The federal government announced on Wednesday the upstream greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with pipeline projects will be taken into consideration when federal cabinet makes its decisions on pipeline projects.

“We are considering direct and upstream greenhouse gas emissions,” Catherine McKenna, Minister of Environment and Climate Change, said. McKenna along with Minister of Natural Resources Jim Carr made the announcement.

“Today’s announcement is a great step forward and shows the federal government is listening to Canadians,” Kai Nagata, Dogwood Initiative’s energy and democracy director, told DeSmog Canada. “The dark days of the National Energy Board are coming to an end.”

The new measures will apply to pipeline projects currently under regulatory review, such as Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain and TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline projects, according to Carr. Five principles that proposed pipelines will be measured against were unveiled. One of those includes "meaningful consultation" for Indigenous peoples.

“This is a real test of this government’s commitments to uphold the rights of Indigenous Peoples," said Clayton Thomas-Muller, 350.org’s Stop it at the Source Campaigner. "At the heart of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is the right to free, prior and informed consent. That means Indigenous Peoples have the right to say ‘No’ when it comes to projects like pipelines and its responsibility of the government to listen.”

The changes are too little, too late, according to Ecojustice lawyer Karen Campbell.

“These interim measures are a welcome band-aid, but they are not enough to inject science and evidence-based decision-making into the Kinder Morgan review process," Campbell said. "The outcome of the National Energy Board review must still be to reject this project, until the flaws in the application are remedied, and the full regional impacts of the project are fully considered.”

Both ministers were clear upstream and direct GHG emissions will be “a factor in the decision making process." How much weight a project’s GHG emissions will be given compared to its economic benefits is unclear.

“Climate plays into the economic viability of these projects,” Adam Scott, climate and energy program manager with Environmental Defence Canada, said. “How do these projects fit into a world of high carbon taxes and shifting away from oil?”

Like Nagata, Scott says he is “very encouraged” the federal government is listening to Canadians. However, he is concerned Carr, although acknowledging the problems with the current National Energy Board, is still allowing the review of Energy East to go ahead without reforming the board first. The National Energy Board is Canada’s federal pipeline regulator.

“There’s no legal reason for Energy East to go through the old broken process,” Scott told DeSmog Canada. “The review hasn’t even started yet and the board has not determined if TransCanada’s application is complete.”

Wednesday’s announcement has little effect on the workings of the National Energy Board itself. The Environment Ministry, not the Board, will conduct the assessments of a project’s greenhouse gas emissions. The five principles are transition measures to be kept in place until an overhaul of the NEB can take place.

McKenna said revamping the board could take “a number of years.”

The federal government will also extend the timeframes in which decisions on Energy East and Trans Mountain must be made. Legislative changes under the previous Conservative government mandated that proposed pipelines made it through the regulatory process within 15 months.

An extra six months will now be tacked on to the review of the Energy East pipeline. For the Trans Mountain pipeline, which is in its final round of hearings, no federal decision will be made until December of this year.

“The fact there’ll be no construction on Trans Mountain this summer is good news for people of B.C.’s Lower Mainland,” Nagata said.

The extra time is meant to give the federal government more time to assess emissions, consult with Indigenous peoples and the general public in what Carr describes as “setting up a process beyond the NEB’s mandate and timelines.”

Nagata welcomes this decision as well, but questions still remain.

“How do you put a timeline on meaningful consultations with First Nations?” Nagata asked.

Another unanswered question and an issue most Canadian politicians tend to dance around is how does an oil pipeline pass a climate test?

“A climate test on pipelines is only meaningful if it respects the commitment to 1.5ºC that Prime Minister Trudeau made in Paris, and that would mean taking pipelines and tar sands expansion off the table,” Cameron Fenton, 350.org’s tarsands organizer stated in a media release.

“There’s no such thing as a climate-friendly pipeline. The science is crystal clear: in order to prevent catastrophic climate change, fossil fuels, and especially tar sands, need to stay in the ground,” Fenton said.

Alberta-based energy think tank Pembina Institute estimates the annual greenhouse gas emissions from the Energy East pipeline (1.1 million barrels per day capacity) are the equivalent of putting an additional seven million cars on the road.

Twenty-seven climate experts in a 2014 open letter projected Trans Mountain “alone is expected to lead to 50 per cent more carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions each year than all of British Columbia currently produces.”

Wednesday’s announcement comes on the heels of a recent backlash by pro-pipeline politicians against Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre, who announced last week that 82 Montreal-area municipalities oppose the Energy East pipeline.

For the last month, First Nations, environmental organizations and politicians such as Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan have called on the federal government to suspend the current regulatory reviews of existing pipeline projects until after the promised overhaul of the National Energy Board.

Image Credit: Screenshot CBC News

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.

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.

The National Energy Board (NEB), Canada’s federal pipeline regulator, has come under tremendous public criticism over the last three years for limiting public participation in its review of major oil pipeline proposals. In recent years the board has denied hundreds of Canadians an opportunity to voice their concerns on projects like Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline and Enbridge’s Line 9.

TransCanada’s Energy East, Canada’s largest proposed oil pipeline, is the newest project to land on the NEB’s desk. Despite major barriers to participation in the public hearing process, Canadians are preparing to apply in droves, even if just for the opportunity to be officially rejected from the process.

“We can’t sit back and we can’t afford the luxury of despair," Donna Sinclair of North Bay, Ontario said. "We need to resist efforts to shut us out of the process.”

Sinclair, who was denied the opportunity to submit a letter of comment regarding the Line 9 pipeline project in 2013, plans on applying to participate in the NEB review process for Energy East.

Why Participate in a Broken Process?

Despair about the process, especially for pipeline critics like Sinclair, is understandable enough. After recent changes to federal legislation the NEB now limits participation only to members of the public the board believes are “directly affected” or possess “relevant information or expertise” on a given project.

“The narrow restrictions on speech are completely anti-democratic,” Sinclair told DeSmog.

Canadians wishing to submit comments to the NEB on the 1.1 million barrels-a-day Energy East pipeline must complete the board’s ‘application to participate’ form by March. Completion of the form does not guarantee one’s participation in the NEB-run public hearing process.

What qualifies an individual as having the relevant level of expertise can at times be difficulty to ascertain. Last spring the NEB refused the application of 27 scientists and experts from B.C. universities who registered to participate in the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline hearings.

Over two thousand people and organizations applied to participate in the NEB Trans Mountain hearings. Four hundred and sixty-eight were rejected outright.

The approval of the contentious Northern Gateway pipeline, despite broad public opposition, worked to convince many British Columbians that the board’s only real authority resides in its ability to dictate approval conditions. The NEB subjected the Northern Gateway pipeline’s approval to a hefty total of 209 conditions. 

Further weakening the NEB’s authority, thanks to omnibus budget bill C-38, decisions by the board are now subject to federal cabinet approval, leaving what was previously a quasi-judicious and independent decision ultimately in the hands of politicians.

Even individuals from the energy industry are losing faith in the process. Last November, Mark Eliesen, a former energy executive with 40 years experience, publicly quit the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain public hearings, calling the NEB process "fraudulent" and a "public deception." Even B.C.'s environment minister Mark Polak said the province has had its "own issues with the process," which include the NEB defending Kinder Morgan's right to withhold critical information on things like spill response measures.

In this light, it is perhaps astonishing Canadians continue to apply en masse to be heard by the NEB on new proposed pipelines like Energy East.

So why does the public still try to elbow its way into a broken process which decides, ostensibly without their regard, the fate of new pipelines in Canada?

Hearings Drive Public Awareness, Opposition

“Participating in the NEB process helps to bring forward new information and keep the issue alive so that awareness and opposition grows,” Tzeporah Berman, legendary B.C. environmentalist and co-founder of ForestEthics, told DeSmog Canada.

“In the end the NEB may approve a project, but if you have approval without social license and are facing lawsuits, difficulty with provincial permits and massive protests, the barriers to development are pretty serious,” she said.

The Northern Gateway pipeline is a prime example.

Over one thousand five hundred Canadians presented oral statements against the pipeline to the NEB. Attempts to criticize pipeline opponents – most infamously in former Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver’s ‘foreign funded radicals’ letter – drove further support for the opposition movement.

Defend Our Coast Protest Against the Northern Gateway Pipeline in 2012.

The NEB ultimately approved the project, yet the hearing process generated a massive anti-pipeline coalition comprised of engineers, scientists, First Nations, municipalities, environmental organizations and a good portion of the general public.

Strong social pressure undoubtedly influenced the unprecedented 209 conditions the NEB eventually attached to the pipeline’s approval. Meeting every condition may actually be impossible for the project’s proponent, Enbridge.

The NEB’s conditions for Enbridge’s Line 9 project in Ontario and Quebec have similarly delayed the pipeline’s progress.

Public concern and criticism may not sway the NEB’s recommendation or the federal government’s decision on a project, but it is certainly leaving its mark in other ways.

The Public Forces Unique Pipeline Issues To the Surface

“Public participation in recent pipeline processes have brought forth some unique issues,” Tanya Nayler, staff lawyer with the Ecojustice, an environmental law advocacy group, said.

For example, the ongoing NEB review of Trans Mountain has triggered a full on debate on where municipal by-laws and rights stand in relation to the powers of the NEB (not to mention a showdown on Burnaby Mountain last year).

The question of dilbit or diluted bitumen’s behaviour in water was brought to the fore largely because of the Northern Gateway hearings. Subsequent federal reports confirmed the substance sinks when mixed with sediment although recently-released government documents show just how little is known about the effects of dilbit when spilled into water.

For existing pipelines like Energy East, involvement in the NEB process means information that might otherwise be kept from the public becomes a matter of record.

Through information requests, participants in the Enbridge Line 9 hearings gained access to disconcerting information about the condition of the 40-year pipeline. Information requests also revealed Enbridge had failed to assess what would happen in the event of a pipeline rupture.

“New information is essential to driving a public narrative about the risks associated with these projects,” Berman said. 

Three thousand kilometers of the proposed Energy East pipeline travelling through Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario is comprised of an existing TransCanada natural gas pipeline. If approved that gas line will be converted to carry heavy crude and dilbit. One thousand six hundred kilometers of additional pipe will be constructed in Quebec and New Brunswick to extend the line to export terminals.

NEB Is the Only Venue Canada Has To Discussion National Energy Projects

Outside the NEB, Canada simply has no alternate venue where national issues connected to new pipelines can be discussed, leading participants to argue for much-needed structural change.

“Although I do agree the NEB has become slanted towards approvals, it is important to have the public participate in and challenge the process in order to highlight the problems in need of fixing,” Nayler said.

Of particular concern is the NEB’s refusal to consider the climate impacts of pipelines. From the outset, the board deemed climate impacts, and especially upstream emissions from the Alberta oilsands, as outside the purview of public hearings on the Northern Gateway, Trans Mountain and Energy East pipelines.

At 1.1 million barrels-a-day, Energy East would increase oilsands or tar sands production in Alberta by at least one third. The energy-intensive oilsands are Canada’s fastest growing source of GHG emissions.

Recently the U.S. EPA acknowledged the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry Alberta oilsands crude to export facilities in the Gulf of Mexico, would be the climate equivalent of adding 5.7 million new passenger cars to the road.

“The NEB is the only place we can try and be heard. Every other level of climate and environmental legislation has been removed by the Conservatives,” Cam Fenton, tar sands campaigner for 350.org, said.

350.org has launched an online campaign encouraging the public to apply to take part in the NEB process on Energy East, but explicitly on the grounds of addressing climate change – a demand that is likely to have consequences.

It was precisely for wanting to address climate change that the NEB denied the 27 experts mentioned above participation in the Trans Mountain public hearing process.

“We are going to force the NEB to reject all these people. We need to hold the NEB and the process accountable for not allowing people to speak about climate change,” Fenton told DeSmog Canada.

Over the last year, 350.org has collected one hundred thousand signatures from Canadians wanting the board to consider climate change in its Energy East decision.

Last week representatives traveled to Calgary to physically hand the petition to the NEB.

Image Credit: Light Brigading via Flickr, LeadNow, Greenpeace, TransCanada 

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

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.

The National Energy Board approved Enbridge’s Line 9 pipeline project Thursday.

"[This] decision shows the system is broken. Line 9 puts millions of people and every waterway in Ontario leading into Lake Ontario at risk,” said Sabrina Bowman, a climate campaigner with Environmental Defence Canada.

Enbridge’s proposal to reverse Line 9 to flow from Sarnia, Ontario to Montreal, Quebec, increase its capacity by 20% and ship oilsands bitumen through the pipeline was approved by the Board (NEB) yesterday, but with thirty conditions. Bowman said the conditions do not protect people living along Line 9 from a spill. Line 9 is a 38-year old pipeline located in the most densely populated part of Canada.

“The Enbridge pipeline 9 reversal with crude oil and diluted Bitumen is not wanted through our Traditional Territory and under the Thames River and we will seek other avenues to protect the land” said Myeengun Henry, a band councilor with Deshkon Ziibi* (Chippewas of the Thames) First Nation of southwestern Ontario.

“We still need to be consulted and we are willing to listen,” Henry told DeSmog Canada.

The federal government thus far has failed to fulfill its legal duty to consult with First Nations in Ontario and Quebec about the Line 9 project. This leaves the door wide open for First Nations of both provinces to challenge the Line 9 decision in court.

“This approval puts people and ecosystems at serious risk. After carefully studying this proposal, international pipeline expert [Richard Kuprewicz] gives a 90% likelihood of rupture within 5 years,” said Canadian folk singer Sarah Harmer who participated in the Line 9 hearings last October. Line 9 goes through her family’s farm in Burlington, Ontario.

Kuprewicz told DeSmog Canada last October existing damage on Line 9 called 'stress corrosion cracking' coupled with the large pressure swings associated with shipping heavy crudes like bitumen make Line 9 “high risk” for a rupture.

Two demands in particular made by critics of the project and the Ontario government were absent from the NEB’s conditions: 1) for Line 9 to undergo a hydrostatic test to determine if the pipeline can operate at its maximum pressure and 2) a third-party independent review of Enbridge’s data on Line 9.

“While the NEB does leave themselves room to order Enbridge to conduct a hydrostatic test, it should have respected this demand of the Province of Ontario outright,” Harmer said from Kingston, Ontario.

“Now the province needs to do their own independent review,” she told DeSmog Canada.

The NEB in its decision stated it wants to review Enbridge’s hydrostatic testing program, and the pipeline company’s updated engineering assessment of Line 9 before deciding whether to order a hydrostatic test.

Aside from not allowing Enbridge to put the Line 9 project into operation immediately, the NEB more or less gave Enbridge everything they asked for.

 “The NEB’s decision is another clear indication that Canada’s long standing environmental safeguards have been gutted to pander to the oil industry,” Bowman of Environmental Defence told DeSmog.

Because Line 9 is an existing pipeline the NEB’s decision is final. Only projects where forty kilometers or more of pipeline are being built require approval from the federal government.

One hundred people have signed an online pledge to support or engage in civil disobedience to stop the Line 9 project.

More on the Line 9 decision to come on DeSmog Canada.

*Deshkon Ziibi is the Anishinaabe (Ojibwe) name for the “Chippewas of the Thames.”

Image Credits: Environmental Defence Canada, 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.

Critics of Enbridge’s Line 9 oil pipeline project are concerned the project will be approved despite insufficient evidence the 38-year old pipeline is safe. The National Energy Board – Canada’s independent energy regulator – is expected to deliver its final decision on Line 9 any day. Enbridge is applying to reverse and increase the flow of the aging pipeline to transport oilsands bitumen and Bakken shale oil to Eastern Canada.

“Enbridge should have to reapply for the pipeline. The safety of the pipeline is outside the scope of the Line 9 project’s application,” Darko Matovic, a fluid dynamics engineering professor at Queens University told DeSmog Canada in an interview.

Enbridge describes Line 9 as a project of “limited scope,” suggesting review of the Line 9 proposal be restricted to proposed construction at “the seven Project sites.” The project sites consist of six pipeline pumping stations and a new densitometer site.

Critics fear if the NEB takes this narrow view of the Line 9 proposal the current condition of the pipeline will not be properly assessed to ensure public safety. The pipeline lies in southern Ontario and southern Quebec where nearly one-in-three Canadians live.

“Enbridge cannot tell the NEB what the Board's parameters are when assessing a project,” says Rick Munroe energy analyst for the National Farmers Union and participant in the Line 9 hearings last October.

“The NEB has a mandate to make decisions which are in the public’s best interest and above all, to ensure public and environmental safety. The NEB's legal duty overrides Enbridge’s insistence on a limited scope,” Munroe told DeSmog from Kingston, Ontario.

Critics suggest changes proposed to Line 9 are not of a “limited scope." Enbridge applied to ship heavy crudes such as oilsands bitumen and Bakken shale oil through Line 9, reverse the pipeline to flow from Sarnia to Montreal, and increase the capacity from 240,000 barrels per day (bpd) to 300,000 bpd.

Matovic, who is also the president of the Ontario Pipeline Probe, argues Enbridge’s application for Line 9 does not adequately establish the pipeline can operate at the levels of pressure necessary to transport 300,000 bpd. He finds it alarming the pipeline company did not assess what would happen if Line 9 ruptured, especially given the known difficulties of cleaning up a bitumen spill.

Enbridge justified not assessing spills in its application stating, “scenarios concerning pipeline rupture events are not within the scope.”

Pipeline safety expert Richard Kuprewicz estimates the likelihood of Line 9 rupturing is “over 90%” if the National Energy Board approves the project without any conditions.

Ruptured pipeline from the Enbridge Line 6B which released more than 3 million litres of oil into a tributary of the Kalamazoo River in Michigan in 2010.

“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,” Kuprewicz told DeSmog Canada in an interview last October.

Extensive existing damage on the pipeline known as stress corrosion cracking and the larger pressure swings associated with shipping heavy crudes are the basis of Kuprewicz’s prediction for Line 9.

Enbridge for its part has not asked to increase the maximum operating pressure of Line 9. The pipeline has not operated at full capacity or pressure in recent years. Kuprewicz and Matovic both agree Line 9 needs to undergo a hydrostatic test to prove the pipeline can still do what it was approved to do nearly forty years ago.

A hydrostatic test would pump water through the pipeline at pressures above the line's maximum to ensure the pipeline can operate safely at full capacity. The NEB did order a hydrostatic test of Line 9 when the pipeline was reversed to flow from Montreal to Sarnia in 1997.

“The issues with Line 9 are too serious to ignore. No other pipeline in Canada is located in such a densely populated area. Ontario can only lose if Line 9 is approved,” says Matovic.

It will be up to the NEB to demand a hydrostatic test and more information on Line 9’s condition that goes beyond the limited scope of the project’s application.

Emily Ferguson, independent researcher and founder of the Line 9 Communities website, questions why the NEB is considering Enbridge’s application for the project at all.

“If the Line 9 project was a new pipeline being installed, the NEB would not even consider the application because some of its features do not meet present day engineering standards,” says Ferguson from Guelph, Ontario.

Line 9 meets pipeline manufacturing standards from 1971. The pipeline's quarter-inch walls and single layer PE-tape (polyethylene encasement) outer protective coating are no longer found on oil pipelines constructed today. Half-inch pipe walls have become standard for a thirty-inch pipelines segments, like those used in Line 9.

PE-tape’s tendency to become unglued, allowing moisture to corrode pipelines is a prolbem known to the pipeline industry. It was also identified as the cause of the Kalamazoo spill in Michigan, the largest onshore oil spill in US history.

“Why is the NEB even considering the application to use this outdated and faulty technology to ship oil through our communities?" Ferguson said.

Image credit: Enbridge, NTSB

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 recent oil train derailment and subsequent explosion in North Dakota was yet another reminder tighter regulations and more independent research on transporting oil is needed — particularly where volatile shale oil is concerned. Last week another reminder hit close to home when a CN Rail train carrying crude oil derailed and caught fire in New Brunswick.

The responsibility of protecting Canadians from an oil transportation disaster has largely fallen to the provinces while the federal government has weakened or eliminated rules and regulations that get in the way of its priority to sell as much Canadian oil as possible. 

By the end of this month the federal pipeline regulator, the National Energy Board (NEB), is expected to approve Enbridge’s proposal for its 38-year old Line 9 oil pipeline in Ontario and Quebec, which would carry shale oil — known for its propensity to explode as it did in North Dakota.

The NEB is not in the habit of rejecting pipeline projects (see Northern Gateway’s approval). With that in mind, the province of Ontario must hold its ground on Line 9 and ensure its demands for a safer pipeline are met.

While the province could have gone further with its demands, two of the conditions — a hydrostatic test of Line 9 and a third-party independent review — have the greatest potential of reducing the risk of a Line 9 rupture.

The first, hydrostatic testing, is the gold standard for pipeline safety. By pumping water through Line 9 at a slightly higher pressure than its proposed maximum allowable operating pressure, the test can help establish if Line 9 can operate safely at the maximum pressure. It can also identify weak points in the pipeline that need replacing.

The third-party independent review would entail an independent expert looking over Enbridge’s data on Line 9 and would eliminate reliance on Enbridge’s conclusions without duplicating the NEB process.

The least Ontario can do is flex whatever legislative muscle it can muster to ensure compliance with its conditions. Enbridge would do best to adopt these conditions given the company’s reputation as the “Keystone Kops” of oil pipeline safety for their bungling of a 2010 oil spill in Michigan, resulting in three million litres of bitumen spilling over the course of 17 hours.

None of this is to say Ontarians should settle for the Line 9 pipeline. Opposition to transporting oilsands bitumen via Line 9 will continue. The jury is still out on whether bitumen is rougher on pipelines than conventional oil and the difficulties of cleaning up a bitumen spill are well known. Expansion of the greenhouse gas intensive Albertan oilsands completely overshadows Ontario’s efforts to reduce its own greenhouse gas emissions.

And while Ontario expressed how important proper consultations with Ontario’s First Nations on Line 9 are, this was not one of the province’s conditions. It would be hard to find a clearer case of the failure to consult with First Nations than that of Line 9.

Still, while the conditions are far from perfect, the province must not be allowed to make demands for pipeline safety they never intend on backing up. Ontario has not breathed a word about its conditions since it presented them to the NEB in a public hearing on Line 9 in October.

Provinces are still responsible for the land, the water and the people within their borders. Failing to act on a pipeline proposal that threatens all of the above would blatantly ignore that responsibility. Oil train explosions and pipeline ruptures cannot be considered the price of doing business.

Image Credits: Enbridge Line 9 Report, Enridge, Pipeline Observer

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 federal government has failed to fulfill its legal duty to consult First Nations in Ontario and Quebec about Enbridge’s Line 9 project that would see oilsands bitumen shipped through a 37-year old oil pipeline.

“This is not an issue of inadequate or improper consultation with First Nations. No consultation by the federal government has taken place whatsoever,” says Scott Smith, the lawyer who represented Aamjiwnaang and Deshkon Ziibi* (Chippewas of the Thames) – two Anishinaabe* First Nations of southwestern Ontario – during the Line 9 hearings. The hearings concluded on October 25th.

Failing to consult with the fourteen Anishinaabe (Ojibwe), Haudenosaunee* (Iroquois), and Lenape (Delaware)* First Nations communities living along or near the Line 9 pipeline could land the federal government and the Line 9 project in court.

“Transporting dilbit (diluted bitumen) through Line 9 is going to have a big impact on us, our drinking water and our traditional practices. It will increase the risk of a rupture,” Myeengun Henry, a band councilor from Deshkon Ziibi told DeSmog Canada.

An international pipeline safety expert revealed to DeSmog Canada in an interview in October that if Line 9 is approved to ship bitumen (technically “dilbit” when transported through pipelines) the probability of the pipeline rupturing is “over 90%.” Line 9 has never transported heavy crudes such as bitumen before.

The ‘honour of the Crown’ Demands the Federal Government Must Consult

When the federal government is contemplating a decision that has the potential to adversely impact indigenous peoples in Canada (First Nations, Inuit, Métis) the government is legally required to consult with the affected indigenous parties to ensure their best interests are met and their rights protected.

This ‘duty-to-consult’ flows from a legal concept called the ‘honour of the Crown.’ The federal government is required to act “honourably” or in the best interests of indigenous peoples in regards to their rights. The legal precedent for the duty to consult comes from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Haida First Nation v. British Columbia in 2004:

“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.”

“Failing to consult with First Nations about Line 9 is a slap in the face to Canada’s own law,” says Henry from Deshkon Ziibi. Deshkon Ziibi is near London, Ontario.

Aamjiwnaang and Deshkon Ziibi also sent a joint letter to the Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver and Minister of Aboriginal Affairs Bernard Valcourt dated September 27th inviting the federal government to initiate consultations with them on Line 9. They have yet to receive a reply.

Proposal to Ship Bitumen ‘Triggered’ the Duty-to-Consult

Scott Smith, the lawyer acting on behalf of Aamjiwnaang and Deshkon Ziibi argued during the Line 9 hearings the federal government cannot avoid consultations with his clients simply because Line 9 is an existing pipeline:

“Enbridge’s proposal to fundamentally repurpose Line 9 to make it commercially viable again has the potential to cause new and additional impacts on the Rights (of Aamjiwnaang and Deshkon Ziibi),” stated Smith in an oral submission.

The Anishinaabe, Haudenosaunee, and Lenape have recognized rights under Section 35 of the Canadian constitution to hunt, fish and harvest on their traditional lands. A ‘dilbit disaster’ on the scale of the Kalamazoo spill in Michigan or the Mayflower spill in Arkansas would severely impede their ability to practice these rights.

Free, Prior, and Informed Consent is the New Standard for Indigenous Peoples

“The duty to consult and accommodate is the minimum standard here,” says a letter about Line 9 from the Chiefs of Ontario sent to the National Energy Board (NEB) on August 6th. The NEB oversees the approval or denial of proposed pipeline projects such as Line 9.

“First Nations now assert a right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent in the case of proposed projects that are likely to affect their rights,” the letter explains. The Chiefs of Ontario is an organization representing 133 First Nations in the province.

The concept of ‘free prior and informed consent’ or FPIC is found in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. FPIC goes a step further than the duty to consult by requiring national governments “to obtain (indigenous peoples’) free, prior and informed consent” before making a decision that may affect indigenous peoples.

“There has been no attempt to conform to the Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) standard of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Our position is that rubber stamping of the Enbridge proposal will harm the environment and will violate First Nations rights,” concluded the Chiefs of Ontario.

The Canadian government rather reluctantly signed on to the declaration in 2010. The declaration is not legally binding and the Canadian government has been accused of interpreting “consent” as consultation.

Enbridge proposes to reverse Line 9 to flow west-to-east, increase the capacity of the pipeline from 240,000 to 300,000 and transport heavy crudes such as oilsands bitumen through the pipeline.

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

The NEB – Canada’s independent energy regulator – will most likely make their recommendation on Line 9 in January 2014. The federal government can override any decision made by the NEB.

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

Image Credit: Environmental Defence, 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.

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.