For 18 months, the federal government has claimed that its support for the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion is science-based.

Despite pledges to increase transparency and elevate science in policy decisions — which earned kudos during the 2015 election — it’s hard to find the scientific basis for their science-based decision.

Some in the Trudeau government seem to be getting the message.

Less than three weeks ago, Environment Minister Catherine McKenna called for the creation of a new scientific advisory panel to reconsider concerns about the environmental risks of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project. Many scientists — including ourselves — are eager to contribute.

An advisory panel of independent experts could address the deficiencies of a National Energy Board process that is widely acknowledged to have been both industry-biased and insufficient.

However, this begs an important question: if concerns are sufficient to convene a new science panel to address the NEB’s failures regarding the risks of diluted bitumen in B.C.’s coastal waters, shouldn’t the decision to approve the pipeline have waited for just this kind of information?

Prior to the November 2016 pipeline approval, we shared with government a peer-reviewed study that evaluated scientific understanding of 15 types of environmental impact to the oceans caused by the production and transport of diluted bitumen.

This heavy petroleum product would be pumped through the Trans Mountain pipeline at three times the current volume and create a seven-fold increase in tanker transport through Vancouver’s Burrard Inlet.

Our research found large gaps in scientific understanding of the toxicity of diluted bitumen products to marine species and how the products will behave in the ocean. Filling both gaps is necessary before determining whether the Trans Mountain pipeline is in Canada’s best interests.

In fact, our study was one of at least five major scientific reviews, published by the Royal Society of Canada and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Office of Response, among others, in the lead up to the approval of the Trans Mountain project.

All five identified major gaps in scientific understanding and preparedness for environmental impacts generated by the coastal transport of diluted bitumen.

The gaps in knowledge, combined with incomplete risk assessment and insufficient baseline data, make it impossible to address the full suite of threats to ocean species and their habitats, or to assess the effectiveness of emergency actions, including spill response.

Given the paucity of information on these key issues, the B.C. government’s call for additional scientific review and research, made last January, was well grounded, and has proven to be prescient.

McKenna’s proposal for a new look at the science followed on the heels of reports that a high-ranking government official had instructed public servants to find a “legally-sound basis to say ‘yes'” to the Trans Mountain project, while discouraging them from raising concerns identified by independent research, including our own.

A credible review, by a panel of independent scientists, at arm’s length from influence by industry or government, is long overdue.

In the absence of sound science, government has a duty to delay construction, and err on the side of coastal protection and climate progress.

Prime Minister Trudeau’s public commitment to transparency and evidence-based policy demands no less.

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.

A new technology has the potential to transform the transportation of tars sands oil. Right now, the already thick and slow-flowing oil, known as bitumen, has to be diluted with a super-light petroleum product, usually natural gas condensate, in order for it to flow through a pipeline or into a rail tank car.

However, scientists at the University of Calgary’s Schulich School of Engineering inadvertently found a way to make tar sands oil even more viscous, turning it into “self-sealing pellets” that could potentially simplify its transport.

“We’ve taken heavy oil, or bitumen, either one, and we’ve discovered a process to convert them rapidly and reproducibly into pellets,” Ian Gates, the professor leading the research, told CBC News in September 2017.

Based on the initial description of this product, it appears that it could alleviate many of the risks involved with moving tar sands oil by rail. The research teams says this product floats in water, does not pose a fire and explosion risk like the diluted bitumen currently moved in rail tank cars, and would eliminate air quality issues related to the volatile components of diluted bitumen.

If true, this technology would appear to reduce potential risks to people and the environment, in comparison with moving diluted bitumen by rail or in pipelines.

Gates also suggests that the solidified bitumen can be moved in the type of open rail cars used for coal. That would be welcome news to railroads, which have been losing business transporting coal as demand has dwindled. Gates did not respond to multiple requests for comment on this article.

Canadian National Working to Commercialize Similar Technology

Meanwhile, similar research and development has been happening not within the Canadian oil industry, but instead, a Canadian railroad, which has patented another method of solidifying tar sands for transport.

Canadian National Railway (CN) holds a patent for a technology dubbed CanaPux, in an apparent reference to the hockey puck-like product under development. CN’s CanaPux website provides details about the product’s potential, and describes the technology in the following way:

“Heavy crude oil (bitumen) is combined with polymers, a form of recyclable plastic that both thickens the crude oil into a solid shape and encases it with a protective shell. The pellets move best in open topped gondola railcars, similar to how we move coal.”

CN also makes claims about the pucks being a safer and more environmentally friendly way of moving bitumen:

“The pellet is not flammable or explosive, will float in water and nothing can leach or dissolve into the environment. It does not create dust.”

Perhaps the most attractive part of this technology would be if cleaning up a “spill” of CanaPux pellets were as easy as CN’s website purports:

“They will simply need to be picked up. That could be done by hand, with construction equipment, nets, booms or vacuums.”

Still, CN makes clear that the company remains in the early stages of developing CanaPux and has not yet confirmed many of its expectations about how the product would act in the environment.

“We want to do the studies that will prove that it will float in fresh water, salt water, how it behaves in cold and in heat,” Janet Drysdale, vice president of corporate development at CN, told The Globe and Mail in February 2017. “All of that will be validated with additional lab work.”

While CN confirmed that the CanuPux technology was separate from the work at Schulich School of Engineering, CN would not offer further comment on the status of the CanuPux technology.

Exports Without Opposition?

When Washington Governor Jay Inslee rejected a permit for the largest proposed oil-by-rail facility in America last month, the decision effectively shut down the oil-by-rail industry’s major expansion plans for the U.S. West Coast. However, Canadian oil-by-rail volumes are currently increasing and an even higher volume of tar sands oil is expected to be moved this way. Without these new American destinations for diluted bitumen transported by rail, the options for Canadian oil producers have been limited further.

If all of CN’s claims pan out, moving bitumen in solid form could address many of the concerns voiced by activists who oppose oil-by-rail transport. The risk of an explosive “bomb train” event would be eliminated. Air pollution concerns from vaporizing diluted bitumen also would no longer be an issue. Spills of Canadian oil into waterways, which happened when two oil trains derailed in Gogama, Ontario, should have a much smaller environmental impact.

And CN is banking on these differences to help oil producers get their product to ports where it can be exported. The Globe and Mail reported that “the technology could give oil-sands producers who lack pipeline access a new way to reach refineries in North America, Asia, and other overseas markets.”

There is another potential advantage to the technology. According to a post on the website of Canadian oil pipeline company Enbridge, “CN hopes that the transformation will make the product exempt from Canada’s tanker ban on British Columbia’s North Coast.” This sentiment was repeated in an article in Oil Sands Magazine: “The solid pellets are also likely to be exempted from the federal Liberal’s crude tanker moratorium off BC’s northern coast, although Transport Minister Marc Garneau says more testing is needed to confirm the consequences of a spill.”

What is unknown at this point is how this pelleted product would be classified and regulated. If it is a solid non-toxic product, will new environmental impact studies be required for ports that want to host tar sands export facilities? Will cities like South Portland, Maine, which have passed a local ordinance banning the “loading of crude oil” at its port to prevent tar sands oil exports, have any say over this new product?

Another question is whether this technology will give new life to projects like a proposed railway from Alberta to Alaska, which would connect to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and be constructed solely to export tar sands oil.

‘Keep It In The Ground’ as Last Line of Defense

CN is on the record saying it does not expect this technology to replace pipelines and that CanaPux represents just one more option for oil producers to reach foreign markets. While Canada does not have enough rail capacity to move all of the bitumen it is producing, the country’s current issues with pipeline capacity are forcing more companies to choose rail to transport diluted bitumen, lending additional appeal for shipping tar sands oil in pellet form.

If the CanaPux technology pans out and delivers on CN’s promises, it would appear to be a vast improvement in the tar sands-by-rail industry on multiple fronts, namely, the safety of communities along the train tracks and the reduced environmental impacts from derailments. These advantages are real. The U.S. has yet to address either the dangers posed by explosive oils moved by rail or a loophole granting a free pass on spill response planning for oil trains. Proposed regulations to address this loophole are stalled within the Trump administration.

For climate activists, however, the biggest argument against new oil-by-rail facilities has always been the need to “keep it in the ground,” that is, not developing certain fossil fuel reserves in order to prevent harmful globe-warming emissions. This argument remains as scientists, including former NASA scientist James Hansen, have said that if the majority of Canada’s tar sands oil reserves do not remain undeveloped, efforts at limiting catastrophic climate change may become impossible.

Canadian oil and rail companies clearly don’t share this opinion. And neither does Canada’s political leadership. In 2017, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the country has no intention of leaving its enormous reserves of tar sands oil in the ground, and more recently, he promised to make sure the new Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline would be completed.

If CN or others can effectively commercialize this tar sands-to-pellet technology, it looks like a win for the oil industry and another channel for Canada to sell to the rest of the world an oil that is 17–21 percent dirtier in carbon pollution. Despite providing some real safety benefits in the short-term, this technology does nothing to address the bigger issue of limiting dangerous global climate change.

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 B.C. government tried to steer clear of controversy over liquefied natural gas exports, the Site C dam and fish farms in the Speech from the Throne Tuesday. The speech laid out the NDP’s “affordability” agenda and unveiled plans to revitalize the environment assessment process and address fugitive emissions in the oil and gas sector.

“As B.C. develops its abundant natural resources, we must do so in a way that meets our obligations to the environment, First Nations and the public interest,” read the speech, presented by Lieutenant Governor Judith Guichon to mark the start of a new legislative session.

“This year, government is taking important steps to restore public trust in B.C.’s environmental stewardship.”

Those steps include new efforts to meet B.C.’s climate action targets, increasing the carbon tax to position B.C. to meet the federally mandated price of $50 per tonne by 2022, investing in parks and protected areas and hiring more conservation officers.

More details about how the government plans to move forward with these priorities will come on Feb. 20 when the budget is unveiled.

“It’s time to get B.C. back on track,” the throne speech stated, noting B.C. “has fallen behind on its climate obligations” and that the previous BC Liberal government failed to achieve its own greenhouse gas reduction targets.

The NDP government also pledged to develop a cross-ministry framework to meet its stated commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Tsilhqot’in decision.

The rights and needs of B.C.’s Indigenous peoples “have been set aside for far too long,” said the throne speech.

“This government understands the enormous responsibility it has to Indigenous peoples in the wake of inaction by government after government.”

Site C dam a sore spot for Indigenous rights

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, called the government’s commitment to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples “encouraging,” but said he has still not forgiven Premier John Horgan “and his inner circle” for “completely violating the rights of Treaty 8 people” by greenlighting the $10.7 billion Site C dam in December.

“I find it highly hypocritical that they can talk about the need to acknowledge the principles and intent of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and at the same time make such an egregious decision in complete violation of those same rights,” Grand Chief Phillip told DeSmog Canada.

“I’m finding it very hard to get beyond that colossal hypocrisy.”

Grand Chief Phillip also said he has heard scores of throne speeches during more than four decades of his involvement in B.C. political issues and that generally there is only a “passing reference” to Indigenous peoples.

“I’ve never heard a throne speech that has been so explicit in its acknowledgment of the responsibilities of the government of British Columbia to act on the rights enshrined in UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the multitude of court decisions” handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada and other levels of court, he said.

“But again they have to walk the walk. They completely and utterly failed in regard to the Site C dam decision. You only get one chance to do the right thing and in regard to Site C they completely blew it.”

Site C, the most expensive publicly funded project in B.C.’s history, was not mentioned in the 20-page speech. Nor were fish farms, which have been in the news recently over the discharge of contaminated bloodwater.

In January, West Moberly First Nations and Prophet River First Nation filed notices of civil action claiming that the Site C dam — along with two existing dams on the Peace River — infringes on rights guaranteed to them in Treaty 8, which promised they can continue their traditional way of life.

A third Treaty 8 nation, Blueberry River First Nations, has launched a civil lawsuit claiming that the cumulative impact of industrial development in their homeland, including the Site C dam, means they can no longer continue traditional practices guaranteed to them in the treaty.

The grand chief said an important first step to realizing commitments outlined in the throne speech would be for the B.C. government to bring forward legislation that “enshrines” the UN declaration in the government’s legislative agenda, “as opposed to simply paying lip service to it in the context of throne speeches.”

Premier John Horgan told press he would not be provoked into a trade war with Alberta. Photo: Chad Hipolito | The Canadian Press

Fracking, fugitive emissions on the agenda

The throne speech said little about the government’s plan to address fugitive emissions in the oil and gas sector, and from slash burning, noting only that “research is underway.” A recent investigation by registered professional biologist John Werring found that B.C. is vastly underreporting its “fugitive emissions” — emissions vented or leaked during the natural gas extraction process.

Environment Minister George Heyman told DeSmog Canada that the NDP will work with the Green caucus “on a variety of measures to deal with fugitive emissions.” He said the finance ministry is working on taxation measures and that the issue will also be considered by B.C.’s new climate solutions and clean growth advisory council.

Heyman said the government will be announcing a timeframe for revitalizing the environmental assessment process “in the coming weeks.”

The throne speech also reiterated that the potential of a diluted bitumen spill in B.C.’s coastal waters “poses a significant risk to our economy and our environment.”

Alberta Premier Rachel Notley announced a B.C. wine boycott last week after B.C. said it would set up an independent scientific advisory panel to look at how diluted bitumen can be safely transported and cleaned up, if spilled.

But the throne speech made no mention of an inter-provincial spat over the Kinder Morgan pipeline, in keeping with Horgan’s statement that he refuses to be provoked into a trade war with Alberta.

Following the throne speech, Horgan reiterated to the media that the risk of transporting raw or diluted bitumen through B.C.’s inland waters and along the coast is “a risk too great” for British Columbians.

“We will continue our discussions with the federal government any anyone else who wants to talk to us about how we can ensure that British Columbia’s environment and economy are not affected by any movement of this product through our territory.”

Nor did the speech from the throne mention Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), an issue over which B.C. Green Party leader Andrew Weaver has threatened to bring down the government.

“We cannot pretend that a market exists when a market doesn’t exist,” Weaver told the media following the throne speech. “For year after year after year I’ve been saying it is folly for us to try to chase a falling star.”

“They [the NDP] were cautious. I think they did the right thing. And I think that people are sick and tired of being promised unicorns.”

On a recent Asian trade mission, Horgan met with Korean, Japanese and Chinese partners in LNG Canada, a Shell-backed project near Kitimat that is in the planning stages.

Weaver pointed out that B.C. will not be able to meet its climate targets if any major LNG project goes ahead, telling Desmog Canada in a previous interview that, “I am not standing by and watching us give away the farm yet again to land an industry we’re not competitive in. That’s my line in the sand.”

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.

British Columbia won’t allow any increase in shipments of diluted bitumen through the province until the results of a scientific inquiry into the risks of oil spills in marine environments is completed, according to an announcement from the B.C. government on Tuesday.  

“We are proposing we restrict the transport of diluted bitumen until we hear back from the B.C. scientific community about the impacts of a spill and what we would need to mitigate that,” B.C. Environment Minister George Heyman told DeSmog Canada.

Diluted bitumen is a mixture of bitumen — the unrefined, thickest form of petroleum extracted from Alberta’s oilsands —  and natural gas condensate — the same substance the Iranian tanker Sanchi was carrying when it collided with another ship in the East China Sea. Condensate is added to allow the viscous substance to flow through pipelines.

The announcement has major implications for the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline.

Jessica Clogg, executive director and senior counsel of West Coast Environmental Law, celebrated the manoeuvre as “courageous.”

“Effectively the province has said if the science doesn’t show that you can clean up a dilbit spill safely and effectively then Kinder Morgan may never be able to turn the taps on, even if they can get the pipeline built,” Clogg told DeSmog Canada.

The announcement comes alongside a suite of new proposed regulations under B.C.’s Environmental Management Act to improve oil spill response and recovery.

Heyman said the move is a part of the government’s promise to employ every tool in the toolbox to protect British Columbia from a diluted bitumen, or dilbit, spill.

“Effectively the province has said if the science doesn’t show that you can clean up a dilbit spill safely and effectively then Kinder Morgan may never be able to turn the taps on, even if they can get the pipeline built.” – Jessica Clogg, @WCELaw https://t.co/fZdnnmT8sD

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) January 30, 2018

“Clearly as a province B.C. is not responsible for regulating vessel traffic but we do have authority to look at the impact of a spill if it lands on the coastline or a spill if it lands in local waterways,” Heyman said.

“What I’m determined to do is show British Columbians that what they expect from us is going to be delivered. We are going to do everything in our power to protect our coastline.”

The existing Trans Mountain oil pipeline runs from Hardisty, Alta., to Burnaby, B.C. Kinder Morgan’s proposal to build a new pipeline on a similar route would boost capacity from 300,000 barrels per day to 890,000 barrels per day, increasing the number of oil tankers in B.C.’s waters seven-fold from around 60 to 400 each year.

The project received federal approval — with 157 requirements — in November 2016, but faces strong opposition from First Nations and municipalities along the proposed pipeline route.

B.C. to address knowledge gaps in dilbit spills

In 2015 the Royal Society of Canada released a study that identified seven major knowledge gaps when it comes to the risk of a diluted bitumen spill in water.

“We want the advisory panel to look at the Royal Society of Canada information gaps and do it very specifically in a way that addresses conditions in British Columbia, with B.C. interests in mind and considering the different forms that heavy oil could be transported through B.C. via, rail, truck and pipeline,” Heyman said.

Christianne Wilhelmson, executive director of Georgia Strait Alliance, said today’s announcement is proof B.C. acknowledges “diluted bitumen behaves differently than conventional oil.”

“The best available science says it can sink or be suspended in water,” Wilhelmson said. “Currently, there is no effective technology that exists to clean it up, making prevention the only safe approach to protect our local waters, communities, economies and ecosystems.”

The behaviour of dilbit in water has become a touchstone issue in the debate about building new oilsands pipelines. While a 2012 Enbridge study found dilbit did not sink in a laboratory environment, a 2014 report released by the federal government found dilbit sinks when mixed with sediment.

In 2010 an Enbridge pipeline ruptured, spilling nearly three million litres of dilbit into a tributary of the Kalamazoo river where it mixed with sediment on the river’s bottom, triggering one of the most expensive onshore oil spill cleanup efforts in U.S. history.

“A pipeline rupture over salmon-bearing streams would be extremely detrimental to some already weak and declining salmon stocks,” Wilhelmson said, “regardless of whether the polluter is required to pay significant restitution costs.”

B.C. Green Party leader Andrew Weaver welcomed the plan to do further scientific research.

“I look forward to the new panel providing complete, robust and accurate information on this matter to the minister that reinforces that which we already know — that there is no way currently to adequately respond to a spill of diluted bitumen.”

“We simply to not know enough to properly assess the risk and potential damages associated with a diluted bitumen spill in the Salish Sea,” Weaver said in a statement.

The province will release an intentions paper in February to solicit feedback on the restriction of dilbit transportation as well as new regulations related to spill response times, localized response plans for B.C.’s unique geographic regions and compensation.

Proposed regulations a boon to protect Indigenous rights, at risk species

The province’s move could provoke legal backlash from Kinder Morgan, Clogg said, but “by standing up for British Columbians, B.C. is reducing other types of risks.”

The new regulations could ease pressure in ongoing and potential legal battles to protect Indigenous rights and species at risk.

“It’s not aimed at Kinder Morgan in any way,” Clogg said. “It’s a regulation that applies across the board, to rail, pipelines —  it’s very much focused on provincial jurisdiction.”

“The Environmental Management Act is directed at protecting the environment, species as well as people and human communities from toxic substances, that is what this is about,” Clogg said.

ICYMI: How Canada is Driving Its Endangered Species to the Brink of Extinction

By asserting jurisdictional authority, B.C. may be setting the stage for better protections for species at risk, especially the remaining 76 members of the endangered southern killer whale population, which is not expected to survive the increase in tanker traffic from Trans Mountain.

The federal government’s decision to approve the pipeline is a violation of the Species at Risk Act, according to project opponents currently fighting its approval in the courts.

Canada’s Species at Risk Act is meant to protect the critical habitat of endangered species, regardless of plans for industrial projects. . But Canada’s track record on protecting species at risk is poor and, so far, rules haven’t been strong enough to prevent proposed projects from moving forward, despite impacts to endangered species.

This winter the independent scientific panel responsible for monitoring species at risk recommended the federal government add B.C.’s struggling sockeye salmon populations to the federal Species at Risk registry. The Trans Mountain pipeline has been identified as a significant risk to sockeye salmon.

ICYMI: We Exposed Sockeye Salmon to Diluted Bitumen. Here’s What We Found.

“The way I see it legally, B.C. has the right and responsibility to look after things within its jurisdiction,” Clogg said.

“We live in an era of collaborative federalism and really when the review and federal go-ahead was given it was with a number of conditions, which included the Kinder Morgan project having to follow provincial and federal laws and permitting processes,” she said.

“All B.C. can do is act according to its responsibilities, which it’s clearly done here.”

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.

Amid continued controversy, Kinder Morgan is poised to break ground on its $7.4 billion Trans Mountain Expansion Project. When the pipeline is complete, it will triple the volume of diluted bitumen, or Dilbit, that reaches Canada’s Pacific shoreline to 890,000 barrels per day.

The Trans Mountain pipeline has been in operation since 1953. It crosses numerous waterways as it snakes its way from Edmonton to Burnaby, B.C., including the lower portions of the Fraser River — North America’s primary salmon-producing river system. The pipeline expansion has raised concerns about how its failure might have an impact on these fish.

It is efficient and cost-effective to transport oil by pipeline, and leaks have been infrequent and usually small in Canada.

Yet catastrophes do occur.

Just ask residents of Marshall, Mich., about the 3.2 million litres of Dilbit that contaminated the Kalamazoo River in July 2010 after an Enbridge pipeline failed.

Salmon are integral to Canada’s West Coast

Pacific salmon are deeply ingrained in the fabric of Canada. They are a key link between aquatic and terrestrial food chains, connecting marine algae to bears and forests. They are a central element in First Nations cultures and economies. And they generate more than $500 million in revenue annually through the combined activities of sport fishing, commercial harvest and tourism.

As a biologist, what fascinates me most about Pacific salmon is their remarkable life cycle.

Take sockeye, for example, an iconic and abundant species of Pacific salmon. Sockeye eggs develop slowly during the winter months, buried in the same gravelly river sediments once occupied by their ancestors. After hatching, they spend up to three years swimming through inland lakes before transforming into silvery, salt-tolerant fish that escape to the Pacific Ocean.

Years later they return by the millions for a single chance to spawn in their birthplace streams. Afterwards, their bright red bodies decorate the riverbank, becoming a staple meal for bears and eagles, and an essential nutrient source for the forest ecosystem.

How do we prepare for a “worst-case scenario” — a pipeline failure that contaminates sockeye habitat? via @salderman80 https://t.co/fChyYqhRI4

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) January 22, 2018

In recent years, the number of sockeye returning to spawn has decreased dramatically, and this is especially true for populations of the lower Fraser River. Many factors, like urbanization, have contributed to this decline, and it is clear that the survival of the salmon’s early life stages and its successful ocean migration are key to the long-term stability of Fraser River sockeye.

Understanding how a Dilbit spill would affect sockeye during these early life stages can help prepare us for a future we hope won’t happen.

What is Dilbit anyway?

Bitumen is Canada’s black gold. It is a heavy, viscous type of crude oil found in vast quantities in Canada’s oilsands. Extracted bitumen is blended with lighter hydrocarbons (diluents) to relax its tar-like consistency into a flowing liquid ready for transport. The blended products are called Dilbit, short for diluted bitumen.

Diluting raw bitumen has another advantage besides allowing it to flow. It lowers the heavy oil’s density to below that of water, meaning that any Dilbit released into the aquatic environment should float.

But the behaviour of spilled Dilbit in water depends on many things, such as water flow and turbidity. Not to mention that the diluent evaporates rapidly, taking its added buoyancy with it. So the possibility that spilled Dilbit will sink is a valid concern — and sunken Dilbit is hard to clean up.

Four years after its spill in the Kalamazoo River, Enbridge was still dredging river sediments for sunken bitumen.

What would a spill mean for sockeye?

Like all crude oils, Dilbit is a mixture of hundreds of chemicals, and we know that many of these are toxic to fish.

One consequence of crude oil exposure in developing fish is the damage it can cause to the heart. Much of this toxicity is blamed on a single class of chemicals in crude oils called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs for short. Fish embryos exposed to individual PAHs or to crude oil, at real-world concentrations, can develop heart deformities that affect cardiac function.

Often, and perhaps not unexpectedly, this cardiac toxicity can lead to reduced swimming performance. For a sockeye, that’s a scary thought. These aquatic athletes depend on their strong hearts to complete two rigorous migrations.

So how do we prepare for a “worst-case scenario” — a pipeline failure that contaminates sockeye habitat?

Using science to plan ahead

For the past four years, I have been working with experts in cardiovascular adaptations, oil toxicity and salmon physiology to build a comprehensive understanding of Dilbit toxicity to early life stages of salmon. Our collaboration is part of an ongoing commitment by Fisheries and Oceans Canada to support research on environmental issues related to the oil and gas industry.

In controlled laboratory experiments, we expose salmon to low and environmentally relevant concentrations of Dilbit over realistic exposure times. We test fish at a variety of early life stages and look for sub-lethal effects that might indirectly affect their survival.

So far, our research shows that spill-like exposure conditions can impair the swimming performance of juvenile fish by as much as 10 per cent and lead to pathological changes in heart tissue.

This is a big deal. It means that persistent Dilbit contamination in a young salmon’s environment could conceivably reduce their chance of successfully migrating out to the ocean, and contribute to further population decline.

Our current work will determine if swimming performance can be recovered and if the heart pathology is reversible once the fish move to clean water.

We are also working towards developing blood biomarkers of Dilbit exposure. Blood biomarkers are a valuable diagnostic tool, and could be used to monitor and manage the health of wild salmon following a spill.

A take home message

All eyes are on Kinder Morgan now, but the Trans Mountain pipeline is just one branch in transport network that delivers oilsands products across the continent. Like it or not, our world still runs on fossil fuels and Canada’s vast bitumen reserves are a difficult resource to ignore.

But there is a silver lining to this story.

At the lowest concentrations we tested, and at the shortest exposure times, the salmon’s swimming performance was not impaired. A rapid response to contain a Dilbit spill is therefore crucial to minimizing the effects on sockeye.

More importantly, the federal and provincial governments must rigorously enforce pipeline regulations to make sure that companies like Kinder Morgan build and maintain their pipelines to the highest standard.

Sarah L. Alderman, Research Associate in Environmental Physiology, University of Guelph

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Illustration: David Seibold 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.

In recent months, there’s been a re-emergence of one of the oil industry’s most adored tropes: that without new pipelines, companies will ship oil by rail and threaten entire communities with derailments, explosions and spills.

The jury’s still very much out on whether shipments will actually increase by much more than what we’ve seen in the past. Regardless, there’s one thing that strangely never gets mentioned by proponents of the argument.

Transporting oil by rail doesn’t have to be nearly as dangerous as it currently is.

In fact, there are many rules and regulations that could be implemented by the federal government to help avoid another disaster like what happened in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, or Gogama, Ontario.

ICYMI: How the Spectre of Oil Trains is Deceptively Used to Push Pipelines

“We live within metres of the transcontinental CP line,” Patricia Lai, co-founder of Safe Rail Communities, told DeSmog Canada. “This is very real for us on a daily basis, and we know this exists for communities across the country. It’s fantastic to say that you’re committed, but we really need some action to happen more quickly.”

Here are just a few things the federal government can do to dramatically improve oil-by-rail safety.

Require Proper Assessments for Oil-By-Rail Projects

As MP Linda Duncan put it in an interview with DeSmog Canada, rail is the only industrial sector that’s effectively exempt from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

To be sure, there are provisions in the legislation related to rail. But the way that environmental assessments work is that a “physical activity” such as building a new pipeline or dam of a certain length or capacity will trigger an assessment.

An assessment will get triggered if a new railway of 32 kilometres or more is built. Same with a rail yard with “seven or more yard tracks or a total track length of 20 km or more.” But the trigger doesn’t have anything to do with what’s actually being shipped on existing CP or CN railways.

“It doesn’t matter if one of the two major rail lines increases by a thousand-fold the transport of dangerous goods,” said Duncan, who introduced a private member’s bill in 2016 to improve oil-by-rail safety.

“They can transport whatever they want, at any time, in an overloaded many-mile-long train and continue not to maintain their tracks or trains properly.”

Duncan’s bill would require two related changes.

The first would amend the Railway Safety Act to restrict the shipment of dangerous goods to certain volumes unless the transport minister authorizes an exemption. Secondly, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act would require the environment minister to trigger an assessment if the activity poses a “potentially significant risk to the environment, human life or public health.”

“What I’m proposing is the tip of the iceberg,” said Duncan, who previously served as opposition transport critic.

While Transport Minister Marc Garneau has repeatedly stated that rail safety is a top priority for him and the federal government, he hasn’t yet voiced support for the bill.

Charles Hatt, staff lawyer at Ecojustice, said he’s seen something similar in his communications with Environment Minister Catherine McKenna on the subject. Ecojustice has requested the federal government to order assessments on all oil-by-rail terminals regardless of size.

“We know the rather appalling gap in the legislation for these kind of activities was pointed out directly to the minister and we suggested actions she could take, and she chose not to,” Hatt told DeSmog Canada. “There’s no doubt what this government thinks about this issue.”

Six Simple Ways Canada Can Make #Oil-By-Rail Way Safer https://t.co/jJGYuHzchh #cdnpoli #oiltrains #neatbit #lacmegantic #gogama

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) November 15, 2017

Accelerate Phase-Out of Older Train Models

In July 2016, the federal government announced the accelerated phase-out of the DOT-111 railcar for transporting oil.

That was the same model of railcar used in the Lac-Mégantic disaster, long criticized for being susceptible to puncture and explosions due to insufficiently thick walls and lack of full heat shield. Now, crude oil is transported by models such as the CPC-1232 (a modified version of the DOT-111) and the new DOT-117, which will replace all models by 2025.

ICYMI: What Have We Learned From the Lac-Megantic Oil Train Disaster?

But that’s many years away.

According to Bruce Campbell, former executive director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and author of an upcoming book on the Lac-Mégantic disaster, about 86 per cent of tank cars that transport crude oil are the modified versions of the DOT-111. Those only represent a slight improvement and have already been involved in multiple explosive derailments.

“It’s great that tank cars will have improved by 2025,” Lai, from Safe Rail Communities, said. “But we don’t even know for sure if those tank cars are strong enough.”

Reduce Volatility of Oil Before Shipment

An associated issue is that companies could easily reduce the volatility of oil by a process called “stabilizing,” which sees the flammable natural gas liquids removed from the product.

But that would cost money, around $2 per barrel according to North Dakota regulators.

“Oil companies have resisted strenuously doing anything to stabilize oil before it goes into the tank cars, removing its most volatile components,” Campbell said in an interview with DeSmog Canada.

ICYMI: Fiery Saskatchewan Train Derailment Raises Fresh Questions About Oil-By-Rail Safety

“There’s a way to transport bitumen in its raw form, which is not volatile. But that requires special heated cars.”

Raw bitumen, also referred to as “neatbit,” would greatly reduce the amount of diluent used in shipping bitumen and in turn decrease the risk levels of oil-by-rail. The process would require a significant amount of capital investment, and hasn’t been explored much by industry.

End Self-Regulation, Increase Government Enforcement

In 2001, the government introduced a new approach to regulating rail, called “safety management systems.” Essentially, it means that rail companies craft and implement safety protocols and the federal government audits them.

But critics don’t think it’s nearly sufficient.

“It’s self regulation if it’s the companies doing it,” Campbell said.“The whole idea was that it was supposed to be an additional layer to conventional direct oversight. Of course, it isn’t, because they didn’t give Transport Canada the resources or the money.”

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada specifically identified a lack of safety culture, oversight and enforcement by Transport Canada as contributing factors for Lac-Mégantic, recommending that the department must make sure “not just that [safety management systems] exist, but that they are working and that they are effective.”

Yet in a December 2016 speech at a conference about Lac-Mégantic, Union of Canadian Transportation Employees president Christine Collins said that there still hadn’t been a significant change in the number or quality of inspectors, resources dedicated to the task, or any indication that newly announced federal funding for rail safety would actually improve safety standards.

Campbell added the actual number of rail safety inspectors and dangerous goods inspectors hasn’t increased since at least 2004, despite oil-by-rail shipments skyrocketing in volume.

“On-site unannounced inspections have just shrunk and it’s more and more just a paper exercise,” he said.

Listen to the Public

Then there’s the challenge of actually being able to influence how things are done given that almost all the major decisions made behind closed doors.

“It’s an internal conversation between the railway companies and the ministry,” Campbell said. “There’s no public consultation process. Nominally, they consult with the unions but they’re under no obligation.”

A related impediment to understanding the issues is that there’s very little information out there on the actual amount of oil being transported in Canada. While the National Energy Board reports the monthly volume of exports by rail to the U.S., there’s no similar numbers for internal shipments.

In addition, risk assessments and evaluations conducted by the companies are protected by commercial confidentiality, meaning that the public doesn’t have access to them. Combine that with lack of consultation, and it’s obvious there are improvements to be made when it comes to transparency and consultation.

“We really need to have more input on a regular basis,” Lai said.

“There has to be a better mechanism for moving things forward rather than saying ‘come and share with us what your concerns are and we’ll take it away.’ I think there really has to be some kind of working group or network struck that really does include stakeholders like the public who are really affected by this kind of thing.”

More Solutions At Hand

These solutions could massively increase the safety of oil-by-rail and even then, there are many more waiting to be implemented.

The government could require companies to reroute tracks to avoid heavily populated areas, or implement a new fatigue management framework, or order a strategic environmental assessment of all oil-by-rail shipments, or implement advanced rail safety technologies.

And, according to Duncan, the idea of dangerous oil-by-rail should no longer be used as an argument to push for pipeline projects.

“I get really tired of oil companies arguing they should be able to build pipelines because rail is more dangerous,” Duncan said. “That’s a really specious argument. We need to be making sure that we’re properly reviewing all means of transport of dangerous materials.”

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.

Nobody knows how a spill of diluted bitumen would affect marine life or whether a bitumen spill in salt water could be adequately cleaned up, because basic research is lacking, says a new study.

The peer-reviewed paper, which will be published later this month in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, looked at more than 9,000 studies of the effect of oilsands products on the marine environment.

The paper is under embargo until Dec. 20, but the authors, from universities in Canada and the U.S., shared their findings with the federal government in hopes that the conclusions would be considered prior to pipeline decisions, said Wendy Palen, associate professor in the department of biological sciences at Simon Fraser University and one of the authors.

“As scientists, we feel a responsibility to speak out about the state of the science, especially with a government that has pledged to be evidence-based,” said Palen, who agreed to discuss general conclusions of the study with DeSmog Canada in advance of the embargo being lifted because of the government’s approval of Kinder Morgan’s $6.8-billion pipeline expansion.

The project will see capacity of the Trans Mountain pipeline, from the Alberta oilsands to Burnaby, triple to 890,000 barrels of diluted bitumen a day from 300,000 barrels daily. It will also mean tanker traffic from the Burnaby terminal will increase to 34 tankers a month from about five a month.

Those super-tankers, carrying diluted bitumen, will travel through the Strait of Georgia, around the Gulf Islands and southern Vancouver Island then through Juan de Fuca Strait on their way to foreign markets.

Pipeline opponents fear that a catastrophic oil spill is inevitable, but Prime Minister Justin Trudeau insists the government’s decision was based on science and that the project would have been rejected if he believed there was any threat to the B.C. coast.

However, the study found that there are large unexamined risks to the marine environment from bitumen and claims that a spill can be effectively mitigated are unfounded because there have been no ocean-based studies of how bitumen behaves in the marine environment with rough seas and changing temperatures, Palen said.

“That means that the approval of new projects is problematic, maybe even bordering on irresponsible,” she said.

“Any new approvals of pipelines or transportation proposals are assuming a large amount of risk…The decision last week was troubling because of this knowledge gap.”

Transportation of heavy oil from Alberta’s oilsands has outpaced the science that can ensure projects are safe and although thousands of peer-reviewed studies are available on the behaviour of conventional oil and spills in fresh water, there is almost nothing on the behaviour of bitumen in the ocean, Palen said.

Review of 9000 Studies Finds We Know Squat About Bitumen Spills in Ocean Environments https://t.co/S2Zpkb8WCD #bcpoli #cdnpoli @LavoieJudith

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) December 9, 2016

One of the few studies looking at bitumen in the marine environment found it tends to float until it weathers and then sinks, but that study was conducted in the laboratory, not in the ocean.

One reason that the science is so sparse is that companies will not disclose what chemical mix is going into the pipe.

“The composition is protected as a corporate trade secret and the companies don’t have to disclose it. That’s something we called for in our letter to the Prime Minister and cabinet. We, in the scientific community, urgently need that information in order to allow science to catch up,” Palen said.

“We were quite surprised about it and concluded that some of the most basic questions remain unanswered.”

Bitumen is a very heavy oil that will not flow through a pipe without being diluted. Usually lighter petroleum products such as natural gas concentrate, refined naptha or synthetic crude oil are used to make it flow.

A previous study on diluted bitumen, by the U.S.-based National Academy of Sciences, found that, unlike lighter compounds that begin to evaporate when spilled, heavy oil weathers into an adhesive, dense viscous material when exposed to the elements.

“For this reason, spills of diluted bitumen pose particular challenges when they reach water bodies. In some cases, the residues can submerge or sink to the bottom of the water body,“ it says.

The study found that a pipeline failure that releases diluted bitumen poses danger to responders and the public, as well as to the environment.

“When all risks are considered systematically, there must be a greater level of concern associated with spills of diluted bitumen compared to spills of commonly transported crude oils,” it says

Six years ago a diluted bitumen pipeline operated by Enbridge burst, spilling bitumen into a tributary of the Kalamazoo River. The spill cost more than $1-billion to clean up and put the spotlight on the hazards of pumping bitumen through pipelines.

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.

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.

The National Energy Board (NEB) ordered high-pressure testing of a segment of Enbridge’s Line 9 pipeline before the line, a west-to-east oil pipeline, can begin operating according to a press release issued Thursday.

“Before Line 9B becomes operational, hydrostatic testing results of three segments of the pipeline must be provided to and approved by the NEB,” the National Energy Board — Canada’s federal pipeline regulator — said.

Enbridge requested permission to reverse the flow of a 639-kilometre portion of the Line 9B pipeline between North Westover, Ontario and Montreal. Line 9B is part of the larger Line 9, which Enbridge hopes will carry diluted bitumen from the Alberta oilsands to Eastern Canada.

Community groups, particularly in Quebec, have long requested the high-pressure, hydrostatic test. A hydrotest or hydrostatic test is a commonly used method of determining if a pipeline can operate safely at its expected operating pressure. Recently a number of groups demanded the NEB explain why it would not order a hydrotest of Line 9.

Map of Enbridge's Line 9.

The NEB’s recent announcement appears to be in response to public concern.

“Line 9B is located in a heavily urbanized area with a large number of waterways; any released would travel rapidly to the water systems and affect a large number of people,” the NEB press release stated. “A higher degree of confidence in the integrity, or condition, of the pipeline is required to show that the pipeline is safe to operate.”

The public has expressed concern over the age of the pipeline, its out-of-date design features and the possible effects of transporting diluted oilsands (also called tarsands) bitumen on the pipeline’s integrity.

The entire pipeline will not be hydrostatically tested. Three small sections of the pipeline have been selected for testing by the NEB. In Ontario, the sections between Kingston and Brockville and around Hilton will be tested. One section in Mirabel, Quebec near Montreal will also undergo a hydrotest. 

Little detail is given as to why these three sections were chosen for the safety test.

“The number and location of the segments to be tested were identified by NEB professional engineers to provide the best results to validate existing data. The learnings gained will be applied, as appropriate, to the entire pipeline,” the NEB stated.

The NEB also gave the go-ahead or “leave to open” for the 39-year old pipeline to begin pumping oil to Montreal via southern Ontario. Enbridge must comply with the regulator’s conditions first.

“Enbridge is granted leave to open the North Westover ‘B’, Hilton ‘A’, Cardinal ‘A’ and Montreal ‘A’ facilities for the transmission of crude oil,” states an NEB regulatory order dated June 18th. The “facilities” are the pipeline’s pumping stations.  

First Nation Requests Delay While Line 9 Legal Challenge Underway

If Enbridge meets the board’s conditions, the Calgary-based pipeline company is free to put Line 9 back into operation despite an unresolved First Nation legal challenge against the project.  The Chippewas of the Thames or Deshkaan Ziibing in the Anishinaabe language had their first day in federal court this week.

"Canada has never consulted us on this project and it's their constitutional obligation to do so. They can't appoint a third party. It should be a nation-to-nation discussion," Myeengun Henry, Deshkaan Ziibing band councilor, told VICE. 

The southwestern Ontario First Nation argues in their case before the Federal Court of Appeal the Line 9 project could negatively impact their constitutionally protected aboriginal and treaty rights. The federal government has the legal duty to consult with First Nations, Metis, and Inuit when projects may infringe upon their rights.

No consultations between the federal government and any of the First Nations along Line 9 have taken place to date.

Deshkaan Ziibing asked the NEB earlier this month to delay Line 9’s start up until their legal challenge had reached its conclusion.

“Chippewa of the Thames First Nation is requesting they be granted a stay until after the issue is heard in court. If the NEB moves forward before the legal questions are settled, the legal process will hold no validity and the chance to properly consult and accommodate will be lost forever,” Ontario Regional Chief Stan Beardy said in defense of Deshkaan Ziibing’s request.

“The NEB can grant the stay order and avoid causing irreparable harm.”

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 mayors of Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster, City of North Vancouver, Victoria, Squamish and Bowen Island have declared their “non-confidence” in the National Energy Board’s (NEB) review of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline and are calling on the federal government to put the current process on hold until a full public hearing process is re-instated.

“It has become apparent that the NEB process does not constitute a ‘public hearing’ and is completely inadequate to assess the health and safety risks of a proposed pipeline through major metropolitan areas, and the potential risks of shipping bitumen oil to Burnaby and through Burrard Inlet, the Salish Sea, and along the coastline of British Columbia,” the mayors write in their declaration.

The mayors also call upon the Government of British Columbia to re-assert its role in environmental assessment and to establish a provincial process, including public hearings, to assess the Trans Mountain proposal.

If built, the Trans Mountain pipeline system would transport more than 890,000 barrels a day of primarily diluted bitumen from the Alberta oilsands to B.C.’s west coast. Most of this heavy oil is destined for Westridge dock in Burnaby, where it would be loaded onto 400 oil tankers per year — a six-fold increase from current oil tanker traffic.

“The current hearing process does not allow for consideration of some of the most damaging aspects of the proposal — the inadequacy of emergency plans; the potential for marine oil spills; the effects of the project on climate change, and the threat it poses to our local economy,” says Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson. “We want to demonstrate to our residents and businesses that we are taking the potential risks seriously, and we want to work together with other municipalities in the region to protect our economy, our environment and our people.”

The mayors say the elimination of oral cross-examination from the hearing process has rendered the process inadequate. Without oral cross-examination, the municipalities have been forced to submit their questions in writing and wait on written responses back from Kinder Morgan. 

“The proponent has failed to answer the majority of questions submitted by municipalities and other intervenors,” the mayors write in their declaration. “Because of the inadequacies inherent to the review process, hundreds of questions critical to public safety and environmental impacts remain unanswered.”

The declaration continues: “We have serious concerns that the current NEB panel is neither independent from the oil industry proponents nor ready or able to assess the ‘public interest’ of British Columbians. It is no longer a credible process from either a scientific evidentiary basis, nor from a public policy and public interest perspective.”

 “We know that our concerns are shared by communities throughout the province,” says Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan. “This flawed hearing process disallows review of aspects of the proposal that could cause the most significant damage. It is critical for this project — and for all projects that can harm communities and the environment — that we have federal review processes that are rigorous and transparent.”

"The City of Victoria is concerned about the impact of increased tanker traffic on our ecology and our economy,” says Victoria Mayor Lisa Helps. “We're happy to stand with other municipalities to request a fair and rigorous process to ensure that both are safeguarded for the long term.”

Resolutions calling National Energy Board's review process of Kinder Morgan’s proposal inadequate have already been passed by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (September 2014) and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (March 2015).

The province of British Columbia has also taken issue with the NEB process, particularly with regard to its failure to compel Kinder Morgan to release its oil spill response plans in B.C. — while the company releases those very same plans across the border in Washington State.

Photo: Mark Klotz 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.

“Once the oil started to sink, it made things a lot more difficult on our recovery.”

Those were the words of Greg Powell of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during his presentation on March 10th at the National Academy of Sciences conference on the Effects of Diluted Bitumen on the Environment. Powell was one of the people involved in the response and clean up of the Kalamazoo River tar sands dilbit spill in 2010 where an Enbridge pipeline cracked and spilled approximately one million gallons of diluted bitumen into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan.

Powell presented a disturbing account of what happened at Kalamazoo with pictures showing a river with “bank to bank” oil and contamination for almost 40 miles. This damage took over four years and more than a billion dollars to clean up. And Powell explained the main reason was that diluted bitumen isn’t like other oil.

Dilbit is a mixture of two distinct materials. One is the heavy tar-like bitumen that is the result of tar sands mining. The other is the highly flammable natural gas condensate that is mixed into the bitumen to lower the mixture’s viscosity and allow the diluted bitumen to be pumped through a pipeline or transported in a rail tanker car.

Throughout the two-day meeting, multiple presenters explained that the natural gas condensate/diluent starts evaporating as soon as there is a dilbit spill. This produces serious air quality issues due to the high levels of benzene involved. EPA's Powell had a slide on that: 

Additionally, as has been shown with two recent dilbit-by-rail accidents, the natural gas condensate can also easily catch fire and cause explosions.

Once the diluent has fully volatilized or burned off, what is left is bitumen, which is what took years to clean up in Kalamazoo after it sank in the river. 

And in Kalamazoo it wasn’t just that the bitumen sank, but the way it adhered to plants and surfaces and didn’t come off.

“We had to remove all of the vegetation along the stream bank because that oil would not come off,” Powell explained. He later said that they would, “Pressure wash rocks with it directly on the rocks and we couldn’t break that oil loose once it adhered to the rock.”  At one point he stated, “it was like roofing tar.”

In one of Powell’s summary slides he made several observations about the spill noting that the focus of the cleanup “switched to submerged oil about a month after the release” and that the bitumen sank “within 2 weeks of the spill.” 

What made Powell’s description of the behavior of the oil in the Kalamazoo spill particularly noteworthy was that it contradicted claims made in a presentation by the American Petroleum Institute (API) during Day 1 of the meeting. Peter Lidiak of the API said results from a new API-funded study about dilbit will be released in the near future but based on the preliminary findings, dilbit floats and doesn’t sink. 

An interesting part of that study is that it lasted for 13 days. Dilbit doesn’t sink right away. Since it is a mixture of bitumen and volatile diluents like natural gas condensate, it doesn’t sink until the lighter natural gas condensate evaporates, leaving the heavier bitumen behind.

A 2013 study funded by Endbridge — the company that owned the pipeline that spilled dilbit into the Kalamazoo River — also concluded that dilbit didn’t sink. That study also only lasted 13 days. Powell had noted that the bitumen sank, “within two weeks of the spill.”

In much the same manner the API has claimed Bakken Shale oil isn’t different from other oils, citing studies funded by the oil industry, the industry is taking the same approach now with dilbit. Which make senses because the efforts with the Bakken oil have been very successful.

As reported recently by Reuters, the directive to have nothing in the new oil-by-rail regulations to require oil companies to remove the explosive natural gas liquids from Bakken oil prior to shipment, came from the White House. Meanwhile, two more Bakken oil trains have recently crashed and exploded.

Regardless of the industry-funded studies claiming dilbit is not going to sink, it is unlikely anyone who has seen the Kalamazoo River accident will believe them. Greg Powell’s presentation even contained a slide titled, “How To Sink Dilbit In A River” explaining how the bitumen ended up under water. 

The sole public commenter at the NAS meeting was Jane Kleeb of Bold Nebraska, a grassroots group fighting eminent domain and the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline and working to hold the corporations accountable for spill response and safety.

Kleeb explained to DeSmogBlog that Bold Nebraska has asked that all pipeline companies be required to have proper Material Safety Data Sheets available to local first responders detailing what is moving through the pipelines. The group also asked for the companies to provide proper equipment for first responders in the event of a dilbit spill in rural Nebraska.

Bold Nebraska had little success with either request.

“TransCanada has constantly pushed back on us saying we are alarmist and extremists and that it is not necessary,” Kleeb told DeSmogBlog.

During the conference it was noted that one of the problems with the Kalamazoo spill response was that initially Enbridge provided the wrong MSDS to the first responders.

Kleeb told DeSmogBlog she was pleased with one result from the meeting. “I was very relieved to know that the EPA and the Coast Guard both acknowledge the fact that yes, dilbit or tars sands or oil sands or however you are going to call it, does sink and that it is a problem.”

However, she maintains a healthy skepticism and expressed concern about the current study due to an earlier NAS study about the effects of dilbit on pipelines that was so popular with the industry it is touted on the Enbridge website.

“I fear the NAS study could just be a repeat of the first one,” said Kleeb.

While recent rail accidents with dilbit have resulted in reported spills of one million liters of dilbit as well as ruptured tanker cars ending up in a river, the conversation about dilbit in the environment at the meeting was dominated by the Kalamazoo event.

At one point, the EPA’s Powell was describing the spill response as it played out, and he recounted how someone called him to explain what seemed like good news.

“Get up here at 12 miles down the river, the oil disappears.” 

We now know that it didn’t disappear and Powell explained what really happened. “Well it didn’t disappear, it just took on a new form once the condensate volatilized off,” he said.

The natural gas condensate volatilized off and the bitumen sank — which it does in the real world — but apparently does not in American Petroleum Institute and Enbridge-funded studies.

At the end of the two-day meeting, Commander Joseph Loring was asked what he would want to know first and foremost as a first responder to a dilbit spill. In his response, Loring referred to a dilbit spill as a “ticking time bomb” and summed up the one most important piece of information he would want to have.

“How long is it going to float?” Loring said. “That is the ultimate, I want to know how long I have.”  

Image credit: U.S. 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.