Six inches — about 15 centimetres.That’s how short the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion came up in its latest request to alter the route of one of the final segments of the oil link to the West Coast..“These concerns outweighed the benefits for earlier completion”Canadian Energy Regulator.In its reasons for rejecting the request to alter the design specifications on the last 2.3 km stretch along the Fraser River, the Canadian Energy Regulator (CER) said the company failed to adequately explain the benefits of switching to a 30-inch pipe from the previously approved 36-inch conduit or how it would impact concerns over pipeline integrity and related environmental impacts.In its submission, Trans Mountain said reducing the pipe diameter would allow it to complete the project almost two months earlier than it would otherwise take to drill through hard rock zones. This in turn would add about $400 million in additional revenues as well as get an additional 600,000 barrels per day flowing for shippers.Given that the federally-owned pipeline is already about three years late and more than $20 billion over budget, putting it into service as soon as possible would be “in the public interest” it said.But the CER “found that the drawbacks outweighed Trans Mountain's stated benefits.”.Specifically, it said Trans Mountain did not demonstrate compliance with its quality management program or “that the quality of materials for the 30-inch pipe would meet the standard of those used in the rest of the (line).”Trans Mountain also did not demonstrate how they would conduct inline inspections before beginning operations on the full 138.4-km pipeline section between Hope and the Burnaby Tank Terminal. Without those inspections, they could not ensure the safety and integrity of this section of pipe to the same level as the rest of the project.Finally, the CER said Trans Mountain failed to adequately address potential environmental impacts from material quality changes and lack of inspection capability. Further, “Trans Mountain did not provide satisfactory responses or solutions to address the Commission's requests for additional information.”.“These concerns outweighed the benefits for earlier completion” of the project, it added.The CER noted it was the federally-owned company’s second route deviation request in less than six months, the first of which was approved in September.Then in October, it filed for the latest alteration in order to speed up construction and meet an end-of-year completion deadline. That hearing was held in Calgary on November 27.That application was rejected on December 5, pending so-called ‘reasons for decision’ that were released prior to the Christmas break.On December 14, Trans Mountain refiled the latest request citing geotechnical concerns it said could delay the project as much as two more years and requested another formal response in the first week of January.
