Pipelines Reborn: They're Back Thanks to Trump

The day after Donald J Trump fired the first salvos in his war against the EPA and others, he delivered on his promise to double down on fossil fuels with the approval of two pipelines. On Tuesday, January 24th, Trump signed Executive Orders that overturn the Obama administration's decision on the Keystone XL (KXL) and the Dakota Access pipeline (DAPL). This authorizes TransCanada Pipelines to move forward with the 1,179-mile KXL and Energy Transfer Partners can also proceed with the 1,172-mile DAPL.

This is a blow for environmentalists and indigenous people who had fought hard to shut down the KXL and DAPL. Keystone was killed by President Barack Obama after years of protests and DAPL was stalled by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the face of massive protests by indigenous people led by the Standing Rock Sioux.

Trump also signed an EO that will eliminate environmental regulations associated with the permitting process.

There are massive environmental costs associated with pipelines. They inevitably spill (click here to see a partial summary of oil spills in 2016). Even more importantly, they contribute climate change causing greenhouse gasses (GHGs) to the atmosphere at a time when we cannot afford further increases (we are currently 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial norms and scientists conservatively estimate that we cannot afford to go beyond 2 degrees Celsius).

DAPL will ferry 570,000 barrels of dirty shale oil from North Dakota to the Gulf Coast. The pipeline imperils the drinking water of 17 million people. The emissions from this pipeline are equivalent to 30 coal plants. According to Oil Change International DAPL will create "101.4 million metric tons of CO2e per year. These emissions are equivalent to 29.5 typical U.S. coal plants or the average emissions of 21.4 million U.S. passenger vehicles."

Each day the KXL can transport 830,000 barrels of some of the dirtiest oil on Earth. The Friends of the Earth reports that the GHGs associated with this pipeline is equivalent to putting 5.6 million new cars on the roads.

The promised reopening of NAFTA will complicate the KXL which will ferry oil from Alberta's tar sands to Texas. Because it crosses a state boundary the permitting process is largely under state department control. However, there are questions as to the viability of the pipeline with oil prices seemingly stuck below $60 a barrel.

More protests and lawsuits can be expected to try to stop this administration from moving forward with pipelines that are harmful to this and future generations.

As explained Bill McKibben,

"This is not a done deal. The last time around, TransCanada was so confident they literally mowed the strip where they planned to build the pipeline before people power stopped them. People will mobilize again."

The DAPL protest has been called off with Sioux leaders looking to fight the decisions in the courts. It will also take time for the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a full environmental assessment as required by law. But this could be overcome if the Army issues and easement.

Former Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders summed up the situation as follows:

"Millions of people came together all over this country to stop the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines and say we must transform our energy system away from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Today, President Trump ignored the voices of millions and put the short-term profits of the fossil fuel industry ahead of the future of our planet."

Related
Dakota Access Pipeline Halted by Government Despite Judges Ruling (Videos)
The Dakota Access and Protest that Kills Pipelines
TransCanada's Keystone is Spewing Crude Adding Fuel to Pipeline Protests
A Brief Review of the Keystone XL Saga
Why the Keystone XL Pipedream Must Die
Republicans Keep Pushing Keystone XL Pipeline
Reasons Why the Keystone XL is a Pipedream
Keystone XL will Emit 4 Times More Pollution than Originally Thought
Buying Support for the Keystone XL
Business Leaders, Scientists, Economists and Ordinary People Reject the Keystone XL
Comparison of the Keystone XL and Renewable Energy
How Come the Keystone XL is so Hard to Kill

Read More»

Partial Summary of Oil Spills in 2016

Fossil fuels are the primary cause of climate change, they are also prone to spills. Such spills are toxic and they have been a consistent part of the fossil fuel industry since its inception. As long as we extract and transport oil and gas spills are a statistical certainty.

In December, Wired reported that there are about 30,000 oil spills in US waters every year. In October, Hurricane Ivan caused dozens of leaks in undersea oil wells and pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico. Some of these spills will leak for decades. The Taylor Energy site will continue to leak between 84 and 1,470 gallons per day for the next hundred years. The oil slick from this spill stretches over eight square miles on an average day. Taylor Energy has gone bankrupt and they just walked away from the mess they created.

Many spills are covered up by oil companies or under-reported (SkyTruth estimates that spills are at least 13 times bigger than the numbers on record). Those that are reported are often ignored. Spills up to 100,000 gallons are classified by the Coast Guard as "minor or moderate". It is important to understand that even small spills are deadly to marine life. They also represent a health risk for humans. Except in the most extreme and egregious cases, there are no penalties and therefore no incentives for the oil industry to clean up its act.

There are thousands of wells and 2.4 million miles of aging oil pipe infrastructure in the United States alone. In 2015 there were countless oil spills (click here to see a partial list of spills in North America) and in 2016 the sad legacy of fossil fuel industry spills continued. Here is a review of some of those spills in 2016.

On December 5, the Belle Fourche Pipeline pipeline spilled 176,000 gallons of crude oil into the into the Ash Coulee Creek in Billings County, North Dakota. This is about 150 miles from Cannon Ball, where protesters are camped out in opposition to the Dakota Access pipeline (President-Elect Trump has said he supports the pipeline). To make matters worse the creek has frozen over making cleanup operations almost impossible. Water supplies from the creek have been turned off. The Belle Fourche Pipeline Co. is part of the family-owned True companies, which also operates Bridger Pipeline LLC. Like almost every other pipeline company they have a long rap-sheet of spills.

On October 21, there was a pipeline leak in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, involving Sunoco, the company that is behind the Dakota Access Pipeline. An 8 inch pipeline managed by the company leaked 55,000 gallons of gasoline into a major waterway, thereby contaminating the drinking water of some 6 million people in Lancaster County. The gasoline streamed into Wallis Run, a tributary of the Loyalsock Creek that eventually drains into the Susquehanna River, considered to be the third most endangered river in the United States by American Rivers, a non-governmental organization (NGO) dedicated to protecting and preserving rivers around the country. While all pipelines leak, Sunoco Logistics spills crude more often than any of its competitors, having experienced more than 200 leaks since 2010.

On October 9, a 1.2-billion-gallon cooling pond dam at Duke Energy's H.F. Lee plant breached killing millions of chickens at factory farms and contaminating local waterways. The leak in the 120-acre coal ash pond in Goldsboro, North Carolina occurred just minutes after Duke Energy issued a statement claiming that the "Ash basin and cooling pond dams across the state continue to operate safely."

On October 2, 95 metric tons of oil leaked into the North Sea from BP's Clair platform. The leak was 46 miles west of the Shetland Islands. There was no cleanup and a large oil slick was visible from the spill. From 2000 to 2011, there were 4,123 separate oil spills in the North Sea. Oil companies were fined for just seven of them. No single fine was greater than about $25,000.

On September 24, a fuel tanker in the Gulf of Mexico caught fire and burned for days. The tanker Burgos caught fire about seven nautical miles off the coast of the port city of Boca del Rio, Mexico. The tanker was carrying about 168,000 barrels of gasoline and diesel fuel. At the time of the incident, the Burgos was sailing from Coatzacoalcos in eastern Veracruz state to the Pemex terminal, Port Authority Director Juan Ignacio Fernandez said late Saturday.

On September 16, two states were forced to declare an emergency after a Colonial pipeline spilled more than 6,000 barrels or a quarter million gallons of gasoline in Shelby County, Alabama. Ironically the states of emergency declared in Alabama and Georgia were not associated with the environmental damage from the spill but due to concerns about fuel shortages. There was no cleanup because it was deemed unsafe for workers to be in the vicinity of the spill.

On September 7, an oil pipeline belonging to Summit leaked a million gallons of fluid containing crude oil into a creek that feeds the Missouri River on a native American reservation. The spill was the largest in Minnesota’s history was on Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation land approximately 15 miles north of Williston, North Dakota. The leak came from a saltwater collection line owned by Summit Midstream Partners LP. The spill flowed into Bear Den Bay, which leads into Lake Sakakawea, a source of drinking water on the reservation. The fluid flowed into the Missouri River and contaminated fresh water for residents in the surrounding areas.

In July, a pipeline leak near Maidstone, Saskatchewan, spilled about 66,043 gallons or 1,572 barrels of diluted oil sands bitumen into the North Saskatchewan River, killing wildlife and compromising drinking water for nearby communities, including Prince Albert.

On June 21, an oil pipeline belonging to Crimson Pipeline LLC ruptured in Ventura County, California spilling an estimated 29,400 gallons of crude oil into an arroyo that flows through the city of Ventura to the ocean. Ironically the spill occurred just after President Obama signed the PIPES safety bill into law.

On June 2, An oil train derailment and explosion along the Columbia river in Oregon contaminated drinking water. At least 12 rail cars carrying Bakken oil operated by Union Pacific derailed and caught fire. The wreck occurred in the Columbia River Gorge near the community of Mosier in Oregon which is about 70 miles east of Portland. The derailment and subsequent fire forced the evacuation of local schools and nearby homes. The I-84 highway was also closed. The rail line runs adjacent to the Columbia river which is widely used for both recreation and commerce. Residents of the town of Mosier had to boil their water.

On May 20, 21,000 gallons or 500 barrels of oil spilled from the underground San Pablo Bay Pipeline near Tracy in San Joaquin County, California. Owned by San Pablo Bay Pipeline a subsidiary of Shell Oil.

On May 12, Shell's offshore Brutus platform spilled almost 88,000 gallons or 2,100 barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. The spill endangered corals, dolphins, whales, tuna and whale sharks. The spill in Shell's Glider field created a 13 mile long by 2 mile wide oil slick in an area 97 miles south of Port Fourchon, Louisiana.

On February 3 and January 25 in the regions of Amazonas and Loreto, Peru at least 84,000 gallons or 2,000 barrels of oil were spilled into local waterways after two pipeline ruptures. The Marañon River, a principal tributary of the Amazon River was among the waterways that were contaminated. For indigenous people these spills polluted the waterways that are their lifeline, they provide food and water for crops and consumption. The spills are known to have killed fish, crocodiles, and plants.

There is no safe way of extracting and transporting fossil fuels. Repeated oil spills show the soulless self-interest of oil companies. Rather than repair or replace existing pipelines they invest in expansion.

As Greenpeace stated, "The long history of oil spills around the world has made one thing clear: the only way to prevent an oil spill is to keep oil in the ground."

Related
Three of the Most Destructive Tanker Oil Spills in History
Top 25 Oil Spills Over 1000 Tons in the Last Decade
Pipelines and Oil Spills in Alberta Canada
Offshore Oil is an Avoidable Tragedy
Two More Reasons to Move Beyond Fossil Fuels
The Costs of Offshore Drilling

Read More»

Liberal Dualism: Canadian Climate Leadership is at Odds with Ramping Up Fossil Fuels

The ruling federal Liberals have canceled one pipeline and approved two others. It is but the most recent example of Canada's one step forward two steps back approach to climate action.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has the laudable goal of wanting to be a climate champion and an economic leader. However, this balancing act is completely undermined when you add increased fossil fuel production to the equation. Canada was criticized at COP22 for expanding its fossil fuel production and now they have compounded the problem by adding a couple of pipelines to the mix.

Contradictory climate and energy policies

Canadian government energy and environmental policy is a checkerboard of seemingly opposing policy positions. The government announced a carbon tax then followed that up with a massive liquefied natural gas (LNG) project. To further illustrate the two faces of this government, they banned tanker traffic off the coast of northern BC while increasing traffic to the south. Most recently they rejected some pipelines while approving others.

Catherine McKenna, minister of environment and climate change has indicated that she is working towards a nation-wide coal phase-out by 2030 and the National Energy Board is being overhauled. The announcement most welcomed by environmentalists was the news that the government has rejected Enbridge's 1,177-kilometre Northern Gateway pipeline that would have carried oil from Bruderheim, Alta., to an export terminal in Kitimat, B.C..

However as with other recent federal announcements the victory was blunted by the approval of the $6.8-billion, 1,150-kilometre Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project that will ferry 890,000 barrels of oil from Alberta to Burnaby, B.C.

This pipeline along with the approval of Line 3 will ferry a million barrels of oil a day to global markets. According to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency the new capacity will generate up 26 megatonnes of emissions annually when fully operational.

Tankers

The duality of this government is further revealed in its contradictory ocean tanker policies. The Canadian government is investing in a $1.5-billion ocean protection plan to improve responses to tanker and fuel spills in the Pacific, Arctic and Atlantic oceans. But they are also increasing the need for such planning by expanding tanker traffic.

The government announced that it will ban crude oil tankers along B.C.'s North Coast, but further south the Kinder Morgan will increase tanker traffic from approximately five to 34 a month. A spill in this ecologically sensitive area will be devastating.

As reported by the Suzuki Foundation this pipeline will result in a seven fold Increase in tanker traffic and push the already fragile population of 80 resident orcas off of B.C.'s south coast to the brink of extinction. It will also Increase greenhouse gas emissions by more than 100 million tonnes each year and threaten the health of communities along B.C.'s coast. There have been some disastrous tanker oil spills and there is no reason to believe that this new tanker traffic will be any different.


Spills

The government announced that it has also approved Enbridge's 1,659-kilometre, $7.5-billion, Line 3 pipeline, that will ferry oil from a terminal near Hardisty, Alberta, through northern Minnesota to Superior, Wisconsin. This is the largest pipeline project that Enbridge has ever built. The NEB signed off on a new Line 3 in April, but with 89 conditions The pipeline will double the amount of oil transported by the pipeline to 760,000 barrels a day. This will mean that Enbridge's mainline system will collectively carry three million barrels a day into the US. The existing line has leaked many times and rather than focus on maintenance Enbridge is focusing on expanding the pipeline's capacity.

As stated by the Suzuki Foundation, "Oil spills will happen and research proves there is no technology to effectively clean them up." We know that these pipelines will leak, such spills are a statistical certainty for all fossil fuel pipelines.

All you need to do is look at the litany of oil spill in Alberta to see just how common spills are. We have seen 25 massive oil spills (over 1000 tons) in the last decade.  In 2015 alone there were dozens of spills.  Transporting fossil fuels poses a very real danger to the public. The repeated spills reveal the fossil fuel industry's soulless disregard for public safety.

New regulations

To address the serious environmental risks associated with an inevitable spill the government has announced a long list of federal requirements that are designed to act as safeguards. While these efforts may minimize the risk of an incident and maximize preparedness when such a spill occurs, it will not prevent a spill nor can it completely clean them up.

The NEB has a list of 157 conditions that must be met and BC has its list of five preconditions. The premiere of BC recently said that the federal government is "very close" to fulfilling their preconditions. Alberta says it plans to cap greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from the oil patch at 100 megatonnes a year.

Government's logic

Prime Minister Trudeau argued that pipelines have lower emissions profiles, are less dangerous and less expansive than rail transport in tanker cars. As reported by the CBC, Trudeau said

"The decision we took today is the one that is in the best interests of Canada...It is a major win for Canadian workers, for Canadian families and the Canadian economy, now and into the future."

The logic for supporting the pipelines comes down to jobs and revenue. According to Kinder Morgan 15,000 jobs will be created during construction, and a further 37,000 direct and indirect jobs will be added when the project is operational. The pipelines will generate $46.7 billion for all levels of government over the next 2 decades.

However many have criticized this logic in Patrick DeRochie, the director of Environmental Defence:

"The approvals raise grave doubts how these and additional pipelines, including Keystone XL and Energy East, can fit with Canada's commitment to the Paris climate agreement," And Media Placeholder added, "much bigger cuts in other emission sources must be made to compensate for more oil-based emissions."

The fight continues

Protests will continue and so will legal challenges. The Kinder Morgan project threatens a BC First Nation near the project's route, other First Nations, including 39 in BC and Alberta, have signed "mutual benefit agreements" with Kinder Morgan who also claims it has reached agreements with First Nations communities where the pipeline crosses a reserve. Nonetheless, with only one third of First Nations approving the pipeline other First Nations say they are ready for a long battle to stop the pipeline.

Mike Hudema, a campaigner for Greenpeace, said in a recent statement:

"Apparently Justin Trudeau's sunny ways mean dark days ahead for climate action and Indigenous reconciliation in Canada. With this announcement, Prime Minister Trudeau has broken his climate commitments, broken his commitments to Indigenous rights, and has declared war on B.C.,". Media placeholder added "If Prime Minister Trudeau wanted to bring Standing Rock-like protests to Canada, he succeeded."

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May said she would be "willing to go to jail" to stop the Kinder Morgan. More court challenges are also expected. As reported by the CBC, "There have already been 11 judicial reviews launched over the NEB review, and more court challenges are expected in the coming days."

Take away

The damage to our climate, our water, our land and our air far outweigh the jobs and revenues associated with pipeline projects.

The election of the Liberal party offered hope and signaled the dawn of a new day for climate action in Canada. The Liberals were a major improvement over the Conservatives on energy and environmental matters. The party's commitment to climate action was reiterated in a throne speech and in a mandate letter to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. Shortly after coming to power the Liberals reversed the policies of their Conservative predecessors and showed climate leadership at COP21. They also unmuzzled scientists. They have improved the nation's climate and energy policy and along with provincial leaders Canada is making significant progress on crafting a nationwide renewable energy policy.

The decision to move forward with the pipelines has disappointed may Liberal supporters as it breaks Trudeau's campaign promises. The Liberals appear to be oblivious to the fact that you cannot simultaneously claim to be a climate leader while increasing your production of fossil fuels.

Trudeau campaigned on a climate action platform and while he and his government have made some bold moves to combat climate change he has also significantly increased fossil fuel infrastructure.

Just as pipelines consistently spill, politicians consistently make promises they can't keep.

Related
The Energy East Pipeline is as Good as Dead
The Dakota Access and Protest that Kills Pipelines
Enbridge: If We Can't Build Pipelines we Will Buy Them
Two Down and Two to Go: Half of Canada's Proposed Tar Sands Pipelines Stymied

Read More»

Another Day Another Oil Spill This Time in Alabama (Video)

Although nobody seems to have noticed, between a quarter and a third of a million gallons of gasoline has leaked from a pipeline in the middle of September. The Colonial Pipeline Company reported the spill prompting the governors of Alabama and Georgia to declare states of emergency. The sad fact is that oil and gas spills have become so common that it is no longer construed as newsworthy.

The ecological impact of the spill appears to be secondary to concerns about the interruption of the supply. In Alabama the Pipeline spill triggered a supplier 'Red Alert' and Georgia Gov. Robert Bentley issued an executive order Thursday declaring a state of emergency in Alabama.
The gasoline spill occurred south of Birmingham in Shelby county and shut down a major pipeline connecting refineries in Houston with to New York Harbor. Fuel shortages are expected as a result of having to shut down the pipeline.

Colonial Pipeline, released the following information Thursday afternoon:

"Based on current projections and consultations with industry partners, parts of Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, North Carolina and South Carolina will be the first markets to be impacted by any potential disruption in supply...Colonial has briefed officials in these states and will continue to provide timely information to the public so that employees and contractors began digging out the leaking pipeline."

The pipeline shut down is expected to cause a spike in gas prices. The failure to report the spill in the mainstream media is a disturbing trend that will make it easier for fossil fuel companies to get away with ecocide.




Related
Another Day Another Oil Spill This Time in Alabama (Video)
Repeated Spills Show the Soulless Self Interest of Fossil Fuel Companies
New Pipeline Safety Law Followed by Another Oil Spill
Summary of Fossil Fuel Spills in 2015 (Videos)
The Dangers of Transporting Fossil Fuels
Three of the Most Destructive Tanker Oil Spills in History
Top 25 Oil Spills Over 1000 Tonnes in the Last Decade
Pipelines and Oil Spills in Alberta Canada
Offshore Oil is an Avoidable Tragedy
The Costs of Oil: BP Liable for up to 90 Billion
Two More Reasons to Move Beyond Fossil Fuels

Read More»

New Pipeline Safety Law Followed by Another Oil Spill

Mere hours after President Obama signed the PIPES safety bill into law, a pipeline spilled thousands of gallons of oil. Protecting our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of 2016 became law on June 22nd. Within hours of the signing an oil pipeline erupted in Ventura County, California. It was first noticed by a local rancher early Thursday morning.
The spill emanated from a ten inch underground pipeline owned by Colorado-based Crimson Pipeline LLC. It sent an estimated 29,400 gallons of crude oil down into an arroyo that flows through the city of Ventura and reaches the ocean near the Ventura Pier. The spill marks Crimson’s 11th such incident in the last ten years.

The law was drafted in response to a plethora of fossil fuel spills, especially California's Porter Ranch leak which spewed a staggering 97,000 tons of methane. The PIPES act increases safety provisions in the construction and operation of fossil fuels facilities. It also and gives the government expanded authority to act quickly in the event of a spill. This includes new emergency powers for the Secretary of Transportation.

Oil spills are common throughout North America, but they are especially prevalent in California. On May 19, 2015, a corroded Plains All American pipeline spewed 143,000 gallons of crude oil onto Refugio State Beach in Santa Barbara and at least 25,000 gallons poured into the ocean. The spill created a nine mile oil slick. Governor Jerry Brown called it an "environmental disaster" and declared a state of emergency.

Planes All American Pipeline have been been found guilt of a total of 175 safety and maintenance infractions. The Houston company has been indicted on 46 criminal counts and faces fines of around $3 million due to the Santa Barbara spill. 

In December, more than 8,800 gallons of oil leaked in Somis. In May of this year 21,000 Gallons of oil spilled from the underground San Pablo Bay Pipeline near Tracy in San Joaquin County. These spills and the many others in California take place against the backdrop of the epic Santa Barbara oil spill of 1969.

It is a statistical certainty that pipelines will spill. Just as birds fly, and fish swim, oil leaks. The only way to keep the oil from spilling is to stop it from flowing. 

Oil spills have become commonplace, but we cannot afford to be blase. The preponderance of leaks adds to concerns about the existential threat posed by the climate destroying properties of the commodities they transport.

In the past oil pipelines were the lifeblood of our industrial might, however we now know that they are harbingers of an apocalyptic future. These arteries of death, like the hydrocarbons they transport, must be phased out of our energy mix.

Related
Summary of Fossil Fuel Spills in 2015 (Video)
The Dangers of Transporting Fossil Fuels
Shell Downplays Crude Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico
Oil Spill in Peru is a Life Threatening Emergency for Local Indigenous People (Video)
Three of the Most Destructive Tanker Oil Spills in History
Unstoppable Oil Leak at a Tar Sands Production Site in Alberta
Infographic: 13 Oil Spills in 30 Days
Top 25 Oil Spills Over 1000 Tonnes in the Last Decade
Pipelines and Oil Spills in Alberta Canada
Two More Reasons to Move Beyond Fossil Fuels

Read More»

The End of Fossil Fuel Subsidies

Providing handouts to the wealthiest corporations on earth does not make much sense, particularly when their activities are the leading driver of climate change. Ending fossil fuel subsidies is the most obvious next step in our efforts to tackle the climate crisis. In the wake of the Paris Climate Agreement forged at COP21, continuing fossil fuel subsidies is an oxymoron.

These subsidies take many forms including, tax breaks, cheap loans, price controls, purchase requirements, purchasing equipment, royalty breaks and direct spending. According to some reports there are over 800 ways that taxpayers support the fossil fuel industry.

According to the IMF, global energy subsidies amount to 5.3 trillion dollars, or $10 million a minute. This translates to 6.5 percent of global GDP, in 2015 alone. This is more than the entire health spending of all the world’s governments. The IMF suggests that removing fossil fuel subsidies could reduce greenhouse gas emission by 20 percent. Everybody from Prince Charles to the IMF have called for an end to fossil fuel subsidies.

Nicholas Stern, climate economist at the London School of Economics, said: “There is no justification for these enormous subsidies for fossil fuels, which distort markets and damages economies, particularly in poorer countries.”

Christiana Figueres, the UN’s climate change chief commented: “The IMF provides five trillion reasons for acting on fossil fuel subsidies. Protecting the poor and the vulnerable is crucial to the phasing down of these subsidies, but the multiple economic, social and environmental benefits are long and legion.”

The president of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, succinctly stated: “We need to get rid of fossil fuel subsidies now.”

Shelagh Whitley, a subsidies expert at the Overseas Development Institute, said: “governments around the world are propping up a century-old energy model. Compounding the issue, our research shows that many of the energy subsidies highlighted by the IMF go toward finding new reserves of oil, gas and coal, which we know must be left in the ground if we are to avoid catastrophic, irreversible climate change.”

The world's biggest providers of fossil fuel subsidies are China, ($2.3tn) US ($700bn), Russia ($335bn), India ($277bn) and Japan ($157bn), and the European Union ($330bn).

By making fossil fuels cheaper, subsidies increase the use of dirty energy resulting in more emissions. A new report shows how subsidies are increasing our emissions. According to the report's author Radek Stefansk from The School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary:

“The resultant 170-country, 30-year database finds that the financial and the environmental costs of such subsidies are enormous- and steadily increasing. The overwhelming majority of the world’s fossil fuel subsidies stem from China, the US, and the ex-USSR; as of 2010, this figure was $712 billion or nearly 80% of the total world value of subsidies. For its part, Canada has been subsidizing rather than taxing fossil fuels since 1998. By 2010, Canadian subsidies sat at $13 billion, or 1.4% of GDP. In that same year, the total direct and indirect financial costs of all such subsidies amounted to $1.82 trillion, or 3.8% of global GDP.”

Perhaps the most noteworthy statistic contained in the report show that in the absence of subsidies emissions would have been cut in half in 2010.

IMF

Numerous other studies including IMF research have come to similar conclusion as the Policy School study. The IMF called these subsidies "unsustainable"." The IMF described these subsidies as "perverse" saying "they are using public funds to create a problem the world has agreed to fix in Paris. And they leave us all to pay the societal costs that fossil-fuel pollution causes."

Ending the subsidies would also reduce the number of premature deaths from air pollution by half translating to about 1.6 million lives a year.

In 2014, IMF leader Christine Lagarde said reducing subsidies for fossil fuels and pricing carbon pollution should be priorities for governments around the world.

“We are subsidizing the very behaviour that is destroying our planet, and on an enormous scale. Both direct subsidies and the loss of tax revenue from fossil fuels ate up almost $2 trillion in 2011—this is about the same as the total GDP of countries like Italy or Russia,” Lagarde said.

G7

In 2009 the G7 (composed of UK, US, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the European Union) announced that it would end fossil fuel subsidies but no timelines were given. At a recent meeting of the G7 in Japan, the world's wealthiest economies have agreed to end fossil fuel subsidies in the next decade.

“Given the fact that energy production and use account for around two-thirds of global greenhouse gas emissions, we recognise the crucial role that the energy sector has to play in combating climate change,” said the leaders’ declaration, issued at the end their summit in Japan.

G20

In 2009, G20 countries promised to phase out "inefficient" fossil fuel subsidies. According to a report titled "Empty Promises: G20 subsidies to oil, gas and coal production," G20 countries are spending $452 billion US a year in direct subsidies to their respective fossil fuel industries. The study's co-author Alex Doukas, who is senior campaigner with Oil Change International, said,

"We're subsidizing companies to search for new fossil fuel reserves at time when we know that three-quarters of the proven reserves have to stay in the ground if we hope to avoid the worst impacts of climate change...So paying companies to find more fossil fuels is folly."

The report was produced jointly by Oil Change International, an advocacy group focused on moving the world away from fossil fuels, and the Overseas Development Institute, the U.K.'s leading independent think-tank on international development and humanitarian issues.

US

Despite numerous attempts to remove these subsidies in the US Congress (primarily the Republicans) have thwarted these efforts. The fossil fuel industry owns the Republican party who have consistently shown their loyalty to an industry that is rife with corruption and subterfuge. Internationally, the leaders from over 50 countries have made public commitments to phase out fossil fuel subsidies in the “medium term.” However there has not been much concrete action to date.

Canada

Canada's total federal and provincial support for the petroleum industry was close to $2.7 billion US ($3.6 billion Cdn at current exchange rates) in the 2013-14 fiscal year, with federal subsidies accounting for roughly $1.6 billion. In his election platform, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pledged his government would end fossil fuel subsidies.

COP21

During the COP21 conference at the end of 2015, the UNFCCC released a statement which read: “An unprecedented coalition of close to 40 governments, hundreds of businesses and influential international organisations has called today for accelerated action to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, a move that would help bridge the gap to keep global temperature rise below 2°C.”

John Key, the New Zealand Prime Minister, presented the Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform Communiqué to Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Key said:

“Fossil fuel subsidy reform is the missing piece of the climate change puzzle. It’s estimated that more than a third of global carbon emissions, between 1980 and 2010, were driven by fossil fuel subsidies.

Figueres said in accepting the Communiqué: “These subsidies contribute to the inefficient use of fossil fuels, undermine the development of energy efficient technologies, act as a drag on clean, green energy deployment and in many developing countries do little to assist the poorest of the poor in the first place...low oil prices are a good opportunity to really get going on this issue.”

Stefan Löfven, Prime Minister of Sweden, said: “History will prove fossil fuel to be a dead end. Sweden will be amongst the first fossil free welfare nations of the world. And eliminating fossil fuel subsidies is an important step on this path.”

Hakima El Haite, Environment Minister of Morocco, candidate for the presidency of COP22, said: “Not only do fossil fuel subsidies put a strain on government coffers but they also don’t help the poorest of society.”

Solutions

The end of fossil fuel subsidies is coming and there are ways that we can expedite this transition. As reviewed by Price of Oil here are four major ways we can address the problem of subsidies:

• Increased transparency – governments must stop hiding the handouts they give to fossil fuel companies!
• Support for the poor and vulnerable – we need to be sure that poor countries and communities are supported to ensure access to energy while removing these subsidies.
• Global coordination – without a way for the world to coordinate on this effort, countries will continue to drag their heels.
• Phase-out Deadline – we all know that unless you have a deadline, you’re apt to procrastinate. It’s time to set one for fossil fuel subsidy elimination!

Related
Curbing Fossil Fuels - Carbon Pricing and an End to Subsidies (WEF Summaries)
Problems and Solutions to the Climate Crisis from the World Economic Forum in Davos
A Large and Growing Chorus is Calling for an End to Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Scientists Urge Government Action on Climate Including Removing Oil Subsidies
End Fossil Fuel Subsidies Totaling One Trillion Per Year
Success of the #EndFossilFuelSubsidies Campaign
Rio+20: 350.org Campaign to End Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Obama Striving to Put an End to Oil Subsidies
End Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Obama's Call for an End to Oil Subsidies
Infographic - Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Infographic - Climate Finance vs Fossil Fuel Subsidies: National Comparisons
Infographic - Fossil Fuel Subsidies and the US Congress

Read More»

Second Shell Oil Spill in Less than Two Weeks

For the second time in less than two weeks pipelines belonging to Shell have leaked oil. The most recent spill has leaked 21,000 Gallons (500 barrels) of oil near Tracy in San Joaquin County, California. This time the culprit was the company's underground San Pablo Bay Pipeline which transports crude oil from California’s Central Valley to the San Francisco Bay Area. The spill took place on May 20th but Shell did not report the leak until the evening of Monday May 23.

Ironically, this spill took place against the backdrop of the Altamont Pass Wind Farm, one of California's largest wind energy developments. The juxtaposition of an oil spill against a clean energy producing wind farm speaks volumes.

This is the second time that oil has spilled from this pipeline in 8 months and the second time Shell has reported a spill in less than two weeks.

On May 12, Shell spilled almost 90,000 gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. In an interview with WMNF News, Scott Eustis, a coastal wetlands specialist with Gulf Restoration Network discussed the impacts of the May 12 oil spill on the corals, dolphins, whales, tuna and whale sharks.

“All this is happening while the government is considering new leasing in the Gulf. Although we know from this and many other events that there’s not enough clean-up, there’s not appropriate technologies to take care of the Gulf as a natural resource that belongs to all of us, here, and all of us in the United States. So, we’re calling for no new leasing until the government and industry can show that they can take care of our natural resources.”

Cleanup efforts at the spill site near Tracy are focused on the oil that has reached the surface. Oil is visible on a patch of land that is roughly 10,000 square feet in size. However, the majority of the leaked oil remains underground. California's fire marshal has launched an investigation into the spill.

The company claims that, “no release [of oil] is acceptable“. However, Shell's history of spills mirrors the experience of all oil operations. The extraction and transportation of oil is subject to spills. This is an unavoidable fact of life.

In addition to being the leading cause of climate change, oil spills contaminate soil and water with predictable regularity. In recent days there has been an oil spill at Three Oaks High School in Summerside, Prince County, Prince Edward Island.

Every year there are thousands of spills around the world. A summary of some of the fossil fuel spills in North America last year reveals just how common they are. These spills illustrate the dangers of transporting fossil fuels.

Related
Pipelines and Oil Spills in Alberta Canada
Oil Spill in Peru is a Life Threatening Emergency for Local Indigenous People (Video)
Three of the Most Destructive Tanker Oil Spills in History
Unstoppable Oil Leak at a Tar Sands Production Site in Alberta
Infographic: 13 Oil Spills in 30 Days
Top 25 Oil Spills Over 1000 Tonnes in the Last Decade
Obama Administration Cuts Shell's Arctic Drilling in Half
After a Failed Cover-up Shell Sub-Contractor Pleads Guilty
Greenpeace forces Lego to Dump Shell
Shell Oil Rig Runs Aground in Alaska Raising Safety Concerns
Shell's Game with the Future of the Arctic
Another Offshore Oil Leak this Time from Shell

Read More»

Investor Warning: Fossil Fuels and the Risk of Stranded Assets

It is becoming increasingly apparent that fossil fuels represent a substantial risk that should make investors wary. Fossil fuel reserves, including oil, gas and coal will be rendered obsolete in the coming decades, leaving investors holding valueless investments. A plethora of peer reviewed science tells us the curbing fossil fuel use is key to climate mitigation.

From widespread calamitous coastal flooding to devastating extreme weather events the need to urgently act on climate change has finally been accepted by every nation on earth. The economics of climate action is sound. A cost benefit analysis reveals the overwhelming logic. We must the eradication of fossil fuels as soon as possible. The impetus to act on climate change, once dismissed by some, is now a fact of life for all thinking people.

There is already downward pressure on the fossil fuel industry and this will only intensify in 2016 as we begin to see policy shifts and new regulatory regimes. The Paris Climate Agreement formally signals the end of fossil fuels. 

We are already seeing trillions of dollars being divested from the fossil fuel industry. Much of the money divested is being reallocated to renewable energy, the primary competition for the fossil fuel industry. Investments in fossil fuels need time to mature, however post Paris time is the one thing that fossil fuel investors do not have.

The IPCC Synthesis Report indicates that the burning of fossil fuels must be completely ended by 2100. We must work quickly to radically reduce our use of fossil fuels because the longer we wait the more it will cost. We also risk surpassing dangerous tipping points from which we will not be able to recover.  Simply put we cannot continue to burn fossil fuels if we hope to stay within the 2C upper threshold limit. 

The concerns about fossil fuels and stranded assets were reviewed in an April 8, 2016, CBC Business article by Don Pittis in which he warned investors about the dangers of fossil fuels. As he explained, the issue of stranded assets is not merely the concern of environmentalists, it is central to shrewd analyses of the investment community. Concerns about stranded assets are coming from all quarters including mainstream, credible sources, like Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England.

Research from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers has already announced a $50 billion drop in Canadian oil and gas investment in electrical power plant generation from fossil fuels. However, there are implications for the oil sands and pipelines.

As explained in the CBC article, a Oxford University study indicates that after 2017, fossil fuel powered electricity generation may "not be able to run long enough to pay off their capital costs, turning them into stranded assets." This study expands the stranded-assets concept to include what economists call capital.

"Investors putting money into new carbon-emitting infrastructure need to ask hard questions about how long those assets will operate for, and assess the risk of future shutdowns and writeoffs," says Cameron Hepburn, one of the academics involved in Oxford study.

"If the 2 C target is to be taken seriously, then current and future assets will have to be written off before the end of their economically useful life (become stranded assets) or we will have to rely on large-scale investments down the line in carbon capture and storage technologies that are as yet unproven and expensive," says the report.

While the Oxford study is focused on electricity generation the implications extend to the fossil fuel industry as a whole. According to Duetsche Bank at least half of all known fossil fuel reserves will need to be kept in the ground to stay within our carbon budget. 

"For their own financial benefit, what investors must consider is whether the climate risk has been properly calculated into the future income stream." Pittis wrote. "If investors in power plants, pipelines and new oil development go ahead without proper regard to climate risk and find those assets stranded, they will be worth less than advertised."

The Financial Times covered the same study and reported:

"Virtually all new fossil fuel-burning power-generation capacity will end up stranded... A similar logic can be applied to parts of the capital stock."

Carbon dioxide remain in the atmosphere for centuries so we must appreciate not just annual emissions but their cumulative totals or the global carbon budget.

The Oxford paper states that capital stock created after 2017 would break the global carbon budget. However the Financial Times article suggests that the Oxford study is premised on some optimistic assumptions and therefore it may be more difficult to keep temperatures from rising beyond the 2C upper threshold limit. This assessment suggests that the risks are even greater than those presented in the Oxford research.

Why would any sane investor put his or her money into a source of energy that is doomed to be shut down?

As explained in the FT article:

"[G]iven the longevity of a large part of the capital stock, the time for decisive change is right now, not decades in future."

As reported in the Green Market Oracle, just ahead of the Paris Climate Agreement two reports corroborated concerns about stranded assets.  One of these reports come from the Think Tank, Carbon Tracker and another comes from Critical Resource, a firm that advises fossil fuel companies.

The Carbon Tracker report indicated that more than 2.2 trillion worth of fossil fuel projects are at risk of being stranded. Anthony Hobley, chief executive at Carbon Tracker said:

"Our report offers these companies a warning [about] avoiding significant value destruction,"

The top four countries at risk from stranded fossil fuel assets are the US at $412 billion, Canada at $220 billion, China at $179 billion and Australia at $103bn. The companies with the greatest exposure are Shell, ExxonMobil and Pemex.

Despite these risks, $1.3 trillion is being spent on new oil projects and $124 billion is being spent on existing projects. We need to start with a moratorium on new fossil fuel development.

Daniel Litvin, MD of Critical Resources said.

"The critical mass point could be as soon as a couple of years down the road, which is pretty soon for an industry that has been around for 100 years."

How can the oil industry fail to see the writing on the wall? The fossil fuel industry would not be the first that failed to see clear signs of its demise. Hobley pointed to the demise of Kodak and Blockbuster as illustrations.

In the past decade, the emissions implied by the investment in power generation have been rising at 4 percent a year. The math behind this investment growth when partnered with the need for climate action make investing in fossil fuels a fool's errand.

Related
The Risks Associated with Stranded Fossil Fuel Assets
COP21 and Stranded Fossil Fuel Assets
Fossil Fuel Divestment and Stranded Assets
Infographic - Stranded Fossil Fuel Assets
Oil is a Bad Investment
The Fossil Fuel Industry has Reason to be Nervous
Fossil Fuels are a Clear and Present Danger
Study on the Fossil Fuel Industry and the Bursting of the Carbon Bubble
Graph of Fossil Fuels GHG Contributions
The Cost of Carbon
Now is the Time to End our Reliance on Fossil Fuels
Fossil Fuels are making the Planet Uninhabitable
Fossil Fuels are the Most Hated Industry in the US
Exxon is not the Only Bad Apple: The Whole Fossil Fuel Industry is Rotten to the Core

Read More»

Diminishing Profits Signal the Beginning of the End of Oil

Oil is dying. Low oil prices are erasing profits and setting into motion a death spiral from which fossil fuels will not recover. Big Oil is cutting costs, and scaling back production, this results in smaller returns and diminished investor confidence. The addition of carbon pricing schemes and the elimination of subsidies will ultimately inflate prices and reduce demand.
____________________________

The profits of the big oil companies keep falling along with the price of a barrel of crude. In 2015, the profits of oil behemoths like Shell, Chevron, Exxon Mobil and BP tumbled. Together, these big four saw profits decline by an average of 65 percent last year. These falling margins have a cascade of impacts that are hastening the demise of dirty energy.

Shell

At the beginning of 2014, Royal Dutch Shell’s quarterly earnings for the end of 2013 fell by almost half (48%). This was the third consecutive quarter of disappointing earnings. This was in part due to Shell’s failed multibillion dollar Alaskan drilling program. The situation has continued to deteriorate for the oil giant as Shell’s profits fell by 56 percent in the fourth quarter of 2015. Over the course of the entire year, Shell’s earnings fell by 80 percent compared to 2014. To make matters worse, Standard & Poor's downgraded Shell’s long term credit rating in February and further downgrades have been intimated.

Chevron

In 2015, Chevron saw its profits decline by 40 percent compared to 2014 and the company reported losses in the fourth quarter of last year. Chevron lost $588 million in the last quarter of 2015; during the same period in 2014 the company made a profit of $3.5 billion. This is the first time the company has reported quarterly losses since 2002.

Exxon Mobil

Exxon Mobil saw its quarterly profits decline by 58 percent at the end of 2015 and the company’s profits are down by half compared to the year before. Its exploration and production business lost $538 million in the U.S.

BP

British Petroleum said that its profits fell by 91 percent last year. They recorded a $3.3 billion loss in the fourth quarter of last year and $6.48 billion in losses for the year. Like Shell, the company also kicked off the new year with a long term credit downgrade from Standard & Poor’s.

Macro realities

There is no end in sight to low oil prices and falling share prices. We have not seen a commodity collapse of this magnitude in decades. However, unlike preceding oil crashes, environmental pressures and economic trends make the longer term financial forecast look bleak for fossil fuels.

Oil production continues to outpace demand and more supply is on the way now that the sanctions against Iran have been lifted. The situation is about to get even worse as storage space is nearing capacity.

While many are waiting for oil prices to rebound they may be disappointed. Driven by climate concerns and the declining price of both renewables and energy storage, we are seeing unprecedented interest in non-fossil fuel based energy production from all quarters.

In the longer term, the outcome at COP21 lends credence to the belief that fossil fuels will be subject to a host of headwinds. The fossil fuel industry is also having to deal with a rapidly expanding number of legal challenges, negative public perceptions and disruptions due to protests.

Death spiral

In addition to market pressure associated with low oil prices, producers realize that to bring oil prices up you have to decrease supply (i.e. reduce production). However, decreased production will further diminish returns and this will scare off investors.

Low oil prices have already shut down hundreds of extraction operations. Oil prices are currently about half of what they need to be to make the tar sands and shale oil viable. The exodus had begun even before oil prices fell to their current lows. At the beginning of last year, Shell announced that it was among a number of oil companies that are shelving their tar sands operations. Many are predicting that at least half of all shale oil producers will perish this year. It is not only energy intensive forms of fossil fuels that are at risk, as explained by Jesse Thompson, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank in Dallas, “at this price range, nothing is safe.”

Big oil is responding to low oil prices and declining profits by slashing capital spending and operating expenses. For example, Exxon has said that it will cut spending by one quarter this year compared to last and BP is expected to cut spending by almost $3.6 billion this year. This translates to less production and exploration. Less exploration means lower reserves and lower reserves sends a powerful message about the future of the industry.

The linkage between lower oil prices and decreased production have set in motion a causal chain of events that does not bode well for the fossil fuel industry. As explained in a New York Times article:

"To assure their futures, oil companies need to add to their reserves to replace production, but with plunging prices, companies are delaying or canceling projects and struggling to add to their reserves."

Reduced earnings are translating to cuts in production. For Shell that means delaying a liquefied natural gas facility in Canada and a deep water oil and gas development in Nigeria.

The combination of less production and low oil prices translates to lower profits which puts downward pressure on the dividends that they can pay out to investors. This in turn, curtails investor interest. While big oil is trying to reassure investors by saying that they will continue to pay big dividends, the situation is untenable.

Maintaining investor interest will be challenging for BP and others, as explained by Biraj Borkhataria, an analyst at RBC Capital Markets in London. He is quoted as saying:

"2016 is likely to be a year of transition for BP with limited ability" to cover its dividend unless oil prices rose substantially.

Michael Hewson, an analyst at CMC Markets puts it this way:

"But with average oil prices still trading at multi-year lows so far this year the question now needs to be asked in how long can BP sustain the dividend at current levels, without an imminent pick up in oil prices."

When investor confidence evaporates, the fate of the fossil fuel industry is sealed.

The position of big oil goes from bad to worse when we factor carbon pricing and an end to subsidies. This will raise the cost of fossil fuels and reduce demand.

Although it will take decades it is clear that we can kill what Bill McKibben has called the immortal zombie of fossil fuels.

Source: Global Warming is Real

Related Articles
Falling oil Prices Make Fossil Fuels a High Risk Investment
Oil is a Bad Investment
Financial Losses Associated with Fossil Fuels
Low Oil Prices Offer an Opportunity to Combat Climate Change
The Upside to Low Oil Prices
Climate Pros and Cons of Low Oil Prices
Falling Oil Prices and a Global Climate Agreement
Cheap Oil Will Not Stop Renewables
Why Oil Prices Matter for Renewable Energy
An Upside to Low Oil Prices?
Video - Why Oil Prices Will Keep Falling

Read More»

Summary of Fossil Fuel Spills in 2015 (Videos)

Oil spills continued to be a problem in 2015 with a number of major incidents in North America. These spills contaminated both land and waterways and prompted the evacuation of local citizens. Whether by pipe, ship, rail or truck, there are well founded concerns about the safety of transporting fossil fuels. These concerns add weight to the argument that we need to expedite the shift away from fossil fuels. Many consecutive years with substantial numbers of spills illustrate the dangers associated with transporting fossil fuels.

Last year in North America alone there were 34 significant spills starting in January and continuing right through to December.  A New York Times report found that in North Dakota alone there were more than 18.4 million gallons of oils and chemicals spilled, leaked, or misted into the state’s air, land, and waterways between 2006 and 2014. The amount of fossil fuels spilled in the Canadian oil producing province of Alberta is even worse.

Here is a review of 33 fossil fuel leaks that occurred in North America in 2015.

January 6 - Williston, North Dakota: A ruptured pipeline operated by Summit Midstream leaked three million gallons of brine into Blacktail Creek and Little Muddy River, tributaries of the Missouri River.

January 14 - Jackson, Mississippi: A section of the Gulf South natural gas pipeline ruptured and exploded. .

January 17 - Glendive, Montana: The Poplar Pipeline running beneath the Yellowstone River ruptured, spilling some 31,000 gallons of crude oil into the water contaminating water supplies for nearby residents.


January 23 - Tioga, North Dakota: Hess Bakken Investments reported a brine spill of more than 100,000 gallons.

January 26 - Brooke County, West Virginia: The 1,265-mile Appalachia-to-Texas Express ethane pipeline ruptured and exploded.


February 4 - Dubuque, Iowa: An 81-car Canadian Pacific freight train derailed and caught fire in a remote area north of Dubuque on the banks of the Mississippi River.

February 14 - Gogama, Ontario: A 100-car Canadian National Railway train carrying crude from Alberta’s tar-sands region to eastern Canada derailed and caught fire in a remote wooded area.

February 16 - Boomer, West Virginia: A 109-car CSX train carrying millions of pounds of crude oil derailed and exploded shutting down a local water treatment plant.  Three oil train wrecks in February beg the question, how many such disasters will it take before we realize that rail transport of fossil fuels is not safe.


March 1 - Peace River, Alberta: A Murphy Oil Company pipeline leaked up to 17,000 barrels of petroleum product into a type of North American bog habitat called muskeg.

March 5 - Galena, Illinois: A 105-car BNSF Railway train carrying Bakken crude from North Dakota derailed and caught fire near the Mississippi River. Twenty-one cars came off the tracks, and five caught fire.


March 7 - Gogama, Ontario: A 94-car Canadian National Railway train carrying Alberta crude oil derailed and burst into flames two miles northwest of the town of Gogama contaminating part of the Makami River, in the Mattagami River System.

March 9 - Houston, Texas: An unknown quantity of toxic chemicals spilled into the Houston Ship Channel after a bulk carrier collided with a Danish tanker carrying 216,000 barrels of the gasoline additive methyl tertiary-butyl ether, or MTBE.


March 9 - Williston, North Dakota: A truck overflow spilled 1,680 gallons of brine, affecting a nearby creek.

April 11 - Arlington, Texas: Vantage Energy spilled thousands of gallons of fracking fluid that poured out of storm drains and into the streets.

April 13, 2015 - English Bay, Vancouver, B.C.: A ship MV Marathassa leaked 2.3 tonnes or 3,100 liters of fuel.


April 17 - Fresno, California: A Pacific Gas & Electric natural gas pipeline exploded at the Fresno County Sheriff's Office gun range, sending a fireball 100 feet into the air and injuring 14 people, two critically.

May 5 - Drumheller, Alberta: TransCanada’s Sieu Creek natural gas transmission line spilled an undetermined volume of sweet natural gas and hydrocarbon liquid onto agricultural land during planned maintenance.

May 6 - Heimdal, North Dakota: At least six tanker cars caught fire after a BNSF oil train derailed.


May 19 - Goleta, California: An underground pipeline owned by Houston-based Plains All American Pipeline ruptured, leaking up to as much as 330 tonnes. Other estimates suggest that a total of 101,000 gallons of crude oil was spilled with an estimated 21,000 gallons leaking into the Pacific Ocean. Nine miles worth of oil slicks eventually washed up on the shores including Refugio and El Capitan state beaches. This spill is in many respects a repeat of a 1969 spill.


June 3 - Little Rock, Arkansas: A Spectra Energy Corp. natural gas pipeline running beneath the Arkansas River ruptured and exploded, releasing four million cubic feet of gas.

June 9 - Unityville, Pennsylvania: A Williams Gas natural gas pipeline ruptured and leaked, resulting in an explosion and fire.

July 10 - Highland, Illinois: A spill at the Plains All American Pipeline Pocahontas pump station sent 4,200 gallons of crude oil into Silver Creek, which empties into Silver Lake, the water reservoir for the city of Highland.

July 10 - Barwick, Ontario: Fourteen cars of a CN train derailed leaking an estimated 12,000 gallons of petroleum distillates.

July 14 - Culbertson, Montana: A total of 22 BNSF cars came off the tracks spilling 35,000 gallons of crude oil.

July 17 - Fort McMurray, Alberta: A high-pressure pipeline at Nexen Energy's Long Lake oil sands facility spilled five million liters of emulsion (a mixture of bitumen, sand, and water) damaging 16,000 square meters of musket habitat.


August 14 - Chateh, Alberta: A NuVista Energy pipeline leaked an estimated 100,000 liters of bitumen emulsion onto the Hay Lake Indian Reserve.

September 19 - Scotland, South Dakota: A 98-car BNSF tanker train carrying ethanol derailed in a rural area, leaking the volatile liquid into pastureland, where it caught fire.

October 23 - Porter Ranch, California: A natural gas well at a Southern California Gas storage facility continues to leak methane at a rate of more than 66,500 pounds per hour or the equivalent of seven million cars per day.


October 27 - Brownsville, Pennsylvania:A coal train derailed and spilled its load along the Monongahela River near the Alicia Transshipment Facility.

November 7 - Alma, Wisconsin: Twenty-five cars of a BNSF train went off the tracks near the Mississippi River, and leaked 20,000 gallons of ethanol into the water.

November 8 - Watertown, Wisconsin: A 100-car Canadian Pacific train carrying Bakken crude oil derailed in southeastern Wisconsin leaking about 1,000 gallons of product.

November 9 - Des Moines County, Iowa: Two engines and 19 loaded coal cars derailed and overturned when a freight train struck a road grader on the tracks.

December 1 - Watford City, North Dakota: A pump leak at a disposal well owned by Wyoming-based True Oil LLC spilled 17,640 gallons of brine.

Here is a review of the five biggest oil spills of all time:



Related
Video - Train Carrying Oil Derails Illustrating the Dangers of Transporting Fossil Fuels
Video - Truck Carrying Oil Crashes and Explodes Illustrating the Dangers of Transporting Fossil Fuels
Three of the Most Destructive Tanker Oil Spills in History
Unstoppable Oil Leak at a Tar Sands Production Site in Alberta
Top 25 Oil Spills Over 1000 Tonnes in the Last Decade
Pipelines and Oil Spills in Alberta Canada
Shell Oil Rig Runs Aground in Alaska Raising Safety Concerns
The Costs of Oil: BP Liable for up to 90 Billion
Two More Reasons to Move Beyond Fossil Fuels
The Costs of Offshore Drilling

Read More»