“We missed our neighbour,” Sean Finn, CN’s executive vice-president of corporate services and chief legal officer, said in an interview Feb. 23. “It was a bit complicated. We derailed on Jayme Corr’s property near St. Lazare, but we weren’t too sure where we were, but I quickly called him Monday morning.

“I want to apologize to the people of St. Lazare for the inconvenience and more importantly Mr. Corr and we will not be leaving the site until we put it back into the condition it was before the unfortunate derailment.

“We’ll be testing the water and soil. We’ll clean it up but we’ll be monitoring the site for many months to come, especially when the thaw comes so that the cattle that get their water from the oxbow are doing so in a safe fashion.”

Published reports Feb. 17 said Corr was unhappy CN had not immediately contacted him about the derailment, which resulted in some oil cars leaking. He was worried oil could pollute the wetland he uses to water his cattle.

Derailments are always unwelcome, Finn said, but the upside to this oil spill is that the ground is frozen, making cleanup easier.

“It looks worse on white snow but at least you can see it and it’s not going in the ground,” he said.

The track was reopened almost 24 hours after the accident.

“It didn’t have a major impact on our service to our customers,” Finn said, adding some trains had to be rerouted.

Restoring service following a derailment is art, Finn said. Big equipment and skilled operators are needed to move cars. Part of the trick is bringing in temporary rails already attached to ties that are 30 to 40 feet long and then bolted together, he said.

“The guys who do this, do it for a living and they are pretty effective,” Finn said. “But you have to be careful. You want to do it safely. We don’t want anybody to get hurt while we’re cleaning up a derailment.”

The post CN apologizes for derailment, oil spill near St. Lazare appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The WSA on Friday announced it has lifted its advisories in relation to livestock watering and recreational uses such as water skiing and other activities. Those advisories took effect after a Husky Energy pipeline near Maidstone, Sask. leaked an estimated 225 cubic metres of crude oil into the river July 21.

The agency cautioned that its evaluations on impacts to aquatic life and “other uses such as fish and wildlife” are “ongoing and separate from this assessment.”

The WSA also gave SaskWater and the cities of Prince Albert, North Battleford and Melfort notice they can again begin diverting and treating water from the North Saskatchewan River and Codette Reservoir. Those intakes have been shut since the spill was confirmed.

The agency said its decision to allow the water intakes and treatment to resume comes after the recovery of about 88 per cent of the oil from the spill, plus “significant technical study, monitoring and review.”

The WSA said its decision stems from an overall water safety assessment from the technical group which has been working as part of the oil spill response to address “human health threats, the fate of the oil, treatment requirements and long-term monitoring.”

The assessment report said it assumes “direct residential use,” such as ingestion, bathing and/or showering, of untreated water from the North Saskatchewan River, thus its results are also “health-protective of direct‐contact recreational water activities” such as swimming in the river.

That assessment — later reviewed by federal, provincial and university experts and consultants for the affected municipalities — found the oil components still detected in the river “do not present unacceptable health risks to residents whose treated water supply will be sourced from the river once intake use restarts.”

The oil still in the river is mostly attached to fine river sediments, such as silt and clay, is dispersed mainly in points in the river less than 100 km downstream from the oil’s point of entry, and “will continue to degrade naturally,” the assessment said.

Affected municipalities are also advised to adjust their water treatment processes “to account for the current water quality of the sources,” to collect samples of treated water and test for petroleum components before the water goes to their distribution systems, and to advise their consumers of a “potential change in water quality” as those systems come back online.

North Battleford and Prince Albert, with funding from Husky, also plan to invest in “further temporary pre-treatment and treatment options,” the agency said.

Also, “an ongoing river water quality monitoring plan for potable water intakes will ensure that the water quality impacts due to the river cleanup and changing river conditions can be adequately assessed over time,” the assessment report said. — AGCanada.com Network

The post Stock-watering advisory lifted for North Saskatchewan River appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Jenifer Heyden, livestock specialist with Saskatchewan Agriculture in North Battleford, said ministry staffers and Husky Energy did work with a few producers who were having trouble accessing alternate water sources, to “rectify the situation.”

Water samples haven’t exceeded guidelines for agricultural use, but Heyden said livestock producers should follow the recreational water advisory.

On top of its recommendations against swimming and other direct contact, the advisory recommended livestock and pets do not access the water, Heyden said.

The reasoning, she added, is that “if it’s not safe for people, it’s probably not safe for livestock at this point either.”

The Saskatchewan government is also advising people not to eat fish from the North Saskatchewan River.

Mel Duvall, media manager for Husky Energy, wrote via email that Husky doesn’t have an exact number for how many livestock producers border the river.

Husky staff, he said, “have been in touch with all landowners that have adjacent lands and have offered our assistance should they need it.

“We have offered to truck water in if required and to reimburse for any expenses incurred, for such things as water troughs,” he said.

But Husky hasn’t had many requests from livestock producers, he added. “Most are looking after things themselves or getting support from their neighbours.”

Livestock producers can call Husky’s toll-free line, 1-844-461-7991, for claim information and assistance, Heyden said.

Over 800 people are working on the spill, according to the latest update from the Saskatchewan government.

The city of Prince Albert is again providing water to the rural water utility, mobile home parks and a water crane. Workers are also disinfecting some sections of the rural water utility’s distribution system.

Aquatic life

As of Aug. 7, over 2,100 water samples had been collected, and over 1,400 of the samples analyzed, according to the latest update from the technical working group analyzing water quality in the North Saskatchewan.

That update, posted on the Husky website, focused on the spill’s potential impact on aquatic life.

Workers have found spilled oil on the shoreline, within the water, and in the river’s sediment, mostly within 20 km of the spill. So far 37 samples had toluene levels exceeding aquatic life guidelines. Toluene was also found to exceed aquatic life guidelines in samples collected as benchmarks upstream of the spill.

As well, eight samples had pyrene and five samples had other polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons breaching aquatic life guidelines.

Toluene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons occur naturally in crude oil and are known to have toxic effects on people and animals.

Fish spawn

As of Thursday, the Saskatchewan government reported 97 wildlife mortalities, including 48 fish, 33 birds, two reptiles and 16 small mammals. The working group update said mussels, invertebrates, and fish eggs and embryos may be more vulnerable, as they may not be able to avoid heavy oil.

The working group also plans to report on how the spill might affect the fish spawn this fall.

Fish will also be collected and tested to see how the spill might be affecting fish populations, and to gauge the risk to human health. Health Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Saskatchewan’s Ministry of Health will undertake those tests, the report noted.

Saskatchewan’s Water Security Agency is also sampling and analyzing water quality independently of the working group.

The technical working group includes public health experts, engineers, biologists, toxicologists, and environmental specialists from Husky, Saskatchewan’s Ministry of Environment, the Center for Toxicology and Environmental Health, and Matrix Solutions.

More information on Husky’s response is available online. –– AGCanada.com Network

The post Livestock water supplies still a concern after oil spill appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Collected water samples haven’t exceeded Canadian drinking water standards since July 24.

As of Tuesday, over 1,000 water samples had been collected from over 60 locations between the spill site and Prince Albert, Sask., said Dr. Paul Noni.

Noni is a senior toxicologist with the Centre of Toxicology and Human Health, based in Arkansas. He’s also part of a technical advisory group assessing the spill’s effect on the North Saskatchewan.

Five locations along the river did initially exceed drinking water standards after Husky’s July 20 pipeline break and spill near Maidstone, about 85 km northwest of North Battleford.

Those water quality breaches were “transient,” rising above standards one day, and receding later, Noni said. He noted they are still finding compounds from the spill, but at low concentrations.

Health Canada’s drinking water guidelines are “very health-conservative,” he said, representing water that is safe for people to drink for a lifetime.

When samples exceed those guidelines, it’s a red flag warranting further investigation, he said, and consistent high levels, time after time, indicate a potentially significant issue.

Water samples haven’t exceeded guidelines for agricultural use, Noni said. Those guidelines include drinking water for livestock and irrigation.

However, the cities of Prince Albert and North Battleford aren’t yet opening their water intakes in the North Saskatchewan, instead relying on alternative water sources.

Muskoday First Nation and the RMs of Prince Albert, Buckland and Cana have also had water supply problems because of the spill. But water supply operations in those communities “have reached a pretty stable environment,” said Duane McKay, commissioner of emergency measures and fire safety.

Prince Albert supplied rural water authorities with water before the spill. However, “the city wants to maintain their water supply for their citizens as their top priority,” said McKay.

Prince Albert is now drawing water from the South Saskatchewan and Little Red River. McKay said tankers were on contract to supply water to the city’s hospital in case of interruptions. Those tankers have been released and the hospital is sourcing its water from the city.

“That indicates that the city is becoming more comfortable,” he said.

For now, tankers are supplying rural residents with water. McKay said that the city is considering allowing tankers to pull water from their system for rural residents.

The spill also led SaskWater officials to close the water intake at Codette Lake, about 150 km east of Prince Albert. That intake normally supplies communities including Melfort, Kinistino, Star City, Beatty and Weldon, among others, and rural customers in the Melfort and Weldon areas.

Until the river is again declared safe, the Melfort area has switched its supply to a reservoir at its water treatment plant. A drinking water advisory was briefly in effect for the area after the switch.

Scientists are still analyzing the spill’s effect on aquatic wildlife. As of Wednesday, 63 wildlife mortalities were recorded, including birds, fish, and other animals.

Longer term still a question mark

While some materials from an oil spill dissipate rapidly, heavier oil sinks. It tends to bind with organic matter and sediment, and stay close to the spill site, Noni said.

How much heavy oil remains below the surface is still an unknown. Noni said they are gathering data about oil collecting along the shoreline.

“That gives us a good idea of where those heavier oils might be down below the water surface,” Noni said. Sediment samples from those locations are a priority, he said.

What kind of long-term risk those heavy oils present is still a question mark. Noni said one factor is the moving sands in the North Saskatchewan, which heavily affect the river’s floor and shores.

“It is a dynamic river,” he said.

The freeze-thaw cycle is another potential issue. During the spring melt, the river’s ice breaks into large iceberg-like chunks. Those ice chunks could release more materials, Noni said.

Plans for ongoing monitoring still need to be worked out, he added. — AGCanada.com Network

The post North Saskatchewan River users still await all-clear appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The spill happened on land near Pennant, about 45 km northwest of Swift Current, and did not affect wildlife or water that bears fish or is used for drinking, said Laurie Pushor, deputy minister of Saskatchewan’s ministry of economy. Emulsion is a mixture of oil and mostly water.

Crescent Point shut in the line and recovered the spilled oil, Pushor said.

The leak ran into a slough in a farmer’s field, where it was contained, said Crescent Point spokesman Trent Stangl, adding that cleanup is nearly finished.

The incident comes as Husky Energy cleans up a larger spill into the North Saskatchewan River last month, which has forced two cities in the province to find other sources of drinking water.

— Reporting for Reuters by Rod Nickel in Winnipeg.

The post Crescent Point pipeline leaks into Saskatchewan field appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The July 20 leak from a Husky Energy pipeline into the North Saskatchewan River has forced tens of thousands to find other sources of drinking water, including the Saskatchewan cities of Prince Albert and North Battleford as well as area farmers and others relying on affected water sources.

The water tests were conducted by a group including government and Husky officials and independent experts.

All of the samples that exceeded health guidelines were found within 20 km of the spill, and none have exceeded guidelines since July 24.

“That would suggest there is not an ongoing issue, which is fairly expected,” said Paul Nony, a senior toxicologist at Arkansas consulting firm Center for Toxicology and Environmental Health.

Oil doesn’t mix well with water, but typically clings to organic material or the shoreline, Nony noted, adding that “we’re not seeing any surprises.”

However, more testing, monitoring and a formal risk assessment study are necessary before the river can be used as a drinking water source, said Patrick Boyle, spokesman for the Saskatchewan Water Security Agency.

Samples were collected on the river’s surface and at different depths, down to its bottom. A separate study will examine the spill’s impact on aquatic life.

On Tuesday, Reuters reported that the spill was the third in the same area in eight months, according to government records. The failed pipeline had not been inspected by Saskatchewan’s energy regulator since it was constructed 19 years ago.

Asked about the findings, Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall said his government has been working to bolster regulation.

“There is a requirement too that companies provide that inspection and that oversight, and you know we’re going to do an investigation into this,” said Wall. “We’re going to find out answers to questions like that.”

— Rod Nickel is a Reuters correspondent covering the agriculture and mining sectors from Winnipeg. Additional reporting for Reuters by Allison Martell.

The post Most water tests safe after Sask. oil spill, but no all-clear appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The spill of 1,572 barrels of oil from a Husky pipeline into the North Saskatchewan River started late on July 20, but flows were not shut down until the following morning, the company said on Tuesday.

“No, I’m not satisfied, I don’t think anybody should be,” Wall told reporters in Regina. “I don’t think Husky’s satisfied — they better not be.”

Even so, Wall said he was not aware of any “egregious error or misjudgment” by Husky, other than the delay in responding to the spill.

Husky spokespersons could not be immediately reached for comment.

Asked whether Saskatchewan should take steps to prevent future spills, such as requiring pipelines to be doubled up near rivers, Wall suggested he was open to considering them.

“That should all be on the table.”

The cities of Prince Albert and North Battleford have stopped drawing drinking water from the river, and are using other sources temporarily.

Manitoba government officials said Tuesday there is no immediate threat to Manitoba water from an the oil spill.

“While containment is expected to be completed in time to protect Manitoba waterways, the slow travels of the oil slick through the eastern portions of the Saskatchewan River allow time to implement emergency plans if any cleanup is still required,” the statement from Sustainable Development said.

The province said there no risk to the water supply of any Manitoba community at this time, but discussions about alternatives are underway with the Town of The Pas, which uses the Saskatchewan River as a drinking water source.

The spill is smaller than some previous ones in Saskatchewan, but it is taking a bigger toll on wildlife because it involves a major river, said Peter Prebble, director of environmental policy at Saskatchewan Environmental Society.

The provincial government said on Wednesday that it had discovered 14 dead animals, mainly birds.

It was likely that many more animals have been harmed by contact with the polluted water, Prebble said. Longer-term impacts may become worse as the oil sinks and becomes harder to capture, he said.

“I feel insufficient effort has been made to get this oil off the surface as quickly as possible and not let it sink to the bottom,” Prebble said.

Husky is using nine booms to collect oil on the river’s surface, but has not determined how to recover oil that has mixed with sediment and sank, said Wes Kotyk, a spokesman for Saskatchewan’s environment ministry.

Manitoba Sustainable Development advises there is no immediate threat to Manitoba water from an oil spill on the North Saskatchewan River in Saskatchewan.

Efforts to capture the oil are ongoing in Saskatchewan, with oil-absorbent booms deployed in at least six locations.

Manitoba is receiving regular updates on the cleanup and while initial recovery efforts have shown some success, efforts to recapture the oil have been hampered by high water and floating debris. While containment is expected to be completed in time to protect Manitoba waterways, the slow travels of the oil slick through the eastern portions of the Saskatchewan River allow time to implement emergency plans if any cleanup is still required.

There is no risk to the water supply of any Manitoba community at this time, but discussions about alternatives are underway with the Town of The Pas, which uses the Saskatchewan River as a drinking water source. Provincial staff are monitoring the situation closely and will advise if any further action is required.

With files from Staff 

The post Saskatchewan premier ‘not satisfied’ with Husky spill response appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

But the oil that British energy giant BP is scrambling to clean up from its massive Gulf of Mexico spill threatens the animals’ grazing land and the income of the ranchers who own them.

Over 1,000 head of cattle graze on marshy islands off Louisiana’s southeast tip and thousands more are found in the coastal low-lying pastures highly susceptible to flooding.

The petroleum and cattle industries have managed to coexist over the years. But now, ranchers fear a hurricane in this watery southeastern area of the state could wash the oil onto grazing land, poisoning their livestock and ruining their value.

“We don’t have a clue what this oil will do,” said Robert Joyner, who heads the Louisiana Cattlemen’s Association. “It’s a whole ’nother ball game.”

Louisiana is home to about 450,000 head of cattle valued last year at $365 million. But the best pasture land is in the coastal south, where cattle can graze year round.

Even before the oil spill it was a challenge being a cattleman here, where many animals can only be moved by barge. Calves succumb to alligators and snake bites, corrals need constant maintenance amid the quick-growing vegetation, and erosion and rising water levels steal valuable pasture every year. And then there are the hurricanes.

Hurricane Katrina in 2005 killed 1,800 of Earl Armstrong’s cattle. The next hurricane could pack a double wallop, with the additional danger of toxins brought ashore.

“I’m not being happy with the oil right now,” said Armstrong, whose cattle graze at the mouth of the Mississippi River, not far from the oil spill cleanup’s command centre. “I don’t know when it’s going to come in on that cattle where they have to eat that grass. It’s a wait-and-see deal.”

Ranchers see themselves ending up last on BP’s compensation list after the oystermen, shrimpers and others who have lost their livelihoods due to the spill are taken care of under BP’s $20-billion fund.

“They want to know if there is a state or federal program to reimburse them for the losses and the answer now is no,” said Dr. Mike Strain, the state’s commissioner of agriculture and forestry.

OIL AND CATTLE DON’T MIX

Early this month, Strain’s agency warned coastal cattle producers that their livestock would not be allowed to go to slaughter if oil contaminates inland pastures.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service is estimating exposure levels to dangerous chemicals if oil washes ashore and identifying appropriate tests, said FSIS spokesman Brian Mabry.

The average cow here is worth about $1,000, but it would cost about double that to transport and incinerate any deemed unfit for the food supply chain, said Strain.

That means ranchers are scrambling to plan for a sudden evacuation of cattle ahead of a hurricane.

Cattle ranchers from areas unaffected by a hurricane have volunteered to bring trucks and trailers to help in transport, Joyner said, but finding a place to put the relocated cattle is one of a number of problems to be dealt with.

But cattlemen here are loath to transport their animals unnecessarily, given the difficult logistics and stress to the animals.

“Daddy’s here, boys!” shouts Philip Simmons from his flatboat on the Mississippi, catching a glimpse of two of his Brangus bulls grazing the native grasses at water’s edge.

Simmons’ family has been grazing cattle for generations on land that’s surrounded by backwater canals, natural bayous and the Mississippi, a watery oasis of mangroves and willows and wildlife like cranes and spoonbills.

“My cattle feed all the way to the water here,” he said, pointing to the bank of a winding canal, where one group gazed out quizzically from under a canopy of trees and high grasses.

“How am I going to get them out?” asked Simmons. “You’d have to get a helicopter to run them out of this grass. And it’s so hot it’ll kill them. So I’m just playing it by ear. Hopefully I’ll come out on the winning end.”

The post Gulf Cattle Ranchers Fear Toxins After Oil Spill – for Aug. 12, 2010 appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

But the oil that British energy giant BP is scrambling to clean up from its massive Gulf of Mexico spill threatens the animals’ grazing land and the income of the ranchers who own them.

Over 1,000 head of cattle graze on marshy islands off Louisiana’s southeast tip and thousands more are found in the coastal low-lying pastures highly susceptible to flooding.

The petroleum and cattle industries have managed to coexist over the years. But now, ranchers fear a hurricane in this watery southeastern area of the state could wash the oil onto grazing land, poisoning their livestock and ruining their value.

“We don’t have a clue what this oil will do,” said Robert Joyner, who heads the Louisiana Cattlemen’s Association. “It’s a whole ’nother ball game.”

Louisiana is home to about 450,000 head of cattle valued last year at $365 million. But the best pasture land is in the coastal south, where cattle can graze year round.

Even before the oil spill it was a challenge being a cattleman here, where many animals can only be moved by barge. Calves succumb to alligators and snake bites, corrals need constant maintenance amid the quick-growing vegetation, and erosion and rising water levels steal valuable pasture every year. And then there are the hurricanes.

Hurricane Katrina in 2005 killed 1,800 of Earl Armstrong’s cattle. The next hurricane could pack a double wallop, with the additional danger of toxins brought ashore.

“I’m not being happy with the oil right now,” said Armstrong, whose cattle graze at the mouth of the Mississippi River, not far from the oil spill cleanup’s command centre. “I don’t know when it’s going to come in on that cattle where they have to eat that grass. It’s a wait-and-see deal.”

Ranchers see themselves ending up last on BP’s compensation list after the oystermen, shrimpers and others who have lost their livelihoods due to the spill are taken care of under BP’s $20-billion fund.

“They want to know if there is a state or federal program to reimburse them for the losses and the answer now is no,” said Dr. Mike Strain, the state’s commissioner of agriculture and forestry.

OIL AND CATTLE DON’T MIX

Early this month, Strain’s agency warned coastal cattle producers that their livestock would not be allowed to go to slaughter if oil contaminates inland pastures.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service is estimating exposure levels to dangerous chemicals if oil washes ashore and identifying appropriate tests, said FSIS spokesman Brian Mabry.

The average cow here is worth about $1,000, but it would cost about double that to transport and incinerate any deemed unfit for the food supply chain, said Strain.

That means ranchers are scrambling to plan for a sudden evacuation of cattle ahead of a hurricane.

Cattle ranchers from areas unaffected by a hurricane have volunteered to bring trucks and trailers to help in transport, Joyner said, but finding a place to put the relocated cattle is one of a number of problems to be dealt with.

But cattlemen here are loath to transport their animals unnecessarily, given the difficult logistics and stress to the animals.

“Daddy’s here, boys!” shouts Philip Simmons from his flatboat on the Mississippi, catching a glimpse of two of his Brangus bulls grazing the native grasses at water’s edge.

Simmons’ family has been grazing cattle for generations on land that’s surrounded by backwater canals, natural bayous and the Mississippi, a watery oasis of mangroves and willows and wildlife like cranes and spoonbills.

“My cattle feed all the way to the water here,” he said, pointing to the bank of a winding canal, where one group gazed out quizzically from under a canopy of trees and high grasses.

“How am I going to get them out?” asked Simmons. “You’d have to get a helicopter to run them out of this grass. And it’s so hot it’ll kill them. So I’m just playing it by ear. Hopefully I’ll come out on the winning end.”

The post Gulf Cattle Ranchers Fear Toxins After Oil Spill – for Aug. 12, 2010 appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“The spill has heightened the concern about our dependence on fossil fuels so that quite naturally is causing people to want us to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. That brings us to renewables,” JB Penn, chief economist at farm equipment maker John Deere, said in an interview on the sidelines at a Kansas City Federal Reserve ag banking meeting.

“Agriculture so far is the only big source of renewable fuels. We talk a lot about next-generation renewables – but corn ethanol is about the only thing we’ve seen in the U. S. and sugar ethanol in South America,” said Penn, a former undersecretary at the U. S. Agriculture Department.

The Obama administration is expected to push for energy reform including grain-based biofuels. Obama is from Illinois, a major corn-and soybean-producing state.

Roughly one-third of the annual U. S. corn crop, or more than four billion bushels of corn is turned into fuel. The Bush administration and Congress three years ago pushed to wean U. S. Americans off petroleum fuel by increasing the ethanol usage.

Ethanol lost favour amid skyrocketing commodity prices in the summer of 2008 when Chicago Board of Trade spot corn prices rose to an all-time high of $7.65 a bushel, with many consumer groups blaming ethanol as a major contributor of high grain prices.

But BP’s seven-week leaking oil spill is turning the tide for fuels produced from foods.

A bill in the U. S. Senate retains a proposed one-year revival of an expired $1-a-gallon tax credit for biodiesel – made mostly for soybean oil. A Senate vote was not expected before next week.

Additionally, the U. S. biofuels industry is waiting word from the Environmental Protection Agency this summer on whether it will raise the U. S. fuel blend rate from 10 per cent ethanol to as much as 15 per cent.

“I just think the overall environment around this discussion is likely to be more positive toward renewable fuels because of the spill,” Penn said.

The post Oil Spill Helps Biofuel Image appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.