By Julie Dermansky • Thursday, July 30, 2015 - 14:11
‘ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS’ DOCUMENT CREATES HEADACHES, QUESTIONS FOR TRANSCANADA
“None of the defects, in my experience in 30 years of pipelines, would be injurious from the perspective of being close to rupturing. Therefore the only problem would have been the depth of corrosion,” Goulet testified. (Audio of Goulet testimony, relevant corrosion section at ~ 32:45 – 33:40)
Image of Site 5 defect from TransCanada's report pg. 22.
TRANSCANADA’S TAX REVENUE CALCULATIONS OFF BY A LOT
TRANSCANADA BULLISH ON BUILDING KEYSTONE XL DESPITE OIL PRICE SLUMP
“Paul Blackburn, one of the attorneys for the intervenors in the proceedings, started to question Mr. Diakow about market demand for the KXL pipeline. He began inquiring as to whether TransCanada’s customers were demanding changes to their contracts, which TransCanada objected to, claiming their contracts and communications with customers were highly confidential. TransCanada then argued that Mr. Blackburn’s questions relating to market demand for the pipeline were not relevant to the question of whether or not TransCanada could meet the conditions imposed by the Commission when it granted the original permit in 2010. However, by placing Mr. Diakow’s written testimony into the record they opened the door to full cross-examination of him under the applicable administrative procedure rules. Apparently not wanting to have him questioned, TransCanada withdrew him as a witness and asked the Commission to strike his testimony from the record.”
Image credit: External corrosion pitting on Keystone 1 Pipeline, via TransCanada 'root cause analysis' report, pg. 28.