Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr has reiterated the federal government’s pledge to overhaul the National Energy Board in order to restore public confidence in Canada’s pipeline review process. But the promised legislative changes will not come quickly.

"You don't rush your way into decisions that affect not only today, but generationally in Canada in the new world of sustainably moving resources to market," Carr said Monday while attending the federal cabinet’s retreat in New Brunswick.

Over the last month, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan requested Carr and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau suspend the review of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline to avoid a decision being pushed through a process they claim is “deeply flawed.” Trans Mountain’s final hearings began as scheduled on January 19 in Burnaby, British Columbia.

"The minister is correct, we shouldn’t rush the creation of a new process,” Andrea Harden-Donahue, energy and climate justice campaigner with the Council of Canadians, said. “But continuing with the flawed Kinder Morgan and Energy East reviews is entirely inconsistent with Liberal promises. How can a 'transition strategy' rectify the failings around public participation and Indigenous consultation for these projects. I don't see how this can happen."

“We are not saying pipeline companies have to go back to square one,” Harden-Donahue told DeSmog Canada. “All evidence submitted goes on hold and this can be supplemented with additional evidence after the changes are made.”

Trudeau’s government has been clear on several occasions pipeline projects currently under National Energy Board review will not be forced to go back to “square one,” that is, begin their application process completely from scratch.

The legislative changes during the Harper government’s 2012 omnibus bill frenzy severely weakened key pieces of environmental protection legislative like the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the Species At Risk Act. The National Energy Board Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act were also altered to ensure proposed pipelines made it through the regulatory process within 15-months, no matter how complex those projects may be.

“Some pipeline reviews may fall into that time limit. On the other hand, large projects with clear risks like Energy East or Kinder Morgan may not and this is problematic,” Harden-Donahue told DeSmog Canada.

There is little doubt the massive surge of public participation in the Northern Gateway pipeline hearings in B.C. served as the impetus for the Harper government to slap time limits on project reviews. With the exception of the Mackenzie Gas Project, the Board took less than 15 months to make its decisions on project applications between 2004 and 2012.

The controversial Northern Gateway proposal to pipe oilsands (also called tar sands) bitumen to B.C.’s northern coast drew records numbers of public participants for regulatory hearings and took four years to complete. The Board approved the project, albeit with over 200 conditions, in 2014.

By allowing pipeline reviews to proceed under the previous federal government’s rules, the Liberal government may be condemning projects to go back to ‘square one’ regardless. First Nations, and environmental organizations over the last four years have not been hesitant to take pipeline reviews to court over violations of ‘aboriginal’ rights or the freedom of expression.

In some cases, pipeline opponents are winning these legal battles, particularly those launched by First Nations.

Last week, the B.C. Supreme Court ruled in favour of coastal First Nations who argued in their case against Northern Gateway that the B.C. government fail to consult them about the pipeline proposal. The provincial government is now required to meaningfully consult coastal First Nations on the project, which many believe to be dead already.

Similar scenarios could play out for other pipeline projects.

The Board’s review of Trans Mountain faces a legal challenge by Tsleil-Waututh First Nation. Energy East has not come up against a legal case yet, but Treaty 3 First Nations in Ontario have vowed not to allow the pipeline to go through their territory without their free, prior and informed consent.

Line 9 pipeline, one of the first pipelines to be approved by the Board in the post-2012 omnibus bill era, is also being challenge by Deshkaan Ziibing (Chippewas of the Thames). The Ontario First Nation plans on taking their case all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Image Credit: Shannon Ramos 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.

A Quebec citizen group is applauding a resolution by the Greater Montreal Area’s governing body asking the National Energy Board for a hydrostatic safety test of the Line 9 oil pipeline before it goes back into operation this summer.

“We would like to thank the CMM (Greater Montreal Area) and its president, Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre, as well as the numerous other elected bodies that have listened to the concerns of the public, and acted swiftly on this safety issue by adopting similar resolutions and forwarding them to the NEB,” Lorraine Caron, a spokesperson for the citizen group Les Citoyens au Courant, said.

The governing body, better known as the Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal or Montreal Metropolitan Community, passed the resolution in a meeting on April 30. Line 9, a 39-year old Enbridge pipeline, runs through a densely populated corridor from Montreal, through Toronto and on to Sarnia in southwestern Ontario.

Citizen groups, and environmental organizations in Ontario and Quebec have been voicing concerns for over two years on whether Line 9 — the twin in age and design of the Enbridge pipeline that ruptured in Kalamazoo, Michigan in 2010 — can operate safely at an increased capacity and while transporting oilsands (also called tar sands) bitumen.

“We have been convinced by industry experts, including Richard Kuprewicz, U.S. expert on pipeline safety, that hydrostatic testing is the only way to guarantee the 639-kilometre pipeline can withstand the pressure it will be subjected to and the only way to find pinhole leaks and some types of stress corrosion cracking that could lead to rupture,” Katherine Massam of Les Citoyens au Courant stated in a press release.

Kuprewicz, who discussed Line 9 with DeSmog Canada on several occasions, believes without a hydrotest there is a 90 per cent probability the pipeline will rupture. The U.S.-based pipeline safety expert with over thirty years of experience found evidence of extensive stress corrosion cracking on the pipeline when examining Enbridge’s own documents on Line 9's condition.  

“Enbridge needs to conduct a hydrostatic test on Line 9. It is the gold standard for pipeline integrity and safety. Canada has a well-established history of hydrotesting its pipelines,” Kuprewicz told DeSmog Canada in a 2013 interview.

A hydrostatic test or hydrotest would pump water through Line 9 at similar pressures to those the pipeline is expected to operate at. The test could provide valuable information on whether Line 9 can operate safely at its proposed maximum pressure.

The NEB Can Order A Hydrotest of Line 9

When the National Energy Board (NEB), Canada’s federal pipeline regulator, approved Enbridge’s proposed changes to Line 9 — a 20 per cent increase in capacity, flow reversal, and the shipping of heavy crudes like bitumen — in March 2014, the board reserved the right to order a hydrotest if Enbridge’s updated Line 9 engineering assessment was deemed unsatisfactory.

So far, the NEB has chosen not to exercise this right.

“Our municipal officials have done their job by asking for these tests. Now we are expecting the Quebec government to do the same by following recommendations that CAPERN made in 2013, especially the one that pertains to carrying out hydrostatic tests to verify the pipeline,” Caron said. 

A committee commissioned by the Quebec government to investigate the Line 9 project in 2013 recommended Quebec request a hydrotest to ensure the pipeline would not fail.

During the Line 9 regulatory hearings in 2013, the province of Ontario also asked the NEB to conduct a hydrostatic test of the pipeline.   

Line 9 Approved, But Still Contested

Line 9 may have regulatory approval, but the project’s opponents in Ontario and Quebec certainly have not given up yet.

In a 29 – 2 decision, Toronto City Council passed a motion last April requesting the NEB not allow Enbridge to re-start Line 9 until the company installs automatic shut off valves on the pipeline at all major water crossings, the source of the city’s drinking water. Council deemed the valves necessary to halt the flow of oil through the pipeline in the event of a spill.

“This motion reflects increased resident pressure on the city to defend us all against environmental hazards,” Jessica Lyons, a member of the Toronto No Line 9 Network, said in a Toronto Media Co-op article.  

The Chippewas of the Thames, an Anishinaabe First Nation in southwestern Ontario, will appear in federal court this June to challenge Line 9 on the grounds the project violates their constitutionally protected aboriginal and treaty rights.  

“All eyes are on Energy East, but we are in the 9th inning with Line 9 right now,” Caron told DeSmog Canada.

“If Line 9 is allowed to transport tar sands oil it will set a bad precedent for all the other pipeline projects.”

Line 9 is expected to begin operating again at the end of June.

Image Credit: Oil Change International

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.

Yesterday (June 11th) the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal granted the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation leave to take their challenge of the Line 9 pipeline decision to court. The National Energy Board (NEB) – Canada’s energy regulator – approved the Enbridge oil pipeline project last March despite the federal government failing to fulfill its legal duty to consult with First Nations along the 38-year old pipeline’s route in Ontario and Quebec.

Line 9 goes through the Chippewas of the Thames or Deshkaan Ziibing* in the Anishinaabe (Ojibwe) language traditional territory.

“We do not agree with the NEB’s decision enabling Enbridge to reverse the flow of Line 9B. While the NEB can give certain approvals, it does not give Enbridge the social license to operate. Now we are in the position of having to argue about this pipeline in the Federal Court of Appeal on the issue of aboriginal consultation,” Chief Joe Miskokomon of the Chippewas of the Thames said in a statement.

The southwestern Ontario First Nation argues allowing Enbridge to increase the capacity of Line 9 by twenty percent and ship oilsands (also called tar sands) bitumen through the pipeline increases the likelihood of a rupture. A Line 9 spill would severely impact Deshkaan Ziibing members’ constitutionally-protected indigenous rights. A pipeline safety expert who spoke with DeSmog last year said the odds of a Line 9 rupture was ninety percent.

“We need the public and First Nations across this country to see this appeal as an opportunity to lend their support to Chippewa, and to strongly encourage government and industry to pursue alternative approaches to address how natural resources are developed to benefit the seventh generation,” Chief Miskokomon said.

“First Nations are being drawn into pipeline discussions with Line 9B and Energy East projects. Chippewa is expressing concerns about the land and water but we find ourselves having to make assertions in areas covered by treaty. We want to help define what a new approach should be, as we prefer not be in the courts, and these matters should become standard practice,” Rolanda Elijah director of Lands and Environment for Deshkaan Ziibing says.

Line 9's Approval Puts Deshkaan Ziibing Rights in Jeopardy

The federal government’s duty to consult with Canada’s indigenous peoples (First Nations, Metis and Inuit) is triggered when a proposed project has the potential to negatively affect indigenous rights and treaty rights.

Deshkaan Ziibing demonstrated during the Line 9 public hearings held last October that its members exercise their rights by means of traditional practices (hunting, fishing, harvesting) in the area occupied by Line 9, the Thames River valley in case of Deshkaan Ziibing. A Line 9 rupture and the difficulties of adequately cleaning up a bitumen spill in particular would infringe upon Deshkaan Ziibing members' ability to exercise these rights.

Deshkaan Ziibing points to the office established by the Ministry of Natural Resources to hold discussions with BC First Nations over major pipeline projects as a way forward for Line 9 and other federally-approved resource projects affecting Deshkaan Ziibing territory.

Unfortunately creating an office to consult with First Nations after a regulatory process on a major energy project has begun or after the project has been approved is not acting in good faith and contravenes the legal precedent requiring the federal government to act “honourably” when conducting negotiations with First Nations.

“We know that there is a lot of public debate about oil pipelines because we are beginning to see that the old ways of doing business are no longer acceptable because of issues like global climate change and species extinction. Our elders have taught us that when we don’t respect Mother Earth our actions will come back to us,” Chief Miskokomon says.

Deshkaan Ziibing is one of fourteen Anishinaabe, Haudenosaunee (Six Nations), and Lenape (Delaware) First Nations living along or near the 38-year old Line 9 pipeline. Although the NEB has approved the project, Enbridge still needs to meet thirty relatively weak conditions the NEB set for the project’s before it receives the final go ahead.

Anishinaabe, Haudenosaunee, and Lenape are the names for the “Ojibwe,” “Six Nations” or “Iroquois,” and “Delaware” in their respective languages. Deshkaan Ziibing is the Anishinaabe name for “Chippewas of the Thames.”

Image Credit: Chippewas of the Thames

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 Chippewas of the Thames First Nation have launched a legal challenge against the National Energy Board’s (NEB) decision to approve Enbridge’s Line 9 oil pipeline project in southern Ontario and southern Quebec. The NEB – Canada’s independent energy regulator – approved the project to ship 300,000 barrels a day of oil and oilsands bitumen last month with soft conditions.

“This 40-year old pipe is subject to corrosion and heavy crude is going to be shipped through in higher volumes. We feel that this raises the possibility of new impacts beyond the right-of-way and we are concerned about our water resources and the environment,” says Chief Joe Miskokomon of the Chippewas of the Thames or Deshkaan Ziibing* in the Anishinaabe (Ojibwe) language.

Deshkaan Ziibing is one of fourteen Anishinaabe, Haudenosaunee (Six Nations), and Lenape (Delaware) First Nations living along or near the 38-year old Line 9 pipeline. DeSmog Canada reported last November that the federal government’s failure to fulfill its legal duty to consult with all of these First Nations could land the federal government and the Line 9 project in court.

The legal challenge was filed last Monday with the Federal Court of Appeal on the grounds the NEB approved Line 9 without the federal government “conducting any meaningful consultation” with Deshkaan Ziibing.

“The federal government has to consider our treaty and aboriginal rights enshrined within the constitution,” states Miskokomon in a press release. 

Federal Government Has Legal Duty to Consult on Line 9

“We still need to be consulted and we are willing to listen,” Myeengun Henry, a band councilor with Deshkaan Ziibing said in an interview with DeSmog Canada the night of Line 9’s approval.

The federal government did not attempt to consult any of the First Nations along the route of Line 9.

Both the Canadian Constitution and the Supreme Court have made clear the federal government’s legal duty to consult indigenous peoples in Canada (First Nations, Metis, Inuit) if a decision under contemplation may have adverse impacts on their constitutionally-protected indigenous and treaty rights:

“The honour of the Crown requires that these (indigenous) rights be determined, recognized and respected. This, in turn, requires the Crown, acting honourably, to participate in processes of negotiation. While this process continues, the honour of the Crown may require it to consult and, where indicated, accommodate Aboriginal interests” – Supreme Court’s ruling in Haida First Nation v. British Columbia (2004).

Proposed Changes to Line 9 Triggers the Duty to Consult

The NEB approved changes for Line 9 – increasing the capacity of the pipeline by 20 per cent to transport oilsands bitumen – carry with them new risks and new potential impacts on Deshkaan Ziibing and other First Nations in Ontario and Quebec. According to a pipeline safety expert who spoke with DeSmog last October the odds of a Line 9 rupture, given proposed changes, are 90 per cent.

“This is not an issue of inadequate or improper consultation with First Nations. No consultation by the federal government has taken place whatsoever,” lawyer Scott Smith told DeSmog Canada in an interview last November. Smith represented Deshkaan Ziibing and Aamjiwnaang First Nation in the Line 9 hearings. Deshkaan Ziibing and Aamjiwnaang are both in southwestern Ontario.

The federal government is expected to contest that changes to the pipeline give rise to new potential risks and impacts.

“We are being denied the dialogue to be included in solutions where Aboriginal and treaty rights are impacted by significant economic proposals put forward by industry and backed by the Canadian government,” says Chief Miskokomon. “We are not going away and part of our fate rests with this appeal.”

Deshkaan Ziibing provided evidence during the Line 9 hearings by means of a traditional land use study demonstrating to the NEB that the members of Deshkaan Ziibing still exercise their “aboriginal and treaty rights within the same territory occupied by Line 9.” Hunting, trapping, fishing, and collecting medicinal plants are just some of the traditional practices and rights still exercised by members of Deshkaan Ziibing in the Thames River valley. Line 9 crosses through the river.

Public Challenges Against the Line 9 Project

This is the second legal challenge against the Line 9 project. Last summer ForestEthics Advocacy launched a lawsuit against the federal government’s restrictions on public participation in pipeline project hearings. During the Line 9 hearings, participating citizens were prevented from commenting on the impacts the pipeline would have on climate change and the expansion of the oilsands in Alberta. ForestEthics argues this is a violation of the freedom expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Two Ontario municipalities – Toronto and Whitby – have passed motions demanding the provincial government conduct an environmental assessment of the Line 9 project. The NEB-ordered environmental assessment of Line 9 was only conducted on the pipeline’s pumping stations, not on the pipeline itself. Surprisingly, the assessment failed to take in consideration what would happen if the pipeline ruptured.

*Anishinaabe, Haudenosaunee, and Lenape are the names for the “Ojibwe,” “Six Nations” or “Iroquois,” and “Delaware” in their respective languages. Deshkaan Ziibing is the Anishinaabe name for “Chippewas of the Thames.”

Image Credits: Chief Joe Miskokomon by Greg Plain | Line 9 map from Enbridge

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’s approval of the Line 9 pipeline project by the National Energy Board (NEB) hinges on thirty conditions being met by the pipeline’s operator, Enbridge. The conditions are meant to enhance the safety of the project that involves shipping 300,000 barrels of crude oil and oilsands bitumen everyday from Sarnia to Montreal. Critics of the project say the requirements are not “meaningful conditions” and do not protect communities living along the 38-year old pipeline.

"By giving the green light without actually imposing conditions, the NEB is complacent towards the oilsands industry and demonstrates its inability to protect [our] health, public safety and our environment," Sidney Ribaux, executive director of Équiterre, says of Line 9’s approval in a statement from Montreal.

“The NEB may pretend to have put adequate safeguards in place but it has only safeguarded the profits of pipeline companies and externalized the risks associated with pipelines onto landowners as the Board always does,” says Dave Core, president of the Canadian Association of Energy Pipeline Landowners Associations (CAEPLA).

The conditions largely require Enbridge to provide the NEB – Canada’s independent energy regulator – with the most recent information about the Line 9 project. This includes information regarding the current state of the pipeline, revised emergency response plans and the pipeline company’s updated pipeline leak detection system manual.

Why this information was not required before the NEB decided the Line 9 project was in “the public’s interest” has baffled critics. The difficulties of participating in the eighteen-month decision-making process frustrated participants who were unable to review and comment on the most recent and relevant information about the project.

“The decision and its conditions do not reflect the concerns raised by the public about Line 9 and shipping tar sands bitumen through their communities,” Adam Scott, climate and energy program manager for Environmental Defence Canada told DeSmog.

Public’s Concerns Absent from Decision

Scott points to a hydrostatic test of Line 9 as the one condition the governments of Ontario and Quebec, environmental groups, and landowners asked for, but the Board chose not to impose:

“The Board elects to make no order at this time regarding hydrotesting of the pre-existing portions of Line 9,” reads page 49 of the NEB’s 140-page document on the Line 9 decision.

A hydrostatic test or hydrotest involves flushing a pipeline with high-pressure water to determine if it can safely operate at maximum pressure.

Line 9 has not operated at its maximum pressure in recent years. Evidence submitted to the NEB by an international pipeline safety expert indicated the best way to ensure the existing cracks on Line 9 do not turn into a rupture is to conduct a hydrotest.

Protests London, Ontario against Line 9's approval 

“Enbridge needs to conduct a hydrostatic test on Line 9. It is the gold standard for pipeline integrity and safety. Canada has a well-established history of hydrotesting its pipelines,” Richard Kuprewicz, pipeline safety expert told DeSmog Canada in an interview last October.

The Board did not disagree with the argument for a hydrotest, but appears to have sided with Enbridge’s view the test could have “detrimental effects” or damage the pipeline. The decision to order a hydrotest was punted to a later time and date. 

Safety Tests to be 'Revisited'

“The Board has imposed Condition 11…[and]… may revisit the issue of requiring hydrotesting prior to granting LTO (leave-to-operate),” concludes the Board.

Before ordering a hydrotest the Board wants to review Enbridge’s approach to hydrotesting (Condition 11) and the company’s updated engineering assessment of Line 9’s state (Condition 9). The assessment must include a reliability study of the inline pipeline inspection tool Enbridge uses to evaluate the threat of cracks and corrosion to the line.

The engineering assessment Enbridge submitted during the Line 9 hearings is primarily based on the pipeline's condition ten years ago.

Two other conditions strongly recommended by critics of the project and the government of Ontario – a third party independent review of Enbridge’s data on Line 9 and the requirement of $1 billion in liability insurance in the event of a spill – were also absent from the Board’s conditions.

“There’s nothing of substance [in the conditions]. It’s pretty basic stuff that’s already required in legislation that already exists, like how you’re going to mitigate the damage you’re going to do to water crossings when you dig up a pipeline,” said Adam Scott of Environmental Defence in an interview with NOW Magazine.

Canadians Need To Determine Their Energy Future Outside of the NEB

“With these conditions, the Board is of the view that the IMP (integrity management plan) which Enbridge has implemented to date, and proposed steps going forward, sufficiently protect the facilities from cracking to enable safe operation of Line 9,” the NEB decision reads.

Although Line 9’s approval surprised no one, critics of the project held out hope for stronger conditions.

Dave Core, president of the Canadian Association of Energy Pipeline Landowners Associations (CAEPLA), has been dealing with pipelines, and the NEB for over twenty years and thinks Canadians need to rethink the regulator.

“Canadians need to realize the NEB is doing exactly what it was designed to do over sixty years ago – protect pipeline company shareholder profits and protect politicians from the public. The Board cannot be relied on to protect the public, the environment, or landowners’ rights,” says Core, who is originally a farmer from southwestern Ontario where Line 9 lies.

"We need to have a discussion about the future of the NEB and whether there even ought to be a future for the Board. It is only through ironclad contracts with the discipline of the courts and insurance that our safety, the environment and landowner stewardship responsibilities will be protected," Core told DeSmog Canada from Vancouver. 

The fate of Line 9 now depends on the NEB deciding whether Enbridge has met all imposed conditions on Line 9’s approval. Because Line 9 is an existing pipeline the project does not require approval from the federal government. 

Image Credit: Enbridge, Robert Cory

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.

Canada’s National Energy Board announced on Thursday the approval of Enbridge’s request to reverse and expand a portion of the company’s Line 9 pipeline to allow for crude to flow east to Montreal, Quebec. This follows a July 2012 decision by the NEB to allow reversal of the western Line 9 segment from West Northover to Sarnia, Ontario. As a result, in the words of the NEB, “Enbridge will be permitted to operate all of Line 9 in an eastward direction in order to transport crude oil from western Canada and the U.S. Bakken region to refineries in Ontario and Quebec.”

Canadian activists urged the NEB to fully consider the high risk and small reward of reversing the pipeline, pointing to the “DilBit Disaster” — when another reversed-flow Enbridge pipeline spilled over 800,000 gallons of diluted bitumen into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River — as a warning for what could occur on the Line 9 route.

As DeSmog Canada has reported, Enbridge’s Line 9 shares the same design deficiencies as the company’s Line 6B, which burst in Michigan. Canadian environmental groups are crying foul over the agency’s non-transparent and restrictive public comment process.

“It’s pretty obvious the entire regulatory system is broken,” Adam Scott, spokesperson for Environmental Defence, told the Vancouver Observer. “They restricted the public’s ability to even participate.” Language in a 2012 budget bill allowed the NEB’s decision to be made without a comprehensive environmental assessment, and the Canadian public was forced to complete a lengthy 10-page application (and given a short two week warning to do so) to even earn the right to submit a public comment.

“There were roughly 150 folks who were actually even allowed to comment or write a letter, and this was also the first major energy project not to have to go through an environmental assessment, so it’s clear the whole system has been stacked against the public’s interest in favour of oil companies,” said Scott.

Nader Hasan of Forest Ethics agrees that the decisionmaking process was rigged.

“Our position is that the decision isn’t just wrong, it’s invalid,” said Hasan. “The rules of the game were rigged in favour of Big Oil. We believed and continue to believe this decision is fundamentally flawed because the process is fundamentally unfair.”

Forest Ethics is challenging the restrictive public comment process with a lawsuit, launched last year, which they hope will be settled in time to impact future NEB decisions. 

Impacts in the United States

Though Enbridge's Line 9 terminates near Montreal, the flow reversal is an integral part of the company's plans to move diluted bitumen and crude from the Bakken shale to Eastern ports for export.

As we first reported on DeSmogBlog in 2012, internal documents revealed how Enbridge was resuscitating an old industry plan, once called Trailbreaker, to link the pipeline system in the American Midwest, where tar sands crude already flows, to a coastal terminal in Portland, Maine. Enbridge's Line 9, traveling through Ontario and Quebec, is a crucial link.

Image: NRDC

In 2012, 19 advocacy groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Conservation Law Foundation, Greenpeace Canada, the National Wildlife Federation, and 350.org released a report, Going in Reverse: The Tar Sands Threat to Central Canada and New England, that laid out the then-secret plans to connect Enbridge's Line 9 with the Portland-Montreal Pipeline. 

Who runs the Portand-Montreal Pipeline system? As the “Going in Reverse” report explains:

The Portland-Montreal Pipe Line is managed by two linked companies: the Montreal Pipe Line Limited, which owns and operates the Portland-Montreal Pipe Line with its wholly owned U.S. subsidiary, the Portland Pipeline Corporation.

The Portland-Montreal Pipe Line company, as well as Enbridge Inc., have been open about their intent to move tar sands oil east through central Canada and New England.

In 2011, Portland Pipe Line Corp. expressed publicly, “We’re still very much interested in reversing the flow of one of our two pipe lines to move western Canadian crude to the eastern seaboard,” treasurer Dave Cyr was reported saying. “We’re having discussions with Enbridge on their Line 9 and what it means to us.”

And then there's this: Montreal Pipe Line Limited is owned in large part by Imperial Oil Limited and Suncor Energy; both companies have major stakes in tar sands mining and refining operations in Alberta.

For the past two years, environmental groups and activists on this side of the border have been working to ensure that the 62-year-old Portland-Montreal Pipeline is never reversed. that travels through a number of ecologically-sensitive areas and crosses hundreds of waterways through Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. 

On Tuesday, Vermont residents of 13 towns passed resolutions during Town Meeting to prohibit the transport of tar sands crude through the pipeline. 

“Vermonters have already loudly signaled opposition to transporting tar sands across our rivers and farms, alongside lakes, and through communities of the Northeast Kingdom,” said Jim Murphy, National Wildlife Federation Senior Counsel. “A spill would have a devastating impact on our water supplies, wildlife habitat and tourism industry. And any transport of tar sands through Vermont would encourage growth of an industry that contradicts all of our state’s leadership and hard work on moving toward cleaner sources of energy.”

In South Portland, Maine, which hosts the potential export terminal, residents worked to pass a "Waterfront Protection Ordinance" on the ballot last fall, but were outspent 6-to-1 by Big Oil interests.  

The resistance of New Englanders might already be having an impact. While Enbridge was outspoken on a 2008 earnings call about the potential of linking its proposed tar sands pipelines to the Portland-Montreal Pipeline, this week a company spokesperson told VTDigger.org that Enbridge had "no interest" in using the Portland-Montreal Pipeline to move tar sands crude. 

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 international pipeline safety expert who last August described Enbridge’s Line 9 pipeline as “high risk for a rupture” now says the probability of Line 9 rupturing is “over 90%.”

“I do not make the statement ‘high risk for a rupture’ lightly or often. There are serious problems with Line 9 that need to be addressed,” Richard Kuprewicz, a pipeline safety expert with over forty years of experience in the energy sector, said in an interview with DeSmog Canada.

Hundreds rallied in Toronto on the weekend to voice their opposition to Enbridge’s plans to ship Alberta tar sands bitumen from Sarnia to Montreal through the 37-year-old Line 9 pipeline.

Kuprewicz also expressed concerns about transporting diluted bitumen through Line 9 saying it will increase the growth rates of cracks on the pipeline. Line 9 lies in the most populated part of Canada and crosses the St. Lawrence River and major waterways flowing into Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. A Line 9 spill could pollute the drinking water of millions of Canadians.  

Extensive Stress Corrosion Cracking on Line 9

“Existing SCC (stress corrosion cracking) on Line 9 can worsen due to the increase in pressure cycling associated with shipping dilbit (diluted bitumen). This could lead to a rupture,” explains Kuprewicz.

The thick heavy crude bitumen is diluted with a condensate (natural gas or naphtha) so it can flow through pipelines. ‘Pressure cycling,’ or the variations in operating pressures of a pipeline, increase with dilbit, because dilbit can vary more in composition than light conventional oil. The greater swings in the levels of operating pressures can create cracks in a pipeline.

Kuprewicz examined Enbridge’s assessments of Line 9 and found evidence of extensive stress corrosion cracking on Line 9, most likely caused by the pipeline’s external protective coating (polyethylene tape or PE-tape) separating from the sections of Line 9, allowing water to damage the pipe.

Kuprewicz has seen this problem before. He researched the US federal investigation into the Kalamazoo, Michigan dilbit spill – the largest onshore oil spill in US history – on behalf of various concerned parties. The disbondment of PE-tape on Enbridge’s Line 6B pipeline and subsequent SCC on the pipe caused the rupture. Three million litres of dilbit were spilled into the Kalamazoo River and the surrounding waterways, and the $1 billion cleanup continues to this day. 

No Line 9 rally in Toronto on October 19th.

Enbridge claims that its in-line inspection tool can detect any serious SCC threats to the pipeline. According to Kuprewicz, the in-line detection technology Enbridge is using has yet to be proven effective.

Hydrostatic Testing of Pipelines is the “Gold Standard” for Safety

“Enbridge needs to conduct a hydrostatic test on Line 9. It is the gold standard for pipeline integrity and safety. Canada has a well-established history of hydrotesting its pipelines,” Kuprewicz told DeSmog Canada.   

A hydrostatic test would pump water through Line 9 at similar pressures to those the pipeline is expected to operate at, but there is no indication that Enbridge plans to conduct hydrostatic testing.

Kuprewicz also questions Enbridge’s claims of an automatic shutdown in the event of a pressure drop in Line 9 or a 10-minute shutdown if an unexplained reading comes in from the pipeline. When a pipeline ruptures, pressure loss as well as detecting the drop can take quite a while. The 10-minute shutdown procedure existed at the time of the Kalamazoo spill and it still took Enbridge 17 hours to shut down the ruptured pipeline.

“I am not trying to be hard on Enbridge. There are definite improvements they could make to their pipeline management system that would significantly reduce the chances of a Line 9 rupture,” says Kuprewicz.

Enbridge Lacks Adequate Liability Insurance for a Line 9 Spill

The Goodman Group Ltd found that, in the event of a Line 9 spill, Enbridge’s US$685 million liability insurance for all its operations (not just Line 9) would be inadequate. The California-based consulting firm says Enbridge needs $3 billion of liability insurance for Line 9 alone.

"This is especially true in Toronto and Montreal, where the pipeline runs parallel to or across key urban infrastructure and could threaten the drinking water supply, resulting in multi-billion dollar costs," warned Ian Goodman, president of the Goodman Group.

No Line 9 rally in Toronto on October 19th.

Cleanup costs of other onshore oil spills such as Lac-Megantic in Quebec and the Kalamazoo spill were analyzed by the Goodman Group, and Line 9’s location in a highly populated area was considered. The firm concluded that a bad Line 9 spill would cost at least $1 billion. The worst-case scenario was pegged between $5-10 billion.

Ontario Demands Independent Third-Party Assessment of Line 9

The Ontario government in some ways echoed the recommendations of Kuprewicz and the Goodman Group on October 17th during a National Energy Board (NEB) public hearing in Toronto.

Ontario demanded that Enbridge conduct a hydrostatic test on Line 9, and that the company maintain US$1 billion in insurance for the pipeline. The province also called on the NEB to initiate an independent third party assessment on the state of Line 9, and not rely solely on Enbridge’s findings.

“Given the age of the pipeline, its location in a large part of southern Ontario, its additional service life of 30 years or more, and the potential adverse consequences of a rupture, it seems a matter of simple prudence and common sense to ensure the (assessments) are as thorough, comprehensive and as accurate as possible,” Rick Jennings, an assistant deputy minister with Ontario’s Ministry of Energy told the NEB panel.

“In our view, an independent third-party review is required for that assurance,” said Jennings.

No Line 9 rally in Toronto on October 19th.

The NEB hearings on Line 9 were scheduled to wrap up in Toronto on October 19th, but the NEB postponed the final hearing to an unknown date and location. The NEB could make its final decision on Line 9 as early as January 2014.

Enbridge has applied with the NEB to increase the capacity of Line 9 from 240,000 to 300,000 barrels per day (bpd), reverse the pipeline to flow west-to-east and ship ‘heavy crudes’ such as dilbit through the line.

Critics of the Line 9 project say the pipeline should not be approved to ship dilbit because of the likelihood of a rupture and the adverse impacts that further expansion of the tar sands will have on climate change and the people and environment of northern Alberta. 

Image Credit: NWF, Mike Chong, Katheleen Quinn, Mike Eh-En

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 five year battle against a key component of plans to pipe tar sands bitumen through Quebec and to the eastern United States quietly came to an end this summer.

In mid-July, Montreal Pipe Line Ltd., owned by Shell Oil, Suncor and Imperial Oil, withdrew its request with the Commission de protection du territoire agricole (the Commission for the Protection of Agricultural Land of Quebec, or CPTA) for permission to build a pumping station on 2.4 hectares of agricultural land in the eastern part of the province. The pumping station was crucial for plans to reverse the direction of the 378-kilometre-long Portland-Montreal Pipe Line (PMPL), in order to send oil from Montreal to the port city of Portland, Maine, for export.

The decision to withdraw the request has been met with cautious celebration by those who have been opposing the project since 2008.

“To our committee, this is a victory,” said Jean Binette, president of the Comité pour l'environnement de Dunham (the Dunham Committee for the Environment, or CED), in a telephone interview with DeSmog. “But we're not fooling ourselves – this is most likely simply a postponement,” until projects like Enbridge's reversal of Line 9B from Montreal to Sarnia or TransCanada's Energy East pipeline comes though, he said.

The plan to reverse the PMPL, which has a capacity of 600,000 barrels per day, to send oil south was originally in conjunction with Enbridge Oil Inc.'s expansive Trailbreaker pipeline project, that would have sent tar sands bitumen from Alberta to Portland, for eventual refinement and export. While that plan was initially put on hold in 2009 and cancelled completely in 2012, Montreal Pipe Line Ltd. had held steady to its pipeline reversal plan up until this summer.

But with Trailbreaker off the table (or renamed to make residents think it was), Enbridge's planned reversal of Line 9B a ways off, and TransCanada's Energy East plan still seeking approval from the Quebec government, there was no reason for the company to continue with the application.

According to the company, the decision to withdraw the request was a purely financial one. Montreal Pipe Line, Ltd. (which, together with Portland Pipe Line Corporation, makes up Portland Montreal Pipe Line, Ltd.) had maintained an option on the parcel of land where they planned to build the pumping station. That option was up for renewal, and it no longer made financial sense to maintain the option, so the company allowed it to lapse, said spokesperson Denis Boucher.

Without ownership of the land, a request for rezoning from agricultural to industrial became moot. The campaign against the pumping station had nothing to do with it, said Boucher. “The decision was based on our company, on our needs, and not having an active project. We decided not to move forward with the project,” he told DeSmog.

The link between financial concerns and opposition may not be so distinct, though.

“It's an economic decision because it's costing them too much” to not be pumping oil, said Cameron Fenton, director of the Canadian Youth Climate Coalition (CYCC) and a former member of Climate Justice Montreal. During his time in Montreal, he helped organize solidarity actions with the residents of Dunham, and continues to organize against the tar sands and pipeline expansions. “The longer you stall them, the more it costs them.”

And the pumping station project has been stalled for over five years.

If you had asked at the beginning, though, you would have never expected this outcome.

In 2009, it seemed like the battle to keep the pumping station off of undeveloped agricultural land in the heart of Quebec farming territory was over before it had really began. Following consultations in 2008, the CPTA released a 2009 report approving the change in the use of the land, allowing for the pumping station to be built. There was also little popular support in 2008 for the newly formed CED (Dunham Committee for the Environment), said Binette.

People didn't think it was a big issue – the pipeline was underground, what trouble could it cause? –  explained Binette.

But for a few, the worries about tar sands oil coming through a pipeline built in 1950 was too big a risk. Dunham resident Stéphane Durand filed a lawsuit with the Administrative Tribunal of Quebec, alleging the CPTA had not done its due diligence in reviewing the project, and won. He also won an appeal by the company filed in the Court of Quebec.

Montreal Pipe Line was forced to resubmit their application to the CPTA in 2011. By then, it wasn't clear when oil would be coming from west to east. Two years later, despite growing pressure to move tar sands oil east, the pumping station is now off the table.

An integral part of keeping the fight going that long, said Binette, was the population of Dunham eventually coming around to their cause. Residents saw the 2010 Enbridge Line 6B leak that spilled over 830,000 gallons of tar sands bitumen into Michigan's Kalamazoo river, said Binette. The similarities between Kalamazoo and the eventual pipeline reversal in Dunham – both pipelines were built around 1950, and the Montreal Pipe Line would also carry the more abrasive (and more difficult to clean up) tar sands bitumen – made them realize this kind of accident could happen close to home.

South of the border, where the Kalamazoo spill has echoed even more strongly, organizers are expressing the same reserve as Binette.

“While the pulling of the plug for the building of the pumping station was welcome news to our ears, we are staying the course. Our campaign continues,” wrote 350 Maine's Sarah Lachance in an email to DeSmog. “We are well aware of the industry's determination to bring this poison to market and they are well aware of our determination to stop them.”

Despite the possibly fleeting nature of this win, the CYCC's Fenton said it is significant because it represents the first victory in the recent wave of protests against pipeline development and the expansion of the tar sands. The fight against the pumping station – and the pipeline reversal by extension – predates the battle against the Northern Gateway, Keystone XL and now Energy East. It shows that victories are possible, he said.

But, it could be a bumpy road ahead. With the Energy East and Line 9 reversal still on its way, Binette said that eventually Montreal could see 1.3 million barrels of oil come to the city per day. And with TransCanada talking about sending their oil to St. John, New Brunswick for refining, he said there's no doubt that eventually there could be enough oil coming through to re-invigorate the PMPL reversal and bring a new pumping station proposal.

“It buys us some time, but we're not going to ignore what's happening – we're following it closely,”  he said.

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.