DOCSLIB.ORG

The Petroleum Pipeline Study Committee Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Petroleum Pipeline Study Committee Report THE PETROLEUM PIPELINE STUDY COMMITTEE REPORT Submitted to the South Carolina General Assembly on December 21, 2017 Committee Members: Senator Tom Young, Chairman Senator Brad Hutto Senator Shane Massey Representative Dennis Moss Representative William “Bill” Hixon Representative Russell Ott C. Dukes Scott Michael Traynham W. McLeod Rhodes Donald Gardner Petroleum Pipeline Study Committee Report Submitted on December 21, 2017 Background of the Petroleum Pipeline Study Committee Background On July 1, 2015, South Carolina’s Attorney General issued an opinion holding that current South Carolina law is unclear as to whether South Carolina law allows a petroleum pipeline company to exercise eminent domain authority. The Attorney General recommended that the legislature clarify whether property can be condemned in South Carolina by a petroleum pipeline company. Soon after, the General Assembly enacted Act 205 (2016) which, through a moratorium, prohibited the use of eminent domain by for-profit, pipeline companies that are not defined as a public utility under South Carolina Code of Laws Title 58. That moratorium expires on June 30, 2019. Purpose After the 2015 Attorney General Opinion mentioned above, the General Assembly established the Petroleum Pipeline Study Committee, hereinafter referred to as the “Committee,” by Act 304 in 2016 to study matters related to the presence of petroleum pipelines in South Carolina. Matters to be considered by the Committee were to include, but were not limited to, the following: (1) the various types of petroleum products and by-products that are transported by a pipeline; (2) the federal requirements for petroleum pipeline siting and monitoring; (3) the state’s responsibilities as to the regulation of petroleum pipeline siting and monitoring; (4) the possible environmental implications from a petroleum pipeline; (5) the potential economic development implications for South Carolina resulting from a petroleum pipeline located in this State; (6) whether other states permit petroleum pipeline companies to exercise eminent domain, and if so, under what circumstances; and (7) whether a bonding requirement can and should be imposed as a prerequisite for any private company seeking to install a petroleum pipeline in South Carolina. Membership The Committee’s membership consisted of the following: (1) Representative William “Bill” Hixon, appointed by the Speaker of the House; (2) Representative Dennis Moss, appointed by the Speaker of the House; (3) Representative Russell Ott, appointed by the Speaker of the House; 1 (4) Senator Brad Hutto, appointed by the Senate Judiciary Chairman; (5) Senator Shane Massey, appointed by the Senate Judiciary Chairman; (6) Senator Tom Young, appointed by the Senate Judiciary Chairman, who served as chairman of the study committee; (7) C. Dukes Scott, Executive Director of the Office of Regulatory Staff; (8) Michael Traynham, Chief Counsel, Environmental Quality Control with Department of Health and Environmental Control; (9) W. McLeod Rhodes, representing environmental and conservations organizations; and (10) Donald Gardner, representing the South Carolina Petroleum Council. Summary of Study Committee Meetings The Committee held seven public meetings. The initial meeting was held on September 28, 2016. During that meeting, Committee members raised questions related to petroleum pipelines in South Carolina, as well as the background of events that led to the introduction and passage of the joint resolution that created the Study Committee, including Act 205 (2016) which prohibited the use of eminent domain by for-profit, pipeline companies that are not defined as a public utility under South Carolina Code of Laws Title 58. In addition to the items listed in Act 304 for the Committee to consider, the members also requested information on the following topics: (1) South Carolina’s eminent domain laws; (2) the recent Colonial petroleum pipeline spill in Alabama; (3) the petroleum pipeline spill in Belton, South Carolina; and (4) the history of petroleum pipelines in South Carolina. The second Committee meeting was held on November 30, 2016. This meeting consisted of a day of presentations and public testimony. Presentations were given on the following topics: (1) a general overview of topics regarding petroleum pipelines, such as the types of products transported by pipelines; (2) an overview of the presence of petroleum pipelines in South Carolina; (3) federal laws, regulations and state practices and petroleum company practices regarding petroleum pipeline siting and monitoring, including safety considerations; (4) an overview on the 2016 Alabama petroleum pipeline leak; (5) an overview regarding the history of utilities’ use of eminent domain in South Carolina; (6) potential economic development implications for South Carolina resulting from petroleum pipelines; (7) examples of current bonding requirements for utilities; (8) potential environmental implications from petroleum pipelines; and (9) an update on the petroleum pipeline leak in Belton, SC. The above information was presented in the form of written presentations and oral testimony from a variety of sources, including representatives from the: Office of Regulatory Staff, U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration, Public 2 Service Commission, Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC), S.C. Commerce Department, and petroleum pipeline industry representatives. Members from the public also provided oral testimony as to their concerns regarding petroleum pipeline siting and safety concerns. Information provided to the Committee in writing was posted on the Committee’s website. At its third meeting on March 9, 2017, the Committee began to discuss policy issues regarding petroleum pipeline companies and eminent domain including whether these companies should be granted the authority of eminent domain, and if so, under what circumstances? Committee members discussed Georgia’s pending legislation that established when petroleum pipeline companies could use eminent domain. DHEC provided information regarding the Belton spill clean-up process and general background information on spills that DHEC is currently monitoring. DHEC currently is overseeing the monitoring of ten petroleum pipeline releases in the state dating back to approximately 1970. The Committee also heard from members of the public. The Committee voted to request an extension on issuing its report to study Georgia’s legislation and to explore any other issues that the Committee may need to consider. A copy of this request for extension is attached as Exhibit 1. The Committee also determined that a list of issues raised during the Committee’s meetings would be placed on the Committee’s website, along with a request for public comment. The list of issues was posted on the Committee’s website, and is included in the attached Exhibit 1, and listed as Exhibit B. During the public comment period, the Committee received comments from the American Petroleum Institute and Colonial Pipeline. These comments were provided to the Committee members and posted on the Committee’s website for public review. No other public comments were received. The Committee met for the fourth time on June 14, 2017. At this meeting, DHEC staff provided information regarding the Belton spill and addressed general questions from Committee members regarding spill clean-up processes. DHEC said that the agency has an emergency response team and private contractor to respond to petroleum pipeline spills. DHEC does intensive long term monitoring of areas where a spill has occurred including monitoring as to potential ground and surface water contamination. Committee members discussed the recently enacted Georgia legislation and whether a similar legislative framework might work in South Carolina. The Committee directed staff to draft language, in the format of draft legislation, to integrate key elements from Georgia’s law into South Carolina’s statutory framework. The Committee held additional meetings on July 31, 2017 and October 3, 2017 to discuss draft language and ideas for legislation. At the July 31, 2017 hearing, the Committee heard public testimony related to environmental concerns and issues related to public notice and opportunity to provide comments in a petroleum pipeline permitting process. At both meetings, Committee members discussed various aspects of potential language for draft legislation including the following: 1. single and/or dual step processes for permitting and eminent domain; 2. an appeals process including the forum and timing of appeals; 3. financial assurances on how a company would pay for a spill including bonding requirements; 3 4. maintenance, extension, and expansion of lines and whether or not permits would be needed under certain scenarios; 5. access to land for surveying; 6. notice to landowners; 7. locations of hearings for interested landowners and the general public to present testimony and/or comments; 8. the maximum width of easements that would be allowed under state law; 9. buy back options for landowners where no activity occurred as to a petroleum pipeline company’s acquired easement within so many years or where the petroleum pipeline company confirms that a project is no longer being considered; 10. abandoned petroleum pipeline issues; 11. what may constitute “public need” and how that may be defined if policymakers chose to define it in statute; and 12. other related issues. The
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2019 Annual Report Are Commission-Free
    Table of Contents 1 Letter to Our Shareholders 4 Financial Highlights 6 Our Businesses Midstream Chemicals Refining Marketing and Specialties 7 Our Value Chain 8 Our Strategy Operating Excellence Growth Returns Distributions High-Performing Organization 28 Board of Directors 30 Executive Leadership Team 31 Non-GAAP Reconciliations 32 Form 10-K | ON THE COVER AND TABLE OF CONTENTS Lake Charles Refinery WESTLAKE, LA In 2019, Lake Charles Manufacturing Complex achieved a sustained safety record of more than 55 months, equivalent to 7.5 million safe work hours. 2019 PHILLIPS 66 ANNUAL REPORT 1 To Our Shareholders We have the right strategy in place to create shareholder value, and our employees are executing it well. Phillips 66 achieved 34% total shareholder return during 2019, which exceeded our peer group average and the S&P 100. In 2019, we delivered earnings of $3.1 billion and earnings per share of $6.77. Adjusted earnings were $3.7 billion or $8.05 per share. During the year, we generated $4.8 billion of operating cash flow. We reinvested $3.9 billionback into the business and returned $3.2 billion of capital to shareholders through dividends and share repurchases. We increased our quarterly dividend 12.5% and announced a $3 billion increase to our share repurchase program. Since our formation, we have returned $26 billion to shareholders through dividends, share repurchases and exchanges, reducing our initial shares outstanding by 33%. Operating excellence is our No. 1 priority and core to everything we do. Our goal is zero incidents, zero accidents and zero injuries. We believe this is attainable, and we strive for it daily.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulation of Access to Oil Pipelines 777
    REGULATION OF ACCESS TO OIL PIPELINES 777 THE NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD: REGULATION OF ACCESS TO OIL PIPELINES JENNIFER HOCKING* In the past few years, a number of long-distance oil pipelines have been proposed in Canada — Northern Gateway, the Trans Mountain Expansion, Keystone, and the Energy East Project. This article describes the criteria used by the National Energy Board in approving the allocation of capacity in oil pipelines to firm service contracts while requiring that a reasonable percentage of capacity is allocated for uncommitted volumes (common carriage). It explains the economic theory related to regulation of access to major oil pipelines. It reviews and analyzes relevant NEB decisions, which show that the NEB supports well- functioning competitive markets, but will exercise its discretion to resolve complaints where markets are not functioning properly. The article also explains the economic significance of the proposed long-distance oil pipelines to Canada and Alberta despite the current low price of crude oil. The article concludes with recommendations for a written NEB policy regarding access to capacity in oil pipelines. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. SIGNIFICANCE OF PROPOSED OIL PIPELINES TO THE CANADIAN ECONOMY ................................. 778 A. PIPELINES NEEDED DESPITE LOW PRICE OF OIL ............... 780 B. SHIPPING OF OIL BY RAIL ................................ 781 II. OIL PIPELINES AS COMMON CARRIERS ........................... 781 A. THE NATURE OF COMMON CARRIERS ....................... 781 B. COMMON CARRIAGE OBLIGATION SUBJECT TO REASONABLENESS TEST ............................... 783 C. WHY WERE OIL PIPELINES ORIGINALLY DESIGNATED AS COMMON CARRIERS? ................................. 784 III. MAJOR LONG-DISTANCE OIL PIPELINES TODAY ................... 785 A. ENBRIDGE PIPELINES .................................... 786 B. TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE .............................. 787 C. SPECTRA ENERGY EXPRESS-PLATTE .......................
    [Show full text]
  • ABOUT PIPELINES OUR ENERGY CONNECTIONS the Facts About Pipelines
    ABOUT PIPELINES OUR ENERGY CONNECTIONS THE facts ABOUT PIPELINES This fact book is designed to provide easy access to information about the transmission pipeline industry in Canada. The facts are developed using CEPA member data or sourced from third parties. For more information about pipelines visit aboutpipelines.com. An electronic version of this fact book is available at aboutpipelines.com, and printed copies can be obtained by contacting [email protected]. The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA) CEPA’s members represents Canada’s transmission pipeline companies transport around who operate more than 115,000 kilometres of 97 per cent of pipeline in Canada. CEPA’s mission is to enhance Canada’s daily the operating excellence, business environment and natural gas and recognized responsibility of the Canadian energy transmission pipeline industry through leadership and onshore crude credible engagement between member companies, oil production. governments, the public and stakeholders. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Canada’s Pipeline Network .................................1 2. Pipeline Design and Standards .........................6 3. Safety and the Environment ..............................7 4. The Regulatory Landscape ...............................11 5. Fuelling Strong Economic ................................13 and Community Growth 6. The Future of Canada’s Pipelines ................13 Unless otherwise indicated, all photos used in this fact book are courtesy of CEPA member companies. CANADA’S PIPELINE % of the energy used for NETWORK transportation in Canada comes 94 from petroleum products. The Importance of • More than half the homes in Canada are Canada’s Pipelines heated by furnaces that burn natural gas. • Many pharmaceuticals, chemicals, oils, Oil and gas products are an important part lubricants and plastics incorporate of our daily lives.
    [Show full text]
  • Tallgrass Energy Partners, LP 2016 Annual Report
    ENERGY PARTNERS 2016 ANNUAL REPORT About Tallgrass Energy Partners, LP Tallgrass Energy Partners, LP (NYSE: TEP) is a publicly traded, growth-oriented limited partnership formed to own, operate, acquire and develop midstream energy assets in North America. TEP’s operations are located in and provide services to certain key United States hydrocarbon basins, including the Denver-Julesburg, Powder River, Wind River, Permian and Hugoton-Anadarko Basins and the Niobrara, Mississippi Lime, Eagle Ford, Bakken, Marcellus, and Utica shale formations. TEP currently provides crude oil transportation to customers in Wyoming, Colorado, and the surrounding regions through the Pony Express System, a crude oil pipeline commencing in Guernsey, Wyoming and terminating in Cushing, Oklahoma, which includes a lateral in Northeast Colorado commencing in Weld County, Colorado, and interconnecting with the pipeline just east of Sterling, Colorado. TEP also provides crude oil storage and terminalling services, including crude oil terminals near Sterling, Colorado and in Weld County, Colorado, and a 20 percent interest in Deeprock Development, LLC, which owns a crude oil terminal in Cushing, Oklahoma. TEP provides natural gas transportation and storage services for customers in the Rocky Mountain, Midwest and Appalachian regions of the United States through its 25 percent interest in the Rockies Express Pipeline, a FERC-regulated natural gas pipeline system extending from Opal, Wyoming and Meeker, Colorado to Clarington, Ohio, the Tallgrass Interstate Gas Transmission system, a FERC-regulated natural gas transportation and storage system located in Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and Wyoming, and the Trailblazer Pipeline system, a FERC-regulated natural gas pipeline system extending from the Colorado and Wyoming border to Beatrice, Nebraska.
    [Show full text]
  • Tallgrass Energy / Rockies Express Pipeline
    Tallgrass Energy / Rockies Express Pipeline 8919 Brookside Ave. Suite 201 West Chester, OH 45069 Phone: (740) 350-2358 Website: www.tallgrassenergylp.com Rockies Express Pipeline (REX) is one of the United States’ largest pipelines and is transforming into the nation’s northernmost bi-directional natural gas header system. EMERGENCY CONTACT: Tallgrass Energy operates the pipeline, which is jointly owned by Tallgrass (75 percent) 1-877-436-2253 and Phillips 66 (25 percent). REX became fully operational in 2009 and stretches about 1,700 miles from northwestern Colorado and Wyoming to eastern Ohio. Built PRODUCTS/DOT GUIDEBOOK ID#/GUIDE#: with 42- and 36-inch diameter steel pipe, REX taps major supply basins in the Rocky Natural Gas 1971 115 Mountain and Appalachian regions and serves energy markets across a vast segment of North America. REX’s Zone 3, which spans from eastern Illinois to eastern Ohio, is bi- OHIO directional and can flow up to 4.4 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas. West-to-east COUNTIES OF OPERATION: long-haul capacity on REX is 1.8 billion cubic feet per day. REX has an MAOP of 1480. Belmont Monroe Butler Muskingum Clinton Noble COMMITMENT TO SAFETY, HEALTH vehicle and aircraft to ensure safety Fairfield Perry AND ENVIRONMENT and identify potential concerns such as Fayette Pickaway encroachments. Tallgrass Energy takes seriously its Greene Warren responsibility to ensure the health We have emergency shut-down systems Guernsey and safety of our employees, the that can isolate anomalies anywhere in _______________________________________ our system quickly and safely. As part of Changes may occur.
    [Show full text]
  • Issue Briefing: Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline and Tanker Proposal
    Issue Briefing: Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline and Tanker proposal November 2016 The Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline and Tanker proposal would transport 890,000 barrels/day of tar sands bitumen to Canada’s west coast for export in oil tankers. The risks - social, economic, environmental - of this proposal far outweigh any supposed benefits to the Canadian public and the province of British Columbia. An approval of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline and tanker proposal would not conform to government promises for climate action, First Nations reconciliation, or social license in B.C. This pipeline and tankers proposal, if approved, would create an unacceptable risk of spills and lead to extinction of the southern resident orca population, harming the local tourism economy and putting the Government of Canada in contravention of the Species At Risk Act. Summary of Risks: Diluted Bitumen Spills ● Kinder Morgan would increase tanker traffic nearly 700 per cent, from 60 to 400 tankers a year in Vancouver’s busy inner harbour, passing by Stanley Park and hundreds of kilometres of beaches, islands, and coastal wilderness. ● A spill is inevitable. The existing Trans Mountain pipeline has already spilled around 5.5 million litres (35,000 barrels) in 82 separate incidents. Even brand new pipelines are spill-prone (Nexen), and ships carrying fuels have recently spilled into B.C.’s coastal waters (MV Marathassa, Nathan E Stewart), exposing deficient marine spill response. ● No technology currently exists that successfully cleans up heavy bitumen spills in oceanic environments, concluded the National Academy of Science. ● Industry considers “success” in spill response to be recovery of 10 to 15 per cent of conventional oil.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Impacts from Operation of Canada's Energy Transmission
    Economic Impacts from Operation of Canada’s Energy Transmission Pipelines A Special Report Prepared for the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association By Angevine Economic Consulting Ltd. April 2016 The Economic Impacts from Operation of Canada’s Energy Transmission Pipelines | April 2016 Economic Impacts from Operation of Canada’s Energy Transmission Pipelines Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Results of I-O Model Simulations A. Impacts from operation of crude oil, natural gas liquids and refined petroleum products transmission pipelines ................................................................................. 1 B. Impacts from operation of natural gas transmission pipelines ................................... 4 C. Impacts from operation of all transmission pipelines………………………………….. 6 D. Impacts of two proposed pipelines ……………………………………………...............7 E. Impact summary……………………………………………………………………….….10 Detailed Methodology…………………………………………………………………….…11 Energy Pipelines Included in the Analysis……………………………………………...12 The Economic Impacts from Operation of Canada’s Energy Transmission Pipelines | April 2016 Introduction This report summarizes key findings obtained from using the current (2010) version of the Statistics Canada Interregional Input/Output (I-O) Model to estimate the economic impacts from operation of the energy transmission pipelines currently operating in Canada as well as from two proposed but not yet approved
    [Show full text]
  • Explaining Variation in Oil Sands Pipeline Projects
    Canadian Journal of Political Science (2020), 1–20 doi:10.1017/S0008423920000190 RESEARCH ARTICLE/ÉTUDE ORIGINALE Explaining Variation in Oil Sands Pipeline Projects Amy Janzwood* Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, 100 St. George, Toronto ON, M5S 3G3 *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]. Abstract While the vast majority of oil pipeline projects in Canada have been successfully built, several mega oil sands projects within and passing through Canada have been cancelled or significantly delayed. This article explains why these delays and cancellations have occurred. A systematic cross-case analysis is used to provide insight into the changing politics of oil sands pipelines. Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) is used to identify combinations of causal conditions that co-occur across cases of proposed new oil pipelines and pipeline expansion projects. The pipeline projects were proposed to the federal regulator—the National Energy Board—between 2006 and 2014. The QCA reveals that social mobilization and major regulatory barrier(s) are necessary conditions in explaining variation in pipeline project outcomes. The analysis of sufficiency reveals more complex configurations of conditions. This article contributes to the literature on the politics of oil sands pipelines by using a comparative approach to identify the impacts of socio-polit- ical and legal dynamics that have emerged around pipelines in the last 15 years. Résumé Cet article explique les raisons pour lesquelles plusieurs propositions récentes de méga- pipelines à l’intérieur du Canada et passant à travers le pays ont été annulées ou considérablement retardées. Alors que la grande majorité des projets d’oléoducs ont été construits avec succès, plusieurs mégaprojets de sables bitumineux ont été mis de côté ou ont subi des retards importants.
    [Show full text]
  • 150 Ferc ¶ 61161 United States Of
    150 FERC ¶ 61,161 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Commissioners: Cheryl A. LaFleur, Chairman; Philip D. Moeller, Tony Clark, Norman C. Bay, and Colette D. Honorable. Rockies Express Pipeline LLC Docket No. CP14-498-000 ORDER ISSUING CERTIFICATE (Issued February 27, 2015) 1. On June 10, 2014, Rockies Express Pipeline LLC (Rockies Express) filed an application under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA)1 and Part 157, Subpart A of the Commission’s regulations2 for a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing it to modify certain existing compressor stations and interconnections to enable it to flow gas bi-directionally on a portion of its existing mainline within Zone 3 (Zone 3 East-to-West Project).3 As discussed below, we will grant the requested authorizations subject to the conditions discussed herein. I. Background and Proposal 2. Rockies Express is a jointly owned Delaware limited liability company4 and a natural gas company, as defined by NGA section 2(6).5 The company operates a 1,698-mile-long, 36- and 42-inch-diameter pipeline extending from Colorado and 1 15 U.S.C. § 717f(c) (2012). 2 18 C.F.R. pt. 157 (2014). 3 Zone 3, the easternmost zone on Rockies Express’s system, extends from Audrain County, Missouri eastward to the Clarington Hub near Clarington, Monroe County, Ohio. 4 Rockies Express is jointly owned by three members: 50 percent by an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Tallgrass Development LP; 25 percent by an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Sempra Energy; and 25 percent by an indirect, wholly- owned subsidiary of Phillips 66.
    [Show full text]
  • Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) Canada
    Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) Canada Active This profile is actively maintained Send feedback on this profile Created before Nov 2016 Last update: Feb 26 2021 About Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) The Royal Bank of Canada (in French, Banque Royale du Canada, and commonly RBC in either language) was founded in 1864 in Halifax, Nova Scotia and is the largest financial institution in Canada by measured deposits, revenues, and market capitalisation. The bank serves sixteen million clients and has more than 81,000 employees worldwide. The bank offers retail banking, corporate banking and investment banking services. Website http://www.rbc.com Headquarters 200 Bay Street ON M5J 2J5 Toronto Canada CEO/chair David I. McKay CEO Supervisor Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) Annual report Annual Report 2020 Ownership listed on NYSE, SIX Swiss Exchange & Toronto Stock Exchange Royal Bank of Canada's shareholder structure can be accessed here. Complaints RBC does not operate a complaints channel for individuals and communities that may be adversely affected by its finance. and Stakeholders may raise complaints via the OECD National Contact Points (see OECD Watch guidance). grievances Sustainability Voluntary initiatives Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) has committed itself to the following voluntary standards: Carbon Disclosure Project Dow Jones Sustainability Indices Equator Principles Global Reporting Initiative Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) Sustainability Accounting Standards Board Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures
    [Show full text]
  • About Pipelines Our Energy Connections the Facts About Pipelines
    OUR ENERGY CONNECTIONS ENERGY OUR ABOUT PIPELINES ABOUT Contact Us Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Tel: 403.221.8777 [email protected] aboutpipelines.com @aboutpipelines http://facebook.com/aboutpipelines Statistics Pipeline inside pocket inside IMPORTANT THE FACTS ABOUT PIPELINES This fact book is designed to provide easy access to information about the transmission pipeline industry in Canada. The facts are developed using CEPA member data or sourced from third parties. For more information about pipelines visit aboutpipelines.com. An electronic version of this fact book is available at aboutpipelines.com, and printed copies can be obtained by contacting [email protected]. The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA) CEPA’s members represents Canada’s transmission pipeline companies transport around who operate 115,000 kilometres of pipeline in 97 per cent of Canada. CEPA’s mission is to enhance the operating Canada’s daily excellence, business environment and recognized natural gas and responsibility of the Canadian energy transmission pipeline industry through leadership and credible onshore crude engagement between member companies, oil production. governments, the public and stakeholders. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Canada’s Pipeline Network .................................1 2. Types of Pipelines ......................................................3 3. The Regulatory Landscape ..................................5 4. Building and Operating Pipelines....................6 5. CEPA Integrity First® Program ......................12 6. The History of Our Pipelines ..........................13 Unless otherwise indicated, all photos used in this fact book are courtesy of CEPA member companies. CANADA’S PIPELINE % of the energy used for NETWORK transportation in Canada comes 94 from refined petroleum products. The Importance of • More than half the homes in Canada are Canada’s Pipelines heated by furnaces that burn natural gas.
    [Show full text]
  • Saving the Salish Sea: a Fight for Tribal Sovereignty and Climate Action
    Saving the Salish Sea: A Fight for Tribal Sovereignty and Climate Action Evaluator: Francesca Hillary Member of Round Valley Tribes, Public Affairs and Communications Specialist, Frogfoot Communications, LLC. Instructor: Patrick Christie Professor Jackson School of International Studies and School of Marine and Environmental Affairs ______________________________________________________________________ Coordinator: Editor: Casey Proulx Ellie Tieman Indigenous Student Liaison: Jade D. Dudoward Authors: Jade D. Dudoward Hannah Elzig Hanna Lundin Lexi Nguyen Jamie Olss Casey Proulx Yumeng Qiu Genevieve Rubinelli Irene Shim Mariama Sidibe Rachel Sun Ellie Tieman Shouyang Zong University of Washington Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies Seattle, Washington March 4, 2021 - 2 - - 3 - 1. Introduction 6 2. Social and Ecological Effects of Trans Mountain Extension 6 2.1. Alberta Tar Sands 8 2.2. The Coast Salish Peoples 10 2.3. Trans Mountain Expansion Project 11 2.3.1. Ecological Impacts Of Trans Mountain Expansion Project 16 2.3.2. Social Impacts Of Trans Mountain Expansion Project 20 2.4. Policy Recommendations 27 2.5. Conclusion 30 3. Social Movements and Allyship Best Practices 31 3.1. Tactics from Past Social Movements for TMX Resistance 31 3.1.1. The Fish Wars 32 3.1.2. A Rise of a New Priority 34 3.1.3 Social Movements and Opposition Tactics 35 3.1.3.1. Keystone XL 35 3.1.3.2. Dakota Access Pipeline 37 3.1.4. Steps To Stronger Allyship 38 3.1.5. Resistance Is Not Futile; It Is To Make Changes 40 3.2. Present Social Movements in Regards to TMX 40 3.2.1.
    [Show full text]