Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Load more

Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership Operational Reliability Plan Line 5 and Line 5 Straits of Mackinac Crossing Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership Operational Reliability Plan 3 1.0 Executive Summary 6 2.0 Terms, Definitions & Acronyms 7 3.0 Introduction 8 3.1 Line 5 Construction 8 3.2 Straits Of Mackinac Construction 10 4.0 Pipeline Operations And Monitoring: 10 4.1 Leak Detection 11 5.0 Integrity Management Program 12 5.1 Line 5 Integrity Management 12 5.2 Corrosion Management Program 14 5.3 Cracking Management Program 16 5.4 Third-Party/Mechanical Damage Management 17 5.5 Geohazard/Pipeline Movement Management 17 5.6 Integrity Management at The Straits of Mackinac 19 5.7 Learnings From Historical Leaks 20 5.8 Pipeline Replacement 20 6.0 Incident Management/Emergency Response: 21 6.1 Integrated Contingency Plan 22 6.2 Tactical Plans 22 6.3 Emergency Response Exercises 22 6.4 Advancements in Emergency Response 23 6.5 Research and Innovation 24 7.0 Moving Forward 25 Table 1: Line 5 Pipeline Construction Specifications 26 Table 2: Line 5 In-Line Inspection History 26 Table 3: Line 5 In-Line Inspection Program 1.0 Executive Summary that is well over and above that of ordinary onshore pipelines; Maintaining the safety and reliability of Line 5 over its 60 • The lines are buried at depths that protect it years of operation has been Enbridge’s goal and achieved from moving ice packs; and through continued application of industry-leading operations • Regular inspections with in-line inspection and monitoring programs utilizing human resources and tools as well as divers and remote operated leading-edge technology providing multiple layers of vehicles confirm that the crossing exhibits protection and reliability. minimal signs of deterioration and is in nearly In fact, the safety and operational reliability of our pipelines as-new condition. is the very foundation for our business and is recognized as critical to assuring the Company’s ongoing success. Enbridge maintains a significant focus on leak detection Toward this end, an Operational Reliability Plan (ORP) and emergency response at the Straits crossing. For the on Line 5 has been prepared herein. Line 5 is a 645-mile Straits of Mackinac, Enbridge has developed a Tactical Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership-owned pipeline that Response Plan that was shared with both the United States delivers natural gas liquids (NGLs) and light crude oil from Coast Guard (USCG) and the response contractor for the Superior, Wisconsin, through Michigan and under the Great Lakes operating area, Marine Pollution Control. Straits of Mackinac and St. Clair River ending in Sarnia, Enbridge is also currently planning for a USCG area Ontario, Canada. Preparedness For Response Exercise Program (PREP) full scale exercise as the lead industry exercise partner to take This ORP provides a technical review of Line 5’s operations place in September 2014 at the Indian River. This exercise and maintenance history, examines factors impacting the includes USCG, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), pipeline’s integrity and management, and demonstrates its local county emergency managers, Michigan DEQ and many strong safety and operational performance. other stakeholders. The focus of the area exercise will be to We pay special attention to the Straits of Mackinac, exercise the containment strategies in the Tactical Response recognizing the tremendous environmental sensitivity of Plan for the Indian River and to establish the area. While the likelihood of a leak in the Straits is low, a single display of relevant “operational information”. Enbridge recognizes the consequences are very significant. It’s important to note there has never been a leak in the Line Enbridge has taken a number of extra steps to 5 Straits of Mackinac crossing and the pipeline remains in further enhance the safety and reliability of Line 5, excellent condition. especially through the Straits, including: When the Line 5 Straits crossing was constructed in 1953, the • The increase of the frequency of inspections pipe was engineered to meet unique design requirements and other mitigation efforts beyond regulatory through assistance from the Department of Naval Architecture requirements; & Marine Engineering at the University of Michigan as well as • Utilizing additional diagnostic technologies the Department of Civil Engineering at Columbia University. adopted from the offshore oil and gas production industry to further gather information about the integrity of the lines; The Line 5 design continues to have excellent • Reducing unsupported span lengths under water longevity due to the following: to less than 75 feet using screw anchor supports; • Extra heavy wall thickness pipe was used and • Partnering with Michigan Tech University to a very rigid inspection process was conducted develop an Autonomous Underwater Vehicle during its manufacture and installation; (AUV), that will complement existing Remote • An excellent coating and cathodic protection Operating Vehicles (ROVs) and accommodate system has prevented external corrosion; increased inspections; • Low internal corrosion susceptibility; • Utilizing 3rd party expertise (DNV GL) to complete • Seamless pipe and low pressure cycling to a risk assessment of the operation at the Straits; avoid cracking; • Developing a water current modeling study to • Pipe is supported with anchor devices to examine the effect of currents on the pipelines; and counter the effects of water currents; • Commissioning an engineering assessment • The pipe is operated at very low stress to explore the feasibility of applying additional (less than 25 percent of the design capability external leak detection and real-time damage- of the pipelines), resulting in a safety factor detection technology on the Straits crossing. Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership – Operational Reliability Plan 3 Aside from their natural beauty, Michigan’s water Enbridge transports, generates and distributes energy resources are integral to the health, quality of life across North America, and employs more than 11,000 and economy of the people in the State of Michigan, people in Canada and the United States. We operate providing more than 666,000 jobs. Several villages draw the world’s longest and most complex crude oil and drinking water from the Straits and cargo freighters liquids transportation system — delivering an average and passenger ferries use it as a passageway. Sport of 2.2 million barrels each day. Additionally, we transport anglers chase salmon and trout, while commercial crews close to 100 separate commodities, including more than harvest whitefish and perch for restaurants. For its part, 10 types of refined products. On any single day, Enbridge is Enbridge’s four wholly-owned or operated pipelines — the largest single conduit of crude oil into the United States. including Lines 5, 6B, 17 and 79 — and Vector Pipeline Enbridge continues to build on a foundation of operational also provide significant economic benefit to the state. excellence by adhering to a strong set of core values In 2013, Enbridge paid more than $21 million in property, — Integrity, Safety, and Respect — that reflect what is sales, use, and income taxes in Michigan. More than 250 truly important to us. The values represent the basis by Michiganders are employed or contracted with Enbridge, which decisions are made, as a company and as individual all of who play an important role in maintaining the safety employees, every day. and reliability of our pipelines and facilities. The NGLs transported through Line 5 (nearly half of the line’s throughput) include propane that is delivered to the state to heat homes and fuel vehicles and industry. 1.0 Executive Summary 4 Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership – Operational Reliability Plan 5 2.0 Terms, Definitions and Acronyms CPM — Computational Pipeline In-line inspection Tool — SCADA — Supervisory Control and Monitoring. A sophisticated Sophisticated devices that travel Data Acquisition. A computer system computer-based system that through the pipeline and scan for for gathering and analyzing real-time continuously monitors changes in the all types of integrity features and data used to monitor and control a calculated volume of oil between two defects. The devices contain a range plant or a piece of equipment. For fixed points on the system, utilizing of sensors, computers, data storage pipelines, SCADA systems control measurements and pipeline data. and other components similar to what devices such as pumps and valves to is utilized in the medical, nuclear, safely manage the flow of oil through CP System — Cathodic Protection aviation and many other industries. the pipeline system according to system. A method of corrosion The devices identify and measure required pressures and flow rates. management that uses low-level features over the full circumference of electrical currents to prevent the SMYS — Specified Minimum Yield the pipeline and over its entire length. occurrence of corrosion. Strength. This is the maximum design LEPC — Local Emergency strength of the pipe. The pipe is ELDER — External Leak Detection Planning Committee. operated below this level by a safety Experimental Research. A test margin in accordance with regulations. apparatus — the first tool of its kind LPM — Line Pressure Monitor. An in the world — to evaluate external alarm system that monitors station leak detection technologies. discharge and suction pressures and can initiate operator alarms, set-point EPA — U.S. Environmental
Recommended publications
  • Pipeline Investigation Report P96H0008

    Pipeline Investigation Report P96H0008

    PIPELINE OCCURRENCE REPORT P96H0008 CRUDE OIL PIPELINE RUPTURE INTERPROVINCIAL PIPE LINE INC. LINE 3, MILE POST 506.6830 NEAR GLENAVON, SASKATCHEWAN 27 FEBRUARY 1996 The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) investigated this occurrence for the purpose of advancing transportation safety. It is not the function of the Board to assign fault of determine civil or criminal liability. Pipeline Occurrence Report Crude Oil Pipeline Rupture Interprovincial Pipe Line Inc. Line 3, Mile Post 506.6830 Near Glenavon, Saskatchewan 27 February 1996 Report Number P96H0008 Synopsis At 0619 mountain standard time, on 27 February 1996, a rupture occurred on the Interprovincial Pipe Line Inc. 864-millimetre outside diameter pipeline designated as Line 3, at Mile Post 506.6830 near Glenavon, Saskatchewan. Approximately 800 cubic metres (m3) (5,000 barrels) of heavy crude oil was released and collected in a low-lying area near the site. Approximately 600 m3 (3,800 barrels) of heavy crude oil was recovered. The Board determined that the rupture was caused by excessive narrow, axial, external corrosion located adjacent and running parallel to the longitudinal seam weld of the pipe, which was assisted by low-pH stress corrosion cracking and was not identified through the company's ongoing pipeline integrity program called the Susceptibility Investigation Action Plan. Ce rapport est également disponible en français. 1.0 Factual Information ....................................................................................... 1 1.1 The Accident ................................................................................................................................
  • OIL PIPELINE SAFETY FAILURES in CANADA Oil Pipeline Incidents, Accidents and Spills and the Ongoing Failure to Protect the Public

    OIL PIPELINE SAFETY FAILURES in CANADA Oil Pipeline Incidents, Accidents and Spills and the Ongoing Failure to Protect the Public

    OIL PIPELINE SAFETY FAILURES IN CANADA Oil pipeline incidents, accidents and spills and the ongoing failure to protect the public June 2018 OIL PIPELINE SAFETY FAILURES IN CANADA | Équiterre 2 Équiterre 50 Ste-Catherine Street West, suite 340 Montreal, Quebec H2X 3V4 75 Albert Street, suite 305 Ottawa, ON K1P 5E7 © 2018 Équiterre By Shelley Kath, for Équiterre OIL PIPELINE SAFETY FAILURES IN CANADA | Équiterre 3 TABLE DES MATIÈRES Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... 4 A. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 6 B. Keeping Track of Pipeline Problems: The Agencies and Datasets ..................................................................10 C. Québec’s Four Oil Pipelines and their Track Records .........................................................................................15 D. Pipeline Safety Enforcement Tools and the Effectiveness Gap .......................................................................31 E. Conclusion and Recommendations .........................................................................................................................35 Appendix A .........................................................................................................................................................................37 OIL PIPELINE
  • Historical Facts About Line 5

    Historical Facts About Line 5

    June 27, 2014 SUBMITTED VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Hon. Bill Schuette Hon. Dan Wyant Attorney General Director Michigan Dept. of Attorney General Michigan Department of 6th Floor G. Mennen Williams Building Environmental Quality 525 W. Ottawa Street Constitution Hall P.O. Box 30755 525 W. Allegan Street Lansing, MI 48909 P.O. Box 30473 Lansing, MI 48909 Re: Enbridge Lakehead System Line 5 Pipelines at the Straits of Mackinac Dear Attorney General Schuette and Director Wyant: Thank you very much for the opportunity to discuss Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership’s Line 5 pipeline crossing of the Straits of Mackinac. We appreciate the dialog that has already occurred to provide some clarity and understanding in relation to the information requests that accompanied your letter of April 29, 2014. In order to fully understand the current situation and our responses to the information requests, I would like to provide some background information to you about the history of Line 5’s Straits crossing, about Enbridge’s operations, and about the significant economic benefits Enbridge’s Line 5 has brought Michigan and its citizens since it entered service in 1953. Historical Facts about Line 5 In 1953, one of the greatest pipeline engineering achievements of its time was completed with the construction of a new 30-inch pipeline from Superior, Wisconsin to Sarnia, Ontario, and also serving Michigan. One of the most notable achievements during construction of this 645-mile line was the 4.6-mile crossing of the Straits of Mackinac in up to 220 feet of water. While such a long crossing had not been attempted before, engineering specialists from Bechtel, the Department of Naval Studies of the University of Michigan, as well as specialists from Columbia University came together to address the challenge.
  • The Enbridge Line 3 Replacement Pipeline: Attitudes, Symbolism, and Geography

    The Enbridge Line 3 Replacement Pipeline: Attitudes, Symbolism, and Geography

    Colby College Digital Commons @ Colby Honors Theses Student Research 2019 The Enbridge Line 3 Replacement Pipeline: Attitudes, Symbolism, and Geography Catherine W. Fraser Colby College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.colby.edu/honorstheses Part of the Environmental Studies Commons Colby College theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed or downloaded from this site for the purposes of research and scholarship. Reproduction or distribution for commercial purposes is prohibited without written permission of the author. Recommended Citation Fraser, Catherine W., "The Enbridge Line 3 Replacement Pipeline: Attitudes, Symbolism, and Geography" (2019). Honors Theses. Paper 963. https://digitalcommons.colby.edu/honorstheses/963 This Honors Thesis (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Research at Digital Commons @ Colby. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Colby. The Enbridge Line 3 Replacement Pipeline: Attitudes, Symbolism, and Geography Catherine W. Fraser Environmental Studies Program Colby College Waterville, ME May 20, 2019 A thesis submitted to the faculty of the Environmental Studies Program in partial fulfillment of the graduation requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts with honors in Environmental Studies ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ Philip Nyhus, Advisor Gail Carlson, Reader Daniel Abrahams, Reader Copyright © 2019 by the Environmental Studies Program, Colby College. All rights reserved ii ABSTRACT Oil pipelines, such as the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, are increasingly controversial and contested in the United States. Since its proposal in 2015, the Enbridge Line 3 Replacement (L3R) pipeline in Minnesota has also generated considerable debate.
  • Canadian Pipeline Transportation System Energy Market Assessment

    Canadian Pipeline Transportation System Energy Market Assessment

    National Energy Office national Board de l’énergie CANADIAN PIPELINE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ENERGY MARKET ASSESSMENT National Energy Office national Board de l’énergie National Energy Office national Board de l’énergieAPRIL 2014 National Energy Office national Board de l’énergie National Energy Office national Board de l’énergie CANADIAN PIPELINE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ENERGY MARKET ASSESSMENT National Energy Office national Board de l’énergie National Energy Office national Board de l’énergieAPRIL 2014 National Energy Office national Board de l’énergie Permission to Reproduce Materials may be reproduced for personal, educational and/or non-profit activities, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission from the National Energy Board, provided that due diligence is exercised in ensuring the accuracy of the information reproduced; that the National Energy Board is identified as the source institution; and that the reproduction is not represented as an official version of the information reproduced, nor as having been made in affiliation with, or with the endorsement of the National Energy Board. For permission to reproduce the information in this publication for commercial redistribution, please e-mail: [email protected] Autorisation de reproduction Le contenu de cette publication peut être reproduit à des fins personnelles, éducatives et/ou sans but lucratif, en tout ou en partie et par quelque moyen que ce soit, sans frais et sans autre permission de l’Office national de l’énergie, pourvu qu’une diligence raisonnable soit exercée afin d’assurer l’exactitude de l’information reproduite, que l’Office national de l’énergie soit mentionné comme organisme source et que la reproduction ne soit présentée ni comme une version officielle ni comme une copie ayant été faite en collaboration avec l’Office national de l’énergie ou avec son consentement.
  • Crude Oil Forecast, Markets and Pipeline Expansions

    Crude Oil Forecast, Markets and Pipeline Expansions

    Appendix D-4: Exhibit A-37: Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers Report, Crude Oil Forecnst, Markets nlzd Pipeliize Expaizsions, Jt~i~e2007 REPORT Crude Oil Forecast, Markets and Pipeline Expansions June 2007 Background The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) represents 150 producer member companies that explore for, develop and produce natural gas, natural gas liquids, crude oil, oil sands, and elemental sulphur throughout Canada. CAPP member companies produce more than 95 percent of Canada’s natural gas and crude oil. CAPP also has 130 associate members that provide a wide range of services that support the upstream crude oil and natural gas industry. Together, these members and associate members are an important part of a $100 billion-a-year national industry that affects the livelihoods of more than half a million Canadians. Disclaimer This publication was prepared by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP). While it is believed that the information contained herein is accurate under the conditions and subject to the limitations set out, CAPP does not guarantee its accuracy. The use of this report or any information contained will be at the user’s sole risk, regardless of any fault or negligence of CAPP. 2100, 350 – 7th Ave. S.W. 403, 235 Water Street Calgary, Alberta St. John’s, Newfoundland Canada T2P 3N9 Canada A1C 1B6 Tel (403) 267-1100 Tel (709) 724-4200 Fax (403) 261-4622 Fax (709) 724-4225 Email: [email protected] Website: www.capp.ca Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers Crude Oil Forecast, Markets and Pipeline Expansions 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................. 1 2 CRUDE OIL PRODUCTION AND SUPPLY FORECAST ..........................................................
  • Enbridge Support Letter to the Illinois Commerce Commission

    Enbridge Support Letter to the Illinois Commerce Commission

    Governor INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF NORTH DAKOTA John Hoeven Attorney General NORTH DAKOTA PIPELINE AUTHORITY Wayne Stenehjem Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson Apri122,2008 The Honorable Charles E. Box, Chairman Illinois Commerce Commission 160 N. LaSalle, Suite B-800 Chicago, IL 60601 RE: ICC Docket No. 07-0446 Enbridge Pipelines (Illinois) LLC Application for Certificate in Good Standing and other relief Dear Chairman Box: North Dakota's crude oil production is now approaching 140,000 barrels per day. There are over 60 drilling rigs currently operating in the state. This development activity continues to have positive economic impacts on our state and region. The Enbridge pipeline system is a major transporter of North Dakota-produced crude oil. Their North Dakota pipeline gathers a significant portion of our production and delivers it to Clearbrook, Minnesota. There it interconnects with other pipelines that deliver crude oil to refineries in the Midwest and South. Because the above-named project will have a direct affect on the amount of crude oil that can be shipped through Clearbrook, the North Dakota Industrial Commission, acting through it Pipeline Authority, supports Enbridge's efforts to increase the downstream capacity of its pipeline system. North Dakota has recently learned how inadequate regional pipeline capacity can become a matter of public necessity. Periods of inadequate export pipeline capacity in 2006 and 2007 led to significant crude oil price differentials in North Dakota. These price differentials reduced the income of North Dakota citizens who are royalty owners, tax revenues that support programs important to all of our citizens, and the income of North Dakota oil and gas producers by millions of dollars.
  • The Edge of Disaster for the Great Lakes

    The Edge of Disaster for the Great Lakes

    The Edge of Disaster for the Great Lakes Near Misses from Enbridge’s Aging and Degraded Line 5 The Edge of Disaster for the Great Lakes: Near Misses from Enbridge’s Aging and Degraded Line 5 Table of Contents 3 Three Strikes and You’re Out! 4 A Failed Safety Record, Corroding Pipeline and Corroded Public Trust 5 A Lack of Supports 5 Enbridge Lacks Pipeline Integrity and Insurance 6 A Duty to Protect the Great Lakes Now 7 Achieve True Energy Security Through Alternatives 8 What You Can Do “ [T]he Coast Guard is not semper paratus [always prepared] for a major pipeline oil spill in the Great Lakes.” Admiral Paul Zukunft, Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard THE EDGE OF DISASTER FOR THE GREAT LAKES 1 very day 540,0000 barrels of oil and natural gas liquids are carried along the bottom of the environ- mentally sensitive Straits of Mackinac, moving Ethrough pipelines with walls less than one inch thick. Line 5 runs 645 miles from Superior, Wisconsin to Sarnia, Ontario and was constructed in 1953 with a payment by Enbridge Energy of only $2,450 to the state of Michigan for an easement under the Straits. It is this easement agreement with the state of Michigan, which includes clear Source: University of Michigan Water Center requirements for operating the pipeline with due care, that has driven a campaign for transparency and account- ability against the operators, Enbridge Energy, to ensure unique and fragile environment of the Straits. Required that public trust in the Great Lakes is protected. This transparency has revealed that Line 5’s protective coating is report documents recent near disasters, which could have currently, or has previously been shown to be, missing in up resulted in a catastrophic spill, and are a result of poor to 47 locations, at least 16 locations have lacked the oversight and management from both Enbridge and state required structural support to hold the line safely in place, and federal agencies.
  • As a Concerned Resident of Michigan, I Am Asking That You Please Deny The

    As a Concerned Resident of Michigan, I Am Asking That You Please Deny The

    From: Sherri Valdes To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:37:47 PM As a concerned resident of Michigan, I am asking that you please deny the application for Enbridge Energy's proposed Line 5 tunnel project under the Straits of Mackinac. We can no longer allow Enbridge to endanger our precious waterways and resources. Regards, Sherri Valdes Howell, Michigan Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. From: Deb Hansen To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Comments Regarding Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:46:52 AM RE: Case U-20763 Dear MPSC Commissioners, I am writing to ask you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to move forward with a tunnel at the Straits of Mackinac. I live near the Straits, so this is very personal for me. I do not want to see my home turned into an industrial zone to meet Canada's energy needs. I am also someone who respects the sanctity of the land and the water. The tunnel would literally be a rape of the Straits. Given the grim realities of climate destabilization, for the State of Michigan to enable a massive investment in fossil fuel infrastructure, the energies that are stealing the future of our children and grandchildren, is perverse. The construction of a tunnel not maintenance as suggested. This tactic is an industry strategy that's been proven successful in skirting legal protections. We saw that after Enbridge's dilbit spill on the Kalamazoo River.
  • The Impact of a Line 5 Shutdown

    The Impact of a Line 5 Shutdown

    Line 1, 2B, 3, 4, 65, 67 Gretnana Montreal Line 1, 2B, 3, 4, 67 Superior Line 5 Clearbrook Line 9 Lewiston Line 7 Toronto Line 6, 14, 61 Line 10 Line 78 Westover Kiantone Stockbridge Nanticoke Delevan Sarnia CanadianLine Mainline 11 Lockport Lakehead System (U.S. Mainline) Line 64 Mokena Toledo EnbridgeLine Pipelines 79 (Joint Ownership) Other Enbridge Lines Manhattan Grith/Hartsdale Line 55 Enbridge Crude Oil Storage Flanagan City/TownLine 17 Salisbury Patoka Line 62 The impactWood River of a Line 5 shutdown Enbridge’s Line 5 has been a vital Enbridge’s Line 5 is a 645-mile, 30-inch- • Michigan would face a 756,000-US-gallons- piece of energy infrastructure diameter pipeline that travels through Michigan’s a-day propane supply shortage, since there since 1953—not just for Michigan, Upper and Lower Peninsulas—originating in are no short-term alternatives for transporting but for the entire U.S. Midwest and Superior, Wisconsin, and terminating in Sarnia, NGL to market. Ontario, Canada. points beyond. • The region (Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Line 5 transports up to 540,000 barrels per day Ontario and Quebec) would see a For more than 65 years, Line 5 has (bpd), or 22.68 million US gallons per day, of light 14.7-million-US-gallons-a-day supply delivered the light oil and natural crude oil, light synthetic crude and natural gas shortage of gas, diesel and jet fuel (about liquids (NGLs), which are refined into propane. 45% of current supply). gas liquids (NGL) that heat homes and businesses, fuel vehicles and Line 5 supplies 65% of propane demand • Michigan would need to find an alternative in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, and 55% of supply for anywhere from 4.2 million to power industry.
  • Michigan Crude Oil Production: Alternatives to Enbridge Line 5 for Transportation

    Michigan Crude Oil Production: Alternatives to Enbridge Line 5 for Transportation

    MICHIGAN CRUDE OIL PRODUCTION: ALTERNATIVES TO ENBRIDGE LINE 5 FOR TRANSPORTATION Prepared for National Wildlife Federation By London Economics International LLC 717 Atlantic Ave, Suite 1A Boston, MA, 02111 August 23, 2018 Michigan crude oil production: Alternatives to Enbridge Line 5 for transportation Prepared by London Economics International LLC August 23, 2018 London Economics International LLC (“LEI”) was retained by the National Wildlife Federation (“NWF”) via a grant from the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, to examine alternatives to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (“Enbridge”) Line 5 for crude oil producers in Michigan. About sixty-five percent of the crude oil produced in Michigan currently uses Enbridge Line 5 to reach markets. This production is located in the Northern and Central regions of the Lower Peninsula. Oil production from the Southern region of the Lower Peninsula does not use Enbridge Line 5 to reach markets. LEI’s key findings are that the lowest-cost alternative to Enbridge Line 5 would be trucking from oil wells to the Marysville market area. LEI estimates that the increase in transportation cost to oil producers in the Northern region would be $1.31 per barrel based on recent oil production levels and recent trucking costs. For the Central region, the cost increase on average would be less, as these producers are located closer to markets. There would be no impact on Southern region producers. The $1.31 per barrel cost increase amounts to 2.6 percent of a crude oil price of $50 per barrel. It is much smaller than typical monthly swings in Michigan crude oil prices, which have ranged from $28 per barrel to over $100 per barrel from 2014 through 2017.
  • Enbridge Profile

    Enbridge Profile

    Out on the Tar Sands Mainline Mapping Enbridge’s Web of Pipelines A Corporate Profile of Pipeline Company Enbridge By Richard Girard, Polaris Institute Research Coordinator with Contributions from Tanya Roberts Davis Out on the Tar Sands Mainline: Mapping Enbridge’s Dirty Web of Pipelines May 2010 (partially updated, March 2012). The Polaris Institute The Polaris Institute is a public interest research and advocacy organization based in Canada. Since 1999 Polaris has been dedicated to developing tools and strategies for civic action on major public policy issues, including energy security, water rights and free trade. Polaris Institute 180 Metcalf Street, Suite 500 Ottawa, ON K2P 1P5 Phone : 613-237-1717 Fax: 613-237-3359 Email: [email protected] www.polarisinstitute.org For more information on the Polaris Institute’s energy campaign please visit www.tarsandswatch.org Table of Contents Foreword ......................................................................................................................... iv Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................3 1. Organizational Profile ...................................................................................................5 1.1 Enbridge’s Business Structure ....................................................................................5 1.1.1 Liquids