B.C.’s new Minister of Environment, George Heyman, says he identifies with the many British Columbians eager for the outcome of the single ongoing investigation into the Mount Polley mine disaster that sent 24 million cubic metres of mining waste into Quesnel Lake on August 4, 2014.

“I have spoken with the Parliamentary Secretary to the federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change. We are in agreement that British Columbians deserve a rigorous and independent investigation to determine exactly what went wrong and to ensure any person or company that broke the law is held responsible,” Heyman said in a press statement released Wednesday, two days before the provincial statute of limitations for Mount Polley expires.

As B.C. approaches the three-year anniversary of the incident, British Columbians, including local residents directly impacted by the spill, have expressed disappointment that Imperial Metals, owner and operator of Mount Polley, has received no charges and no fines for the disaster, considered one of the worst environmental incidents in Canadian history.

“A disaster like this should never have happened in B.C., and it must never happen again,” Heyman said.

#MountPolley Investigation Still On, Federal Charges ‘In Play,’ Says BC Environment Minister https://t.co/p5xLwzp1Lr @GeorgeHeyman #bcpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) August 3, 2017

As DeSmog Canada recently reported, while B.C. has reached the expiration date for provincial charges, the statute of limitations has not run out for federal charges under the Fisheries Act.

While two provincial investigations in the Mount Polley spill have been conducted, neither recommended charges or fines be levied against the company.

Yet one investigation is currently ongoing by the B.C. Conservation Service Office alongside the Department of Fisheries and Environment and Climate Change Canada.

Heyman said the current investigation is “complex and thorough.”

Information gathered during the investigation will be brought to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, “should charges be recommended,” Heyman said.

“Potential charges under the federal Fisheries Act remain very much in play and, in fact, potential penalties are more significant.”

Under the Fisheries Act, Mount Polley could face $6 million in penalties for causing harm to fish and fish habitat and an additional $6 million for dumping deleterious substances without a permit into fish bearing waters.

“While the three-year anniversary of the disaster also brings us to the statute of limitations on provincial charges, British Columbians should know the overall objective continues to be ensuring a complete investigation,” he said.

“I have full confidence in the work of these law enforcement officials and I know that many concerned British Columbians join me in looking forward to the outcome of this important investigation.” 

Image: B.C. Environment Minister George Heyman. Photo: Stephen Hui via the Pembina Institute. Used with permission.

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.

No charges will be laid against the Mount Polley Mine Corporation, owned by Imperial Metals, for the collapse of a tailings impoundment on August 4, 2014, that sent an estimated 24 million cubic metres of mining waste into the pristine waters of Quesnel Lake.

The incident, considered one of the worst mining disasters in Canadian history, was simply the result of “poor practices,” according to B.C. chief inspector of mines, Al Hoffman, and not due to “non-compliances.”

Hoffman released the results of a yearlong investigation into the tailing pond’s failure Thursday and did not recommend charges be brought against the mine or its parent company.

The Mount Polley mine was operating within existing regulation, Hoffman found, but failed to use best available practices. Hoffman made 19 recommendations to the B.C. government and the mining industry to prevent a similar event from occurring in the future. The recommendations include introducing a “designated mine dam safety manager” to monitor tailings facilities as well as improving records management and transparency around design, construction and operation of mining facilities.

B.C.’s Ministry of Mines currently has no rule in place for levying administrative penalties against mining operators. Upon release of the report, B.C. Minister of Energy and Mines Bill Bennett said he hopes to introduce new legislation this spring that will give his ministry the power to impose fines to encourage compliance.

Despite the promises for stronger mine management and future legislation, the current lack of consequences for the Mount Polley Mine Corporation and Imperial Metals has critics outraged.

“How can so many things be done so poorly, sloppily or haphazardly and result in massive damage without someone being ‘at fault?’” Ugo Lapoint, Canadian program manager with MiningWatch Canada, stated in a press release.

The catastrophic failure of the tailings impoundment, which sent contaminated waste into a major source of drinking water and spawning grounds for, at high times, up to 60 per cent of the province’s sockeye salmon stocks, was “not an ‘Act of God,’” Lapointe said.

“It was poor design, poor practices, poor oversight and misconducts on the part of Mount Polley Mine Corporation.” 

“It makes no sense. Either there were political reasons for the chief inspector to not lay charges against [Mount Polley], or the regulatory system is even more broken then we all thought. Either way, it’s not reassuring for any of the mines currently operating in B.C.,” Lapointe added.

MiningWatch Canada found that although the chief inspector did not lay charges, he made numerous incriminating statements in his recent report.

“It does not add up,” Lapointe said.

Richard Holmes, environmental biologist and resident of Likely, B.C., where the spill took place, said the report is a damning indictment of the province’s regulatory system.

“I think this reflects the weak regulations we have in B.C.,” he said

He added the lack of charges against the company does not come as a surprise.

“I didn’t think the chief inspector of mines would condemn his own ministers too much,” he said.

Holmes said the disaster is the outcome of “a bad combination of weak regulations, no oversight and a company that was hell bent on walking a very fine line in doing what was right and making a profit.”

The province’s push for more mines is troubling given the Mount Polley incident reflects poorly on the government’s ability to manage resources and watersheds, Holmes said.

There are currently 10 new mines planned for northwestern B.C., threatening transboundary watersheds flowing into Alaska. The proposed mines include the Red Chris Mine, owned by Imperial Metals, the same operator of Mount Polley.

“The Alaskans and others have every right to be concerned about transboundary rivers,” Holmes said. “Alaska has its own mining concerns that don’t need to be compounded by a weak B.C. regulatory system.”

Calvin Sandborn, legal director of the Environmental Law Centre at the University of Victoria, said a previous B.C. report put together by a panel of experts found management failures contributed to the collapse of the tailings impoundment.

“We sure would like to see someone held to account for this incident,” Sandborn said.

“B.C. government officials have been telling us for years they have world-class laws, world–class standards when it comes to mining,” Sandborn said. In 2012, Premier Christy Clark told a Calgary audience B.C. has the “highest standard of sustainable mining in the world.”

“So do those laws really provide a remedy when you have one of the biggest mining disasters in the world?” Sandborn said. “The jury is still out on that.”

Sandborn said there are still two Mount Polley investigations pending — one conducted by the B.C. Conservation Office Service and another by the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Sandborn said in January a panel of independent experts brought together by B.C. recommended the province eliminate the use of wet tailings impoundments altogether and opt for safer dry stacked tailings — a tailings management technique used in many other mining jurisdictions.

“Most importantly we need to look to the future and accept the recommendations of the government’s own experts and stop ignoring that advice,” he said.

After the Mount Polley incident it was revealed Murray Edwards, owner of Imperial Metals, raised $1 million at a private fundraiser for Clarks’ re-election. The Mount Polley Mining Corporation has donated $46,720 to the B.C. Liberals and mining giant Teck Resources has donated $1.7 million over the last nine years.

“You have to wonder if the B.C. government is constrained because they get so many political contributions from the mining industry, if that is a factor in their policy,” Sandborn said.

Image: Global 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today members of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia will request the Liberal government pull out of the federal National Energy Board’s (NEB) review of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

The review process has been at the centre of controversy recently after the NEB ruled Kinder Morgan did not have to disclose detailed spill response plans for the proposed twin pipeline that will nearly triple the capacity of the Trans Mountain pipeline system, increasing its capacity from 300,000 barrels per day to 890,000.

B.C.’s repeated efforts to gain access to Kinder Morgan’s emergency response plans, which detail the company’s preparations, timelines and access to equipment in the event of a spill, were ultimately unsupported by the federal regulator.

NDP MLA Spencer Chandra Herbert will introduce today’s motion, requesting the provincial government “immediately withdraw from the National Energy Board’s review of the Kinder Morgan pipeline and tanker project.”

Chandra Herbert further requests B.C. “establish a rigorous made-in-B.C. environmental assessment process so that British Columbians, municipalities, and First Nations can fully participate, and finally get the fulsome answers on oil spill response, emergency planning, financial implications, climate change and other areas that they deserve.”

Chandra Herbert told DeSmog Canada the NEB review is a “broken process.”

“The NEB process I think has been broken in large part because of the actions Stephen Harper’s government has taken. We can’t get access to answers about spill response, climate change, financial information, emergency management and there is no cross examination of Kinder Morgan so to test their evidence is pretty much impossible.”

Five MLAs from the NDP representing the lower mainland, the gulf islands, and Vancouver Island will speak in favour of the motion. An expected five Liberal MLAs will respond by speaking in favour of the federal review process. Motions in the house rarely go to vote, but can receive fulsome debate.

Green Party MLA and climate scientist Andrew Weaver says he supports the motion.

“Obviously I’ll speak in favour, the question is whether I’ll actually get time to speak.”

Weaver said because he isn’t a member of the official opposition, he may not be granted space to debate the motion.

“I’m the only MLA in the province who is an intervenor in the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline process. I’m actually the only political party, because the B.C. NDP does not have intervenor status, just the province of B.C.”

“I kind of feel like a lone voice. These debates and motions are all very fine and dandy but none of the people debating are actually involved in the process,” he said.

Weaver has repeatedly called on the B.C. government to pull out of the federal review process and the Green Party of B.C. is collecting public signatures to support that move in an online petition.

Weaver renewed his calls for a made-in-B.C. review process when Kinder Morgan refused to release its spill response plans.

“You don’t have to pull out of the entire joint review process,” he said, “but you can pick projects you want to pull out of and they can pull out of this one.”

Weaver said not all joint review processes are failures. He pointed to the Site C dam review process as an example of a review that reflected a broad range of concerns with the project.

But the Kinder Morgan review process has been rife with “egregious errors” he said, so much so that “the province of B.C. loses credibility and trust from British Columbians if the province continues to participate in the process.”

“That is why I continue to call on the province to pull out. It is broken and British Columbians have loss complete trust in it.” 

Chandra Herbert said hundreds of applicants were denied the ability to participate in the process, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

“So if you can’t be involved or if you are involved but can’t have access to information, the process is broken,” he said.

“So what we can do now if the process is broken is B.C. can take its power back, say we’re not going to be involved in fraud.”

Chandra Herbert said he hopes Premier Christy Clark will support a B.C.-led review of the pipeline and tanker project. He said the federal government’s approval of the Northern Gateway pipeline shows the province needs to take the process back.

“I hope this debate pulls the wool from the government’s eyes and helps them stop pretending this is a good process,” he said.

The motion will be advanced for debate at approximately 11 a.m. Pacific Time.

Image Credit: Zack Embree

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

This is a guest post by Ian Miron, Ecojustice staff lawyer. 

Proposed pipeline liability regime steps in the right direction, but leaves too much wiggle room for polluters.

At this very moment, Canada’s liability regime is woefully inadequate when it comes to making sure that polluters pay in the event of a pipeline rupture or oil spill. That means that Canadian taxpayers like you would shoulder an inappropriate degree of the risk in the event of a serious pipeline accident, like Enbridge’s Kalamazoo River spill in Michigan.

According to recent estimates, that spill — the largest in United States history — cost more than $1.2 billion to clean-up. By comparison, Canada’s strictest liability law would have only made Enbridge automatically liable for a paltry $40 million, while providing the company with an opportunity to wriggle off the hook for any further costs. 

Now consider that a number of controversial new pipeline projects have been proposed in Canada, each bigger than the last. Between Enbridge’s Northern Gateway (525,000 barrels per day), Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain expansion (890,000 barrels per day) and TransCanada’s Energy East (1.1 million barrels per day), thousands of Canadians may find pipeline infrastructure — locking us into a fossil-fuel economy for another generation — snaking right through their backyards.

Each project comes with an array of heavy environmental risks, including significant upstream and downstream greenhouse gas emissions. But for many Canadians, the very real threat of a major oil spill is a tangible and pressing concern, which is why it is absolutely imperative that Canada bring in a stricter, more comprehensive liability regime.

The good news is there is some progress to report. Earlier this month, the federal government introduced Bill C-46 in the House of Commons. If passed into law, Bill C-46 would completely overhaul the statutory liability regime for federally-regulated pipelines in Canada.

Here’s a quick look at a few encouraging developments and shortcomings of the bill:

The Good

     Polluters will be absolutely liable for harm caused by a pipeline spill.

• This means that the company operating a pipeline will be liable in the event of a spill even if it hasn’t been negligent and hasn’t broken any laws. Bill C-46 will also require a company to have enough financial resources to cover, in full, the absolute liability limit. That limit will be $1 billion for oil pipeline companies whose pipelines have the capacity to move at least 250,000 barrels per day. The limit for gas and other pipeline companies (as well as smaller oil pipeline companies) may be set out in a future regulation. It is also worth noting that Cabinet has the power to increase, but not to decrease the absolute liability limit for major oil pipeline companies.

  Polluters will be liable for environmental damages.  

• The bill makes polluters responsible for losses of “non-use value” of public resources, or environmental damages, even if those damages don’t affect the environment’s commercial (or “use”) value. Recognition of so-called “environmental damages” is rare in Canadian statutes, although it is well-developed in U.S. oil spill legislation. Polluters will also be liable for any actual losses or damages suffered by individuals and for any clean-up costs incurred by the government.

  New tools to recoup clean-up costs from polluters.  

• Bill C-46 creates several new tools that, if implemented, will enhance the National Energy Board’s ability to recoup clean-up costs from a polluter, including some that appear to allow the Board to recover more than the absolute liability limit. The bill also gives the Board the power, in certain circumstances, to recover costs associated with a spill from the pipeline industry at large, not just from the polluter. Cabinet will also have the ability to establish a special tribunal to hear and decide claims for compensation. Interestingly, any compensation awarded by the tribunal would be paid directly out of government revenue. This should make it easier for those affected by a spill to obtain compensation, but could leave taxpayers on the hook for this compensation if other tools aren’t used to recover money from the polluter.  

The Bad

     It’s too discretionary.

• Many of the new tools are discretionary, meaning that either the National Energy Board or politicians (i.e., Cabinet) get to decide whether or not they will be implemented. It is conceivable that some tools might not be implemented for political or other reasons, weakening the protection and peace of mind this bill is intended to offer Canadians. While Bill C-46 has the potential to make some important improvements to Canada’s pipeline liability regime, it’s too early to tell whether this potential will translate to real, on-the-ground benefits for Canadian taxpayers.

  It has significant gaps.  

• For example, Bill C-46 doesn’t identify the absolute liability limit for gas and other non-oil pipeline companies, or for small oil pipeline companies. Instead, this limit might be set in the future by a Cabinet regulation. Likewise, Bill C-46 provides no clear guidance on the calculation of “environmental damages,” nor does it provide the government with the power to develop such guidance at a later date through regulation. Because recognition of this kind of damages is very new in Canadian statutes, this omission makes it less likely that a government will try to recover compensation and weakens the potential benefits of including these damages.

  It doesn’t impose unlimited absolute liability.

   
• Finally, and perhaps most crucially, Bill C-46 doesn’t impose unlimited absolute liability on polluters. In fact, Bill C-46 takes a step back by eliminating the government’s ability to recover clean-up costs for a pipeline spill under the Fisheries Act, which applies in certain circumstances to make a polluter absolutely liable, without limit. No liability regime can truly and comprehensively be termed a polluter pays regime unless and until polluters are made absolutely liable for the full costs of environmental harm. Although a liability limit of $1 billion for some companies is a good first step, we only need to look to Michigan and Kalamazoo River to know that the clean-up costs for a major spill can top that number — and that doesn’t include compensation for damages.

The Takeaway

Bill C-46 is a much needed, overdue first step towards a “polluter pays” regime for pipelines in Canada. In general, it could add a lot of good, innovative tools to the National Energy Board’s toolbox that could effectively protect Canadian taxpayers from paying the clean-up costs in the wake of a pipeline spill. How effective these tools will be is, unfortunately, left largely to the discretion of the Board and politicians. This lack of certainty about the degree to which polluters will be required to pay for their pollution undermines what is, in principle, a good first step.

This post originally appeared on the Ecojustice blog.

Image Credit: KARK 4 News via NRDC

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

This is a guest post by David Suzuki.

When a tailings pond broke at the Mount Polley gold and copper mine in south-central B.C., spilling millions of cubic metres of waste into a salmon-bearing stream, B.C. Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett called it an “extremely rare” occurrence, the first in 40 years for mines operating here.

He failed to mention the 46 “dangerous or unusual occurrences” that B.C’s chief inspector of mines reported at tailings ponds in the province between 2000 and 2012, as well as breaches at non-operating mine sites.

This spill was predictable. Concerns were raised about Mount Polley before the breach. CBC reported that B.C.’s Environment Ministry issued several warnings about the amount of water in the pond to mine owner Imperial Metals.

With 50 mines operating in B.C. — and many others across Canada — we can expect more incidents, unless we reconsider how we’re extracting resources.

Sudden and severe failure is a risk for all large tailings dams — Mount Polley’s waste pond covered about four square kilometres, roughly the size of Vancouver’s Stanley Park. As higher-grade deposits become increasingly scarce, mining companies are opting for lower-grade alternatives that create more tailings. As tailings ponds grow bigger and contain more water and waste than ever before, they also become riskier. The average height of a Canadian tailings dam doubled from 120 metres in the 1960s to 240 metres today. Alberta writer Andrew Nikiforuk likens increasing mining industry risks to those of the oil sands.

Like what you're reading? Help us bring you more. Click here to support DeSmog Canada's Kickstarter campaign to clean up the climate and energy debate in Canada.

Open ponds of toxic slurry aren’t the best way to manage mining waste. Although there’s no silver-bullet solution, and more research funding on alternative technologies is needed, smaller underground mines are finding safer ways to deal with waste by backfilling tailings. Drying tailings or turning them to a paste before containment are two other options. Safer solutions cost more, making them less popular with profit-focused corporations. But surely B.C.’s $8-billion mining industry can afford to pay more for public and environmental safety.

The government allows the mining industry to choose the cheapest way to deal with waste, and companies often lack adequate insurance to cover cleanup costs when accidents happen. Imperial Metals admits its insurance will likely fall far short of what’s required to repair the damage at Mount Polley.

The mining industry and provincial and federal governments must do a better job of managing risks. But how can this happen when we’re facing unprecedented dismantling of Canada’s environmental regulations and decreased funding for monitoring and enforcement?

Although the B.C. government rightly appointed an independent panel of three top mining engineers to review the cause of the Mount Polley breach and report back with recommendations, the lack of an environmental or cultural perspective on the panel makes it unlikely we’ll see meaningful industry reform. And even the most thorough reviews remain ineffective without implementation commitments — a point made clear by the federal government’s failure to act on the Cohen Commission’s 75 recommendations on the decline of Fraser River sockeye.

Canada’s mining industry must also work more closely with First Nations, some of which are challenging industrial activity in their territories. The Tahltan blockaded Imperial Metals’ nearly completed mine in the Sacred Headwaters, and the Neskonlith Indian Band issued an eviction notice to an Imperial subsidiary, which proposed an underground lead-and-zinc mine in Secwepemc Territory in the B.C. Interior. With the Supreme Court’s Tsilhqot'in decision affirming First Nations’ rights to land and resources within their traditional territories, we’re likely to see more defending their lands against mining and other resource extractions.

The Mount Polley tailings spill threatens two of B.C.’s most valued resources: salmon and water. As one of the largest sockeye runs enters the waterways to spawn, we must wait to find out the long-term repercussions for Polley Lake, Quesnel Lake and aquatic life further downstream.

This disaster has eroded public trust in the mining industry and regulations governing it. If risks are too high and long-term solutions unavailable or too expensive, the only way to ensure that toxic tailings are kept out of our precious waterways and pristine landscapes may be to avoid mining in some areas altogether.

As the government rallying cry of “world-class safety standards” echoes in our ears, it’s time we lived up to our self-proclaimed reputation.

Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Communications Specialist Jodi Stark.

Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

Image credit: Photo by Carol Linnitt. Sludge from the spill carries out into Quesnel Lake. 

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 third leak recently discovered on Apache Canada’s property near Zama City in northwestern Alberta has released an estimated 1.8 million litres of wastewater onto 5 hectares of land, according to the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER).

The spill was discovered on Friday, October 25th after an operator investigated a volume discrepancy at Apache’s Shekilie site, reports the Northern Journal. The leak is believed to have begun on October 3rd, according to Apache.

The released water is a waste product of Apache’s oil and gas operations in the area. Apache characterizes its operations near Zama as using “a novel enhanced oil recovery method to produce oil from what were once thought to be exhausted wells.”

Reports of the release came just one week after Apache announced it had discerned the cause of a much larger incident that occurred in June, spilling 15.4 million litres of produced water in a 42-hectare area. 

Images of the June spill, released by the Dene Tha to Nathan Vanderklippe, show the high-oil content of the release. According to the AER (formerly the ERCB) roughly 2000 litres of oil were released in the originally estimated 9.5 million gallon spill. 

The spill, caused by a pipeline failure, released produced water into the surrounding forest for nearly one month – May 5th to June 1st – before it was detected. According to Apache, “the failure of the less than five-year-old pipeline was caused by stress corrosion cracking.”

“Apache believes a pinhole in the exterior plastic liner allowed water to leak into the pipe, which mixed with sulphur gas, causing stress corrosion cracking and the sudden failure of the pipe.”

Apache initially reported only 9.5 million litres were spilled, due to “volumes…incorrectly allocated to another injection well.”

A third and much smaller spill was also detected earlier this year.

According to the AER, the cause of the most recent spill remains unknown, although the pipeline “is shut in a depressurized.” Both the AER and Alberta’s Environment and Sustainable Resource Development are present at the site.

The AER reports there are impacts to vegetation although no impacts to water bodies or wildlife have been reported. As of October 31st more than 600,000 litres of the spilled waste water had been recovered, reports the AER. 

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.

Authorities in the tar sands region in Alberta are responding to the release of bitumen emulsion at the Primrose project in the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range, operated by Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL).

According to a press release from the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) “the affect area is off lease and has impacted a nearby slough. The company has begun clean-up operations. There were no injuries as a result of the release. The volume of emulsion released has not been confirmed at this time." Media relations contacts were unavailable for comment at the time of publication.

Bitumen emulsion is a mixture of heavy tar sands crude know as bitumen and water from in-situ (in ground) oil production.

According to the CNRL website, the company uses a “huff and puff” technology also known as Cyclic Steam Stiumulation or CSS to develop bitumen at the Primrose project.

During in-situ bitumen recovery, steam is injected into deep underground deposits of heavy crude oil. The resulting mixture of oil and water is called an 'emulsion.' 

CSS is unlike other in-situ recovery processes because it uses only one injection and extraction well. 

The Cold Lake area lies to the south east of Fort McMurray.

CNRL projects in the immediate area include Wolf Lake, Marie Lake and Hilda Lake, which together comprise the Clearwater reservoir that contains an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil.

The Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) is presently on site and working with CNRL, Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development to "ensure that the incident is controlled, contained, and all appropriate clean up and mitigation measures take place. The AER is conducting an investigation into the cause of the incident. All information is preliminary and may be changed as updates are available," according to the press release.

It is unclear at this time where on the Primrose site the release occurred. There are three distinct Primrose locations, as seen in the CNRL map below.

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

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

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

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

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

Design Deficiencies of Line 9

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

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

Enbridge's Line 6B.

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

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

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

Being a pipeline landowner in an expanding resource economy 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image Credit: Environmental Defense

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

Companies responsible for two separate oil spills in Alberta failed to provide adequate oversight for their operations, according to federal government documents released by Environment Canada through Access to Information legislation.

The documents detail how Devon Canada and Gibson Energy violated environmental laws, including the federal Fisheries Act, when their operations cause two oil spills into fish-bearing waterways in 2010.

Gibson Energy, a midstream pipeline operator, spilled a few hundred litres of oil into an Edmonton creek after failing to properly abandon an unused pipeline. According to a warning letter issued to the company from Environment Canada, "Gibson Energy ULC made a business decision to keep the Kinder Morgan lateral full of crude oil and to not purge it with nitrogen."

The pipeline released a "brown foamy substance" into the waterway, indicating the pipeline suffered internal corrosion. "Based on information obtained, I have reason to believe Gibson Energy ULC was responsible for the release of a deleterious substance into (a creek) leading to the North Saskatchewan River and they were not duly diligent in preventing this release," wrote an Edmonton-based inspector and Environment Canada fisheries inspector, Deanna Cymbaluk.

Violations of this kind can encur a fine of up to $1 million or three years in prison in Canada. Similar infractions in the United States are often met with heavy fines and penalties levied against operators.

When Postmedia's Mike De Souza contacted Gibson Energy, communications manager Nicole Collard, refused to comment on the two-year old file, saying "we're not interested in participating in this." The Alberta regulator Energy Resources Conservation Board issued Gibson a "high-risk non-compliance" order for "improperly discontinuing/abandoning a pipeline."

An additional spill, of 350,000 litres, or the equivalent of 3,000 barrels of oil, occurred when a blowout could not be contained for 36 hours by Devon Canada, a major operator in the tar sands.

At the time Devon was conducting steam-assisted gravity drainage oil production, a process that uses steam to heat underground bitumen, allowing the viscous substance to more freely flow up a well-bore. The relatively new technique poses new operational challenges industry may not always be prepared for.

In this instance, Devon lost control of the procedure at its Jackfish facility after a combination of human error and damage cause by sand erosion caused a well failure. According to Environment Canada's Cymbaluk, Devon had "poorly documented protocols" and a "lack of planning for a well failure" at the time of the accident.

Tim Waters, manager of operations engineering at Devon told Postmedia "there were certain risk areas around the well-head and how the wells were operated that we didn't fully understand, quite honestly."

Devon is one of many tar sands operators hoping to improve their image through public relations campaigns. Recently Devon released a series of television commercials intended to highlight the company's environmental stewardship at its Jackfish facility.

Greenpeace's Keith Stewart suggests the commercials can't undo the industry's operational shortcomings: "When the oil industry's poster child for clean water can't stop a blow-out for 36 hours, it makes me wish we had stronger truth-in-advertising laws in this country."

Waters, however, maintains the commercials are accurate and demonstrate Devon's concern for the environment.

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.