Enbridge And The Black Spots Of The Leopard – Series Wrap
Friday, July 27, 2012 @ 3:45 AM
At the time of the Kalamazoo River bitumen spill in Michigan, Enbridge made a number of promises and pledges. For example, Enbridge CEO Patrick Daniel repeatedly claimed that Enbridge would clean up “anything and everything the oil had touched” and return the river “to its original state.” Since then, however, the company’s tune has changed. It is now acknowledging that, because of the nature of submerged bitumen which has embedded itself in the river silt, the only way to recover all of it would be “to run bulldozers and excavators down 38 miles of river and take out everything to get every last bit of oil.” As a result, an Enbridge engineer has said, “the river would never recover” (1).
This, of course, has special significance to northern BC, given that Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline will cross about 700 rivers and streams. Contrary to what it said before, Enbridge now appears to be admitting that a river subjected to a major bitumen spill would never be the same again. Either some of the bitumen would be left permanently embedded in the bottom of the river or the river (and its fish spawning beds) would be destroyed in the course of the actual recovery. There is no such thing as “back to the original state.” It is a myth and a fairy tale.
And there were other promises made. As a result of the Kalamazoo River spill, a number of residents in the area were forced to abandon their homes and others developed medical symptoms of various kinds from the pervasive fumes in the air. Enbridge pledged to compensate residents for loss of their homes and other property, as well as assist them with medical costs.
However, as residents were to find out, all of this was not so straightforward. Those residents who wanted to see a doctor for medical complaints were informed by Enbridge officials that, in order to have it paid, they would first have to sign a waiver giving the company “access to their entire medical histories.”
According to CBS News, other residents complained that, in order to obtain a $300 air purifier and some evacuation expenses, they had to sign a legal document stating that Enbridge was to be released “from and against all liability, claims, actions, causes of action, costs, and expenses, including without limitation claims for personal injuries, property damage, that Claimant(s) ever had, has or may have against Enbridge…” (2).
James Oberstar, Chairman of the U.S. House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, charged that these tactics were “exploitation of unknowing and unskilled people who had never faced a situation like this before” (2).
In regards to house and property damage, Enbridge originally pledged that it would “make good on any damage caused by the incident” (3). Patrick Daniel, CEO of Enbridge, stated, “I am personally committed and our company is committed to doing everything that we can to make up to the people in Marshall and Battle Creek for the mess that we made” (1).
Now, since then, it is true that many residents have received compensation of some kind. However, for those who have not yet settled in court, Enbridge is speaking in less friendly tones. For example, despite earlier admissions, the company is now arguing that “it cannot be held liable for the oil spill because it has followed all relevant laws, regulations and industry standards and the damage was not foreseeable” (4). In other words, it is challenging these residents to prove that it was actually liable for the spill.
And so it goes. A sea of troubles has descended upon the people in that part of Michigan that will not be resolved for years, if ever.
Has Enbridge learned anything from all of this? Did the company gather anything from the withering criticism that the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board has directed against it recently? In its report, the NTSB found that, in regards to the Kalamazoo spill, there was “a complete breakdown of safety at Enbridge,” an organizational failure, as well as a “culture of deviance” at the company.
What was Enbridge’s response? In its press release, the company stated, “We believe that the experienced personnel involved in the decisions made at the time of the release were trying to do the right thing. As with most such incidents, a series of unfortunate events and circumstances resulted in an outcome no one wanted” (5).
Given the NTSB’s damning findings, it was a curious statement. Enbridge now seemed to absolve itself of any wrongdoing and, instead, put the blame squarely on an “unfortunate” act of God or just bad luck. Even such staunch supporters of big oil as the Financial Post were taken aback by this statement, scratching their heads about the company’s failure “to take ownership” of the spill (6).
Once again, there is a gap revealed between what Enbridge says on one occasion and then does on another, between its narrow private interest and the broad public interest.
On July 24, 2010, the day before the catastrophic spill, residents of Kalamazoo were preparing for a “water festival” to celebrate the beauty and wildlife of the river watershed, and its recreational attractions such as swimming and canoeing (1).
On July 25, 2010, they were plunged into a disaster.
Regarding Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, more and more British Columbians are reaching the inescapable conclusion that we really can’t afford to take such a risk, given the track record of this company.
This is the final article in this series.
1. Gowan, 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. “Enbridge oil spoils in Marshall, Michigan, exposed by CBS News.” Sept. 20, 2010. http://www.keyframe5.com/enbridge-oil-spoils-in-marshall-michigan-exposed-by-cbs-news/
3. “Feds warned Enbridge about pipeline.” MLive Media Group. Aug. 1, 2010. http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/feds_warned_enbridge_about_pip.html
4. Melzer, Eartha Jane. “Enbridge denies responsibility for oil spill.” Michigan Messenger. Jan. 31, 2011. http://michiganmessenger.com/46106/enbridge-denies-responsibility-for-oil-spill
5. “Enbridge discusses findings in NTSB report on Line 6B accident.” Enbridge Northern Gateway. July 10, 2012. http://www.northerngateway.ca/news-and-media/what-s-new-at-northern-gateway/enbridge-discusses-findings-in-ntsb-report-on-line-6b-accident/
6. O’Neil, Peter. “Enbridge brand can be repaired: analysts.” Financial Post. July 16, 2012. http://business.financialpost.com/2012/07/16/enbridge-brand-can-be-repaired-analysts/
Peter Ewart is a columnist and writer based in Prince George, British Columbia. He can be reached at: peter.ewart@shaw.ca
Comments
Given Enbridge’s track record on oil spill clean up and accepting responsibility for oil spills approval of this pipeline is akin to giving carte blanche approval to destroying the beauty of British Columbia.
Approval should not be based on how many dollars are on the table as is the Liberal position at present.
Thanks Peter for your well informed, well researched articles on Enbridge’s atrocious operational history. Most British Columbians don’t want the Northern Gateway Pipeline and your articles add valuable information and a much greater resolve to all who are fighting the good and necessary fight to stop Enbridge from developing the Northern Gateway pipeline.
5 part biased article. Peter’s just preaching to the choir around here.
Johnny you are obviously a totally misguided individual who has been sucked in by the propaganda of an inept, corupt and totally morally bankrupt corporation whose sole motivation is gree. Feel bad for you John.
So you are here, JB, and thus must be part of the choir. ….. ;-)
One Democrat … JB has not been sucked up by anyone …. he simply looks to see where the crowd is going, and he heads the other way. ;-)
I realize the fact that I don’t follow the herd on this issue bothers some people. I have to say that the media has done a great job of rallying the masses. Talk about propaganda!
Very well researched and presented. I don’t think British Columbia can hope for anything different from this company than what they have proved they are all about in Micihigan.
The question is, which river system or systems are we prepared to sacrifice for this pipeline going through? I don’t think we are prepared to sacrifice any of them. 38 miles of a pristine watershed in Michigan is nothing compared to what it could do in B.C. I’m afraid here, it could be more like hundreds of miles or a complete river system.
I for one am not willing to take that chance and leave a ruined part of our wonderful province to our children, granchildren and greatgrandchilren to deal with. We owe them the best and this is not the best.
JohnnyBelt: I think the media has been EXPOSING the propoganda proposed by the other side.
I guess it’s not propaganda if you agree with it.
Where were the masses when Kinder Morgan put their oil line through Jasper Park? Oh right, there was almost no media coverage of that.
“Using data from Enbridge’s own reports, the Polaris Institute calculated that 804 spills occurred on Enbridge pipelines between 1999 and 2010. These spills released approximately 168,645 barrels (26,812.4 m3) of hydrocarbons into the environment.”
JB however, ….still trolling!
Factual evidence has NO impact on the intentionally biased indoctrinated Enbridge fans!
When was the last Kinder Morgan spill and how did they handle it JB?
Ford Pinto’s exploded when they were hit from behind. Does that mean ford can’t build reliable cars. Enbridge misshandled Kalamazoo, but gateway would be an engineering marvel and under a microscope from start to finish. The Oilsands are the 3rd biggest oil resource in the world. We are lucky we have it. Responsible access to Asian markets is necesaary. I hope something can be worked out. This province will need Albertas money when we become a have not province under the dippers.
The scar sands is already an evironmental disaster waiting to happen, I don’t think we need another one. All British Columbians no matter what our skin colour, must stand together to stop this oil from flowing to the coast.
Good post, dow. As for dirtcheap, the oil will get to the coast, one way or another.
Good post dow? Did you guys read the freaking articles or is the truth in them still just propaganda to you? Enbridge is denying that they are repsonsible for the Kalamazoo spill.
Fool me once shame on you…..Fool me twice shame on me. The people of B.C. are no fools!
“Enbridge is denying that they are repsonsible for the Kalamazoo spill. “
Hasn’t Enbridge already put $800 million towards cleanup?
“Now, since then, it is true that many residents have received compensation of some kind. However, for those who have not yet settled in court, Enbridge is speaking in less friendly tones. For example, despite earlier admissions, the company is now arguing that âit cannot be held liable for the oil spill because it has followed all relevant laws, regulations and industry standards and the damage was not foreseeableâ (4). In other words, it is challenging these residents to prove that it was actually liable for the spill.”
Enbridge knew as early as 2005 JB that the pipeline needed to be repaired. This isn’t propaganda JB but actual facts that came out in court.
Kind of like that pedafile that just got out of jail and is going to move in next door. You going to trust him with your rivers JB?
Now we’re comparing Enbridge to ‘pedafiles’?
Yeah, it sucks that countries rely on pipelines and trade for a functioning economy. But I don’t hear any alternatives from the hand-wringers.
I’m starting to see a trend here. People who have a direct financial interest in the pipeline are in support. People who don’t are not. Hmmm . . .
NMG: “I’m starting to see a trend here. People who have a direct financial interest in the pipeline are in support. People who don’t are not.”
Yeah, that’s it. Oops, except that I don’t have a direct financial interest.
So what is your interest then? Mine would be ensuring that BC’s environment is protected first and foremost. The Province has had a viable economy without the Enbridge pipeline, I think they can keep that trend going without taking on that extra risk.
As an aside, it looks like Enbridge had another pipeline leak yesterday, this time in Wisconsin. Looks like they are as successful in keeping oil in their pipelines as the Cougars are at putting up banner in CN Centre:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/07/28/enbridge-wisconsin-spill-pipeline-closed.html
It an analogy JB! It’s about trust. Do you think Enbridge has been rehabilitated from the Kalamazoo spill? Please list the people that were fired by Enbridge for their incompetence!
Enbridge had an oil spill Friday in Wisconsin. Wow! Who would have guessed that!?!? Sorry you are so slow on the uptake Johnny.
It’s either about money, or the environment. You can’t have both. You make a decision, I’ve already made mine. I’ll settle for the environment, hamds down, lol!
NMG: “So what is your interest then? Mine would be ensuring that BC’s environment is protected first and foremost.”
Very noble. I assume you want all the pipelines shut down as well. There are a lot of pipelines in BC…many carrying that dirty oil that everyone relies on.
People always forget about the Nechako/Stuart sturgeon. One of the most magnificent fish in the world and very endangered by this pipeline. A relic from the era of dinosaurs at over 20 feet in length and live nearly two human life spans.
This pipeline crosses at their most sensitive nursery and the only place in Canada that they still reproduce.
One Kalamazoo bitumen spill on the Stuart and the bottom feeding Sturgeon are an extinct species in Canada.
Johnny the pipeline into PG doesn’t carry bitumen… the only pipeline in BC that does wasn’t originally designed for bitumen either, but rather regular oil long before the tar sands were a dream. The Kinder Morgan line was originally to service the Lower Mainland and the Washington Pacific Northwest… not China. Most all other pipelines in BC are natural gas and most people aren’t so concerned about that as it doesn’t stick to the bottom of rivers, lakes, and the ocean.
IMO Vancouver is long overdue for their big spill.
They run super tankers through the Burrard inlet now that only have 6-feet of clearance from the sea floor at high tide… if an engine goes or some other ‘issue’ with tidal timing and the tremendous weight of those tankers would split them in half on the rocks of the sea floor. With the bitumen involved they would have to evacuate Vancouver… it would be catastrophic and likely the biggest most expensive oil spill in history. But Vancouver is fine with this risk, as they voted federal conservative. the conservatives are owned by big oil, yet they have cut the marine rescue stations, they have cut the call in zone from 50 miles off our coast to 10km, and they have relocated the marine oil spill response equipment from BC to Quebec. I say let them vote conservative and may they throw the dice high… just don’t use it as an example of what is good for Northern BC… we are smarter and more aware of our limitations in nature and it won’t fly in these parts.
Comments for this article are closed.