September 10, 2010
Share this article
Second pipeline leak another blow to Enbridge safety claims
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SEPTEMBER 10, 2010
SMITHERS – Another Enbridge pipeline leak in the US, the second this summer, casts further doubt on the credibility of the Calgary-based company to safely build a dual pipeline linking Kitimat and the Alberta oil sands, MP Nathan Cullen said today.
“More and more, Enbridge’s claims to pipeline safety are ringing hollow,” Cullen said.
“Yesterday’s pipeline leak in Illinois is further living proof of what can, and will, happen when making a fast buck becomes more important than sustainable economic development that respects our lands, natural resources, and future generations.”
Enbridge’s 6A pipeline, the biggest of three key arteries that deliver most of Canada’s crude oil exports to the United States, began leaking in a community near Chicago yesterday. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, oil was leaking at a rate of 200 to 600 barrels per hour. [editors note: the size of the spill has now been confirmed as at least 970,000 litres or oil]
The incident comes less than two months after a different branch of the same pipeline system was shut for spilling nearly three million litres into a river system in Michigan. Enbridge still has not been allowed to restart that line.
Meanwhile, in a written submission this week to the Joint Review Panel considering Enbridge’s proposed pipeline to Kitimat, Cullen noted the review process should question the building of massive high carbon fossil fuel projects at a time when Canada must move to a green energy economy.
He also noted that Enbridge has failed to file complete information about oil spill risks and response plans, Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge reports and studies of impacts on local employment and access to services. Cullen wrote that the hearings should not proceed before all the information is on the table.
- 30 –
Contact: Shelley Browne, 250-877-4140; cullen1@parl.gc.ca
You can download a copy of Nathan’s submission here:
Cullen Comments to JRP re Procedural Direction, Sep 8 2010.pdf
Share this article
