates under an existing presidential permit and does not require a new one. Enbridge proponents made a point of repeatedly affirming this during Tuesday's call with investors and media. 

Construction will be managed by two separate companies. The Edmonton to Hardisty segment and the Hardisty, Alta., to Gretna, Man., segments will be managed by Enbridge’s wholly-owned Canadian subsidiary, Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. will take responsibility for approvals and construction of the segment between Neche, N.D., and Superior, Wis.

Notably, both projects omit discussion of the tiny — but crucial — 3 km pipeline segment that crosses the Canada/U.S. border and links Gretna, Man., to Neche, N.D. On the U.S. webpage for the Line 3 project, Enbridge states:

"Segments of Line 3 from the Canadian border to Neche, N.D., and near the Minnesota/Wisconsin border to the Superior terminal are being replaced under separate segment replacement projects." The Canadian webpage has a similar message.

At the moment, it is not clear what those replacement projects are, or what stage of approval they are in. Enbridge did not return a call to clarify details.

Two Keystone XL pipelines per day

With its announcement, the Line 3 replacement joins three other large-scale expansion projects by Enbridge in varying stages of development or approval. 

• The 525,000 barrels per day Northern Gateway pipeline connecting Edmonton with Kitimat, B.C., has received a positive recommendation from the National Energy Board and will see a decision from the federal cabinet in the next three months.  
• Within the next few weeks, a decision is expected on the proposed reversal of Ontario and Quebec’s Line 9B pipeline. Currently the pipeline ships oil received via tankers from a Montreal terminal to Sarnia, Ont. If approved, the reversed pipeline would ship 300,000 barrel per dday of Canadian-sourced oil from Sarnia to Montreal for international export. 
• Enbridge has already completed Phase 1 of its planned expansion to the Alberta Clipper pipeline, increasing its capacity from 450,000  to 570,000 barrels per day. On Feb. 10, Canada’s National Energy Board approved Phase 2 of the pipeline expansion, allowing it to ship at its maximum capacity of 800,000 barrels per dday. Approval of the project on the U.S. side is currently delayed while the State Department updates its environmental regulations. 
• Applications for the Line 3 replacement project will be filed in late 2014.

Should all four of these projects go ahead, they will collectively increase Enbridge’s daily shipping volume by approximately 1.5 million barrels per day, or the equivalent of nearly two Keystone XL pipelines. The Keystone XL pipeline is expected to transport 830,000 bpd.

Addendum: Here's the math behind the projected Enbridge shipping volume. 

CURRENT SHIPPING VOLUMES: (Barrels Per Day)

• Line 9: 0 (its current 240,000 barrel per day capacity does not include Canadian-sourced oil, and flows in the opposite direction)
• Northern Gateway: 0
• Line 3: 390,000
• Alberta Clipper: 450,000
• TOTAL: 840,000 barrels per day

FUTURE SHIPPING VOLUMES (BPD):

• Line 9: 300,000
• Northern Gateway: 525,000
• Line 3: 760,000
• Alberta Clipper: 800,000
• TOTAL: 2, 385,000 barrels per day

For a difference of 1,545,000 barrels per day or the equivalent of 1.86 Keystone XLs.

Image Credit: Mack Male via Flickr

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 risk of a Line 9 pipeline oil spill in Ontario or Quebec is “high” if Enbridge's proposal for Line 9 is implemented, says pipeline safety expert Richard Kuprewicz.  

Kuprewicz, who has forty years of experience in the energy industry, found that Enbridge's safety management system will not prevent a Line 9 rupture and described the pipeline company's leak detection system and emergency response plans as neither “adequate or appropriate.”  

“Enbridge has a culture where safety management seems not to be a critical part of their operation,” Kuprewicz wrote in the 31-page report released on August 5th. 

“This is the most damning indictment we’ve seen of Enbridge’s plan,” said Adam Scott of Environmental Defence in a statement. 

Enbridge's proposal is to reverse the 37-year old Line 9 pipeline to flow from Sarnia to Montreal and increase the capacity of Line 9 from 240,000 to 300,000 barrels per day (bpd). The company also wants to ship “heavy crude” such as bitumen from the Alberta tar sands through Line 9 for the first time.

“The Line 9 proposal should be rejected. Our communities, our drinking water and our shared environment shouldn’t be put at risk,” said Scott, who is based in Toronto.

Kuprewicz, who has held management positions in pipeline companies, stated there was a high risk of a rupture in the first few years of operations due to a combination of cracking and corrosion if Enbridge goes ahead with its proposal. The four hours it could take for Enbridge's emergency response teams to arrive on the scene of a Line 9 spill is, according to Kuprewicz, inadequate for highly populated cities along the pipeline's route, which include Toronto and Montreal.

“This evidence clearly shows what we have been saying for a long time. This project will put the health and the quality of the environment of our communities at risk both in Ontario and Quebec. In light of this, I cannot see how the NEB could approve this reckless project,” said Steven Guilbeault, Senior Director with Equiterre.

Line 9 passes through some of the most densely populated areas of Canada. The pipeline crosses every waterway flowing south to Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River in Quebec. Line 9 is located within five kilometers of Lake Ontario.

DeSmog Canada revealed previously that Line 9 suffers from the same design deficiencies as the Enbridge pipeline at the centre of the largest onshore oil spill in US history; the 2010 spill in Kalamazoo, Michigan.

Kuprewicz helped with investigations into the Line 6B Kalamazoo spill. He reports that, much like Line 6B, Line 9 exhibited extensive stress corrosion cracking (SCC), a type of pipeline cracking prevalent where external corrosion occurs. Line 9 is covered in the same outdated external protective coating called polyethylene tape (PE-tape) that became unglued from Line 6B, which allowed the pipe to corrode from the outside and eventually rupture.

Kuprewicz's report states that transporting dilbit through Line 9 will substantially increase the rates of cracking on the pipeline. Line 6B was carrying dilbit when it ruptured. The spill sent pollution as far as 50 kilometers down the Kalamazoo River.

The report is part of written evidence submitted by a coalition of environmental organizations to the National Energy Board (NEB). The coalition includes organizations such as Sierra Club, Greenpeace Quebec, Equiterre and Environmental Defence. The NEB is Canada's independent regulator of pipeline projects and is currently deliberating over the Line 9 project.

Two energy economics experts – Ian Goodman and Brigid Rowan – also provided a report as part of the coalition's written evidence.  The experts found Line 9's close proximity to highly populated areas such as Montreal and Toronto could result in major economic damage if the pipeline ruptured. The potential economic costs of a Line 9 rupture could outweigh the potential economic benefits of the pipeline, concluded Goodman and Rowan.

Line 9 public hearings are expected to take place in October. The earliest the NEB can make a final decision on Line 9 is January 2014.

Image Credit: Environmental Defence, Enbridge, EPA

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.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper declared it will enhance Canada's “energy security.” The premiers of Alberta and New Brunswick call it a “nation builder.” Even the Toronto Star agrees: “this project appears to be in the national interest.”

Those are just some of the reactions to what sounds like the rebuilding of Canada's transcontinental railway but was in fact the announcement of a proposed oil pipeline from Alberta to Canada's east coast. Last week TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. announced it will seek regulatory approval for its Energy East pipeline project, expected to ship 1.1 million barrels per day (bpd) of oil and tar sands bitumen from Hardisty, Alberta to Saint John, New Brunswick, crossing through six provinces on its way.

“Energy East and other tar sands pipeline projects will build a nation dependent on exporting tar sands oil overseas,” says Ben Powless, a tar sands community outreach coordinator for Ecology Ottawa.

“A true nation building project would decrease or eliminate Canada's dependence on fossil fuels,” Powless told DeSmog.  

Energy security for Canadians or securing exports for oil companies?   

The Energy East project involves converting 3,000 kilometres of TransCanada's 'Mainline' natural gas pipeline and constructing another 1,400 kilometres of pipeline mostly from the Quebec-Ontario border to Saint John. Three new oil terminals will be built in Saskatchewan, Quebec City and Saint John to accommodate the pipeline.

The terminals in Quebec City and Saint John will be outfitted with ocean-going tanker loading facilities raising concerns Energy East may turn the St. Lawrence River into a “highway for oil exports.”

“Energy East's oil and bitumen will go to the highest bidder whether it is refineries in eastern Canada or markets in the US, Asia or Europe,” says Andrea Harden-Donhaue, an energy campaigner with the Council of Canadians.

A substantial portion of Energy East's 1.1 million bpd shipments will have to be exported outside of Canada. Eastern Canadian refineries – refineries TransCanada claims it will supply – collectively refine 700,000 bpd. One of these refineries is Irving Oil's refinery in Saint John, the largest refinery in Canada (300,000 bpd). According to a press release from Irving Oil earlier this year “the refinery exports over 80 per cent of its production to the US” as refined products such as gasoline.  

“There is no guarantee oil refined in eastern Canada will be for domestic consumption,” Harden-Donahue told DeSmog.

Eastern Canada cannot refine large quantities of bitumen

TransCanada has not yet said how much bitumen from the Alberta tar sands Energy East will transport. This is another factor in determining how much of Energy East's shipments will be exported since Eastern Canadian refineries are not outfitted to refine large quantities of the heavy unconventional crude oil.

With bitumen production surging and conventional oil sources drying up in Canada it is safe to assume this pipeline will eventually carry more bitumen than conventional oil if the project is approved. Unless eastern Canadian refineries are willing to invest an estimated $2-billion to upgrade their facilities to refine bitumen, the bulk of Energy East's bitumen is likely to be exported.

Shipping bitumen through an old gas pipeline

Shipping bitumen through the TransCanada Mainline, a 55-year old natural gas pipeline, is another cause for concern especially for Canadians living along the pipeline's route. According to a report by the National Petroleum Council for the U.S. Department of Energy in 2011:

“Pipelines operating outside of their design parameters such as those carrying commodities for which they were not initially designed, or high flow pipelines, are at the greatest risk of integrity issues in the future due to the nature of their operation.”

The Kalamazoo spill in Michigan in 2010 and the Mayflower spill in Arkansas earlier this year involved old pipelines designed to transport light crude oil that ruptured while shipping bitumen. Changing the contents of what North America's aging pipelines move may very well be a recipe of disaster.

Opposition to Energy East has already emerged

The same day TransCanada announced Energy East, one of Canada's largest civil society organizations – the Council of Canadians – launched a nation-wide campaign against Energy East, a pipeline the Council of Canadians believes is unsafe, and unlikely to provide energy security or create “decent jobs.”

Later that same day the Assembly of First Nations' Chiefs in New Brunswick announced, although not opposed to Energy East, they "will avail themselves of any means necessary, legal or otherwise" if the pipeline threatens their treaty rights or the environment.

Opposition to Energy East had already sprung up before TransCanada's announcement last week in places such as Ottawa and North Bay, Ontario. Some unorthodox opponents of the pipeline are three gas distributors who claim Energy East will mean less natural gas for the Central and Eastern Canada markets. Gas customers may be forced to pay higher rates if gas distributors have to find new sources.

It may prove to be a fool's errand to attempt to build in the new pipeline in Quebec that Energy East requires to reach the Atlantic coast. Quebec stopped its own fracking industry dead in its tracks because of public outcry. Constructing a pipeline along the St. Lawrence River to facilitate further expansion of the tar sands industry may be a tough sell for environmentally-conscious Quebecers.

Energy East: The Tar Sands Resistance Building Pipeline

“People on Canada’s West Coast have rejected the Northern Gateway pipeline; Americans are rejecting pipelines going south. Why would we in Eastern Canada accept the risks that no one else will?” Gretchen Fitzgerald, director of the Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter, said in a press release on the day of TransCanada's announcement.

If the campaign against Northern Gateway in BC and the more recent campaign against Enbridge's proposed Line 9 pipeline in Ontario and Quebec are indicators, Canadians tend to become more actively opposed to the development of the tar sands when the industry proposes to operate tar sands pipelines in their provinces. Energy East may face the greatest Canadian opposition to any pipeline to date. No other pipeline under consideration for oil and bitumen shipments involves so many provinces as Energy East does.

“Energy East may build and unite Canadian opposition to the expansion of the tar sands from coast-to-coast,” Powless told DeSmog.

TransCanada intends on applying for approval of the Energy East project in 2014. The company hopes to see the pipeline up and running by 2017.

Images Credit: Vicki Watkins Flickr and TransCanada

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.

TransCanada Corp. announced yesterday they will proceed with plans to create a pipeline capable of shipping 1.1 million barrels per day (bpd) of oil and tar sands bitumen from western Canada to refineries and ports in Quebec and New Brunswick. Called "Energy East", this west-to-east pipeline would dwarf the oil delivery capacity of TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL pipeline in the US (830,000 bpd).

The premiers of Alberta and New Brunswick declared Energy East a "nation building" pipeline. The pipeline will pass through Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick.

"This is an historic opportunity to connect the oil resources of western Canada to the consumers of eastern Canada, creating jobs, tax revenue and energy security for all Canadians for decades to come," said Russ Girling, TransCanada's president and chief executive officer, in a statement.

It remains unclear how much of Energy East's oil will be exported outside of Canada and how much tar sands bitumen will be shipped through the pipeline.

Eastern Canadian refineries are not outfitted to refine large quantities of bitumen. TransCanada has stated the Energy East project will involve shipping oil to "existing North American markets" but there is speculation Europe or Asia could be possible destinations for the pipeline's oil. 

Energy East will be 4,400 kilometres of pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to Saint John, New Brunswick. 3,000 kilometres of this pipeline already exists as a 55-year old TransCanada natural gas line that will be converted to carry oil. Another 1,400 kilometres (the equivalent of building a Northern Gateway) of new pipeline will be constructed from the Quebec-Ontario border to Saint John.

The Assembly of First Nations' Chiefs in New Brunswick announced today they "will avail themselves of any means necessary, legal or otherwise" if Energy East threatens their treaty rights or the environment. Yesterday the Council of Canadians unveiled a nation-wide campaign to stop the Energy East pipeline. 

“While using an existing pipeline may reduce TransCanada’s costs, it increases spill risks for the many rivers, lakes and communities along the route,” said Andrea Harden-Donahue, Energy Campaigner with the Council of Canadians, in a press release. 

“The disastrous pipeline spills in Kalamazoo, Michigan, and Mayflower, Arkansas highlight the dangers of shipping tar sands crude and using an older pipeline not originally built for carrying oil," concluded Harden-Donahue. 

More details on "Energy East: The Tar Sands Nation Building Pipeline" to come on DeSmog Canada.

Image Credit: TransCanada

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.

Last week marked the third anniversary of the largest inland oil spill in US history. On July 25th, 2010 a 41-year old Enbridge pipeline in Michigan tore open spewing over three million litres of diluted tar sands bitumen or dilbit from Alberta into the Kalamazoo River and the surrounding area. Three years later the spill from the Enbridge pipeline known as Line 6B is still being cleaned up with the cost nearing one billion US dollars.

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.

“Line 9 was built at the wrong time with the wrong materials, and forms part of a pipeline system in which ruptures and leaks on very similar pipes have happened on a fairly regular basis,” stated Ontario Pipeline Landowners Association (OPLA) lawyer John Goudy in his final argument at the Line 9A hearing in London, Ontario in May 2012.

The 37-year old Line 9 pipeline runs from Sarnia to Montreal. The pipeline's operator – Enbridge – wants to increase the capacity of Line 9 from 250 000 barrels per day (bpd) to 300 000 bpd. Enbridge also wants to ship 'heavy crude' such as bitumen from the Alberta tar sands through Line 9.

Line 9 is almost identical in age and design to the Enbridge pipeline at the centre of the largest inland oil spill in US history – Line 6B of the Kalamazoo spill in Michigan. The 41-year old Line 6B pipeline ruptured in 2010, spilling over 800 000 gallons (3 million litres) of bitumen into the Kalamazoo River and the surrounding area. The cleanup is still going on and could cost up to one billion (US) dollars.  

“We are not anti-pipeline or anti-oil. We just want respect for our livelihoods and safe pipelines,” says Dave Core founding president of the Canadian Association of Energy Pipeline Landowner Associations (CAEPLA).

Design Deficiencies of Line 9

OPLA's argument against shipping bitumen through Line 9 is the pipeline suffers from “historical deficiencies”. Line 9 is covered in an outdated external protective coating called single-layer polyethylene tape (PE tape). A section of PE tape became unglued from Line 6B allowing water to corrode the pipe resulting Line 6B's rupture in 2010 according to the US National Transport and Saftey Board. 

The Canadian Energy Pipelines Association (CEPA), an industry group, warned in 2007 against the use of PE tape on new pipelines because it can stretch or become unglued from a pipeline, creating pockets of water that cause pipeline corrosion. CEPA concluded PE tape was ineffective in mitigating the effects of stress corrosion cracking (SCC) on pipelines.

Enbridge's Line 6B.

OPLA has also pointed out Line 9's pipe-wall thickness (6.35-7 mm) for most of its length is 30% thinner than a pipeline with the same diameter (762 mm) going into the ground today.  Enbridge’s engineering assessment admits this high diameter-to-pipe-thickness ratio makes Line 9 “susceptible” to mechanical damage. 

Line 6B of the Kalamazoo spill had the same pipe-wall thickness and diameter of Line 9. Enbridge is currently replacing Line 6B with a new pipeline with thicker walls and a lower diameter-to-pipe-thickness ratio.

There is no indication Line 9 will be replaced by a new pipeline.

Being a pipeline landowner in an expanding resource economy 

OPLA and CAEPLA represent the interests and rights of farmers and other rural landowners with oil and gas pipelines going through their property. The construction of Line 9 in 1975 sparked the pipeline landowner movement in Ontario. Two southwestern Ontario farmers mortgaged their farms to fight for compensation for soil degradation caused by Line 9's construction and won. One of the two farmers went on to found OPLA in 1993.

As the Canadian government pushes for more pipelines to be built to export bitumen, the rights of pipeline landowners are being reeled back.

Dave Core of CAEPLA told the Canadian Senate in a presentation earlier this year the 2012 omnibus bill C-38 introduced criminal penalties for landowners violating a contentious section of the National Energy Board Act; section 112. Depending on the conviction, the penalty for violations of section 112 is a $100 000 – $1 000 000 fine or up to 5 years in prison.  

Section 112 restricts landowners from driving their equipment over a buried pipeline on their own property without the permission of the pipeline's operator first. Land cultivation deeper than 30 centimetres within the pipeline's “safety zones” is not permitted. Safety zones can be as wide as thirty metres on either side of the pipeline's eighteen metre wide right-of-way. This effectively creates a 78-metre wide strip of land pipeline landowners cannot properly farm or utilize.

Landowners' disputes with pipeline companies can only be brought to the National Energy Board (NEB). Up until recently the NEB referred to itself as the partner of the energy industry, not the independent regulator it is mandated to be. Landowners have complained for years there is a 'revolving door' between the NEB and energy industry. The pipeline industry group CEPA's current president Brenda Kenny worked for the NEB from 1986 – 2001 .

“You get the feeling the NEB listens, but it does not really hear,” says Margaret Vance, president of OPLA.

“The NEB listens to landowners’ concerns because they have to, but they rarely do anything about them,” Vance told DeSmog. Vance is a farmer near Woodstock, Ontario.

Pipeline Companies Are Not Required to Remove Out-Of-Service Pipelines

One of OPLA's biggest concerns with Line 9 and other aging pipelines is pipeline companies are permitted to leave 80% of an out-of-service pipeline in the ground.  

“It is not safe and it is a liability for us,” says Vance.

OPLA unearthed an NEB discussion paper from 1985 on pipeline abandonment in the NEB archives while preparing for the Trailbreaker pipeline project hearings in 2007. The discussion paper stated pipeline companies should set aside funds for the removal of out-of-service pipelines. A fund was only recently established for partial removal of abandoned pipelines.

“The day the province (Ontario) wants abandoned pipelines out of the ground you can be sure it is not going to be the companies who profited from the pipelines who will have to pay for their removal. It is going to be landowners,” Vance told DeSmog.

Line 9 public hearings are expected to take place in October. The NEB could make its final decision on Line 9 as early as January 2014.

Image Credit: Environmental Defense

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.