Tag: Line 5

FLOW Releases New Fact Sheets Regarding Line 5

Published on February 7th, 2017 by - Reports & Media Releases

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                               February 6, 2017

Contact:  Liz Kirkwood, Executive Director                                        Email: Liz@FLOWforWater.org

FLOW (For Love of Water)                                             Office: (231) 944-1568, Cell: (570) 872-4956

 

Research Identifies Viable Options to Enbridge’s Aging “Line 5” for U.P.’s Propane Supply and Michigan, Midwest Demand for Oil

Developing and Implementing Alternatives to Aging Pipelines in the Mackinac Straits is Key to Preventing Great Lakes Oil Spill Disaster

TRAVERSE CITY, MI – Just one to two propane rail cars or a few tanker trucks a day could replace the Line 5 pipeline’s Upper Peninsula propane capacity without risking energy security in the U.P. or a catastrophic Great Lakes oil spill, according to experts for FLOW, a water law and policy center dedicated to upholding the public’s rights to use and benefit from the Great Lakes.

FLOW’s latest research shows that Line 5 supplies only about one-third to one-half of the Upper Peninsula’s propane, considerably less than the 65-85 percent that pipeline-owner Enbridge asserts, based on FLOW’s estimates using publicly available data. And importantly, FLOW’s estimate represents a relatively small quantity of propane to transport, as the Upper Peninsula is sparsely populated and fewer than 1-in-5 U.P. residents lives in housing heated by propane. (Click here to see the new FLOW fact sheet on Line 5 and U.P. propane supply option.)

Enbridge’s inflated propane claims have needlessly fostered concern among local residents and state lawmakers that shutting down the aging pipeline to prevent a catastrophic oil spill in the Mackinac Straits would result in freezing Upper Peninsula residents in their homes.

“It’s clearer than ever that Line 5 is not vital to Michigan’s energy security and, in fact, threatens ourPure Michigan economy and the drinking water supply to communities from Mackinac Island to metropolitan Detroit,” said Liz Kirkwood, an environmental attorney and FLOW’s executive director. “What’s needed now is a little ingenuity and a willingness to look for answers beyond the status quo with a steel pipeline transporting oil and liquid natural gas that was installed underwater in 1953.”

FLOW’s latest findings serve as an update to FLOW’s December 2015 expert report that concluded that decommissioning the twin pipelines in the Mackinac Straits to prevent a disastrous oil spill would not disrupt Michigan’s or the Midwest’s crude oil and propane supply, contrary to Enbridge assertions.

FLOW’s research is meant to inform deliberations by a state advisory board that meets next on March 13 in Lansing. The State of Michigan in partnership with the Michigan Pipeline Safety Advisory Board is overseeing the completion of two independent studies funded by Enbridge: one on the financial risk to communities and the Pure Michigan economy of a Line 5 oil spill in the Mackinac Straits and the other on alternatives to the aging pipeline that could avoid such a disaster. These two studies are expected by mid-2017.

FLOW supports decommissioning Line 5 to protect the Great Lakes, tribal fishing rights, and citizens’ public trust rights to navigate, boat, drink, fish, swim, and benefit from these precious waters. The State of Michigan must act with urgency to identify a viable plan for meeting Michigan’s energy needs without threatening the Great Lakes or public-owned bottomlands, which the Enbridge pipelines occupy under a 1953 easement with the state.

FLOW’s December 2015 research determined that available capacity and flexibility to meet energy demand in the Great Lakes region already exists in the North American pipeline system run not only by Canadian-based Enbridge, but also by competitors supplying the same refineries in Detroit, Toledo, and Sarnia, Ontario.

Furthermore, at least 90 percent of the 540,000 barrels per day of oil and liquid natural gases moved through Line 5 end up in Canadian refineries, undermining claims that the pipeline is an important source of crude for the Marathon refinery in Detroit. (Click here to see the new FLOW fact sheet on alternatives to Line 5.)

“Our work to date has led to the conclusion that Line 5 in the Straits of Mackinac can be shut down, without resorting to additional oil trains, tank trucks, or lake tankers to serve regional refineries, as Enbridge would have you believe,” said Gary Street, a retired chemical engineer and former director of engineering at Dow Environmental – AWD Technologies. “In addition, straightforward steps can be taken to assure customers in the Upper Peninsula of an on-going supply of propane, which is offloaded from Line 5 in Rapid River near Escanaba before ever reaching the segment that would be decommissioned in the Mackinac Straits.”

For more information:

# # #

Bipartisan Congressional Bill Offers Orderly Mechanism to Shut Down Line 5 Because of High Magnitude of Harm and Risks.

Published on January 13th, 2017 by - News

Line 5 Pipeline

The article linked below provides a good synopsis of the new federal bill H.R. 458 that would provide an orderly mechanism to shut down Line 5 if a 12-month study determines the risk is simply too significant to allow crude oil to flow through the heart of the Great Lakes.  The bill’s sponsors Congressmen Dave Trott (R) and Debbie Dingell (D) have launched a just approach to removing Line 5 because of its magnitude of harm and high risk.

It is important to remember that risk is not just inspections and probability. Risk (R) equals the magnitude of harm (H) multiplied by probability (P). When the magnitude of harm is high, like the devastation to the Straits, drinking water, communities, fishing, tribal interests, riparian landowners, resorts, including Mackinac Island, and all of the tourist related business, probability is less important. Under high risk management systems, the immediate action is to remove the high risk by implementing an alternative that reasonably accomplishes the overall purpose – in this case, transport of crude oil to refineries. Refineries exist in the South, Midwest, West, and East. The pipeline system in the U.S. and Canada is a mesh of pipelines to carry oil. Capacity exists within the system. In fact, they must because pipelines are shut down, and there must always be a backup plan. Given the age of the pipeline, 63 years, and the massive currents, and the high magnitude of harm, Enbridge needs to look for another way to move oil in cooperation with the overall system it manages. It doubled capacity when it replaced Line 6b, as part of the deal for devastating harm to Kalamazoo River fishery, ecosystem, and property owners. With this new line 6b with double the capacity, Enbridge does not need Line 5, it is time to shut it down. The bill, if passed, which it should be if Congress has any sense at all regarding the value of the Great Lakes and water resources in this country, should lead to the removal of Line 5, and finally the removal of the last crude oil line in Great Lakes waters. Let’s make sure no new crude oil pipelines or ships carry crude oil, including dilbit from Tar Sands, in, over, or on the Great Lakes. When there are existing routes, lots of companies, and the crude oil network runs on land where it is easier to inspect, twenty percent of the world’s fresh surface water should not be at risk. 

Read an article on the bill here by Garret Ellison,

OR

Read the text of H.R. 458 here.

 

Standing Rock win echoes across the Great Lakes

Published on December 6th, 2016 by - News

“Sunday marked a hard-earned victory for the Standing Rock Sioux tribe with the announced construction halt of the Dakota Access oil pipeline.

The protest’s main message has resonated here in Michigan and around the globe because of its core truth: oil pipelines – new and old – threaten lands and waters that are vital, not just to tribal members but to all Americans.”

FLOW’s Executive Director, Liz Kirkwood, brings the Standing Rock victory home to Michigan in this opinion piece from the Record Eagle. The time has come to defend our water.

State Must Stop Oil Flow, Hold Public Hearings on the “Line 5” Oil Pipelines in the Mackinac Straits

Published on August 25th, 2016 by - Reports & Media Releases

Photo: Bruce Trudgen Pipelaying Operation as the Pipe was Pulled across the Straits from St. Ignace

Photo: Bruce Trudgen, 1953.  Pipelaying Operation as Line 5 was pulled across the Straits from St. Ignace.

Under Michigan law, the state must stop Line 5’s oil flow and hold public hearings on the steel pipelines lying underwater in the Mackinac Straits as it considers Enbridge Energy’s application to remedy easement violations and shore up its aging underwater infrastructure, according to FLOW (For Love of Water), a Traverse City-based Great Lakes water law and policy center, in formal comments released today.

For the ninth time since 2001, Canadian energy transport giant Enbridge is seeking state permission to screw large pipeline anchors into Lake Michigan’s public bottomlands where the Straits’ powerful currents have eroded the lake bottom and left the dual Line 5 pipelines – installed in 1953 – unsupported for long stretches, in violation of the state easement agreement limiting unsupported spans to 75 feet. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) is receiving public comment through August 28, 2016, on Enbridge’s application, which also is being reviewed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

FLOW’s legal analysis concludes that Enbridge’s “maintenance” application to install up to 19 more anchors actually disguises Enbridge’s piecemeal actions that continue to significantly expand oil transport through and around the Great Lakes. In addition, the application fails to address Enbridge’s pattern of easement violations and perpetuates the imminent threat to the Great Lakes and the public’s protected uses thereof that include fishing, commerce, navigation, recreation, and drinking water. Line 5 transports nearly 23 million gallons of oil and natural gas liquids each day through the Mackinac Straits, 80 percent more volume than its past design capacity after several of its so-called “maintenance” upgrades.

“Between Line 5 and the new Line 6B, Enbridge has quietly built its own massive crude oil pipeline system here in Michigan and the Great Lakes without adequate public notice, hearings, and the legally required analysis and determinations of potential risks, impacts, and alternatives for a project of this magnitude,” said Jim Olson, FLOW’s founder and president and a renowned water rights attorney.

Given the scope and risk, the state must stop the Straits oil flow at least temporarily, hold public hearings, and examine Line 5’s full range of potential impacts to the Great Lakes ecosystem and alternatives that do not pose such harm, rather than continue to rubberstamp Enbridge’s misleading maintenance applications. The Michigan Pipeline Safety Advisory Board is conducting a parallel review of Line 5 in the Straits slated for completion in late 2017 or early 2018, but that process is neither under the rule of law nor complies with the Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act (GLSLA) or other state and federal law.

“It is time for our state’s leaders, specifically DEQ Director Grether and Attorney General Schuette, to bring this matter under the rule of law – the GLSLA and public trust law – that protects our Great Lakes, towns, and citizens, and subject Enbridge to a comprehensive review,” Olson said. “Such a review must address the fact that Line 5 is an unacceptable risk and that there exists a new Line 6B from Illinois and across Michigan that Enbridge replaced and doubled in size after its Kalamazoo River oil that will meet current and future Midwest demand.”

“Based on the evidence, it appears that Enbridge has shoved its own version of the ‘Keystone XL’ through the Great Lakes and on the backs of citizens without any review of the risks, harms, and alternatives. This is the worst place on the planet for it. We don’t need a ‘Great Lakes XL’ for crude oil near our Great Lakes or in the Straits of Mackinac, especially where alternative to Line 5 exist,” Olson said.

Of particular concern is Enbridge’s continued failure to predict and prevent the cumulative impacts on Line 5 of lakebed erosion caused by Straits currents that frequently reverse and can exceed 10 times the flow over Niagara Falls.

“Enbridge’s piecemeal approach to managing washouts and installing adequate support under the Straits crossing of Line 5 has resulted in the line frequently being out of compliance with easement support requirements since the 1970’s,” said Ed Timm, PhD, an engineer advising FLOW. “Washouts are inherently unpredictable and it is likely that damage to the pipe has already occurred because of unsupported spans that were not detected and repaired by Enbridge’s two-year inspection and repair schedule.”

While the state’s 1953 easement agreement granting Enbridge conditional occupancy of state bottomlands allows Enbridge up to 90 days to cure any violations, the erosion problem appears to be unfixable and worsening with time.

“The Achilles’ heel of the state easement agreement is that Enbridge has proven itself unable to remain in compliance and therefore frequently is operating illegally,” said Liz Kirkwood, FLOW’s Executive Director and an environmental attorney. “State law demands that the Great Lakes and their public uses must not be risked for Enbridge’s private benefit. It’s time for the state to defend the public’s rights and prevent a catastrophic oil spill into the drinking water supply for half of Michigan residents, and for a total 40 million people in the U.S. and Canada.”

Stopping Line 5’s oil flow in the Mackinac Straits to prevent a catastrophic oil spill would not disrupt Michigan’s or the Midwest’s crude oil and propane supply, contrary to assertions by Enbridge, according to a set of expert reports FLOW released in December 2015. Available capacity and flexibility to meet energy demand in the Great Lakes region already exists in the North American pipeline system run not only by Enbridge, but also by competitors supplying the same refineries in Detroit, Toledo, and Sarnia, Ontario.

“The fact is, Line 5 is not essential,” said Rick Kane, a Michigan-based hazardous materials risk management specialist advising FLOW. “The regional pipeline system can supply crude oil to Michigan and surrounding refineries while eliminating the risk that Line 5 poses to the Great Lakes,” Kane said. “Feasible and prudent alternatives exist to support domestic needs, as well as exports.  However, pipeline company owners will not move to implement any alternatives as long as Line 5 operates and the public continues to carry the risk.”

For more information, visit:

Enbridge’s application and public notice may be viewed at:

  • https://miwaters.deq.state.mi.us/. The public can view the application or submit comments by clicking on the Public Notice Search and entering “Enbridge” in the Applicant Name section.

State Has Ignored Enbridge’s Line 5 Straits Pipeline Violations

Published on August 4th, 2016 by - Reports & Media Releases

Enbridge's Line 5 pipeline during construction and installation, 1953.

Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline during construction and installation, 1953.

 

Although Attorney General Bill Schuette and top state environmental agency directors yesterday notified Enbridge of violations of its agreement to operate oil pipelines in the Straits of Mackinac, officials only did so several months after being told by experts that powerful currents had washed away critical pipeline support infrastructure.

Schuette, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, and Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wednesday told Enbridge it was in violation of pipeline requirements in its easement agreement with the state. But researchers documented last April cracks, dents, corrosion and structural defects in the twin Line 5 oil pipelines in the Straits.

Those concerns were raised by FLOW and other organizations in letters and meetings with state officials.  The groups say Enbridge’s easement violations are part of a pattern and practice where the Canadian transport giant avoids accountability because of infrequent pipeline inspections.

“These are known problems that fundamentally threaten our public waters and should have been addressed much sooner than this week,” said Liz Kirkwood, Executive Director of FLOW.  “Now we see some progress from the state in enforcing its agreement.

“But what we need is for the attorney general and governor to act with much more urgency and prioritize protecting the Great Lakes.  That means ending the state’s agreement that allows Enbridge to continue sending oil through the Straits.”

“Unless the attorney general and other state officials follow through, this week’s violation notice will just be window-dressing,” said Kirkwood. “The concerns are too many and too risky for the state to continue to allow oil to flow through the Straits.”

The easement agreement that is at the center of this week’s action by the state is meant to enforce safety and other conditions for operating the risky Straits oil pipelines.  Under the 1953 easement, the state must give Canadian-based Enbridge 90 days to resolve any known easement violations.

Since at least April, said Kirkwood, the state has had substantial legal and factual cause to terminate the agreement with Enbridge.  Kirkwood’s group and others sent an April 13 letter to Schuette and Snyder outlining multiple easement violations, including those cited by the state this week in its notice to Enbridge.  They also discussed these violations and federal and state law violations with top officials in the attorney general’s office.

In their April 13 letter to Schuette and Snyder, FLOW and other groups identified eight specific violations of the easement agreement and state law, including:

  • Concealing information about cracks, dents, and rust with continued, sweeping assertions and misrepresentations that the Straits pipelines are in “excellent condition, almost as new as when they were built and installed” and have “no observed corrosion.” Of the nine rust spots on the eastern Straits pipeline, corrosion has eaten away 26 percent of the pipeline’s wall thickness in a 7-inch-long area, according to newly released company data.
  • Failing to meet the pipeline wall thickness requirement due to manufacturing defects. Newly released Enbridge data reveals that manufacturing defects in the 1950s resulted in pipeline wall thickness of less than half an inch in perhaps hundreds of sections and up to 41 less thick than mandated on the west Straits pipeline. Enbridge continues to boast about its “nearly one-inch-thick walls of Line 5’s steel pipe travelling under the Straits.” 
  • Failing to meet the “reasonably prudent person” provision by claiming that its steel pipelines lying underwater just west of the Mackinac Bridge since 1953 can last forever and do not require a plan for eventual decommissioning. The 63-year-old pipelines were built to last 50 years.
  • Failing to demonstrate adequate liability insurance, maintain required coating and wood-slat covering to prevent rust and abrasion, adequately support the pipeline resulting in stressed and deformed segments, and adhere to federal spill response and state environmental protection laws, including Act 10 of P.A. 1953, the Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act (“GLSLA”), the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (“MEPA”), and public trust law.

The twin Enbridge Line 5 oil pipelines lying exposed in the Mackinac Straits, where Lake Michigan and Lake Huron meet, are a high-risk shortcut moving up to 23 million gallons of oil and propane a day primarily from western Canadian oil fields to eastern Canadian refineries, as well as on to Montreal and export markets. Research shows there are alternatives to Line 5 that do not threaten the Great Lakes, which hold 20 percent of the world’s fresh surface water.

To date, more than 60 cities, villages, townships, counties and tribal organizations across Michigan have voted to call on the governor and attorney general to stop the oil flowing through the Straits, including Mackinac Island, Mackinaw City, and the cities of Cheboygan, Petoskey, Charlevoix, and Traverse City. Dramatic new research from the University of Michigan released in late March shows an Enbridge oil pipeline rupture in the Mackinac Straits could impact more than 700 miles of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron coastlines, as well as more than 15% of Lake Michigan’s open water and nearly 60% of Lake Huron’s open water.

 

Guest Blog: Other Hidden Costs of Line 5

Published on July 28th, 2016 by - News

“You wouldn’t site, and you wouldn’t build and construct pipelines underneath the Straits today.”

Attorney General Bill Schuette

[Begging the question:  If a state-of-the-art, 21st Century pipeline presents an unacceptable risk, why is the continued use of an aging, mid-20th Century pipeline acceptable?]

Many compelling reasons exist to terminate the use of Line 5, the twin 20-inch pipelines carrying crude oil and natural gas liquids that cross the state-owned bottomlands under the Straits of Mackinac.  Much research, analysis, and modelling has been done by scientists, engineers, lawyers and academics demonstrating that Line 5 poses an unreasonable risk.  Yet Line 5 continues in use, operating under the inherent illogic that a 63 year-old undersea pipeline can function indefinitely without incident.

To the many arguments compelling closure, let me offer another – one that is decidedly minor when compared to the potential catastrophic impacts of a Line 5 failure – but an argument that might manage to nudge your outrage quotient up a notch:

You and I are subsidizing Enbridge to maintain and operate Line 5.

But before addressing the many ways public resources are being expended to benefit Enbridge, let’s review some of the facts that should have already been determinative.

  • There exists an imminent risk of catastrophic harm to one-third of North America’s surface water that is Lakes Michigan and Huron (one lake).  UM’s Graham Sustainability Institute’s analysis indicates that more than 700 miles of shoreline in Lakes Michigan and Huron and proximate islands are potentially vulnerable to an oil release in the Straits that would result in accumulation requiring cleanup, and that more than 15% of Lake Michigan’s open water (3,528 square miles), and nearly 60% of Lake Huron’s open water (13,611 square miles) could be affected by visible oil from a spill in the Straits.
  • “Imminent risk” has two components – the likelihood of a failure and the potential magnitude of the harm.  The UM study and the National Wildlife Federation report Sunken Hazard have amply demonstrated the magnitude of potential harm through dispersion modelling.  The likelihood of failure cannot be regarded as zero as Enbridge’s own inspections have revealed corrosion in nine locations, 55 “circumferential” cracks, and loss of wall thickness in the pipeline itself.
  • The U.S. Coast Guard has acknowledged its limited capacity to launch an effective remedial response should a spill event occur in winter or with waves over 4-5 feet – a common occurrence in the Straits.
  • Enbridge pipelines have had 804 document spills through 2010 with at least five additional spills since 2012.

These facts illustrate a risk of substantial harm to Lakes Michigan and Huron – a globally unique freshwater resource – as well as to the coastal communities and the tens of millions of people connected to and served by these waters.

So let’s start there – who bears the risk?

First, Enbridge has transferred the risk of harm to people of the Great Lakes Region.  The risk of harm can be quantified, modeled and monetized.  Under Enbridge’s worst-case spill scenarios of 200,000 to 400,000 gallons, Enbridge’s estimate of remedial costs approaches $1 billion.  But the FLOW (For Love of Water) policy center analysis found Enbridge’s estimate low, and has calculated a worst case spill scenario of 1.27 million gallons.  Yet under the 1953 easement, Enbridge is required to maintain a paltry $1 million in insurance and a surety bond of $100,000.

Second, additional work necessary cited by UM as a predicate to determining the full cost of the transferred risk would include an analysis of environmental impacts, cleanup costs, restoration and remediation measures, natural resource damages, and economic damage to public and private sector interests.  Natural resource damages and natural resource restoration alone costs could be many times greater than the cost of responding to a spill.  As it stands, there is no financial assurance mechanism that could begin to cover the costs of these potential impacts.

Third, the additional work necessary to ascertain the full nature and extent of damages that may occur with a Line 5 failure has been left to taxpayers.  Already, significant resources have been expended in an effort to understand the risks presented by Line 5.  In Michigan, these costs include the work of the Department of Attorney General and its lawyers, the staff of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, the Michigan Public Service Commissions, and local governments who have mobilized in response to the Line 5 threat.  It includes the staff and support for the Michigan Petroleum Pipeline Task Force.  Also include all the staff time of the myriad state and federal agency personnel who have spent thousands of hours attending to the various aspects of Line 5 matters.

Fourth, taxpayers have paid for the spill response exercises undertaken by state and federal officials.  We have paid for the multiple mobilizations of the United States Coast Guard, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Michigan State Police, and Mackinac County Emergency Management. NOAA’s Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) and GLERL’s Lake Michigan Field Station have also been involved in spill response exercises.

Fifth, aside from a $2,450 payment made to the Michigan Department of Conservation in 1953, the state is not receiving any compensation for the use of state bottomlands.  Great Lakes bottomlands are “public trust” resources meaning that under our jurisprudence, the state holds the bottomlands in trust for the benefit of the people of the State of Michigan.  When state bottomlands are leased for uses like a marina or dockage, compensation is paid for that use.  But more importantly, under the “Public Trust Doctrine,” the state may not lease bottomlands unless it first makes a determination that future uses of state bottomlands will not be impaired or substantially affected.

Here’s what the MDEQ website states about the Public Trust Doctrine:

“The bottomlands of the Great Lakes are held in trust by the State of Michigan for use and enjoyment by its citizens. The State, as the owner and trustee, has a perpetual responsibility to the public to manage these bottomlands and waters for the prevention of pollution, for the protection of the natural resources and to maintain the public’s rights of hunting, fishing, navigation, commerce, etc. The State of Michigan’s authority to protect the public’s interest in the bottomlands and waters of the Great Lakes is based on both ownership and state regulation. The Public Trust Doctrine, as the basis for Part 325, provides state authority to not only manage but also to protect the public’s fundamental rights to use these resources.

Michigan courts have determined that private uses of the bottomlands and waters, including the riparian rights of waterfront property owners, are subject to the public trust. In other words, if a proposed private use would adversely impact the public trust, the State of Michigan’s regulatory authority requires that the proposal be modified or denied altogether in order to minimize those impacts.”

Another critical aspect of the Public Trust Doctrine is that the doctrine requires reexamination of past governmental decisions on public trust matters in light of new scientific knowledge and information.  Attorney General Schuette has stated that based upon what we know today, a pipeline crossing the Straits is unacceptable.  Under the Public Trust Doctrine, he should be compelled to act to terminate Line 5.

The Traverse City-based FLOW policy center has been an international champion of the Public Trust Doctrine and recently persuaded the international Joint Commission to recognize the doctrine as a managing framework for the Great Lakes.  FLOW has also taken the lead in doing much of the legal and engineering assessments of Line 5 – earning widespread gratitude, respect and support.

*reposted from 5 Lakes Energy’s July 27, 2016 Energy and Climate Notes

Betsie Bay Furniture Benefit

Published on June 24th, 2016 by - News

We had a great evening and thanks to much generous support, we raised over $10,000 with around 250 people in attendance! Thank you to all who supported our work, especially Betsie Bay Furniture, Northway Orthodontics and The Garden Theater and all of our amazing donors.

IMG_7074-edit IMG_7097-edit IMG_7098-editIMG_3217 IMG_3213 IMG_3211 IMG_3210 IMG_3205 IMG_3200 IMG_3189 IMG_3183 IMG_3181 IMG_3177 IMG_3176 IMG_3173 IMG_3171 IMG_3174

End Enbridge Stonewalling

Published on May 17th, 2016 by - H2Olson

Observations by some that the State of Michigan has no regulatory authority over hazardous liquid pipelines is correct to the extent that it is understood in the context of  safety regulations — standards, inspection and enforcement; safety code enforcement is covered by the federal PHMSA law, regulation and agency.  However, it is not true that Michigan does not have authority to demand the information Enbridge keeps under its control, and it is not true that Michigan does not have enforcement authority.

As concluded by the Michigan Petroleum Pipeline Task Force Report, 2015, Michigan has authority under the 1953 Easement, including the continuing obligation of Enbridge to conduct itself with prudence at all times, and it has authority under:

(1) its sovereign ownership of bottomlands and waters of the Great Lakes since statehood in 1837 under “equal footings” doctrine. Michigan took title in trust to protect the basic rights of citizens as beneficiaries of a public trust imposed on the state.  This means the state has authority and duty to take actions to protect the public trust as a matter of its “property and public trust power,” whether or not it passes regulations on hazardous liquid pipelines or not.  Under public trust authority and principles, the state cannot transfer or shift control over waters and bottomlands held in trust to any private person or corporation; the retention of information by Enbridge that is required to protect the public trust or to determine whether the public trust is threatened with high unacceptable harm or risk violates this public trust principle, and the Attorney General can demand and take all action necessary to compel Enbridge to turn it over, indeed, even the easement recognizes and is subject to this public trust.

(2)  The Michigan Public Service Commission has authority over siting and locations of crude oil pipelines like Enbridge’s and others.  Anytime Enbridge or some other corporation applies for a change or improvement to the structure it regulates as to siting, including its consideration of risks to property and health or environment and alternatives, the MPSC has authority to demand all relevant information needed to  make a decision on the application for such change.  Unfortunately, the MPSC has not insisted on the full range of information it could demand, including alternative pipeline routes and capacity to Line 5 in the Straits of Mackinac when it doubled capacity for Enbridge’s new replacement for the failed Line 6B that ruptured into the Kalamazoo River in 2010.

(3) Finally, the Michigan Environmental Protection Act, Part 17,  NREPA, imposes a duty to prevent and minimize harm to air, water, and natural resources, and this includes the right to take action where necessary when a corporation’s actions are contrary to this duty to prevent and minimize harm; the MEPA, as it’s  often called, is derived from Art 4, Sec. 52 of the Michigan Constitution.

So while Michigan ponders the aging or new pipeline infrastructure for hazardous liquids and crude oil, the state, including the Attorney General, have the authority to take immediate action to prevent the high risk of Line 5 or other pipelines.  And, where that risk involves the devastating harm that undoubtedly may occur in the Straits, action should be taken immediately pending the coming one to two years of pondering.  In short, there is no legal excuse or justification for Governor Snyder, Attorney General Bill Schuette, or the Department of Environmental Quality to put up with Enbridge’s self-serving stonewalling on disclosure of all information related to its Line 5 hazardous crude oil pipeline.  And, there is no excuse or justification for our state leaders to delay action to eliminate the unacceptable harm from the Straits or other Michigan waters from Line 5.

 

 

Enbridge Downplaying the Potential Size of Catastrophic “Line 5” Straits Oil Spill

Published on May 9th, 2016 by - News

 

In the last two years, Enbridge has cut nearly in half its estimate of the likely size of an oil spill from a pair of aging pipelines that move nearly 23 million gallons of oil a day through the Mackinac Straits, while independent studies suggest the risk is much greater and growing. Read the full findings by engineer and FLOW technical expert Gary Street.