pipeline break | Northwest Coast Energy News

Analysis: What did Ipsos-Reid mean about “northern British Columbia” in the Enbridge pipeline poll?

A poll by Ipsos-Reid, commissioned by Enbridge, released on Jan 4, 2012, gauging support for the Northern Gateway Pipeline, has become almost as controversial as the pipeline itself.

Ipsos-Reid says their “poll conducted on behalf of Enbridge shows that British Colombians are more likely to support than oppose the proposed Northern Gateway Pipelines Project.”

Most important, according to Ipsos-Reid, a majority of British Columbians are not familiar with the Northern Gateway project.

Environmental groups and media reports look at the that unfamiliarity and question whether or not the poll actually represents the views of people in British Columbia.

There were also pointed questions here in northwestern British Columbia about the figures that showed strong support, 55 per cent in what Ipsos-Reid called “northern British Columbia.”

There were also questions from those familiar with the pipeline project, posted on Facebook, Twitter and blogs about the term “oil” used by Ipsos-Reid in its poll questions.

The question

As you may know, Enbridge is the company leading the Northern Gateway Pipelines Project, which is a proposal to build an underground pipeline system between near Edmonton, Alberta and Kitimat, in northern BC. One pipeline will transport oil to Kitimat for export by tanker to China and other Asian markets. A second pipeline will be used to import condensate (a product used to thin oil products for pipeline transport) to Alberta.

Northwest Coast Energy News asked Ipsos-Reid vice -president of public affairs Kyle Braid for clarification.

Overall results

According to Ipsos-Reid, the poll shows slightly more than four-in-ten (42%) residents say they are “very familiar” (5%) or “somewhat familiar” (37%) with the project described above. Another three-in-ten (30%) are “not very familiar” and one-quarter (25%) are “not at all familiar” with the project.

Familiarity (“very” or “somewhat”) is higher among Northern residents (61%), men (48% vs. 37% of women) and older residents (53% of 55+ years vs. 43% of 35-54 years, 30% of 18-34 years).

According to the poll, support for the project is well ahead of opposition. Nearly half (48% overall, 14% “strongly”) of British Columbians say they support the project, compared to one-third (32% overall, 13% “strongly”) in opposition. Two-in-ten (20%) are undecided about the project.

Project support leads opposition in all regions, among both genders and among all age groups. Project support is highest among Northern residents (55%), men (58% vs. 38% of women) and older residents (58% of 55+ years vs. 47% of 35-54 years, 38% of 18-34 years).

Ipsos-Reid says it asked all respondents, on an open-ended basis, to name one main project benefit and one main project concern.
The top project benefit, mentioned by half (51%) of British Columbians, is “employment/ economic benefits”. Less frequently mentioned benefits include “export/trade benefits” (10%) and “better/ safer mode of transport” (5%).

The top mentioned project concerns include “general environmental concerns” (43%) and “risk of spills/leaks” (21%). Less frequently mentioned concerns include “general safety/ protection concerns“(7%), “pollution/ contamination” (5%) and “cost/ expenses” (5%).

In an interview with The Vancouver Sun, Enbridge Northern Gateway spokesman Paul Stanway said the poll, released exclusively to Postmedia News, will set a “proper context” for the launch of National Energy Board hearings into Northern Gateway that begin this month in northern B.C.

“The argument often made by our opponents that there is overwhelming opposition from British Columbians in general, and I think that’s far from being an accurate view of what’s going on,” Stanway told the Sun.

Defining the North

As with all polls, the margin of error raises with the smaller number of people questioned as part of the larger sample. Ipsos-Reid acknowledges this when it says

These are the findings of an Ipsos-Reid poll conducted on behalf of Enbridge. The poll of 1,000 adult British Columbians was conducted online using Ipsos-Reid’s national online household panel between December 12 and December 15, 2011. A survey with an unweighted probability sample of this size and a 100% response rate would have an estimated margin of error of ±3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. The margin of error would be larger within regions and for other sub-groupings of the survey population. These data were statistically weighted to ensure the sample’s regional and age/sex composition reflects that of the actual BC population according to 2006 Census data.

So what does Ipsos-Reid mean by northern British Columbia?

Braid responded by e-mail, saying the polling company follows regional districts as defined by BC Statistics. “In lieu of providing a list of those districts, an approximate break is everything Williams Lake and above is considered North,” Braid said.

As published on the table (Tables from Ipsos-Reid Northern Gateway poll pdf) handout on the website, Ipsos-Reid interviewed 168 people in “northern British Columbia.” Braid says the 168 people represents 17% of the sample. These interviews would have been weighted down to about 7% in the overall results to reflect the actual population of the North in BC. The margin of error in the North is about +/-7.6%, 19 times out of 20.

Northwest Coast Energy News asked Braid if he knew how much of the sample represents respondents who live along the pipeline route. He replied, “I do not know how many of the Northern interviews were along the pipeline route.”

That likely means that the northern margin of error is much higher. If all of British Columbia north of Williams Lake is looked at carefully, there are actually three subregions within the Ipsos-Reid sample.

West of Prince George there is strong opposition to the pipeline. East and northeast of Prince George, especially in the oil and natural gas fields around the Peace River region, there is strong support for the energy industry and the pipeline. South of Prince George, toward Williams Lake, far away from the pipeline route and not involved in hydrocarbon energy extraction, it is most likely that the respondents there would fall into the “unfamiliar” category.

Oil or bitumen?

For those who live along the pipeline route, the fact that the Northern Gateway pipeline will be carrying diluted bitumen, not standard crude oil, is a key factor among those opposing the pipeline.

In response to the question about use of the oil, Braid responded. “On the use of the word “oil”, I know that few average British Columbians know what bitumen is, so that’s no good. And we also try to avoid the use of loaded words like “tar sands” in these interviews. Using a loaded word results in a question that’s biased in one direction. And if I’m using the arguments of opponents, then maybe I should also be pointing out the economic benefits of the project? I believe it’s better to keep the question as clean as possible with no messaging. And finally, is it really necessary to say that Alberta oil is from the oilsands – what else would it be?”

There are a couple of problems with Braid’s response, which we looked at in an earlier analysis of media coverage during the Keystone XL debate.

As was pointed out in that article, in all its filings with the Northern Gateway Joint Review, Enbridge uses the terms “bitumen,” “diluted bitumen,” or “dilbit,” not oil. Bitumen is not the “bubbling crude,” the boomer generation would remember from the Beverly Hillbillies or the oil covered James Dean in Giant.

As media critics have pointed out, the use of “oil sands” is considered a loaded term by the environmental critics, who prefer “tar sands.” The neutral term is bitumen.

Thus it can be argued the use of oil instead of bitumen, even if the poll respondents are not that familiar with the subject, is itself “a loaded word [that] results in a question that’s biased in one direction.”

Braid’s other point “And finally, is it really necessary to say that Alberta oil is from the oilsands – what else would it be?” It would be conventional crude, which has been coming out of wells in Alberta since 1948, that bubbling crude, not bitumen.

Finally “And if I’m using the arguments of opponents, then maybe I should also be pointing out the economic benefits of the project?” That leads to the other major criticism of the poll from environmentalists, that the poll had no questions about the economic consequences to British Columbia’s tourist and sports fishing industries from any “full bore” (a term used in the JRP filings) pipeline break or even minor pipeline breach or the costs of cleaning up from a major tanker disaster as well as the consequences for tourism and the sports and commercial fisheries from a tanker oil spill.

Critics have pointed to the fact that Enbridge commissioned the poll to question its credibility, and while who pays is always a factor in looking at any polling data, overall any polling company’s success depends on the long term accuracy of its findings. In this case, it is more likely that Ipsos-Reid itself should be included in the “unfamiliar” category.

Ipsos-Reid news release on the Northern Gateway Pipeline poll

Related Links

Enbridge Northern Gateway blog New poll shows strong B.C. support for Gateway

CBC News 48% support for northern B.C. pipeline, says poll

Vancouver Observer Enviros question methodology of Enbridge poll disputing Northern Gateway pipeline opposition

Linkfarm: The Krause Chronicles

Vivian Krause styles her self as an “independent researcher.” Her work is increasingly a favourite of right wing columnists on Postmedia and now Sunmedia

The spin from the conservative columnists, now echoed by the Conservative government is that the environmental opposition to the Northern Gateway is all coming from US based environmental foundations, with the hidden agenda of undermining the Canadian economy.

Only one main stream media report doesn’t praise Krause to the skies came from Gary Mason in the Globe and Mail

The next great pipeline debate – and U.S. funding

Whether or not Krause has a legitimate point about American foundations funding Canadian environmental causes, there has, so far, been no balancing investigation of the money spent by American or other energy companies in Canada to promote their cause.

Here are a few relevant links

Vivian Krause’s site Fair Questions

Krause’s list (of mostly positive for her) media coverage. It is quite extensive but will give you an idea of how widespread her message has reached.

Coverage not found in Krause’s list at this posting

Enbridge boss points to ‘curious’ funding of pipeline opposition by U.S. charities: Edmonton Journal

Foreigners funding ‘mischief’ against Canada’s oilsands: Kent Sunmedia
Environment Minister Peter Kent adds to the controversy.

U.S. billionaires ‘bullying’ Canada on environment: Researcher Sunmedia (with a quote showing that Stephen Harper supports Krause’s campaign)

Ezra Levant writes a column for Toronto Sun, calling on the Joint Review Panel to restrict the number of people who will testify against the pipeline.

An “ethicial oil” spokeswoman, Kathryn Marsall then adds to the mix with
The Big Money Behind the Anti-Oil Sands Movement in the Huffington Post

The National Post then claims the it also the UK that is funding the opposition

Anti-oil sands think-tank being funded by U.K.

and finally a Black Press columnist named Tom Fletcher repeats it all again in The Alberni Valley News. (I note that as far as I can find out, none of the northern newspapers in the Black Press chain ran this, or at least ran it prominently)

B.C. a playground for eco-stunts

(a Facebook friend linked to the article, somehow our subsequent discussion about Star Trek got posted, probably because Black Press lets you sign in from FB)

Now, the Minister of Natural Resources, Joe Oliver, is pushing the Northern Gateway pipeline every chance he gets despite the fact the Joint Review Panel hasn’t even started hearings. but in The Vancouver Sun in Protests won’t stop Northern Gateway pipeline, minister says

He wouldn’t comment on the argument heard in the oilpatch that American money is being driven by broader interests fearful of the U.S. losing its virtual monopoly on the
landlocked oilsands resource.
“I’m not into conspiracy theories.”

In contrast to this huge campaign, there is no one, no one, as of this date, in the mainstream media putting perspective on the story.

One blog from George Ghoberg at the University of British Columbia is:

Foreign influence on Canadian energy and environmental policy: A request for some balance

I wrote two earlier columns on the subject.

Joint Review media analysis Part one: Calgary Herald columnist advocates
curbing free speech on the Northern Gateway Pipeline hearings

Joint Review media analysis Part two: Postmedia and The Great American Energy Conspiracy

From the Environmental point of view. the Pembina Institute has responded to the attacks on its integrity and credibility

Attacks on environmental group supporters are disingenuous and disturbing

The David Suzuki Foundation has responded to Krause’s separate attacks on Suzuki’s opposition to salmon farming

DSF responds to questions about salmon farming

And to put things in somewhat of a wider perspective, The Hill, which covers Capitol Hill in Washington DC had this story on all the companies that lobbied for the Keystone XL pipeline.

Lobbyists go to battle over Keystone pipeline

Michigan OKs plan to replace 15 miles of Enbridge gas pipeline: Lansing Journal

Michigan Pipeline

Michigan OKs plan to replace 15 miles of Enbridge gas pipeline Lansing Journal

Michigan has approved a plan by Enbridge Inc. to replace some sections of a pipeline that leaked more than 800,000 gallons of oil into the Kalamazoo River near Marshall in 2010.

The Michigan Public Service Commission on Wednesday approved plans to replace three 5-mile sections of pipeline in Calhoun, Cass and St. Joseph counties. Calgary, Alberta-based Enbridge proposed the replacements earlier this year.

Cleanup worker files whistle blower lawsuit over Kalamazoo oil spill

Energy Environment Law

The Kalamazoo Gazette reports in
Judge to hear whistle-blower lawsuit of Kalamazoo River oil spill worker

A Calhoun County judge next week will hear a whistle-blower lawsuit from a former Kalamazoo River oil spill cleanup worker who said he was fired after telling the media and state and federal agencies that crews were told to cover up oil instead of cleaning it up.

John Bolenbaugh, of Athens, filed suit Nov. 9 against his former employer, SET Environmental Inc.

[A] brief says that the lawsuit stems from “massive operations engaging in cover-ups, lies and deceit.”

Enbridge, the brief claims, ordered contractors including SET to “deliberately and intentionally engage in improper
clean-up efforts, which included covering up oil, spreading out oil, and hiding spilled oil from the public and EPA.”

The lawsuit also claims that Bolenbaugh was wrongfully fired because he “reported and threatened to further report to the EPA and other public bodies what he believed to be illegal activities relating to the improper cleanup efforts.”

Enbridge spokesman Jason Manshum said Wednesday night that the company “would never instruct a contractor to cover oil.”

“Since the outset of the incident, our goal has been to restore the area as close as possible to its preexisting condition,” Manshum said. “That is our only goal and we remain fully committed to that goal.”

Enbridge, EPA dispute amount of “oil” spilled at Kalamazoo

Energy Environment

AP reports that Enbridge and the US Environmental Protection Agency are haggling over how much “oil” was spilled into the Kalamazoo River. Enbridge is sticking with its estimate that 849,000 gallons were spilled when the pipeline was breached. The EPA says 1.1 million gallons have been recovered and there may be more to be recovered.
Apparently it all comes down to different definitions of the word “oil.”

Scrutiny of Enbridge Northern Gateway plans: II Landslides

Energy Enviroment

This photograph from the geomorphology report shows how bedrock spread lead to catastrophic landslides along a 2.5 kilometre scarp (photo lower centre to upper right) and a 1.3 km scarp (photo distance) on the ridge above Parrott Creek. The yellow dashed line delineates the landslides’ headscarp. The arrow shows the direction of movement.

A retired geomorphologist for the BC Forest Service, who lives in Smithers, says a break in the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline, triggered by a landslide, is “inevitable” given the highly complex terrain that the pipeline will cross.

James Schwab bases his peer-reviewed paper on his 30 years experience in northwestern British Columbia.

“The unstable mountainous terrain across west-central BC is not a safe location for pipelines. Eventually a landslide will sever a pipeline,” he says. He calls for investigation of a safer, alternative route for the pipeline.

The report was funded by the Bulkley Valley Research Centre. It examines three areas, the Nechako Plateau, the Hazelton Mountains and the Kitimat Ranges.

Schwab’s report says the Nechako Plateau appears relatively benign, but, he says, large landslides have occurred in volcanic rock overlying other older volcanic and sedimentary rock.

Along the Morice River, the report says sediments have historically experienced landslides. Road construction and wildfires have reactivated these landslides. The proposed pipeline corridor crosses an historic earth flow west of Owen Creek, moving sediment along Owen Creek and moving sediments near Fenton Creek and Lamprey Creek

At Gosnell Creek, Schwab says, shifting channels on active alluvial fans pose road maintenance challenges at present and, he says, pipelines will likely bring similar challenges crossing these fans. The report says the creek banks are unstable at Crystal Creek and Gosnell Creek pipeline crossing points.

The report says the volcanic bedrock of the Hazelton Mountains is “inherently unstable” and geological surveys show there were many landslides in prehistoric times. Three more recent documented large landslides within the Bulkley Range of the Hazelton Mountains have severed the natural gas pipeline since its construction in the early 1970s; large landslides have also impacted forest roads and highways.

He says that gravity is deforming the slopes in the volcanic bedrock found in the Kitnayakwa, Clore and Bernie watersheds and the report calls for a thorough geotechnical investigation to determine the stability of the bedrock and hill slope in areas before the pipeline is built. “Avoidance of these unstable hill slopes is generally the preferred engineering development option,” the report says.

The report examines where the pipeline corridor crosses through a mountainside to the southeast of the Clore Canyon.

The highly fractured bedrock in the canyon is undergoing active mass erosion. unstable rock reaches up to about 1200 m above sea level and extends around the mountain into an adjacent tributary valley. This bedrock along the north and west side of the mountain is extensively gullied and contains many landslide scarps and an actively moving landslide.

The active instability of the eastern mountain slope places major constraints on development, Schwab says.

Schwab says the Kitimat Ranges are characterized by steep narrow valleys, which create “colluvial-fluvial fans … at the base of most steep gully channels in the Hoult Creek and Upper Kitimat watershed.” The steep gullies extend from the mountains in to the valley or directly into Hoult Creek or the Kitimat River.

Many of these high-energy systems in the Kitimat Ranges experienced debris flows during extreme rainstorms in the fall of 1978 and the fall of 1992. Debris flows commonly occur under seemingly normal storm events during summer convective storms and fall frontal rainstorms.

Debris flows are powerful landslides that can damage or rupture pipelines, the report says.

Hunter Creek, a large active alluvial fan, has historically pushed the Kitimat River across the valley, Schwab’s report says. In 1992, road and levée construction caused a catastrophic channel change.

The Kitimat trough, on the road between Terrace and Kitimat, is actually a fjord uplifted by ancient geological forces. The valley has deep deposits of sediments both from ocean and land, left by glaciers, which have produced landslides from prehistoric times to the present day.

Recent large flow slides occurred at Mink Creek (winter 1992-93) and Lakelse Lake in May and June 1962. A large submarine flow slide occurred in sensitive marine muds at the front of the fiord-head delta at Kitimat Arm in April 1975.

These recent landslides serve to show the continuing sensitivity of the glaciomarine sediments in the Kitimat Trough and the marine sediments on the fan-delta at the fiord-head of Kitimat Arm. Natural and human caused factors such as increases in surface load, removal of lateral support by stream bank undercutting or excavation, vibration by heavy equipment, earthquake shock, high water pressures and interruption of intertidal drainage can trigger these landslides. Thus, the potential exists for landslides to occur during pipeline construction and in the future.

This large swampy area on Lakesle Lake is the location of the May 1962 flow slide. Highway 37 crosses the landslide depletion zone. (The highway was closed for several days after the 1962 slide.) The provincial park is in the middle left of this photo from the report.

Schwab says the pipeline will encounter the glacial sediments during construction at Cecil Creek, Deception Creek, Wedeene River, Little Wedeene River, along the west side of Kitimat Arm and along Chist Creek. He says that even minor erosion along those creek banks can expose the glacial sediments, which are then displaced by as the sediments are exposed.
“Pipelines crossing glaciomarine sediments must therefore avoid areas that lie within potential flow slide depletion zones as landslides will break or disrupt pipeline service.”

The executive summary of the report concludes by saying.

Landslides travel long distances and damage linear infrastructure such as pipelines. Six large rock slides occurred in west central B.C. since 1978, five of these since 1999, and four since 2002. Three of the six rock slides severed the natural gas pipeline (Howson landslides in 1978 and 1999, and Zymoetz landslide in 2002). Damage to linear infrastructure commonly occurs in run out zones many kilometres from the initial landslide. This has occurred with recent landslides in west central B.C.; the longest traveled in excess of four kilometres along a slope of 9°. Therefore, the potential for damage to pipelines extends to unstable terrain and potential landslides that start well outside the construction corridor.

The Bulkley Valley Research Centre, based in Smithers, is a not-for-profit organization that aims to improve the knowledge of resource sustainability by facilitating what its website calls “credible research projects.”

Bulkley Valley Research Centre news release: Geomorphology report highlights pipeline concerns

James Schwab’s paper Hillslope and Fluvial Processes along the Proposed Pipeline Corridor (pdf)

This report was corrected on Oct. 25, changing the headline, correcting the main link to the Bulkley Valley Research Centre that was not visible due to a coding error and adding a link to the geomorphology report news release.

Salon article calls Northern Gateway Keystone’s “evil twin”, asserts pipeline will never be built

Energy Environment Commentary

Michael Byers, the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at UBC, writes about the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline in Salon.com, largely for an American audience, calling the pipeline The evil twin of the Keystone XL oil pipeline

U.S. opponents of the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline should take take note: One of the greatest weaknesses of the proposed 1,980 mile-long pipeline from Canada’s tar sand fields to refineries in Texas actually lies in British Columbia on Canada’s west coast.

That’s where a second pipeline (“Northern Gateway”) could link the tar sands of central Canada to coastal British Columbia.

The U.S. State Department has accepted assertions that the production of heavy oil will increase regardless of whether Keystone XL is built, because the Northern Gateway pipeline would bring oil for shipment to China. Denying permission for Keystone XL would not promote the U.S. national interest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the State Department says, because China will use the energy anyway.

Byers then goes on to describe in great detail the opposition to the pipeline in British Columbia from First Nations and residents of the northern part of the province. He also describes growing opposition to the expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline to Vancouver. (See today’s story Kinder Morgan buys natural gas pipeline) especially the hazards of sending tankers through Second Narrows.

From all that Byers concludes:

In short, there’s a bit of snake oil in the pipeline-to-China assumptions. The U.S. State Department must assess the full environmental impact of Keystone XL. It cannot ignore the carbon footprint of Canada’s tar sands because of an alternative pipeline to China that does not exist and will likely never be built.

It seems that Byers is certainly jumping to conclusions that the Northern Gateway will never be built, especially since Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and cabinet ministers John Moore and Joe Oliver has said it is in the national interest that the Northern Gateway should proceed.

EPA finds submerged oil, orders Enbridge to file new Michigan clean up plan by Oct. 20

Environment

A map issued by the US Environmental Protection Agency showing pockets of submerged oil found in the Kalamazoo River during summer 2011 cleanup operations (EPA) Click on map for larger version.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency has ordered Enbridge to “to take additional steps to clean up the July 2010 oil spill that damaged over 35 miles of the Kalamazoo River system.”

The
directive requires Enbridge to submit plans by Oct. 20, 2011 “for
cleanup and monitoring work expected to last through 2012”. EPA news release. Failure to comply could result in civil penalties.

The local newspaper the Battle Creek Courier quotes an EPA official as saying agency has learned a lot in the 14 months since the Enbridge pipeline burst, contaminating five acres of land, part of Talmadge Creek and 35 miles of the Kalamazoo River. The order was based on what the EPA has learned in the past few months.

“As we get near the end of the active submerged oil recovery, we’ll have to have systems in place long-term to do long-term maintenance,” Ralph Dollhopf, the EPA’s on-scene coordinator told the paper. “So we’ve taken all of these elements and packaged them into a set of expectations — specific tasks that Enbridge has to perform through 2012.”

Most of the remaining oil is submerged at the bottom of the Kalamazoo River or on about 200 riverbank sites that haven’t had work done yet, Dollhopf told the paper.

The EPA also is asking Enbridge to install “passive collection devices” in areas where oil commonly accumulates in the river, Dollhopf said. Oil remaining in the river tends to mass at natural deposit points — most commonly near dammed areas.

The EPA says the work will continue to the end of 2012 and even into 2013 if necessary to remove as much remaining oil as it can without harming the environment.

Some parts of the river may be reopened to the public in 2012.

An Enbridge spokesman, Jason Manshum said in an email to the Michigan paper “Enbridge has committed since the outset of this incident to restore the area as close as possible to its pre-existing condition, and to the satisfaction of the U.S. EPA, Michigan DEQ and the local community. We remain fully committed to that goal.”

The EPA situation report says that after a year of extensive cleanup work in the Kalamazoo River system. the EPA identified pockets of submerged oil in three areas covering approximately 200 acres that require cleanup…

To date, more than 766,000 gallons of oil have been recovered and 113,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil and debris have been sent to EPA-approved disposal facilities. Enbridge will be required to repay the government for all response costs.

Work during the summer of 2011 was focused on:

Revisiting shoreline areas cleaned up in 2010 where winter weather and spring floods exposed previously unseen oil or spill impacts.
Excavating oil contaminated soil and weathered tarry oil from the overbank areas.
Recovering pockets of submerged oil in the sediment. EPA has identified three major submerged oil areas including the delta leading into Morrow Lake.

Michigan cleanup by the numbers

766,288 gallons of oil recovered
6 million gallons of oil/water collected and disposed
144,942 cubic yards soil/debris disposed
783 personnel on site
$33.9 million costs to date

Source EPA, Sept. 16, 2011

As Keystone decision nears, new interest in pipeline safety, especially Enbridge

Links: Energy Environment

The US State Department will announce its decision on the Keystone XL bitumen pipeline from Alberta to Texas as the Calgary Herald reported on July 22

The U.S. State Department said Friday that it will wrap up its
examination of environmental impacts of a proposed Canadian pipeline
expansion from the oilsands in less than a month in order to ensure a
final decision on the controversial project by the end of the year…

Daniel Clune, the principal deputy assistant secretary from the U.S.
Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs,
said that the department would consider a variety of factors, including
recent developments such as a major pipeline spill on the Yellowstone
River, instability in Libya affecting global oil supplies, as well as
this week’s announcement by Canadian Environment Minister Peter Kent
that Canada would increase its monitoring of the impact of oilsands
activity based on recommendations from scientists.

A couple of weeks before the State Department ruling, the US Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (TPSSC) and the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (THLPSSC) will meet in Arlington, Virginia on August 2, 2011 to consider draft pipeline safety recommendations for the United States called `The State of the National Pipeline Infrastructure–A Preliminary
Report.” The public had until July 13, 2011, to make submissions to be considered
by the subcommittee members prior to submission of their draft
recommendations to the overall committees.

There is a web page from the PHMSA on the July, 2010, Marshall, Michigan, Enbridge pipeline break and spill.

The National Post updates the Marshall Enbridge spill with a report Aftermath of a Spill by Sheldon Alberts.

Now, one year later, local residents and U.S. authorities are taking
stock of the toll. A National Transportation Safety Board investigation
into what caused the two metre gash in the pipeline is ongoing, with its
conclusion perhaps months away.

The Kalamazoo, which in normal
summers would be flush with paddlers and recreational fishermen, is
still closed to the public as a massive effort to clean up the remaining
oil – most of it now submerged on the riverbed – continues.

Also
raging is the heated debate that the Enbridge spill ignited in the
United States and Canada over the safety of pipelines – some new, others
decades old – that carry oil sands bitumen to markets in America’s
heartland.

Energy media turns its eyes on Kitimat, LNG and Enbridge

The prospect of Kitimat becoming a major port for export of Liquified Natural Gas was bound eventually to spark interest in the media covering the energy sector.

This week, photos of Kitimat mayor Joanne Monaghan turned up on as the lead on stories in Alberta Oil magazine and The Financial Post.

In Alberta Oil’s Export visions stoke deep divisons in a coastal town, the longest of the two articles, feature writer Jeff Lewis, puts the history of Kitimat into some perspective for the Alberta oil patch.

Alcan came to northern British Columbia in the early 1950s with plans to build the world’s biggest aluminum smelter….

Even by today’s standards of engineering, the $500-million “Kitimat Project” was ambitious…. They bored into a mountain to create the Kemano hydro plant. They blasted enough rock to dam and reverse the Nechako River. They strung high-wire transmission towers across a rugged valley. And they built Kitimat – complete with schools, pre-fabricated houses floated in on barges, roads and even a toastmasters club – from scratch.

It is to this history that Mayor Joanne Monaghan refers when she dismisses fears about development in the region ruining a natural wilderness. “Kitimat is geared to be an industrial town,” she says over lunch at the local Chalet Restaurant. “That’s what it was built as.” Distinct neighborhoods and services were laid out for a population many thought would crest 50,000, with heavy industry built at a remove from the commercial and residential areas of town.

The vision never quite materialized… Monaghan… insists job prospects in the town are poised for recovery. The unemployment rate was 9.5 per cent in 2006. “I think it can only get better from here,” the mayor says. “I really feel like we’re a sleeping giant, and the giant is waking up.”

It is also true that the town remains partially stuck, very much groping in what is perhaps the darkest hour before the mayor’s dawn. Local divisions aren’t limited to the physical split between the town’s industrial park and its residential streets. While the Apache-sponsored gas terminal has progressed to the point where site preparation is underway, Enbridge’s Northern Gateway faces tremendous opposition – from the Haisla, but also from pockets of local residents. The multibillion-dollar pipeline has underscored deep-seated tensions in the region to such an extent that the local council refuses to talk about it. Some, including Monaghan, favor a referendum on the project. “It’s a contentious issue,” she says.

The Financial Post’s energy reporter Claudia Cattaneo focuses more on the issues on her beat in LNG Trying to Dock Catteneo notes that the March earthquake in Japan which crippled the country’s nuclear energy raised interest in exports of liquified natural gas from Alberta through the port of Kitimat.

Her article also reflects the hints of skepticism that have arisen about natural gas exports in the past couple of weeks. She points out that part of the price advantage that Alberta gas may have in Asia is not the “molecules” the term so beloved of the experts in the energy industry but “arbitrage” the difference between the Asian price of natural gas which is a percentage of the price of oil (which is going up) and the North American price, which is based on supply and demand, North American gas supply is up due to exploitation of the shale gas reserves and so the price of natural gas has dropped. (Kitimat residents of course haven’t noticed the drop in the price of natural gas due to the high transportation “bill” charged by the local monopoly Pacific Northern Gas). The companies that want to build a port at Kitimat are basing part of their profit picture on that price difference.

Cattaneo quotes Chris Theal who works for a Calgary hedge fund who says that the Asian demand for natural gas will continue to increase in the coming years, but export could be strangled by limited capacity on the BC coast even if all the projected Kitimat projects go ahead and there is an expansion of the port of Prince Rupert to handle natural gas from pipeline or rail tanker. Theal says (ideas that also recently came out at the NEB hearings in Kitimat) that alternative export ports could exist in the United States at ports like Coos Bay and Clataskanie, Oregon and Astoria,Washington.