Enbridge to abandon 75 miles of the oil pipeline that contaminated the Kalamazoo River

Noel Griese of the Energy Pipeline News is reporting that Enbridge Energy Partners plans to replace 75 miles of pipeline in Michigan and Indiana related to the July, 2010 spill into the Kalamazoo River.  The Michigan Public Service Commission will be holding public hearings into the proposal, beginning with a pre-hearing conference on September 21.  Read Griese's article at: Energy Pipeline News.

The original announcement was made on May 12 in Houston:

HOUSTON, TX, May 12, 2011 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) --

Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. (NYSE: EEP) (the "Partnership") today announced additional capital investments to replace portions of its Line 6B pipeline system that spans from Griffith, Indiana, through Michigan to the international border at the St. Clair River. This program will include replacement of approximately 75 miles of the pipeline in various locations in Indiana and Michigan, at an estimated cost of $286 million. These costs will be recovered through the Facilities Surcharge Mechanism ("FSM") that is part of the system-wide rates of the Lakehead system.

Earlier this year, the Partnership completed the replacement of 14 segments, totaling 9,000 feet, of Line 6B in southeastern Michigan and installed a new segment of pipeline under the St. Clair River, which will be operational by late June. This latest investment includes the replacement of five miles of pipeline immediately downstream of two pump stations in Indiana and three pump stations in Michigan as well as replacement of 50 miles of pipeline downstream of the Stockbridge station and delivery terminal northwest of the Detroit metro area. Subject to regulatory approvals, the new segments of pipeline will be installed in 2012 and will be staged to be placed in-service in consultation with, and to minimize impact to, refiners and shippers served by Line 6B crude oil deliveries.

The $286 million expenditures are in addition to the $210 million integrity expenditures on Line 6B recently announced by the Partnership for the year 2011, of which $175 million will be recovered through the FSM.

In actual fact, Enbridge is proposing to construct a new pipeline alongside the existing pipeline in a new 25 foot wide right-of-way.  Enbridge will abandon the existing pipeline in place, saying that this will "minimize additional disturbance along the route".  Enbridge has provided responses on its website to "frequently asked questions" for affected landowners, including questions about construction, disturbance and compensation: Frequently Asked Questions.

National Energy Board says it's shifting from "reactive" to "proactive"

The National Energy Board (NEB) says it has decided to increase the number of pipeline performance measures beyond those currently collected by the Board through incident reporting requirements in the Onshore Pipeline Regulations, 1999.  The NEB claims this initiative will supplement existing measures such as spills and injuries with performance measures of activities that require planning and ongoing monitoring. This is anticipated to bring a predictive dimension to how a company manages its programs. The measurement of performance is intended to promote a shift from reactive to proactive management. Companies will be able to use the resulting data to trend and compare performance, and to encourage continual improvement. The NEB will also use the data to assist in compliance verification planning.

The NEB's Background Information enclosure describes deficiencies in its current overview of security and the environment:

The Board currently requires companies to report on incidents, such as releases of substances and serious injuries. These measures are "lagging indicators" because the information provides a historic view. The Board is taking action to promote safety, security and environmental protection by proposing that all Board-regulated companies also report on "leading" performance measures. "Leading" measures are predictive and forward looking, measuring aspects of processes and activities that are likely to contribute to a desired outcome. A mix of leading, lagging and qualitative measures can provide an overview of the effectiveness of a company in meeting program objectives.

Read the NEB's letter to Oil and Gas companies at: July 11, 2011 letter.

Enbridge's latest update on the Norman Wells spill

Here is the latest from Enbridge on its spill of between 700 and 1,500 barrels of oil near Wrigley, NWT:

On May 9, Enbridge Inc. reported that it had confirmed at approximately 12:40 MT that day a crude oil leak from a pipeline on its Norman Wells System (Line 21) approximately 50 km south of the community of Wrigley, NWT. On May 20th Enbridge returned the Norman Wells line to service after completing the necessary repairs.

Enbridge is working to minimize helicopter traffic in the Willowlake River area. A 25-person camp is being established near the incident site to house crews while they continue cleanup and reclamation work. The camp is expected to be open this week. There has been an increase in truck traffic on the Mackenzie Highway between Fort Simpson and Wrigley due to the incident. We want to ensure the safety of our crews and the people in the community and ask that everyone use caution when travelling on the highway.

The oil remains contained and there are no impacts to moving water. Our original four barrel estimate was based on oil collected at the surface and did not take into account the subsurface impacts, which were believed to be not significantly different. The increase in subsurface oil was discovered during the ongoing environmental site assessment, which includes subsurface analysis and is standard practice for all releases. Based on current estimates provided by the third party experts on site, Enbridge anticipates the release volume could range from a minimum of 700 barrels to a maximum of 1,500 barrels. Based on its current analysis, Enbridge anticipates the probability that the maximum volume would be exceeded to be low.

Enbridge continues to regularly engage with First Nations, government officials and the public and we are committed to having open dialogue and transparent communications. The community information line remains operational and the phone number is 867-695-3158. People are encouraged to call if they have any questions regarding the incident.

The safety of people and the protection of the environment are our highest priorities and the Company is doing its best to ensure there is no impact to the land, wildlife and waterways. We are committed to regaining the community’s confidence in Enbridge as a reliable operator and safe transporter of energy.

[emphasis added]

Pinhole in Enbridge pipelines leaks up to 1,500 barrels of oil

Noel Griese of the Energy Pipeline News has a report on a recent Enbridge Pipelines oil spill in the Northwest Territories at: Enbridge says no coverup in its underestimate of N.W.T. pipeline spill.  At first, Enbridge had reported a spill of four barrels from its Norman Wells pipeline.  Now the estimate is between 700 and 1,500 barrels.  Griese reports that Enbridge officials say the oil leaked out of a pinhole opening in the pipeline.

Enbridge's own statement at http://www.enbridge.com/ says that the original estimate "did not take into account the subsurface impacts".  Enbridge had expected that the amount of oil underground would not be significantly different than the oil on the surface.  Enbridge notes that there are "no impacts to moving water", but does not address any potential impact on groundwater. 

Pinhole leaks in pipelines pose a significant problem for landowners with oil pipelines.  Subsurface pipelines can leak large quantities of oil over long periods of time without the leaks being detectable to pipeline company monitoring equipment.  Areas around leaks can be significantly contaminated, but the contamination may never be discovered unless it rises to the surface of the ground or, more often, the pipeline company has some reason to dig up the area.  For example, contaminated areas have been discovered frequently during the construction of new pipelines adjacent to existing pipelines. 

At present, neither pipeline companies nor energy regulators are taking any initiative to locate contaminated areas along existing pipelines.  It may be time for property owners to demand extensive soil testing along oil pipelines on an ongoing basis to ensure that their land is not being contaminated by undetected leaks in pipelines.

See post from Energy Pipeline News re secret orders from National Energy Board

Read Noel Griese's post at Energy Pipeline News about recently revealed secret orders from the NEB to require the reduction in flows through Canadian pipelines following ruptures and spills on Enbridge and Trans-Northern Pipelines: Canadian regulator secretly ordered gas companies to reduce gas flow.

Pennsylvania Environment Department orders water pipeline for residents affected by natural gas contamination

The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in Pennsylvania plans to build an $11.8 million water pipeline to supply water to homeowners whose wells were contaminated by drilling operations in the Marcellus Shale.  The pipeline would supply water to 18 residences at a cost of $650,000 per home, and the cost will be charged to the Texas driller Cabot Oil & Gas Corp.  Cabot is calling the decision "unfounded, irrational, and capricious", but the DEP says that the waterline is the only certain remedy for homeowners with contaminated wells. 

In advance of the decision by the DEP, Cabot took out ads in the Susquehanna County region addressed to the "Citizens of Pennsylvania" denying it caused the pollution and saying that it will fight the allegations.  Cabot says it was not responsible for natural gas that migrated into the homeowners' wells.  The residents have sued Cabot and declined to accept having new wells installed on their properties as they no longer trust water coming from the local aquifer. 

The DEP contends that it has collected "overwhelming" evidence that Cabot's gas wells were poorly constructed and were the source of major leaks of gas. 

Another Enbridge Oil Leak - Company given until Monday to stop flow of oil

Here's what Enbridge is saying on its website about its latest oil leak, this time in suburban Chicago:

Enbridge has confirmed that a leak occurred Sept. 9 from its 6A pipeline in Romeoville, Illinois. Line 6A was shut down within minutes of Enbridge being notified and the section of the pipeline where the leak occurred has been isolated.

No injuries have been reported. Oil was released onto a roadway and then into a retention pond. Enbridge personnel are on site and booms have been deployed as a precautionary measure.

We express our apologies to the businesses in Romeoville and surrounding areas for the disruption, and extend our appreciation to emergency responders and regulatory agencies for their professional, diligent and supportive actions.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has given Enbridge until Monday to plug the leak.  Enbridge says the leak has been contained, but oil continues to drain out of the pipe.

Canada's National Energy Board creating a "Remediation Process Guide" to sign off on pipeline company contamination

The National Energy Board (NEB) says on its website that it has:

... developed a draft Remediation Process Guide (Guide) for industry to follow to ensure successful remediation of soil and groundwater contamination. The goal of this Guide is to provide a clear process for submitting remediation information. If remediation is determined to be successful then the NEB will provide a letter to that effect. The NEB will be hosting a technical meeting on 14 October 2010 in Calgary at a location to be determined to answer any questions and hear comments that interested parties may have. Parties wishing to provide written comments on the Guide are requested to do so by 1 December 2010. The Board will finalize the Guide shortly thereafter.

In the draft guide, the NEB says it makes every effort to ensure industry follows procedures to minimize releases, leaks and spills, but from time to time "accidents can occur".  In reality, the NEB operates on the basis of "goal-oriented regulation" whereby the Board sets goals and allows companies to decide how they will achieve those goals.  However, as we have seen with the BP disaster and the recent Enbridge spill in Michigan, "goal-oriented regulation" simply doesn't work when it comes to an all or nothing proposition like environmental contamination.  How many spills will it take before the regulator steps in and tells companies what they need to do to protect the environment?

The NEB also says that it is the "lead agency" for all contamination incidents related to its pipelines.  Landowners should be cautious to accept this approach.  NEB requirements regarding contamination (including both new spills and the discovery of historical contamination) may not match protections afforded to landowners under provincial environmental legislation.  Why should landowners have less protection from contamination just because the NEB is involved? 

The aspect of the proposed Remedation Process Guide that should be most concerning to landowners is the proposed "Remediation Closure Letter".  Essentially, the NEB will issue letters to companies who have contaminated the environment stating that remediation is complete and the NEB's file is closed.  The NEB says that its "expectation for reclamation is that the land is restored to a state comparable with the surrounding environment".  That is not necessarily the standard to which landowners are entitled to have their properties remediated under provincial laws and/or the common law.  Landowners should be demanding clean-up to the highest level possible under applicable law.  Also, what is to stop the NEB from issuing such a letter to a company before the company has adequately compensated the landowner for the damage caused?  What would that letter do to a landowner's negotiating position?

The NEB's proposal is troubling in that it perpetuates the problems associated with its policy of "goal-oriented regulation".  Companies are allowed to do what they want to avoid contaminating the environment, but when they do contaminate, they can rest assured that the NEB will sign off on their response.  In other words, the NEB's protection of the environment is limited to stepping in after contamination has occurred in order to validate the steps the company has taken to address the contamination.  There is still nothing in place to ensure that the contamination does not occur in the first place.  Is this an acknowledgement on the part of the NEB that there is nothing that can be done to prevent spills that will inevitably occur as pipeline infrastructure ages and corrodes? 

Click on this link to read the proposed guide: NEB Draft Contamination Remediation Guide.

Alberta Court of Appeal rules 2 to 1 against Imperial Oil appeal in pipeline contamination case

The Alberta Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal by Imperial Oil of an award of damages to a rancher for injury to her cattle caused by leaking oil.  One of the three appellate judges, however, wrote a dissenting opinion that would have found Imperial Oil not liable for the damages alleged.  Agnes Ball, the rancher involved, leased grazing land from the Alberta government in the "School Section", and alleged that during Imperial's clean up of an oil leak from its pipeline, Imperial negligently allowed her cattle to ingest hydrocarbons.  The ingestion resulted in premature calving and loss of calves.  Ball had been away on vacation at the time of the leak and the trial judge found that, although Imperial attempted to communicate with Ball through her daughter, Imperial did not ask for permission to enter on the land (outside of its easement) or advise her of the type of work required or its urgency.

At trial, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench judge found that Imperial Oil had a duty to give adequate prior notice of its intended repair work and to “adequately protect the Plaintiff’s livestock from exposure to Hydrocarbons and hydrocarbon contaminated soil and water”, (reasons at para. 116). He went on to find Imperial Oil had breached that duty by failing to give adequate notice of the repair work and by “pouring contaminated water on the ground and leaving contaminated soil unfenced”, (para. 116). He also found that Imperial Oil allowed the escape of a noxious substance and, thereby, created a nuisance. In light of these findings, he found it unnecessary to deal with the claim in trespass; nor did the parties make any submission on the appeal with respect to this alleged cause of action.

Two of the three Court of Appeal judges hearing the case rejected all of the grounds of appeal advanced by Imperial.  One judge, however, found that:

the trial judge committed an error of law in determining that the respondent was only required to prove some “exposure” to risk by the cattle. The respondent had to prove consumption of contaminated soil and water of sufficient quantities and toxicity to cause injuries on a balance of probabilities. The trial judge used the wrong legal test for causation. As a result, he failed to make the findings of fact needed to apply the correct “but for” test. The reasons at trial do not contain findings of fact on some of the key topics that are needed to resolve the causation issue. The only alternative available is to allow the appeal, and direct a new trial.

It remains to be seen whether Imperial will seek leave to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Read the Court of Appeal decision at: Ball v. Imperial Oil Resources Limited.

Read the trial decision at: Ball v. Imperial - Court of Queen's Bench.

Enbridge oil spills into Manitoba creek

CBC News - Manitoba - Oil spills into Manitoba creek

A leak in an Enbridge pipeline has spilled 1,500 litres of oil into a creek near the town of Virden, MB. Click on the CBC link above to view the news story. For pictures of the spill and details of the clean up, check out the Kipperstein Press blog and the message board at eBrandon.ca.

B.C. Oil and Gas Commission Reports on Sour Gas Leak

CBC News - British Columbia - EnCana unprepared for toxic gas leak: report

The B.C. Oil and Gas Commission has released a report on a leak from an EnCana sour gas (H2S)pipeline last November. The report concludes that pipe failure was caused by internal erosion resulting from sand; that the company had not followed its established criterion for sand recovery; EnCana's public information package failed to get residents to call EnCana when they had suspected a release of gas had occurred; leak detection and emergency isolation at the site did not detect or control the leak in a timely fashion; EnCana's response did not fully conform to its own emergency response plan and no notification was given to the B.C. government for nearly two hours after the leak was discovered; EnCana took more than an hour to begin notifying residents after the leak was detected; the erosion of the pipe and the rupture occurred before any inspection of the piping had been conducted under EnCana's "integrity management program".

Read the report at: http://www.ogc.gov.bc.ca/documents/reports/OGC%20Investigation%20Report%2004.02.10.pdf