Enbridge and the black spots of the leopard – part 3
Wednesday, July 25, 2012 @ 3:45 AM
Enbridge makes many claims in its ads and websites about its safety practices and ability to respond quickly and effectively to oil spills. Indeed, it seems to follow the thinking that, like some kind of mystical mantra, if you repeat a phrase enough, it will somehow magically become a reality.
For example, just ten days before the disastrous Kalamazoo River spill on its 6B pipeline in Michigan, Enbridge applied for still another delay in carrying out needed repairs on the pipeline. Coincidentally, on the same day, Enbridge’s vice president of U.S. operations, Richard Adams, was addressing a congressional subcommittee in Washington. In the case of a spill, he assured the lawmakers that “Enbridge was well prepared for an emergency”, which is a phrase often repeated by Enbridge officials.
Furthermore, Adams made the claim that “our response time from our control center can be almost instantaneous, and our large leaks are typically detected by our control center personnel.” In fact, according to Enbridge’s emergency response plan, a rupture on the Michigan section of the pipeline “would be detected within five minutes and the damaged segment closed in three minutes” (1).
However, his words did not turn out to correspond with actual deeds. Just ten days later on July 25, 2010, when the 6B pipeline burst and spilled into the Kalamazoo River, it took Enbridge’s control center 17 hours to shut down the line, resulting in an estimated 1.1 million gallon spill. The verdict was harsh. The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board compared Enbridge’s handling of the situation to the “Keystone Kops.”
And there are other disturbing features to Enbridge’s so-called “emergency response” preparedness that have emerged. On its website, the company has a section titled: “Protecting people & the environment.” In this section, Enbridge boasts that its employees are well-trained with “fresh skills,” and that it has “strong and effective coordination with local emergency providers” (2). This is an especially important issue for people who live in northern BC along the path of Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, given the enormous geographical and logistical challenges of this region, which are dramatically more hazardous and difficult than those faced in Michigan.
Now it is a fact that Enbridge has been operating pipelines in Michigan for many years, and in the case of the Kalamazoo river region, for over 40 years. It is to be expected that during that period of time the company would have had plenty of time to build up its emergency response infrastructure and coordination.
But, as authors Elizabeth McGowan, Lisa Song, and others have revealed, the quality of Enbridge’s emergency response in the Kalamazoo spill was shockingly bad. By the evening of July 25, residents along the river were reporting a reek of petroleum fumes pervading the air, and, as a result, called emergency hotlines. Somehow, none of this filtered through to Enbridge until late the next morning, when an employee from another company called up Enbridge and reported oil pouring into a creek (1).
Even then, for two hours Enbridge did not contact the National Response Center in Washington D.C., which is the agency responsible for alerting “state and federal agencies to unfolding disasters.” Interestingly, however, Enbridge did choose to call its own public relations office first before contacting the National Response Center, even while thousands of gallons of oil were floating down the river towards Lake Michigan and soaking into the lawns of residents, staining them black (1).
Congressman Mark Schauer of Michigan did not mince his words about Enbridge’s role. “The company’s failure to report the incident in a timely manner put public safety at risk” (3). In its defence, Enbridge replied that “it didn’t have to report the leak to federal regulators because the rules allow them to wait until they know how much oil was lost” (4).
Evidence shows that, far from Enbridge having “strong and effective coordination” as is claimed on its website and in its public statements, the emergency response was chaotic. For some reason, over all those 40 years that it had the pipeline in place, Enbridge had been unable to set up proper coordination with other emergency responders such as health officials, police or fire. Indeed, Enbridge emergency personnel seemed to be the most confused of all. As Calhoun County’s public health officer put it, “We were pressing Enbridge as to what their plans were … They only had a middle manager there and he was like a deer in the headlights. Yes, EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] was there, but we really needed Enbridge to call the shots” (1).
Compounding the problem was the fact that Enbridge chose not to inform the other emergency responders, as well as residents, that the substance that had been spilled into the Kalamazoo River was actually “dilbit,” a toxic mixture of chemical diluent (condensate) and bitumen, which has some different qualities from those of ordinary crude oil. One such quality of dilbit is that it is thought to contain much higher concentrations of benzene, a known carcinogen. This, of course, was an important piece of information for both residents and first responders to know, given that they would be breathing or possibly coming into contact with the substance. As it was at that time, local hospitals and the Poison Control Center were being flooded with calls from people complaining of “headaches, sore throats, nausea and vomiting”.
Another quality of the substance is that, after the diluent portion of the mixture evaporates in a body of water, the heavier bitumen sinks to the bottom, making it extraordinarily hard to clean-up. This is unlike ordinary crude oil which tends to float, making clean-up much easier. Dilbit, of course, is the same “heavy crude” which Enbridge is proposing to ship over its pipeline across northern BC.
The CEO of Enbridge, Patrick Daniel, added to the confusion, by claiming that the Kalamazoo River spill would be a “routine cleanup.” Astoundingly, he told reporters that only a small amount “might sink below the surface.” “To tell you the truth,” he said, “it’s lighter than water so it sits on top of the water” (1).
As a result of Enbridge’s false claims about the nature of spill, “days of confusion” followed for all those other emergency responders who were trying to clean up the toxic mess with equipment designed for conventional crude oil. In some cases, cleanup crews thought they had sucked up all the spilled oil, only to find out afterwards that, because it was actually bitumen, thousands of gallons had actually sunk to the bottom of the river, forming balls of tar that collected in depressions in the gravel where fish spawn or slowly tumbled down the river, passing under the containment booms on the surface. Even today, two years after the spill, some sections of the river have not been completely cleaned up.
When confronted by reporters some days after the Kalamazoo spill, Daniel, in an act of stubbornness, continued repeating his mantra that the black goo was not bitumen. But truth, like tar, is a sticky substance. Later investigation showed that, even the company (Imperial Oil) which actually mines the particular bitumen in question, refers to it as such, as do scientists at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other agencies.
To access the previous articles in this series, go to: http://www.opinion250.com/blog/view/25177/1/enbridge+and+the+black+spots+of+the+leopard-part+2?
References
(1) McGowan, Elizabeth and Lisa Song. “The dilbit disaster: Inside the biggest oil spill you’ve never heard of.” InsideClimate News. July 26, 2012. http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120626/dilbit-diluted-bitumen-enbridge-kalamazoo-river-marshall-michigan-oil-spill-6b-pipeline-epa
(2) “Protecting people & the environment.” Enbridge. July 21, 2012. http://www.enbridge.com/InYourCommunity/PipelinesInYourCommunity/PipelineSafety/ProtectingPeopleandtheEnvironment.aspx
(3) “Congress to probe Michigan oil spill.” Reuters. July 31, 2010. http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/07/31/us-enbridge-pipeline-idUSTRE66T5FP20100731
(4) Erb, Henry. “911 timeline of Michigan’s oil spill.” July 30, 2010. Wood TV 8. http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local/kalamazoo_and_battle_creek/911-timeline-of-Michigans-oil-spill
Peter Ewart is a columnist and writer based in Prince George, British Columbia. He can be reached at: peter.ewart@shaw.ca
Comments
So think about that for a second or two. People get upset about the lying and the scandals of government. They go to the polls and kick them out of office. So ask yourself, would you vote in these yahoos with a track record like this if they were running for office?
Clark: ‘Hey Alison, I was talking to the ‘boss’, the other day, he had this great idea – How bought I pretend to get tough on Northern Gateway and then ask for a bunch more money, but you say ‘no way’.”
Redford: ‘ oh yeah….’
Clark: ‘ But don’t worry, it will just be a media storm for a while – the real goal is to get attention away from the ‘if’ of the pipeline and more to the ‘how’.
Redford: ‘ Brilliant!! Let’s do it! ‘
Harper: ‘ ha ha ha ha ha! who’s your daddy?!’
Clark: ‘Sorry alison he’s always on the other line…’
Enbridge doesn’t have my vote for all the reasons outlined in Peter Ewart’s articles, and most importantly I’m not in favor of putting people’s health, our land, and our ecosystems in grave danger of being destroyed and this will happen when there is an oil spill. I subscribe to the mantra ‘NO ENBRIDGE, NO TANKERS, NO PROBLEM’ Economic development which benefits Canada and/or our our provinces at the detriment of people’s lives and at the cost of destroying the environment just doesn’t fly with me. With Enbridge’s autrocious safety record and numerous oil spills no one with even an ounce of human compassion should support the Northern Gateway Pipeline.
It really is maddening when the reality of the lies and falsehoods form Enbridge and their ilk is as obvious as the pinokio nose on their faces. However, because they wield so much power and influence our lickspittle governmentsâ spin the same BS. Hearing and seeing all the evidence of Enbridgeâs total lack of concern and disrespect for the environment leaves us with but one directional course. That being this project must not move forward.
Comments for this article are closed.