Clear Full Forecast

2nd Enbridge Spill Fuels Outcry

By 250 News

Saturday, September 11, 2010 08:05 AM

Prince George, B.C. -  Reaction has been swift to news of a second oil spill in the U.S. Midwest from a pipeline owned by Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says emergency response personnel were deployed to Romeoville, Illinois on Thursday afternoon.

U.S. EPA Regional Administrator, Susan Hedman says, "EPA, state and local agencies mobilized immediately to respond to this incident and we are taking steps to minimize damage to the environment and to protect the DesPlaines River.

Initial assessments indicate that crude oil from the pipeline flowed through sewers into a retention pond.  On Thursday, the EPA believed the pipeline had been shutdown, but the agency reported yesterday that the release of oil has not stopped.  At a news conference at the EPA's command post near the spill yesterday, Hedman outlined deadlines that Enbridge must meet to stop the spill and clean up contamination.

She says, "(The) EPA is still actively managing the clean up of an Enbridge pipeline spill that caused major damage to the Kalamazoo River in late July."

In a news release from the Nadleh Whut'en Territory in Fraser Lake, Chief Larry Nooski says, "This most recent pipeline leak is the nail in the coffin for the Northern Gateway Pipelines project."

"This is exactly what we've been saying to everyone.  We don't want our children to have to clean up our mess," he says.  "We want relevant and appropriate development in our territories.  Enbridge and the government of Canada do not have the consent of the indigenous title holders to the land, therefore there will be no pipeline."

Earlier this week, hundreds took to the streets of Prince George for a protest march opposing the proposed pipeline, as the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency held a Joint Review Panel pre-hearing on the project.

"Enbridge is busted.  We stand united, shaking our heads at the new oil spill in Illinois," says Chief Karen Ogen of the Wet'suwet'en First Nation.

Ogen says, "It's sad, really, really, really sad.  I hope more people in northern B.C. see the light and join us in building a strong local economy that doesn't include destroying the environment we all depend on."

The release from five Carrier Sekani Communities points out this most recent pipeline leak occurred in an urbanized, industrial area surrounded by emergency services, while the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipelines "would be buried under one-metre of dirt, cross 700 water courses and transect two mountainous sections, all of which are in an extremely rugged and rural region."


Previous Story - Next Story



Return to Home
NetBistro

Comments

In a news release from the Nadleh Whut'en Territory in Fraser Lake, Chief Larry Nooski says, "This most recent pipeline leak is the nail in the coffin for the Northern Gateway Pipelines project."

Its just unbelievable that there are people in our society that will not accept the propaganda of our Provincial and Federal governments and will stand up to them and say “enough os enough.

This elitist corporate attitude that we have lived with for so long and accept so that we can go on our merry way believing that we need these projects to enhance our own life style of consumerism which all it produces is more profit for the big corporations.

Go, Nadleh Whut'en go.
Cheers

Profits that Canadians will never see!
Say NO to foreign interests!
Nancy Pelosi on the occasion of her recent visit to the Alberta tarsands said that the USA must reduce its reliance on foreign oil but that the USA does not consider the crude oil it mines in Canada to be foreign oil.

If it is not foreign then it must be US crude!

Albertans do not object to US crude being transported in pipelines across their province south to the US border, where the Americans can do with it as they please.

Therefore, there is no need to build a pipeline across B.C. to the coast because the American crude from Alberta can be exported from American ports in Washington State or Oregon.

It's risky business so they are trying to pull the wool over eyes and (for next to nothing benefits to us) get us to assume all the risks!

How dumb do they think we are???

No pipeline through British Columbia is what I say.
Canadians (and their Governments) have a lot to learn from the country of Norway when it comes to "capitalizing" on their natural resources.

"The Government Pension Fund - Global (Norwegian: Statens pensjonsfond utland, SPU) is a fund into which the surplus wealth produced by Norwegian petroleum income is deposited. The fund changed name in January 2006 from its previous name The Petroleum Fund of Norway. The fund is commonly referred to as The Petroleum Fund (Norwegian: Oljefondet). As of the valuation in June 2007, it was the largest pension fund in Europe and the fourth largest in the world [1], although it is not actually a pension fund as it derives its financial backing from oil profits and not pension contributions. As of 30 June 2010 its total value is NOK 2.792 trillion ($449 billion)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway
The timing of these two spills could not be any worse for Enbridge. Throughout their northern BC tour, they only seem to speak to the economic benefits that such a project will bring. While at the same time ignoring the potential disastrous impacts associated with even a small oil spill.

And yet here we are with two separate oil spills within their own company, shortly after the massive Gulf oil spill disaster.

I wonder if this Enbridge pipeline will go the way the HST, with it already being a done deal behind closed political doors.

This one is different though, with our rivers, streams, mountains, forests, and everything else at risk.

Until they can 1000% guarantee there will never be an oil spill then I do not think the general public will accept such a project. It is clear that the First Nations bands of the area are not interested. Time will tell if that is enough...
Norway knows how to "share the wealth"?
Why are we so desperate to parrot the U.S.?
How do the scandanavians manage to compete in the "global market"?
Just asking.
Thank you Charles for posting this info on Norway here!

When the Alberta government let the tarsands oil extracting foreign companies know that it wanted higher royalties (not as high as the same companies are paying to Norway!) the industry threatened it would pull out.

Result: Nothing changed. Beggars can't be choosers. The companies have Alberta over the oil barrel.

If foreign companies have Alberta over a barrel we are truly gut less and the elites will rule forevere.
Cheers
Charles that's a great find... the problem is it will never happen in Canada... why? Why because we allow multinationals to transfer price away any real responsibility to the Canadian tax system or responsibility for Canadian royalties (Hence the need for their latest tax scam the HST... make Canadians pay their share of the tax bill).

Most other countries would see it as treason what we allow multinationals to do in the area of transfer pricing to avoid their obligations to Canadians for the profits they make from our natural resources.

A real government that represented the Canadian people and not the international globalists would up hold the law on transfer pricing as a starting point in leveraging what is rightfully the responsibility of multinationals to contribute their fair share for the opportunity for profits they realize in Canada.

Whether its oil and gas, pharmaceutical drugs, high tech, or raw logs... in the end we pay for their profits as they avoid any tax responsibility and that should come to a stop. The 'enlightened sovereignty' of Stephen Harper will never see that this is done, and so we continue to pay their fair share for their corporate profits for the international globalists... and it shows no signs of ever changing at this time.....
And they are trying to convice us that it will never happen here...
I have two words for them ...

bull crap
Enbridge is a Canadian company with its head office in Calgary. They pay quarterly dividends and pay federal and provincial taxes. Not for or against the proposal, just some facts.
dan:-"I wonder if this Enbridge pipeline will go the way the HST, with it already being a done deal behind closed political doors."
------------------------------------------

When 'money' talks it gets listened to.
dow7500 wrote: "They pay quarterly dividends and pay federal and provincial taxes"

The taxes are paid on profits. Any money they have to spend on fixing pipelines will be charged against their gross income thus reducing their net income on which they pay taxes, if they have any net income.

Therefore, it seems to me there are many reasons why we should have an interest in making sure that they do not spill or spill the least amount possible.

The less they spill, the higher the net profits and the more tax is paid. The less they spill, the lower the time commitment to paying for government watchdogs. The less they spill, the greater the comfort level of the general population of allowing someone who does not contribute much, if anything, to the local economy, to pass through their territory.

A win, win situations for most.

Does anyone know whether they will pay any money to the province for securing an easement for the pipeline and access points to that pipeline?
My post above was talking in general about the transfer pricing... in the industry as a whole. Its the weapon of first choice for the globalists in implementing their controlled monopoly capitalism. With transfer pricing abuse they can undermine not only our tax and royalty system, but also sovereign domestic companies altering competitive balances with foreign advantages.

Almost nothing endangers our traditional free enterprise economy more then blind abuse of the transfer pricing between linked multinational operations crossing national boundaries (tax and legal jurisdictions).

Enbridge may be based in Calgary and yadda such, but the Gateway project is 60% Chinese owned with almost all of its product going to China... to China where tax laws, environmental laws, labor laws, and even their regulatory laws are far different than here in Canada. Just some facts.

It would be a huge shame if we were to have a winter spill flowing under the ice not stopped for days after the event doing irreparable harm to one our fine rivers... so that an international conglomeration can use an abused hybrid of transfer pricing accounting practices (utilizing the planned economic advantage of communist Chinese involvement).. and such to avoid their moral obligations to their share of taxation, as well as their strategic contribution to a value added economy here in Canada... for greedy profits (60% Chinese owned)

The risks are great indeed, but I bet if we really looked at all aspects of this project... then we would find a lot more reasons why a project like this should raise red flags.
Gus, I believe you are talking like Enbridge does not have an elastic revenue that can adjust for increase costs of doing business. Enbridge is not your local barber that has a tight limit as to the value in which they earn their revenue... If the big oil majors have to they will double the price of oil... they have in the past out of mere speculation, so why wouldn't they if their profits were endangered.

Profits are useless if they are realized in another tax jurisdiction through another linked company, and that's the art of price transfers.... of which the costs of an oil pipeline rupture can easily be factored into the arrangements.
can you provide proof that gateway is 60% chinese owned?
If I remember correctly it was PetroChina that was Gateway Pipeline Limited Partnership shareholder in partnership with Enbridge. The link I read it in was a PDF file from Enbridge, but has since disappeared.

Interestingly Kinder MOrgan is suing the regulatory agencies calling Gateway a predatory project with no economic basis... seeing as the 'clients' of Gateway refuse to go public and therefor in theory it is a pipeline with no customer in place to justify this kind of infrastructure build out when Kinder claims to have excess capacity in their existing export pipeline through to Vancouver ports and thus claims it is irresponsible to create new risk with a second pipeline at this time.

I find it interesting how Gateway goes to such lengths to hide their partnership with PetroChina and furthermore even their economic partnership as to delivery arrangements once operational (ie who are their pipeline clients). That alone should raise nine red flags for all the reasons stated above.
Probably why CSIS has one eye on the former mayor.
Between 1999 and 2008, Enbridge lists 610 spills that released approximately 21 million litres (132,000 barrels) of hydrocarbons.

In January 2009 an Enbridge pipeline leaked about 4,000 barrels of oil southeast of Fort McMurray at the company's Cheecham Terminal tank farm. It was reported in the Edmonton Journal that most of the spilled oil was contained within berms, but that about 1% of the oil, about 40 barrels, sprayed into the air and coated nearby snow and trees.

April 2010 an Enbridge pipeline ruptured spilling more than 1500 litres of oil in Virden, Manitoba, which leaked into the Boghill Creek which eventually connects to the Assiniboine River.

July 2010, a leaking pipeline spilled an estimated 1,000,000 U.S. gallons of crude oil into Talmadge Creek leading to the Kalamazoo River in southwest Michigan on Monday, July 26.

Aside from all the politics this is the real matter of concern.

If the bigwigs have already decided to give the green light then all our concerns will be ignored and all that will be left is the eventual totally predictable We-told-you-so!
eagleone, I'll see what I kind find on petro chinas involvment. Your unsubstantiated memory dosen't necesarily make it so. A 60% stake would be "hard to hide". Be carefull with Kinder Morgans claims. Here is a US multi national looking out for themselves. Very similar to competeing Alaksa pipeline projects. All sides think they are the best project and their cometitors are all evil.

o yeah...CSIS and the former mayer...good one. Sure he isn't part of the Zionest Conspiracy?
I don't know, but if you have some information on that I'd be glad to hear about it lol. If CSIS is watching local politicians in BC with ties to Chinese projects, as CSIS indicated, then I can't think of any local politicians they would want to watch more then our former mayor and his advocacy for a Chinese partnered pipeline?

I found it odd that the information was once out there and available about the PetroChina partnership in the Gateway Pipeline Limited Partnership as a 'silent' partner with Enbridge taking the lead for construction and operations (for political reasons obviously)... and now all info on that has been scrubbed from the public domain. I would assume it would have to be registered as a corporate entity, and therefore registered somewhere for public consumption. But on the other hand if its considered a private consortium 'partnership', and not a public traded company, then maybe they don't have to release the data on who their partners are in this project?

I 100% did read about the PetroChina partnership with Enbridge in Gateway Pipelines Limited though. It was in PDF document outlining their plans at the outset from their web site. Rather surprised they scrubbed that from the public domain at this point... nine red flags indeed.
In any event the likelihood of transfer pricing abuse to the Canadian taxation responsibilities is huge in what ever the secret arrangements between Enbridge and PetroChina happen to be.
Eagleone ... Petro China dropped out of investing in the Enbridge pipeline proposal 3 years ago.

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2007/07/13/enbridge-gateway.html

Enbridge Inc. was taken by surprise Thursday by comments PetroChina International, its major partner in an ambitious Alberta to British Columbia pipeline, was pulling out of the $3-billion project.

At an oilsands conference in Calgary, Yiwu Song, vice-president of China National Petroleum Corp., PetroChina's parent company, told media the company was tired of the lack of government and producer support for their business, and was dropping the project.

"We have not discussed CNPC's comments with them," said spokesman Glenn Herchak. "so it would not be appropriate to comment."

"The withdrawal of China, which had tentatively committed to 50 per cent of the pipeline's capacity, could spell the end of the already endangered project."

"According to Enbridge, details on the memorandum of understanding signed with PetroChina on Gateway were confidential. But reports indicate the state-run corporation had committed to half the crude throughput on the line."

A marketing tactic of PetroChina? Or is this real?
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE57U4IR20090831

from the above dated a year ago:

"PetroChina was an early backer of Enbridge Inc's (ENB.TO) Northern Gateway pipeline, in 2005 signing a memorandum to consider taking up to half the space on what was then seen as a 400,000 bpd pipeline to take oil sands crude to an export port on Canada's West Coast.

PetroChina has never moved to cement that agreement, though Jennifer Varey, a spokeswoman for Enbridge, said the memorandum of understanding the two companies signed remains in effect."
Some history back to 2005 here. The line was supposed to have oil flowing by now.

Bunch of dreamers in more ways than one
!!!

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=269252
Good finds Gus... the plot thickens it seems.

I noticed that "Enbridge, said the memorandum of understanding the two companies signed remains in effect."... is somewhat a key thing to consider. If I remember correctly PetroChina fronted the first $100 million to see this project through its regulatory process, but we here nothing about Enbridge having to pay that money back to PetroChina. Furthermore Gateway is a private partnership, so they would never have to disclose who the actual shareholders are? Or is the details in the transfer pricing arrangements?

It all makes sense for PetroChina if they want to get their production of the Alberta oil sands out of the country and into China. Its the secrecy that should raise nine red flags though. As I said before its the transfer pricing that will be the devils details.

Not something we should risk our environment for when they refuse to bring full disclosure to the table. Almost as bad as the Enbridge presentation to city hall a few weeks ago when they stated it would create $4 billion in employment for this region. Its insulting to me that they take the low road to try and fool people into getting the support they want. What else are they hiding... I noticed the pipe size is the same from their original presentation, but the volume increase by 30%... thus the pressure increased by 30% in the pipe (same reason for there most recent spills)... and this just conveniently fits with PetroChina's needed capacity. Word has it as well that they have applied to have the thickness of the pipe decreased to increase the economics of the project as well. One gets the sense its about secret economics for Enbridge and not safety when one looks at all these factors combined.

Is it any wonder Kinder is calling foul. If not PetroChina, than it appears as though Enbridge would have no partners in their pipeline and thus why would they go ahead with it. From Kinders perspective one has to think they see it as advantageous for Enbridge to come clean on who they are partnering with behind closed doors (otherwise why the law suits)? If one is playing above board and the other is lurking behind secret deals behind closed doors, then from a competitive perspective there is a lot of room for anti-competitive foul play. No doubt Kinder is also the mouth piece for official Washington on this as well considering the connections on who owns Kinder (Actually its a zionist owned enterprise not much better than PetroChina).

The plot thickens indeed.