A National Wildlife Federation report released Monday criticizes Enbridge Energy’s plans to expand its pipeline capacity in North America, including its reach in Portland, Maine, in light of the company’s more than 800 oil spills between 1999 and 2010.
Jeremy Symons, senior vice president for the National Wildlife Federation, noted that the company did not respond well following the 54 spills totaling more than 1.2 million gallons it had in 1999 because of the large number of spills in each of the subsequent years in studied in the report. In 2010, the company had 91 spills totaling 1.4 million gallons, according to the report ” Importing Disaster — The Anatomy of Enbridge’s Once and Future Spills.”
“You can’t make the same mistake 800 times,” Symons said during a conference call with reporters, indicating that the company’s history shows how it will perform in the future.
He referenced Enbridge’s plans for the Northern Gateway pipeline project that would ship oil to Asia through western Canada and the expansion plans for the company’s pipeline through Michigan that the National Wildlife Federation contends will eventually connect to Portland.
The Gateway project also has critics in Canada. British Columbia Premier Christy Clark warned that “the environmental risks associated with a plan to sell Canadian oil to Asia through the Northern Gateway pipeline outweigh the economic benefits,” according to a story in the (Toronto) Globe and Mail on Sunday.
“Giving Enbridge (the) green light to build a new pipeline is like giving someone who’s drunk the keys to the car. It’s irresponsible,” Symons said.
Enbridge spokesman Jason Manshum called the report irresponsible and said it contains numerous errors and misrepresentations. He said the Marshall spill was an accident and that the company’s goal is zero incidents.
“According to publicly available incident data on the U.S. pipeline regulators website, Enbridge has had, over the past five years, seven leaks exceeding 10 barrels (13 leaks in all that were more than five gallons) on our cross-country pipelines in the United States. The remainder of the incidents involved leaks in equipment and within the stations or terminals,” Manshum wrote in an e-mail.
There are 42 gallons in a barrel of oil.
The National Wildlife Federation contends that Enbridge has managed to skirt federal oversight of the expansion of the Line 6B pipeline through Michigan, the same line that ruptured in Marshall, Mich., in 2010, even though the oil is shipped across the border into Canada.
“In fact, Enbridge has continued to put forth, piece by piece, projects labeled as ‘maintenance and rehabilitation,’ when in fact, each piece is replacing a majority of the existing Line 6B line with larger pipe. Once completed, this new line will almost triple the capacity of the old one to create a system capable of shipping 33.6 million (gallons) per day, nearly as much as the contentious Keystone XL pipeline,” the report said.
Enbridge says the new pipeline is safer than the old line because it is approximately twice as thick. The company touts the economic benefits of the project, including the creation of 1,000 construction jobs in 2013, and says the expansion is needed based on projected demand from its customers.
Among other recommendations, the National Wildlife Federation report calls for implementing stronger pipeline safety standards that account for the dangers of transporting Canadian tar sands oil and ensuring a thorough review of all pipeline projects. The report calls tar sands oil “the planet’s dirtiest oil.” Environmental groups and pipeline safety advocates have raised concerns about the corrosiveness and toxicity of tar sands oil, while Enbridge says there is no difference between tar sands oil and other forms of crude. The National Academy of Sciences is studying the impact of tar sands oil on pipelines.
Manshum, the Enbridge spokesman, said that “crude oil from the oil sands region of Alberta is not more corrosive than other traditional heavy crudes,”
(c)2012 the Detroit Free Press
Distributed by MCT Information Services
The spills are always “an accident.” The Kalamazoo Spill was not even known to Enbridge engineers for a FULL 17 HOURS after the rupture took place that dumped nearly a million gallons of heated, toxic diluted bitumen into the watershed of the Kalamazoo River. Crews attempted twice to restart the flow in the pipeline, once at a shift change, NOT KNOWING THE RUPTURE HAD EVEN OCCURRED. Heated, toxic diluted bitumen spewed from the pipe for hours before it was even RECOGNIZED as a spill.
Many of the chemicals that are used in the dilution of the tar-like bitumen, such as carcinogenic benzene, are toxic… but what is perhaps more important is the mixture is secret… proprietary… “trust us” we know what we are doing chemicals that FIRST RESPONDERS of such disasters often HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE FACING… Material Data Safety Sheet records are NOT available when such proprietary chemicals are kept as TRADE SECRETS, endangering the lives and health of those that handle or come into contact with them… Fracking chemicals fall under the same category. The industry says “TRUST US…” Too frequently the American people say, “ummmm, ok…..” And especially after the industry LIES about its safety record, its concern for more than the bottom line profits, its responsibility to society to operate honestly, competently, responsibly.
For more information on the Kalamazoo spill, the exorbitantly expensive clean up still on-going with no end in sight, the dangers to harbors such as Portland Harbor:
http://sdemetri.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/the-spill-from-hell/
Pound that cap key…lol
I am no lover of oil corporations, but until we experiment with renewable sources (wind, tidal, bios, photo voltaics , all of which seem to be unacceptable) we will have to accept a certain amount of spills and other environmental damage. We cannot have it both ways. Until we build a mass transit system to get us out our cars we will need to tolerate oil spills.
It’s just a business doing business and reaping huge profits. Leave them alone. Besides, they hire people who are not related to the governor.
While the NWF report is clearly something that needs to be read and considered, I would be much more inclined to give a report from an objective source more credence. The NWF report on it’s face is clearly written to advance their group’s position and as such is subject to bias. What does need to be seen and read is the NTSB’s report on this, and the Montana pipeline rupture, that point ot what happend, and what needs to be done to prevent it. Then, and I know some of you are start screaming, the DEP and Enbridge need to sit down and use these report’s to plan for their pipeline’s expansion or replacement. That and some open and calm discussion and debate about this. The alternative of just comng out and saying ‘NO’ and throwing a temper tantrum is not an option.
Mike,
It is time to throw a temper tnatrum at the behavior of these corporations. You mean a more objective report by someone hired by the company which is what usually happens? The NWF may have an agenda to save wildlife (for hunters) but they are more likely to be telling you like it is and the links posted here are very revealing about the lack of prevention and competence exhibited by the company 800 times.
I’m familiar with that spill near Kalamazoo. If you lived nearby you would be singing a different tune, my friend.
This is what happens when no one goes to jail