Pipeline spills are not the exception in Alberta, they are an oily reality
Since 2006, Alberta’s pipelines have spilled the equivalent of almost 28 million litres of oil
By Stephen Hume, columnist, Vancouver Sun, June 14, 2012
When a smiling Alberta Premier Alison Redford describes last week’s pipeline spill of 475,000 litres of oil into a pristine river as an “exception” (see article below), she is serving up unadulterated spin.
Something is exceptional when it happens so infrequently that when it does occur, it’s a surprise. But I know from my reporting career, which was ushered in by a series of massive pipeline spills in Alberta more than 40 years ago, that these events occur with depressing regularity.
Photo: A boom stretches out to contain a pipeline leak on the Gleniffer reservoir near Innisfail, Alta., Tuesday. Plains Midstream Canada says one of its non-functioning pipelines leaked between 1,000 and 3,000 barrels of sour crude into the Red Deer River on June 7.
The pipeline industry has had almost half a century to work on the problem, yet oil spills, explosions, fires and toxic pollution as a consequence of ruptures are anything but exceptional. They still happen on an almost daily basis. So when enthusiasts for the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline project rush to hype the safety of pipeline technology and denounce doubters as part of some sinister conspiracy while scoffing at questions about risk as public hysteria, take it all with several pounds of salt.
Sean Kheraj, a York University history professor, has been crunching the official numbers and posting his startling findings about the grimy past of the pipeline industry. He has pored over the dry-as-dust jargon, arcane acronyms and metrics sufficiently complicated that one must assume the unspoken intent of regulatory bodies is to discourage ordinary folk from finding out what’s really going on.
For example, Kheraj notes that Alberta’s Energy Resources Conservation Board calculates the frequency of pipeline accidents by comparing the number of failures to the total length of the pipeline system. This is both weird and confusing. Why use distance to measure intervals of time? Would we accept fire statistics calculated relative to the length of the city’s road system? Or the frequency of airline accidents as a function of the total length of landing strips?
And why must a lay citizen develop the skills of a forensic auditor or a cryptographer just to find how many pipeline accidents occur over what duration of time and what the cumulative releases of oil or gas are to the environment?
However, back to Prof. Kheraj and his examination of the record. He’s looked at oil pipeline spills in Alberta over the last 35 years. His conclusion is that these spills are “endemic” rather than exceptional.
It’s hard to disagree. Between 1990 and 2005, the Alberta Energy Utilities Board recorded more than 16,000 “releases” by pipelines, of which more than half involved hydrocarbons and roughly 30 per cent were “hydrocarbon liquid,” which would mean oil or distillates.
Since 2006, Kheraj notes, pipeline ruptures number in the thousands and have spilled the equivalent of at least almost 28 million litres of oil. In 2010 alone, he observes, pipelines in Alberta carrying either oil or some combination of oil, gas or distillates failed on average every 1.4 days and they spilled roughly 3.4 million litres of oil.
Now, consider the campaign by the B.C. Used Oil Management Association to educate citizens here regarding the environmental threat posed by small quantities of oil. A single litre of spilled oil, the campaign points out, can contaminate a million litres of groundwater.
So, consider the impact of 28 million litres of spilled oil on water resources – at a time when your Vancouver Sun’s front page headline reports that conservation of water is becoming crucial. Multiply 28 million litres of oil by a million. I get 28 trillion litres of contaminated water.
The proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline would cross a thousand fish-sustaining streams and rivers in rugged terrain that’s known for massive earthquakes and land movements. Demanding a full, transparent and rigorous evaluation of risk and challenging the objectivity of the process is neither hysterical nor foolish. It’s what the circumstances and potential consequences demand.
Searching for answers after Red Deer’s pipeline spill
By Nathan Vanderklippe, Globe and Mail, June 12, 2012
For a pipeline that is nearly half a century old, a river crossing can pose all manner of hazards. Bacteria and corrosion can attack from inside. Floodwater, scouring away the river bottom and heaving against the exposed pipe, can damage the outside. Pipes installed using old methods can be particularly vulnerable. Sometimes, the result is catastrophe.
Last week, the Rangeland pipeline, built in 1966 and run by Plains Midstream Canada, ruptured beneath the flooding Red Deer River. It leaked 160,000 to 480,000 litres of oil, coating the banks with crude when the waters receded and leaving a large stain on Gleniffer Lake, a reservoir that supplies drinking water to Red Deer, Alberta’s third-largest city.
It may take many months to conclude what went wrong with the Rangeland pipe, and Plains has declined to comment on the cause, saying it is focusing on a cleanup effort that continued on Monday with more than 100 workers. But for residents along the Red Deer River, many of whom have seen oil sully their property, the vulnerability of old pipes beneath rivers is becoming a critical issue.
Andrew Mikal’s farming family owns 1.5 kilometres of Red Deer River waterfront, some of it oiled. He points to other lines crossing the river – and his own property – and worries that any of them “could be the next one to go.”
Those who work in pipeline construction and maintenance say much can go wrong with a span of steel built when Lester B. Pearson was prime minister.
Today, companies building across major rivers typically use horizontal drills to burrow deep beneath the water – anywhere from eight to 30 metres – into stable rock. Those crossings are considered some of the safest parts of a pipeline. “Virtually all creeks and rivers are drilled under,” said Kevin O’Brien, president of IMV Projects Inc., a Calgary engineering firm that works on pipelines. Environmental regulations won’t even allow other methods “except in rare circumstances where not technically feasible.”
Techniques decades ago involved digging into the riverbed. Dredges, diggers and backhoes were all used, sometimes with the help of temporary dams, to open a trench for the pipe. Depending on the method, the pipe might be pulled into place, or coated in concrete, floated above the trench with barrels and then dropped down and covered with sediment.
The risks were numerous: Trenching in a flowing river meant it was difficult to create a clean bed for the pipe. Dropping it into place could introduce stress and strain, creating weak spots. And the cover was not always certain: The pipe might be buried two to three metres from the bottom of the river, but rivers are dynamic systems with the power to sweep away sediment, exposing the pipe. When they do, the force of the water can crack a pipe, or throw rocks that puncture its sides. In other cases, the trench was too shallow, compounding the problem.
“Some of those older ones, they weren’t too deep. They might have a couple, three feet of cover,” said Barry Singleton, senior vice-president of Singleton Associated Engineering Ltd., which designs pipelines. Even then, construction crews knew that what they were doing might not last.
“Lots of times they would install two crossings – they would install a spare,” Mr. Singleton said. “There were concerns back in the day.”
But external issues are only part of the potential problems. River crossings are low parts of the pipe, where water can collect, posing a risk of corrosion. Older pipes also may not be used as consistently – the Plains Rangeland system, for example, operated intermittently – which allows sediment to collect.
“Things start falling out [of the oil] and start stagnating,” said Izak Roux, technical manager for RAE Engineering and Inspection Ltd., which specializes in pipelines. A kind of mud layer can build up, and “then you can start having what we call a bacterial attack. This bacteria can eat right through the steel, and then you get a leak as well.”
Spill sends 22,000 barrels of oil mix into Alberta muskeg
Spill sends 22,000 barrels of oil mix into Alberta muskeg
By Nathan Vanderklippe, Globe and Mail, May 30, 2012
A huge spill has released 22,000 barrels of oil and water into muskeg in the far northwest of Alberta.
The spill ranks among the largest in North America in recent years, a period that has seen a series of high-profile accidents that have undermined the energy industry’s safety record. The Enbridge Inc. pipeline rupture that leaked oil near Michigan’s Kalamazoo River, for example, spilled an estimated 19,500 barrels.
The most recent spill was discovered May 19 emanating from pipe belonging to Pace Oil & Gas Ltd. , a small energy company that produces about 15,000 barrels a day, roughly half of that oil. The spill has yet to be contained, although “we’re very close,” Pace chief executive Fred Woods said in an interview Wednesday.
The spill took place roughly 20 kilometres southeast of Rainbow Lake, which is 165 km south of the Northwest Territories border. It came from above-ground piping connecting an underground pipeline to a well used for wastewater injection. The pipe was carrying an emulsion that was roughly 70 per cent water and 30 per cent oil.
As with many recent pipeline accidents, Calgary-based Pace did not detect a problem, but was informed of the leak by another company after the spill was spotted from an aircraft. The spill, which killed one duck, now covers 4.3 hectares. Mr. Woods declined comment on how long it was leaking before detection.
The company is now setting up a 50-person camp near the spill site, and has hired contract workers to clean it up. By Monday, it had recovered some 3,700 barrels of emulsion. It’s unclear how long it will take to clean up. Alberta’s Energy Resources Conservation Board is investigating the spill.
The province has seen a spate of recent leaks. Last year, for example, the 220,000 barrel-a-day Rainbow pipeline belonging to Plains All America Pipeline L.P., spilled 28,000 barrels in northern Alberta.
The province has also seen a series of accidents on smaller gathering and distribution pipelines, which are typically run by oil and gas companies and may not receive the safety scrutiny applied to longer-haul pipes such as Rainbow. On May 8, a farmer discovered a spill of a very light oil, called condensate, in a field in central Alberta. That oil had leaked from an AltaGas Ltd. pipe delivering raw natural gas to a processing plant.
Last June, 500 barrels of oily product spilled from a pipe gathering system run by Pengrowth Energy Corp.
The water injection well connected to the leaking Pace pipe was used to dispose of waste.
Globe and Mail editor’s note: This story has been updated to clarify the location of the spill, which came from above-ground piping rather than an underground pipe.
Alberta’s big small-pipe problem
Nathan Vanderklippe, The Globe and Mai, July 4, 2012
They are the little brothers and sisters of the pipeline world. Some are barely large enough to jam a hand into, but they do the dirtiest work in the energy business, ferrying great volumes of raw oil and gas from wells to processing plants. PAUL SANCYA/AP Enbridge’s pipeline spill that affected the Kalamazoo River in Michigan heightened the awareness of contamination dangers in Alberta.
And though they are small, they often carry large risk, an issue of mounting concern in Alberta, a province that has seen a series of spills train a global spotlight on pipeline safety.
These smaller pipes can often be overlooked, next to the big ones that garner attention when they rupture into the Kalamazoo River – an accident that cost Enbridge Inc. a historic $3.7-million (U.S.) fine this week, on top of $725-million in cleanup costs – or at an Alberta pumping station where the company recently had another large spill.
But in Alberta, the pipe is almost all small. Some 327,000 kilometres of pipe that is eight inches and smaller in diameter spread across the province like a network of veins. It is roughly 90 per cent of all pipe in the province, a vast web of steel that is uniquely vulnerable to problems, and uniquely difficult to both oversee and maintain.
In large measure, that’s because the stuff those pipes carry is often nasty: impure, unprocessed energy laced with hydrogen sulphide and water and sand, each of which can inflict damage on buried steel. Construction methods of smaller pipes mean they often can’t be monitored and inspected using the best tools.
Alberta’s energy regulator says problems on small pipes often lead to small spills, dampening the need for concern.
But some who inspect pipelines say major change is needed if smaller-diameter conduits are to match the safety standards of larger pipes. For now, small pipes that can’t be properly inspected are “the weak link in the integrity chain,” said Stefan Papenfuss, vice-president of pipeline resources for Seattle-based Quest Integrity Group LLC, a major pipeline maintenance provider. “They are now higher risk to the operators than their mainline transmission lines.”
Adding to the concern, spills from smaller pipelines often release noxious chemicals that worsen the impact. Saline water laced with hydrocarbons is tough to clean up and environmentally damaging. “Sour” products containing hydrogen sulphide are a serious human health concern.
Alberta’s oil and gas regulator, the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB), noted in a 2007 report that “most of Alberta’s pipeline infrastructure is used for the production of raw oil and gas, which by nature can be highly corrosive.” It said corrosion has been growing as a problem – from 63 per cent of all leaks and ruptures in a 1998 report to 70 per cent less than a decade later.
And though overall accidents have been declining, last year Alberta saw 1.5 failures per 1,000 kilometres of pipe. That’s down from an average in previous years of 3.5. Many of those spills are small – all leaks, regardless of size, get reported. But the ERCB also doesn’t record spills at pipeline facilities, like pumping stations, where many of them happen.
The risks on small pipes are magnified by the low flows on stretches that might carry intermittent volumes of product from, say, oil tanks to a processing plant. When flow is slow or stopped, water and hydrogen sulphide are better able to corrode pipe. Sediments can also deposit, creating a mud where microbes can begin to eat away steel.
Together, those element “go in to attack the line,” said Izak Roux, technical manager for RAE Engineering and Inspection Ltd., which specializes in pipelines.
The ERCB played down the effect of corrosive products, which tend to create “pitting corrosion” that leads to “small volume spills (small leaks) that are not a significant safety hazard because they do not catastrophically rupture,” spokeswoman Cara Tobin said in an e-mailed statement. Although small pipes can lead to big spills: In December, 2011, 12,000 barrels spilled from a small Pengrowth Energy line, while 5,000 barrels leaked from a small Pace & Oil Gas well pipe in May.) The regulator requires surveillance of pipeline right-of-ways, corrosion evaluations, yearly inspections of water crossings and “continues to review and update its regulations and requirements to improve all aspects of pipeline performance,” she said.
Plus, industry has ways to combat corrosion. Pipelines can be built out of non-steel materials like fibreglass and polyethylene. The percentage of those has grown, although 90 per cent of Alberta pipe is still steel. Pipes can be protected with “cathodic protection,” which uses electric current to counteract corrosion and is mandatory in Alberta. They can also be chemically shielded from corrosion, and maintained with pigs, devices that travel inside the pipe, either to scrub it or detect areas of weakness.
But small pipe is often the hardest to “pig.” Worldwide, roughly a third of all pipe is not piggable. Alberta’s ERCB has no figure on what percentage of its pipe cannot accept pigs – and pigging is not required – but it’s likely to be large. Alberta’s pipeline system is made up of an enormous number of very short lengths, averaging just 1.6 kilometres long.
And short distances add to the difficulties of pigging pipe, since each length of pipe must be outfitted with an entry and exit point for a pig – a difficult, and expensive, proposition when there are so many. “There’s a huge market up there of unpiggable pipelines,” Mr. Papenfuss said.
