[All] Line 9: Amazing developments

Sun May 27 21:40:15 EDT 2012

LuLu, I envy you your stamina.  I congratulate you on your constant results.
Absolutely GREN should be part of this.

Jan
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Louisette Lanteigne 
  To: all at gren.ca 
  Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 8:44 PM
  Subject: [All] Line 9: Amazing developments

  Hi folks

  Today's hearing makes me more and more convinced, that miracles are possible. 

  I arrived in London and saw the headline in the London Free Press that reads: THE BIG LEAK. Half a million southwestern Ontario residents are without water due to the Region's largest water pipe breaking. Stantec used the data they did for THIS pipeline and simply doubled it to get their price estimates for our Region's Lake Erie pipe proposal.

  As I sat at the NEB hearing, I had a Eureka moment. When a water main brakes, you don't hear people complaining that it was the Region's fault and yet when an oil pipeline breaks, they plaster the name of Enbridge all over the place. The fact of the matter is, the spills Enbridge has been experiencing are not based on corrosion issues, they are based on the same reason as this water main break: Underestimated risks in the Environmental Impact Studies. 

  Root cause Stantec? Not necessarily. The guidelines for what is considered a reasonable test have not been designed. Folks will usually do the minimum of whatever it takes to get the job, to get something approved, done rather than to do the job right. So how do we secure the best strategy for risk prevention? Easy. Hold environmental engineering firms liable. 

  I told the NEB chairs, oil distribution agencies like Enbridge pay other firms to do their environmental impact studies. In good faith they build their pipes thinking that the work is done right. Enbridge assumes the liability risk of that data they purchased to justify their pipeline. When pipes break and the reason is linked to poor quality data of the EIS report, the blame should be on the firm who conducted the study, not Enbridge. Oil distribution firms should keep a check worth the entire value of the services these Engineering firms provide. If the pipes break due to the negligence of a poor EIS report: Cash it. That money incentive will assure the job gets done right. It will also serve to prevent destruction for profit scenarios. 

  When it came down to the final argument, the Enbridge rep clairified, the existing line has not been in use for over a year but the industry wants to open it up to move light crude to refineries in Montreal but they also stated, "If we can't move this oil safely, were not going to move it."  Enbridge is open to further discussion on the matter with the public. 

  At that point, the NEB chairs stated, they will now take their first Undertaking: Enbridge must figure out how to involve parties in this process and how to inform citizens of emergency plan development and include them in the process. 

  After that the hearing was adjourned.  I had a whole bunch of folks come up to offer handshakes and thanks from the staff of Enbridge, all the oil company reps as well as the staff of Ecojustice, Equiterre and Environmental Defence. People really liked the idea. NEB liasion officer said that the policy was a direct result of my presentation and said that in 12 weeks we'll hear from Enbridge on how they are willing to proceed with the undertaking. 

  As I left I thought about Forest Ethics and how they created ground breaking protection for Carolinian Forests by creating sustainable harvesting programs directly with the forestry sector. Things get done much faster with industry partnerships to create better standards than they do via political processes. Enbridge is willing to work with us to figure out how to avert risks. This could be groundbreaking stuff. They need to figure out what to do with the existing pipe that's already on top of our moraine. It was installed in 1976. Should it stay or should it be removed? Is there any way they could modify things to make it safer? What are reasonable test times and methods should they use to build pipes safer?  What sort of monitoring should they do? Their job is distribution. They move product from point A to B.  They want to know how to keep things safer because the last thing their company wants is another leaky pipeline. If we can help them design things safer or to explain why they should opt out of dealing with Line 9 all together, now is the time to structure those arguments. The Line 9 project report info is all online here: http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rthnb/pplctnsbfrthnb/nbrdgln9phs1/nbrdgln9phs1-eng.html

  This is a most unusual opportunity to foster greater public debate during an NEB hearing. I didn't know that could be done but sure enough, it's happening. I would really like GREN to be a part of this. Any contribution we can make to give recommendations to prevent spills or prevent risks could become a new industry standard. What say GREN?

  Lulu 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  All mailing list
  All at gren.ca
  http://gren.ca/mailman/listinfo/all_gren.ca

--
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter.
We are a community of 7 million users fighting spam.
SPAMfighter has removed 3477 of my spam emails to date.
Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len

The Professional version does not have this message
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20120527/ad4a49a8/attachment.html>