TylerDurden
100 GW
Report slams Enbridge Energy's history of oil spills
By Eric D. Lawrence
Detroit Free Press Staff Writer
A National Wildlife Federation report released today criticizes Enbridge Energy’s plans to expand its pipeline capacity in Michigan and elsewhere in North America in light of the company’s more than 800 oil spills between 1999 and 2010.
The release of the report comes two days ahead of the two-year anniversary of the spill in Marshall that dumped, depending on the estimate, more than 800,000 to more than 1 million gallons of tar sands oil into a creek that feeds into the Kalamazoo River. The more than $800-million cleanup is continuing, although most of the affected portions of the river were reopened to recreation this year. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration has proposed a $3.7-million fine against Enbridge for its handling of the spill.
“The Kalamazoo spill may have been a poster child for corporate negligence but it is far from the company’s only black mark. According to Enbridge’s own reports, between 1999 and 2010, they have been responsible for at least 800 spills that have released close to seven million gallons of heavy crude oil into the environment — or approximately half the amount of oil that spilled from the Exxon Valdez in 1989,” according to the report, “Importing Disaster — The Anatomy of Enbridge’s Once and Future Spills.”
Jeremy Symons, senior vice president for the National Wildlife Federation, noted that the company clearly 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.
“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, Maine.
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.
A phone message seeking comment was left with Enbridge spokesman Jason Manshum.
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 in 2010, even though the oil is shipped across the border into Canada. That line travels through 11 Michigan counties, including Oakland, Macomb and Washtenaw.
“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.
http://www.freep.com/article/20120723/NEWS06/120723045/National-Wildlife-Federation-report-Enbridge-Energy-oil-spills?odyssey=nav%7Chead
