{"id":42548,"date":"2014-07-08T00:34:57","date_gmt":"2014-07-08T04:34:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/planetsave.com\/?p=40555"},"modified":"2014-07-12T14:56:51","modified_gmt":"2014-07-12T14:56:51","slug":"two-bcs-requirements","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/planetsave.com\/articles\/two-bcs-requirements\/","title":{"rendered":"Pipelines: Two of BC’s Requirements"},"content":{"rendered":"

Originally Published in the ECOreport<\/strong><\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

\"Christy<\/a>
Christy Clark – Rennie Collection – Wing Sang Building – Vancouver” \u00a0– Photo kris kr\u00fcg, CC by SA 2.0<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The Proposed Trans Mountain Pipeline, bringing diluted bitumen from Alberta to BC, \u00a0has just hit another snag. On July 4 British Columbia\u2019s attorney filed a motion with the National Energy Board requesting more detailed information on how Kinder Morgan would respond to maritime and land-based spills. There are 70 questions, which have not been adequately addressed. They pertain to two of BC’s\u00a0requirements that must be met before BC will support any heavy oil pipeline.<\/p>\n

\"Proposed<\/a>
Proposed Trans Mountain Expansion Project Configuration Map (click on image to expand) \u2013 taken from NEB Website<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Their notice of motion also seeks \u201ca new deadline for subsequent information requests and such other relief as the Board may consider appropriate under the circumstances.\u201d<\/p>\n

In the conclusion of the province\u2019s notice it states:<\/p>\n

\u201cTrans Mountains failure to file the evidence requested by the Province in information Request No.1 denies the Board, the Province and other intervenors access to the information required to fully understand the risk posed by the Project, how Trans Mountain Proposes to mitigate such risk, and Trans Mountain\u2019s ability to effectively respond to a spill related to the Project. If the review process established by the Board is to be honored, then Trans Mountain\u2019s failure must be corrected by an order compelling the submission of full and adequate answers.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

The first question on BC’s lists was a request for a geohazard event inventory<\/a><\/strong> and they found Trans Mountain’s (TM) response \u201cnot relevant.\u201d<\/p>\n

Those were actually two of the words that TM used when asked for a list of spills on Kinder Morgan pipelines. They said “not relevant” again when asked for a list of the\u00a0proportion of spills from all Kinder Morgan pipelines, over the last 30 years were identified by a SCADA alarm.<\/p>\n

\"From<\/a>TM failed to \u201ccommit to the automatic shutdown of the pipeline in the event a leak is suspected and is not ruled out within 10 minutes.\u201d<\/p>\n

When TM attempted evade answering how it might differ with factual conclusions or findings made by the NEB by saying \u201cnot relevant\u201d, BC responded with a list of ways it was relevant:<\/p>\n