Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Enbridge Oil Spill in Wisconsin (190,000 litres)


key2thecup

Recommended Posts

Enbridge just shot themselves in the head for there Alberta-BC Northern Gateway Pipeline, how many spills is this now?

Oil spill in Wisconsin forces Enbridge to shut down pipeline

CALGARY - Canada's Enbridge Inc. said an oil spill in Wisconsin had forced it to shut down part of the main pipeline system delivering Canadian crude to U.S. refiners on Friday, a fresh blow for a firm already facing fierce criticism from regulators.

Almost two years to the day after a major spill on a different part of its network, Enbridge shut down Line 14 after a leak that it estimated at around 1,200 barrels of oil. The 318,000 barrel per day (bpd) line, part of the Lakehead system, carries light crude oil to Chicago-area refineries.

"Enbridge is treating this situation as a top priority," said Richard Adams, vice president of U.S. Operations at Enbridge. "We are bringing all necessary resources to bear."

The cause of Friday's spill was undetermined and Enbridge Energy Partners said it had no estimate on when flows would resume. Line 14 is one of four lines that ship mainly Canadian crude via Lakehead, a 2.5 million bpd network that is the principle route for Canadian exports.

The news will not help Enbridge build public trust in its network, which has come under scrutiny following several high-profile incidents, including a spill in Alberta last month and a massive leak in Michigan two years ago.

Just weeks ago, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board delivered a scathing report of Enbridge's handling of the July 2010 rupture of its Line 6B near Marshall, Michigan, which led to more than 20,000 barrels of crude leaking into the Kalamazoo River. U.S. pipeline regulators fined it $3.7 million for the spill, their largest ever penalty.

The incidents have caused furor just as the company seeks approval for its C$6 billion Northern Gateway pipeline to Canada's West Coast from Alberta amid staunch opposition from environmental groups and native communities that warn against oil spills on land and in coastal waters.

This month, Enbridge Chief Executive Pat Daniel acknowledged in an interview with Reuters that the criticism of the company, especially from the U.S. regulator, makes it more difficult to convince Canadians to support Northern Gateway.

KEYSTONE COPS

In its report earlier this month, the NTSB said it found a complete breakdown of company safety measures, and that Enbridge employees performed like "Keystone Kops" trying to contain it. The rupture, which went undetected for 17 hours, spilled more than 20,000 barrels of heavy crude.

The board said the main failure was due to multiple small "corrosion-fatigue cracks" that grew over time to create a breach in the pipe over 80 inches long. It said Enbridge knew for years that the section of pipe was vulnerable.

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, or PHMSA, said its probe uncovered two dozen regulation violations related to the leak, which spawned a massive clean up that the company has estimated will cost more than $700 million.

In response to the report, Enbridge said it believed its personnel were trying to do the "right thing" at the time.

Enbridge said Line 14 was a 24-inch diameter pipe that was installed in 1998, making it a relatively new line. In most cases, smaller pipeline leaks can be repaired quickly allowing operations to resume pumping, although regulators may require significant work if they find any cause for alarm. Following the leak two years ago Line 6B was shut for over two months.

No injury was reported at the line, which is near Grand Marsh, Wisconsin, Enbridge said.

http://www.vancouver...l#ixzz21xyKFoUW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if we think "light crude" does environmental damage, just wait until that "sludge" they want to send thru northern BC inevitably "spills" into one of out domestic watersheds .. blood WILL be spilled before that is allowed to happen ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if we think "light crude" does environmental damage, just wait until that "sludge" they want to send thru northern BC inevitably "spills" into one of out domestic watersheds .. blood WILL be spilled before that is allowed to happen ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some other fun Enbridge spill facts:

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.[12]

On July 4, 2002 an Enbridge pipeline ruptured in a marsh near the town of Cohasset, Minnesota in Itasca County, spilling 6,000 barrels (950 m3) of crude oil. In an attempt to keep the oil from contaminating the Mississippi River, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources set a controlled burn that lasted for 1 day and created a smoke plume about 1-mile (1.6 km) high and 5 miles (8.0 km) long.[13]

In 2006, there were 67 reportable spills totaling 5,663 barrels (900.3 m3) on Enbridge's energy and transportation and distribution system; in 2007, there were 65 reportable spills totaling 13,777 barrels (2,190.4 m3) [14]

On March 18, 2006, approximately 613 barrels (97.5 m3) of crude oil were released when a pump failed at Enbridge's Willmar terminal in Saskatchewan.[15] According to Enbridge, roughly half the oil was recovered, the remainder contributing to 'off-site' impacts.

On January 1, 2007 an Enbridge pipeline that runs from Superior, Wisconsin to near Whitewater, Wisconsin cracked open and spilled ~50,000 US gallons (190 m3) of crude oil onto farmland and into a drainage ditch.[16] The same pipeline was struck by construction crews on February 2, 2007, in Rusk County, Wisconsin, spilling ~201,000 US gallons (760 m3) of crude, of which only about 87,000 gallons were recovered. Some of the oil filled a hole more than 20 feet (6.1 m) deep and was reported to have contaminated the local water table.[17][18]

In April 2007, roughly 6,227 barrels (990.0 m3) of crude oil spilled into a field downstream of an Enbridge pumping station near Glenavon, Saskatchewan. Long-term site remediation is being attempted to bring the site to "as close as possible to its original condition".[15]

In 2009, Enbridge Energy Partners, a US affiliate of Enbridge Inc., agreed to pay $1.1 million to settle a lawsuit brought against the company by the state of Wisconsin for 545 environmental violations.[19] In a news release from Wisconsin's Department of Justice, Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said "...the incidents of violation were numerous and widespread, and resulted in impacts to the streams and wetlands throughout the various watersheds."[20] The violations were incurred while building portions of the company's Southern Access pipeline, a ~$2.1 billion project to transport crude from the oil sands region in Alberta to Chicago.

In January 2009 an Enbridge pipeline leaked about 4,000 barrels (640 m3) 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 (6.4 m3), sprayed into the air and coated nearby snow and trees.[21]

On January 2, 2010, Enbridge's Line 2 ruptured near Neche, North Dakota, releasing about 3,784 barrels of crude oil, of which only 2,237 barrels of were recovered.[22][18]

April 2010 an Enbridge pipeline ruptured spilling more than 9.5 barrels (1.51 m3) of oil in Virden, Manitoba, which leaked into the Boghill Creek which eventually connects to the Assiniboine River.[23]

July 2010, a leaking pipeline spilled an estimated 843,444 US gallons (3,192.78 m3) of crude oil into Talmadge Creek leading to the Kalamazoo River in southwest Michigan on Monday, July 26 near Marshall, Michigan.[24][25] A United States Environmental Protection Agency update of the Kalamazoo River spill concluded the pipeline rupture "caused the largest inland oil spill in Midwest history" and reported the cost of the cleanup at $36.7 million (US) as of November 14, 2011.[24] An employee of a subcontractor hired by Enbridge has claimed that the cleanup is ongoing as of July 2012.[26] PHMSA raised concerns in a Corrective Action Order (CAO) about numerous anomalies being detected on this pipeline by internal line inspection tools, yet, a number of those anomalies had not been checked in the field.[27] The Michigan spill affected more than 50 kilometres of waterways and wetlands and about 320 people reported symptoms from crude oil exposure.[28] The NTSB said at US$800 million it was the costliest onshore spill cleanup in U.S. history.[29] The NTSB found Enbridge knew of a defect in the pipeline five years before it burst.[30]

On September 9, 2010, a rupture on Enbridge's Line 6A pipeline near Romeoville, Illinois released an estimate 7,500 barrels (1,190 m3) of oil into the surrounding area

source:wikipedia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds ridiculous, but I feel like this entire Northern Gateway Pipeline is like one of those global human caused atrocities (Extermination of First Nations through infected small-pox blankets/Holocaust/Minamata Disease - absolutely no disrespect intended to those suffering from these historical atrocities) that happens and afterwards people all over the globe say, "How was this allowed to happen?" Difference being that the Northern Gateway can be prevented right now but NO ONE seems to care (well, no one with any power to do anything really cares it seems like).

I never thought I'd be so naive - I thought these types of completely blatant exploitations of resources at the sake of everything good and pure only happened in far off places with unapologeticly corrupt governments like South America or Africa - not in a country like Canada?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds ridiculous, but I feel like this entire Northern Gateway Pipeline is like one of those global human caused atrocities (Extermination of First Nations through infected small-pox blankets/Holocaust/Minamata Disease - absolutely no disrespect intended to those suffering from these historical atrocities) that happens and afterwards people all over the globe say, "How was this allowed to happen?" Difference being that the Northern Gateway can be prevented right now but NO ONE seems to care (well, no one with any power to do anything really cares it seems like).

I never thought I'd be so naive - I thought these types of completely blatant exploitations of resources at the sake of everything good and pure only happened in far off places with unapologeticly corrupt governments like South America or Africa - not in a country like Canada?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Levant, the author, an Albertan Conservative and Pro-Tar Sands lobbyist makes 2 key claims in that book.

1) the first being that the oil sands have a shrinking footprint.

2 The second claim is that oil sands crude is less damaging than other kinds of oil:

The first claim is a smokescreen for lack of better words. Yes, the per barrel extraction process is getting more efficient, which per barrel requires less energy to make, and therefore less GHG's(green-house gas) released....BUT, the number of barrels over the same period of time, as those efficiencies came in, soared dramatically. So, the actual level of energy used and the actual amount of GHG's, you know...the stuff that's the single biggest contributing factor to climate change?, has actually increased.

The claim is disingenuous and it's a clear attempt to try to make chicken salad out of oily chicken-$#!@.

The second claim, is hogwash as well. It is true that there are oil sources with heavier carbon footprints than Alberta’s bitumen deposits, particularly when all emissions, including shipping, are considered. The problem is, they are not the types of oil—Saudi, Nigerian and Venezuelan—that Levant says should be displaced in favour of the oil sands. According to a study commissioned by the provincially funded Alberta Energy Research Institute, just one type of crude, from California, can be credibly called dirtier oil than that from the province’s oil sands. Oil sands mining projects, despite their efficiency gains, generate 15 percent more greenhouse gas emissions per barrel than Saudi crude. Steam-extraction projects (which Levant correctly notes are the focus of expansion in the industry) fare even worse.

The reality is that Alberta’s oil sands generate more carbon emissions than comparable sources of crude, and its emissions continue to rise sharply and will for decades to come, with the blessing of the Alberta government:

The book and his author seek to obscure this essential truth of comparative carbon emissions Heretic, but he can't, at least not outside the confines of his narrowly constructed argument. There are other myopic falsities in this book, those two shortcomings mean that Levant fails to make the case for ethical oil. He makes the case for jobs well enough, but that's never been in question. I fail to see the 'ethical' part of tripling the amount of GHG emissions from dirty oil and then footing Canadians with the bill and taking most of the profits oversea's or at least out of the country, while spilling this crap on our soil, and in our waterways, while killing our ecosystems, plants, animals, fish, and most importantly KILLING CANADIAN PEOPLE.

Where's the ethics in that?!? Go to the place downstream of the oil patches along the Athabasca and talk to the families of whole communities that are dying of rare forms of cancer, and then come back to speak to us of 'ethics'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said it was from the other side...

Here's another "pro oil" side:

http://www.ethicaloil.org/

I like their donation policy:

"The No Tar Sands Coalition, Greenpeace, and other opponents of Ethical Oil are funded by grants from foreign foundations. EthicalOil.org, by contrast, will not take money from foreign corporations, foundations, governments, or lobbyists. We will not allow foreign corporate interests to compromise our independence."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...