Enbridge and the black spots of the leopard-part 2
Tuesday, July 24, 2012 @ 3:46 AM
The BC government has just put forward five requirements for it to agree to Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline proposal. These include commitments from Enbridge itself, as well as the Harper federal government and the Alberta provincial government. But in any such arrangement, everything depends upon how serious and responsible the parties are to meeting those commitments, otherwise the arrangement is not worth the paper it is printed on.
For its part, the Harper government has been backing away fast from stronger regulation and oversight at the federal level, which, as the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board has noted, is necessary to ensure companies like Enbridge keep their commitments and avoid oil spill disasters like the one on the Kalamazoo River (1). And then there is the Christy Clark Liberal government. Despite its newly released “five requirements,” the Clark government appears to be all over the map in regards to where it stands, and does not inspire confidence that it could, even if it wanted to, keep Enbridge in line or resist pressure from the Harper government to further erode standards.
In regards to Enbridge, it has a long history of making commitments in words, but violating them in deeds. “Say one thing and do another” appears to be its unofficial motto. This has resulted in hundreds of citations being levelled against it by government regulators over the years for environmental and safety violations and a huge loss of public trust.
The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board characterized the company as having “an operating culture in which not adhering to approved procedures and protocols was normalized.” In other words, Enbridge not only fails to meet commitments it makes to external regulators, but also those that it makes internally. As the NTSB noted in regards to the Kalamazoo River spill, “if Enbridge’s own procedures had been followed during the initial phases of the accident, the magnitude of the spill would have been significantly reduced” (1).
Enbridge’s CEO at the time of the spill, Patrick Daniel, was himself known for making solemn commitments to safety on a regular basis, but not meeting these year after year. For example, from 2006 onwards, Enbridge’s professed goal was to have zero spills and leaks (as opposed to 70 the previous year). However, in the following years, it got nowhere near reaching that goal. In 2007, the corporation had 65 reported spills and leaks. In 2008, 80 reported spills and leaks. And in 2009, a whopping 103 reported spills and leaks. This was followed by another 80 in 2010 (2).
Adding it all up, the total volume of crude oil leaked from Enbridge pipelines between 1999 to 2010 alone came to approximately 5 million gallons which “amounts to approximately half of the oil that spilled from the oil tanker the Exxon Valdez after it struck a rock in Prince William Sound, Alaska in 1988” (3).
Despite this record, CEO Daniel was still singing the same safety song several years later in 2011 when, once again in a letter to Enbridge stakeholders, he claimed that the corporation was “more committed than ever to meet [its] goal of zero incidents” (4). Such a statement, of course, has become part of the company’s “boilerplate” responses to oil spills, a set of responses which are repeated almost verbatim every time a major spill takes place.
2010 was a particularly bad year for the company. In July, the Kalamazoo oil spill happened, triggering what has been described as “the costliest onshore pipeline spill in U.S. history” (5). In addition, in August 2010, the company was fined $2.4 million for a pipeline explosion in which two Enbridge employees were killed in Minnesota three years prior (6). The company had been warned beforehand, and a federal investigation found that Enbridge committed eight probable violations leading up to the accident.
If a corporation was serious about safety, it would make sure some heads would roll – especially at the top of the organization – for allowing such terrible incidents to happen. This is especially the case since Enbridge Inc. has been singled out as a whole for “organizational failure” and a “culture of deviance” from protocol and procedure. Such systemic problems are first and foremost a problem of leadership.
But heads did not roll in 2010. Far from it. The leadership of the company rewarded itself, with all executives receiving bonuses, as well as compensation for CEO Patrick Daniel being increased “from $6 million to $8.1 million” (5). A year after the disaster the bonuses were upped even further for five senior executives who had their pay increased by over $4.5 million.
The Enbridge leadership appears to be afflicted with what might be called the Wall Street banker syndrome, i.e. the greater the disaster, the greater the bonus.
And there is a reason for this. Although 2010 was a disastrous year for safety, it was a banner year for Enbridge in another way, with the company amassing $970 million in profit (7). As one analyst noted, while Enbridge does not have a reputation for being “a star player” in regards to safety, it certainly does have “a good reputation of delivering for their shareholders” (8).
It is this contradiction between Enbridge’s narrow private interests and the interests of the public at large that seem to be at the core of its “say one thing, do another” problem. This is a serious issue given that both the federal and provincial governments have a track record of handing over even more power and responsibility to private corporate interests like Enbridge. In this situation, who will stand for the public interest?
To access the previous article in this series (Part 1) go to: http://www.opinion250.com/blog/view/25165/1/enbridge+and+the+black+spots+of+the+leopard+-+part+1?
References
(1) “Pipeline rupture and oil spill accident caused by organizational failures and weak regulations.” National Transportation Safety Board. United States. July 10, 2012. http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2012/120710.html
(2) Nelson, Joyce. “Enbridge spills.” Watershed Sentinel. June 27, 2012. http://www.watershedsentinel.ca/content/enbridge-spills
(3) Girard, Richard. “Out on the tar sands mainline: a corporate profile of pipeline company Enbridge.” Polaris Institute. http://www.tarsandswatch.org/files/Updated%20Enbridge%20Profile.pdf
(4) Daniel, Patrick. “Delivering the energy North Americans need: a letter from Patrick D. Daniel.” http://ebridge.enbridge.com/eBridge/volume74/article5.php
(5) Nikiforuk, Andrew. “Enbridge Execs got big pay raises after continent’s costliest pipeline spill.” The Tyee. July 12, 2012. http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/07/12/Enbridge-Executives-Pay-Raise/
(6) “DOT fines Enbridge $2.4 million for safety violations.” Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. United States. August 17, 2010. http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/portal/site/PHMSA/menuitem.ebdc7a8a7e39f2e55cf2031050248a0c/?vgnextoid=1a0387e16584a210VgnVCM1000001ecb7898RCRD&vgnextchannel=d248724dd7d6c010VgnVCM10000080e8a8c0RCRD&vgnextfmt=print
(7) Cattaneo, Claudia. “The oil patch crusader.” Financial Post Magazine. Nov. 1, 2011. http://business.financialpost.com/2011/11/01/the-oil-patch-crusader/
(8) “Company at center of huge oil leak into Mich. River has history of pipeline problems.” Fox News. July 29, 2010. http://business.financialpost.com/2011/11/01/the-oil-patch-crusader/
Peter Ewart is a columnist and writer based in Prince George, British Columbia. He can be reached at: peter.ewart@shaw.ca
Comments
Psssttt.
There are already thousands of crude oil tanker trips up and down the BC coast every year. Those tankers (many of which are relatively old and crapped out)are filled in Vancouver, by existing pipelines traversing BC.
The Northern Gateway project would simply add to that existing tanker taffic, with next generation vessels and navigation technology.
Pssst. hey Rocky give your head a shake!
1.-No supertanker has ever visited Kitimat. There is a big difference between coastal tankers and supertankers. That is why Enbridge has proposed two tugs per supertanker, because it is that much more dangerous.
2.-There is no heavy oil pipelines in BC as of yet. It cost Enbridge more than $800 million dollars to “clean up” (they are still not finished) a relatively small spill of bitumen in the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. This is because bitumen, unlike refined oil, sinks to the bottom.
3. Northern Gateway has proposed carrying $1.2 billion of insurance. Given that the Gulf of Mexico has already cost BP $40 billion (and they continue to pay) you can see that it is the taxpayers of BC who are going to pay for any large spill.
um, the Kinder Morgan Anchor Loop is a heavy oil pipeline in BC. I know the US ecoterrorism movement would love for us to forget that. But we won’t.
Also, if Methanex could export methanol & ammonia (classified marine pollutants far worse than any heavy oil, like a spill would make Valdez look like an oil spot.) by tanker from Kitimat, then I’m pretty sure Enbridge has this in the bag. Like I keep saying, there is nothing Enbridge is proposing that hasn’t already been done.
BC has some of the best water in the world. Why risk that with an oil, if leaked, will find it’s way to our water sources and pollute them? This pipe line if built will cross at least 669 streams and rivers. When that pipe starts leaking, the results will be disastrous! For us in BC, for the wildlife, for our plant life, it has the potential to destroy tourism and fishing and so forth! BC is beautiful let us keep it that way!
Gamblor,I should have specified bitumen pipeline. But Kinder Morgan does not have a heavy oil pipeline per se;
“The Trans Mountain line opened in 1953 and was expanded in 2008. It carries gasoline and other refined products, as well as conventional and so-called heavy crude from the oil-sands region, according to Kinder Morgan. About 26% of its volume in 2010 was heavy crude.”
Furthermore while methanol and ammonia are nasty, they are both lighter than water and thus easier to clean up. Ammonia would evaporate.
I see you don’t dispute Enbridges’ lack of insurance.
Methanol is 100% mixable with water. It can be disolved or diluted with water in any ratio possible. Of course, at the area of the spill, the water will be poisoned for a short while. The poisoning will not go to the bottom of the channel unless it is less than 100 feet deep and it will be temporary. It likely would last less than a week, even in water with minimum currents.The amount of poisoning will be in direct proportion to the volume of the spill.
Bitumin is almost 100% non mixable with water. The water and channel bottom will be poisoned for a very long while, a while measured in decades for sure and likely measured in centuries. Currents will not disperse its harmful effects, only make them worse.
But I guess having no insurance makes you a Gamblor!
Herbster said “Northern Gateway has proposed carrying $1.2 billion of insurance.”
Even a relatively small leak of bitumen in a remote part of the pipeline will cost more than $1.2 billion to clean up.
Bear in mind that the corporation that will own and operate the pipeline, the Northern Gateway Pipelines Limited Partnership, will be distinct from Enbridge Inc. The purpose of this limited partnership is to limit the exposure of Enbridge Inc. for liabilities of the Northern Gateway and make taxpayers pick up the tab for cleaning up after them.
Oh but there is bitumen being transported to Vancouver by Kinder Morgan.
“Each year, increasing numbers of tankers filled with diluted bitumen leave Vancouver loaded from the existing Kinder Morgan pipeline from northern Alberta to a terminus in Burnaby.”
The concern is what to do with the people in the lower mainland if there is a leak.
“In the days following the Kalamazoo spill, authorities advised local residents within approximately one mile of the river to remain indoors or leave the area to limit their exposure to toxic fumes. Obviously that would not be practical in the Lower Mainland, home to more than two million people.”
“Whether they realize it or not, British Columbians may soon see more and larger tankers carrying bitumen travelling through B.C. waters. Kinder Morgan will announce this month whether they will proceed with a $3.8-billion plan to double existing pipeline capacity from Alberta to Burnaby. Port MetroVancouver supports expanding capacity to allow larger SuexMax tankers, with 1,000,000 barrel capacity, into Burrard Inlet.”
Read more at…..
http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/03/05/Diluted-Bitumen/
gamblor: “Like I keep saying, there is nothing Enbridge is proposing that hasn’t already been done. “
Exactly. The media has done an excellent job of whipping people into a frenzy.
Johnnybelt, you remind me of a joke- a mother watches her son in a parade and exclaims “fancy that-everyone is marching out of step except for my Johnny!”
Maybe everyone else can recognize what is in front of their face, and you for some reason, want to go down with Harpers ship.
Just because it’s being done now down the Kinder Morgan pipeline doesn’t mean we should steam ahead with the Gateway Pipeline, especially with Enbridges track record. With recent news stating that China now owns 1/5 of the Alberta oils sands then it’s time for Canada to say “Refine it Here” then you can have it.
Johnnybelt:”The media has done an excellent job of whipping people into a frenzy.”
JB, since you fear to access the media for information lest you expose yourself to being “whipped into a frenzy,” who has whipped you into a frenzy?
herb: “Johnnybelt, you remind me of a joke- a mother watches her son in a parade and exclaims “fancy that-everyone is marching out of step except for my Johnny!”
People sometimes are threatened by opinions and viewpoints that differ from theirs. You’re no different.
Sometimes, I disagree from the mob. That ticks off some people, I guess. Not my problem.
Am I the only one who finds this story incredibly amusing?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/07/24/bc-alberta-gateway-pipeline.html
From the story per Alberta Premier Alison Redford:
“We will not share royalties and I see nothing else proposed and would not be prepared to consider anything else at this time”
“It’s not how Canada has worked. It’s not how Canada has succeeded, and I’m disappointed to hear the comments”
“We have in our provinces the right to income from resources. We have Confederation, which allows for people in each province to benefit from the resources they have to retain jurisdiction over those resources, and then to be part of federal system that allows for transfer payments”
“Leadership is not about dividing Canadians and pitting one province against another. Leadership is about working together. Thatâs when our country benefits, thatâs when Canada leads”
And from Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall saying that:
“Cutting B.C. a share of the royalties would set a “troubling precedent,” especially for landlocked provinces that have no ports to get their exports to foreign markets”
Hmmm, do I detect a little bit of fear and/or angst from those Provinces that, while basking in the richness of their Oil and Gas sectors on one hand, are perhaps starting to realize that without the other Provinces (namely BC in this case) that their ability to take advantage of their resource wealth is significantly limited?
Perhaps Alberta should take a little bit of its own advice and recognize that without a means to ship their product, they have no market. I guess that’s the problem with being stuck in a location that relies on others to move your goods to foreign markets. That’s business 101. Quite the quagmire for ole Alberta and their chest thumping bravado eh? I guess they could always build a pipeline to the Great Lakes and ship it out to China the LONG way.
I’d also suggest that Alberta needs to recognize that BC isn’t Alberta. BC has just as much right to impact developments in BC as Alberta does to impact developments there. People in BC also have different opinions about pipelines than people in Alberta, especially when it is their backyard that could be utterly destroyed if a spill were to occur.
Interesting situation that we are starting to see unfold.
Yeah, it’s interesting how people are Canadians or BC’ers depending on how it suits them at the time.
So which are you JohnnyB? You are so for the pipeline which will take unrefined oil out of Canada which is the same thing as exporting Canadian jobs out of Canada. So you can’t be Canadian. And you can’t be from B.C. because anyone from B.C. understands that all B.C. is getting out of the deal is the dirty end of the stick. So where you from JohnnyB?
Yes, because Alberta has such a great history of being supportive of national interests when it comes to energy policy, LOL. A little bit of karma coming into play perhaps?
And from Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall saying that:
“Cutting B.C. a share of the royalties would set a “troubling precedent,” especially for landlocked provinces that have no ports to get their exports to foreign markets”
———————
We are not talking about ordinary exports, like wheat, potash, strawberries, ete.
If you spill any of that, how much is the environment damaged?
Nice try, Premier, but no cigar!
JB, calling people who voice opinions different from yours are Not a mob! Your fellow Canadians are not a MOB! Grow up!
PG, you hurt my feelings. I bet you wouldn’t be hatin’ on me so bad if I was anti-Enbridge.
I don’t see you hatin’ on the people who took shots at me in this thread. At least keep the playing field level.
let’s face it, JB’s role on here and perhaps in the world is to simply be a contrarian. It is the only way he knows how to be noticed. Notice he never provides and rationale for his opinions.
In some circles, that is called trolling ….
Yes gus, it’s all too easy to throw out labels when one doesn’t agree with something, isn’t it?
Gus calls JB a troll. Thats rich coming from the spam king. keep it coming JB. The herd is always wrong, reguardless of how may links they come up with.
JB:”PG, you hurt my feelings. I bet you wouldn’t be hatin’ on me so bad if I was anti-Enbridge.”
If you dish it out to others and call them the mob (that might hurt their feelings!) you shouldn’ be so sensitive about getting back some of your own medicine.
Shouldn’t make provocative statements (mob) when you are concerned about your feelings, in my opinion.
Ok, no more sarcasm for you.
Comments for this article are closed.