If you’ve been paying attention, you might know that up in Canada Enbridge has been all in a flurry to get their Line 9 pipeline reversal online and running. They’ve gone about it in their typically ham-fisted way, despite the legitimate concerns of lots of Canadians, like our friend Emily Ferguson. (And how did Enbridge respond to those concerns? Why, by making up fictional stories about Emily. Seriously!)
Well, last week Enbridge thought they were finally going to get their way– that is until the National Energy Board pointed out that they have failed to meet a basic condition of the project’s approval: installing shut-off valves on both sides of all major water crossings. Just how badly did Enbridge bungle their compliance with this requirement? We’ll let the NEB tell you about it:
As noted above, CSA Z662-11 states that valves shall be installed on both sides of MWCs. The valves do not appear to be placed on both sides of many of the MWCs. Although in its response to Information Request No. 1 for Condition 16, Enbridge added 85 MWCs to its original list of MWCs, Enbridge did not adjust the number of valves to the Project, for example by increasing the number of valves, or explain why the number remained unchanged. As a result, the Board notes that only 6 of the 104 MWCs identified by Enbridge to date appear to have valves installed within 1 km on both sides of the water crossing, while the majority appear to have valves installed more than 10 km from the water crossing on at least one side.
That’s right. Not only did Enbridge fail to accurately identify all major water crossings (the NEB elsewhere says Enbridge needs to revisit their mode of determining MWCs). For the ones they did identify, Enbridge failed to comply with the shut-off valve condition for NINETY-FIVE PERCENT of them.
Just think about this: at a moment when they are under more scrutiny than ever before, when the whole world is looking for their next mistake, when they are desperately trying to convince regulators all over North America to trust them, when changing public perceptions about them has become one of the company’s top priorities– at a moment like that, they fail, abjectly, to abide by a simple regulatory requirement. It almost defies belief.
Is it incompetence or arrogance? We still don’t know which.
Jeff, I have been following this story and looking forward to what you would have to say about it. Unfortunately, if they did this in Michigan, I think they’d get away with it at this point. Thanks as always for your hard work and dedication.
P.S. Jeff, are you going to announce the upcoming forum at Western Michigan University sometime soon on your blog? Thanks!
so, correct me if I am wrong. They put the valves in but in the wrong place??
Not exactly, Mo. It appears that most of the valves they were supposed to install they did not install at all!
From a Line 9B Landowner in Canada – Enbridge seems to think we’ve all fallen off the proverbial turnip truck and wouldn’t notice, in addition to the valve shortfalls, that Enbridge arrogantly wrote the National Energy Board and TOLD them that Enbridge was not going to do 162 “integrity” digs before they got the line up and running, as they deemed them “unnecessary “, but yet conceded the features (mostly cracks) are still there.
Isn’t that what happened on Line 6B?
Furthermore, Enbridge said they had notified the affected Landowners of the cancelled digs in writing, yet 2 affected neighbours, who were expecting 3 digs, received NO notification at all.
There is unexplained contamination and unresolved third party concerns along this line.
Just replace this line that’s rotting in the ground and have done with putting the environment and peoples at risk!
Thanks, Bev. Grrr!
Great work as always, Jeff.
Many thanks, Richard
Friends of the Headwaters
Minnesota