Pledge to improve Northern Gateway safety fails to impress environmental groups

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      Enbridge’s pledge to take extra steps to improve the safety of its proposed Northern Gateway oil pipeline will not soften opposition to the project, a Greenpeace Canada spokesperson says.

      “They’re meeting a wall of opposition in B.C. from First Nations and just regular people who don’t want this project to go ahead,” said Keith Stewart, coordinator of the environmental group’s climate and energy campaign.

      “At the moment they’re trying anything they can think of to build support for it but I think public opinion has hardened against them and I don’t think that this announcement today’s going to change that,” he told the Straight by phone.

      In an announcement today (July 20), Enbridge outlined proposed changes to how the pipeline system would be designed and operated. Among other steps, the measures include increasing the thickness of pipeline walls at river crossings, increasing how often inspections occur system-wide, and staffing remote pump stations around the clock to ensure a quick response to any problems.

      "After years of consultation with stakeholders and after personally attending many regulatory hearings for Northern Gateway, it has become clear—we have to do everything we can to ensure confidence in the project," Janet Holder, Enbridge’s executive vice president of western access, said in a statement.

      "We've listened. We have often been asked if we could guarantee that we would never have a significant pipeline failure over the years on Northern Gateway. These initiatives will put the project closer than any pipeline system in the world to providing that guarantee," Holder said.

      The extra measures are expected to cost the Calgary-based energy company up to $500 million. The entire pipeline project has previously had an estimated pricetag of $5.5 billion.

      The Northern Gateway proposal would see a 1,170-kilometre-long twin pipeline system built between the oilsands in northern Alberta and a coastal terminal in Kitimat, B.C., where tankers would ship the oil overseas.

      Amid fears about the potential risk of an oil spill in inland B.C. waterways or along the coast, First Nations groups, environmentalists, and politicians have been rallying against the project, which is currently being assessed by a federal joint review panel.

      “This is just the wrong project. If Enbridge were investing these billions into the wind and solar energy that we need to power the 21st century, Greenpeace would jump up and down and say ‘yay’,” Stewart, the Greenpeace Canada spokesperson said.

      “But they want to build a new tar-sands pipeline so we can have tar-sands mines so we can accelerate climate change. And that’s not good for Canada. It’s not good for our kids. And it’s the wrong direction to take the country,” he said.

      Ben West, with the B.C. environmental group the Wilderness Committee, said Enbridge’s latest pledge is clearly a response to a recent report that criticized how the company handled an oil spill in Michigan in 2010.

      The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board said Enbridge took 17 hours to react to the Kalamazoo River spill and had failed to address a corrosion problem known about for years.

      West said no amount of safety measures can guarantee there will not be risk of a spill from the Northern Gateway pipeline.

      “Even with the proposals that they’re putting forward, you know, there’s no such thing as a safe pipeline. Even if all this stuff was in their initial plan, I don’t think that would really change anybody’s feelings about the pipeline,” he told the Straight by phone.

      “There’s still landslides, floods, natural disasters, earthquakes, fires—any number of things that can have an impact on a pipeline. There’s still human error. People can still dig in the wrong area and hit the pipeline or any number of other things can happen that could cause a spill.”

      Enbridge officials have said the company has strived to learn from the Michigan spill and avoid any such incidents in the future.

      "We recognize that there are concerns among Aboriginal groups and the public around pipeline safety and integrity. We had already planned to build a state-of-the-art project, using the most advanced technology, safety measures and procedures in the industry today," said Holder, the Enbridge spokesperson.

      "With these enhanced measures, we will make what is already a very safe project even safer in order to provide further comfort to people who are concerned about the safety of sensitive habitats in remote areas."

      Comments

      6 Comments

      hAYOKA

      Jul 20, 2012 at 1:45pm

      Such smoke and mirrors , Northern Gateway is only a viable option to the ignorant and selfish

      ds

      Jul 20, 2012 at 1:52pm

      Why would anyone beleive them after the oil spill in the states? They new of cracks in the pipe for 5 years and did nothing to fix the problem.
      There is nothing in there that says they've changed their way of doing business other than they'll say anything to get their way and the dollar to them is the bottom line.

      Argulion

      Jul 20, 2012 at 3:11pm

      The only way I can see to improve safety is not to build pipeline. Everything about Northern Gateway is just asking for trouble. The route, terrain, port, coastline, and tanker routes are all serious safety issues..

      Pepsicat

      Jul 20, 2012 at 7:50pm

      The Titanic was "state of the art" as well and looked what happened to it...
      The PR campaign that Enbridge is running about how good the project is for families, creating jobs, and improved international trade makes me laugh as they are creating jobs internationally on the backs of future Canadian jobs. Except for those that will have to clean up the mess...
      One thing I would like to know is the total dollar amount the oil and gas industry receives in subsidies in comparison to subsidies the renewable energy sector receives.

      e.a.f.

      Jul 21, 2012 at 12:19am

      If they say they will improve things, be more careful, etc. it means that the first time round they were not doing it properly. At the time they would have told everybody it was a good pipeline. They lied. So what? are we to believe them this time that they aren't lying to us? Not so much.

      Embridge has had oil spill & leaks all over the place. They just kept doing it & doing it..... These guys will lie to get the public to believe they will do better. No they won't & never will. Their profit margins are their bottom line, not the enviornment.

      Oil companies are a little like guys trying to talk you into having sex with them, they make a lot of promises but deliver very little.

      Zen Cat

      Aug 4, 2012 at 5:36pm

      when the politicians are incapable of being accountable and responsible to the people and no longer represent the voice of the people, we the people must voice what must be said.

      Dear Al Monaco, President, Enbridge Inc., I am adding my voice to the strong opposition the Northern Gateway Pipelines project and respectfully request and urge you to immediately withdraw this project without further delay. Your company's Northern Gateway Pipelines project will put every ecosystem and species across British Columbia, Alberta at risk. Your company cannot contain any oil spill on land or sea and we cannot gamble with the our streams, rivers and lakes that flow into the pacific ocean off the coast of British Columbia,. We do not want to jeopardize our home, our life and our environment. We do not want your proposal by any scope of the imagination because supertankers carrying toxic oil from the Tar Sands are not worth what we already have. In order to sustain and protect our environment which includes pure air, pure water, uncontaminated earth and the life supported therein, we cannot accept your gamble.
      Please stop. It's your turn to change. Thank You.