Enbridge Files Application with National Energy Board from Northern Gateway Pipeline

Enbridge Pipelines Inc. has filed its application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the National Energy Board (NEB) for the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project.  The massive application document in 8 volumes is available at the following links: Volumes 1-3; Volumes 4-5; and, Volumes 6-8.

If you're a landowner along the proposed route, or know someone who is, you can find out more about how landowners may be affected by the pipeline and what they can do to respond by contacting the Canadian Association of Energy and Pipeline Landowner Associations (CAEPLA).  Visit CAEPLA's website at: http://www.landownerassociation.ca/.

_________________________________________________________

SemCAMS Cancels Red Willow Pipeline Project Due Fall in Natural Gas Market and Inability to Access Capital

Click the above letter to read

TOP

_________________________________________________________

Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board Turns Down Appeals of Wind Farm Approvals

The NS Utility and Review Board has dismissed appeals by Eco Awareness Society and Helen and Donald Brown from a decision of the County of Antigonish allowing the re-zoning of 14 areas on 9 properties to allow for the construction of 14 wind turbines by Shear Wind Inc.  The appeals were dismissed because the Board determined that the appellants were not "aggrieved persons" as was required to have standing to appeal the decisions under the applicable legislation.  A person must have "standing" to participate in a particular matter before a decision-making body such as a court or a tribunal.  "Standing" may depend on a person's direct or indirect connection to the matters in issue, and in some cases includes a connection based on the public interest.

In this case, the Board concluded:

For the reasons outlined above, the Board finds that the Appellants have not shown, on the balance of probabilities, that the rezoning (or any future development falling within the scope of the proposed rezoning) will adversely affect the value or reasonable enjoyment of Mr. and Mrs. Brown's properties (or the properties of a majority of members of the Eco Awareness Society), or cause or threaten any form of harm prejudicial to their interests (or the interests of a majority of members of the Eco Awareness Society). Further, the Society has not shown, on the balance of probabilities, that it is an incorporated organization, the objects of which include promoting or protecting the quality of life of persons residing in the neighbourhood affected by the council's decision, or features, structures or sites of the community affected by the council's decision, having significant cultural, architectural or recreational value.

Read the decision at: Re Eco Awareness Society.

_________________________________________________________

 
Congress Begins Hearings to Reauthorize Pipeline Safety Law - Oil & Gas Journal

The Oil and Gas Journal has published an article by Nick Snow about pipeline integrity legislation and regulations in the United States.  From 2006 to 2009, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration increased its roster of pipeline inspectors from 141 to 173.  Over the past 20 years, the PHMSA says that serious pipeline incidents involving death or injury has declined by 50%.  Read the article at: Oil and Gas Journal.

_________________________________________________________

 
Southwest Farmers Tell Oil Company to Forget Pipeline - Winnipeg Free Press

Southwest farmers tell oil company to forget pipeline - Winnipeg Free Press

It's a showdown between a group of Manitoba farmers, who want to get their crops in the ground, and a big oil company from Houston...

TOP

_________________________________________________________

Apache Pipeline Seeks to Abandon Pipe in Alberta Pasture Land

Apache Canada Ltd. has applied to the National Energy Board (NEB) for leave to abandon a pipeline in place in Alberta.  In its application, Apache advised that it had "abandoned" the line in 2005, and is at this time only really applying for a change of corporate name.  The application can be viewed at: Apache Canada Ltd. Section 74(1)(d) Application.

Yesterday, the NEB wrote to Apache requiring additional information to be filed, including information about what consultation will be undertaken with affected landowners.  In its application, Apache had said that no consultation was necessary because the line was already abandoned in 2005.  The Board's letter can be viewed at: NEB Letter to Apache with information requests.

This application raises an interesting question - just how many "abandoned" pipelines are sitting out there?  In spite of the law prohibiting the abandonment of a pipeline without NEB approval, Apache "abandoned" its pipeline nearly five years ago with no consultation with landowners.

TOP

_________________________________________________________

 
National Energy Board Chair Says Canadian Regulation Adequate - Is He Right?

The National Energy Board (NEB) has released the opening statement by Gaeton Caron, Chair of the NEB, to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Natural Resources on the issue of the emergency response to offshore oil and gas drilling.  While Caron deals mainly with the risk of a repeat of the BP disaster in Canada, he makes several broad statements about the effectiveness of NEB regulations in protecting the environment and lands.  He talks about the "stringent" environmental assessments of projects undertaken by the NEB.  He also says that, "NEB-regulated companies are fully responsible for anticipating, preventing, mitigating and managing incidents and oil spills of any size or duration."  Is this the experience of NEB-regulated landowners in Canada?  Is "goal-oriented regulation" working for Canadian landowners?

Read Caron's opening statement at: National Energy Board Opening Statement.

_________________________________________________________

Recovering Court Costs as Compensation for Expropriation - OMB Decision

With the Smith v. Alliance Pipeline case heading to hearing before the Supreme Court of Canada this October, I was surprised to hear that the Ontario Municipal Board, similar to the Pipeline Arbitration Committee under the National Energy Board Act, had itself made a decision in 2008 awarding court costs to landowners as part of the expropriation compensation process.  Farmland owned by Dale and Mary McKean was expropriated by the Ministry of Transportation (MTO), but not before the Superior Court of Justice had to decide exactly what land was available to be expropriated.  There was an issue as to whether certain portions of the farm were actually public roads that had never been opened.  If the lands were public roads, then no expropriation (and no compensation) was necessary.

The MTO was successful in the court case, and costs were awarded against the McKeans in the amount of $1,550.  The McKeans themselves had expended approximately $55,000 in legal costs.  Before the OMB, they sought to recover those costs under Section 32 of the Expropriations Act as costs incurred for the purpose of resolving their compensation claim related to the expropriation.  The OMB ruled in their favour:

The Board finds that if s. 32(1) is given its proper interpretation, the McKeans are entitled to compensation by the MTO for costs associated with the Court Proceedings. The Board finds that the McKeans actually incurred costs in association with the Court Proceedings and that these proceedings were for the purposes of determining compensation payable for the expropriation and injurious affection. But for the proceedings before the Court, the MTO could not have determined what lands would be expropriated or to what extent, and therefore what compensation would be payable to the McKeans.

As far as I know, this decision was not appealed and was not cited by the Federal Court of Appeal in its decision in the Smith v. Alliance Pipeline case.  While the facts of the two cases are not entirely the same, they are similar.  However, the main distinction between the cases is that in Smith the court costs were pursued as damages, while in McKean the court costs were pursued as costs under the Expropriations Act.  It seems less likely that court costs could be recoverable under the costs provision of the NEB Act since it provides only for costs incurred "in asserting that person's claim for compensation". Read the decision at: McLean v. Ministry of Transportation. 

TOP

_________________________________________________________

National Energy Board Cancels Same Season Relief Warning

The National Energy Board (NEB) has now cancelled outright the hearing process announced in February to review the need for relief wells associated with offshore oil drilling.  In an earlier post I commented on the effect the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico has had on that hearing process and on the NEB's policy of "goal-oriented regulation".

Now, rather than addressing the particular question of relief wells (work on a relief well in the Gulf of Mexico is currently under way, but won't be ready for months), the NEB plans a general review of Arctic safety and environmental offshore drilling requirements.  The NEB says, "Full details of the review will be announced in the near future, when the focus in the Gulf of Mexico shifts from stopping the leak and protecting the environment to understanding what happened. The process will be public and consultative. The NEB will welcome the participation of other regulators in this process."

BP Has Fought Safety Measures for Deepwater Oil Rigs
Since Clinton Days

WASHINGTON - BP, the company that chartered the Deepwater Horizon oil rig that caught fire and sank in the Gulf of Mexico in April, spent years battling federal regulators ...

Read Noel Griese's full article at: Energy Pipeline News.

_________________________________________________________

 
Same Season Relief Well issue before the NEB - What will be done in Canada to avoid a repeat of the BP disaster here?

Somewhat ironically, the National Energy Board had started a hearing process in February, 2010 to review its Same Season Relief Well (SSRW) policy, just weeks before the BP drilling rig explosion and oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico (relevant documents can be viewed at: MH-1-2010.  BP has been criticized for not having relief wells in place to reduce the pressure in its damaged well that is now spewing oil onto the Gulf coast. 

Here's what BP said in its submission to the NEB in March:

As will be discussed in greater detail below, for both technological and operational reasons, continuance of the SSRW capability is not required and is problematical for BP and other operators, and may well impede further exploration in the Beaufort Sea.

BP is advocating that the policy be changed by eliminating the requirement for same season relief well capability, and any time-of-year drilling restrictions associated with that policy. In BP's view, consistent with the on-going development of goal-oriented regulation, the Board should utilize a series of goals and objectives to enhance safety and protection of the environment.

That was in March.  Of course, in April, BP's operations in the Gulf of Mexico have initiated the worst environmental disaster in the United States since the Exxon Valdez.  Is "goal-oriented regulation", which is the NEB's policy in dealing with safety and the environment, right for Canada?  Where the goal is to avoid environmental disasters, does "goal-oriented" regulation (i.e. set the goal and let industry decide what needs to be done to achieve the goal) do any good?

For its part, Conoco Phillips wrote to the NEB on Monday to suggest that the hearing process be put on hold pending the investigation of the BP disaster: Conoco Phillips to NEB.

TOP

_________________________________________________________

Construction underway on Manitoba's largest wind farm

CBC News - Manitoba - Construction underway on wind farm

An official groundbreaking for a wind farm near St. Joseph, MB was held on Thursday. The project proponent, Pattern Energy of San Francisco, expects the first turbines to be in operation by the end of this year. Read the CBC News story at the link above.

My original post about this project is at: Deal Struck to Build $345 million wind farm.

TOP

Special Feature:
Utility Corridors in Canada: Shifting Regulatory Jurisdictions*

In 2008, TransCanada Pipeline Limited successfully applied to the NEB to take over regulation of its 24,500 km Alberta System of gas pipelines. In 2009, Dawn Gateway GP applied to the NEB to assume jurisdiction over an existing Ontario Energy Board (OEB) regulated pipeline owned by Union Gas Limited in Lambton County. In both cases, there were significant differences for landowners between land use regulations in place provincially and those in place federally under the NEB Act. Unlike the provincial regulations in Alberta and Ontario, the federal regulations provide for land use controls in a 200 ft. area outside the pipeline right-of-way; company consent requirements for the use of farm machinery on the right-of-way; loss of NEB jurisdiction over abandoned pipelines; and lack of NEB authority to award landowners any costs of participating in company-initiated regulatory processes.

In the Alberta System case, landowners identified to the NEB these negative impacts that would result for them from the transfer of jurisdiction and asked, at the very least, that conditions be placed on the future operation of the pipelines to place landowners in as good a position as they were under provincial regulation. The answer from the NEB and TransCanada was that there was nothing they could do. If the pipeline system was determined to be a federal undertaking, then the shift in jurisdiction would happen automatically and federal regulations would apply to landowners automatically by force of law, not by choice of the company.

As a matter of constitutional law, an undertaking is either federal or provincial and the company’s preference is irrelevant. However, in practical terms, choice does matter in that a company must choose at the time it constructs a pipeline whether to make its application for authorization to construct to the provincial or federal regulator. At that stage, unless someone objects to the constitutional characterization of the proposed pipeline, or unless the regulator raises the issue on its own, the choice of the company will determine whether the line is provincially or federally regulated.

Once constructed and in operation, the line will remain subject to the regulation of its original constitutional jurisdiction until someone makes an application to change the jurisdiction. Although in the Alberta case it was determined by the NEB that the pipeline system was currently being operated in a way that now made it a properly federal undertaking, it is questionable whether the shift in jurisdiction would ever have occurred without a economically-motivated desire on the part of TransCanada to make the shift. Company choice again enters into the equation.

If company choice does matter, then is there a place for the imposition of conditions on the jurisdictional transfer to preserve the rights of the landowner under the original jurisdiction? For landowners whose lands were expropriated for the pipeline right-of-way, conditions imposed by the regulator are probably the only answer to avoiding the negative effects of a shift in jurisdiction. For landowners who entered into right-of-way agreements with the company, though, there may be contractual remedies available as well to the extent that the negative effects are compensable under the agreements.

In the Dawn Gateway case, the OEB determined that if the pipeline were ultimately transferred to the federal jurisdiction, there would be harm to landowners by way of “greater restrictions placed on land use, the extended scope of land affected, and the limited ability to recover regulatory costs.” In order to address and remedy these harms, the OEB directed negotiations between landowners and Dawn Gateway at the company’s expense. In the end, however, the negotiations were made unnecessary as the OEB also determined that the Dawn Gateway line remained under provincial regulation and Dawn Gateway withdrew its application for approval from the NEB.

Going forward, landowners faced with new pipeline rights-of-way would be well advised to specify the exclusive jurisdiction of the pipeline in their right-of-way agreements. Although companies are unlikely to agree to such a limitation, it is probably the best protection available for landowners against the negative effects of a future jurisdictional shift and is worth a try. Of course, if agreement can’t be reached, the company will simply expropriate the right-of-way leaving landowners to rely on the possible future assistance of the energy regulator. As can be seen in the Alberta and Ontario examples, the regulator may or may not be willing to help.

* This is an updated version of the article published in the Spring 2010 Newsletter of the Ontario Expropriation Association.

TOP

_________________________________________________________

 
Apache Canada Ltd. Responds to NEB About Its Claim to
"Re"-Abandon its Pipeline in Place

In May, I reported on a plan by Apache Canada Ltd. ("Apache") to abandon a pipeline in place in agricultural land in Alberta (click here).  In fact, the pipeline had already been abandoned for several years without authorization and without consultation with the affected landowners.  Apache has now responded to information requests from the National Energy Board ("NEB") about its plans.  It says that the line will be patrolled annually, signs will be posted, and that the line does not pose a risk as a water conduit (or a conduit for contamination) since it does not cross streams or water bodies. 

A land agent on behalf of Apache obtained signed statements from landowners saying that they have no objection to the abandonment.  It appears that the statements were completed by the land agent and then signed by the individual landowners on a form prepared by Apache.  It is not known whether any additional compensation has been paid to landowners for the right to abandon the line in place or whether any indemnity has been provided. 

Read Apache's submission to the NEB at: Letter dated June 23, 2010.

_________________________________________________________

 
NEB: Fatigue Crack Failure Associated with Shallow Dents on Pipelines

Click above image to view full size

The National Energy Board (NEB) has issued a safety advisory related to shallow dents on pipelines that can lead to fatigue crack failure.  Currently, CSA Standard Z662-07 provides requirements for inspection of dents only when they are greater in size than 6% of the outside diameter of the pipeline.  It has been found, however, that fatigue cracking and pipeline rupture can occur as a result of much smaller dents.  It is easy to imagine that small dents may be caused in pipelines during the construction process, especially where the line is installed in rocky soils. 

This is a safety advisory from the NEB that suggests that integrity management programs implemented by pipeline companies should be updated.  It remains to be seen whether the NEB will impose any new conditions on companies or actually direct the update of programs.  This is a good example of "goal-oriented regulation" in action.

Read the full NEB safety advisory at: National Energy Board Safety Advisory 2010-01.

_________________________________________________________

 
Alberta Court of Appeal Denies Leave to Pipeline Landowners in Compensation Case

Back in February, I reported on a decision of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench in which a decision of the Surface Rights Board awarding annual compensation to landowners was overturned and the "Pattern of Dealings" approach to compensation was again imposed (see: February 23, 2010).  The landowners involved sought leave to appeal the Court decision, but leave has now been denied by the Alberta Court of Appeal. 

In its decision, the Alberta Court of Appeal determined that the findings of the Court of Queen's Bench judge were reasonable and again upheld the "Pattern of Dealings" approach to compensation (i.e. the compensation to be awarded to a landowner may be determined by looking at the pattern of compensation paid by a company to other landowners in similar circumstances).  However, importantly, the Court did leave open the possibility for annual compensation in the right case - a "real" case for ongoing compensation rather than a "conjectural" one:

The principles providing for the determination of compensation for pipeline rights of way based on established patterns of dealings are well established in the industry and before the Board. In essence, the applicants believed they had established a novel basis for compensation by persuading this Board to invent a compromise position for compensation that allowed for an annual component in lieu of a larger lump sum payment. Macklin J. was not persuaded, on the record before him, that it was reasonable to include an annual component for future potential adverse effects to the applicants’ use of their land within the meaning of s. 25(1)(c) and 25(1)(d) of the Act because (a) the basis for doing so was conjectural and/or redundant to the rationale for the lump sum payment and (b) the procedural difficulty and cost of validating and reviewing an annual payment component every five years for each claimant would be unnecessarily burdensome having regard to the fact that there would again be a need to predict on an arbitrary basis the future from that point.

In deciding whether leave to appeal should be granted or denied in this case, it is not necessary for me to say, nor would I suggest, that an annual payment component cannot be considered to be a valid part of a compensation package for a subsurface pipeline. It is also unnecessary for me to say whether procedural cost and difficulty arising from five year reviews of annual payment components would be a valid reason to refuse an annual payment component if the basis for such were lifted from the conjectural to the real. It is, however, sufficient to say that, on the record before Macklin J. and the Board, it was reasonable for Macklin J. to conclude that an arguable justification for departing from the established PoD to include an annual payment component was not lifted from the conjectural or redundant and it was unreasonable for the Board to conclude otherwise. To disturb Macklin J.’s conclusions in those respects, having regard to the standard of review, would require a clear ground of appeal of arguable substance which does not exist here. [emphasis added]

Read the decision at: Enbridge Pipelines (Athabasca) Inc. v. Karpetz.

TOP

_________________________________________________________

ABlawg.ca Case Comment: A Century of Liability for an Abandoned Well

Professor Nigel Bankes of the University of Calgary has posted a commentary on a recent decision of the ERCB which confirmed that the current owner of a non-producing oil well was responsible for "re-abandonment" costs.  The well in question had not produced oil since the 1920's.
Read the case comment at: A Century of Liability for an Abandoned Well.

Read the ERCB decision at: Dalhousie Oil Company Limited.

_________________________________________________________

 
Wind Farm vs. Wind Farm in Alberta

The Alberta Court of Appeal has refused to grant leave to a wind farm developer to appeal a decision of the Pincher Creek Subdivision and Development Appeal Board made in favour of a competitor.  Heritage Wind Farm Development Inc. wanted to challenge development permits granted to Oldman 2 Wind Farm Ltd.  The Municipal District of Pincher Creek had allowed a land use by-law variance for several of Oldman's proposed wind turbines on the basis that the development would not "unduly interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood" or, "materially interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring parcels of land".  Heritage had plans to install its own wind farm on properties adjacent to the Oldman properties. 

Heritage submitted to the Board a report by Garrad Hassan Canada Inc. (Report). The Report identified two possible adverse effects on Heritage from the proximity of OM2's turbines to adjoining land Heritage leased for the purposes of its own wind farm: the proximity could cause increased fatigue loads and mechanical wear to the Heritage’s turbines and reduce their energy generating capacity. The Board’s minutes outlined the extensive evidence it heard, noting that OM2's decision about where to place its turbines was affected by many matters, including the location of raptor nests and irrigation pivots.

After hearing the arguments made by Heritage, the Court of Appeal found that the test for leave to appeal the Board's decision had not been met.  Leave could be granted on a question of law or jurisdiction if it was of sufficient importance and if the proposed appeal had a reasonable chance of success. 


Read the decision at: Heritage Wind Farm v. Pincher Creek.

_________________________________________________________

 
BC Residents Oppose Enbridge Northern Gateway Tankers, Poll Indicates

Kitimat Sentinel - Residents oppose tankers, poll indicates

An opinion poll commissioned by two groups opposing Enbridge’s planned Northern Gateway pipeline suggests the project isn’t being accepted...

Click on the link above to read the Kitimat Sentinel article.

TOP

_________________________________________________________

 
Utility Corridor Regulation in Canada: Shifting Jurisdictions

Read my article published in the Spring 2010 Newsletter of the Ontario Expropriation Association about the effect of shifting regulatory jurisdictions on easement agreements and landowners at: OEA Spring 2010 Newsletter.

_________________________________________________________

 
ABlawg.ca Comment on Tribute v. McKinley Farms Decision

Professor Nigel Bankes of the University of Calgary has posted a comment on the recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Tribute Resources v. McKinley Farms (see my post yesterday for the decision).  Read Professor Bankes' comment at: Ontario Court of Appeal holds that oil and gas lease continued by virtue of (late) payments under a unitization agreement.

TOP

_________________________________________________________

 
Ontario Court of Appeals Rules Against Oil and Gas Landowner

Tribute Resources Inc. has won a partial victory in its appeal from a decision of Justice David Little that declared an oil and gas production lease (PNG lease) and a gas storage lease (storage lease) terminated. The Court found that the storage lease has terminated, but the PNG lease is still valid and subsisting.


With respect to the PNG lease, the Court of Appeal disagreed that the termination of production from oil and gas wells, although rent was still being paid under the lease, meant termination of the lease. The Court also found that late rental payments did not cause the agreement to terminate:

The Oil and Gas Lease, as I read it, does not stipulate that failure to make the rental payments on time should operate to automatically terminate the contract. Such a construction is inconsistent with the provision of the Oil and Gas Lease that provides:

In the event of default on the part of the Operator in making any payments hereunder or in complying with any of the conditions herein contained, the Land Owner shall notify the Operator by registered mail of his intention to cancel this lease. The Operator shall have 30 days from the receipt of such notice in which to remedy such default failing which the Land Owner may proceed to cancel this lease according to law.

McKinley never gave Tribute notice of default and intention to cancel the lease but accepted the late payments.

Turning to those questions, I begin with the Gas Storage Lease. I agree with the analysis of the applications judge that the automatic termination clause of Schedule B is a true condition precedent. It provides that the Gas Storage Lease will terminate on the tenth anniversary date “if and only if” Tribute or “some other person” has not made an application to the OEB. The words of the clause and the contract read as a whole do not indicate that the automatic termination provision was for the benefit of one party or the other. Rather, the parties chose a particular event, the non-occurrence of which would terminate the contract. The clause does not place any obligation of performance on Tribute that McKinley could waive. The applications judge was correct to find that the initial acceptance of the rental payment for the ensuing year could not constitute a waiver or estoppel by conduct on the part of McKinley. The applications judge was correct to grant the declaration that the Gas Storage Lease terminated on September 24, 2008.

Also of note in the case is the Court's comment on the applicability of the recent Snopko v. Union Gas decision (also from the Court of Appeal), which confirmed the Ontario Energy Board's exclusive jurisdiction over gas storage agreements. In this decision, the Court clarified that the OEB's exclusive jurisdiction commences only when it has designated a storage area under the OEB Act. In this case, where no designation order had been made (and no storage of gas was taking place), the Court's jurisdiction to determine questions about the termination of the storage agreement was not affected by the OEB Act.

Read the Court of Appeal decision at: Tribute Resources Inc. v. McKinley Farms Ltd., 2010 ONCA 392 (CanLII)

Read Justice Little's original decision at: Tribute Resources Inc. v. McKinley Farms Inc., 2009 CanLII 33043 (ON S.C.)

TOP

_________________________________________________________

 
Energy Pipeline News - Wisconsin County Drops Charges Against Landowner in Enbridge Case

Noel Griese of Energy Pipeline News reports:

SUPERIOR, Wis. - A northwestern Wisconsin man who was arrested for trespassing on his own property no longer faces charges.

During a pretrial hearing in Douglas County on May 24, 27-year-old Jeremy Engelking learned prosecutors will not pursue a disorderly conduct charge against him. A trespassing charge was dropped earlier.

Engelking wound up in jail after confronting an Enbridge work crew building a pipeline across his property in 2009. He told the workers they had no right to be on his property because he hadn't been compensated by the pipeline builder, Enbridge Energy Partners, for an easement. The Enbridge crew called in the local police who arrested and charged Engelking.

Engelking is reportedly considering a civil lawsuit now that the criminal charges against him have been dropped.

_________________________________________________________

 
Kinder Morgan Challenges Whether NEB Should Entertain the Enbridge Northern Gateway Application

Kinder Morgan Canada (KMC) says that Enbridge's recently-filed Northern Gateway Application lacks the necessary evidence of commercial support for the project, meaning that Enbridge has not demonstrated the need for the project.  KMC's lawyer writes to the National Energy Board in his June 1, 2010 letter:

KMC respectfully submits the filed Northern Gateway application is incomplete and does not comply with the requirements of section 52 of the National Energy Board Act ("NEB Act") or the filing requirements.  Notably, the application is not supported by a successful open season process, nor is the application supported with any level of binding commercial support to demonstrate the need and necessity of the applied-for facilities.  In fact, in late 2005 Northern Gateway held open seasons for both the oil pipeline and condensate pipeline, respectively, and although Northern Gateway received "expressions of interest", this did not result in any binding shipping commitments.  In KMC's view, these shortfalls represent serious deficiencies and do not meet the Board's test for economic feasibility set out in the Alliance Pipeline decision.  Without at least some real and substantial evidence of need and necessity, the application appears to be intended to provide the applicant some type of competitive advantage so that it may pursue commercial support that it has not been able to achieve to date.  It appears to KMC that Enbridge is pursuing approval in advance of a demonstrated need for the project in order to create an "option to build" and use that option as part of its marketing process.

For these and other reasons, KMC has requested that the NEB defer further consideration of the Enbridge application until sufficient evidence of need for the project has been presented.

TOP

 
Canada’s National Energy Board Creating a “Remediation Process Guide” to Sign Off on Pipeline Company Contamination

The National Energy Board (NEB) says on its website that it has:
... developed a draft Remediation Process Guide (Guide) for industry to follow to ensure successful remediation of soil and groundwater contamination. The goal of this Guide is to provide a clear process for submitting remediation information. If remediation is determined to be successful then the NEB will provide a letter to that effect. The NEB will be hosting a technical meeting on 14 October 2010 in Calgary at a location to be determined to answer any questions and hear comments that interested parties may have. Parties wishing to provide written comments on the Guide are requested to do so by 1 December 2010. The Board will finalize the Guide shortly thereafter.
In the draft guide, the NEB says it makes every effort to ensure industry follows procedures to minimize releases, leaks and spills, but from time to time "accidents can occur". In reality, the NEB operates on the basis of "goal-oriented regulation" whereby the Board sets goals and allows companies to decide how they will achieve those goals. However, as we have seen with the BP disaster and the recent Enbridge spill in Michigan, "goal-oriented regulation" simply doesn't work when it comes to an all or nothing proposition like environmental contamination. How many spills will it take before the regulator steps in and tells companies what they need to do to protect the environment?

The NEB also says that it is the "lead agency" for all contamination incidents related to its pipelines. Landowners should be cautious to accept this approach. NEB requirements regarding contamination (including both new spills and the discovery of historical contamination) may not match protections afforded to landowners under provincial environmental legislation. Why should landowners have less protection from contamination just because the NEB is involved?

The aspect of the proposed Remediation Process Guide that should be most concerning to landowners is the proposed "Remediation Closure Letter". Essentially, the NEB will issue letters to companies who have contaminated the environment stating that remediation is complete and the NEB's file is closed. The NEB says that its "expectation for reclamation is that the land is restored to a state comparable with the surrounding environment". That is not necessarily the standard to which landowners are entitled to have their properties remediated under provincial laws and/or the common law. Landowners should be demanding clean-up to the highest level possible under applicable law. Also, what is to stop the NEB from issuing such a letter to a company before the company has adequately compensated the landowner for the damage caused? What would that letter do to a landowner's negotiating position?

The NEB's proposal is troubling in that it perpetuates the problems associated with its policy of "goal-oriented regulation". Companies are allowed to do what they want to avoid contaminating the environment, but when they do contaminate, they can rest assured that the NEB will sign off on their response. In other words, the NEB's protection of the environment is limited to stepping in after contamination has occurred in order to validate the steps the company has taken to address the contamination. There is still nothing in place to ensure that the contamination does not occur in the first place. Is this an acknowledgement on the part of the NEB that there is nothing that can be done to prevent spills that will inevitably occur as pipeline infrastructure ages and corrodes?

Click on this link to read the proposed guide: NEB Draft Contamination Remediation Guide.

TOP

_________________________________________________________

Enbridge Cited for Problems in U.S.

CBC News - World - Enbridge cited for problems in U.S.

CBC News is reporting:

• Enbridge Inc. and its affiliates have been cited for 30 enforcement actions since 2002 by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration;
• The PHMSA sent a warning letter to Enbridge in January about suspected violations in its corrosion monitoring program (corrosion in the pipeline appears to be the cause of the rupture and spill in Michigan);
• The US EPA estimates 3.8 million litres have spilled into the Kalamazoo River system, while Enbridge says it is 3.1 million litres;
• Enbridge spilled almost 71,900 litres of oil into the Nemadji River in Wisconsin in 2003;
• Enbridge spilled 200,000 gallons of oil in northern Wisconsin in 2007 (in two separate spills).

Click on the link above to read the article.

_________________________________________________________

 
Enbridge's Michigan Oil Cleanup 'Inadequate' Says Governor

CBC News - Windsor - Michigan oil cleanup 'inadequate': governor

Click on the link above to read the CBC's latest story on the Enbridge oil spill in Michigan. Nearly 3.7 million litres of oil have spilled into the Kalamazoo River system.

_________________________________________________________

 
CBC News - Photos of the Enbridge Oil Spill in Michigan

Read the CBC News story and view photographs of the oil spill at: CBC News - Windsor - Enbridge pipeline spills into Michigan river.

TOP

_________________________________________________________

Enbridge Energy Partners Update on Michigan Leak Clean-Up

Enbridge Energy Partners Update on Michigan Leak Clean-Up

HOUSTON, TEXAS, Jul 27, 2010 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) --

Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. (NYSE: EEP) (the "Partnership") today provided an update on the progress being made in the clean-up efforts undertaken in response to the leak that occurred on Line 6B near Marshall, Michigan the morning of July 26, 2010. Community health and safety, and environmental mitigation remain top priorities.

"Crews worked through the night on containment, including the use of booms, oil skimmers and vacuum trucks. Additional crews and equipment will be onsite early Tuesday to assist with oil containment. We had approximately 50 people working through the night and we expect over 100 workers on-site during the day," said Stephen J. Wuori, Executive Vice-President, Liquids Pipelines, Enbridge Inc.

Emergency response crews are stationed along Tallmadge Creek and the Kalamazoo River to contain the oil. Crews are reclaiming the oil using a variety of different methods, including oil collection skimmers, containment and absorbent booms. A temporary dike and flume arrangement has been secured near the point of origin of the leak stopping transport into the tributary creek.

The cleanup is being conducted in compliance with all government regulations and Enbridge's own stringent standards for safety and the environment, and is being coordinated under the direction of a unified command structure at the site. Plans for remediation and reclamation of the site will be developed with the input of affected stakeholders and environmental regulators, the state and federal authorities.

"We are currently focused on bringing all available resources to bear in our efforts to safely contain the leaked oil on the Kalamazoo River. We have brought in multiple crews of trained Enbridge personnel, and continue to draw on our contractors to further augment our resources. We are members of emergency response organizations, and will continue to work with experts from those organizations to address the current situation and longer-term clean up and remediation efforts," said Mr. Wuori.

Enbridge is monitoring water quality at many points along Tallmadge Creek and Kalamazoo River and is taking measures to protect fish and wildlife from coming into contact with the spilled oil. Fish and wildlife specialists are on site to help rehabilitate affected animals.

"We'd like to acknowledge the impact this has had on the people of Marshall and the surrounding community," continued Mr. Wuori. "We extend our apologies to the people who have been affected by this. Enbridge understands that the leak has disrupted people's lives and had a major impact on the people in this community, on the environment and on wildlife. We ask you for your patience and your input as we work to clean up this leak."

The full community and environmental impacts are still being assessed. Enbridge will continue to work with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality to complete the environmental cleanup of the site, and is working with state and local emergency response agencies to address local impacts and concerns.

"Enbridge expresses its sincere appreciation to the community of Marshall and surrounding areas emergency responders for their professional, diligent and supportive actions," said Mr. Wuori.

At this point in time, the Partnership cannot provide an estimated time for restart of the Line 6B pipeline. Enbridge appreciates the cooperation of shippers on the Enbridge system in realigning deliveries. Enbridge will work closely with all connecting carriers and refiners to minimize any service impact resulting from the leak.

The cause of the leak remains under active investigation with complete results not expected for several weeks. The section of pipeline involved will be removed and transported to a third party facility for examination and testing. Enbridge continues to work closely with federal and state agencies in the investigation, including the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), along with state and local public safety officials.

Line 6B is a 30-inch, 190,000 bpd line transporting light synthetics, heavy and medium crude oil from Griffith, Indiana to Sarnia, Ontario. It is part of the Partnership's Lakehead System.

SOURCE: Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P.

usmedia@enbridge.com
eep@enbridge.com
http://www.enbridgeus.com/

_________________________________________________________

Enbridge Spills 19,500 Barrels of Crude Oil Into Tributary of Kalamazoo River in Michigan

Enbridge Energy Partners Lakehead System Pipeline Leaks Crude Oil Near Marshall, Michigan

HOUSTON, TEXAS, Jul 26, 2010 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) --

Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. (NYSE: EEP) (the "Partnership") reported today that a pipeline on its Lakehead System leaked at approximately 9:45 a.m. CDT near the company's Marshall, Mich., pump station. Initial estimates are that approximately 19,500 barrels of crude oil may have been released as a result. The pipeline was shut down and isolation valves were closed, stopping the source of the oil.

No one was injured. Oil was released into a creek; the affected creek is a tributary of the Kalamazoo River, and Enbridge confirms that oil has entered the river. Enbridge crews, complemented by contract resources, were immediately dispatched to the site and are deploying oil skimmers and absorbent booms on the creek and river to minimize environmental impacts.

"Enbridge is treating this situation as a top priority," said Terrance McGill, President of the Partnership. "We are bringing all available resources to bear -- ranging from emergency response and containment personnel to environment and water quality specialists.

"Safety is a top priority and the Partnership will do our utmost to minimize the impact on the environment, neighboring landowners and communities. Enbridge's environmental response team is working closely with local agencies and all emergency officials to complete the clean up as quickly as possible."

Enbridge has notified and is working with the appropriate regulators and emergency officials. The cause of the release has not been determined and is being investigated.

At this time, Enbridge does not have an estimated time for restart of the line.

Line 6B is a 30-inch, 190,000 bpd line transporting light synthetics, heavy and medium crude oil from Griffith, Indiana to Sarnia, Ontario. It is part of the Partnership's Lakehead System.

About Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P.

Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. (www.enbridgepartners.com) owns and operates a diversified portfolio of crude oil and natural gas transportation systems in the United States, including the Enbridge North Dakota System. Its principal crude oil system is the largest transporter of growing oil production from western Canada. The system's deliveries to refining centers and connected carriers in the United States account for approximately 12 per cent of total U.S. oil imports; while deliveries to Ontario, Canada satisfy approximately 60 per cent of refinery demand in that region. EEP's natural gas gathering, treating, processing and transmission assets, which are principally located onshore in the active U.S. Mid-Continent and Gulf Coast area, deliver approximately 2 billion cubic feet of natural gas daily.

Enbridge Energy Management, L.L.C. (NYSE: EEQ) (www.enbridgemanagement.com) manages the business and affairs of EEP and its sole asset is an approximate 14 per cent interest in EEP. Enbridge Energy Company, Inc., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Enbridge Inc. of Calgary, Alberta, is the general partner and holds an approximate 27 percent interest in EEP.

This news release includes forward-looking statements and projections, which are statements that do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. These statements frequently use the following words, variations thereon or comparable terminology: "anticipate," "expect," or "will." Forward-looking statements involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions and are not guarantees of performance. Future actions, conditions or events and future results of operations may differ materially from those expressed in these forward-looking statements. Many of the factors that will determine these results are beyond Enbridge Partners' ability to control or predict. Reference should also be made to Enbridge Partners' filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; including its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the most recently completed fiscal year, for additional factors that may affect results. These filings are available to the public over the Internet at the SEC's web site (www.sec.gov) and via the Partnership's web site.

Contacts:

Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P.
Larry Springer
Media
(713) 821-2253 or Toll free: (877) 496-8142
usmedia@enbridge.com

Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P.
Douglas Montgomery
Investment Community
Toll-free: (866) EEP INFO or (866) 337-4636
eep@enbridge.com
http://www.enbridgeus.com/

SOURCE: Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P.

usmedia@enbridge.com
eep@enbridge.com
http://www.enbridgeus.com/

TOP

_________________________________________________________

 
Application for Judicial Review of Wind Turbine Setbacks before Ontario Divisional Court

Ian Hanna has made an application to the Ontario Divisional Court challenging the validity of wind turbine setback regulations made under the Environmental Protection Act.  The setbacks relate to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) Noise Guidelines for Wind Farms, and were prescribed on October 1, 2009 following a period of public consultation.

In the application, the applicant will argue that the regulation was not properly adopted. Section 11 of the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993, S.O. 1993, c. 28 requires the Minister of the Environment to “take every reasonable step to ensure that the ministry statement of environmental values is considered whenever decisions that might significantly affect the environment are made in the ministry”.  In the Statement of Environmental Values (“SEV”), the Ministry sets out principles it will apply in developing Acts, regulations and policies. Ten bullets follow, one of which is “The Ministry uses a precautionary, science-based approach in its decision-making to protect human health and the environment”.  The applicant will argue that the provisions under challenge do not comply with the precautionary principle. The affidavits in support of his position set out concerns about the adverse health effects of wind turbines and the uncertainty surrounding this issue. They are meant to show the government’s lack of compliance with the precautionary principle, as established in the SEV and in international law and the common law.

A recent interlocutory decision (i.e. a decision made during the course of the proceedings rather than a final decision at the end of the proceedings) concerning the admissibility of expert evidence to be submitted by the applicant is available at : Hanna v. Attorney-General for Ontario.

_________________________________________________________

 
Sierra Club Asks NEB for Intervenor Funding to Participate in Offshore Drilling Consultation Process

The National Energy Board has recently publicized its move toward introducing a funding process for intervenors in its public hearings.  The Sierra Club has written this week to request funding to participate in a consultation process concerning offshore oil drilling in Canada.  Will funding be made available? 

_________________________________________________________

 
Nova Scotia - Nuttby Mountain Wind Turbines Arrive

CBC News - Nova Scotia - Nuttby Mountain Wind Turbines Arrive

Nova Scotia Power's plan to generate power from five new wind farms by the end of 2010 took a step forward this week at the 45-megawatt farm under construction on Nuttby Mountain, near Truro.  Read the CBC News article at the link above.

_________________________________________________________

 
Smith v. Alliance Pipeline Appeal to be Heard by Supreme Court of Canada on October 5th

The October 5th hearing date for the appeal by Alberta farmer Vernon Smith to the Supreme Court of Canada has been confirmed.  This is an appeal from a decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal which overturned an NEB Act arbitration committee decision that awarded Smith his costs of a court case initiated by Alliance Pipelines.  A number of other Alliance landowners had applied to intervene in the case, but the Supreme Court dismissed their application on June 7, 2010. 

The fact that the Supreme Court has chosen to hear this case signifies its importance and, perhaps, the need to clarify the law involved.  You can read the written arguments filed by the parties at:

Smith (Appellant) Factum

Alliance (Respondent) Factum

TOP

_________________________________________________________

 
Enbridge Pipelines Finds Inadequate Cover Widespread on Ontario Line 9

Yesterday, Enbridge Pipelines Inc. filed 73 notifications with the National Energy Board (NEB) related to the correction of insufficient depth of cover on its Line 9 pipeline in the vicinity of waterbodies.  It appears that most if not all of the notifications relate to the installation of protective covers over the pipe as it crosses drainage ditches.  The corrective measures are being carried out following depth of cover surveys by Enbridge.  As Enbridge is not required to file notifications of depth of cover work that is not in the vicinity of waterbodies or watercourses, it is not known how many other locations were identified as having insufficient depth of cover.

Under the applicable CSA standards, pipelines in agricultural lands must have no less than 2 feet of cover. 

_________________________________________________________

 
Joint Review Panel Asking for Comments on Enbridge Northern Gateway Application

The Joint Review Panel created to hear Enbridge's application for the Northern Gateway Pipeline has released a procedural order requesting comments from interested parties:

The entire procedural direction can be viewed at: Joint Panel Procedural Direction.

While the order requires that Enbridge serve a number of parties with a copy of the order, there still seems to be no requirement that Enbridge notify affected non-Aboriginal landowners directly regarding the Joint Review Panel process or this comment submission process. 

Written comments must be received by the Panel no later than September 8, 2010.  There will also be three panel sessions held to hear oral comments.  The dates for the sessions and deadlines for registration are set out in the order.

If you're a landowner along the proposed route, or know someone who is, you can find out more about how landowners may be affected by the pipeline and what they can do to respond by contacting the Canadian Association of Energy and Pipeline Landowner Associations (CAEPLA). Visit CAEPLA's website at: http://www.landownerassociation.ca/.

_________________________________________________________

 
NEB Says Its Process Setting Location of International Power Line Without a Public Hearing Complied with Canadian Bill of Rights

The National Energy Board (NEB) has rejected a request by landowners for review of its decision to grant Montana Alberta Tie Ltd. (MATL) a permit to construct and operate an International Power Line (IPL) between Alberta and Montana.  Affected landowners participated in proceedings before the provincial EUB, then lost on appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal, and had their application for leave to appeal that decision dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada.  They argued, in part, that the determination of the route of the proposed IPL is to be determined by the provincial regulator, not the NEB. 

The landowners asked the NEB to review and overturn its own permit decision because the NEB had itself decided on the location and routing of the IPL in a process that did not include a public hearing.  The landowners argued that Parliament, when it drafted the NEB Act, did not intend that the NEB could decide the location and routing of the IPL without a public hearing.  In fact, they argued that Parliament instead intended that the provincial regulator would determine the location of the line.  The NEB disagreed with both arguments and rejected the request for review of its decision.

One particularly interesting part of this case is the discussion of the Canadian Bill of Rights, which was passed into law in the 1960's and remains on the books today (even though the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted in 1982).  What is different about the Bill of Rights, which applies to the Federal Government, is that it contains a protection for property rights: “enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law.”  The NEB agreed with MATL that this right did not require that the NEB hold a public hearing.  The NEB ruled that its own process of allowing interested parties to file comments on its proposed decision was sufficient to meet the test for "due process of law". 

Read the NEB's decision at: Montana Alberta Tie Ltd. (MATL).

_________________________________________________________

 
Case Comment on the R. v. Syncrude Guilty Verdict

Assistant Professor Shaun Fluker of the University of Calgary has posted a comment on the recent decision in R. v. Syncrude involving the deaths of 1,600 ducks in a tarsands tailings pond.  Click here: The Case of the 1600 dead ducks: The verdict is in - Syncrude guilty under the Migratory Birds Convention Act.

_________________________________________________________

Ontario Power Authority Lowers Price for Ground-Mounted Solar Power

TOP

 
Roundtable Raises Questions About Effectiveness of Public Participation Processes in Alberta Energy Matters

Nickie Vlavianos is an Assistant Professor with the Faculty of Law at the University of Calgary.  She has recently published an article for the Canadian Institute of Resources Law's publication, "Resources", titled "The Issues and Challenges with Public Participation in Energy and Natural Resources Development in Alberta".  Professor Vlavianos outlines the themes that emerged from a round table discussion held by the Institute in April, 2010.  Among the primary issues and challenges identified at the round table were:

• the need for more effective public participation at policy and planning stages;
• the need for public participation at the Crown mineral and surface rights disposition stages;
• the need to address several aspects of existing participation processes including the question of whether stakeholder consultation by industry really amounts to public participation in energy and resources development decision making

Read the full article at: Nickie Vlavianos re public participation.

_________________________________________________________

 
Updates on the Enbridge Oil Spill in Michigan

Enbridge executives provided updates on clean-up activities in Michigan at a news conference yesterday:

Patrick Daniel, President & CEO, Enbridge Inc.

We continue to make very good progress on clean-up at the leak site and also along Talmadge Creek and we're now well underway with clean-up on the Kalamazoo River as well.

I was at the Ceresco Dam and also visited Heritage Park yesterday and the river is significantly improved at those locations from what it was a week, two weeks or three weeks ago.

The primary clean-up on the banks of Talmadge Creek is now over half complete and we continue to make very good progress in preparing the lower half of the creek shoreline to be scraped and cleaned as well.

We're also, of course, very pleased that our eight work plans have now been approved by EPA.

Personally I continue to work very closely with residents in the most directly impacted areas. These are people whose lives and routines have been temporarily disrupted by the spill and now by the workers and the equipment and the noise associated with the clean-up, but thankfully that is starting to lessen in many areas.

The number of visits to our Battle Creek and Marshall Community Centers continue to decline. Some are coming in of course to file claims which are being handled while others have come in simply for information with regard to the spill and I remind residents that the facility is available for both purposes.

Since the voluntary evacuation was lifted for all residents, many of the people who chose to evacuate are beginning to leave the area hotels now and return to their homes which is also very good news. We look forward to getting this community resettled in advance of school starting later this month and, as indicated earlier, relocating our emergency response facilities out of the school.

Steve Wuori, Executive Vice President, Liquids Pipelines, Enbridge Pipelines Inc.

I'll just talk about a couple of areas. One is the Talmadge Creek clean-up which is progressing very quickly and, as Pat said, is over half complete in terms of the excavation so far. We're moving that very quickly because we really want to reduce the heavy equipment traffic as we head toward the end of the month as much as we possibly can and that's why the activity is so intense. We are now west of I69 and working our way down toward the Kalamazoo River in terms of the final scraping of that area.

In terms of the river, in addition to the comments that Mark Durno from the EPA made earlier I'll just note that the river has been sectioned into quarter mile sections that have been individually assessed. There's a shoreline assessment process that is looking at the shoreline on both sides of the river and that's now been completed.

Up until this point most of the work has been removal of oiled vegetation along the shoreline and now we'll move to the second stage of the clean-up which is working on the soils themselves and the lower vegetation, grasses and so on. So, that's what's really happening along the river and there will be a continual intensity of workforce out there now working on those individual areas as we've identified them.

There was a question on the earlier call with regard to the work near Albion and I can confirm that that is one of the dig sites that we are working on in preparation for the test of the line. That's near the community of Albion. It's a very wet location so we had to drive sheet piling and we're de-watering that sheet piling area right now and preparing to examine the pipe. So, I think that addresses the question about what was happening in the Albion area.

_________________________________________________________

 
Michigan Representative Says Enbridge Repeatedly Restarted Pipeline after Rupture

Noel Griese of Energy Pipeline News has a report on statements made on August 4 by Representative Mark Schauer (Dem.) of Michigan about the recent Enbridge oil spill into the Kalamazoo River.  The National Transportation Safety Board thinks the rupture occurred around 6 p.m. on July 25, when the pipeline was shut down for maintenance.  Schauer says that Enbridge restarted the pipeline at 4:26 a.m. on July 26 and repeatedly turned it on and off for the next several hours because of spikes in readings, Schauer said. Each time the line was restarted, more oil would spew from the five-foot-long rupture or “smile” in the compromised pipeline. That would explain the exceptionally large volume spilled.

Read the article below:

TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. - A member of Congress said on Aug. 4 that Enbridge Inc. violated federal regulations by dragging its feet on reporting a pipeline rupture that poured up to a million gallons of oil into a Michigan waterway, although the company alleges it met legal requirements.

Rep. Mark Schauer, a Michigan Democrat, said he was convinced, based on a preliminary NTSB investigation, that the massive leak began the night of July 25, although the Canadian company insists it didn't confirm the spill was occurring until about 11:30 a.m. the next morning.

Schauer said Enbridge began laying boom material to contain the oil, but then took two more hours to file a report with the National Response Center. Federal rules require pipeline operators to report releases of more than five gallons of hazardous liquids to the NRC "at the earliest practicable moment" following their discovery.

The National Transportation Safety Board believes the rupture may have occurred shortly before 6 p.m. on July 25, when Enbridge shut down the pipeline for maintenance, Schauer said. Alarms at Enbridge's control center signaled a drop in pressure then. Within hours, people in the Marshall, Mich., area were reporting strong gas odors to 911, increasing the likelihood the spill actually occurred on July 25, rather than on July 26 as contended by Enbridge.
Enbridge Inc. CEO Patrick Daniel said the company was "well within federal regulations with regard to reporting requirements."

Enbridge restarted the pipeline at 4:26 a.m. on July 26 and repeatedly turned it on and off for the next several hours because of spikes in readings, Schauer said. Each time the line was restarted, more oil would spew from the five-foot-long rupture or “smile” in the compromised pipeline. That would explain the exceptionally large volume spilled.

A company technician visited the site at 9:49 a.m. on July 26 but found nothing amiss, he said. Enbridge confirmed the leak only after being notified by Consumers Energy at 11:16 a.m., Schauer said.

_________________________________________________________

 
Enbridge Michigan Oil Spill Originated from Five Foot Long Tear in Pipe

An Enbridge company representative has reported that the breach in the Enbridge pipeline that spilled crude oil into the Kalamazoo River was less than five feet (1.5 metres) long.  Crews have extracted a 50 foot section of pipe that includes the torn section and sent it off to Washington for analysis by the National Transportation Safety Board.  A replacement section is being welded into place, but it is not known when the pipeline will resume operation.  U.S. authorities must approve a restart plan and will likely require that the pipeline be operated at reduced pressures.  The U.S. EPA is investigating whether Enbridge was negligent in the period leading up to the spill on July 26th. 

_________________________________________________________

 
Enbridge Wants to Avoid Lawsuits - Offers to Buy Homes in Vicinity of Oil Spill

Phaedra Friend Troy of Penn Energy has reported on the Enbridge response to threats of legal action.  Patrick Daniel, Enbridge's CEO, says that no one has to sue in order to be "made whole".  Enbridge has actually offered to purchase all of the properties within 200 feet of the Kalamazoo River spill.  The price offered is the asking price for the homes before the spill or the pre-spill appraised value of homes that were not already offered for sale.

Read the article at: Penn Energy article - August 4, 2010.

_________________________________________________________

 
National Transportation Safety Board - Enbridge Oil Spill Timeline

NTSB probe validates Enbridge's account of oil spill detnews.com The Detroit News

Click on the link above to read The Detroit News article about Enbridge's response to the oil spill in Michigan. The article includes a detailed timeline based on the preliminary results of the investigation of the spill by the US National Transportation Safety Board.

_________________________________________________________

 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Dissatisfied with Enbridge Clean-Up Plan

CBC News - World - Enbridge must file river cleanup plan

The US EPA has rejected a long-term clean-up plan filed by Enbridge in the aftermath of its massive oil spill in Michigan because of "deficiencies in content and technical details".  Read the CBC story by clicking on the link above.

In Canada, I posted earlier this week about plans by the National Energy Board to provide an approval mechanism for contamination remediation by companies like Enbridge.  It's not hard to see the difference in approach being followed in the United States, at least in the wake of the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.  South of the border, it's not the energy project approval body that will decide when the contamination has been cleaned up appropriately - it's the EPA.  In other words, it's not a body whose primary concern is the ongoing development of the energy sector.  Canada has Environment Canada and the provincial ministries of the environment.  Landowners should be asking why the NEB is choosing to step into this issue at this time.

TOP