DOCSLIB.ORG

Eliminating the Line 5 Oil Pipeline's Unacceptable Risk To

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. Immediate action therefore is necessary, including the orderly completion of the alternatives and risk analyses and interim actions to eliminate imminent harm. FLOW now submits this report titled, Eliminating the Line 5 Oil Pipelines’ Unacceptable Risk to the Great Lakes through a Comprehensive Alternatives Analysis and Systems Approach, to the Advisory Board to assist in implementing a comprehensive alternatives analysis to Line 5 in the Straits per the recommendations of the Task Force Report. This report and attached technical reports also are intended to help the public better understand the nature and scope of a proper alternatives analysis and to demonstrate that decommissioning of Line 5 in the Straits is a viable option given the existing capacity and supply-and-demand needs of the overall pipeline system around the Great Lakes. A preliminary review of the existing pipeline capacity and regional refinery demands affirms that Line 5 in the Straits is not vital energy infrastructure to Michigan’s economy and energy security. This report makes the following conclusions: 1. All alternative options must be considered. A comprehensive and full range of options is needed to comply with the Michigan Petroleum Pipeline Task Force recommendations and the Governor’s Executive Order establishing the Michigan Pipeline Safety Advisory Board. Alternatives explored must not be limited solely to options for transporting liquid petroleum currently carried by Line 5 in the Straits. A comprehensive alternatives analysis should review the transport of crude oil through the lens of the entire Great Lakes region’s system of oil pipelines, routes, capacity and ability to deliver liquid petroleum currently carried by Line 5 in the Straits. Without a comprehensive pipeline systems view, state and federal decision-makers are unable to identify and evaluate the best alternative to Enbridge’s Line 5 twin pipelines in the Straits of Mackinac. 2. Preliminary findings in the FLOW report show that Line 5 through the Straits of Mackinac is not vital energy infrastructure to Michigan’s economy. The overall pipeline system is flexible enough to meet existing demand if Line 5 through the Straits were decommissioned. Realistic alternatives to Line 5 in the Straits could be met without disrupting distribution of natural gas liquids, including propane, to Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Alternatives to the Line 5 segment in the Straits would eliminate unacceptable harm to the Great Lakes and Michigan communities while still meeting our energy needs. 3. Decommissioning Line 5 in the Straits is the best option. FLOW’s report concludes that decommissioning Line 5 in the Straits is the best option because it would eliminate or avoid the unacceptable and imminent harm and high risk to the Straits and Great Lakes. Moreover, the dynamic pipeline system serving Michigan, the Great Lakes region, and elsewhere meets the purposes of the larger regional system of petroleum distribution and Enbridge could continue transporting substantial volumes of crude oil. 4. Segment-by-segment, Enbridge has effectively built its own version of the now rejected “Keystone XL Pipeline” through the center of the Great Lakes and across Michigan without public, state, and federal consideration and evaluation of the full range of existing alternatives. In Michigan, following its 2010 Kalamazoo oil spill disaster, Enbridge applied for “maintenance and integrity” measures for Line 6B before the Michigan Public Service Commission, when in fact, it built a brand new Line 6B that more than doubled its capacity to as much as 800,000 bpd. Had Enbridge disclosed its larger project intentions, a more properly scoped alternative analysis would have evaluated Line 5, Line 6B, other pipelines, needs of users, and the pipeline system as a whole, and the imminent and unacceptable harm to the Straits could and would have been addressed. 5. Immediate interim measures should be imposed on Enbridge, including the shutoff of oil though Line 5 in the Straits given the imminent harm and risk and the stated inability of Enbridge and the U.S. Coast Guard to clean up a catastrophic oil spill in the open waters of the Great Lakes. I. OVERVIEW FLOW (For Love of Water) submits this report titled, Eliminating the Line 5 Oil Pipelines' Unacceptable Risk to the Great Lakes through a Comprehensive Alternatives Analysis and Systems Approach, to assist the state officials and the Michigan Pipeline Safety Advisory Board (“Advisory Board”) in the implementation and completion of the alternatives analysis regarding crude oil transport in, through, and out of the Great Lakes Basin and Michigan, including Line 5 in the Straits of Mackinac.1 This report consists of two parts, followed by appendices: Part I The legal framework and principles for the alternatives analysis of the transport of crude oil in the pipeline system into, through, and out of the Great Lakes Basin. Part II The key findings of three technical reports (attached as appendices to this report) that show: (A) The dynamic nature of the evolving crude oil pipeline system in the Great Lakes region (Appendix A: R. Kane Report); (B) The capacity and flexibility within the crude oil pipeline system in Michigan and the Great Lakes region to achieve and provide adequate alternatives to Line 5 in the Straits of Mackinac to transport oil to users (Appendix B: G. Street Report); and (C) An example of an alternatives analysis within this crude oil pipeline system and a credible option for the “decommissioning of Line 5 in the Straits segment”2 that reasonably meet the basic overall purpose and objective of transporting crude oil to the various refineries within and beyond the Great Lakes region (Appendix C: R. Kane Report). This report then concludes with (1) a summary of the legal framework for the overall system, nature, scope and stands for a proper alternatives analysis, (2) the dynamic and evolving nature of the Great Lakes crude oil pipeline system and its capacities and opportunities, and (3) a demonstration of one alternative – decommissioning Line 5 in the Straits segment – as a model and viable option that would continue to support Michigan’s energy needs and eliminate the catastrophic risk of an oil spill in the Great Lakes. 1 This report is authored by James Olson, President, Liz Kirkwood, Executive Director, Kelly Thayer, Project Communications Consultant, FLOW (For Love of Water), which is based on three attached technical reports authored by members of FLOW’s scientific and legal policy advisors: Richard J. Kane, QEP, CHMM, CPP and Gary L. Street, P.E., formerly Director of Engineering, DOW Environmental (Eastern Operations). For a more complete description of the authors’ qualifications and experience, see paragraph 2., p. 7, FLOW Composite Summary of Expert Comments, Findings and Opinions on Enbridge Line 5, submitted to Michigan Petroleum Pipeline Task Force, April 30, 2015 (hereinafter “FLOW April 2015 Expert Report”). 2 “Decommissioning Line 5” as used in this report includes (a) retiring use of the Line 5 in the Straits segment, or others if deemed proper as part of the overall analysis, and/or (b) prohibiting the use of Line 5 in the Straits segment for the transport of crude oil. It follows that if option (a) is viable because of overall system and infrastructure capacity, options, adjustments or changes, then (b) is viable. 2 II. BACKGROUND The 1953 Easement The 1953 Easement between the State of Michigan and Enbridge to construct and operate a petroleum pipeline in the Straits of Mackinac (a segment of Line 5 consisting of two 20-inch 4.5 mile pipelines) is subject to the authority of Act 10 and the reserved rights and interests of the state as owner and trustee of the waters and bottomlands of the Great Lakes.3 The public trust imposed on the waters and bottomlands of the Great Lakes establishes a paramount and specially protected interest in citizens, as recognized beneficiaries, for preferred uses that cannot be subordinated to other private purposes and cannot be significantly impaired; public trust uses include navigation, commerce, drinking water, fishing, boating, swimming, and similar public uses and recreational activities.4 As such, these waters and bottomlands have a rare, unique status, dedicated to the public in perpetuity.5 In the 1953 Easement, Enbridge also recognized the paramount public trust interest of the State in these waters and bottomlands.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pipeline Investigation Report P96H0008
    PIPELINE OCCURRENCE REPORT P96H0008 CRUDE OIL PIPELINE RUPTURE INTERPROVINCIAL PIPE LINE INC. LINE 3, MILE POST 506.6830 NEAR GLENAVON, SASKATCHEWAN 27 FEBRUARY 1996 The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) investigated this occurrence for the purpose of advancing transportation safety. It is not the function of the Board to assign fault of determine civil or criminal liability. Pipeline Occurrence Report Crude Oil Pipeline Rupture Interprovincial Pipe Line Inc. Line 3, Mile Post 506.6830 Near Glenavon, Saskatchewan 27 February 1996 Report Number P96H0008 Synopsis At 0619 mountain standard time, on 27 February 1996, a rupture occurred on the Interprovincial Pipe Line Inc. 864-millimetre outside diameter pipeline designated as Line 3, at Mile Post 506.6830 near Glenavon, Saskatchewan. Approximately 800 cubic metres (m3) (5,000 barrels) of heavy crude oil was released and collected in a low-lying area near the site. Approximately 600 m3 (3,800 barrels) of heavy crude oil was recovered. The Board determined that the rupture was caused by excessive narrow, axial, external corrosion located adjacent and running parallel to the longitudinal seam weld of the pipe, which was assisted by low-pH stress corrosion cracking and was not identified through the company's ongoing pipeline integrity program called the Susceptibility Investigation Action Plan. Ce rapport est également disponible en français. 1.0 Factual Information ....................................................................................... 1 1.1 The Accident ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • The Enbridge Line 3 Replacement Pipeline: Attitudes, Symbolism, and Geography
    Colby College Digital Commons @ Colby Honors Theses Student Research 2019 The Enbridge Line 3 Replacement Pipeline: Attitudes, Symbolism, and Geography Catherine W. Fraser Colby College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.colby.edu/honorstheses Part of the Environmental Studies Commons Colby College theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed or downloaded from this site for the purposes of research and scholarship. Reproduction or distribution for commercial purposes is prohibited without written permission of the author. Recommended Citation Fraser, Catherine W., "The Enbridge Line 3 Replacement Pipeline: Attitudes, Symbolism, and Geography" (2019). Honors Theses. Paper 963. https://digitalcommons.colby.edu/honorstheses/963 This Honors Thesis (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Research at Digital Commons @ Colby. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Colby. The Enbridge Line 3 Replacement Pipeline: Attitudes, Symbolism, and Geography Catherine W. Fraser Environmental Studies Program Colby College Waterville, ME May 20, 2019 A thesis submitted to the faculty of the Environmental Studies Program in partial fulfillment of the graduation requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts with honors in Environmental Studies ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ Philip Nyhus, Advisor Gail Carlson, Reader Daniel Abrahams, Reader Copyright © 2019 by the Environmental Studies Program, Colby College. All rights reserved ii ABSTRACT Oil pipelines, such as the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, are increasingly controversial and contested in the United States. Since its proposal in 2015, the Enbridge Line 3 Replacement (L3R) pipeline in Minnesota has also generated considerable debate.
    [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]
  • Crude Oil Forecast, Markets and Pipeline Expansions
    Appendix D-4: Exhibit A-37: Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers Report, Crude Oil Forecnst, Markets nlzd Pipeliize Expaizsions, Jt~i~e2007 REPORT Crude Oil Forecast, Markets and Pipeline Expansions June 2007 Background The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) represents 150 producer member companies that explore for, develop and produce natural gas, natural gas liquids, crude oil, oil sands, and elemental sulphur throughout Canada. CAPP member companies produce more than 95 percent of Canada’s natural gas and crude oil. CAPP also has 130 associate members that provide a wide range of services that support the upstream crude oil and natural gas industry. Together, these members and associate members are an important part of a $100 billion-a-year national industry that affects the livelihoods of more than half a million Canadians. Disclaimer This publication was prepared by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP). While it is believed that the information contained herein is accurate under the conditions and subject to the limitations set out, CAPP does not guarantee its accuracy. The use of this report or any information contained will be at the user’s sole risk, regardless of any fault or negligence of CAPP. 2100, 350 – 7th Ave. S.W. 403, 235 Water Street Calgary, Alberta St. John’s, Newfoundland Canada T2P 3N9 Canada A1C 1B6 Tel (403) 267-1100 Tel (709) 724-4200 Fax (403) 261-4622 Fax (709) 724-4225 Email: [email protected] Website: www.capp.ca Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers Crude Oil Forecast, Markets and Pipeline Expansions 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................. 1 2 CRUDE OIL PRODUCTION AND SUPPLY FORECAST ..........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Enbridge Support Letter to the Illinois Commerce Commission
    Governor INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF NORTH DAKOTA John Hoeven Attorney General NORTH DAKOTA PIPELINE AUTHORITY Wayne Stenehjem Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson Apri122,2008 The Honorable Charles E. Box, Chairman Illinois Commerce Commission 160 N. LaSalle, Suite B-800 Chicago, IL 60601 RE: ICC Docket No. 07-0446 Enbridge Pipelines (Illinois) LLC Application for Certificate in Good Standing and other relief Dear Chairman Box: North Dakota's crude oil production is now approaching 140,000 barrels per day. There are over 60 drilling rigs currently operating in the state. This development activity continues to have positive economic impacts on our state and region. The Enbridge pipeline system is a major transporter of North Dakota-produced crude oil. Their North Dakota pipeline gathers a significant portion of our production and delivers it to Clearbrook, Minnesota. There it interconnects with other pipelines that deliver crude oil to refineries in the Midwest and South. Because the above-named project will have a direct affect on the amount of crude oil that can be shipped through Clearbrook, the North Dakota Industrial Commission, acting through it Pipeline Authority, supports Enbridge's efforts to increase the downstream capacity of its pipeline system. North Dakota has recently learned how inadequate regional pipeline capacity can become a matter of public necessity. Periods of inadequate export pipeline capacity in 2006 and 2007 led to significant crude oil price differentials in North Dakota. These price differentials reduced the income of North Dakota citizens who are royalty owners, tax revenues that support programs important to all of our citizens, and the income of North Dakota oil and gas producers by millions of dollars.
    [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]
  • 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.
    [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 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]