Enbridge Pipeline

[Punkie]

It's foreign companies that are taking out the
bitumen and foreign companies that own the
proposed Gateway pipeline so why is it ok to have
so much foreign participation on that side of the
equation, but not ok to have foreigners putting
some money into groups who want to participate in
the hearing? The foreign money on the corporate
side is in the billions. The foreign money on the
other side is in the hundreds, or at most thousands.
Eliminate the foreigners? OK, but do it across the
board, not just on one side.

[buzz]

Are you talking about inviting the foreign green
peace like groups in to tell us not to do any
natural resource development because it is BAD.

No thanks.

[jackspratwhynot]

It's a case of being "big" enough; and having enough confidence in the process and the democratic system; that you can at least listen to various viewpoints before a decision is made.

[Burbert]

I'll bet, that all the permits, enviro
impact studies, contracts, reports,
findings have already been RUBBER stamped
and are sitting in an offices somewhere in
a gobermont office in Ottawa. All the
pretending, posturing and ugliness is just
PR!!!!!!!

[fairness]

If a landowner objects to the use of his property (by way of either right of way or easement)by a pipeline company, a Right of Entry order will be threatened, and sought by those companies. Check out url https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/livelink.exe/fetch/2000/90464/90550/554112/554219/554220/563832/586898/609961/A1S3G4_-_Letter_and_Order_RE-N081-01-2010.pdf?nodeid=609827&vernum=0&redirect=3 and see this landowner has had many rights taken from him and how the NEB has allowed the company the right to abandon the pipes in place and leave those asssociated costs of rotting pipes and historical contamination to be born by the landowner. Lets all speak up for fairness and justice. Just say no to irresponsible, unsustainable development.

[fairness]

Further, please follow url https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/livelink.exe/fetch/2000/90464/90550/554112/554219/554220/563832/586898/609961/A1S3G6_-_Schedule_to_Order_RE-N081-01-2010.pdf?nodeid=609963&vernum=0 for the actual order placed on this landowner for the benefit of the pipeline company.

[ColevilleH2S]

I read the [URL="https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/livelink.exe/fetch/2000/90464/90550/554112/554219/554220/563832/586898/609961/A1S3G6_-_Schedule_to_Order_RE-N081-01-2010.pdf?nodeid=609963&vernum=0&redirect=3"]ruling[/URL] and didn`t see anything egregious about it. The land owner didn`t lose any rights, he/she just never had them in the first place. The social pact in Canada allows the forced easement of private property for the greater good, as long as fair compensation is paid. As far as I know that is the way it has always been.

On a side note, I found the paragraph 3-k mildly amusing. Even lawyer talk is becoming P.C.

[wilagro]

ColevilleH2S: By your handle I would judge that you may work or have worked in the oil or related industry. Perhaps that influences your thinking in this matter. The greater good is often the greater good of the bottom line of some corporation that is supportive of a particular government especially so in Alberta.

[fairness]

I beg to differ on your interpretation, that no rights were taken, or that this landowner never had those rights. Prior to changes of the NEB Act in 1985, landowners were protected under that Act that read pipelines, upon abandonment, would be removed from the ground. This corresponds to the lack of clauses in earlier contracts and easement agreements between landowners and pipeline companies which would spell out what should happen upon abandonment (ie. removal upon abandonment). Landowners were clearly under the protection of the law and those rights were protected. Pipeline companies recognized the fact that their infrastructure was aging and didn't want to absorb (or pay) those costs to remove the pipes and soon in 1985, amendments to the Act allowed pipes to be abandonded in place. Further, the NEB considered abandonment costs as a part of a pipeline's useful life, to be tolled to the pipeline shippers,that is, those producers of oil who use the pipelines for the transportation of their liquid hydrocarbons and byproducts. The NEB then ignored significant evidence provided at hearings that landowners should bear no costs or liabilities for pipeline abandonment. The NEB then ruled that 80% of all pipe can be left in place and 20% should be removed upon abandonment, and considered this their base case assumption, but left the industry to determine what amount is applicable in their own circumstances. Enbridge has deviated from that base case and has asked for approval for abandonment funding purposes to remove only 0.6% of its approximately 8000kms of pipe. The documents comprising Enbridge's application can be found at: Physical https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/livelink.exe?func=ll&objId=765956&objAction=browse &redirect=3plans for Preliminary Costs Estimates.
Further, the NEB proposes to amend the Onshore Pipeline Regulations, which governs pipeline construction and abandonment to remove the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act from its role of overseeing and protecting our great nation from pollution and usurp the environmental protections under the Act.
Enbridge, if successful in its attempt for approval as noted above, could then request a Leave to Abandon from the board and then abandon its pipes and their respective liabilities onto the landowner of the lands. Should the NEB grant a right to abandon the pipeline, it relinquinshes jurisdiction over the pipes at that time and the landowner and the pipes fall under provincial jurisdiction(under Manitoba law anyway) and is subject to The Contaminated Sites and Remediation Act which forces landowners to prove that there is no historical contamination. The only way to do this according to the Act is to remove the pipelines (now at the landowners expense.) Do you consider this fair and just? Again, lets speak up for fairness and justice. P.S. I am a landowner with 8 Enbridge pipelines across my property and can tell you that the NEB and Enbridge are methodically working to take away my rights. Your rights as well are compromised by the prospective removal of the CEA Act, and its inevitable socioeconomic and environmental calamities that will follow.

[fairness]

Please note; the Physical Plans for Abandonment and Preliminary Costs Estimates are at url https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/livelink.exe?func=ll&objId=765956&objAction=browse &redirect=3

Sorry for the typo in the script.

[ColevilleH2S]

Thanks for clarifying the abandonment issue. While I don't think it is practical to remove old pipelines, I know I certainly wouldn't want the spiderweb of lines on my property dug-up (they did enough damage putting them in). I completely agree with you, on the liability issue. The line was put there for someones profit, and the "public good" therefore, the landowner should never have to be responsible for any of it's liability, ever.

Unfair, Yes I agree.

[fairness]

The "negatives" of the process of removing pipelines from the lands can be mitigated effectively and without public outcry. In the bigger picture, wouldn't you and I both be more content that the pipelines aren't left in the ground to contaminate our country and our childrens' futures.

Thanks for your understanding. If you can make others aware of this issue, please do so.