The Ntsb And Enbridge's Keystone Kops Response To Oil Spills

[Don Hudson]

Does anyone here believe Enbridge when they say, "we've learned..."?

What good reasons do they provide for us to believe them when their actions are so vastly different than their pastel-colored ads, soothing female voices and other such pablum?

This isn't "anti-oil", "anti-Alberta" or anti-anything else except dishonesty, absence of integrity where it comes to money-over-people and the current trend to de-regulate safety by having private corporations look after "safety" themselves while the regulator doesn't even have to look the other way anymore.

NTSB Press Release

National Transportation Safety Board

Office of Public Affairs

Pipeline Rupture and Oil Spill Accident Caused by Organizational Failures and Weak Regulations

July 10, 2012

WASHINGTON - Pervasive organizational failures by a pipeline operator along with weak federal regulations led to a pipeline rupture and subsequent oil spill in 2010, the National Transportation Safety Board said today.

On Sunday, July 25, 2010, at about 5:58 p.m., a 30 inch-diameter pipeline (Line 6B) owned and operated by Enbridge Incorporated ruptured and spilled crude oil into an ecologically sensitive area near the Kalamazoo River in Marshall, Mich., for 17 hours until a local utility worker discovered the oil and contacted Enbridge to report the rupture.

The NTSB found that the material failure of the pipeline was the result of multiple small corrosion-fatigue cracks that over time grew in size and linked together, creating a gaping breach in the pipe measuring over 80 inches long.

"This investigation identified a complete breakdown of safety at Enbridge. Their employees performed like Keystone Kops and failed to recognize their pipeline had ruptured and continued to pump crude into the environment," said NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman. "Despite multiple alarms and a loss of pressure in the pipeline, for more than 17 hours and through three shifts they failed to follow their own shutdown procedures."

Clean up costs are estimated by Enbridge and the EPA at $800 million and counting, making the Marshall rupture the single most expensive on-shore spill in US history.

Over 840,000 gallons of crude oil - enough to fill 120 tanker trucks - spilled into hundreds of acres of Michigan wetlands, fouling a creek and a river. A Michigan Department of Community Health study concluded that over 300 individuals suffered adverse health effects related to benzene exposure, a toxic component of crude oil.

Line 6B had been scheduled for a routine shutdown at the time of the rupture to accommodate changing delivery schedules. Following the shutdown, operators in the Enbridge control room in Edmonton, Alberta, received multiple alarms indicating a problem with low pressure in the pipeline, which were dismissed as being caused by factors other than a rupture. "Inadequate training of control center personnel" was cited as contributing to the accident.

The investigation found that Enbridge failed to accurately assess the structural integrity of the pipeline, including correctly analyzing cracks that required repair. The NTSB characterized Enbridge's control room operations, leak detection, and environmental response as deficient, and described the event as an "organizational accident."

Following the first alarm, Enbridge controllers restarted Line 6B twice, pumping an additional 683,000 gallons of crude oil, or 81 percent of the total amount spilled, through the ruptured pipeline. The NTSB determined that if Enbridge's own procedures had been followed during the initial phases of the accident, the magnitude of the spill would have been significantly reduced. Further, the NTSB attributed systemic flaws in operational decision-making to a "culture of deviance," which concluded that personnel had a developed an operating culture in which not adhering to approved procedures and protocols was normalized.

The NTSB also cited the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's weak regulations regarding pipeline assessment and repair criteria as well as a cursory review of Enbridge's oil spill response plan as contributing to the magnitude of the accident.

The investigation revealed that the cracks in Line 6B that ultimately ruptured were detected by Enbridge in 2005 but were not repaired. A further examination of records revealed that Enbridge's crack assessment process was inadequate, increasing the risk of a rupture.

"This accident is a wake-up call to the industry, the regulator, and the public. Enbridge knew for years that this section of the pipeline was vulnerable yet they didn't act on that information," said Chairman Hersman. "Likewise, for the regulator to delegate too much authority to the regulated to assess their own system risks and correct them is tantamount to the fox guarding the hen house. Regulators need regulations and practices with teeth, and the resources to enable them to take corrective action before a spill. Not just after."

As a result of the investigation, the NTSB reiterated one recommendation to PHMSA and issued 17 new safety recommendations to the Department of the Transportation, PHMSA, Enbridge Incorporated, the American Petroleum Institute, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and the National Emergency Number Association.

A synopsis of the NTSB report, including the probable cause, findings, and a complete list of the safety recommendations, is available at http://go.usa.gov/wsO. The full report will be available on the website in several weeks.

NTSB Media Contact:

Office of Public Affairs

490 L'Enfant Plaza, SW

Washington, DC 20594

(202) 314-6100

Peter Knudson

peter.knudson@ntsb.gov

[Fido]

I wonder if the language used and the overall tone of the press release would have been different if it was an American company involved and the headquarters was Chicago?

[Don Hudson]

Malcolm;

Thanks for posting the conclusions - they're meaningful words only if they're backed up with teeth from the regulator and that is not just a few laws that corporations can buy their way around with a few million dollars in fines. (I would have thought the shareholders would be pretty upset with a near-billion-dollar clean-up bill but these guys that lead the company got a big pay raise after the spill. Nothing succeeds like failure in this corporate-run society and we're paying for it through oil and gas company tax subsidies. A few hundred families out of their homes seems to be just the cost of doing business, doesn't it?)

Anything meaningful in terms of "conclusions" has to inclue an entire re-building of the legal process back from the fundamental shift in regulatory priorities and subsequent behaviours which favour "free" enterprise approaches to business and safety processes which put private enterprise in charge.

Don

[Don Hudson]

Malcolm;

"Free enterprise" is a notion that is entirely foreign to the present circumstances. If only we had free enterprise and if only the government would get back to the business of government which is protecting society and advocating for ordinary people instead of being the corporate co-dependent addicted to taxes and short-term popularity through a vast network of wool-pulling techniques. What we have under the heading of "free enterprise" is a homunculus which bestrides society, to which we are subservient and which destroys an ordinary cohesiveness through envy, avarice, jealousy and greed. I've heard "naked envy talking" but frankly my view is everyone deserves some form of retirement - it provides for a life beyond working and that is worth something I think. I paid for mine as did the company but what is occuring today is nothing short of the building of an entire society of paupers beginning in about thirty years from now, due to the downward pressure on wages, (except the corporate robber barons), which makes raising an ordinary family damn difficult and saving for retirement impossible, the destruction of the institutions of retirement and pensions themselves and the reduced/absent protection for ordinary people when they try to negotiate a fair wage and retirement within a context of government interference and back-stopping of business's agenda for high profits, low wages and no obligation to employees. The move to the far right of government, of labour law and labour rulings, of the Supreme Court in both countries, (US and Canada) are ready expressions of an atomized society in which there exists only individuals and not a community.

Capitalism, free enterprise, good old-fashioned hard-work-will-get-you-a-reward are all devil's promises in a society that lives entirely in the shadow of corporate values and priorities, all of which are un-elected, secretive, legal "citizens" with enormous power over our society but without an ounce of formal responsibility except towards private shareholders.

It is a lousy arrangement and in fact a destructive one because one cannot continue to take out of a system and expect it to remain sustainable.

That isn't some left-wing commie environmentalist talking by the way:

It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption. I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis in our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evil. (Albert Einstein, 1949)

[Don Hudson]

Hi Malcolm - completely agree with your views on government - they are the enablers of private corporate interests and as such have abdicated their former, traditional and logical role, (since Grecian times) of the "protector of the people", so that they can get on with their own affairs in security and safety. I have long stated that I do not believe in hand-outs forever but I do believe in the Christian notion of a helping hand; I believe strongly in the reality of struggle and that making things easy for people creates an artificial psychological and even emotional dependency that is unhealthy for living things.

"Society" is not the "keeper of people" but the "psychic home of people" - a vast difference, one being a dependent relationship, the other being a respectful, independent relationship. Society cares for its "weakest", (who are defined according to the needs of society - today's "weakest" are those who do not or cannot fit into business's "accountability" model and who adopt the role of "cast-off's" because they lack "utility", meaning "productivity", in a business-run society and are therefore "drags on the 'economy' ". There are economic and social arrangements in which such people are not "lost" to society but not here, not in North America, Asia, Australia, New Zealand. A caring society which is also economically successful but not a world-economic-powerhouse, are the northern European countries which quietly exist without fanfare and which do not leap from crisis to crisis pitching their people from fear to insecurity and back again.

One needs an enormous amount of money in our own society to be free from such fears and insecurities. The walking wounded and the millions from the former-now-missing "middle class" who live lives of quiet, (too quiet) desparation no longer have the where-with-all to compete because they too are "lost" to our business-prioritized society.

I emphasize that my views are not "anti-business"...we need commerce to survive, in all meanings of the term. My objections are I think pretty common among ordinary people - that in a multi-trillion dollar western economy, all they want is a fair share of the spoils and all they see are governments going broke while billions of their tax dollars are poured into the New Socialism - corporations on the dole, especially in the United States, which says it values individualism and initiative but punishes both if one takes such notions seriously.

So I agree with you - government needs to get back to governing people by ridding itself of the co-dependant relationship it has with private interests which blackmail the government of the people with threats of leaving for friendlier tax havens like the Turks, etc "unless"....

It's complicated and not nearly as black and white as I portray it here, but we all know by now that most of this is the stuff of tons of books, for-and-against such views. Here we have to abbreviate just to be readable.

Yes, I absolutely loved flying, period - dreamed of it from age 2 on. Allow me a Pollyanna moment: I was unbelievably fortunate to fly for AC for 35 years - warts and all it is among the finest airlines in the world to be employed by and AC is a superb carrier for our customers in all ways. To my constant frustration, AC never brags, never boasts, rarely counters unfair criticism, it just does the job. It's labour relations hasn't changed in thirty years yet always attracts attention. My loyalty leads sometimes to criticism that sounds harsh but that's how things change for the better. The comparison between the two major carriers in Canada is entirely artificial because they do different jobs and in very different ways - in comparison with most, not all, the world's carriers, our two major carriers stand very tall indeed. Anyone who has flown on some of the world's other carriers always come home with a changed impression of Canada's carriers. The further I get from retirement in October of 2007 the more I realize how fine the entire experience was, even given all.

Don

[boestar]

Don / Malcolm:

Interesting conversation for sure. I recently began watching a new TV series called Continuum. Interestingly the theme of the show discusses exactly what you are talking about above. In this case a group of "extremist protestors" end up coming back to 2012 from 65 years in the future to stop the corporations from BECOMING the government. When you look at the theme of the show it parallels reality quite well with corporate CEOs draining pension funds etc. Although a Sci-Fi type show the story is interesting.

I still think that at some point the masses do need to rise up and revolt. I dont mean a camping trip to a city park either. I mean all out stop paying taxes and pose a general strike. The governments have proven time and time again that they cannot be fiscally responsible with OUR money so why do we keep giving it to them? All I see in any government office I visit is waste. Essentially most of the public service is "Workfare" with a good pension (for now).

I love MY Country but I hate the corruption in the upper echelons.

[xmikes@imap.cc]

We the electorate are at fault to some degree. We continue to demand things from government that no fiscally responsible body can provide. We have created politicians that have to lie (not saying the wouldn't otherwise) to us to get elected. Once elected they reneg and we scream bloody murder. Next time around we elect the other guys, mix and repeat. Sound like the definition of stupidity.

The NDP attack ads are blaming the Conservatives for the largest deficit in history. Does that mean that if they had been in power they would not have put a dime into the bailouts, just left everything status quo, during one of the worst downturns in history? I think we would be far deeper than we are, and of course the other parties would be crying the same tune.

[DEFCON]

Electorate = Apathy

Apathy allows crafty men to take advantage of the situation.

[Don Hudson]

Apathy allows crafty men to take advantage of the situation

Exactly. About 196 billionaires in the United States are financing Mitt Romney's run for the Presidency, including Sheldon Adelson. The U.S. election and democracy itself is clearly for sale, legally. It doesn't need voter fraud, dead people voting, guns or United Nations observors. It just needs apathetic voters, Citizens United and the Supreme Court all brought to you by corporate wealth and power which is financing the Republican state and national puppets they need in power for the next four years. This is an election being held between an electorate of 196 of the richest people in the United States, and an electorate of 100 million or so people who still believe their vote counts; - not when the money is on the table.

What a farce.

Shameful.

.

[Guest longtimer]

Not Canadian politics but def. all about the votes.....

Quote
State Department giving more time to federal agencies to review Keystone XL pipeline
‎Today, ‎April ‎18, ‎2014, ‏‎1 hour ago | Files from the Associated PressGo to full article
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration is extending indefinitely the amount of time federal agencies have to review the Keystone XL pipeline, the State Department said Friday, likely punting the decision over the controversial oil pipeline past the midterm elections.

The State Department didn’t say how much longer it will grant agencies to weigh in but cited a recent decision by a Nebraska judge overturning a state law that allowed the pipeline’s path through the state, prompting uncertainty and an ongoing legal battle. Nebraska’s Supreme Court isn’t expected to rule for another several months, and there could be more legal maneuvering after that. The delay potentially frees President Barack Obama to avoid making a final call on the pipeline until after the November election.

“The agency consultation process is not starting over. The process is ongoing, and the department and relevant agencies are actively continuing their work in assessing the permit application,” the State Department said in a statement.

Republicans were quick to blast the latest delay in a review process that has dragged on for more than five years. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., accused Obama of kowtowing to “radical activists” from the environmental community, while House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, called the decision “shameful” and said there were no credible reasons for further delay.

“This job-creating project has cleared every environmental hurdle and overwhelmingly passed the test of public opinion, yet it’s been blocked for more than 2,000 days,” Boehner said in a statement.

In an ironic show of bipartisanship, prominent Democrats from energy-dependent states joined Republicans in blasting the Obama administration for delaying the decision once again. Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu, who faces a difficult re-election this year in conservative-leaning Louisiana, said Obama was signalling that a small minority of opponents can tie up the process forever in the courts, sacrificing 42,000 jobs and billions in economic activity in the process.

“This decision is irresponsible, unnecessary and unacceptable,” Landrieu said.

But environmental groups fighting the pipeline hailed the delay, arguing that it shows the State Department is taking the arguments against the pipeline seriously.

“This is definitely great news,” said Tiernan Sittenfeld, senior vice-president for the League of Conservation Voters. “We are very confident as they continue to examine the issues with the lack of legal route in Nebraska and the terrible climate impacts, at the end of the day the pipeline will be rejected.”

The announcement from the State Department came Friday afternoon, when many Americans were observing Good Friday and preparing for the Easter holiday. Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., accused the administration of seizing that opportunity to downplay news of the latest delay.

Obama and environmental groups dispute the notion that the pipeline would create many permanent jobs or have a substantial economic impact, but Obama has refused to say whether he will nix it. The 1,179-mile pipeline would travel through Montana and South Dakota to a hub in Nebraska, where it would connect with existing pipelines to carry more than 800,000 barrels of crude oil a day to refineries in Texas.

The pipeline project, proposed by Canadian company TransCanada, has become a proxy for a larger battle between environmental activists and energy advocates over climate change and the future of American energy.

In January, the State Department said that building the pipeline would not significantly boost carbon emissions because the oil was likely to find its way to market no matter what. Transporting the oil by rail or truck would cause greater environmental problems than the pipeline, the report said.

The State Department has jurisdiction because the pipeline would cross the border between the U.S. and Canada.

___

Associated Press writers Bradley Klapper and Matthew Lee, and Grant Schulte in Lincoln, Neb., contributed to this report.
Go to commentsComments (0)

[Guest]

U.S. union boss slams Obama for being ‘hypocrite’ in Keystone XL pipeline rejection

‎Today, ‎November ‎20, ‎2015, ‏‎3 hours ago | Claudia Cattaneo

CALGARY • The leader of one of the largest union groups in North America called U.S. President Barack Obama a “hypocrite” for rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline and insisted the Alberta-to-Texas project will get built.

With oil train explosions becoming a weekly occurrence in the United States safe oil transportation should come before politics, Sean McGarvey, president of North America’s Building Trades Unions, said Friday.

“I have every confidence in the world that we are going to build that pipeline,” he said in an interview from Washington. “People will demand it and will build it, regardless of who the next Congress is and who the next president of the U.S. is. And we are going to build others.”

By siding with “radical environmentalists,” McGarvey said Obama alienated workers, a core constituency of the Democratic Party, who want jobs and reasonable environmental and energy policies.

Related

• Obama betrayed America’s closest ally over Keystone XL to prop up climate change legacy
• TransCanada Corp pulls Keystone XL application in Nebraska after Obama rejection

He said his members are mobilizing to support energy projects, including in Canada, where his group has 600,000 members, and where emboldened KXL opponents are regrouping to defeat other plans like TransCanada Corp.’s Energy East and Kinder Morgan’s TransMountain pipeline expansion.

“Have no fear, a small vocal minority will not rule the majority in North America,” he said. “The most stable and productive middle class in the world is in Canada, and a large part of the reason why the citizens of Canada enjoy that position is because of the abundance of natural resources.

“If people think that because of radical environmentalists you are going to go back to the stone age and you are going to degrade the standard of living for Canadians, something tells me that people are going to stand up and revolt,” he said.

McGarvey said Obama’s KXL rejection this month went against the findings of his own administration that it would not have generated significant greenhouse gas emissions, and was made despite the construction of more than 12,000 miles of oil pipelines across the United States since 2009.

In fact, he noted Obama attended the groundbreaking for the southern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline, which is in operation.

Construction of remaining trans-border northern leg would have provided 12,000 jobs for his members alone, he said.

The group is an alliance of 14 national and international unions in the building and construction industry that represent more than 3 million skilled craft professionals in the United States and Canada.

Obama needed a legacy after many of his initiatives fell through due to Washington’s political gridlock, he said.

There was nothing that Calgary-based TransCanada, KXL’s proponent, or Canadian governments could have done differently to get the project approved, he said.

“This cake was baked a long time ago,” McGarvey said. “It was unfortunate that once the decision was made, that they didn’t just go ahead and issue the decision then, that they played politics with the pipeline … and used it as a fundraising vehicle for political campaigns.”

ccattaneo@nationalpost.com

[Guest]

TransCanada says it will file NAFTA claim over Keystone XL rejection

‎Today, ‎January ‎6, ‎2016, ‏‎1 hour ago | Justin Slimm

CALGARY – TransCanada says it intends to file a claim under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement in response to the U.S. government’s rejection of the company’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline.

The company said Wednesday it has filed a notice of intent to initiate the NAFTA claim on the basis that the denial was arbitrary and unjustified.

The Calgary-based firm says it will be looking to recover US$15 billion in costs and damages as a result of what it says is a breach of NAFTA obligations.

TransCanada says it has also filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Federal Court in Texas asserting that President Barack Obama’s decision to deny construction of Keystone XL exceeded his power under the U.S. Constitution.

The 1,900-kilometre pipeline has been in limbo for more than seven years, and at times has been an irritant in U.S.-Canadian relations.

The project, which also became a focal point of environmental protests, would have shipped bitumen from Alberta’s oilsands through a pipeline hub in the Hardisty area to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries.

TransCanada says it had every reason to expect the pipeline would be approved since it met the same criteria as previous pipelines that were sanctioned.

Comments (0)

[Guest]

Canadian reactions to Trump's Keystone XL pipeline order
CTVNews.ca Staff
Published Tuesday, January 24, 2017 5:24PM EST
Last Updated Tuesday, January 24, 2017 5:52PM EST

U.S. President Donald Trump’s executive order to advance the Keystone XL pipeline project is getting varied reactions. Here’s what key Canadian players are saying about the decision.

Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister

“In both the conversations I’ve had with President Trump now, Keystone XL came up as a topic and I reiterated my support for the project.

President Donald Trump signs an executive order on the Keystone XL pipeline, in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, on Tuesday, Jan. 24, 2017. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

I’ve been on the record for many years supporting it because it leads to economic growth and good jobs for Albertans particularly now that we can demonstrate with the Pan-Canadian Framework on Climate Change, with the absolute cap on oil sands emissions, that the Alberta government brought in, we know we can get our resources to market more safely and responsibly while meeting our climate change goals.

As for the details of the negotiations between President Trump and his administration and TransCanada, I will allow those conversations to unfold in the coming weeks.”

Tom Mulcair, Leader of NDP

“It’s not clear why Justin Trudeau is pushing to revive a pipeline that will export Canadian jobs and that has never been properly reviewed.

You know, unlike successive Conservative and Liberal governments, the NDP will continue to stand up for Canadian jobs, the environment and the protection of First Nations rights.”

Mark Strahl, Conservative critic for natural resources

“Our previous Conservative Government supported the Keystone XL Pipeline and urged the former American administration to approve the American leg of this project.

While we are pleased with the Trump administration’s approval of this project, it does not reduce the need for new pipelines in Canada.

The Liberal Government should have supported the Northern Gateway Project and, going forward, must support the Energy East process.”

Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party

“I think we really need to look at all the pipeline projects and look at the cumulative impact on greenhouse gases.

You add these up together and you end up with a very expensive problem of stranded assets, pipelines that are a threat to our B.C. coast and at the same time more pipelines than bitumen being produced, with tremendous pressure for more bitumen to be produced with more greenhouse gases.

This is the key reason, by the way, that Barack Obama turned down the Keystone project was the environmental impact statement for Keystone said if you build a pipeline when the price for a barrel of oil is below $80 a barrel, you’re pushing for the production of more bitumen in an otherwise uneconomical climate for producing bitumen."

Rachel Notley, Premier of Alberta

“This project is going to create good jobs here in Alberta and that’s my focus: support our workers, create good jobs and diversify our economy.

More energy workers at our rural hotels is a good thing. More equipment out in the field is a good thing. Busier restaurants and hardware stores across Alberta are all good things.

At the end of the day, it is about making sure that regular working families of our province all have access to good jobs.”

TransCanada, pipeline proponent

“We appreciate the President of the United States inviting us to re-apply for KXL.

We are currently preparing the application and intend to do so. KXL creates thousands of well-paying construction jobs and would generate tens of millions of dollars in annual property taxes to counties along the route as well as more than $3 billion to the U.S. GDP.

With best-in-class technology and construction techniques that protect waterways and other sensitive environmental resources, KXL represents the safest, most environmentally sound way to connect the American economy to an abundant energy resource.”

Patrick DeRochie, Environmental Defence

“The National Energy Board (NEB) evaluated KXL under a flawed process that lacks credibility. The federal government has acknowledged this and is undertaking a review of the energy regulator. Once reformed, the NEB must look at projects in a new light – including Keystone XL.

The evaluation of energy projects needs to include a credible climate test – to see if the project fits with Canada’s climate commitments. KXL was approved before Canada signed and ratified the Paris Climate Agreement and before the Pan-Canadian Framework on Climate Change was put in place.

There is no economic rationale to support the construction of yet another tar sands pipeline. Current tar sands pipeline capacity is underutilized and the price of oil is too low to justify new tar sands projects.”

Brad Wall, Saskatchewan Premier

“For Canada, it means we can move our oil – safe, secure Canadian oil – to our biggest customer and to tidewater. It will help lower the price differential Canada receives for its oil – that differential costs our governments and producers hundreds of millions of dollars each year. It will also help free up capacity on our railways for moving other products.

For Saskatchewan, there will be about 2,200 jobs building the 530 kilometers of Keystone XL in Alberta and Saskatchewan at a cost of approximately $1.2 billion. Keystone XL is projected to result in an additional $3.5 million in additional property tax revenues in Alberta per year and $1.3 million in Saskatchewan.

This is also good news for Evraz in Regina. The company participated in the Keystone project up to the point that it was shut down by the Obama Administration and are optimistic their company will continue to be involved in the project now that it has been approved to go forward.”

Mike Hudema, Greenpeace Canada

“People on both sides of the border will be there to stand with Indigenous nations, and all those that believe in Indigenous reconciliation and a climate safe future to ensure these pipelines don’t make it in the ground.

The question for Canadians is: will the Prime Minister continue to align himself with a climate denying Trump administration, or will he stand with the people and with science and start living up to his own commitments to the climate and Indigenous rights?

The Prime Minister can’t keep saying he will lead on climate while building three new tar sands pipelines. Alternative facts may work in the U.S. administration but they shouldn’t be tolerated here.”

Naheed Nenshi, Calgary mayor

“We have the highest unemployment rate of any major city in Canada. One of the best ways for us to approach that is to continue to build these projects.

These projects create good, decent jobs here in Calgary, as well as in the field and they are a great way to help our economy recover.

It is important for Canadian energy to have access to global markets.”

[Guest]

Despite the US order and despite some joy in the oil patch, it may never be built. 

Future of Keystone XL remains murky Despite U.S. President Donald Trump’s move to push ahead with the Keystone XL pipeline, there’s only a 50-50 chance the project will ever be built, an energy consultant says.

Trump signed executive orders Tuesday advancing the Keystone XL and the U.S.-based Dakota Access pipelines, but said the government would “renegotiate some of the terms.”

That could include making the project part of wider free-trade negotiations, requiring that only American goods and services are used for construction, or a border tax on energy exports, said Paul Michael Wihbey, founding partner of Connect Global Strategies.

As well, Gulf Coast refineries are switching to process light Bakken crude and might not have capacity for the heavy oil Keystone would carry from Alberta, Wihbey told an Alberta Enterprise Group-Edmonton Chamber of Commerce luncheon.

The importance of the 1,900-kilometre pipeline has diminished greatly in the last few years, said Wihbey, also president of Washington, D.C.-based GWEST LLC, a consulting firm specializing in resource geopolitics.

“The Americans are going to ramp up production, they’re going to use that refining capacity, they intend to export crude and LNG (liquefied natural gas). The energy landscape has changed entirely,” he said.

“Subject to those conditions I mentioned earlier, I would say (the chance of Keystone construction) is probably 50-50.”

Wihbey, a senior Liberal party official under former prime minister Pierre Trudeau, had strong words for Canada’s unwieldy method of approving pipelines and energy exports, calling it “a Third World system.”

“You all are a laughingstock and you permit it,” he said. “You and your governmental leaders are the authors of your economic suicide, and that’s going to be self-evident when on the American side we start building pipelines from east to west.”

With the nationalist Trump administration’s plans to reduce restrictions on energy companies, cut taxes and boost American jobs, Canada must overhaul the National Energy Board and harmonize the competing jurisdictions that now have input on projects, he said.

“There has to be fast-tracked authority created to allow for the export of Alberta crude and LNG. Fundamentally, Canada has to make a decision — does it want to export crude from Alberta?”

Former premier Dave Hancock, who also spoke at the event, said it’s tough to know if Canada should be watering down environmental and business rules to keep up with changes the American government is likely to take.

“I’m not suggesting we’re going to go backwards on that, but I am suggesting that we have to look very closely at the types of regulations that we put in place, and which ones actually help us meet our goals and which ones become barriers.”

[dagger]

Three things strike me about the pipeline issue.

First, the argument that US refiners are going to lose interest in exporting Canadian (or other heavy crude) seems weak. They will export as much as they can sell, as evidenced by rising export levels. OPEC has cut back on production, bringing Brent pricing more in line with US crudes. Ergo, if they can sell Canadian or other heavy crudes abroad as their own, they will.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-23/opec-helps-cheap-u-s-oil-find-its-way-to-group-s-top-customers

Secondly, if US Gulf Coast refiners can't sell our heavy crudes for whatever market reasoning, it is unlikely ANY pipeline policy Canada can concoct, will get crude to offshore markets.

It's not a question of whether Canada wants to export Alberta (or Saskatchewan) crude, it's whether we can produce a crude at a deliverable cost - meaning, including transportation and refining - that the world will pay for.

Thirdly, the world continues to move inexorably away from oil in particular, though it will take time. But this BP analysis, just out today, paint a clear picture: fossil fuel demand is going to peak (coal demand peaks first), the push for renewables and new technologies that require less energy continues unabated, and there is loads of crude in particular available, more than enough to keep prices low forever. In fact, as producing regions face declining demand, they are likely to push out even more supply, and depress prices even further, to maintain cash flow.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-25/bp-sees-a-future-of-slowing-oil-demand-growth-abundant-supplies-iyd1s0zo

I have more faith in natural gas demand, especially as it can displace oil as a transition fuel. Winter in Asia this year has been kind of harsh, and LNG exports 

to that region are up. These kinds of things ought to make Asian utilities lock into LNG stocks for the long term.

 

 

 

[Guest]

Looks like Enbridge has the go ahead they needed.

Supreme Court quashes seismic testing in Nunavut, but gives green light to Enbridge pipeline

Top court delivers landmark rulings on consultation process with Indigenous peoples over energy projects

By John Paul Tasker, CBC NewsPosted: Jul 26, 2017 10:04 AM ET Last Updated: Jul 26, 2017 11:35 AM ET

Related Stories

• Chippewas of the Thames Line 9 pipeline appeal dismissed by Supreme Court
• 'It means everything': Supreme Court to rule on Indigenous relations with energy companies
• Line 9 battle worth the cost to set history straight says new Chippewa Chief
• Nunavut seismic testing appeal could help define Canada's duty to consult Indigenous groups
• Enbridge commits to greater disclosure on Indigenous and environmental issues
• 'We thought no one would care': Clyde River Inuit flooded with support

The Supreme Court of Canada has quashed plans for seismic testing in Nunavut, delivering a major victory to Inuit who argued they were inadequately consulted before the National Energy Board gave oil companies the green light to conduct this disruptive activity.

 

In a unanimous decision handed down Wednesday, written by Justices Karakatsanis and Brown, the top court ruled the NEB's consultation process in Clyde River was "significantly flawed," and gave little, if any, consideration to the treaty rights of Inuit and their reliance on marine mammals for subsistence.

 

The Inuit have said the sound wave technology a Norwegian consortium sought to use in search of oil would have profoundly impacted marine life in the area.

 

In a similar decision released Wednesday, the top court ruled unanimously that Enbridge could proceed with its reversal of the Line 9 pipeline in southwestern Ontario, arguing the Chippewas of the Thames were given enough say ahead of the project's construction.

 

The court sent a shot across the bow in its ruling, warning the NEB and energy project proponents that "any decision affecting Aboriginal or treaty rights made on the basis of inadequate consultation will not be in compliance with the duty to consult."

• Chippewas of the Thames Line 9 pipeline appeal dismissed by Supreme Court
• 'It means everything': Supreme Court to rule on Indigenous relations with energy companies

But the ruling said consultations are a two-way street and Indigenous Peoples alone should not be given the final say on whether a project should proceed. Aboriginal rights must be balanced against "competing societal interests," the court said.

"This does not mean that the interests of Indigenous groups cannot be balanced with other interests at the accommodation stage," the justices wrote. "Indeed, it is for this reason that the duty to consult does not provide Indigenous groups with a 'veto' over final Crown decisions."

NEB can consult on behalf of the Crown

Significantly, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could rely on the NEB to carry out consultation on its behalf. Some Indigenous activists have said a quasi-judicial body tasked with energy regulation should not play that role; the court clearly disagreed.

 

The federal government has a duty to consult with Indigenous people when there is a claim that an Indigenous or treaty right will be breached. The top court found that the NEB, acting as an agent of the crown, simply did not do enough in the Clyde River case, holding only one meeting with the community where officials from the oil company could answer few pressing questions.

 

The significance of this "consultation" process was not explained to the Inuit, the court said. When officials from the company did eventually answer basic questions about the impact on marine mammals such as whales and narwhals, it did so by electronically delivering a 3,926-page document that was virtually inaccessible for residents of the northern locale with limited internet access. The document was largely in English, while residents are overwhelmingly Inuktitut speakers.

In Clyde River people rely on hunters for food year round. They argue seismic testing could put their livelihoods at risk. (Elyse Skura/CBC)

"To put it mildly, furnishing answers to questions that went to the heart of the treaty rights at stake in the form of a practically inaccessible document dump months after the questions were initially asked in person is not true consultation," the court said.

The top court will allow an appeal of a Federal Court of Appeal decision to proceed; that court had ruled the NEB had done enough to satisfy the duty to consult.

'Deep consultation'

Importantly, the court also laid out what "deep consultation" with Indigenous people should entail moving forward.

It said the NEB is fully equipped to conduct consultations, and should hold oral hearings and use its broad powers to elicit critical information from proponents such as scientific evidence. The NEB should also make money available for Indigenous groups to participate in the process, conduct environmental assessments and make those findings public.

The Supreme Court said the NEB did exactly that before allowing Enbridge to reverse a pipeline and transfer heavy crude from Alberta through a pipeline that runs from Sarnia, Ont., to Montreal; the line has already been in active service since 2015.

First Nations in the area had argued that the risk of spills could impact their rights and interests. The NEB said legally binding environmental conditions were adequate to accommodate Indigenous concerns.

The Chippewas were granted funding to participate as an intervener, they were involved during oral hearings and had the opportunity to present evidence and a final argument. The court said, in this case, consultation was "manifestly adequate." The Chippewas were also able to pose questions to Enbridge, and they received written responses.

Chippewas of the Thames Chief Myeengun Henry admits his community was taking a big risk by pursuing a Supreme Court case against Enbridge. 'We’re just trying to stop a very dangerous situation,' he said. (Chippewassolidarity.org)

 

"The process undertaken by the NEB in this case was sufficient to satisfy the Crown's duty to consult … the NEB sufficiently assessed the potential impacts on the rights of Indigenous groups and found that the risk of negative consequences was minimal and could be mitigated."

In a statement Wednesday, Enbridge welcomed the Supreme Court's decision and vowed to continue consultations with First Nations in the area.

"Enbridge is absolutely committed to fostering a strengthened relationship with the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation, and all Indigenous communities built upon openness, respect and mutual trust."

 

The Chippewas' request for an appeal of a previous Federal Court decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Energy sector uncertainty

The decisions come amid a time of uncertainty for Canada's energy sector, and further threats to the federal government's natural resources agenda.

On Tuesday, proponents of a massive $11 billion Pacific NorthWest LNG project on B.C.'s coast pulled the plug, less than a year after the Liberal government gave the green light.

The Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, which will carry nearly a million barrels of oil a day from Alberta to B.C. for export to Asia, is also hanging in the balance, as new B.C. Premier John Horgan has long opposed its construction.

Trans Mountain was approved by the prime minister and his cabinet last November, paving the way for a twinned pipeline that will alleviate capacity issues and help Canada's oil producers collect world prices.

The court cases come amid a push by the Liberal government to reform the National Energy Board and "modernize" its operations. An expert panel recently suggested the NEB be scrapped, and be replaced with two new agencies with many of regulatory functions moved from Calgary to Ottawa.

The panel also called for "real and substantive" participation from First Nations communities in the decision-making process.

"Canadians told us that they expect to see their energy regulator fully realize nation-to-nation relationships with Indigenous Peoples. We agree," the report said.

[DEFCON]

"The Chippewas were granted funding to participate as an intervener, they were involved during oral hearings and had the opportunity to present evidence and a final argument."

I read; 'funding to hire lawyers'.

Meanwhile, we have a big neighbourhood problem with certain activities of the Federal Government. Accordingly, why isn't our local association entitled to 'intervenor funding' when we seek to have our say?

 

 

[Guest]

I wonder whose money will pay this levy and then of course what their continued protest will entail.

Chippewas must pay energy giant's legal bills in lost court battle

Enbridge said it is reviewing the court's decision to award costs to the oil company

CBC NewsPosted: Jul 28, 2017 8:40 AM ET Last Updated: Jul 28, 2017 9:16 AM ET

The Supreme Court of Canada's decision this week could cost the community of 3,000 a lot of money. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)

 

The Supreme Court of Canada has ordered the Chippewas of the Thames, a community of 3,000, to pay energy giant Enbridge's legal fees after an unsuccessful attempt by the First Nation to stop the company's ambitions on its controversial Line 9 pipeline.

The pipeline, built 40 years ago, runs through Chippewas territory, and this week's top court decision allows the company to not only reverse the flow of heavy crude, but also increase capacity along Line 9. 

The Chippewas believe the aging pipeline could rupture and cause an oil spille that would create an environmental catastrophe. 

"The ruling said that Enbridge wins court costs, so that means we have to pay them," said Myeengun Henry, newly elected Chippewas of the Thames First Nation chief.

The Chippewas' legal bills total $600,000, Henry said. 

Enbridge has not indicated what its costs will be, said spokesperson Suzanne Wilton, noting in a statement that it is still reviewing the decision. 

"There has been no determination by the court regarding fees, which would require an application where none has been made," Wilton said.

Relationship building

Following the Supreme Court's decision, Enbridge said it was committed to building a strong relationship with the First Nation. 

That may be difficult if the financial burden of the energy giant's legal bills are too steep for the Chippewas of the Thames. 

"It's clear that Enbridge wants to develop a stronger relationship with Chippewas of the Thames," said Trevord McLeod, director of the Natural Resources Centre at the Canada West Foundation.

"But it looks like it's going to be a rough road."

The Chippewas have said they will continue to fight against the pipeline, which could include acts of civil disobedience.

[DEFCON]

You'll soon be digging into your pocket again Malcolm.

[Guest]

And in the west.

Federal court grants B.C. intervener status in Trans Mountain challenge with harshly worded judgment

'A number of aspects of British Columbia’s motion are unsatisfactory,' wrote Justice David Stratas

By Roshini Nair, CBC NewsPosted: Aug 29, 2017 3:31 PM PT Last Updated: Aug 29, 2017 3:40 PM PT

The proposed pipeline expansion project would triple the capacity of the 1,150-kilometre pipeline between Edmonton, Alta. and Burnaby, B.C. (Jonathan Hayward/Canadian Press)

The Federal Court of Appeal has granted British Columbia intervener status in the legal challenge launched against the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project — along with a stern rebuke of the province's filing.

On Mar. 9, 2017, 19 separate lawsuits from First Nations and environmental groups challenging Ottawa's approval of the project were consolidated as one case.

The controversial pipeline project would expand the capacity of a currently existing pipeline route between Edmonton and Burnaby and significantly increase tanker traffic out of Burrard Inlet.

Interveners — who are not litigants but provide an additional perspective during trial — were given a chance to apply for status within 35 days of this order.

Alberta successfully applied and received intervener status, but B.C.'s attorney general, under the previous Liberal government, did not.

Before the deadline expired, the writ for the B.C. election was issued.

The unusual result, with no immediate clear winner, meant it was July 18 before the current NDP government was sworn in.

B.C. Environment Minister George Heyman and Attorney General David Eby announced the province would be seeking intervener status on Aug. 10. (George Heyman/Facebook/CBC)

On Aug. 10, the NDP government announced it would be joining the legal fight against Ottawa's approval of the $7.4-billion project.

It filed its official application for intervener status on Aug. 22.

A 'blasé' approach

In his judgment, Justice David Stratas took issue with several parts of B.C.'s filing, describing the provincial approach as "blasé."

"A number of aspects of British Columbia's motion are unsatisfactory," he wrote.

Stratas said, with a challenge of this nature, time is of the essence, and it is in the public interest to ensure the fastest possible hearing on this matter.

He asked why it took five weeks — until Aug. 22 — for B.C. to file the motion and questioned why the seven-paragraph affidavit "does not offer a single word of explanation" for the delay.

Stratas goes on to describe the province's submissions as vague and imprecise. He said B.C. does not appear to understand the ground rules of the "complex proceeding it is seeking to enter."

"British Columbia says that it considers its participation in the proceedings important, yet after five weeks, it cannot yet say with much specificity how it intends to participate," he wrote.

Conditions

Despite his criticism, Stratas said there are still good reasons to give B.C. status, especially since Alberta has already been granted intervener status.

However, the judge placed a number of conditions on B.C.

The province has to file a submission no longer than the one filed by Alberta in a "highly expedited" fashion by the same deadline — which happens to be this Friday, Sept. 1.

B.C. is also not allowed to advance new issues in its submissions.

Stratas was very particular about these conditions, saying, if any are breached the appeal panel may revoke British Columbia's status as an intervener.

He also awarded Trans Mountain $7,500 in costs to be paid by the province, because, due to its late filing, Trans Mountain has to file a second memorandum.