DOCSLIB.ORG

Enbridge Alberta Clipper Petroleum Pipeline and Related Projects EA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Enbridge Alberta Clipper Petroleum Pipeline and Related Projects EA May 2009 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Enbridge Alberta Clipper Petroleum Pipeline and Related Projects Environmental Assessment 1 Environmental Assessment for Enbridge Alberta Clipper Petroleum Pipeline and Related Projects To the Reader This environmental assessment (EA) fulfills part of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) requirements under the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (WEPA), Wis. Stat. § 1.11, and Chapter NR150, Wis. Adm. Code. WEPA requires state agencies to consider environmental factors when making major decisions. The purpose of this EA is to provide the decision makers, the public, and other stakeholders with an analysis of the economic, social, cultural, and environmental impacts that could result from the construction and operation of the proposed Enbridge Alberta Clipper petroleum pipeline, Southern Lights diluent pipeline, Superior Terminal pumping station, and Superior Terminal breakout tanks. The Department conducted an issue identification process prior to completion of the EA. The Department requested public scoping comments on March 11, 2009 and received public comments through March 31, 2009. The Department used those comments to help identify the scope and the significant issues that were analyzed in the analysis. Comments received during the comment period will be used by the Department to make its final decisions on this project. You are encouraged to comment on this EA. The EA is available on the Department web-site at: http://dnr.wi.gov/org/es/science/eis/eis.htm. The DNR has scheduled a public informational hearing where individuals can learn more about the proposed project and submit written or oral comments about the EA and any DNR wetland and waterway determinations associated with the project. The public informational hearing will be held on June 4, 2009 at the City of Superior Public Library, Large Meeting Room, 5:30 pm to 8:00 pm. The comment period on this EA ends on June 8, 2009. Written comments should be addressed to: Benjamin Callan Water Management Specialist WDNR (OE/7) PO Box 7921, 101 S. Webster Street Madison, WI 53707-7921 or via E-mail to: [email protected] All comments received during the hearing and written comments received before the end of the comment period will be considered by the Department before issuance of a record of decision under s. NR 150.24, Wis. Adm. Code. The DNR also cooperated with the U.S. Department of State (USDOS) on a federal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Alberta Clipper petroleum pipeline project. The USDOS EIS is available at the following web address: http://www.albertaclipper.state.gov/clientsite/clipper.nsf?Open 2 List of Contributors Name Responsibility Ben Callan Project Coordination & Wetland/Waterway Permitting for Pipeline Projects Megan Correll Legal Council Don Faith Air Pollutan Discharge Permitting Bill Gantz Regional EA Coordination Liesa Lehmann Kerler Wetland and Waterway Issues Shari Koslowsky Endangered Resources and Wildlife Review Coordination Cheryl Laatsch Project Coordination & Wetland/Waterway Permitting for Pipeline Projects Nancy Larson Wetland and Waterway Issues and Tribal Consultation Steve LaValley Wetland/Waterway Permitting for Terminal Breakout Tanks Project Bruce Moore Stormwater Permitting Jim Pardee EA Coordination Dave Siebert Policy Coordination Dale Simon Wetland Issues Pat Trochlell Wetland Issues 3 Outline Purpose of this document (to the reader) List of preparers Table of contents Summary I. Project purpose and need A. System B. Alberta Clipper and pipeline C. Southern Lights pipeline D. Superior Terminal pumping station E. Superior Terminal breakout tanks F. Other tank projects II. Authorities and Approvals A. DNR 1. Permits and approvals a. Chapter 30 b. Wetland water quality certification c. Stormwater d. Air e. Incidental take 2. WEPA B. Other Wisconsin agencies C. Local units D. US DOS E. US COE F. Other federal III. Proposed Project Description A. System B. AC and SL pipelines 1. Route 4 2. Workspace requirements 3. Materials 4. Construction a. ROW Preparation b. Trenching c. Horizontal directional drilling d. Pipe installation e. Closure f. Stormwater and erosion control g. Restoration h. Revegetation i. Invasive species management j. Fugitive dust k. Spill prevention and management l. Construction across waterbodies 01. Open cut/wet trench method 02. Dam and pump method 03. Flume method 04. Guided bore method 05. Restoration at waterbody crossings 06. Revegetation at waterbody crossings m. Construction across wetlands 01. Restoration in wetlands 02. Revegetation in wetlands n. Mitigation o. Construction in Pokegama Canegie area 5. Schedule 6. Operation and maintenance a. Pipelines b. Right of Way C. Superior Terminal pumping station 5 1. Location 2. Construction a. Methods b. Mitigation 3. Operation and maintenance D. Superior Terminal breakout tanks 1. Location 2. Associated required facilities 3. Construction a. Methods b. Schedule c. Mitigation 4. Operation and maintenance E. Future expansion of Enbridge Superior Terminal F. Other tank projects IV. Alternatives A. Department alternatives B. System alternatives 1. No action 2. Expansion of existing pipeline systems 3. Construction of other new pipeline systems 4. Trucking 5. Railroad 6. Barge 7. Wetland mitigation site C. AC and SL pipeline alternatives 1. Macro-corridors a. North Trail corridor b. Alternative A c. Alternative B d. Alternative C 6 e. Alternative C1 f. Alternative D g. Alternative E h. Alternative F i. Alternative G j. Pokegamma-Carnegie HDD 2. Route variations 3. Construction a. Methods b. Workspace requirements c. Mitigation 4. Operation and maintenance D. Superior Terminal pumping station alternatives 1. Locations a. Alternative 1 b. Alternative 2 c. Alternative 3 d. Alternative 4 e. Alternative 5 f. Alternative 6 g. Alternative 7 h. Alternative 8 i. Alternative 9 2. Mitigation 3. Operation and maintenance E. Superior Terminal breakout tank alternatives 1. Locations a. No-build alternative b. Off-site alternatives 01. Pipeline pressure cycling 02. Pipeline system optimization 7 03. Off-site with smaller diameter tank lines c. Upstream alternatives 01. Clearbrook Terminal 02. Floodwood Pump Station 03. Wrenshall Tank Site d. Off-site alternatives in superior greater than one mile from central manifold 01. Old Amoco Tank Farm 02. Old Unical and Murphy Tank Farm e. Off-site alternatives in Superior within one mile from central manifold 01. Hill Avenue 02. Nemadji Golf Course alternative f. On-site alternatives 01. Alternative A - 10th Street 02. Alternative A-1 - standard configuration aligned with Tanks 32 and 33 03. Alternative A-2 - compressed configuration aligned with Tanks 34 and 35 04. Alternative A-3 - compressed configuration aligned with Tanks 32 and 33 05. Alternative B - Stinson Avenue aa. Alternative B-1 bb. Alternative B-2 cc. Alternative B-3 g. Reduce the number of tanks required 2. Mitigation V. Enbridge pipeline and terminal system history A. Development B. Incidents VI. Existing Environment A. Watershed 1. Air quality and climate 2. Geology and soils 3. Hydrography a. Surface waters 8 b. Wetlands 4. Flora and fauna a. Wooded lands b. Grasslands c. Aquatic 5. Socioeconomic resources a. Population distribution and attributes b. Economy c. Recreation and aesthetics d. Agriculture and forestry e. Archaeological and historical B. Pipeline corridors 1. Geology and soils 2. Hydrography a. Surface waters b. Wetlands 3. Flora and fauna a. Wooded lands b. Grasslands c. Aquatic 4. Public lands 5. Socioeconomic resources a. Proposed corridor b. Alternative corridors 6. Pokegama Carnegie area C. Superior Terminal 1. Air quality 2. Geology and soils 3. Hydrography a. Surface waters b. Wetlands 9 01. Breakout tanks 02. Pump station 4. Flora and fauna 5. Socioeconomic resources VII. Environmental Effects A. AC and SL Pipelines 1. Air quality a. Effects of proposed projects 01. Construction 02. Operation b. Effects of alternatives 01. Construction 02. Operation 2. Geology and soils a. Effects of proposed projects 01. Construction 02. Operation b. Effects of alternatives 01. Construction 02. Operation 3. Hydrography a. Surface waters 01. Effects of proposed projects aa. Construction bb. Operation 02.Effects of alternatives aa. Construction bb. Operation b. Wetlands 01. Effects of proposed projects aa. Construction 10 bb. Operation 02. Effects of alternatives aa. Construction bb. Operation 4. Groundwater a. Effects of proposed and alternative routes 01. Construction 02. Operation 5. Flora and fauna a. Wooded lands 01. Effects of proposed projects aa. Construction bb. Operation 02. Effects of alternatives aa. Construction bb. Operation b. Grasslands 01. Effects of proposed projects aa. Construction bb. Operation 02. Effects of alternatives aa. Construction bb. Operation c. Aquatic 01. Effects of proposed projects aa. Construction bb. Operation 02. Effects of alternatives aa. Construction bb. Operation 6. Public lands 11 a. Effects of proposed projects 01. Construction 02. Operation b. Effects of alternatives 01. Construction 02. Operation 7. Socioeconomic resources a. Effects of proposed projects 01. Construction 02. Operation 8. Pokegama Carnegie area 9. Alternative routes overview a. Macro-corridors b. Route variations B. Superior Terminal Pumping Station 1. Air quality a. Effects of proposed projects 01. Construction 2. Wetlands a. Effects of proposed projects 01. Construction b. Effects of alternatives 01. Construction 3. Socioeconomic resources a. Effects of proposed
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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Keystone XL Pipeline Project: Key Issues
    Keystone XL Pipeline Project: Key Issues Paul W. Parfomak Specialist in Energy and Infrastructure Policy Robert Pirog Specialist in Energy Economics Linda Luther Analyst in Environmental Policy Adam Vann Legislative Attorney December 2, 2013 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R41668 Keystone XL Pipeline Project: Key Issues 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, construction of Keystone XL requires a Presidential Permit from the State Department. A decision to issue or deny a Presidential Permit is based on a determination that a project would serve the national interest, considering potential impacts on the environment, the economy, energy security, foreign policy, and other factors. Environmental impacts are evaluated and documented in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). TransCanada originally applied for a Presidential Permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline in 2008. The initial proposal included a southern segment from Oklahoma to the Gulf Coast. A key issue that arose during the permit review was concern over environmental impacts in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska. This concern led the Nebraska legislature to enact new state pipeline siting requirements that would alter the pipeline route through Nebraska. In January 2012, the State Department concluded that it would not have sufficient information to evaluate an altered pipeline route before a deadline imposed by Congress and denied the permit.
    [Show full text]
  • National Energy Board Hearing Order MH-3-2008 Enbridge Pipelines Inc
    National Energy Board Hearing Order MH-3-2008 Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Alberta Clipper Pipeline Project Detailed Route Hearing Written Argument of Lyle Denton & Florence Denton, and John Denton & Louis Denton Enbridge’s proposed route south of Regina is not the best possible detailed route for the Alberta Clipper pipeline. It is not the best possible detailed route for the short-term, and it is not the best-possible detailed route for the long-term. Regina is a city of some 205,000 residents that has experienced a relative economic boom in the recent past, and its future continues to look bright. 1 Lyle Denton and Florence Denton, and John Denton and Louis Denton are landowners on the edge of the city. Lyle and Florence have developed land in the past, and both families envision the development of South Regina lands in the future. The location of a major international energy pipeline corridor on their properties, however, will have significant and lasting negative effects on their ability to develop their lands as part of the future development of the City of Regina and surrounding municipality. They ask the Board to find that the route proposed by Enbridge for the Alberta Clipper pipeline is not the best possible detailed route. There are better alternatives further to the south which do not change the nature of the pipeline project, but which do protect the future interests of affected landowners and the broader Regina- area community. When it originally planned for the Alberta Clipper pipeline, Enbridge turned its mind to its existing mainline route that runs through the north end of the city.
    [Show full text]