Another Enbridge Oil Spill
Saturday, July 28, 2012 @ 11:13 AM
Prince George, BC – Enbridge has had another spill of crude oil from one of its U.S. pipelines…
The company has announced that approximately 1200 barrels (about 50,000 U.S. gallons) of light crude oil has leaked into a field near Grand Marsh, Wisconsin.
This spill follows on the heels of another leak east of Edmonton a few weeks ago along Enbridge’s Athabaska pipeline in which 230,000 litres of heavy crude oil were spilled from a pumping station. Yesterday’s spill in Wisconsin happens to coincide almost exactly with the two year anniversary of the Kalamazoo River disaster in Michigan, when 1.1 million gallons of Enbridge bitumen was dumped into the river and wetlands in the worst disaster of its kind in the state’s history.
For its part, Wisconsin has had its share of problems with Enbridge. In 2007, in two separate incidents, Enbridge spilled 176,000 gallons of crude oil. As well, in 2009, the company was hit with a fine of $1 million by the Wisconsin government for committing over 500 violations of the state’s wetland and waterway protection regulations while constructing its Southern Access pipeline.
Comments
What a surprise
J.B will be the happiest guy in town today. Right Johnny?
I think Christy Clark should not even mention money anymore. There is no price to be put on spoiling the environment, period.
It sounds really bad with 50,000 gallons …. until one realizes it is those puny US gallons. ;-)
J.B. will blame it on the media and the gullible herd!
Can you say death knell?
Bye Bye Enbridge.
Bear Lake area has very sandy soil,let the thing leak for a year or two before we “discover” our very own tar sands-without the overburden. PG will prosper just like Fort Mac;P
Good to know that I’m so loved around here… lol.
Yeah, it’s the end of the world as we know it.
It’s what you troll for JohnnyB so enjoy it!
475,000 litres of sour crude escaped last month from a Plains Midstream Canada pipeline into Gleniffer Lake, via the Red Deer River in Alberta. The cleanup from the rupture near Sundre, Alta., will take months.
One gusher after another! Texas tea!
Steven Harper, Christy Clark and any one else that has a vested interest in any piped line activity in BC should really give your head a shake. You could expect more from a welfare line—not much more but maybe a little.
Kinda makes you wonder if our government is on the right track, hmmm?
Well there’s always the alternative (from Wikipedia):
Burnaby crude oil spill
On July 24, 2007, a crude oil pipeline owned and operated by Kinder Morgan Energy Partners was ruptured by an excavator digging a storm sewer trench, spraying 234,000 litres of crude oil into the residential neighborhood and the ocean near Inlet Drive in Burnaby, British Columbia.[14][15]. The crude oil sprayed 11 houses on Inlet Drive and caused an evacuation of the area, forcing 250 residents from their homes.[16] Approximately 70,000 litres of the oil flowed into Burrard Inlet, the resulting cleanup costing more than $15 million. The cleanup operation ultimately recovered 210,000 litres of oil from the Inlet and coastline.[14][17]
The Transportation Safety Board released a report on the incident in 2009 which concluded that the pipe, which was 610 mm in diameter, was struck and punctured by a contractorâs excavator bucket during excavation of a trench for a new storm sewer line along Inlet Drive in Burnaby.[17] On October 3, 2011 three companiesâtwo contractors and Kinder Morganâeach entered guilty pleas to a 21-count indictment in Provincial Court. The Crown sought a sentence of a $1,000 fine and a $149,000 contribution to the Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation, which works to protect B.C.’s fish, wildlife and habitats. Kinder Morgan was also asked to contribute $100,000 to an educational and training program.[18]
Burnaby Mountain oil spill
On May 6, 2009, a contractor discovered that oil was leaking from one of the tanks Kinder Morgan’s Burnaby Mountain terminal. In total, almost 200,000 litres of crude oil were spilled. Fire and HazMat teams were called to the scene and contained the spill.[19]
Abbotsford oil spill
On January 24, 2012 an oil spill was discovered at Kinder Morgan’s Sumas terminal in Abbotsford. Local residents began reporting a strong gas-like smell coming from the area as early as 4:30 a.m. The spill was reported to be limited to a “containment area.”
Its interesting that Enbridge’s American rival can have a spill right in BC just 6 months ago and it got *zero* media attention.
Maybe they didn’t get media attention because the spills actually got cleaned up?
Burnaby leak was caused by a backhoe. It was cleaned up with conventional cleanup methods. Could you imagine if that was a bitumen spill?
Sumas spill was limited to a containment area so was there any damage to the environment?
How many spills has Enbridge had in the same time frame? You can’t count the backhoe incident because it was caused by a backhoe not a pipe failure. But I guess you can blame Kinder Morgan for keeping crappy records of where their pipes are underground. So three for Kinder Morgan from 2007 to 2012, What is Enbridges score?
Zero media attention? Abbotsford oil spill?
And here I thought the Vancouver Sun is media.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/spill+Abbotsford+tank+farm+raises+concerns+over+pipeline+expansion/6045480/story.html
It’s a local news story primarily, however, for those who read the linked report, it was used by some to raise concern about the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion and made note of the Enbridge hearings.
So, back to your point gamblor. What was it again? Unequal treatment …. think again.
given the terrain and the major watersheds that the northern gateway pipeline will have to cover , not to mention embridge’s very poor record its hard to imagine how anyone with a lick of sense can be in favor of this disaster in the making .
So the alternative to a Canadian company with a history of pipeline leaks is to use an American company with a history of pipeline leaks? I have an even crazier alternative. How about we we just don’t allow the pipeline to enter BC? I know, really outside the box thinking on that one . . .
unfortunately yes, that is the alternative. I think we are overdeveloping our oilsands. I’m not wild about either pipeline. But unless someone can prove that the Enbridge pipe is somehow radically different from any other pipeline in the world (and they haven’t) this project WILL be approved. Which is why I keep urging people to be constructive instead of regurgitating useless info from US ecoterrorist groups. We are fast losing the opportunity to get real safeguards in place.
I mean, you have obviously biased people right here saying in plain english its OK when Kinder Morgan has oil spills in BC residential neighbourhoods and Burrard Inlet, but the mere proposition of an Enbridge pipeline signals the end of BC as we know it. I mean, at least try to hide the fact you’re on a US ecoterrorist cells payroll a little better than that.
“I mean, you have obviously biased people right here saying in plain english its OK when Kinder Morgan has oil spills in BC residential neighbourhoods and Burrard Inlet, but the mere proposition of an Enbridge pipeline signals the end of BC as we know it.”
Let’s see was Kinder Morgan’s pipe worn out and they neglected to repair it? Nope! A backhoe hit it!. Was it oilsand bitumen? Nope, it was regular crude. You must agree that an accidental leak vs plain neglect are two different animals.
What the heck does this have to do with US ecoterrorist cells payroll? If common sense says the Gateway pipeline is a very very bad idea based the recent court case alone you don’t have to be an ecoterrorist to figure that out. But if they are paying people with common sense where do we sign up?
I think alot of people posting on this site forget that this is Opinion 250. In simple words that means people express there opinion, don’t really think it is necessary for others to try and prove or disprove another persons opinion. In my humble opinion I think this pipeline from the scarsands is a bad idea, just not worth it. There has to come a point sometime, when we say the environment is more important than our never ending search for that almighty dollar.
dirt: “I think alot of people posting on this site forget that this is Opinion 250. In simple words that means people express there opinion, don’t really think it is necessary for others to try and prove or disprove another persons opinion.”
^^^ This.
The point of having a opinion is in general terms
“an opinion is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts.”
The people who are for the pipeline base their opinons on emotion where the people that are against it base there opinion on facts.
“An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. Opinions rarely change without new arguments being presented.”
New arguments against the pipeline seem to be coming out daily from Enbridges incompetence alone.
So base your opinion on the facts not your emotions.
“As well, in 2009, the company was hit with a fine of $1 million by the Wisconsin government for committing over 500 violations of the stateâs wetland and waterway protection regulations while constructing its Southern Access pipeline”
To me, that pretty well sums up what Enbridge is all about. They could care less. Not only that, they DO care less.
We don’t want Enbridge in B.C.
North America uses nearly 23 million barrels of oil a day. Alberta produces maybe 2 million, not all of which is heavy bitumen, to keep things in perspective.
Therefor this heavy bitumen in pipelines although very dangerous and corrosive, as of yet makes up but a small proportion of the overall oil shipped by pipeline… most of these spills would be much easier to clean up than the magnitude of a Northern Gateway heavy bitumen spill on a remote river with no easy access in the middle of winter.
NoWay: “The people who are for the pipeline base their opinons on emotion where the people that are against it base there opinion on facts.”
That’s your opinion.
Which is based on fact not emotion JB.
It seems that no one views the product within the pipe as owned by the oil companies but rather it is seen as the responsibility of just the pipeline company?
If a nuclear company wanted to ship its waste products through your town would you go after that company or Joe’s trucking company?
“Which is based on fact not emotion JB.”
Keep telling yourself that. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Right back at ya JB!
Noway you sound like a Montey Python skit.
Comments for this article are closed.