Enbridge is assuring city staff that shutoff valves are not necessary to protect Hamilton’s largest stream, but has made no response to concerns about nationally significant wetlands crossed by the 40-year-old pipeline in which the company wants to expand capacity and transport diluted bitumen. The continuing conflict over more costly conditions being imposed on Line 9 by the National Energy Board is just one example of the push for greater municipal and provincial say about pipeline proposals including a massive cross-country project that would carry nearly four times more bitumen to export markets (video).
TransCanada’s Energy East proposal would convert a natural gas pipeline and extend it to carry 1.1 million barrels a day from the Alberta tar sands across northern and eastern Ontario to new tanker ports on the St Lawrence River and in New Brunswick. Like the two stalled pipeline routes across British Columbia, Energy East is facing a wall of opposition that now includes conditions imposed by Canada’s two largest provinces, and an environmental report that has now forced at least the temporary abandonment of the St Lawrence tanker terminal.
The threat imposed on endangered Beluga whales is the official reason why TransCanada Corp has stopped work on the St Lawrence port, but the company also faces a unanimous Quebec legislature resolution demanding an environmental assessment “that includes in particular the overall contribution of the Energy East project to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions.”
The climate change evaluation was reiterated in seven conditions imposed on the pipeline project by Premier Wynne of Ontario and Premier Couillard of Quebec, but that has subsequently been modified to apparently exclude both the emissions from extracting and processing at the tar sands, and those produced by burning the oil shipped through the pipe. That backtracking is being challenged with letters and petitions to the two premiers from several citizen organizations including the Council of Canadians and Environmental Defence.
The upstream emissions in the Alberta tar sands alone would add 32 million tonnes of CO2 equal to putting an extra 7 million cars on the road, and completely cancel out the reductions achieved by Ontario in shutting down its coal-fired electricity plants. Canada is under growing international pressure from the UN secretary-general and other governments to reduce its emissions impact on global climate change.
The debate at the NEB over spill limitation from Enbridge’s Line 9 has been joined by the city of Montreal, the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority and a Durham citizen group who are echoing the concerns raised by Hamilton staff and several First Nations about the adequacy of protection for waterways crossed by the pipeline on its route between Sarnia and Montreal. The NEB has questioned Enbridge’s definition of a ‘major watercourse’ and the number of shut-off valves required to adequately protect them.
Enbridge argues the regulator has misunderstood the company’s plans. It reiterated the same contention in its letter to Hamilton even though city staff had reviewed the Enbridge explanation before writing to the NEB seeking additional protection.
The latest volley from Enbridge provides some detail on how its approach would allegedly protect Spencer Creek, the largest stream flowing into Cootes Paradise and Hamilton Harbour, by relying on ‘elevation points’ that the company contends will naturally limit the size of a spill into the creek watershed. The NEB has advocated for valves within one kilometre of each side of a major watercourse, but Enbridge says the elevation points near Spencer are closer than that so it’s not necessary to add valves, and says its rapid response plans mean maximum flows into the creek won’t exceed 5530 barrels (879,000 litres).
The city’s letter to the NEB had sought “protection of provincially-significant wetlands and environmentally-significant areas, as well as placement or installation of valves to ensure that watercourses in the City of Hamilton are adequately protected.” It specifically pointed to the Sheffield-Rockton nationally significant wetland complex crossed by Line 9 near Westover, but Enbridge’s reply makes no mention of any measures to minimize spills into this ecological feature – presumably because the NEB itself has not specifically required attention to such ecologically sensitive areas.
Durham-CLEAR wants Enbridge to provide specific spill plans for each water crossing “for a range of leaks (including slow undetected seepages) in flood, normal and drought conditions,” especially because a third of leaks are not initially detected by the pipeline owner.
“The oil pipeline industry should not be permitted to dump the costs resulting from inadequate engineering onto municipalities along their routes,” argues the citizens’ group.