DOCSLIB.ORG

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Trans Mountain Expansion Project An Application Pursuant to Section 52 of the National Energy Board Act December 2013 Project Overview, Economics Volume 2 & General Information CANADA NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD IN THE MATTER OF the National Energy Board Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-7, as amended, (“NEB Act”) and the Regulations made thereunder; AND IN THE MATTER OF the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, S.C. 2012, c. 37, as amended, and the Regulations made thereunder; AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC as General Partner of Trans Mountain Pipeline L.P. (collectively “Trans Mountain”) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and other related approvals pursuant to Part III of the NEB Act APPLICATION BY TRANS MOUNTAIN FOR APPROVAL OF THE TRANS MOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT December 2013 To: The Secretary The National Energy Board 444 — 7th Avenue SW Calgary, AB T2P 0X8 Trans Mountain Expansion Project Application Pursuant to Section 52 of the National Energy Board Act Guide to the Application Application Transmittal ‐ Letter to the National Energy Board Volume 1 Summary Volume 2 Project Overview, Economics and General Information Volume 3A Public Consultation Volume 3B Aboriginal Engagement Volume 3C Landowner Relations Volume 4A Project Design and Execution – Engineering Volume 4B Project Design and Execution – Construction Volume 4C Project Design and Execution – Operations and Maintenance Volume 5A Environmental and Socio‐Economic Assessment – Biophysical Volume 5B Environmental and Socio‐Economic Assessment – Socio‐Economic Volume 5C Environmental and Socio‐Economic Assessment – Biophysical Technical Reports Volume 5D Environmental and Socio‐Economic Assessment – Socio‐Economic Technical Reports Volume 6A Environmental Compliance Volume 6B Pipeline Environmental Protection Plan Volume 6C Facilities Environmental Protection Plan Volume 6D Westridge Marine Terminal Environmental Protection Plan Volume 6E Environmental Alignment Sheets Volume 7 Risk Assessment and Management of Pipeline and Facility Spills Volume 8A Marine Transportation Volume 8B Marine Environmental and Socio‐Economic Technical Reports Volume 8C TERMPOL Reports This volume contains: Volume 2 Section 1.0 Introduction Direct Written Evidence of Steven J. Kelly, Appendix A Section 2.0 Project Description IHS Global Canada Limited Section 3.0 Project Need and Economic Feasibility The Trans Mountain Expansion Project: Section 4.0 Pipeline Route and Facility Siting Appendix B Understanding the Economic Benefits for Section 5.0 Land Relations, Rights and Acquisition Canada and its Regions Section 6.0 References Direct Evidence of John J. Reid of Section 7.0 Appendices Appendix C Concentric Energy Advisors, Inc., to the National Energy Board Notice Pursuant to Section 87(1) of the Appendix D National Energy Board Act For Easement – British Columbia and Alberta Agreement for Easement, Province of Appendix E Alberta Land Title Act Form C and Statutory Right Appendix F of Way Agreement, Province of British Columbia Agreement for Temporary Working Space, Appendix G Province of Alberta Agreement for Temporary Working Space, Appendix H Province of British Columbia Option to Purchase Agreements for British Appendix I Columbia and Alberta Trans Mountain Pipeline (ULC) Trans Mountain Expansion Project Volume 2 Volume 2 – Project Overview, Economics and General Information Page 2–i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Overview ................................................................................................... 1 1.2 The Trans Mountain Pipeline................................................................................. 2 1.2.1 About the Applicant.................................................................................... 2 1.3 Regulatory Framework .......................................................................................... 5 1.3.1 Federal Regulatory Framework ................................................................. 6 1.3.2 Other Federal Requirements ..................................................................... 7 1.4 TERMPOL Review Process .................................................................................. 9 1.5 Non-NEB Regulatory Approvals .......................................................................... 10 1.5.1 Provincial Permitting Requirements ......................................................... 10 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 12 2.1 Pipeline ................................................................................................................ 16 2.2 Pump Stations ..................................................................................................... 20 2.2.1 Pump Station Operations......................................................................... 22 2.3 Terminals ............................................................................................................. 22 2.3.1 Edmonton, Sumas, and Burnaby Terminals ............................................ 22 2.3.2 Westridge Marine Terminal ...................................................................... 22 2.3.3 Terminal Operations ................................................................................ 22 2.4 Mainline Block Valves and Sending/Receiving Traps ......................................... 26 2.5 Power Lines and Permanent Access Roads ....................................................... 27 2.6 Marine Shipping Activities Associated with the Project ....................................... 27 2.7 Stakeholder Consultation, Aboriginal Engagement and Landowner Relations ............................................................................................................. 30 2.8 Project Execution and Schedule.......................................................................... 32 2.9 Project Cost Estimate .......................................................................................... 34 2.9.1 Capital Cost Estimate .............................................................................. 34 2.9.2 Abandonment Cost Estimate ................................................................... 34 3.0 PROJECT NEED AND ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ......................................................... 36 3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 36 3.1.1 Purpose ................................................................................................... 36 3.1.2 Need ........................................................................................................ 36 3.2 Commercial Arrangements .................................................................................. 37 3.2.1 Transportation Agreements ..................................................................... 37 3.2.2 Financial Capability of the Applicant ........................................................ 38 3.3 Market Supply and Demand Outlook................................................................... 40 3.3.1 Supply and Demand ................................................................................ 40 3.3.2 Crude Oil Supplies from Contracting Shippers ........................................ 41 3.4 Project Benefits ................................................................................................... 41 3.4.1 Macroeconomic and Fiscal Benefits ........................................................ 41 3.4.2 Energy Industry Benefits.......................................................................... 42 3.5 Economic Feasibility ............................................................................................ 43 4.0 PIPELINE ROUTE AND FACILITY SITING .................................................................... 46 Trans Mountain Pipeline (ULC) Trans Mountain Expansion Project Volume 2 Volume 2 – Project Overview, Economics and General Information Page 2–ii 4.1 Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 46 4.2 Pipeline Corridor Selection .................................................................................. 46 4.2.1 Environmental Setting .............................................................................. 46 4.2.2 General Routing Objectives and Criteria ................................................. 49 4.2.3 Proposed Pipeline Corridor ...................................................................... 50 4.3 Facility Siting ....................................................................................................... 58 5.0 LAND RELATIONS, RIGHTS AND ACQUISITION ......................................................... 59 5.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 59 5.1.1 Purpose of this Section ............................................................................ 59 5.1.2 Project Overview...................................................................................... 59 5.2 Land Requirements ............................................................................................. 59 5.2.1 Right-of-Way ...........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Media Coverage of Oil Sands Pipelines: a Chronological Record of Headlines from 2010 to 2014
    Media Coverage of Oil Sands Pipelines: A Chronological Record of Headlines from 2010 to 2014 Oil Sands Research and Information Network School of Energy and the Environment University of Alberta December 2014 Oil Sands Research and Information Network The Oil Sands Research and Information Network (OSRIN) is a university-based, independent organization that compiles, interprets and analyses available knowledge about managing the environmental impacts to landscapes and water affected by oil sands mining and gets that knowledge into the hands of those who can use it to drive breakthrough improvements in regulations and practices. OSRIN is a project of the University of Alberta’s School of Energy and the Environment (SEE). OSRIN was launched with a start-up grant of $4.5 million from Alberta Environment and a $250,000 grant from the Canada School of Energy and Environment Ltd. OSRIN provides: Governments with the independent, objective, and credible information and analysis required to put appropriate regulatory and policy frameworks in place Media, opinion leaders and the general public with the facts about oil sands development, its environmental and social impacts, and landscape/water reclamation activities – so that public dialogue and policy is informed by solid evidence Industry with ready access to an integrated view of research that will help them make and execute environmental management plans – a view that crosses disciplines and organizational boundaries OSRIN recognizes that much research has been done in these areas by a variety of players over 40 years of oil sands development. OSRIN synthesizes this collective knowledge and presents it in a form that allows others to use it to solve pressing problems.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Impacts from Operation of Canada's Energy Transmission
    Economic Impacts from Operation of Canada’s Energy Transmission Pipelines A Special Report Prepared for the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association By Angevine Economic Consulting Ltd. April 2016 The Economic Impacts from Operation of Canada’s Energy Transmission Pipelines | April 2016 Economic Impacts from Operation of Canada’s Energy Transmission Pipelines Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Results of I-O Model Simulations A. Impacts from operation of crude oil, natural gas liquids and refined petroleum products transmission pipelines ................................................................................. 1 B. Impacts from operation of natural gas transmission pipelines ................................... 4 C. Impacts from operation of all transmission pipelines………………………………….. 6 D. Impacts of two proposed pipelines ……………………………………………...............7 E. Impact summary……………………………………………………………………….….10 Detailed Methodology…………………………………………………………………….…11 Energy Pipelines Included in the Analysis……………………………………………...12 The Economic Impacts from Operation of Canada’s Energy Transmission Pipelines | April 2016 Introduction This report summarizes key findings obtained from using the current (2010) version of the Statistics Canada Interregional Input/Output (I-O) Model to estimate the economic impacts from operation of the energy transmission pipelines currently operating in Canada as well as from two proposed but not yet approved
    [Show full text]
  • Keystone XL Pipeline: Overview and Recent Developments
    Keystone XL Pipeline: Overview and Recent Developments Updated April 1, 2015 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R43787 Keystone XL Pipeline: Overview and Recent Developments Summary TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL Pipeline would transport oil sands crude from Canada and shale oil produced in North Dakota and Montana to a market hub in Nebraska for further delivery to Gulf Coast refineries. The pipeline would consist of 875 miles of 36-inch pipe with the capacity to transport 830,000 barrels per day. Because it would cross the Canadian-U.S. border, Keystone XL requires a Presidential Permit from the State Department based on a determination that the pipeline would “serve the national interest.” To make its national interest determination (NID), the department considers potential effects on energy security; environmental and cultural resources; the economy; foreign policy, and other factors. Effects on environmental and cultural resources are determined by preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The NID process also provides for public comment and requires the State Department to consult with specific federal agencies. TransCanada originally applied for a Presidential Permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline in 2008. Since then various issues have affected the completion of both the NEPA and NID processes for the project. In particular, during the NID process for the 2008 application, concerns over environmental impacts in the Sand Hills of Nebraska led the state to enact new requirements that would change the pipeline route. Facing a 60-day decision deadline imposed by Congress, the State Department denied the 2008 permit application on the grounds that it lacked information about the new Nebraska route.
    [Show full text]
  • Enbridge 2011 Corporate Social Responsibility Report 2 Enbridge 2011 Corporate Social Responsibility Report
    ENBRIDGE 2011 CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REPORT 2 ENBRIDGE 2011 CORPORATE SOCIAL ResPONSIBILITY RePORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 ... About Enbridge 34 ... Environmental Performance 35 Goals and Performance 2 ... About the Enbridge 2011 Corporate 35 Environmental Scorecard Social Responsibility Report 36 Environmental Performance Indicators 3 ... Forward-Looking Information 36 EN1 – Materials used by weight or volume. 36 EN2 – Percentage of materials used that are recycled 4 ... Awards and Recognition input materials. 5 ... Strategy and Profile 36 EN3 – Direct energy consumption by primary energy source. 5 Organizational Profile 36 EN4 – Indirect energy consumption by primary source. 6 Report Parameters 39 EN5 – Energy saved due to conservation and 11 ... Governance, Commitments and Engagement efficiency improvements. 11 Governance (Enbridge Inc.) 39 EN6 – Initiatives to provide energy-efficient or renewable 13 Commitments to External Initiatives energy-based products and services, and reductions in 15 Stakeholder Engagement energy requirements as a result of these initiatives. 18 ... Overall Management Approach 41 EN7 – Initiatives to reduce indirect energy consumption and to Corporate Social Responsibility reductions achieved. 19 ... Economic Performance 43 EN8 – Total water withdrawal by source. 20 Goals and Performance 43 EN9 – Water sources significantly affected by withdrawal of water. 20 Economic Scorecard 43 EN10 – Percentage and total volume of water recycled and reused. 26 Economic Performance Indicators 44 EN11 – Location and size of land owned, leased, managed in, 26 EC1 – Direct economic value generated and distributed, or adjacent to, protected areas and areas of high biodiversity value including revenues, operating costs, employee compensation, outside protected areas. donations and other community investments, retained earnings, and payments to capital providers and governments.
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian Energy Regulation As an Institutional Fix for Sovereign Legitimacy
    Regulating in the Public Interest? Canadian energy regulation as an institutional fix for sovereign legitimacy by Liam Fox B.A. (Hons.), University of Toronto, 2017 Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in the Department of Geography Faculty of Environment © Liam Fox 2019 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Summer 2019 Copyright in this work rests with the author. Please ensure that any reproduction or re-use is done in accordance with the relevant national copyright legislation. Approval Name: Liam Fox Degree: Master of Arts Title: Regulating in the Public Interest? Canadian energy regulation as an institutional fix for sovereign legitimacy Examining Committee: Chair: Suzana Dragicevic Professor Geoff Mann Senior Supervisor Professor Rosemary-Claire Collard Supervisor Assistant Professor Eugene McCann External Examiner Professor Date Defended/Approved: August 22, 2019 ii Ethics Statement iii Abstract Perhaps the most visible and pressing pipeline conflict in Canadian history, the proposed Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion has yet to see shovels break ground as the project is bound up in a web of legal challenges and political controversy. At the centre of the debate is the National Energy Board (NEB)—Canada’s energy regulator—responsible for regulating interjurisdictional pipelines. Recently, the NEB’s legitimacy has been called into question amid criticisms of being an untrustworthy, industry-captured regulator. In this thesis, I argue that the NEB operates as an institutional fix for state sovereignty, primarily through its mandate to determine if a proposed project is in the “public” or “national interest”. By aggregating benefits and localizing consequences, the NEB’s “public interest” mandate has become a means of circumventing the thorny politics of deliberative consultation—especially regarding Indigenous jurisdiction—to capture legitimacy and ensure projects proceed.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.0 Alternatives
    3.0 ALTERNATIVES Alternatives to the Alberta Clipper Project were analyzed to determine whether they would be reasonable and environmentally preferable to the proposed action. Identification and evaluation of alternatives to the proposed Project considered public comments and input received from federal, state, tribal and local agency representatives and the public. Enbridge held a variety of public open houses and agency and stakeholder meetings while developing the proposed route. In addition, DOS held 13 scoping meetings during development of the proposed Project to identify and evaluate alternatives that could avoid or minimize potential impacts. In the initial stages of route selection studies for the Alberta Clipper Project, Enbridge based its evaluations on two primary routing assumptions. First, since the new pipeline would have the same origination and destination points as the existing Enbridge pipelines in this area (i.e., originating at the U.S./Canada border near Neche, North Dakota and extending to the existing Superior Terminal), installing it adjacent to the existing pipelines would be preferable to constructing a new route through undisturbed areas. A route along the existing Enbridge pipeline corridor would also result in more efficient and effective management of operation and maintenance of the new pipeline compared to a route that would not be adjacent to the existing pipelines. The second assumption was that when building a new pipeline adjacent to an existing pipeline, the best location is on the side of the existing right-of-way that was used as the working side for the most recent pipeline construction. This would reduce the extent of environmental impacts by using areas disturbed during previous pipeline construction.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • Enbridge's Energy Infrastructure Assets
    Enbridge’s Energy Infrastructure Assets Last Updated: Aug. 4, 2021 Energy Infrastructure Assets Table of Contents Crude Oil and Liquids Pipelines .................................................................................................... 3 Natural Gas Transmission Pipelines ........................................................................................... 64 Natural Gas Gathering Pipelines ................................................................................................ 86 Gas Processing Plants ................................................................................................................ 91 Natural Gas Distribution .............................................................................................................. 93 Crude Oil Tank Terminals ........................................................................................................... 96 Natural Gas Liquids Pipelines ................................................................................................... 110 NGL Fractionation ..................................................................................................................... 111 Natural Gas Storage ................................................................................................................. 112 NGL Storage ............................................................................................................................. 119 LNG Storage ............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Enbridge Over Troubled Water the Enbridge Gxl System’S Threat to the Great Lakes
    ENBRIDGE OVER TROUBLED WATER THE ENBRIDGE GXL SYSTEM’S THREAT TO THE GREAT LAKES WRITING TEAM: KENNY BRUNO, CATHY COLLENTINE, DOUG HAYES, JIM MURPHY, PAUL BLACKBURN, ANDY PEARSON, ANTHONY SWIFT, WINONA LADUKE, ELIZABETH WARD, CARL WHITING PHOTO CREDIT: SEAWIFS PROJECT, NASA/GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER, AND ORBIMAGE ENBRIDGE OVER TROUBLED WATER The Enbridge GXL System’s Threat to the Great Lakes A B ENBRIDGE OVER TROUBLED WATER The Enbridge GXL System’s Threat to the Great Lakes ENBRIDGE OVER TROUBLED WATER THE ENBRIDGE GXL SYSTEM’S THREAT TO THE GREAT LAKES TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE . 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . 4 DOUBLE CROSS — ­ENBRIDGE’S SCHEME TO EXPAND TRANSBORDER TAR SANDS OIL FLOW WITHOUT PUBLIC OVERSIGHT . 6 CASE STUDY IN SEGMENTATION: FLANAGAN SOUTH . 8 THREAT TO THE HEARTLAND: WISCONSIN THE TAR SANDS ARTERY . 9 ENBRIDGE’S “KEYSTONE KOPS” FOUL THE KALAMAZOO . 11 TAR SANDS INVASION OF THE EAST . 1 3 “THE WORST POSSIBLE PLACE” — LINE 5 AND THE STRAITS OF MACKINAC . 1 4 OF WILD RICE AND FRACKED OIL — THE SANDPIPER PIPELINE . 18 ABANDONMENT: ENBRIDGE LINE 3 MACHINATIONS . 21 NORTHERN GATEWAY . 23 CONCLUSIONS . 24 TAR SANDS MINING IN ALBERTA CANADA. PHOTO CREDIT: NIKO TAVERNISE PREFACE If you drive a car in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois or Michigan, chances are there’s tar sands in your tank. That fuel probably comes to you courtesy of Canada’s largest pipeline company, Enbridge. This report tells the story of that company and its system of oil pipelines in the Great Lakes region. TAR SANDS OIL refers to a class of crude oils that Before there was Keystone, there was the Lakehead System.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Enbridge Over Troubled Water the Enbridge Gxl System’S Threat to the Great Lakes
    ENBRIDGE OVER TROUBLED WATER THE ENBRIDGE GXL SYSTEM’S THREAT TO THE GREAT LAKES WRITING TEAM: KENNY BRUNO, CATHY COLLENTINE, DOUG HAYES, JIM MURPHY, PAUL BLACKBURN, ANDY PEARSON, ANTHONY SWIFT, WINONA LADUKE, ELIZABETH WARD, CARL WHITING PHOTO CREDIT: SEAWIFS PROJECT, NASA/GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER, AND ORBIMAGE ENBRIDGE OVER TROUBLED WATER The Enbridge GXL System’s Threat to the Great Lakes A B ENBRIDGE OVER TROUBLED WATER The Enbridge GXL System’s Threat to the Great Lakes ENBRIDGE OVER TROUBLED WATER THE ENBRIDGE GXL SYSTEM’S THREAT TO THE GREAT LAKES TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE . 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . 4 DOUBLE CROSS — ­ENBRIDGE’S SCHEME TO EXPAND TRANSBORDER TAR SANDS OIL FLOW WITHOUT PUBLIC OVERSIGHT . 6 CASE STUDY IN SEGMENTATION: FLANAGAN SOUTH . 8 THREAT TO THE HEARTLAND: WISCONSIN THE TAR SANDS ARTERY . 9 ENBRIDGE’S “KEYSTONE KOPS” FOUL THE KALAMAZOO . 11 TAR SANDS INVASION OF THE EAST . 13 “THE WORST POSSIBLE PLACE” — LINE 5 AND THE STRAITS OF MACKINAC . 14 OF WILD RICE AND FRACKED OIL — THE SANDPIPER PIPELINE . 18 ABANDONMENT: ENBRIDGE LINE 3 MACHINATIONS . 21 NORTHERN GATEWAY . 23 CONCLUSIONS . 24 TAR SANDS MINING IN ALBERTA CANADA. PHOTO CREDIT: NIKO TAVERNISE PREFACE If you drive a car in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois or Michigan, chances are there’s tar sands in your tank. That fuel probably comes to you courtesy of Canada’s largest pipeline company, Enbridge. This report tells the story of that company and its system of oil pipelines in the Great Lakes region. TAR SANDS OIL refers to a class of crude oils that Before there was Keystone, there was the Lakehead System.
    [Show full text]