Dear Editor:
I usually find Elizabeth James' columns logical and well researched, but the last two regarding Kinder Morgan's TransMountain Pipeline (TMPL) are exceptions.
In her Nov. 13 piece, Ms. James worries because TMPL carries crude oil, semi-refined and refined petroleum products. TMPL has "batched" (sent batches of various oils one after the other) crude oils since the early-1950s, and crude oil, synthetic crude oil, and petroleum products for the last two decades without any incident due to batching. Batching these products is no particular cause for concern, and is far safer than rail or truck. As for the fire risk mentioned in the article, I can find no case of a TMPL pipeline fire caused by leaks in that half-century plus. Does history carry no weight in assessing risk?
Regarding concerns about "the B.C. portion of KM's Cochin line": that line originates in Alberta and runs east - nowhere does it enter B.C.
Contrary to the statement that "the products are corrosive," none of the materials carried by TMPL, including diluted bitumen, are particularly corrosive. Diluted bitumen is more corrosive at refining temperatures but not at pipeline temperatures which are hundreds of degrees cooler.
Pipelines "in ditches open for all to see" are in that state due to ongoing inspection, repair or new construction, not due to ignoring any NEB requirements for lines to be buried.
As for her Nov. 27 article, because a town in China had a pipeline accident (or poisoned pet food, frequent plane crashes, or horrendous coal mine death tolls) there is no reason to suggest Canadian facilities are unsafe. Secondly, her claim of a fatal accident in the last 30 or so years from lack of pipeline maintenance should have mentioned that TMPL was not the party in question, based on my research. Perhaps in future Ms. James should contact an expert at TMPL before suggesting increased TMPL pipeline risk.
John Hunter, P. Eng.
North Vancouver
