Enbridge's bungling of a breach in its 6B oil pipeline in Michigan provided persuasive evidence to bolster the case that the Canadian energy giant shouldn't be trusted with the preservation of B.C.'s northern wilderness and our relatively pristine coast.
The Michigan line ruptured two years ago in an ecologically sensitive wetland near the Kalamazoo River.
Oil flowed from the split pipe for 17 hours before a local utility worker reported the spill to Enbridge.
Enbridge already knew they had a problem. They just hadn't identified it as a leak, so when the pressure in the 76 cm pipe dropped, they reset the pumps and started pushing oil through again. They did this twice, in a procedure that Edmonton Journal columnist Graham Thomson vividly compared to trying to clear a train derailment by sending more trains down the track.
These aren't the kind of operators that I would like to see building a pipeline to carry black, toxic goo through my backyard.
And while Enbridge has responded to the report with a promise to pull up its socks, you don't have to be a prophet to predict that trust in their competence will be even harder to come by now.
Our fixation on the final nail in the coffin aspect of the NTSB report is not surprising since the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline has been the focus of the energy debate here.
Even if the $5.5-billion line from the oilsands to Kitimat is never built, however, the American report points to a crucial issue that has been played down in the debate over its merits.
Much of the opposition to the line has characterized the Northern Gateway question as a choice between the risks of moving oil and no risks.
While that may be true for the territory through which it is slated to be built, on a provincial, national and international scale, we are going to continue to ship petroleum products regard-less of the fate of this particular project.
There are thousands of kilometres of oil pipelines in Canada.
They supply the fuel for our domestic industry, vehicles and homes and connect our energy business to foreign markets. We also have tankers already plying our coasts capable of creating the kind of mess Northern Gateway opponents gloomily predict if that line goes ahead.
So the lesson from the NTSB report being over-looked is that we need to do a better job of minimizing the risks we already face. We need to be doing a better job regulating our existing infrastructure so that energy companies can't afford to have the "pervasive, systemic problems," that created the crisis on the Kalamazoo.
Enbridge's 6B line started spewing oil in July, 2010. By then, the company had already long been making the case here that the chance of a catastrophic spill on either the Northern Gateway pipeline or from a tanker it filled with bitumen from the oilsands would be minuscule.
Thanks to the U.S. NTSB, we know that the company's calculations were based on expertise and best practices it was unable to demonstrate at the time those promises were being made. The NTSB report documents regulatory failures and what it called a "Key-stone Kops" response to the spill that quite rightly reflect badly on both Enbridge and regulators.
But they also point to ways that pipelines can be operated more safely. They reflect an expectation that we should not consider spills as part of the cost of doing business, but as an aberration that like the crash of an airliner should be treated as an unacceptable and preventable event.
Defects in the Michigan pipeline were noted five years before the breach. Just over 80 per cent of the of oil that spilled poured out because Enbridge's efforts to get oil flowing again after the pipe split. Initial efforts to mitigate the damage and clean up the spill were pathetic.
That's an appalling performance for a business that wants to expand, but an important reminder that halting that expansion doesn't eliminate the risks we already face.
Original Article
Source: vancouver sun
Author: Craig McInnes
No comments:
Post a Comment