DOCSLIB.ORG

Ontario Energy Board Energy East Consultation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ontario Energy Board Energy East Consultation Ontario Energy Board Energy East Consultation Council of Canadians Written Submission, Part Two of OEB Energy East Consultations 300-251 rue Bank St, Ottawa, Ontario K2P 1X3 Tel./Tel.: (613) 233-2773, Fax/Telec.: (613) 233-6776 www.canadians.orG [email protected] The Council of Canadians has welcoMed the opportunity presented by the Ontario EnerGy Board’s (OEB) consultation to share our views on TransCanada’s proposed EnerGy East pipeline. We have participated throuGhout this process, includinG organizational representation at the stakeholder and consultation sessions, as well as encouraGinG the participation of our supporters and volunteer chapters. The Council of Canadians is one of Canada’s leadinG proGressive advocacy orGanizations with More than 100,000 Grassroots supporters, includinG More than 40,000 in Ontario, and local volunteer chapters across the country, includinG 16 in Ontario. Through our caMpaiGns we advocate for clean water, fair trade, sustainable energy, public health care, and a vibrant deMocracy. The Council of Canadians believes the EnerGy East pipeline presents Many risks and little reward for Ontario. We are urGinG the Ontario governMent to publicly oppose the project. We Maintain that the risks identified in our first subMission to the OEB reMain relevant. These include the risk of a diluted bituMen spill in Ontario waterways, TransCanada’s pipeline safety record, the cliMate pollution iMplications of fillinG the pipeline, and increased reliance on fracked Gas iMports froM the U.S. We continue to question proposed benefits, Given that Energy East is priMarily an export pipeline that will provide few long-term jobs. Building on our previous submission, the below content provides feedback on the final technical reports prepared for the Ontario EnerGy Board and additional evidence supporting our position. We urGe the OEB to encouraGe the Province of Ontario to request a halt to the ongoing National Energy Board (NEB) review of the EnerGy East project. There are Multiple reasons why this needs to take place. Most notably, Ontario First Nations have requested a halt until they are properly consulted.i TransCanada’s application is also incoMplete – a clear conclusion of the technical reports coMMissioned by the OEB. The decision to drop the proposed Cacouna export port also leaves Many of the project details and route for Quebec residents in flux. The failure to provide this inforMation in a tiMely way to allow for inforMed participation in the forthcoMing NEB review siGnificantly liMits MeaninGful enGaGeMent. The unacceptable risk of a diluted bitumen spill in Ontario waterways The Council of Canadians Maintains that the transport of diluted bitumen, particularly Given the potential volume that could be transported and spilled by the 1.1 Million barrel per day EnerGy East pipeline, is an unacceptable risk to Ontario waterways. Since our previous subMission to the OEB,ii further evidence has coMe forward affirminG deficiencies in our understandinG of how diluted bituMen reacts in water, and the iMplications of a spill. A draft federal report on diluted bituMen, brouGht to the public’s attention thanks to an access to inforMation request, identifies a nuMber of knowledGe gaps about the behaviour and effects of diluted bituMen.iii These include diluted bituMen’s toxicity and its implications for aquatic environMents. The DNV-GL AssessMent of IMpacts on the Natural Environment brinGs to liGht a number of disconcerting Gaps in TransCanada’s application (while noting additional inforMation is to be filed). Of particular concern is Missing inforMation on potential iMpacts to surface and Ground water intakes, TransCanada's refusal to consider reroutinG options for the converted portion of the pipeline in liGht of proxiMity to waterways, and lack of worst case scenario spill Modeling (especially in the Multiple cases where the pipeline coMes near or crosses drinkinG water sources). How can the OEB inform the Ontario governMent effectively to represent this province’s interests based on an incoMplete assessMent? The Council of Canadians understands the constraints on the OEB’s tiMeline in liGht of the federally imposed NEB review tiMeline, but this should be recoGnized as a deficiency in the process. In reGard to the risk posed by the EnerGy East pipeline to the Oxford Aquifer outside of Ottawa, the DNV-GL report states, “despite the coMprehensive treatMent of Groundwater resources in TransCanada’s Application, DNC GL coMMents that elevated public concern about iMpacts in the Oxford- Marsh, Nepean and other aquifers will persist...” Indeed, our concerns persist and we believe there is good reason to question whether TransCanada’s treatMent is coMprehensive. TransCanada’s conclusion is partly based on the followinG, “Generally, the rate of crude oil transport throuGh soils is very slow and the extent of pluMe dispersion is liMited to 100M or less (Newell and Connor 1998).”iv Does this rate appropriately reflect the unique features of the Oxford Aquifer, which is classified as hiGhly vulnerable to contaMination by the Ontario Government? It is unclear whether this was considered in the DNV-GL assessMent. The aquifer is hiGhly vulnerable because the soil above it is mostly very thin and unable to absorb much. The rock under the soil has many holes and fractures that liquids could travel down towards the drinkinG water source. These concerns have been consistently raised by Sustainable North Grenville, a local Group of concerned citizens.v It is challenGinG to accept the prospect of a major oil spill in the area beinG of little concern considerinG that a recent provincial study hiGhliGhts the potential of a spill froM a hoMe heatinG fuel storaGe tank as presenting a serious concern for potential contaMination. Local Sustainable North Grenville MeMber Ian Angus further adds, “In 1991, in Manotick [nearby comMunity], a tank containing dry cleaning solvent leaked, poisoninG 74 local wells. Manotick had to spend Millions of dollars to build a new water distribution systeM. The town still pipes its water from Ottawa, because the local water supply still isn’t safe, 22 years later.”vi More than 10,000 people in North Grenville rely on a healthy Oxford Aquifer to supply their drinkinG water. And it was ultiMately the threat of a spill froM TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline (comparatively sMaller by volume) that inforMed widespread opposition in Nebraska where it traversed above the OGallala Aquifer that ultiMately led to the re-routinG of the pipeline. Opposition in that state continues. In the case of the Keystone XL pipeline, TransCanada’s projections for the frequency of spills were questioned.vii ReGarding the report’s treatMent of Trout Lake, North Bay’s drinking water source, we urGe a separate, independent analysis of the risks presented in this particular location. There are a nuMber of tributaries the pipeline coMes near and cross that flow quickly into Trout Lake. The proxiMity to this pristine drinking water source warrants an independent third party assessMent that Goes beyond what TransCanada has presented in their application. Pipeline safety? Considering TransCanada’s track record While the DNV-GL assessMent of pipeline safety brinGs forward soMe critical inforMation for the OEB and Province of Ontario to consider, it fails to Make any assessMents beyond what TransCanada has proposed in its EnerGy East project application. EvaluatinG the iMpacts on pipeline safety and the natural environment must extend beyond TransCanada’s application to include a review of TransCanada’s pipeline safety track record. In lookinG at this track record the Council of Canadians discovered soMe serious concerns. In the past 15 months TransCanada has had five major ruptures on its pipelines in Canada. Between 1992 and now, TransCanada has had More ruptures than any other pipeline company, accordinG to statistics available froM the NEB.viii We all know that early detection of a leak is critical to MiniMizinG the impacts of a spill. In reviewinG Transportation and Safety Board reports of ruptures that occurred on TransCanada’s Mainline pipeline systeMix, of which one pipeline is proposed for conversion to carry oil for EnerGy East, we learned that: • One, arGuably two, of the nine ruptures on the Mainline systeM between 1994-2011 were first identified by TransCanada’s leak detection systeM.x • Other ruptures were discovered by TransCanada staff, passers-by and an Ontario Provincial Police officer. • Stress corrosion crackinG is the main cause of these ruptures. • The Gas was isolated to the ruptured seGMent of pipe in one case in seven Minutes,xi another rupture took 2 hours,xii while another took just over seven hoursxiii to fully isolate due to the failure of a valve to fully close. At 1.1 Million barrels per day, the sugGested 22-minute response in the event of an alarm, hiGhliGhted in the DNV-GL pipeline safety report, Means up to 2.6 Million litres of crude could potentially spill. There is also the crude that remains in the pipeline between the safety valves that could additionally drain. It is unfathoMable what a 3.5-hour or seven-hour spill on the Massive EnerGy East pipeline would Mean if it happened near or in any of the nuMerous waterways alonG its path in this province. Additionally, the sheer capacity of the pipeline also Means TransCanada’s electronic leak detection systeM won’t catch soMe potentially siGnificant spills. TransCanada’s leak detection systeM will only detect leaks that are Greater than 1.5% of the pipeline capacity. This means that up to 2.64 million litres of crude oil per day could leak out without a siGnal from the systeM. This pipeline safety history raises soMe siGnificant disparities between what has happened and what is being promised. This is further supported by pipeline safety concerns beinG raised by previous TransCanada eMployees. A recent Reuters investiGation found that the NEB is investiGating up to a dozen new alleGations of natural Gas pipeline safety code violations by TransCanada.xiv This is the second tiMe in recent years that the NEB has probed TransCansada's safety practices followinG coMplaints by a whistleblower.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Energy East Pipeline Project
    WhenEnergy the pipeline East: spills... Previous ruptures along TransCanada’s Mainline – part of the planned Energy East pipeline project. Photos by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada. Cover photos Pipeline Investigation Report P09H0074 Top left: Aerial Photo of the Englehart Occurrence Site, from , Transportation Safety Board of Canada. Available at http://www.tsb. gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/pipeline/2009/p09h0074/p09h0074.aspPipeline Investigation Report P11H0011 Top right: Downstream line-break section of Line 100-2, from , Transportation Safety Board of Canada. Available at http://www.tsb. gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/pipeline/2011/p11h0011/p11h0011.aspPipeline Investigation Report P09H0083 Bottom: Aerial photo of the Marten River occurrence site, from , Transportation Safety Board of Canada. Available at http://www.tsb. gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/pipeline/2009/p09h0083/p09h0083.aspEnergy East: When the pipeline spills... is published under the Creative Commons licence Attribution-NonCommercial- ShareAlike 4.0. Images used within this document remain copyrighted by their respective owners except where specifically indicated. Energy East: When the pipeline spills... TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline project would convertIt would an up be to the40-year-old largest oil natural pipeline gas inpipeline North to America, carry crude oil from Saskatchewan to Ontario, connecting it with new pipeline through Quebec and on to Saint John, New Brunswick. transporting 1.1 million barrelsif of oil every day. when where how much When it comes to pipelines, it is not a matter of a pipeline spills, it is a matter of , and it spills. NL AB SK MB Edmonton Hardisty Regina ON QC PE Winnipeg Thunder Bay Quebec City NB Montreal NS North Bay Saint John Ottawa Selective memory: TransCanada’s safety record.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case of the Canadian Province of Alberta's Oil Sands
    Project Document A sub-national public-private strategic alliance for innovation and export development: the case of the Canadian province of Alberta’s oil sands Annette Hester Leah Lawrence Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) This background document was prepared by Annette Hester and Leah Lawrence, Consultants of the Division of International Trade and Integration, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), within the activities of the study “Public-private alliances for innovation and export upgrading“, coordinated by Robert Devlin and Graciela Moguillansky with the financial support of SEGIB, through the project “Alianzas público-privadas para la Innovación y el Desarrollo Exportador: Casos Exitosos Extraregionales y la Experiencia Latinoamericana”. Some of their preliminary findings were formerly presented at ECLAC, in Structural Change and Productivity Growth 20 Years later: Old Problems, New Opportunities, (LC/G.2367 (SES.32/3)), Santiago de Chile, 2008, chapter VI, pages 231 to 299.. The paper benefited from the support and comments of Inés Bustillo, Clement Bowman, and Eddy Isaacs, as well as the research assistance of Timmy Stuparyk and Michael Bagan. Annette Hester and Leah Lawrence are Calgary-based economists and writers. Ms. Hester is a research fellow with the Centre for International Governance Innovation in Waterloo, Canada and a Senior Associate with the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC. The views expressed in this document, which has been reproduced without formal editing, are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Organization. LC/W.292 Copyright © United Nations, April 2010. All rights reserved Printed in Santiago, Chile – United Nations ECLAC – Project Documents collection A sub-national public-private strategic alliance for innovation and export… Contents Abstract……………………..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • National Energy Board Report
    Summary of Recommendation Canadian public interest The National Energy Board (NEB or Board) finds that the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (Project) is in Canada’s public interest, and recommends the Governor in Council (GIC) approve the Project and direct the Board to issue the necessary Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) and amended CPCNs. Should the GIC approve the Project, the associated regulatory instruments (Instruments) issued by the Board would come into effect. Should the GIC approve the Project, the Board considers it necessary that the CPCNs and Instruments be subject to 157 conditions.2 These conditions would address issues such as safety, protection of the environment and other considerations that are identified throughout this NEB Report. To set the context for its recommendation, the overarching consideration for the Board’s public interest determination was: can this Project be constructed, operated and maintained in a safe manner. The Board found the Project would meet this threshold. While this initial consideration was fundamental to the Board’s determination, a finding that a pipeline can be constructed, operated and maintained in a safe manner does not mean it is necessarily in the public interest - there are other considerations that the Board must weigh in coming to its public interest determination, as discussed below. However, the analysis would go no further if this fundamental question were to be answered in the negative; an unsafe pipeline can never be in the public interest. If constructed, the Project would approximately triple the capacity of the Trans Mountain Pipeline system in Western Canada. Together, the current and expanded pipeline would ship oil from Edmonton, Alberta, to Burnaby, British Columbia.
    [Show full text]
  • A Discussion Paper on the Oil Sands: Challenges and Opportunities
    A discussion paper on the oil sands: challenges and opportunities Kevin Birn* and Paul Khanna Special thanks to CanmetENERGY in Devon, Alberta for their advice and contribution. Natural Resources Canada 580 Booth Street, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0E4, Canada Abstract Key words: Petroleum Energy, Oil Sands, Environmental Impacts, Heavy Oil, Unconventional Oil The oil sands have become a significant source of secure energy supply and a major economic driver for Canada. As production in the oil sands expands so too has concern about the effects of development on communities, water, land, and air. This paper aims to provide a basis for an informed discussion about the oil sands by examining the current challenges facing development and by reviewing the central issues, both positive and negative facing the industry. This paper isn‘t meant to provide an exhaustive list of all potential impacts associated with oil sands development or document the oil sands regulatory regime. Outline Introduction....................................................................................................................... 3 The Resource ..................................................................................................................... 5 The History........................................................................................................................ 6 Oil Sands Operations........................................................................................................ 8 Surface Mining Operations..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Canada's Energy Future Includes Minor Revisions and an Expanded Appendices
    National Energy Office national Board de l’énergie National Energy Office national Board de l’énergie Canada’s Energy Future RefeRence case and scenaRios to 2030 National Energy Office national Board de l’énergie An EnErgy MArkEt AssEssMEnt novEMbEr 2007 National Energy Office national Board de l’énergie Canada’s Energy Future* RefeenergyRence case and scenaRios tofutures 2030 An EnErgy MArkEt AssEssMEnt novEMbEr 2007 * This edition of Canada's Energy Future includes minor revisions and an expanded Appendices. The National Energy Board has issued an Errata for Canada's Energy Future, available on the National Energy Board web site at www.neb-one.gc.ca. Please refer to this Errata for details of significant revisions. The Board apologizes for any inconvenience caused by these changes. Permission to Reproduce Materials may be reproduced for personal, educational and/or non-profit activities, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission from the National Energy Board, provided that due diligence is exercised in ensuring the accuracy of the information reproduced; that the National Energy Board is identified as the source institution; and that the reproduction is not represented as an official version of the information reproduced, nor as having been made in affiliation with, or with the endorsement of the National Energy Board. For permission to reproduce the information in this publication for commercial redistribution, please e-mail: [email protected] Autorisation de reproduction Le contenu de cette publication
    [Show full text]
  • National Energy Board Report
    National Energy Board Report Enbridge Pipelines Inc. OH-002-2015 Volume II: Our Detailed Assessment April 2016 Facilities National Energy Board National Energy Board Report In the Matter of Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Application dated 5 November 2014 for the Line 3 Replacement Program OH-002-2015 Volume II: Our Detailed Assessment April 2016 Permission to Reproduce Materials may be reproduced for personal, educational and/or non-profit activities, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission from the National Energy Board, provided that due diligence is exercised in ensuring the accuracy of the information reproduced; that the National Energy Board is identified as the source institution; and that the reproduction is not represented as an official version of the information reproduced, nor as having been made in affiliation with, or with the endorsement of the National Energy Board. For permission to reproduce the information in this publication for commercial redistribution, please e-mail: [email protected] Autorisation de reproduction Le contenu de cette publication peut être reproduit à des fins personnelles, éducatives et/ou sans but lucratif, en tout ou en partie et par quelque moyen que ce soit, sans frais et sans autre permission de l’Office national de l’énergie, pourvu qu’une diligence raisonnable soit exercée afin d’assurer l’exactitude de l’information reproduite, que l’Office national de l’énergie soit mentionné comme organisme source et que la reproduction ne soit présentée ni comme une version officielle ni comme une copie ayant été faite en collaboration avec l’Office national de l’énergie ou avec son consentement.
    [Show full text]
  • Properties of Dilbit and Conventional Crude Oils
    Properties of Dilbit and Conventional Crude Oils Prepared by: Haralampos Tsaprailis, Ph.D., P.Chem Alberta Innovates - Technology Futures Prepared for: John Zhou, Ph.D., P.Geol. Alberta Innovates Energy and Environmental Solutions Original May 2013 Copyright © 2014 Revised February 2014 Alberta Innovates – Technology Futures 2480002 Notice 1. This Report was prepared as an account of work conducted at the Alberta Innovates Technology Futures (“AITF”) on behalf of Alberta Innovates Energy and Environment Solutions (“AIEES”). All reasonable efforts were made to ensure that the work conforms to accepted scientific, engineering and environmental practices, but AITF makes no other representation and gives no other warranty with respect to the reliability, accuracy, validity or fitness of the information, analysis and conclusions contained in this Report. Any and all implied or statutory warranties of merchantability or fitness for any purpose are expressly excluded. AIEES acknowledges that any use or interpretation of the information, analysis or conclusions contained in this Report is at its own risk. Reference herein to any specified commercial product, process or service by trade-name, trademark, manufacturer or otherwise does not constitute or imply an endorsement or recommendation by AITF. 2. Any authorized copy of this Report distributed to a third party shall include an acknowledgement that the Report was prepared by AITF and shall give appropriate credit to AITF and the authors of the Report. 3. Copyright AITF 2014. All rights reserved. Revisions The following corrections and additions were made to the original report released in May of 2013: 1. The legend of Figure I (Executive Summary, pg. v) and Figure 3 (Appendix 1, pg.
    [Show full text]
  • Canada Oil Sands Opportunities and Challenges to 2015: an Update
    OppCanada'sOrtunities and Challenges Oil tO 2015:Sands an update An EnErgy MArkEt AssEssMEnt JUnE 2006 Permission to Reproduce Materials may be reproduced for personal, educational and/or non-profit activities, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission from the National Energy Board, provided that due diligence is exercised in ensuring the accuracy of the information reproduced; that the National Energy Board is identified as the source institution; and that the reproduction is not represented as an official version of the information reproduced, nor as having been made in affiliation with, or with the endorsement of the National Energy Board. For permission to reproduce the information in this publication for commercial redistribution, please e-mail: [email protected] Autorisation de reproduction Le contenu de cette publication peut être reproduit à des fins personnelles, éducatives et(ou) sans but lucratif, en tout ou en partie et par quelque moyen que ce soit, sans frais et sans autre permission de l’Office national de l’énergie, pourvu qu’une diligence raisonnable soit exercée afin d’assurer l’exactitude de l’information reproduite, que l’Office national de l’énergie soit mentionné comme organisme source et que la reproduction ne soit présentée ni comme une version officielle ni comme une copie ayant été faite en collaboration avec l’Office national de l’énergie ou avec son consentement. Pour obtenir l’autorisation de reproduire l’information contenue dans cette publication à des fins commerciales, faire parvenir un courriel à : [email protected] © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada as © Sa Majesté la Reine du chef du Canada représentée par represented by the National Energy Board 2006 l’Office national de l’énergie 2006 Cat.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Information Form
    Annual Information Form FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2019 March 4, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS .............................................................................................................. 1 ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 3 CONVERSIONS AND CONVENTIONS .............................................................................................................. 3 OUR COMPANY ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Name, Address and Incorporation ............................................................................................................ 3 Intercorporate Relationships .................................................................................................................... 4 DEVELOPMENT OF OUR BUSINESS ............................................................................................................... 4 Developments in 2019 .............................................................................................................................. 4 Developments in 2018 .............................................................................................................................. 5 Developments in 2017 .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Dilbit from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
    Dilbit From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A dilbit is a bitumen diluted with one or more lighter petroleum products, typically natural-gas condensates such as naphtha. Diluting bitumen makes it much easier to transport, for example in pipelines. Per the Alberta Oil Sands Bitumen Valuation Methodology, "Dilbit Blends" means "Blends made from heavy crudes and/or bitumens and a diluent, usually natural-gas condensate, for the purpose of meeting pipeline viscosity and density specifications, where the density of the diluent included in the blend is less than 800 kg/m3."[1] If the diluent density is greater than or equal to 800 kg/m3, the diluent is typically synthetic crude and accordingly the blend is called synbit.[2] Contents 1 Reasons for dilution 2 Methods of dilution 3 Refinement process 3.1 Separation and oil spill risks 4 Alternatives to diluent 5 See also 6 References 7 External links Reasons for dilution Bitumen and heavy oils are often produced from remote deposits such as the Athabasca oil sands in Alberta, Canada and the Orinoco tar sands in Venezuela. Before 1980, most produced bitumen was transported by truck, but trucking is seasonally restricted and relatively inefficient and expensive compared to pipeline transport. However, bitumen in its undiluted state is too viscous and dense to be transported by pipeline. To create a fluid capable of transportation by pipeline, bitumen must be mixed with a fluid that has much lower viscosity and will keep bitumen from precipitating out of the mixture. By 1985 and demonstrating the effectiveness
    [Show full text]
  • 2011 Encana Annual Information Form
    Encana Corporation Annual Information Form February 23, 2012 Table of Contents Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................................2 Corporate Structure ..............................................................................................................................................................3 General Development of the Business...................................................................................................................................4 Narrative Description of the Business ....................................................................................................................................7 Canadian Division................................................................................................................................................... 8 USA Division......................................................................................................................................................... 12 Market Optimization .............................................................................................................................................. 16 Former Operations...............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]