Authorities still don’t know what caused Husky’s spill into N Saskatchewan River, or, don’t they want to let the harmed families and communities, and public know? Did Husky intentionally delay responding to the leak knowing the bitumen would sink, Intentionally delay to make nature carry the pollution burden?

Saskatchewan to inspect oil pipelines near rivers and lakes due to Husky Energy spill by The Canadian Press, September 9, 2016, The Globe and Mail

Saskatchewan says it will be inspecting all oil pipelines that cross rivers, lakes or other bodies of water that supply municipalities.

Energy and Resources Minister Dustin Duncan says the provincewide inspection is a direct response to a Husky Energy spill into the North Saskatchewan River.

The cities of North Battleford, Prince Albert and Melfort all had to shut off their water plant intakes and find alternate sources of water when the oil plume moved downstream.

Duncan says the province will start with 35 crossings where pipelines intersect with crucial waterways. [What good will that do the North Saskatchewan River and the many already harmed?]

“There are a lot of crossings in the province. Obviously, we’re going to focus on the high-priority ones that could have an impact on people’s potable water sources,” Duncan said Friday. “We’ve obviously seen what that has meant to a number of communities this summer and the difficulties that has brought.” [Regulators and companies are required to “see” and assess the risks and have mitigation and emergency response plans in place before the impacts happen, not afterwards!]

Inspections are currently the responsibility of pipeline operators, Duncan said. [Yup, self-inspection and voluntary “best practices” promises in jibberish fail, every time in the oil and gas industry]

“What we’re doing now is having our staff go out and visually inspect and do some follow up with the companies just to make sure that we can have confidence, and the public can have confidence, that our potable water sources are safe.” [With bitumen, secret chemical additives and produced waste flowing under potable water supplies, impossible to make them safe]

About 250,000 litres of oil mixed with a lighter hydrocarbon spilled into the river near Maidstone, Sask. in July. Cities that depend on the river for their supply had to conserve water for several weeks after the spill.

Prince Albert has received a $5-million payment from Husky to cover some of the direct costs and indirect losses related to the spill.

Duncan said it’s still not clear what caused the spill. A full investigation is expected to conclude next month. [How many years will they delay release of the report?}

“There are still some unanswered questions,” he said. [Emphasis added]

‘It made the problem much, much worse’: Delayed response exacerbated Husky Oil spill, hydrogeologist says [Did Husky delay intentionally so they’d have less bitumen to clean up?] by Alex MacPherson, Saskatoon Star Phoenix, September 2, 2016, Calgary Herald

A 14-hour delay between the start of Husky Energy Inc.’s oil spill in Saskatchewan and the company’s response greatly amplified its effect on the environment, according to the scientist behind a new investigation into the July 20 incident.

“It made the problem much, much worse,” said Ricardo Segovia, a hydrogeologist with the Santa Fe, New Mexico non-profit E-Tech International, which published its findings late Thursday.

Husky’s response to the spill, which dumped 250,000 litres of heavy crude near and into the North Saskatchewan River, was “light years” behind Enbridge Inc.’s reaction to a similar, even larger spill into Michigan’s Kalamazoo river in 2010, Segovia said.

Had Husky acted an hour after detecting a problem with its pipeline, the crude likely could have been contained “within a few kilometres” and collected before its heavier components began to separate and sink, he added.

“The delayed reaction by Husky was a lost opportunity to capture oil on the surface and has now become a much more complicated problem of recovering oil below the surface,” E-Tech International’s report stated.

It’s also unlikely that North Battleford and Prince Albert would have been forced to close their water treatment plants’ river intakes over fears of contaminated drinking water had Husky responded immediately, Segovia said.

Husky disputes the chronology of events outlined in E-Tech International’s report.

The company’s “response was immediate upon discovery of the leak and was informed by the responsible provincial and federal regulators as well as the foremost scientists and experts in the field,” Husky spokesman Mel Duvall said in an email.

The leak was isolated and the pipeline shut down around 10 a.m. on July 21, but the company has released conflicting information about when it detected a problem in the line.

Husky’s initial incident report, filed with the provincial government, said the spill was detected at 8 p.m. on July 20, and that it notified the provincial government 14 hours later.

That report was later amended to say the leak was detected at 10 a.m. on July 21, and that the province was notified about 30 minutes later. The company said the change was necessary because its first report was based on a miscommunication.

The provincial government declined a request for an interview regarding E-Tech International’s report. In an email, Executive Council’s chief of operations and communications, Kathy Young said, the results of an ongoing investigation will be made public.

“The Ministry of the Economy is conducting a full and thorough investigation of the incident which will include technical cause, and conduct including timelines and response,” Young said in the email.

On Thursday, Economy Minister Jeremy Harrison told the Saskatoon StarPhoenix that the provincial government has a “robust” pipeline regulation system, and will defend pipelines as a safer means of moving oil than rail or road.

The province’s pipeline regulator is “working on” implementing seven safety recommendations outlined by provincial auditor Judy Ferguson in a 2012 report, a Ministry of Economy official told reporters last month.

E-Tech International’s report raises serious questions about what happened east of Maidstone on July 20 and 21, and highlights a “problematic” pipeline regulatory regime, said Opposition New Democratic Party interim leader Trent Wotherspoon.

“The delay in the response is more than troubling, and it’s a massive concern that we need to get to the bottom of,” Wotherspoon said, adding that the government’s initial response to the incident was “not appropriate.”

The investigation will determine exactly what caused the spill and how quickly Husky responded to it, but it’s plain that more needs to be done to ensure Saskatchewan communities are protected from future incidents, he said.

Commissioned by groups affected by the spill, including Idle No More, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Council of Canadians, E-Tech International’s report is based on the results of nine composite sediment samples collected on Aug. 16 and 17.

The samples were collected using industry-approved methods and analyzed by ALS, a global company with a “well known and reputable lab” in Saskatoon, according to the report.

Segovia said while the report was commissioned by interested groups, E-Tech International’s status as a non-profit means it can’t risk issuing a misleading report, as it could be easily debunked by a company flush with cash.

The non-profit found contaminants it believes came from the spill as far downstream as the Cecil Ferry Terminal, 20 kilometres east of Prince Albert. It did not detect chemicals from the spill at Codette Lake or Cumberland House, which are further east.

Duvall questioned E-Tech International’s claims that all of the spilled oil entered the river and that Husky’s technical team did not collect sediment samples. Almost half of the oil was collected on land and the team took more than 1,300 samples, he said.

A representative of the provincial Water Security Agency (WSA) said last month he was “hopeful” North Battleford and Prince Albert will be able to reopen their water treatment plants’ intakes, which were shuttered after the spill, before freeze-up.

Segovia said while E-Tech International’s findings do not necessarily contradict the results of the WSA’s water sample analyses, the hydrocarbons detected in sediment along the river are “very, very nasty” and could persist for years.

“You can’t go back to the way things were before … because there’s that chance that (contaminants) can be stirred up from the sediments, you have to be constantly monitoring those water intakes for the next several years at least.”

‘I would not spend time in those sediments’: Delayed response exacerbated Husky oil spill, hydrogeologist says by Alex MacPherson, Saskatoon Star Phoenix, September 2, 2016, Calgary Herald

A 14-hour delay between the start of Husky Energy Inc.’s oil spill in Saskatchewan and the company’s response greatly amplified its effect on the environment, according to the scientist behind a new investigation into the July 20 incident.

“It made the problem much, much worse,” said Ricardo Segovia, a hydrogeologist with the Santa Fe, New Mexico non-profit E-Tech International, which published its findings late Thursday.

Husky’s response to the spill, which dumped 250,000 litres of heavy crude near and into the North Saskatchewan River, was “light years” behind Enbridge Inc.’s reaction to a similar, even larger spill into Michigan’s Kalamazoo river in 2010, Segovia said.

Had Husky acted an hour after detecting a problem with its pipeline, the crude likely could have been contained “within a few kilometres” and collected before its heavier components began to separate and sink, he added.

“The delayed reaction by Husky was a lost opportunity to capture oil on the surface and has now become a much more complicated problem of recovering oil below the surface,” E-Tech International’s report stated.

It’s also unlikely that North Battleford and Prince Albert would have been forced to close their water treatment plants’ river intakes over fears of contaminated drinking water had Husky responded immediately, Segovia said.

Husky disputes the chronology of events outlined in E-Tech International’s report.

The company’s “response was immediate upon discovery of the leak and was informed by the responsible provincial and federal regulators as well as the foremost scientists and experts in the field,” Husky spokesman Mel Duvall said in an email.

The leak was isolated and the pipeline shut down around 10 a.m. on July 21, but the company has released conflicting information about when it detected a problem in the line.

Husky’s initial incident report, filed with the provincial government, said the spill was detected at 8 p.m. on July 20, and that it notified the provincial government 14 hours later.

That report was later amended to say the leak was detected at 10 a.m. on July 21, and that the province was notified about 30 minutes later. The company said the change was necessary because its first report was based on a miscommunication.

The provincial government declined a request for an interview regarding E-Tech International’s report. In an email, Executive Council’s chief of operations and communications, Kathy Young said, the results of an ongoing investigation will be made public.

“The Ministry of the Economy is conducting a full and thorough investigation of the incident which will include technical cause, and conduct including timelines and response,” Young said in the email.

On Thursday, Economy Minister Jeremy Harrison told the Saskatoon StarPhoenix that the provincial government has a “robust” pipeline regulation system, and will defend pipelines as a safer means of moving oil than rail or road.

The province’s pipeline regulator is “working on” implementing seven safety recommendations outlined by provincial auditor Judy Ferguson in a 2012 report, a Ministry of Economy official told reporters last month.

E-Tech International’s report raises serious questions about what happened east of Maidstone on July 20 and 21, and highlights a “problematic” pipeline regulatory regime, said Opposition New Democratic Party interim leader Trent Wotherspoon.

“The delay in the response is more than troubling, and it’s a massive concern that we need to get to the bottom of,” Wotherspoon said, adding that the government’s initial response to the incident was “not appropriate.”

The investigation will determine exactly what caused the spill and how quickly Husky responded to it, but it’s plain that more needs to be done to ensure Saskatchewan communities are protected from future incidents, he said.

Commissioned by groups affected by the spill, including Idle No More, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Council of Canadians, E-Tech International’s report is based on the results of nine composite sediment samples collected on Aug. 16 and 17.

The samples were collected using industry-approved methods and analyzed by ALS, a global company with a “well known and reputable lab” in Saskatoon, according to the report.

Segovia said while the report was commissioned by interested groups, E-Tech International’s status as a non-profit means it can’t risk issuing a misleading report, as it could be easily debunked by a company flush with cash.

The non-profit found contaminants it believes came from the spill as far downstream as the Cecil Ferry Terminal, 20 kilometres east of Prince Albert. It did not detect chemicals from the spill at Codette Lake or Cumberland House, which are further east.

Duvall questioned E-Tech International’s claims that all of the spilled oil entered the river and that Husky’s technical team did not collect sediment samples. Almost half of the oil was collected on land and the team took more than 1,300 samples, he said.

A representative of the provincial Water Security Agency (WSA) said last month he was “hopeful” North Battleford and Prince Albert will be able to reopen their water treatment plants’ intakes, which were shuttered after the spill, before freeze-up.

Segovia said while E-Tech International’s findings do not necessarily contradict the results of the WSA’s water sample analyses, the hydrocarbons detected in sediment along the river are “very, very nasty” and could persist for years.

“You can’t go back to the way things were before … because there’s that chance that (contaminants) can be stirred up from the sediments, you have to be constantly monitoring those water intakes for the next several years at least.”

[Emphasis added]

The Comments: