Memo Hints Enbridge Is Ill-Prepared for Oil Spill in Ocean
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
3/27/12 Memo hints Enbridge is IN-prepared for oil spiN in ocean Memo hints Enbridge is ill-prepared for oil spill in ocean DFO scientist says planning based on crude rather than bitumen BY WILL CAM PBELL AND VIVIAN LUK TH CANADIAN PRESS AUGUST 27, 2012 Enbridge Inc.’s response plan for a potential spill of Northern Gateway oil into the pristine waters off B.C.’s central coast doesn’t take into account the unique oil mixture the pipeline would carry, documents show. Enbridge officials confirm the spill response plan they have filed with the federal review panel studying Northern Gateway deals with conventional crude oil and not the diluted bitumen the pipeline will carry. Enbridge says the two react the same way once spilled, but documents obtained under access to information show a scientist at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans argued vigorously for a chance to do more research. Kenneth Lee submitted a research proposal in December saying the matter requires further study because Enbridge’s plan had “strong limitations due to inaccurate inputs.” “The Northern Gateway pipeline proposal lacks key information on the chemical composition of the reference oils used in the hypothetical spill models,” wrote Lee, head of DFO’s Centre for Offshore Oil Gas and Energy Research (COOGER). Lee sought approval to conduct a series of studies through to 2015, when final tests on the “toxic effects of reference oils to marine species” would be completed. That deadline suggests the results would come too late for the Northern Gateway review panel. Lee noted his research would also be used by the Canadian Coast Guard, the agency that would be in charge of overseeing the response to a spill into B.C. waters. He wrote the Coast Guard is “uncertain” whether traditional methods to contain an oil spill and clear contaminated water would be effective if used in a Northern Gateway spill. The Fisheries Department did not respond to questions about whether Lee’s group was given approval to do the research. Northern Gateway’s twin pipelines would carry natural gas condensate to Alberta and diluted oilsands bitumen to Kitimat, B.C., where it would be transferred to tankers for export. Opinions differ on whether a spill of diluted bitumen would react so dramatically differently from spills of other crudes. w.v ancouv ersun.com/story_print.html?id= 7149267&sponsor escapes.ca /27/12 Memo hints Enbridge is ill-prepared for oil spilt in ocean Bitumen is oil extracted from oil-sands. It’s thick and heavy like molasses, though a diluted version is what would be moved through the Enbridge pipeline if the $6-billion project gets approved. That’s about all everyone - including Calgary-based Enbridge, the B.C. government, pipeline engineers, spill response experts and environmentalists - can agree on. There is no agreement on whether diluted bitumen behaves differently in water than conventional crude oil once it is spilled. Ray Doering, manager of engineering with the Northern Gateway project, and Elliott Taylor, one of the company’s oil spill experts, said a combination of factors, over time, will prompt diluted bitumen to get denser. For example, when the lighter properties evaporate, the heavier stuff remains, so it may sink. Or turbulent water or wave action could cause it to sink. Or if the oil gets mixed with sand or sediment - like it probably would in a river or a stream, or close to a shoreline - then it would sink. But both say that’s true of all crude. “The tool box that is going to be put together for this project will start with the same type of equipment that you use for any type of oil spill because we know that initially, that behaviour is going to be just like any other crude oil,” said Taylor, a marine geologist and oil spill response expert with Polaris Applied Sciences. “If it gets into water it’s going to float, so you would use the same techniques as long as those techniques are effective and address the behaviour of the oil at that stage. “If it does get heavier, as it weathers and picks up some of those sediments, whether that’s at the shoreline or in the river, we would still go after that.” The B.C. government maintains that if a marine spill were to happen along the West Coast, diluted bitumen is more likely to sink than conventional crude oil. “A greater degree of difficulty is involved in recovering bitumen and more remediation is required should an unintended release occur, particularly once bitumen sinks into the water column or into soils,” a technical analysis released by the government last month says. The National Transportation Safety Board’s report on the 2010 Enbridge crude oil pipeline breach and spill in Michigan found that two days after the spill, the denser oil fractions had sunk to the bottom of the river bed, prompting Enbridge to clean it up by gathering up the bottom sediments and disposing of them. In the spring of 2011, a reassessment still found a “moderate-to-heavy contamination of 200 acres (80 hectares) of the river bottom,” the report said. Enbridge acknowfedged that some properties in spilled diluted bitumen means it could eventually sink. “Initially, it will have the same behaviour as conventional crude oil,” Doering said. “Over time, the w ,vancouv ersun.com/storyprint.html?id=7149267&sponsor=escapes.ca /27/12 Memo hints Enbridge is ill-prepared for oil spill in ocean condensate - the diluent used to blend - can begin to evaporate and the property of the diluted bitumen becomes denser.” © Copyright (C) The Vancouver Sun ‘tw .vancouv ersun.com/stonLhtrnl?id=7149267&sponsor=escapes.ca 1/24/12 Budget cuts leave scientists short of time to analyze Enbridge project Budget cuts leave scientists short of time to analyze Enbridge project Fisheries and Oceans documents reveal problems with PM’s ‘science over politics’ pledge BY DENE M OORE, CANADIAN PRESS AUGUST 20, 2012 While Prime Minister Stephen Harper says the fate of Enbridge’s proposed pipeline from the Alberta oilsands to tankers on the British Columbia coast will be based on science and not politics, documents show some of that science isn’t forthcoming. And critics say there is no time for the science to be completed before a federal deadline for the environmental assessment that is now underway. Documents filed with the National Energy Board show the environmental review panel studying the Northern Gateway project asked Fisheries and Oceans Canada for risk assessments for the bodies of water the proposed pipeline will cross. The pipeline is to traverse nearly 1,000 streams and rivers in the upper Fraser, Skeena and Kitimat watersheds. The department didn’t have them. “As DFO has not conducted a complete review of all proposed crossings, we are unable to submit a comprehensive list as requested; however, this work will continue and, should the project be approved, our review will continue into the regulatory permitting phase,” DFO wrote in a fivepage letter dated June 6, 2012. The response added that there “may be differences of opinion” between the company and the department on the risk posed by the pipeline at some crossings. It provided two examples of crossings of tributaries to the Kitimat River where Enbridge rated the risk as low but fisheries rated it medium to high. DFO said the federal ministry will continue to work with the company to determine the risk level and level of mitigation required. “DFO is of the view that the risk posed by the project to fish and fish habitat can be managed through appropriate mitigation and compensation measures,” said the department’s response. Under the current regulatory regime, DFO will ensure that prior to any regulatory approvals, the appropriate mitigation measures to protect fish and fish habitat will be based on the final risk assessment rating that will be determined by DFO.” Earlier this month, Harper told reporters in Vancouver that “decisions on these kinds of projects are made through an independent evaluation conducted by scientists into the economic costs and risks that are associated with the project, and that’s how we conduct our business.” w .vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=7115116&sponsor= /24/12 Budget cuts leave scientists short of time to analyze Enbidge project He added, “the only way that government can handle controversial projects of this manner is to ensure that things are evaluated on an independent basis, scientifically, and not simply on political criteria.” But the federal government recently sent letters to 92 habitat staff members within Fisheries and Oceans in B.C., telling them their positions will be cut. Thirty-two of them will be laid off outright. The cuts will leave the department in B.C. with half the habitat staff it had a decade ago. All but five of the province’s Fisheries field offices will be cut as part of a $79-million - 5.8 per cent - cut to the department’s operational budget, including the offices in Prince George and Smithers that would have had the lead in monitoring pipeline effects. The marine contaminant group that would have been involved in a spill in B.C. has been disbanded and the fisheries and environmental legislation gutted, said Otto Langer, a retired fisheries department scientist. “He [Harper] says the science will make the decision. Well he’s basically disembowelled the science,” said Langer. “It’s a cruel hoax that they’re pulling over on the public.” Former federal Liberal fisheries minister David Anderson agrees. Given the Dec. 31, 2013, deadline set by the federal government, Anderson said fisheries department scientists simply don’t have time to complete any substantial scientific study of the project.