Everything you need to know about the Trans mountain pipeline – the good, the bad, the ugly, and the money – unbiased information. Click here.

“Why can’t someone compile all the information we need on the Kinder Morgan pipeline in one place so we can make an informed unbiased decision about our support.”

Ok, here you go.

I went into this with mixed feeling about the pipeline, wanting to see information on both sides of the argument before making my decision.

 I was leaning “against” but the more I learned the more I swung to “for” and then “against” and then “for”. If you want to know where I landed….read on.

There is a lot of information here. If you just want the basics, read the synopsis. If you want it directly from the horse’s mouth, read the blue text. If you want ALL the details, click the links.

Comment once you have all the facts, where do YOU stand?

Kinder Morgan Facts:

 Synopsis: Largest Pipeline Transportation and Energy Storage Company in North America operating 84,000 miles of pipeline. Based in Houston, Texas.

Kinder Morgan is the largest pipeline transportation and energy storage company in North America. They operate 84,000 miles of pipelines transporting petroleum products. They are based in Houston, Texas. They are experts in the field of energy storage and transportation.

In Canada they currently operate the Trans Mountain oil pipeline, which runs from Alberta’s oil fields to Vancouver’s port (as well as a pipeline between Canada and the US)

Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Facts

Kinder Morgan wants to build a second pipeline almost parallel to the pipeline that currently exists for the transportation of diluted bitumen. The new pipeline would triple the current capacity.

 

If it is completed it will transport 850,000 barrels of bitumen per day. The pipeline expansion will cost $6.8 billion dollars.

The product produced, known as “heavy crude” will be sent to refineries or loading ports for export to the US or overseas.

The project has strong oil industry and petroleum industry support. The project has less support among Canadian people in general, especially in B.C., divided support from First Nations and civic governments and no support among environmentalists.

 

What is “heavy crude” and what is it used for?

 Synopsis: Heavy unrefined oil obtained from the oil sands

 Wikipedia describes it as

“Heavy crude oil (or extra heavy crude oil) is highly-viscous oil that cannot easily flow to production wells under normal reservoir conditions.

Petroleum geologists categorize bitumen from oil sands as ‘extra-heavy oil’ due to its density of less than 10° °API. Bitumen is the heaviest, thickest form of petroleum.

With current production and transportation methods, heavy crudes have a more severe environmental impact than light ones. With more difficult production comes the employment of a variety of enhanced oil recovery techniques, including steam flooding and tighter well spacing, often as close as one well per acre. Heavy crude oils also carry contaminants.

 

What the Federal Liberal Government has approved regarding the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion:

 Synopsis: They have approved the pipeline expansion.

 The federal Liberal Government website is surprisingly silent on this crucial issue.

The following is parts of Justin Trudeau’s statement to the press:

“The government has approved the Kinder Morgan Pipeline Project Expansion. This pipeline will twin an existing pipeline that has been in operation since 1953 which extends from Edmonton Alberta to Burnaby, B.C.   The project will triple our capacity to get Canadian energy resourses to international markets beyond the US. It will create 15,000 new middle class jobs, the majority of them in the trades.”

“These projects meet our approval because they meet our standards on the environment.”

“We will keep our commitment to a moratorium on crude oil tanker shipping on British Columbia’s north coast.”

“We believe that they will help provide the growth and resource we need to spur Canada’s clean- energy transition. We believe that they prove that responsible resource development can go hand in hand with strong environmental protection. We believe that they are safe, responsible and in the interest of all Canadians.”

The Liberal parties website has the following to say about their platform on Climate Change.

We will provide national leadership and join with the provinces and territories to take action on climate change, put a price on carbon, and reduce carbon pollution.

 The provinces and territories recognize the need to act now, and have already begun to price carbon and take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We will end the cycle of federal parties – of all stripes – setting arbitrary targets without a real federal/provincial/territorial plan in place.

 We will work together to establish national emissions-reduction targets, and ensure that the provinces and territories have targeted federal funding and the flexibility to design their own policies to meet these commitments, including their own carbon pricing policies.

 These targets must recognise the economic cost and catastrophic impact that a greater-than-two-degree increase in average global temperatures would represent, as well as the need for Canada to do its part to prevent that from happening.

 We will protect our communities from the challenges of climate change and grow our economy by making significant new investments in green infrastructure.

We will fulfill our G20 commitment and phase out subsidies for the fossil fuel industry over the medium-term.

 

The Provincial Liberal Government response

Synopsis: They are close to approving it – with conditions.

 In 2012, the provincial government established five requirements before approving the pipeline expansion. The requirements include:

• Successful completion of the environmental review process. For the Trans Mountain Expansion project, that would mean a recommendation by the National Energy Board Review Panel that the project proceed;

• World-leading marine oil spill response, prevention and recovery systems for B.C.’s coastline and ocean to manage and mitigate the risks and costs of heavy-oil pipelines and shipments;

• World-leading practices for land oil spill prevention, response and recovery systems to manage and mitigate the risks and costs of heavy-oil pipelines;

• Legal requirements regarding Aboriginal and treaty rights are addressed, and First Nations are provided with the opportunities, information and resources necessary to participate in and benefit from a heavy-oil project; and

• British Columbia receives a fair share of the fiscal and economic benefits of a proposed heavy-oil project that reflect the level, degree and nature of the risk borne by the province, the environment and taxpayers.

Those conditions have still not been totally met but Christy Clark is quoted by CBC as saying,

“The federal government is “very close”  to meeting the five conditions necessary for B.C. government approval. I have said from the very beginning that the five conditions are a path to yes.” 

She stated the conditions could be met sooner than the May 9^th election.

“We still need to work out some details to make sure that British Columbia is getting its fair share of the jobs and economic benefits of this project,” she said. “We still need some details on the oceans protection plan … so we can be absolutely certain that our coast is protected.”

A letter from B.C. Environment Minister Mary Polack stated that the federal government still needs to address “the following gaps”.

• Ensure the Canadian Coast Guard adequately services the entirety of B.C.’s coast.

• Work with the U.S. to establish response regulation for spills crossing international borders.

• Consider lifting the ban on the use of alternative spill response measures, including dispersants and in situ burning.

• Federal funds for reimbursement of costs incurred in response and cleanup must be more readily available to the province, and provided in a timely manner.

 

Local Governmental response

Synopsis: Vancouver and Burnaby Against

Surrey quiet on the matter

 Vancouver

“I am deeply disappointed, but not surprised with the National Energy Board’s decision to approve the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion,”

Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson said in a public statement.

“This proposal is a bad deal for Vancouver and our entire region. The 600 per cent increase in oil tanker traffic in our local waters dramatically increases the risk of an oil spill, which would have devastating impacts on our environment and our thriving economy.”

 

Burnaby

The City of Burnaby, too, led by Mayor Derek Corrigan, has done everything in its power to stop the expansion from ploughing through its neighbourhoods and will continue to do right up until a federal cabinet ruling. In 2014, the municipality saw more than 100 citizens arrested during a protest against the project on Burnaby Mountain, and the following year Corrigan asked the federal government to cancel NEB hearings for the pipeline, citing extraordinary matters of conflict of interest.

 

Opposition Response

Synopsis: Conservative For/NDP Against/Green Against

Conservative

Conservatives have strongly pushed pipelines from the start.

“The need for this energy is just overwhelming,”

said Stephen Harper of the global demand for oil, shortly after winning his majority government in 2011.

“This government will do everything to promote the Canadian energy sector.”

Since 2011, the Conservative government implemented a number of measures to help pipeline project approvals. These include:

• Speeding up NEB pipeline decisions, so that reviews take no longer than 15 months

• Gutting environmental laws (Navigable Waters Protection Act, Species At Risk Act, Fisheries Act) at the written request of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers

• Spending $24 million in taxpayer dollars on U.S. ads to promote the Canadian oil industry

• Disallowing climate change to be spoken about at NEB pipeline hearings

• Auditing charities for political activities, such as speaking out against the oil sands

• Appointing Kinder Morgan consultant Steven Kellyto the National Energy Board, igniting conflict of interest concerns

NDP

The answer came in a letter that Horgan sent to party members.

“This risky proposal is not in BC’s best interests,”

Horgan declares. In the letter, Horgan claimed that the NEB’s conditional approval

“is the outcome of a flawed process endorsed by Christy Clark”.

“The company is proposing a 7-fold increase in crude oil tanker traffic along BC’s south coast.  They want to build a pipeline through some of our province’s most important salmon habitat and heavily populated urban centres. I’ve met with British Columbians along the pipeline and tanker routes. Most people don’t think the benefits are worth the risks.”

The NDP leader states that British Columbians know that

“a strong economy goes hand-in-hand with a healthy environment, but we need to have a credible process to evaluate the risks. We don’t know what level of risk we’re dealing with on Kinder Morgan because Stephen Harper tailored the NEB to approve pipelines—rather than test scientific evidence or gather public input. Why is Christy Clark hiding behind a flawed process created by Stephen Harper?”

Green

The Greens say they are the only party to stand against oil sands expansion outright, as well as any pipelines that would pump diluted bitumen to tidal waters.

 “We need to elect Members of Parliament who have the integrity and strength to stand up and say no to that.”

 

Kinder Morgan Response

Synopsis: Lists Benefits economically via jobs and taxes

Kinder Morgan Pipeline from their website

• Projected capital cost is approximately $6.8 billion

• Project will create benefits including new jobs in the short and long term, job-related training opportunities and increases in taxes collected through all three levels of government

• Approximately 980 km of new pipeline

• 73% of the route would use the existing right-of-way, 16% would follow other linear infrastructure such as TELUS, Hydro or highways and 11% would be new right-of-way

• Reactivation of 193 km of reactivated pipeline

• 12 new pump stations to be built

• 19 new tanks to be added to existing storage terminals in Burnaby (14), and Edmonton (5)

• Westridge Marine Terminal in Burnaby to be expanded with three new berths

• Existing line to carry refined products, synthetic crude oils, light crude oils with capability for heavy crude oils

• Combined government revenue impact for construction and the first 20 years of expanded operations is $46.7 billion, including federal and provincial that can be used for public services such as health care and education – British Columbia receives $5.7 billion and Alberta receives $19.4 billion

• During construction, the equivalent of 15,000 people will be working on the pipeline expansion. The expansion will also create the equivalent of 37,000 direct, indirect and induced jobs per year during operations.

• New line to carry heavier oils with capability for transporting light crude oils

• Trans Mountain plans to begin construction in September 2017 and go into service in late 2019

• Engagement with communities, landowners, stakeholders and Aboriginal communities have been ongoing since 2012 and will continue through to operation

Environmental protection plans have been developed along the entire route. Volume 5 and Volume 6 of the Facilities Application cover the environmental assessment and protection planning. Field studies, as required, continue to be conducted along the route.

Benefits of the Kinder Morgan Pipeline from their website

Synopsis: Benefits include greater tax revenue both provincially and federally and jobs.

Twinning the Trans Mountain Pipeline will increase the value of Canadian oil by unlocking access to world markets where higher prices are paid for oil, resulting in greater tax revenue for Canada.

The expansion will enable producers to capture an additional $73.5 billion in revenues.

The proposed $6.8 billion expansion will result in direct and lasting economic benefits to Canada and communities along the pipeline corridor. The Conference Board of Canada conservatively estimates $46.7 billion will find its way into government treasuries in the form of taxes and royalties from the Project during development and over the first 20 years of operations. It will also generate an estimated $23.2 million in additional municipal property taxes annually in BC and an additional #3.4 million annually in Alberta, which is more than double the current amount. Overall, the Project generates more than 800-1000 direct, indirect and induced person years of employment due to Project development, operations and higher netbacks. Construction works will spend an estimated $479.6 million on accommodation, meals and personal items in pipeline communities during construction. ($381.7 million in BC and $97.9 million in Alberta)

Trans Mountain is committed to providing tangible benefits to local communities impacted by the construction of the proposed pipeline

As of September 15, 2016, we’ve signed Community Benefit Agreements totalling $8.47 million with communities along 95 per cent of the pipeline corridor.

The investments will help fund anything from improvements to local emergency management to enhancement to trails and parks, infrastructure improvement or support for local educational and training programs

 

Safety from the Kinder Morgan Pipeline website

Synopsis: Did community consultation, changed route to avoid ecologically sensitive areas, 100 million dollar investment in disaster response

Creating a Safer Stronger Project

Over the past four years, we have consulted with thousands of individuals through 159 open houses or workshops along the pipeline and marine corridors, and organized more than 1,700 meetings between project team members and stakeholder groups. The input and feedback we have gathered has created a stronger, safer and more responsive Project. We have made hundreds of firm commitments to address concerns and are required to meet all conditions put forward by the National Energy Board.

Substantial work has gone into identifying potential environmental impact and mitigation measures to reduce risk and improve environmental stewardship. We have optimized the Project in response to feedback and concerns, including routing of the pipeline to avoid wetlands, parks, environmentally sensitive areas and 22 river crossings at significant fish bearing rivers. We have also made safety changes such as increasing isolation values from 94 to 126, which will result in a significant reduction of potential spill volumes, and increasing the pipeline wall thickness in high consequence areas, such as urban locations and river crossings.
We are committed to an enhanced Emergency Management Program building on the exiting plans and the companys focus on operating managing and protecting the integrity of the pipeline system. If our proposal is approved, a $100 million investment will be made in Western Canada Marine Response Corporation (WCMRC) to create new response bases along the tanker route and fund new equipment. This will cut planning standards for response times in half and increase response capabilities.

Anti-pipeline response

Synopsis: 4 spills along Trans Mountain route since 2005, jobs claims overstated. Jobs lost due to oil spill outweigh jobs created. Tax payer liability, health and environmental concern due to risk of oil spill

 

Spills: In 15 years of operations, Kinder Morgan has accrued a significant number of spills, largely the result of human error. This includes four along the Trans Mountain route since 2005.

Jobs: The proposal would create 50 permanent jobs. And oil spill would put at risk industries that together employ over 200,000 people locally including tourism, film and TV, real estate, high tech, agriculture and coastal industries.

Liability: In the case of a major spill, taxpayers would likely be responsible for the burden of costs, as a company’s liability is limited to $1.3 billion and a major spill could easily cost ten times this amount

Local fuel needs: This proposal is designed to export oil sands products to foreign markets. As a result, the pipelines are not required to meet domestic fuel needs.

 Spill response: Canada does not currently have the ability to respond effectively to a major spill in our waters.

Health risks: There is a lack of consensus about the properties of diluted bitumen – the main substance that would travel through the pipeline – including its health impacts and how to effectively respond to a bitumen spill.

Environmental Defence says

Three major fuel spills – that’s the alarming record of the last three months. The pipeline spills in Alberta and Saskatchewan and a diesel spill off British Columbia’s central coast defy Big Oil’s claims that tankers plying our coasts and pipelines crossing our land and water are safe. They only confirm that the federal government must reject the risky Energy East pipeline.

A diesel spill in the Seaforth Channel near Bella Bella, B.C. two weeks ago has become an environmental disaster. An Alberta oil company admits it had no idea how long one of its pipelines was leaking. And July’s oil spill in Saskatchewan has now cost at least $90 million to “clean up”.

 

First Nations Response

Synopsis: For and against very divided among First Nations Groups.

In Favour:

Forty B.C. aboriginal groups have quietly submitted supportive letters as Kinder Morgan and Enbridge tried to overcome controversy while seeking approval for their oil sands pipelines, according to a Postmedia analysis.

The letters appear to challenge the recent claim by a coalition of North American native leaders saying there is “unprecedented unity” against the megaproject proposals.

Financial statements indicate that a total of more than $9.3 million has already been distributed to some of these supporters in the past two years. That is a fraction of the expected payoff if one or both of the proposals get federal approval.

“As the old saying goes, we’re open for business,” said Chief Fred Seymour of the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc First Nation in Kamloops. 

Formerly known as the Kamloops Indian Band, it recently received $3 million from Kinder Morgan in a deal that was negotiated largely by Seymour’s predecessor, Shane Gottfriedson, who last year became the Assembly of First Nations’ regional chief for B.C.

 

However, aboriginal opposition is strong in B.C., especially among northern nations along the coast who are contesting the Northern Gateway proposal to build an oil pipeline from Alberta to Kitimat.

Against:

Members of the Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations of British Columbia, Canada paddled canoes on the waters of Burrard Inlet to the Kinder Morgan Burnaby Terminal for a ceremony to protest the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline, in North Vancouver, B.C., on September 1, 2012. Tsleil-Waututh leaders hoped to shut down the project altogether.

 Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, was concerned the pipeline approval was in trade for Alberta’s support for a national carbon tax.

“We were sold out,” Phillip said. “Trudeau supported (Alberta) Premier Rachel Notley’s agenda at the expense of B.C.’s environmental issues and values.”

He said the strong opposition to pipelines, among First Nations and others, won’t dissipate in the wake of the federal decison, adding opponents will block construction if necessary.

From the Trans Mountain Website

Trans Mountain has received close to 40 letters of support from Aboriginal groups formally expressing their support for the Project as well as more than 100 additional agreements, including Letters/Memorandums of Understanding, capacity funding and integrated cultural assessments.

 

People’s concerns

Synopsis: Spills and Environmental Impact vs. jobs and economic growth for Canada

People are scared and they don’t trust the government or the corporation

Elementary school teacher Janet Pritchard’s voice quavered as she described her experience during a devastating oil spill from Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline in Burnaby, B.C.

It was July 24, 2007 when a backhoe ruptured the decades-old pipeline carrying crude from the oilsands to a nearby marine terminal. Black sludge flew 40 feet in the air for at least 25 minutes, while Kinder Morgan, a Texas-based oil giant, mobilized a spill response. The oil covered homes, trees, wildlife and cars, forcing the evacuation of more than 220 Burnaby residents. It dumped nearly 78,000 litres of oil into Vancouver’s Burrard Inlet, poisoning 15,000 metres of shoreline.

Dozens of Pritchard’s students were forced from their homes for months, creating what she referred to as “oil refugees.” Her school did its best to accommodate their needs but it left a lasting impact on the children.

“Suddenly the pipeline became a really personal issue,” she told a three-member panel appointed by the federal government to hear local concerns in Burnaby on Wednesday. “Forgive me if I’m skeptical that this company is going to have future issues building and protecting their infrastructure.”

“I have a number of fears,” said Burnaby resident Linda Forsythe, “the fear of leaks in the pipeline. I have no trust that Kinder Morgan will respond to those leaks. I have fear of fire at the tanks in a once sparsely populated area, now home to thousands. My grandchildren’s school is metres away from the existing pipeline.”

The City of Burnaby, where the pipeline will end, is considered a kind of ‘ground zero’ by project opponents. Pritchard in particular called it “an environmental disaster waiting to happen,” Forysthe called it “insane,” and other presenters before the three-member panel used more extreme language like “idiotic,” and “an absolute joke.”

Activists are opposed to transporting oil because a pipeline spill could cause irreparable environmental damage and they are concerned about how the Alberta oilsands are contributing to climate change.

First Nations with claim to the land say they aren’t being respected and haven’t been consulted on the project. Many of the protesters are Burnaby residents, who don’t want the pipeline running through their backyards and have formed a group against the pipeline called BROKE.

The existing and proposed pipelines ship diluted bitumen through the Strait of Juan de Fuca, an extremely sensitive environmental region. The tankers have to pass through a very narrow channel of shallow water to reach the open sea, making the project controversial and strongly opposed by some Canadians and Americans, for reasons similar to the opposition to Keystone XL, Line 9, and Northern Gateway and offshore deep ocean oil drilling.

In 2016, B.C. said that it did not support Trans Mountain, partly because Kinder Morgan has not provided enough information about its proposed spill prevention program.

 

Governments response to environmental disaster concerns:

Synopsis: 1.5 Billion dollar investment into Marine Oil Spill Response upgrade – Clean Oceans Act

Current Measures – Marine Oil Spill Response:

Preparedness and response for ship-source oil spills – From Transport Canada

The Canadian Coast Guard leads the response to ship-source oil spills in Canadian waters, including the Arctic. It works with Transport Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada, response organizations and other agencies to reduce pollution from ships.

What happens if there is a spill from a ship?

Polluters are liable for paying for spills from their vessels. Vessel operators must have oil pollution emergency plans on board. Vessels travelling south of 60 degrees north latitude must also have a contract with an oil spill response company (response organization) certified by Transport Canada.

A response organization contracted by the vessel operator usually does the cleanup. The oil transport industry funds these private businesses that have spill-cleanup equipment placed in key areas along Canada’s coasts.

The Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) takes over the spill response if the polluter is unknown, or is unable or unwilling to respond. The CCG has environmental response barges to transport personnel and equipment, such as skimmers and booms, to respond to spills. The CCG can also directly hire a private response organization to do the cleanup.

Canada’s Oil Spill Preparedness and Prevention Regime

 Transport Canada is the lead federal agency for regulating preparedness and response to ship-source oil spills. It works with other government entities and industry in Canada’s Oil Spill Preparedness and Prevention Regime, which provides the framework for establishing guidelines and regulatory structure.

New Measures

Marine Safety Plan

 

The federal government announced a $1.5 billion marine safety plan Monday that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says will make Canada a world leader in protecting the Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic oceans.

The money will be spent over five years starting in 2017-18 and includes funding to create a marine safety system, restoring marine ecosystems and using new methods and research to clean up oil spills. The government says change will be seen as early as next year, such as opening a Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre in St. John’s, N.L.

Trudeau said the funding will strengthen the Canadian Coast Guard, get tough on pollution from industry, fund coastal habitat restoration and create new legislation to increase responsibility for vessel owners.

B.C. Premier Christy Clark, whose government has laid out a long list of requirements to improve spill response, said she was satisfied with the plan for dealing with current response needs

Incident Command System

The CCG is adopting the Incident Command System to enable a more effective response to a major spill. The Incident Command System is an internationally-accepted emergency management system used for emergency response operations. It allows the CCG to:

• work better with other emergency responders
• engage stakeholders in a predictable, structured way
• launch coordinated responses to incidents

 

Area Response Planning Initiative (ARPI)

The Area Response Planning Initiative is a pilot project that identifies how to improve preparedness and response measures for oil spills from ships. Area Response Plans will be developed to allow flexibility for regional differences in geography and levels of risks.

Four pilot areas were chosen, based on levels of vessel traffic, and service by certified Response Organizations. The pilot areas are:

• Southern British Columbia
• Saint John and the Bay of Fundy, New Brunswick
• Port Hawkesbury, Nova Scotia
• Lawrence, Quebec

There was an independent risk assessment done by third parties which shows Canada to be at “low risk” for an oil spill. You can also download the full report

 

Current Measures – Pipeline Spill response:

 Synopsis: Pipeline safety is heavily regulated and inspected. Spills in between 2011 and 2014 have been the equivalent of two tank cars per year. Oil spills are contained and then removed by vacuum truck. Spills are found using automated leak detection systems. Company pays 1 billion dollar in liability for any spill regardless of who is at fault. If the company is at fault the liability amount is unlimited.

From the National Energy Board Website

 

3. Pipeline Safety and Environmental Protection 

3.1 How safe are pipelines?

Pipeline companies are subject to various regulations and are required to meet specific standards. The NEB’s regulations require a pipeline company to create a management system and protection programs that anticipate, prevent, manage and mitigate potentially dangerous conditions associated with their pipelines.

Pipeline companies are required to design safety, integrity and emergency response protection programs specific to their infrastructure that manage and mitigate risks posed to people and the environment. These programs are reviewed, inspected and audited by the NEB. If non-compliance is found, the NEB will take necessary steps to protect the environment and the public. The NEB has several compliance enforcement tools available to it and may revoke authorizations, impose safety orders that restrict operations, issue stop-work orders, and pursue criminal prosecution. The NEB  is also authorized to issue administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) ranging from $25,000 for individuals to $100,000 for companies per infraction, per day.

To ensure safety, companies are required to inspect their systems regularly using specialized tools that run inside the pipelines, and conduct right-of-way surveillance and inspection. Pipeline leaks and ruptures are detected in real time using sophisticated computer-based systems. Companies can often remotely shut down flows to minimize spill volumes.

3.2 What is the accident and leak record of Canadian pipelines?

In Canada, the NEB regulates over 73,000 kilometres of pipelines that move approximately 1.3 billion barrels of oil per year. According to the NEB, these pipelines spilled an average of about 1,084 barrels per year between 2011 and 2014.  This is roughly equivalent to two tank cars.  Typically, most of the oil spilled is  contained on pipeline company property.  Spill sites must be reclaimed to restore the natural environment. 

The NEB’s Safety Performance Portal and Environmental Performance Dashboard present statistics on the number and frequency of various incidents that affect pipeline safety, integrity and the environment.

3.3 How is a crude oil pipeline leak cleaned up?

Federal and provincial regulators must be notified of spills immediately by law. A company’s Emergency Response Plan, which must be pre-approved by the NEB, then guides initial response and containment of a spill with appropriate equipment, such as absorbent booms. Pipeline companies must have spill first-responders under contract. It is also an NEB requirement that companies continually educate all first responders on practices and procedures to be followed in the event of an emergency.

Once a spill is contained, oil is removed by vacuum truck for recycling. Contaminated soil and water is then removed for treatment. For NEB-regulated pipelines, a Remediation Process Guide requires companies to conduct the appropriate level of Environmental Site Assessment, and to submit a Remedial Action Plan for approval by the NEB. The Guide indicates that the most stringent criteria must be used for remediation of residual soil and groundwater contamination. The spill site is considered clean once the NEB approves a remediation closure report demonstrating all standards have been met. Reclamation of the site to restore the environment is also a part of the clean up.

 3.4 How are pipeline leaks prevented or minimized?

Today, pipeline companies use sophisticated automated leak detection systems with central control rooms that permit companies to monitor rates of flow, pipeline pressure and fluid characteristics in real time. Pipeline inspection technology has also improved with the use of magnetic flux and ultrasonic tools that examine the pipe wall from the inside. These tools, known as “smart pigs,” permit companies to detect potential problems and prevent leaks. In addition, improvements in pipeline coating technologies and the use of cathodic protection have reduced corrosion of pipelines. Finally, the quality control at pipeline manufacturing facilities has also improved.

Pipeline management also has improved in the past 20 years with the creation of standards and regulations that require management systems for pipeline operation and pipeline integrity management programs to systematically evaluate pipe condition and proactively repair the pipeline as it ages so that it can operate safely.

Pipeline companies have primary responsibility for ensuring pipeline safety and environmental protection. The NEB requires companies to anticipate, prevent, manage and mitigate potentially dangerous conditions associated with their pipelines.

Pipeline companies must design safety, emergency response, and integrity management programs, which are then reviewed and audited by the NEB. The NEB evaluates regulated companies and their facilities to determine appropriate compliance verification activities. The NEB looks at potential consequences to people and the environment posed by a facility based on a number of criteria including its location, type, age, and operating history. The NEB also examines historical information on the company’s management of these consequences collected through previous compliance monitoring activities.

Companies inspect their systems regularly through a combination of external and internal inspection methods. Pipelines are run and monitored 24/7 from centralized control centers that gather pressure, volume and other information in real time. Systems may have manual or automatic shut-down capabilities.

3.7 Who is liable for cleaning up a pipeline spill?

If the operator is at fault, the pipeline company is completely liable for all costs to clean up a pipeline spill. In Canada, there is no limit on the amount a company may be required to pay to clean up a spill. In addition to being financially responsible for clean up, the company may also be fined or be subjected to other enforcement actions such as Board Orders and Directives or prosecution.

If an incident occurs, the NEB holds the company responsible and accountable for clean-up and site remediation.  The Pipeline Safety Act sets out absolute liability of $1 billion for companies operating major oil pipelines (classes and limits for other pipelines will be established in regulations).  This means that companies will be automatically responsible for up to $1 billion in damages regardless of whom or what caused the incident.  It is important to note that where the pipeline company is at fault or negligent, liability will remain unlimited.  This extends to damages to the environment beyond the costs of clean-up and other losses. All companies operating a pipeline will be required to hold a minimum level of financial resources to ensure they can respond quickly in the event of an incident. If the operator is unwilling or unable to shoulder its responsibilities, the Government of Canada will provide the NEB with the resources to take control of spill response, cleanup and remediation, and the NEB will be authorized to recover any costs incurred from industry.

 

Industry response to concerns

Synopsis: Fossil fuel is still the only viable option at this time. Clean energy is not available to the general public yet. Pipelines are safer than moving this oil by rail or truck.

From the website made by “The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association represents Canada’s transmission pipeline companies who operate approximately 110,000 kilometres of pipelines in Canada.

Straight talk – the bare facts of pipeline leak response

Nothing in life is risk free. That’s true for energy choices too. Windmills sometimes kill birds; nuclear reactors melt down; solar panels fail and cause waste.

We consume energy and thus we must make choices as to how to get that energy.

Given the current state of technology, fossil fuels are still the dominant choice. This can and will change, but as long as it’s true, pipelines are one of the best, safest ways to move those fuels.

Enough boosterism – let’s talk facts.

Fact – the Canadian pipeline industry is thoroughly regulated.

Fact – pipeline companies are responsible for cleaning up the mess and mitigating the damage. That’s the right thing to do!

Fact – some of the best scientists and engineers in the world work for pipeline companies to ensure that, when a spill occurs, people, water and the environment are protected.

Fact – when a spill occurs, the party that’s found liable is responsible for the cost.

Fact: the National Energy Board (NEB) has a number of regulations in place that dictate how pipeline companies must prepare for and respond to a pipeline spill. These regulations include such things as having an Emergency Response Plan in place, maintaining an up-to-date and regularly reviewed emergency procedures manual, which is filed with the NEB, and having a continuous educational program for all parties who would be involved in responding to a spill.

Those are the straight up facts. Now, here’s the skinny on what pipeline companies do when a spill occurs.

Most importantly, they determine how to safely conduct an emergency response, while simultaneously containing and reducing the risk to the public and the environment. This happens by going through the following steps:

• Protecting property – this includes evaluating the spill’s proximity to residents.
• Identifying and managing the site
• Evaluating the hazards and risks – this includes environmental concerns like the spill’s proximity to waterways and wildlife, the weather, and the type, amount and behaviour of the hydrocarbons that has spilled.
• Selecting the appropriate protective clothing and equipment
• Managing information and resource coordination
• Implementing response objectives
• Decontaminating
• Cleaning up the site

If a company, including our members, does not adhere to this process, they are accountable and pay a stiff price in terms of actual costs, reputation, and the loss of actual and/or social licence. Communities don’t want companies in their backyard that can’t follow the rules. CEPA and its members understand and support that.

 Who pays when a spill occurs – From the website written by The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association

Synopsis: Pipeline companies are liable up to 1 billion dollars even if they are not at fault. If they are at fault, the liability is unlimited.

No pipeline company ever wants a line to spill or leak, and eliminating incidents is our number one priority as an industry. However, if an incident does occur, the pipeline industry believes in being transparent to the public about who will be held financially responsible.

Canada already uses a “polluter pays” model for pipeline incidents, and on May 14 the Canadian government announced new financial liability legislation that will strengthen that system.

CEPA supports the new measures introduced in the legislation, which is why we are sharing three things you should know about how companies will be held accountable for incidents if the legislation is passed. The legislation will apply to companies that operate federally-regulated pipelines (i.e. pipelines that cross provincial or international borders).

1. Pipeline companies will be liable, even if they are not at fault

If an incident occurs on a pipeline company’s line, that company will have “absolute liability” for costs and damages, even if it is not at fault or found negligent.

Under the new legislation, major pipeline companies will need $1 billion set aside to respond to a leak, spill or rupture.

Tom Pesta, director of Pesta Consulting Ltd. – an agency that advises organizations on pipeline-regulation issues, explained that these measures “formalize existing industry practices and further enhance public confidence that if a pipeline incident occurs, the pipeline company is responsible for all costs to clean up a pipeline spill irrespective of fault.”

2. Companies have unlimited liability when at fault

This law is already in place. A pipeline company has unlimited liability for costs and damages when it is found at fault or negligent.

Although “unlimited liability” and “absolute liability” may seem like complicated terms, the basic principle behind these measures is that if an incident occurs, the polluter pays to clean it up, not the taxpayer.

3. The National Energy Board (NEB) can assume control of incident response and can recover costs from a company

“In the highly unlikely circumstance that the National Energy Board (the federal regulator) would be required to assume control of incident response, the funds will be available to the NEB and recoverable from the pipeline company. This provides additional certainty that a spill will be effectively addressed at no cost to the public,” explained Pesta, who has worked in energy regulation for close to 30 years.

The NEB also has the authority to order a company to reimburse governments, communities or individuals for cleanup costs.

 

SPILL HISTORY

 Synopsis: Kinder Morgan has to report any water spill no matter how small and any land spill greater than 1.5 m. Since 1961 – they have reported 83 spills total of which 30% of those occurred along a pipeline. Tankers have been transporting oil along this route with no spills or incidents since 1956.

Trans Mountain is committed to transparency involving any and all spills that have occurred along our lines, or on partner vessels carrying Trans Mountain-transported product. Information about reported spills is available to the public.

While no spill is acceptable, when one does happen, Trans Mountain notifies the National Energy Board (NEB) – the independent federal regulator of pipelines in Canada since 1961.

As a regulated company, Kinder Morgan is responsible for reporting spills greater than 1.5m 3 or any spill to a water body regardless of volume. Over the years, the NEB has revised the spill reporting criteria for pipeline companies. Trans Mountain has followed all NEB regulations in terms of reporting pipeline leaks and malfunctions, according to the rules and thresholds listed below.

Time Period	NEB Spill Reporting Criteria
1999-Current	Release of low vapour pressure (LVP) hydrocarbons greater than 1.5m 3 Release of gas or high vapour pressure (HVP) hydrocarbons Release resulting in significant adverse effect
1988-1999	Release of oil greater than 1.5m 3 Release of gas or high vapour (HVP) hydocarbons Release resulting in the discharge of toxic substances in land or into a body of water
1974-1988	Any leak, break, fire or explosion in, or failure or malfunction of pipeline

It is important to note that the NEB’s definition for a pipeline spill is not limited to the products transported in the pipeline. A spill or release is defined a “discharge, spray, spill, leak, seep, pour, emit, dump and exhaust.” That means if water is released from a pipeline or facility, that incident is also reported to the NEB.

Trans Mountain’s Spill History

Since 1961, Trans Mountain has reported approximately 82 spills to the NEB.

Some of the incidents were below the reportable threshold

• 5% of Trans Mountain’s past spills have occurred at pump stations or terminals. All of our pump stations and terminals are equipped with monitoring and spill containment systems to provide early detection and lessen impacts and ensure spilled volumes are contained on site. These facilities are rigorously maintained and inspected to meet NEB standards.

• The remaining 30.5% of Trans Mountain’s spills have occurred along the pipeline, with 21 incidents related to releases of crude oil from the pipeline. Of these spills, only nine exceeded the reporting threshold of 1.5 m — with just three of those nine occurring in the last 35 years. In all of these circumstances, Trans Mountain deployed its emergency response and spill management procedures.

Since 1956, vessels from our Westridge Marine Terminal have been transporting petroleum products safely through Port Metro Vancouver without a single spill from a tanker.

 

How valid is the Concern for the Environment

Synopsis: Depends who you ask. Kinder Morgan says everything that can be done is being done and pipelines are the least dangerous of all the possible methods, environmentalists say that one oil spill could be unrecoverable and destroy any possible economic benefits.

My opinion:

Nobody likes pipelines. Nobody likes dirty oil but the simple fact remains that we all buy it…daily. If we really want to stop fracking; if we really want to protect our environment then we need to stop using petroleum products like gas and plastic. It really is that simple. If we stop buying it, they will stop taking it out of the ground.

So the fact is, in current economic times– the oil will come out of the ground and will be transported to the market. The only question is how.

Life is risky. Ask anyone who is online dating.

Transporting has risks. Risks that can be mitigated but will always be there.

Transporting oil by pipeline has been safer (statistically) then transporting it by rail. Rail line transportation is subject to weather, rail conditions and human error. The trains pass through some of the most beautiful and environmentally sensitive areas of Canada. The rail line runs right through the middle of Jasper, Alberta for example.

If we don’t approve this pipeline, the amount of oil being sent by rail or transport truck (right through all of our communites) will triple with all the additional risks associated.

It is not in the best interest of the pipeline operators to have a spill and they spend millions of dollars managing that risk. The pipelines are inspected regularly. The history of containment of the existing pipeline speaks for itself.

If there is a spill (or a train derailment) there will be an environmental disaster that will impact the economy and our health. The questions isn’t whether it is safe to move the oil, the question is what is the safest way to move the oil because as long as there is a market, there will be oil moving.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pipeline Incidents in Canada  

Synopsis: All spills, accidents or incidents are public record. In ten years there have been 76 incidents of which 41 one of those incidents resulted in loss of product.

 Pipeline Accidents or Incidents (as defined by the Canada Transportation Safety Board) must be reported:

Full information about every reported incident and accident is publicly available at the CTSB site listed below. The following is a synopsis of accidents or incidents where there was loss or release of product (which could cause environmental concerns. Please note the amount of product lost in each case)

Incidents and Accidents involving release of product according to the Canadian Transportation Safety Board

Release of product

Although no accidents were reported in 2015, over the past 10 years (2006 to 2015), 41 of the 76 occurrences identified as accidents resulted in a release of product. Natural gas was released in 20 accidents, with 6 releases of less than 1 cubic metre, 2 releases between 1 and 25 cubic metres, 2 releases between 26 and 1000 cubic metres, and 10 releases over 1000 cubic metres. Crude oil was released in 13 accidents, with 8 releases of less than 1.5 cubic metre (9.44 barrels (bbl)), 1 release between 1.5 and 25 cubic metres (between 9.44 barrels and 157 bbl), 3 releases between 26 and 1000 cubic metres (between 157 and 6290 bbl), and 1 release over 1000 cubic metres (6290 bbl).

 

Economic Response:

Synopsis: 5.5 billion dollar project is expected to generate 1.2 billion dollars in taxes. Construction jobs 58,000 person-years of employment. 443 permanent jobs per year. All numbers are based on estimates in an ever-changing market. International oil prices will determine the final numbers. As countries move toward clean energy, demand for oil will drop and prices will drop meaning the long-term economic benefits could be at risk.

 National Energy Board’s final report: the $5.5 billion project is expected to generate $1.2 billion in federal and provincial taxes during construction and $3.3 billion in revenues in its first 20 years of service.

The company says construction will support 58,000 person-years of direct and indirect employment. Once it’s running, the extra pipeline would support 443 jobs per year, the bulk of them in B.C. And Trans Mountain has promised to work with Aboriginal groups on skill development, community investment and procurement.

Intervenors claimed the project would have little benefit on local economies and might lower property values.

They also criticized the rosy macro-economic picture painted by a company-commissioned consultant who predicted the expansion would greatly enhance access of Canadian crude producers to new overseas markets, enabling them to claim higher prices for oil and deliver “maximum benefits” to Canadians in the process.

According to Jeff Rubin on CBC’s Radio program “The Current”, the numbers don’t add up. He is the former chief economist at CIBC World Markets.  His response to the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion

“What listeners have to understand is that the economic case for the Kinder Morgan Pipeline is no different than the economic case for the rejected Northern Gateway pipeline.

Both would serve as conduwits to better Asian pricing. It is alleged that there is better pricing over there.

That we have lost billions of dollars of revenue because we haven’t got world pricing. The reality is the opposite. Asian markets pay less not more for the bitumen that Canada wants to sell than US refineries.

Other comparable products like miacrude,  which is also a heavy oil much like the product the oil sands is selling. It trades for over eight dollars a barrel less  in Asia than it does in gulf coast refineries. 

So in fact if you look at the price today it’s about 35 dollars a barrel. Take off another eight dollars a barrel to sell it in Asia and you’re selling it $27 a barrel.

The cost of new oil sand production to fill this pipeline is about $60 a barrel.

So the economic benefit has to be based over 30 or 40 years economic supply. The industry would say that in the future they will be economic.”

Jeff disagrees.

“Not if Canada and other countries come in even remotely close to living up to their pledge to hold global climate change to 1 1/2 to 2% because it’s precisely in the time frames in the next 20 to 30 years that this has to be done.

This enacts a world that leaves very little room for high-cost oil supply like Bichamin. 

At keeping climate change at 2 degrees it means world oil demand would fall to 80,000 million barrels a day by 2030 that would be a 25% cut from current production. “

 

 

For or Against

My conclusion is my personal opinion after reading all the studies included here and many others.

I would love a world without the need for oil. I am trying within my economic means to support oil free energy and recycling and less plastic and all the little things I can do to try to improve the state of the world.

I drive a Smart car, we take transit. We wear sweaters and turn down the heat.

We live in a smaller house and attempt a smaller footprint on the earth we love and want to protect.

But I still drive my car to and from world and heat my house and wrap some of my food in plastic. I still use plastic bags and buy toys and kayaks and other products that made from petroleum products…

…and so do you.

So I think we have to conclude that as long as we are buying oil products, we are supporting the industry and the oil is coming out of the ground and going into the market.

So what is the best way to do that. I believe that based on the statistics I have seen, that pipelines are safer than rail.

That doesn’t mean there is no risk to the environment – there is. Life has risks.

From what I have seen of the governments response to the mitigation of these risks, I am confident that everything possible is being done to protect our environment both from a regulatory standpoint and from a quick response to disaster standpoint. If I can think of something else we could be doing to reduce the risk, I would be writing my representatives today. If you can think of anything, you should be writing and making suggestions.

We all want the same things here. We want our comfortable lifestyle AND a safe planet. We are actually all on the same side.

The government had a tough choice to make. Economically I don’t know if the pipeline makes sense in the long run but all investments are a bit of a crapshoot in the end. Personally I hope that the pipeline becomes less and less necessary over the long run because that will mean that we are moving towards a more sustainable world.

The fact is that the pipeline does make economic sense to many communities today and BC isn’t just made up of Burnaby or the coast. It includes the needs and rights of all the small towns in the interior and along the pipeline route. Their needs are as valid as our needs.

My personal conversation with an oil tanker captain reassured me that the tanker traffic and difficult coastline are not an issue. He told me that weekly, he moves tankers safely through many places that are much more difficult. He reminded me that the tankers are safely moving through that area now and that the companies that own the tankers don’t want an accident either. They put time, money, training and energy to make sure that all precautions are taken.

Personally and with great sadness, I support the pipeline expansion project but I hope and work towards a world where we can make these difficult choices unnecessary. I will continue to try to change my habits and choices to be less dependent on oil and I will support new development of energy sources with my dollars and my continued education.

I will support the re-education of oil workers and I will continue to push my government towards clean energy solutions and climate change initiatives.

Please Share.  We need access to information so we can make good choices.

Please feel free to comment, correct or inform but as always with respect for the humanity and dignity of everyone responding.