The request was among a series of tough new questions the panel is putting to Enbridge on matters relating to safety, including the company's plan to deal with leaks and with unforeseen weather calamities that might endanger supertankers approaching or leaving Kitimat.
The panel, operated by the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, also questioned whether the company has the insurance capacity to cover the costs of a catastrophic spill.
And it asked the company to assess how less risky the pipeline will be as a result of $500 million in new safety measures announced in the wake of the devastating U.S. regulator's report.
The letter effectively reverses the panel's position on Monday, when it said it wouldn't demand that the scathing U.S. National Transportation Safety Board's findings be entered into the registry as official documents that could be considered by the panel.
Several prominent pipeline critics expressed surprise Monday that the panel wasn't pushing Enbridge to produce the NTSB interim and final reports issued last month.
They said Canada could learn lessons from the 2010 Enbridge spill that sent an estimated 840,000 gallons of diluted bitumen crude gushing into Michigan wetlands, a creek and the Kalamazoo River.
"The panel requires further information regarding this spill (in Michigan in 2010) and the subsequent actions that have been taken and will be taken to address the issues which have come to light during the investigation by the NTSB," the panel states in its 20-page list of requests.
CEAA spokeswoman Annie Roy didn't specifically explain why the panel's position changed over 24 hours, other than to note that its work is a "continuous process."
Northern Gateway critic Robyn Allan, a former Insurance Corp. of B.C. chief executive, praised the panel's new position but said it doesn't go far enough.
"This is very encouraging from the perspective of transparency and reliability at the hearings," she said in an email interview.
"What is still missing is any request for the accompanying documents to the NTSB report including both the written testimony of individual Enbridge employees and background technical studies and Enbridge's own internal report."
The panel's letter responds to critical testimony during the hearings from members of the public, including Allan and environmental groups.
Allan in particular has raised questions about whether Enbridge, which is building the pipeline through an entity called the Northern Gateway Pipelines Inc. Limited Partnership, has adequate insurance to follow through on its public commitment to "make good" on any major spills.
"The panel requires elaboration on the 'make good' statement," the letter states, asking whether there are any financial limits on the commitment.
There are numerous other demands being put to Enbridge:
The company is asked if it still takes the position that it is "not possible to predict the financial cost of a spill."
The panel also wants details on how proposed tug escort training for bringing supertankers in and out of the relatively narrow Douglas channel can accurately simulate the actual hauling of oil-laden vessels.
Enbridge is asked how will the company handle unforeseen storms involving high winds and waves reaching "extreme height?"
Enbridge is also asked to specifically respond to a projection of the likelihood of a major spill over the 50-year life of the project put to the panel at Kitimat Village in June by intervenor Kelly Marsh.
The panel is seeking more information on its investigation of "new strategies" and technologies to detect leaks and determine weaknesses in welds.
The panel notes in its letter that while Enbridge gave itself "top scores" in a questionnaire on its ability to assess pipeline threats, the self-assessed score was only three out of 10 on its ability to detect "overpressure" incidents on pipelines. It sought further information on the company's ability to assess overpressure situations.
The panel is asking new questions about the project in light of $500 million in new spending commitments that include increasing the pipeline thickness at the Fraser, Skeena and Kitimat River crossings.
Please provide . . . the risk ranking prior to the design change and the new risk ranking with the new design change."
There are several financial questions posed, particularly relating to the ability of shippers who have no equity stake in the project to access it. The current equity investors, including China's Sinopec Corp., will get "preferential tolls" to compensate for the risk they are taking.Enbridge is asked to justify a two-tiered toll structure and explain how it will meet its obligations to operate Northern Gateway as a "common carrier" under the National Energy Board Act.
Original Article
Source: vancouver sun
Author: Peter O'Neil
No comments:
Post a Comment