A 2022 oil spill along a pipeline in British Columbia has resulted in no penalties for the companies involved.
The March 22 spill occurred just over 20 kilometres north of Fort St. John when a pipeline that transports oil to a processing facility ruptured, spilling an estimated 20,000 litres of oil, confirmed a spokesperson for the 小蓝视频 Energy Regulator (小蓝视频ER).
In August 2024, the 小蓝视频ER sent a letter to Pavilion Energy Corp. and its contractor Hurley Well Service Ltd. indicating it was considering penalties for contraventions of the Energy Resources Activities Act.
But in a Feb. 18 decision, 小蓝视频ER acting executive vice-president for safety and compliance Patrick Smook found that neither company contravened the act.
The spill occurred during servicing operations, when Pavilion chose to pump oil through the pipeline to make way for a load of water. Two days into the work, the company discovered a pipeline break had led to an oil spill, wrote Smook in his decision.
Pavilion reported the incident to Emergency Management 小蓝视频. The agency had not responded to BIV's request for comment by the time of publication.
An inspection report later blamed the spill on too much pressure, alleging the pipeline pressure climbed to 20,700 kilopascals (kPa) when it ruptured, nearly triple the recommended value.
But in Hurley's response to the regulator, the contractor said a pin had been set in a relief valve so it would shear if the pump hit 17,237 kPa of pressure.
“I accept that the pressure relief valve with such a pin setting would have been effective at automatically stopping the pumping operation if pressures were approaching those needed to rupture the pipeline,” wrote Smook.
“That the pin did not shear is not in dispute and is compelling evidence against the allegation that the Hurley rig pump was the source of pressure that ruptured the pipeline.”
Hurley also claimed ice may have been blocking the pipeline before the contractor arrived.
Smook found both explanations — the intact valve pin and ice blockage — were “at least as persuasive as the allegations” made by the 小蓝视频ER investigator in his contravention report.
Neither company was penalized.
Under 小蓝视频 law, those carrying out energy resource activities are required to prevent spillage. Contraventions can lead to administrative penalties of up to $500,000.
In his ruling, Smook noted the regulator may reject a finding of non-compliance if the company or person under question shows that they exercised “due diligence” in the lead-up to a contravention. Penalties can also be avoided if the actions that led to the contravention were the result of “officially induced error.”
