Sometimes these stories write themselves, actually this post is entirely written by someone else, it`s the Northern Gateway panel review, JRP, also known as the Enbridge pipeline, what we have below is questioning to Enbridge representatives, ..
Let me introduce you to the players, Mr. Jones is the Haisla`s legal council, and of course the Haisla bear the most risk, a tanker spill in the Hecate Strait or Douglass channel would extinct species and destroy the engine in BC`s wild west coast..
And those four gentlemen are Enbridge experts on oil recovery?????
DR. Mathew Horn....Mr. Kevin Underhill....Mr. Greg Milne...Dr. Elliot Taylor
What you are about to read is shocking, terrifying, these experts, all 4 of them are clueless as to how to clean up diluted bitumen in water, how to clean up submerged oil or oil on the bottom of waterways...
What these men say in testimony is...They are working on solutions for the oil in water recovery, no method really exists, as you will find out, they had major problems in the slow moving waterway, that being the Kalamazoo in Michigan, these men describe oil recovery methods as a .."work in progress"..
In other words, British Columbia`s rivers and ocean will be the testing grounds for this grand experiment!!!...
This is madness people, the same non-answers were told as to Geo-hazards, as to rock slide areas, river crossings, all 800 of them, there are no details, the joint review panel can`t allow this project, the review panel is being asked to take it on faith, on trust, on a wink and a nod.....
Everyone, this is important, call your Federal MP and scream no to Enbridge and no the the Chinese Trade deal Harper signed secretly in Russia, ...
The Chinese free trade deal will mean Enbridge can`t be stopped, even after a 100 spills, it can`t be stopped, the deal Harper signed would entail the Canadian military protecting the Chinese investors who invested in Enbridge, the free trade deal is set to come in affect on November 1st/2012...It has yet to be debated in our Federal Parliament, the implications give China`s investors power over our laws, our courts, BC would be sued by secret courts run by secrets arbiters...
Call your MP and threaten bloody everything, everything legal that is.....
This is a deal, a secret Stephen Treason Harper deal that sells Canada down the river, remember the power granted to the OIC, The Olympic InternationalOrganizing Committee,, it trumped our local laws, Harper`s secret trade deal makes the IOC deal look like a IOU written between children,....
The China sell-out deal is here, be scared, very very scared..
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/10/16/China-Investment-Treaty/
Below is the transcript that destroyed Enbridge`s fantasy pipeline to Kitimat, let`s just call them...
The Reality Papers
_______________________________
Enbridge Northern Gateway Panel 3
Examination by Mr. Jones
Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011
13417. MR. JONES: Okay. Perhaps I will -- we might return to this in other information requests, but maybe you can help me out at least for now. What happened in Michigan with respect to that oil?
13418. DR. MATTHEW HORN: In the case of the Kalamazoo spill there was a high flow of water moving through the region. It was a flood event in which there was a large amount of suspended solids. If you were to look at that water, it was not pristine and clear. In fact, it was very muddy and brown. It was turbid with suspended solids. So the diluted bitumen that mixed in the water calm bound with those particles, became more dense and then sank to the bottom.
13419. MR. JONES: Okay. Thank you.
13420. Has Northern -- Enbridge, I suppose, in this case -- has Enbridge done any analysis with respect to the Michigan spill about how quickly the diluted bitumen began to sink? And I appreciate that may be difficult to answer because precise timing is difficult, but if you have evaluated that, I’d appreciate it.
13421. MR. KEVIN UNDERHILL: There was no specific analysis that was conducted with respect to that. However, it did become known to the unified command after about three weeks.
13422. MR. JONES: Okay. Thank you.
13423. And in fact, as I understand it at least, about a year after the spill in Michigan, there was still submerged oil that was being remediated. Is that correct?
13424. MR. KEVIN UNDERHILL: Yes, that’s correct.
13425. MR. JONES: Thank you.
13426. And I understand that you’ve been recently asked by the EPA in the United States to undertake further recovery of sunken oil; is that right?
13427. MR. KEVIN UNDERHILL: The EPA has issued a proposed order. Coupled with that order was a letter that extended -- offered the option to meet and discuss the order, and that is exactly what we are pursuing with the EPA.
13428. MR. JONES: I apologize; I just was distracted there. At the end of your answer, did you say that the EPA had offered to meet? I apologize for
13429. MR. KEVIN UNDERHILL: Yes, it was a proposed order. Appended to the order was a letter from the Incident Commander, Mr. Dollhopf, who had indicated in the letter that we have the ability to meet with the EPA to discuss the options in the attached order. So we are going to pursue that.
13430. MR. JONES: Oh, I see. So at this point, the potential continued remediation of sunken oil in Michigan hasn’t been determined. And perhaps you could help me out? I’m not really familiar with the proposed order approach. Is this -- the EPA, does it issue a -- I’ll use my words -- a draft order that is potentially -- that it may potentially issue once further discussions with a regulated entity would take place?
13431. MR. KEVIN UNDERHILL: I think you could characterize it that way. Across the order is a watermark that says “proposed” with a letter that offers various means by which we can meet and discuss elements of the order, one of which is to meet with the EPA directly and discuss the scope and options that are proposed. So that is what we are proposing with the EPA.
13432. MR. JONES: Okay. Thank you.
13433. I just wanted to return, Dr. Horn, to what you said a moment ago about the potential sinking of diluted bitumen, and I just want to make sure I understood your evidence correctly.
13434. If I could turn to the Northern Gateway response to Haisla Information No. 1.46, I’d appreciate it.
13435. Madam Clerk, I’m just going to try to find it for you -- it would be in Exhibit B39-3. I don’t have an Adobe reference. It would be around page 150. I’m not sure which information response we’re in quite yet. I did my best estimate to where it might be. Oh, 164, my learned friend has just let me know.
13436. Actually, I’m sorry, Northern Gateway very kindly had all the same pages for its information request, so it’s right here on the page. So I should have known already. Thank you, though.
13437. If we could turn to page 166, this is again referring to the potential for diluted bitumen to sink, and I’m just right at the bottom of page 166 where it say
-- it’s the last few words:
“The weathered diluted bitumen would have a density approaching 1.0 g/cc which indicates that once the diluted bitumen weathers, under such cold temperatures, it may be susceptible to sinking in fresh water, as was observed in the Kalamazoo spill.”
13438. So that’s where I was trying to understand your response, Dr. Horn, that you indicated that weather-diluted bitumen would not sink, and I had understood from this response that it would. Am I incorrect on that?
13439. DR. MATTHEW HORN: What I’m indicating here is that the density is approaching one gram per cubic centimetre, but what is implied by this statement is that there is some amount of total suspended solids in the water column. It’s a difficult thing to assume, that water is going to have absolutely zero concentration of total suspended solids. So yes, diluted bitumen is close to one gram per cubic centimetre.
13440. MR. JONES: M’hm.
13441. DR. MATTHEW HORN: But weathering alone will not take it to that point. Any oil can sink in the presence of suspended solids.
13442. MR. JONES: Okay. Thank you.
13443. And just to return probably to -- well, I’m not sure if it will be Mr. Underhill or not, but the product that was -- the product that was in the spill in Michigan, is it -- does it have similar qualities to what -- to the diluted bitumen that would be going through the pipeline in the Northern Gateway Pipeline?
13444. MR. KEVIN UNDERHILL: There were two products in that spill. It was Cold Lake, approximately 77 percent, and Western Canada Select, approximately 23 percent. So they do have similar properties, yes.
13445. MR. JONES: Okay. That’s great. Thank you. Thanks very much.
13446. I want to take you next to a report prepared on behalf of the Haisla First Nation, and it’s Exhibit D-80-2709, and I’m on page 77 of that document.
13447. It’s at the bottom of that page. Make sure that we have the right page here. It is D-80, probably D80, I’m sorry, D80-2709. Yes, you’ve got it. Did I get the wrong exhibit number? Okay. Sorry, I think it’s 27-09, my mistake sorry, and I’m on page 77 of that document. And just towards the bottom of the page there, Madam Clerk, if you could go there. And it’s going to be that quote you see at the bottom and it’s going to continue on the next page.
13448. I just wanted to get your -- many of you are experts, obviously, in this area -- but get your expert views with respect to this. In this report the authors are quoting, as I understand it, a report commissioned by the U.S. Coastguard and it says:
“Spills of nonfloating oil pose special challenges during all phases of an emergency response. Nonfloating oils are difficult to track and locate. There are no proven containment methods for either oil suspended in the water column or deposited on the seafloor; underwater recovery methods are complex, expensive and inefficient; the oil is often viscous making it difficult to pump; and large volumes of water and/or sediment usually must be handled during recovery and disposal. As is the case for all oil spills, every submerged oil spill is a unique combination of conditions based on oil type and behaviour, environmental setting, and physical processes.”
13449. Now, I appreciate that this may be referring specifically to oil in seawater, but would this be accurate in terms of the challenges faced by a spill responder to oil that has sunk in freshwater as well?
13450. MR. KEVIN UNDERHILL: I think I’d draw on some of our experience at Marshall.
13451. MR. JONES: Yes.
13452. MR. KEVIN UNDERHILL: A freshwater environment where we did have oil that submerged as a result of being exposed to sediment, we did identify depositional areas. We used a fluvial geomorphologist. I think I said that right.
13453. MR. JONES: Wow, one can aspire to be a fluvial geomorphologist.
13454. MR. KEVIN UNDERHILL: I’ve said it a few times, but I still have trouble with it. Anyways we use that specialty to identify areas where this product would naturally collect. We came up with different methods, methods that we -- some of which we determined on our own to resurface and collect submerged oils, and I do think we had a good success with respect to that, with respect to removing the bulk of the submerged oil. When I say bulk, I don’t want to paint a picture that it’s a blanket or anything like that. These are small, small droplets that are suspended or that have submerged and have sediment attached to them and we take core samples and look at those cores and identify these small droplets and then we determine the density of those and determine whether an approach to re-suspend those and collect those is necessary.
13455. So --- and we did have success with respect to that. Yes, we still have issues and we’re still there and still working hard to address those but, again, we’ve removed the bulk of that and we’ve had success in a multitude of different techniques that we’ve employed there.
13456. MR. JONES: Okay.
13457. MR. GREG MILNE: And if I may just ---
13458. MR. JONES: Please do.
13459. MR. GREG MILNE: --- expand on Mr. Underhill’s commentary for a moment. Certainly oil that has submerged does present some challenges. Our experience at Marshall was certainly a learning for Enbridge, but it was also an industry learning. The oil that was spilled at Marshall and as well as many of the products that would move on Gateway are products that are moved throughout North America right now. They are proposed to move on Northern Gateway but they are also in use across the continent.
13460. So it’s a learning for us; it’s a learning for industry. I believe it’s probably a learning for some of our regulators as well. I know we’ve been speaking and sharing our experiences with others in the community, if you will, the pipeline, the oil and gas community, and we recognize that there is more information and awareness of these challenges that would be beneficial to Northern Gateway but also to the industry overall. And we want to ensure that going forward and as we work through some of our plans that we are prepared to address that -- the circumstance and its potential effectively.
13461. MR. JONES: Thank you. Thank you for that answer, Mr. Milne.
13462. But I guess my question about this quote was, I mean, if I can colloquially summarize that quote in saying submerged oil is a really difficult challenge. It’s a very difficult -- if the oil spills and it sinks, you’re going to have a very -- a major challenge in effectively remediating that spill. And, you know, I appreciate your evidence with respect to your experience in Michigan which perhaps bears that out, but would you agree with me, based on this quote or just based on your own experience, that dealing with submerged oil is a very significant challenge and poses great difficulty in terms of being able to effectively respond to it?
13463. DR. ELLIOTT TAYLOR: If I might just ---
13464. MR. JONES: Sure, Dr. Taylor. Thank you.
13465. DR. ELLIOTT TAYLOR: It’s interesting because this has been a topic that obviously this particular report in 2006 was commissioned. There has been, of course, follow up since then. There’s, I think -- industry-wide and then jointly with government, there has been studies and research done along these lines, always looking at ways to improve response capabilities. And one aspect of response capabilities that’s been of focus for research and development has been oils that submerge or that sink. But let’s not lose sight of what’s happening here. The oil, as I think Dr. Horn described, that is being proposed here floats and as it weathers and if it picks up sediment and when it picks up sediment, then a portion of that could sink. You still need to attack what’s floating, which is -- and the sooner you get to that, obviously the better.
13466. That doesn’t take away from the challenge. There’s a challenge with floating oil. There’s a challenge with nonfloating or sunken oil, but I think in the same report there are examples of case studies where different techniques were used, tried, tested and the same report also gives you benefits and some of the limitations of different techniques that were used.
13467. So just like Enbridge on the Marshall Response learned and added to industry-wide capability for response, you see the same thing in research and development along these lines.
13468. One of the outcomes that came from Marshall is actually to include now in their response plan the strategies and tactics for addressing oil that is not
13469. MR. KEVIN UNDERHILL: I’ll just add. It’s difficult, but it’s not insurmountable and I think we’ve proven that out in Marshall.
13470. MR. JONES: That’s what I was looking for there is, you know, and I was going to follow up with Dr. Taylor that -- your statement that, of course, your first response priority is floating oil. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but that seemed to be your indication. That itself indicates the difficulty and challenge that one would face in trying to respond to a spill involving submerged oil; isn’t that correct?
13471. DR. ELLIOTT TAYLOR: Could you please restate that?
13472. MR. JONES: Sure. Yeah.
13473. DR. ELLIOTT TAYLOR: Okay.
13474. MR. JONES: And perhaps I took too much from what you were saying.
13475. But I think, in your previous response, you indicated first that, you know, some of the oil or a lot of it at least, at the beginning, is floating and I took that to be an indication that the first priority would be to deal with floating oil; is that correct?
13476. DR. ELLIOTT TAYLOR: Oh, well, I’m sorry if I conveyed priorities in that sense.
13477. There’s -- in any response, there’s multiple lines of attack and I think, in several places in these documents on planning, you know, safety always being the first consideration.
13478. Source control being a priority ---
13479. MR. JONES: Sure.
13480. DR. ELLIOTT TAYLOR: --- to keep as much out of any waterways so you’re not even asking these kind of questions.
13481. And then, if it does get into the waterway then there’s multiple lines of attack.
13482. Obviously, trying to get what you can off the surface, protect sensitive resources downstream and, should there be sedimentation, then to identify where these points are, much like the case in Marshall, use the fluvial geomorphologists to identify locations where some of this material might be deposited and then go to the clean-up and treatment -- the recovery, sorry.
13483. MR. JONES: Thank you very much, Dr. Taylor. I appreciate it.
13484. Going next to -- though, I was going to follow on from what Mr. Underhill had just said to me which is that, you know, dealing with submerged oil is difficult; not insurmountable -- is there anywhere in the evidence that Northern Gateway has produced in this proceeding which explains how Northern Gateway would respond to that difficult challenge of submerged oil?
13485. Especially in the context of the conditions that Northern Gateway would face in British Columbia. Particularly with respect to fast-flowing rivers.
--- (A short pause/Courte pause)
13486. MR. KEVIN UNDERHILL: We did file our submerged oil plan as part of our evidence. I’m just looking up the number here
--- (A short pause/Courte pause)
13487. MR. KEVIN UNDERHILL: Sorry, it’s B132-5 and B132-6.
13488. MR. JONES: Is that the -- I’m sorry, was that your submerged oil recovery plan? 13489. Oh, I’m sorry. Maybe this is the other -- I believe ---
13490. Is this the document you were just referring to? 13491. This is one attachment to Haisla Nation Information Request 4.103?
13492. Am I correct about that?
13493. MR. KEVIN UNDERHILL: This is one of the two attachments.
13494. MR. JONES: Okay.
13495. MR. KEVIN UNDERHILL: This is the high level component of the plan and there’s an appendix that was also filed that gets into further detail.
13496. MR. JONES: Okay.
13497. MR. KEVIN UNDERHILL: And it builds on the learnings from Marshall.
13498. MR. JONES: Okay. Fair enough.
13499. MR. GREG MILNE: If I may as well, just to ensure we’re giving you a broader response.
13500. The Kitimat Valley study, also Appendix D, provided some submerged oil and -- submerged and sunken oil response tactics.
13501. MR. JONES: Fair enough. Okay.
13502. So there were three things that I’ve heard so far. The document that we’re just looking at here which is Attachment 1 to Haisla Nation IR 4.103.
13503. And I believe the next one was Attachment 2 which is the Submerged Oil Recovery Plan.
13504. And then -- yes, I take your point that attached -- I believe it was Appendix D -- to the Kitimat report which is how I’ve been referring to it.
13505. I am familiar with all those. And I assume that your evidence then is that’s -- those are the documents that indicate how Northern Gateway might respond to the difficulty of submerged oil in the B.C. context?
13506. MR. KEVIN UNDERHILL: Yes. At this point they’re preliminary.
13507. Again, to be further enhanced and developed as we develop our emergency response plan.
13508. MR. JONES: Right.
13509. And, yeah, that’s my understanding as well that -- especially with respect to that Appendix D to the Kitimat report, my understanding was that those were truly intended to be preliminary. 13510. In fact, I don’t think we have to go to it but I’ll just refer to that Appendix D where it says:
“It is not the intent of this Appendix to provide detail response tactics. Northern Gateway will continue to review and refine tactics to respond to submerged and sunken oil.” 13511. So that -- obviously, as you were just saying, that that was intended to be preliminary and it’s true, then, that Northern Gateway’s, you know, tactics with respect to submerged oil will -- are not mature at this point and will continue to be developed in the B.C. context as you proceed to detailed design.
13512. Is that correct?
13513. MR. KEVIN UNDERHILL: That’s correct.
13514. And, as Mr. Milne had indicated. this phenomena and this -- the techniques used to address this are fairly new and, as I said, some of the techniques that we deployed in Marshall, we actually designed pieces of equipment and worked with unified command to address submerged oils.
13515. So, yes, there’ll be further development and enhancements.
13516. DR. ELLIOTT TAYLOR: If I could just -- I’m sorry.
13517. MR. JONES: Oh, there’s two of you.
--- (Laughter/Rires)
13518. Dr. Taylor, I think you were ---
13519. DR. ELLIOT TAYLOR: No, I just wanted to add to Mr. Underhill’s statement there.
13520. And that is, in spill response, there is continued evolution like there are in a lot of technologies and techniques. There’s always looking at new ways and new methods.
13521. So what I’d like to just add to the record is that the company has -- obviously has developed plans around their experience on the Enbridge spill.
13522. The report that you had pulled up earlier referencing the Coast Guard’s study and analysis in 2006 represented a sort of a phase of what was the current state of knowledge at that time. That was updated in 2011.
13523. So it’s a continuation. There’s an evolution in this.
13524. And I think “world class” means you always are looking for what’s new. What research has proven out. What seems to be most effective. And will that apply and work for me in my particular challenges or my particular operation and setting.
13525. You know again, we look at the range of potential that an emergency responder may face from everything -- from the oil that is at the line itself and on the ground. Again, if it makes it into a waterway what can you do at that waterway. Boom -- keep it from moving downstream.
13526. If some of it seems to be picking up sediment and now part of it seems to be within the water column or has settled out then we’d look a how you can recover the material off the bottom or contain it from moving further downstream.
13527. So the strategies span the water column. We’re going to come with all the tools that need to be there and the experience -- you know, there’s experience around spills of this material. Much -- a lot -- the case in Marshall is just one but, you know, marine bunker spills, for instance, very often encompass a water column response. It’s not just the surface.
13528. So, you know, companies like DROs have plans around what you would have to do and, the same thing, they are always looking at what other opportunities, what other options are there.
13529. MR. JONES: Thank you.
13530. Sorry, Madam Chair, I was about to say I note the time. I’m obviously
not done so I thought that this would probably be a good time to break until the morning if that’s acceptable to you?
13531. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr. Jones.
13532. I wonder if, for planning purposes, you can give us an estimate as to how much longer you expect to be, given where you are now?
13533. MR. JONES: We’re actually doing pretty well. The answers have been concise and elegant in many cases.
13534. And so I think I’m a little bit ahead of schedule but I would think I’ll be the morning tomorrow.
13535. THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you very much.
13536. So just for planning purposes, the next intervenor to ask questions would be Mr. Cullen, then Douglas Channel Watch and then, following that, Enoch, Ermineskin and Samson Cree Nations.
13537. Again, I would ask all parties to provide your exhibit numbers and the Adobe page numbers I’m going to say at least a half a day before you think you’re likely to be asking questions. We all comment on the miracle worker that Ms. Niro is, but we have to give her a little bit to go on, and it helps the process proceed on an efficient basis.
13538. So with that, thank you, everyone. We will sit again tomorrow morning at 9:00.
--- Upon adjourning at 4:35 p.m./L’audience est ajournée à 16h35
__________________________
Why haven`t the Enbridge Hearings been canceled, this charade has gone too far already, they failed all the way through, their track record is criminal, ..
______________
Call your MPs, call them all and rattle their cages..
The Straight Goods
Cheers Ears Wide Open
No comments:
Post a Comment