This week, Enbridge notified some townships on phase two that they will stop work for the winter. CJ Carnacchio over at the Oxford Leader has the story. This is a very strange turn of events and the article raises far more questions than it answers. It also contains more of the same old Manshumisms we’ve heard before. Let’s take a look:
According to Carnacchio, a letter to Oxford and Addison Townships, Manshum announced that:
. . . construction on Segment 8 (of Line 6B) is being adjusted due to timing of receipt of final environmental approvals and seasonal constraints,” Manshum wrote.
We will resume the work as soon as weather permits in 2014, and anticipate completing Segment 8 construction by mid-2014.
In the letter, Manshum treats this as if it’s good news, the result of Enbridge thoughtfulness and consideration toward landowners:
By conducting the majority of construction activities, such as excavation, installation and restoration next spring, it will allow us to minimize disruptions to landowners and impacts to the environment because work can be completed in one season.
But let’s think about this for a minute. The bit about “seasonal constraints” is surely complete hogwash. Although the letter mentions “construction challenges and potential damages associated with freezing weather, including road frost bans and slippery road conditions”– challenges that are certainly real– those things in no way prevented Enbridge from working all through the winter last year. In fact, they didn’t even begin construction on our property until November. And work continued all through December, January, and February. So clearly, Enbridge has no trouble real trouble working through the winter months. Also, it’s not clear– the article doesn’t say– whether this cessation of work applies to the parts of phase two on the west side of the state (we suspect not, but we’ll try to find out).
Winter construction work, January 2013.
What this suggests is that the real reason they’re stopping construction has to do with “the timing of receipt of final environmental approvals.” Now that’s a typically wriggly and awkward Manshum phrase, just unclear enough to leave some doubt as to what it’s actually saying. But what we suspect it is saying– although Manshum would never say anything so clear and unequivocal as this– is that Enbridge for some reason failed to obtain some necessary permits and, as a result, they have no choice but to stop work. (Again, we’re not sure about this but are trying to find out.) In other words, we strongly suspect this has nothing at all to do with “seasonal constraints” or a desire to “minimize disruptions to landowners.” That’s just Manshum disingenuously trying to dress this situation up to make Enbridge look good when in fact, they failed to do what they are required to do (secure appropriate environmental approvals and permits).
But then the article gets even stranger. Specifically, things get strange when Carnacchio explains what will happen with the old, deactivated Line 6B. It’s not entirely clear in the article, but it appears that Manshum told Carnacchio this:
The old underground pipeline will not be removed to make way for the new one. It will be left in place where it will run parallel and adjacent to the new line using the same right-of-way.
Once the new line is tied in and activated, the old line will be deactivated.
Deactivation involves purging all the oil from the old line and cleaning it thoroughly to remove any remaining crude. The old line is then taken apart, divided into small segments and capped.
It’s the last sentence here that has us scratching our heads: “The old line is then to be taken apart, divided into small segments and capped.”
Say what?!
This is news to us. In nearly two years of talking, thinking, and asking about the deactivated pipe we have never heard any such thing before. Surely this can’t be true. For one thing, it just doesn’t make sense. Enbridge has said from day one that the main reason for leaving the old line in place is because taking it out would cause further disruptions to landowners. In fact, Manshum says it again at the end of this article:
Coming back and removing the old pipeline once the new one is activated would be inconvenient and disruptive for landowners who would have their properties dug up and disturbed a second time, according to Manshum.
But if they’re going to divide the old line into segments and cap them, how exactly would they do this without digging up disturbing landowners’ properties a second time? This segmenting and capping business needs some further clarification and explanation to say the least. We’re looking into this, too.
Lastly, we can’t help but say one more thing about this matter of inconvenience and disruption to landowners, which Enbridge’s stableful of Manshums has been repeating for so long. That line is supposed to make it look like they just care so much about us. But frankly, it’s insulting. It is not up to Jason Manshum to decide what is too much inconvenience and disruption; no one from Enbridge has ever asked us or any other landowner whether we think the disruption it would cause would be worth the permanent removal of the old Line 6B. Until they do, we would appreciate it if they would stop speaking for us.
Thank you Jeff – excellent information
As a Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences and author of a major textbook directly related to what Enbridge is proposing, I am extremely concerned about their plan to scrub and cap sections of the existing pipeline. Over the years, a thick layer of sludge accumulated inside a pipeline such as this, and that sludge material is extremely toxic with all sorts of organics, heavy metals, and likely even radionuclides (yes, petroleums often have radioactive elements associated with them). There is a high potential for a leak during the purge procedure, and how are they going to transport and dispose of all of the contaminated material they remove from the pipelines. Moreover, the pipeline they leave in place will still have lots of contamination (it’s impossible to remove all of it) and will continue to corrode and eventually leak. Many pipelines built in the 50s, 60s, and early 70s have an asbestos coating that will continue to degrade over time and if it becomes exposed to the atmosphere can release tiny particles of asbestos that would present a major environmental and human health risk. The state and federal governments seem to be giving Enbridge free reign to do whatever they want in terms of the old pipeline, even though it’s extremely dangerous.
I have always believed that Enbridge needs to remove the old pipeline and to submit a highly detailed plan for exactly how they are going to remove it without contaminating the surrounding soils/sediments. Even if they are going to leave it in place, they must plan very carefully for how they are going to prevent leaks/contamination during the washing/purging procedures, how they will transport the hazardous waste, and how they will dispose of it. I doubt that any of the landowner easements have specific language about hazardous waste, which is what will be mobilized/generated and then left behind. This is something landowners need to be very active about. It’s the scariest part of the whole project to date and I have no faith whatsoever that Enbridge will do this in a safe manner, especially given that they seem incapable of surveying properly, keeping landowners properly informed, or telling the truth.
Just to reiterate… Enbridge apparently plans to scrub the pipeline, then cut it at certain locations and cap the ends. The really scary thing is that it will be impossible to remove all of the contamination within the pipeline before they cut it in places and cap it. I can guarantee this because I’m a leading expert in exactly this field. When they cut into the old pipeline, there is a high risk of contaminating the local soils, ground water, etc. I’m sure they’ll say it’s no big deal and they know what they’re doing but there will be risk, even if they have a very careful plan. If ever homeowners needed to band together to fight Enbridge, this is the time. And, Enbridge has never fessed up over whether the existing line has asbestos or not, and if so, what will happen when they expose portions of the pipeline in this dividing/capping process.