DOCSLIB.ORG

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

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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. They were allowed to double the capacity of Line 6B from Stockton to Sarnia by doing it in segments without an environmental review. Will that happen again here? As a new project, the tunnel is subject to the Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act. This act is there to help us make wise decisions by considering the bigger picture. Will we have the courage to stand up against the most powerful industry on earth in order to protect life, the sacred sources of life, and health? I would be encouraging you to deny this request if we were not dealing with a pandemic. To give the go-ahead now when so many people have concerns about meeting their basic needs, is not where we should be focusing now. You are tasked with determining whether this project is in the public interest of the people of Michigan. Respectfully, Rev. Deb Hansen Levering, MI Virus-free. www.avast.com From: Holly Groff To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:42:26 PM RE: Case U-20763 Dear MPSC Commissioners, I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement. This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process. Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case. Yours sincerely, Holly Groff Vicksburg, Michigan, 49097, United States From: Stacey Chacon To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:41:25 PM RE: Case U-20763 Dear MPSC Commissioners, I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement. This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process. Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case. Yours sincerely, Stacey Chacon Suttons Bay, Michigan, 49682, United States ___________________________ From: Elizabeth chiaravalli To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:40:03 PM RE: Case U-20763 Dear MPSC Commissioners, I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement. This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process. Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case. Yours sincerely, Elizabeth chiaravalli Lansing, Michigan, 48912, United States ___________________________ From: Tracy Hall To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:36:09 PM RE: Case U-20763 Dear MPSC Commissioners, I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [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]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Enbridge's Line 5
    MEDIA Enbridge’s Line 5 BACKGROUNDER June 2021 The pipeline’s ongoing environmental risks to the Great Lakes and the climate Context Line 5 is a 68-year-old pipeline operated by Enbridge Energy. It carries up to 540,000 barrels-per-day or 87 million litres of oil and natural gas liquids per day, from Superior, Wisconsin, to Sarnia, Ontario, taking a shortcut through Michigan and along the lake bottom of the Straits of Mackinac. As the pipeline travels through the Straits of Mackinac it diverges into two, 20-inch-diameter, parallel pipelines. This is why people sometimes call the Line 5 pipeline system the “dual” or “twin” pipelines. Figure 1. Map of Line 5 pipeline route1 ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE CANADA Media Backgrounder: Enbridge’s Line 5 1 The Mackinac Straits section of Line 5 with a design lifetime of 50 years, has been plagued by a series of issues, ranging from missing protective coating to three dents left by an anchor strike just this past April. It lies in what University of Michigan researchers have called “the worst possible place for an oil spill” in the Great Lakes.2 The Great Lakes are of utmost importance to protect as they hold 21 per cent of the world’s surface freshwater and 84 per cent of North America’s surface freshwater.3 Most of the liquids shipped on Line 5 are delivered to the Sarnia terminal; from there, they supply refineries in Ontario and as far east as the Quebec cities of Montreal and Levis.4 After the anchor strike in April 2020, and ensuing concern about a spill from Line 5, Enbridge proposed to build a tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac to house this leg of Line 5.
    [Show full text]
  • The Line 5 Pipeline Plays a Critical Role in Ensuring the United States and Canada Continue to Have Access to Affordable Fuels, Propane and Other Refined Products
    The Line 5 pipeline plays a critical role in ensuring the United States and Canada continue to have access to affordable fuels, propane and other refined products. Union, political and business leaders on both sides of the border are emphasizing the critical role of the Line 5 pipeline and calling for it to remain open until its replacement can be completed: “The USW strongly supports both the Line 5 replacement segment project and the continued operation of the existing pipeline … Hundreds of USW members and their communities depend on the good, family-sustaining jobs Line 5 supports.” United Steelworkers Union, February 1 “We support the pipeline and the tunnel, because Line 5 couldn’t be more important to the Lansing region. Line 5 supplies the fuel our local communities use to power the manufacturing sector and chemistry industry, to run equipment farmers use to put food on our tables, and it even delivers more than half the propane used in Michigan — not just in the Upper Peninsula. We encourage the governor and lawmakers to protect the jobs and investment our communities count on each day. We encourage them to keep Line 5 open and to back the Great Lakes Tunnel.” Business manager of UA Local 333 and President of the Lansing Regional Chamber of Commerce, March 10, 2021 “We continue to advocate for Line 5. We recognize how important it is to ensure energy security to both Canadians and Americans. … Line 5 is a vital source of fuel for homes and businesses on both sides of the border. That is something we have argued strongly, and will continue to argue strongly, with members of the U.S.
    [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]
  • June 27, 2014 Enbridge Response and Attachment
    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.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternatives for Replacing Enbridge's Dual Line 5 Pipelines Crossing The
    Report to the State of Michigan Alternatives for replacing Enbridge’s dual Line 5 pipelines crossing the Straits of Mackinac June 15, 2018 Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 The Purpose of This Report 1 Summary of Key Conclusions 1 Summary Comparison of the Two Feasible Alternatives 5 Reporting Parameters and Process 6 How Enbridge Defines Feasibility in the Context of This Report 6 How Enbridge Prepared This Report 6 Consultants for the Three Alternatives Feasibility Assessments 7 Enbridge’s Line 5 in Michigan 8 Alternative: Tunnel 10 Highlights of the Tunnel Alternative 10 Overview of Underwater Tunnels 11 Tunnel planning and design 11 Tunnel construction 12 Tunnel lining 13 Pipe installation 13 Tunnel access 14 Summary of Feasibility Study for a Line 5 Tunnel under the Straits 16 Tunnel consultants 16 Tunnel feasibility 16 Tunnel configuration options 17 Straits tunnel specifications 18 Geological considerations 19 Tunnel depth 20 Tunnel diameter and lining 21 Placing other utilities in the tunnel 22 TBM type 22 Approximate construction sequence 23 TBM launch and reception 23 Spoil handling and disposal 24 Pipeline installation 24 Independent Assessment of Hatch’s Tunnel Feasibility Study 25 Construction Cost Estimate 25 Project Execution Schedule 25 Tunnel Permits and Approvals 25 Tunnel Risk Assessment 26 Geologic hazards 26 Report to the State of Michigan—Alternatives for replacing Enbridge’s dual Line 5 pipelines crossing the Straits of Mackinac Alternative: Open Cut With Secondary Containment 28 Highlights of the ‘Open Cut with
    [Show full text]
  • Eliminating the Line 5 Oil Pipeline's Unacceptable Risk To
    BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PIPELINE SAFETY ADVISORY BOARD, MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM SCHUETTE, AND MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY DIRECTOR DAN WYANT ELIMINATING THE LINE 5 OIL PIPELINES' UNACCEPTABLE RISK TO THE GREAT LAKES THROUGH A COMPREHENSIVE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND SYSTEMS APPROACH December 14, 2015 Submitted by: FLOW (For Love of Water) Great Lakes Water Law and Policy Non Profit 153 ½ East Front Street Traverse City, Michigan 49684 (231) 944-1568 www.flowforwater.org NEW STUDY ANSWERS “NO” TO THE QUESTION: DO WE NEED LINE 5 IN THE STRAITS? EXPERTS TAKE COMPREHENSIVE LOOK AT ENBRIDGE’S RISKY PIPELINES AND OUR ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY December 14, 2015 Governor Rick Snyder’s Executive Order 2015-12 created and directed the Michigan Pipeline Safety Advisory Board (“Advisory Board”) to implement the recommendations of the Michigan Petroleum Pipeline Task Force Report (“Task Force”) on the future of oil transport through the Line 5 pipeline in the Straits of Mackinac and pipelines throughout the State of Michigan. The July 2015 Task Force Report concludes that Line 5 in the Straits presented the “most acute potential threat” of a catastrophic oil spill given the location if this 62-year old pipeline resting on Great Lakes bottomlands. The Task Force Report accordingly calls for an independent alternatives analysis, including as an alternative the decommissioning of Line 5 in the Straits for oil transport. Other reports, including FLOW’s (For Love of Water) September 2015 Expert Report, have substantiated that the transport of oil through Line 5 in the Straits constitutes an unacceptable high-level risk and imminent harm to our waters for drinking, recreation, commerce, navigation, tourism, and our Pure Michigan way of life.
    [Show full text]