Common menu bar

Breadcrumb

Home > Public Participation and Land Matters > Land Matters Consultation Initiative (LMCI) > Stream 4 - Pipeline Abandonment - Physical Issues > Minutes - Pipeline Abandonment Physical Issues Committee Meeting #1

Minutes - Pipeline Abandonment Physical Issues Committee Meeting #1

23 March 2010
9:30 a.m. - 3:30 p.m.
National Energy Board Hearing Room

In Attendance
1. Overview of Background to the Committee
2. Review of Committee Terms of Reference (TOR)
3. Discussion on Pipeline Abandonment Options based on supplied materials
4. Potential Gaps in Knowledge on Abandonment Options and Post Abandonment Issues
5. Means of Addressing Knowledge Gaps
6. Next Steps

In Attendance

Members
Pierre Lemieux Robert Schwartz Hans Mooij Barry Jardine Mike Peters Tope Esan Greg Hill Don Popowich Washington Celis Alan Murray Alan Pentney	Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec (UPA) Springvale Surface Rights Association Public Member Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) CAPP TransCanada PipeLines Limited Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) Saskatchewan Ministry of Energy and Resources National Energy Board (NEB) NEB
Alternates
Isabelle Bouffard	UPA
Observers
Don Burke Jessica Swanson	Energy Resources Conservation Board of Alberta (ERCB) Tera Environmental
Resources
Charlotte Haines Karine Simard Gord Daw Kerry Brown	NEB NEB NEB Facilitator
Regrets
Don Bester Daniel R. Silbernagel	Pine Lake Surface Rights Action Group (Public Member) Alternate Public Member

1. Overview of Background to the Committee

Land Matters Consultation Initiative Overview - presentation by Alan Pentney

ACTION ITEM: Presentation to be forwarded to all Members/Alternates/Observers.

Canada-wide consultation initiative in 2008-09 produced summaries of landowner concerns in four 'Streams' or areas of interest with Pipeline Abandonment Financial Issues being captured by Stream 3 and Physical Issues being captured by Stream 4.
Principles for end state of land established in July 2009.
Cost of abandonment depends on amount of risk reduction required for public and landowner safety and environmental protection.
NEB approach to abandonment:
- An application for abandonment is required that would lead to a public hearing process where risk reduction and concerns are addressed.
- Conditions are attached to the decision to reduce risk to an acceptable level.
- Remediation of contamination and reclamation of land would adhere to provincial requirements.
- NEB jurisdiction ends when the conditions have all been met.
One action was the creation of a Multi-Stakeholder study group to address gaps in knowledge on physical issues of abandonment - hence this Committee.

General Discussion

Participants took part in a general discussion, with the NEB chairing and other participants making the following observations:

Environmental assessments do not currently consider abandonment but NEB has taken first step on how to address it (formation of Committee).
Concern raised related to future land sales and change of land use, e.g. agricultural land sold for residential or industrial development.
Concern that while NEB addresses landowner/environmental concerns, once the pipe is abandoned, NEB involvement ends.
- There is a need to maintain an agreement with company and retain access on title.
Financial concerns:
- Cost of abandonment has been an issue under the AUC since mid-70s.
- There needs to be a fund for pipeline issues that may arise in the long-term.
- Orphan well fund has not proven to be totally effective.
- NEB approach of pre-set-aside funds available regardless of state of company is innovative.
A strategy is required to take into account the number of pipelines that would be abandoned.
NEB/Province need to 'beef up' regulations. (Beyond scope of Committee)
What happens over time when environmental requirements change? Something to be addressed by the Committee.
Landowners/farmers do not want to be responsible for future - issues caused by the pipelines left in place.
New pipeline projects should always consider abandonment at the onset of project design.
Abandonment plans could be considered at application stage.

2. Review of Committee Terms of Reference (TOR)

Scope

1^st bullet: Can other options other than known abandonment options be considered?
- Suggestion that the term "new and innovative" be inserted was agreed on.
3^rd bullet: Do we want to initiate any research projects?
- Research projects may be longer-term than the scope of the Committee; however there may be a need for the Committee to continue in the long term (Agreed to add the word "research" to scope).
- Potential involvement of a university.
4^th bullet: Should consider public and worker exposure risks for each option.
- There was a concern with respect to agricultural workers who may be working physically near an abandoned pipeline (wording change to be proposed).

Desired Outcomes

Does not include future landowner liability issues because that is beyond the scope of the Committee. However, this section of the TOR will be reworded to reflect a desire to address both landowner and industry physical abandonment issues.
Post-abandonment activities should be included as a desired outcome. (Agreed)

Committee Composition

Ability to have someone from a person's organization fill in as an Alternate was discussed.
DECISION: Those who have not pre-selected an Alternate should provide the name of someone. A pre-identified Alternate member allows the alternate to be continually informed on activities of Committee.
Observers: When members agree there is a need for Observers to participate then that may occur.

Other Comments

Quorum: Should this mean representation of each 'sector' (regulator, industry, landowners) rather than 50% of membership?
DECISION: Yes - terminology to be changed.
Definition of consensus "not actively opposed by any member" - must be clear, otherwise there is the potential that a single opposition could inhibit the Committee: Wording to be changed to recognize that decisions will be based on the views of the majority of members and opposing views will be recorded.

ACTION ITEM: Alan Pentney to circulate TOR via email for final signoff once wordsmithing has been completed.

3. Discussion on Pipeline Abandonment Options based on supplied materials

Each participant was asked to indicate what they felt were the primary physical issues that concerned them about pipeline abandonment and that potentially the Committee should address.

T. Esan

Primary issue is ground subsidence. Based on facts available, this may not be as likely as is perceived, but it needs to be verified.
ater conduit issues should be investigated but is a resolvable concern.

G. Hill

Degree of pipeline removal: how much to take out vs. how much to leave in.
Need for compelling reasons to remove pipe; guidelines for when and when not to remove pipe.
Ground subsidence: determine reasons/conditions for occurrence.
Identification of areas of future development and associated time span.
- Pipe should be removed from industrial development areas.
How to keep from collapse under roads and railways.
- Is it necessary to fill with concrete etc? Costs could be substantial.
- Criteria under which fill is required.

W. Celis

Removal versus in-situ costs should be addressed.
How water crossings are abandoned.
Abandonment concerns that are not in the Committee scope but are of concern to Saskatchewan:
- Liabilities;
- Costs to the Crown; and
- Who has jurisdiction.

R. Schwartz

Rust inhibitors - likely carcinogens; health concerns is a key issue.
Key Issue - leaving pipe in-situ:
- Sale options for landowner (when land is sold for new land use).
- Condition of pipe remaining in ground.
Abandonment concerns that are not in the Committee scope:
- Concerned about case-by-case approach: don't allow this to reach the point where landowners need the province to correct a situation; and
- Landowners may be in situation where they did not want the pipe to begin with and do not want long-term liability.

P. Lemieux

Post-abandonment issues must be included.
Agricultural producers are potentially affected as a result of the following:
- Frost heave;
- Rail/road crossings; vehicle traffic vibration over abandoned pipelines;
- Subsidence - if goes unnoticed, could be dangerous and result in farm vehicle accidents;
- Agricultural producers are concerned about farm worker safety as a result of pipeline abandonment;
- Contamination of land near pipeline - impact to crops;
- Economic constraints; and
- There may be an impact on future agricultural equipment (i.e. weight of equipment is increasing).
Key concerns are with environment and health issues.
What is environmentally tolerated today that may not be tolerated tomorrow?
Abandonment concerns that are not in the Committee scope:
- An environmental assessment of soils near the pipeline should be mandatory upon abandonment;
- The base case of 80% of a pipeline left in place is a concern, as not all issues are known about leaving a pipeline in-situ;
- Need a means for landowners to be immune to liability; and
- Regulators need to ensure that responsibility is not borne by landowners.

H. Mooij

Who makes the final decision (remove vs. in-situ) and how could the public participate in the decision if a portion of pipe is to be removed or remain?
All technical issues should be looked at over time.

D. Popowich

New issues should get added to the list and solutions evolve as more information becomes available.
Abandonment concerns that are not in the Committee scope:
- Presenting professional opinion and not that of the AUC;
- An application for abandonment should not be complete until it includes consultation with landowner(s); and
- After a 'successful' abandonment, residual responsibility should reside with the company and there needs to be a mechanism to ensure there is government support system so landowners are not burdened with any costs.

M. Peters

Need to recognize the variety of conditions that will be encountered across the country (type of pipeline/facility, ground conditions, groundwater, climate etc.).

B. Jardine

Abandonment comments that are not in the Committee scope.
Cost of abandonment will be passed on to the shippers - need to ensure cost is reasonable.
Ensure a balance is captured between landowner and company needs.
The current base case of 80/20 percent is a starting point.

A. Murray

Important to separate fact from fiction in addressing issues.
CSA has some provisions for abandonment.
- ACTION ITEM: Alan Pentney to provide the Committee with any aspects that are addressed by any standards including CSA.
In what condition should the pipe be left?
How clean is clean?
Subsidence: what is the issue (must be clear)?
- Is the concern only with potential of vehicles traveling over the pipe?
- Creation of water conduits?
We could study the mechanism of collapse.
How does the in-situ pipe become a water conduit (to what extent)?
One size fits all solution is not likely.
How to capture commonality vs. one-offs; very difficult to capture every terrain, and type of pipe, to create a standard to be universally applied.

A. Pentney

Desired cleanliness of pipe prior to NEB abandonment decision.
Remediation of Right of Way - should be addressed (more than pipe cleaning).
- Risk management needed for some situations (e.g. deep contamination).

J. Swanson

Subsidence: need clarity on risk of collapse vs. removal.
Water conduit (how many, and where plugs should be installed).
Risk associated with removal (e.g. water crossings, assumption is that these will be plugged).

4. Potential Gaps in Knowledge on Abandonment Options and Post Abandonment Issues

The issues addressed by each member primarily occurred in the following categories:

ground subsidence;
prevention of collapse under roads and railways;
abandonment issues; and
post-abandonment issues.

Participants were organized into groups to expand on what gaps in knowledge may be in each topic. The notes taken in these groups are to be compiled into a separate summary document.

5. Means of Addressing Knowledge Gaps

The NEB is to summarize the information generated from the Committee breakout groups in categories with suggested priorities. This will then be used to produce an outline of a proposal as to how to address gaps in knowledge. Consideration will be given to:

landowners' long term projects and goals, the potential use of lands and the potential impacts of pipelines on these issues;
the type of expertise and study tool needed for different categories of knowledge gaps;
and use of the 1996 discussion paper as a starting point.

The proposal is to identify the recommended options for doing work and potential short and long term deliverables. The Committee will comment on the proposal prior to a teleconference on how to proceed to develop the scope for studies. In the interim, discussions will be held with industry on the means of funding work. Concern about bias was noted but given the multi-stakeholder composition of the Committee this should not be a problem.

Options for addressing knowledge gaps were speculated to be any or all of:

presentations;
critical review;
literature review;
research; and
specialized studies.

6. Next Steps

1. NEB to provide Committee members with:

Overview presentation;
1996 discussion paper (contained in electronic 2007 CEPA draft paper) - paper copies of 1996 paper available from the NEB;
CSA standards on abandonment;
Meeting minutes and breakout group summary;
Revised Terms of Reference; and
Proposal on a work plan.