On a warm summer night on Aug. 1, 2000, just after midnight, an oil pipeline ruptured 25 metres from the Pine River in northern B.C.
An estimated 6,200 barrels of oil leaked from the 38-year-old pipeline, about half of it into the Pine River. The resulting damage killed fish, perhaps in the tens of thousands, and created a drinking-water problem for the community of Chetwynd, 80 kilometres downstream.
The clean-up and environmental assessment -- which involved hundreds of workers -- eventually cost Federated Pipelines (Pembina Corp. legally concluded a deal to buy the pipeline just hours before the spill) more than $32 million. It is believed to be the most expensive inland oil pipeline spill in Canadian history.
It was not the first incident of this type on the line.
There were 20 incidents on the 811-kilometre pipeline -- which runs from Taylor to Prince George, and then to Kamloops -- between its construction in 1962 and 2007, according to B.C. Utilities Commission documents.
An even bigger spill than the one at Pine River occurred just north of Prince George, when 8,800 barrels of oil were released into the Salmon and Fraser Rivers on May 14, 1974.
At the time, provincial and federal officials were worried about the threat to millions of southerly migrating salmon fingerlings.
It's this risk of an oil spill -- inland along its length or via tanker traffic on the North Coast -- that has largely mobilized opposition to Enbridge's proposed twin oil and condensate pipeline.
Against this it is argued that the pipeline will bring much-needed economic benefits: thousands of temporary construction jobs, up to 200 permanent jobs, an enhanced tax base, and perhaps a legacy fund and ownership stake for First Nations.
The mega-project -- claimed to be the largest crude oil pipeline expansion in Canadian history by the Calgary-based company -- is meant to carry oil from the Alberta tar sands to Kitimat for export to Asia or the western U.S. seaboard. Its price tag of $4.5 billion is expected to increase.
Some northern B.C. business and municipal leaders -- their communities buffeted by a harsh downturn in the forest sector, and preparing for the coming fallout of the pine beetle epidemic -- are already voicing support for the project.
Brian Fehr, the CEO of the Prince George-based BID Group of Companies, has signed on as a supporter of the project through the Northern Gateway Alliance, a group that is the brainchild of Enbridge.
"As a business owner on the pipeline corridor I am looking forward to the opportunities that the project will bring for my business, and especially for my employees," says Fehr.
Tim Hoy, with Andritz Automation Ltd., says the project will bring economic diversification.
Kitimat Mayor Joanne Monaghan notes the economic benefits are not only good for Kitimat but for the entire region.
Adds Prince George Mayor Dan Rogers: "Certainly from what I've seen, there are potential economic development opportunities for those businesses in Prince George and for workers across the North." But getting a clear picture of the local economic benefits -- in jobs and business opportunities -- is difficult.
In the Gateway project's initial preliminary application to the National Energy Board in 2005, Enbridge estimated that local and regional business opportunities on the pipeline, pump stations and terminal at $165 million.
That was about four per cent of the then estimated $4 billion investment in the pipeline.
At the same time, Enbridge pegged local hiring at up to 15 per cent.
Information the company filed with the National Energy Board in 2005 also showed that, at the pipeline's construction peak, more than 5,000 workers would be required.
More recently, Enbridge has said the project will create 4,000 construction jobs.
The firm is also touting the benefits of annual property taxes, which were estimated at $25 million in Alberta and B.C. in its 2005 filing.
Enbridge is not providing updated economic impact numbers until it files its full application to the National Energy Board, which is expected early this year.
It has already said, however, its initial estimate of 75 permanent jobs spread between Alberta and B.C. has increased to 200.
A 2005 Simon Fraser University Master thesis project by Tim van Hinte obtained more detailed data from Enbridge's preliminary filing, showing that average annual direct employment would be: 959 in the first year of construction; 1,559 in the second year; and 613 in the third year.
However, van Hinte's 177-page report, Managing Impacts of Major Projects: An Analysis of the Enbridge Gateway Pipeline Project, showed hundreds of these jobs would be located in Alberta.
Using the data from van Hinte's report, a tabulation by The Citizen showed that at the 15 per cent level for local hires cited in Enbridge's preliminary filing, and filtering out the jobs in Alberta, the employment flowing to local workers in northern B.C. would average about 100 in the first year, under 200 in the second year and about 50 in the third year.
Van Hinte's analysis also showed the project would generate an additional 354 person years of employment in indirect jobs.
More of those jobs would be expected to go to local economies in B.C. and Alberta.
"What I've learned is that, most of the time, the actual number of jobs you are creating is grossly overestimated," said Van Hinte, who noted he's had renewed interest in his 2005 analysis of the pipeline project.
College of New Caledonia economist Al Idiens, who examined Van Hinte's numbers at the request of The Citizen, said, because any local jobs would likely be spread along the pipeline route, the Prince George area would be doing well if 100 local construction-type jobs were generated.
However, Idiens said the jobs -- even if some of the work was seasonal over the three-year construction period -- could help offset an expected slow recovery in the forest sector if pipeline construction was to start in a year.
"We have loads of surplus labour and equipment that would be ideal for operations such as logging and clearing, stockpiling, and camps. Because of this, we will not likely experience the negative side of a boom-bust cycle that mega-projects can create," observed Idiens.
The permanent work that follows construction can also provide additional benefits, improving Prince George's position as a service centre, said Idiens.
While not willing to release the updated estimated job numbers and economic impact of their project until they file their application with the National Energy Board, Enbridge spokesman Steve Greenaway said he believes people will be surprised at the scope of the project in terms of the economic and local tax benefits.
He said the company is hoping to demonstrate to people they want to be real partners in communities for the long term.
"I think you'll find that we've looked at the project probably in a new light, from how best to actually drive economic benefits to communities -- both aboriginal and non-aboriginal -- along the pipeline corridor," said Greenaway. "We are certainly understanding that we need to deliver a significant range of benefits to communities. We've heard that loud and clear, and we will address that."
---
The risk of an oil spill along Enbridge's proposed 1,170-kilometre pipeline is, obviously, not zero.
Pipeline leaks and ruptures happen on pipelines.
There is some evidence that the record on pipeline spills appears to be improving, but the data is by no means conclusive. The data does, however, indicate that the chances of a major pipeline rupture are remote.
National Energy Board data -- from a 2004 analysis of ruptures and 2007 safety information -- shows that the spill rate on liquid pipelines the federal agency regulates (pipelines that cross provincial boundaries) dropped slightly to 0.05 ruptures per 1,000 km between 2000-2007, from 0.063 ruptures between 1984-2003. At the more recent lower rate, 1,000 kilometres of pipeline could be expected to experience a rupture once every 20 years.
The 2004 NEB rupture analysis showed that no ruptures were recorded on pipelines that had been in operation for less than 12 years, viewed as a positive sign by Enbridge officials who argue that technology and construction methods have advanced to make pipelines safer than ever. "There's a lot of tools we have available we didn't have back then," says Ray Doering, Enbridge's Northern Gateway Pipeline project engineer.
In 2007, the last year for which complete numbers are available, Alberta's Energy Resources and Conservation Board recorded the lowest-ever pipeline failure rate of 2.1 failures per 1,000 kilometres of pipeline. Since 2000, the pipeline failure rate has dropped 30 per cent, says the ERCB.
B.C. Utilities Commission documents also noted that there had been no incidents on the 811-km oil pipeline between Taylor and Kamloops, via Prince George, between 2003 and 2007.
A more detailed analysis of pipeline spills is available for the 1,288-km Trans-Alaska Pipeline.
A 146-page spill risk analysis, prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior for the renewal of a federal grant for the 1,288-km Trans-Alaska Pipeline System Right-of-Way, calculated the expected frequency of a small leak of up to 50 barrels of oil was once every two years.
A moderate leak of 50 barrels to 1,800 barrels was calculated to take place once between two years and 33 years.
A larger spill of 700 to 10,000 barrels of oil, from a stream or river washout, was calculated as once every 1,851 years.
Although Enbridge officials say that a spill risk assessment is part of their design criteria for the pipeline, they would not reveal any details of their risk assessment before they file their project application with the National Energy Board.
The Northern Gateway pipeline will be utilizing safety measures that include isolation valves that allow personnel to shut a section of pipe down if a drop in pressure is noticed.
The valves would be controlled remotely by workers monitoring the pipeline around the clock from a base in Edmonton.
Enbridge would not reveal the planned locations of the safety valves, saying those details would also be included in its filing to the National Energy Board.
The distance between isolation valves would give some idea of the amount of oil that could potentially flow into the environment if there is a rupture.
Valve spacing on Enbridge's Alberta Clipper and Southern Lights projects range from as small as one kilometre to as high as 75 kilometres, but average about 32 kilometres, according to documents filed with the National Energy Board.
There is a significant amount of oil in a 32-kilometre section of 36-inch diameter (90.4 cm) pipe: about 132,000 barrels. The amount of oil in a one-kilometre section is about 4,100 barrels, less than the amount leaked in 2000 in the Pine River spill.
Isolation valves are often spaced at either side of a river or at sensitive wetlands.
Enbridge says it is taking other safety measures, noting that safety begins with route selection.
For example, the company will not be following an existing natural gas pipeline route that passes near Smithers because of the danger of mountain slides. Instead, the pipeline is taking a more southerly route to Kitimat.
Enbridge also plans to construct two 6.5-km tunnels through the coastal mountains to protect the pipeline from snow slides.
Extensive planning also goes into water-course crossings with experts engaged to analyze water flows and examine how river channels change over time to determine how far back from the banks the pipe should be drilled, says Doering. The 1974 Salmon River pipeline rupture was a result of bank erosion.
Pipelines, once constructed, are also monitored with aerial and ground patrols of the right-of-way.
Special tools -- called "pigs" -- are also used periodically to examine the inside of the pipe for corrosion or other irregularities. Enbridge has a team that monitors their pipelines with these tools.
"It's very proactive, so if there are any changes, this team is able to identify whether further investigation, excavation or repairs are necessary long before it ever gets to the point resulting in a failure -- long before it results in a leak," said Doering.
Enbridge has had spills on its pipeline system.
Its most recent worst year was in 2007 when 65 spills leaked 13,777 barrels of oil -- a tiny fraction of the volume of oil it transported. That amount of oil, about 2.19 million litres, would fill the Prince George Aquatic Centre's main Olympic-size tank to the three-quarter level.
The Enbridge spills in 2007 included two incidents on its Lakehead system in Wisconsin and another in Saskatchewan.
Wisconsin has been a hot spot of criticism for Enbridge.
The company agreed to pay $1. 1 million to settle claims it broke numerous state environmental laws during construction of its Southern Access pipeline in 2007 and 2008. The more than 500 violations included clearing wetland areas, placing soil in wetlands and leaving construction debris in wetlands.
The Calgary-based Pembina Institute cited concerns over construction impacts in its recently-released report: Pipelines and Salmon in Northern British Columbia.
Smithers environmentalist Greg Brown said the Wisconsin incidents should be a warning.
"Our concerns are being validated by the experience of another group in another part of the world, a recent experience," says Brown, who contributed to the Pembina salmon report.
The Pembina institute -- which is pushing for a shift to sustainable energy and generates the bulk of its revenue from fees and grants -- looked at more than one pipeline proposal in northern B.C. in its salmon report.
Kinder Morgan also has a northern B.C. pipeline route on its books, although the project is nowhere near as advanced as Enbridge's.
The Pembina report noted that northern B.C. has mountainous and remote terrain.
Whether failure is the result of normal pipeline decay over time or more sudden events like landslides or sabotage, the risk cannot be fully eliminated. Any decision to approve such a pipeline should be made in recognition of these risks, the report said.
There has been extensive research on the impact from oil spills on coastal waters, including on the Exxon Valdez tanker spill in Alaskan waters in 1989. Some work has also focused on the impacts in fresh water, but little research has been conducted explicitly in northern B.C.
Research carried out after the Pine River oil spill in 2000 included a preliminary B.C. Environment report that found fish populations in the first 20 kilometres downstream of the spill were heavily impacted. Environment ministry fishery biologists estimated that tens of thousands of fish were killed, with mountain whitefish and sculpins being the hardest hit. Bull and rainbow trout were also killed.
The pipeline company felt the estimate was too high, the environment ministry noted in a 2001 review of the spill.
A later assessment, conducted in 2005 for the District of Chetwynd and two First Nations, using a snorkel survey, suggested the types of fish and their abundance had recovered to pre-spill levels. The presence of oil was not confirmed through laboratory analysis from 25 test holes. But the report concluded it didn't mean that oil couldn't be present in other areas. The $32-million cleanup effort is estimated to have recovered 90 per cent of the spilled oil.
Tim Baccante, a fisheries biologist with B.C. Environment who worked on the spill, cautioned against translating the impact and recovery on the Pine River to another watercourse.
"It really depends on the sensitivity of the community. The Pine River is a pretty big watershed and it has some significant other streams coming into it, so it has at least some ability to re-colonize, where others may not," observed Baccante.
The Fraser and Skeena watersheds the proposed Enbridge pipeline will cross include important salmon habitat. The 785 watercourses the pipeline would cross in B.C. include salmon rivers like the Stuart and Morice.
Queen's University professor Peter Hodson, a specialist in fish toxicology, notes that oil is highly toxic to fish.
Should oil make its way into a stream or river, there is a chance it can infiltrate into gravel beds used by spawning salmon, potentially exposing eggs to toxicity as much as 10 to 15 years later, said Hodson.
Research showed that's what happened in Prince William Sound from the Exxon Valdez spill after oil washed up into long gravel bars at the mouths of streams used by salmon.
Said Hodson: "If you contaminate an important spawning shoal, then of course you are going to wipe out a year class of that spawning shoal, and you'll have no recruitment for that year. So, there's a long-lasting effect." The risk, and potential impacts, of an oil pipeline spill were one of the concerns that led to the recent formation of the Prince George-based Sea-to-Sands Conservation Alliance.
"I think the concerns outweigh the benefits that I can see to the area," says Mary MacDonald, a former lawyer turned social worker in Prince George who helped form the conservation alliance.
"I just think if we continue down this path of economic development at the potential expense of the environment, especially when watersheds are becoming that much more compromised at a global level, it's ultimately not going to serve us very well."
- - -
ENBRIDGE SPILL HISTORY
2010 - On Jan. 8 a leak caused Enbridge to shut down a segment of its Lakehead oil pipeline in North Dakota. The spill was estimated at 3,000 barrels (479,000 litres). Enbridge said water and wildlife were unaffected.
2009 - On Jan. 3, a valve blew on a pipe at the Cheecham terminal tank farm near Fort McMurrary, Alta. releasing about 5,749 barrels of oil (918,000 litres). Most of the oil was contained on site, but some was also blown off site, covering an area about 450 meters by 1,500 meters downwind of the facility.
2008 - Recorded 80 reportable liquid spills, leaks or releases totaling approximately 2,682 barrels (428,000 litres). The largest spill was near Cromer, Manitoba in January when about 629 barrels of crude oil were released when a flange gasket on a pump unit at Cromer Terminal failed.
2007 - Reported 65 spills of 13,777 barrels (2.2 million litres) of oil from its pipeline system. The incidents included two spills from its Lakehead system in Wisconsin. In January, a pipeline ruptured and leaked 1,250 barrels of oil in a farm field. In February, a section of pipe was struck and damaged during excavation, resulting in the release of 3,000 barrels of oil. In Saskatchewan, in April, about 6,227 barrels of oil spilled in a field downstream of a pumping station at Glenavon.
2006 - Reported 61 spills of 5,363 barrels (853,000 litres) of oil on its pipelines. In December, about 2,000 barrels of oil were released when a two-inch nipple failed downstream of a pump at a site on the North Dakota system in Montana. The oil gathered in a low spot in a pasture. In Saskatchewan, about 613 barrels of oil were released in March when a pump failed at the company's Willmar terminal.
2005 - Reported 70 spills of 9,825 barrels (1.56 million litres) of oil from its Canadian and U.S. pipeline systems. Enbridge noted that the majority of these spills occurred and were contained within its fenced stations and terminals, not on its cross-country pipelines.
Sources: Enbridge annual social responsibility reports, news archives, Enbridge interview.
NORTHERN B.C. ECONOMIC PICTURE
- The region has lost thousands of jobs from a more-than-three-year forestry downturn caused by a collapse in U.S. housing. Not all of the jobs are expected to return.
- The area is also facing economic fallout from the coming decrease in timber supply from the pine beetle epidemic, which is expected to reduce forestry jobs.
- There are other sectors, like mining, that hold hope for job creation. Although there are several major mine projects, including gold, copper and molybdenum on the books, only coal mines in northeastern B.C. have materialized.
- Is also looking to a new transportation corridor that includes a $170-million container port at Prince Rupert and a $36-million upgraded runway at Prince George Airport that can handle cargo. However, the global economic slowdown has hurt those plans.
- Enbridge is touting the economic benefits of its proposed $4.5-billion pipeline. There's an estimated 4,000 temporary construction jobs up for grabs in northern B.C. and Alberta. It is uncertain how many jobs could be nabbed by local northern B.C. workers, who are more familiar with forestry than pipeline construction.
- Enbridge says there are 200 jobs that will be created in northern B.C. and Alberta, although no details have been provided. If created, the jobs will be spread through the two provinces, with many of them located in Kitimat.
- Enbridge also points to tax-base benefits, the potential for legacy funding and an ownership stake for First Nations in the Northern Gateway pipeline.
Source: Citizen archives, Enbridge.
