Tag: Shut Down Line 5

Public Comment to Michigan Pipeline Safety Advisory Board

Published on December 13th, 2017 by - Reports & Media Releases

Line 5 Pipeline

Good evening, and thank you for the opportunity to comment on what is unfortunately
a deeply flawed final Line 5 alternatives study. The people of Michigan are ill-served
by this study. It cannot serve as a basis for an informed and intelligent decision about
the fate of this profound threat to the Great Lakes.

Members of the Advisory Board who represent citizens, businesses, tribes, and
conservation agree that this final report is flawed and demanded this past Monday by
resolution a more robust and comprehensive study on existing pipeline infrastructure
and Michigan’s (not Enbridge’s) energy needs.

Here are only a few of our major concerns with this final report:

  • 1: Assumes that the state must guarantee that Enbridge is able to deliver 23
    million gallons of oil daily through Line 5. The legal agreement to occupy our
    public waters is not a covenant to keep oil pipelines operating indefinitely and at full
    capacity. This bias results in the tunnel option appearing as a favored report
    alternative.
  • 2: Dismisses the most credible alternative of existing pipeline infrastructure. As
    documented in FLOW’s 2015 expert report, existing pipeline infrastructure, including
    Enbridge’s newly doubled capacity in Line 6B, is a practical alternative for
    Michigan’s energy needs. The report acknowledges that excess pipeline capacity
    exists on Enbridge Line 6B (renamed 78) now and that the Mid-Valley Pipeline could
    supply much of the remaining needs of the Detroit and Toledo refineries. (5-2; 4-18).
  • 3: Operates from a bias in favoring a tunnel in the Straits of Mackinac. A tunnel
    will not eliminate the risk to the public trust waters of the Great Lakes. Line 5
    traverses 245 other water crossings, including ones that are tributaries of Lakes
    Michigan, Superior, and Huron. A tunnel is no gift to Michiganders. It threatens
    economic and ecological disruption to the region and contravenes Michigan’s policy
    ban against directional drilling for oil and gas in the Great Lakes; And fundamentally,
    why would Michigan want a Canadian company’s tunnel located under the planet’s
    largest fresh system water systems and potentially usher in heavy tar sands transport
    back to Canada? This makes no sense.
  • 4: Continues to underestimates the economic damage of a Line 5 spill at a $100-200 million. This number defies logic in light of Enbridge’s 2010 $1.2 billion Kalamazoo disaster and the potential catastrophic harm for affected shoreline communities, tourism revenue, drinking water, fisheries, etc.

So where does this leave us? Though this report fails on many levels, it does substantiate the fact that Line 5 can be decommissioned with little disruption and minimal increased costs to Michigan consumers and businesses.

The report affirms that there are feasible and prudent alternatives readily available that both meet Michigan’s energy needs currently served by Line 5 and completely eliminate the risk to the Great Lakes.

The time for studies has ended. It is time for action as the PSAB Resolution affirmed on Monday. That action should start with shutting down Line 5 immediately and ultimately end with state’s revocation of the easement and the decommissioning of Line 5.

The Great Lakes are held in trust by the State of Michigan as public trustee for the benefit of its citizens. The 1953 easement with Enbridge was issued fully subject to the public trust- and the U.S. Supreme Court agrees. The public is the ultimate decision-maker.

Governor Snyder tried to circumvent them through private agreement with Enbridge. Michigan citizens deserve better.

Thank you.
Liz Kirkwood, Executive Director

Enbridge’s Neglect of 64-Year-Old “Line 5” Pipelines in Mackinac Straits Requires State to Apply Law, Stop Oil, Reject Permit

Published on July 25th, 2017 by - Reports & Media Releases

Liz Kirkwood, Executive Director                                                  Cell: 570-872-4956
FLOW (For Love of Water)                                                          Email: liz@flowforwater.org

Jim Olson, Founder & President                                                   Cell: 231-499-8831
FLOW (For Love of Water)                                                          Email: olson@envlaw.com

ST. IGNACE – The state of Michigan must immediately apply the law, stop Line 5’s oil flow, and reject a Canadian company’s application to extract more life out of its decaying steel pipelines built in 1953, according to FLOW, a Traverse City-based Great Lakes water law and policy center in public comments made today. The comments came at a public hearing in St. Ignace on Enbridge’s bid for state approval to shore up parts of Line 5 that are bent or deformed due to the company’s neglect and support other areas potentially prone to erosion.

“Enbridge characterizes the application as seeking authorization for routine maintenance,” said Liz Kirkwood, FLOW’s Executive Director and environmental attorney. “The reality is that Enbridge is scurrying to rectify its dangerous neglect of maintenance over decades, including multiple violations of a legal agreement to properly anchor its dual pipelines against the swift currents in the Straits.” 

A recent report by Dr. Ed Timm, a FLOW adviser and former Dow Chemical engineer, shows Line 5 is bent and deformed where Enbridge wants to anchor it. The report presents new evidence of structural damage to the western pipe where Enbridge seeks to install five of the 22 anchors into Lake Michigan’s public bottomlands, stemming from a company pattern of violating a 1953 easement granted by the state allowing Enbridge to occupy the Mackinac Straits.

The state’s easement agreement allowing Line 5 to occupy the Mackinac Straits limits unsupported spans to no more than 75 feet, but a 2003 survey identified 16 unsupported spans greater than 140 feet; the longest at 224 feet on the east leg and 286 feet on the west leg. Other Enbridge inspection report revealed nearly 250 instances between 2005 and 2016 of unsupported spans on the pipelines exceeded a 75-foot legal limit in violation of Michigan’s easement agreement with Enbridge. This track record does not provide confidence that the company will fulfill its obligations in the future.

By attempting to cloak the results of its neglect and avoiding an assessment of Line 5’s impacts and alternatives, Enbridge is perpetuating the imminent threat to the Great Lakes and the protected public uses that include fishing, commerce, navigation, recreation, and drinking, according to a legal analysis by FLOW.

In fact, the company’s poor performance as well as the massive work proposed provides a compelling legal basis for the state to consider feasible and prudent alternatives to continued operation of the dual Line 5 pipelines.

“The state of Michigan must consider under rule of law whether there are viable options to the piecemeal patch-up of these aging steel oil pipelines threatening the Great Lakes,” said Jim Olson, FLOW’s founder and president and a renowned water rights attorney. “Enbridge has expanded Line 5 and the new Line 78 from Indiana across lower Michigan to Sarnia under the rubric of ‘maintenance.’ Our cities, villages, and citizens have ended up with Enbridge’s version of the Keystone XL right here in the Great Lakes, and it happened without the public notice, hearings, and independent impact and alternative analyses required by law.”

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.

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.

Contrary to assertions by Enbridge, the state taking action to stop 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, 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.”

Line 5 Straits New Anchor Structures

Published on July 23rd, 2017 by - H2Olson

 Public Statement

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

Line 5 Straits New Anchor Structures

Jim Olson

President and Legal Advisor, FLOW (For Love of Water)

July 25, 2017

Director Grether, Division and Unit Chief Fisher, and the Gaylord Office Unit Supervisor Haas, and Great Lakes Submerged Land Specialist Graft:

This statement addresses a primary legal requirement for Enbridge concerning its proposal to locate, occupy, and engage in construction activity for twenty-two (22) new anchor supports on the public trust bottomlands and waters of Lake Michigan. The application as filed requests an activities permit pursuant to the Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act and Rules (“GLSA”) for placement of these twenty-two anchors as “other materials.”  As will be seen, these anchors and the pipeline are new and involve far more than placing spoils or other materials as an activities permit. In fact, these anchor supports and line, in combination with the dual lines in the Straits, have never been authorized under the GLSA and public trust law.

FLOW submitted public comments into the record on this application on June 29, 2017, and will submit supplemental public comments and technical reports on or before August 4, 2017, the end of the extended public comment period.  For purposes of the public hearing I offer the following specific comment on the legal framework for the proceedings under the GLSA for these twenty-two support anchors and the dual pipelines in the Straits of Mackinac.

First, the history of these new anchor supports, including the proposed twenty-two supports for the dual pipelines is directly related to the failure in design and construction of the original pipelines as authorized by the terms of the 1953 Easement and the substantial increase in crude oil flow rate from 300,000 bpd approved by the Public Service Commission in 1953 and the very new increase to 540,000 bpd as part of Enbridge’s project to expand its Lakeside System. A more detailed description of these anchors and why they are new and need approval to operate these dual lines are contained in FLOW’s June 29 public comment as supplemented by the comments to be filed on or before August 4, including the additional supplemental that will be submitted by technical experts Ed Timm and Gary Street.

Second, these anchor supports are new because they fall outside and were not authorized as part of the pipelines by the 1953 Easement. These anchors are new because they are proposed to prevent further bending in the compromised and deformed lines because of powerful currents and other forces in the Straits. As noted, they are also new because these supports together with other new facilities and equipment along Line 5 are part of the Enbridge expansion of its entire Lakehead System, including the doubling of Line 6b (now Line 78) to Stockbridge in southern Michigan.

In lay person terms, what does this mean?  It means that the dual pipelines with these new anchor supports and increased flow volume have not been authorized by agreements to permit the occupancy of these anchor supports on the bottomlands and n the waters of the Great Lakes as required by the GLSLA and its Rules. It means that the pending application for the proposed new twenty-two new supports does not comply with the requirements under the GLSLA and its Rules for a proper agreement or authorization for occupying bottomlands and waters in the Straits.

New structures to prop up a previously authorized line based on the existing define and new and increased volumes as part of a major single expansion project require new authorization. It is as simple as that.  Before the Department can act on Enbridge’s application for the construction activity permit for the anchor supports, Enbridge must first apply for and the State must authorize an occupancy conveyance or agreement in accordance with Sections 32502, 32503, and 32505 and other parts of the GLSLA and its Rules.

What to do, then?  The most straightforward way to proceed is for the MDEQ to notify Enbridge that it must comply with the requirements for authorization to occupy as I have described above, and to cease or halt the use of the lines in the Straits unless and until these lines with these new anchor supports have been applied for and determined to satisfy the standards and requirements of the GLSLA and its Rules. Recent evidence from Enbridge records and grueling evaluation by Dr. Ed Timm demonstrate that the integrity of the pipelines, as noted above has been precariously compromised, and as a result, according to Dr. Timm, there is in 2017 a probability of a failure in one of the lines as high as forty-six percent (46%).

The only prudent and correct thing for the State to do to prevent impairment or injury to the public trust and public and private riparian rights, public health, and safety, is to halt the flow of oil and put the onus on Enbridge to apply for proper conveyance authorization for these new structures in conjunction with these pipelines—they are inextricably related. Enbridge can decide to apply for these new supports in conjunction with the condition of the pipelines and the eighty percent (80%) increase in flow of crude oil.  The State DEQ can now once and for all finally consider and determine as trustee of the public trust protected by the GLSLA, whether Enbridge has shown there is no likely high risk of serious impairment to the public trust interests of Michigan and its citizens.

To date, not one agency has considered the environmental impact or existence of other alternatives related to the increase in flow of crude oil, the new supports and the condition of these lines.  The State can now evaluate in an orderly legal process whether the dual lines in the Straits can be or should be authorized. If Enbridge does not apply in order to comply and demonstrate a right to authorization and approval, then that is its own choice, and the State has the power, duty, and right to halt the transport of crude oil or demand decommissioning of the dual lines because they do not comply with state law and regulations enacted under its title and police power to protect its public trust lands and waters.

Thank you.

 

A Disappointing Distraction: FLOW’s Statement on the Line 5 Alternatives Study

Published on July 6th, 2017 by - News

On June 29, the State of Michigan released for public comment a consultant’s study on alternatives to Line 5, the risky 64-year-old dual oil pipelines that cross the lakebed of the Straits of Mackinac.  The state is now holding public meetings on the study.

The study is a major disappointment and contributes little of value to the discussion on the fate of the oil pipelines operating in the Great Lakes since 1953. 

FLOW’s position is unchanged:  the State of Michigan must terminate the easement allowing Enbridge to use Lake Michigan’s lakebed for the pipelines.  The state has the authority and the responsibility to do so to prevent a catastrophic oil spill.  In light of Enbridge’s consistent record of disregard for maintenance of Line 5, the state must do so.

* FLOW rejects the alternatives study as fatally tainted by the authors’ blatant conflict of interest. The consulting firm’s vice president has an extensive history of working alongside of, and in support of, Enbridge.  The state’s process is now revealed for what it always has been – a distraction from its responsibility to protect the Great Lakes by shutting down Line 5 now.

* Substantively, the alternatives study can’t be taken seriously because it:

  1. Completely ignores the most suitable alternative to Line 5, which is existing infrastructure. The state asked consultant Dynamic Risk to analyze it. Failure to do so skews the analysis. Since the state and consultant won’t do their jobs and analyze the existing infrastructure, FLOW will continue to analyze it by updating our 2015 independent expert report on that alternative in the near future.
  2. Assumes the best-case scenario for a spill. The consultant uses assumptions of risk that are woefully inadequate and are not credible. It estimates that:
  • Only 20 miles of shoreline would be impacted by a spill. This is just 3% of the 720-mile area the University of Michigan found vulnerable to a spill in its 2016 study.
  • An oil spill would cost $100 million to $200 million, when Enbridge’s cleanup costs for its Line 6B pipeline oil spill into the Kalamazoo River watershed in 2010 cost more than $1.2 billion.
  1. Inflates the impact of shutting down Line 5 to the U.P.’s propane supply. The report estimates an impact to propane supply much greater than what FLOW’s independent experts have determined would be necessary to provide the Upper Peninsula’s Rapid River facility with an alternative supply. The flawed report finds that up to 35 railcars per week or 15 truckloads per day would be necessary to replace the Line 5 supply of natural gas liquids, while FLOW’s expert studies have found it would take only one railcar or 3 – 4 truckloads per day.

FLOW is a leader in the Oil & Water Don’t Mix campaign uniting citizens, businesses, groups, governments, tribes, and faith communities in support of shutting down Line 5 to avoid a catastrophic Great Lakes oil spill.

Please submit your comments on the State of Michigan’s Line 5 alternatives study by August 4 by visiting the Oil & Water Don’t Mix website here: www.OilandWaterDontMix.org.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abrupt cancellation of conflict-plagued Line 5 study sparks demand for transparency from DEQ

Published on June 21st, 2017 by - News

LANSING – Oil & Water Don’t Mix today said the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality’s decision to cancel a study that was rife with conflicts of interest amplifies the need to shut down the Line 5 pipelines once and for all – and called on state leaders to disclose all details of the draft study that was plagued by conflicts of interest.

“Citizens groups have been sounding the alarm bells for months about the massive conflicts of interest between Big Oil companies and the departments that are charged with regulating them, and this cancellation raises more questions than it answers,” said David Holtz, Chair of Sierra Club Michigan Chapter and Oil & Water Don’t Mix campaign coordinator. “The State of Michigan owes all citizens a full account of how and why this study was allowed to continue, even in light of the massive conflicts of interest. Michiganders deserve answers.”

“This study was tainted by huge conflicts of interest and a complete lack of transparency from the state, all with Line 5 continuing to pose a clear danger to our Great Lakes, our economy, and our way of life,” said Liz Kirkwood, executive director of For Love of Water. “In addition to a full and complete disclosure of the facts regarding this cancellation, we demand that Attorney General Schuette start acting like the lead attorney for the people of Michigan, who elected him to protect us and the Great Lakes, and shut down Line 5 without delay.”

# # #

 

Don’t delay! Submit your public comment today!

 

Click here to read the post on the Michigan Petroleum Pipelines website! 

 

 

PR: State of Michigan Takes a “Holiday” from Preventing Line 5 Oil Spill Disaster in Great Lakes

Published on March 9th, 2017 by - Reports & Media Releases

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                                         March 9, 2017

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

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

 

State of Michigan Takes a “Holiday” from Preventing Line 5 Oil Spill Disaster in Great Lakes

Snyder Administration Watches and Waits as the 64-year-old Dual Pipelines Missing Their Anti-Rust Coating and Structural Supports Continue to Use Mackinac Straits as a High-Risk Shortcut to Private Profits

TRAVERSE CITY, MI – The Snyder administration, in two letters (here and here) released Wednesday, indicated it will seek more information, but take no enforcement action, while continuing to accept Enbridge’s assurances that all is well with dual oil pipelines in the Mackinac Straits that the Canadian company itself has indicated are missing portions of an external, anti-rust coating and lacking 18 anchor supports to prevent the pipes from grinding and bending along the bottom and bursting.

The letters – signed by Attorney General Bill Schuette, Michigan Department of Natural Resources Director Keith Creagh, and Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Director Heidi Grether – describe “inviting” Enbridge to explain the company’s September 2016 report that identifies 19 areas along the submerged steel pipes where the anti-corrosion coating is missing. Enbridge’s report euphemistically calls the missing portions “holidays,” industry jargon for areas where the coating has worn or fallen off. The report outlines a plan for assessing Line 5’s integrity where the coating is gone and acidic waste excreted by invasive mussels that blanket the pipes could be causing corrosion.

Enbridge claims that the report is merely “hypothetical,” even though the report flatly states that the external coating is missing and the words “hypothetical” and “theoretical” are not found in the document.

“The State of Michigan is moving in slow motion to question Enbridge’s claims that its own report doesn’t mean what is plainly says,” said Liz Kirkwood, an environmental attorney and executive director of FLOW, a Traverse City-based water law and policy center dedicated to upholding the public’s rights to use and benefit from the Great Lakes. “When the pipelines finally fail, will the state invite Enbridge to explain what the thick, black substance is pouring out of the 64-year-old pipes and into the drinking water source for nearby Mackinac Island, St. Ignace, and roughly 5 million Michiganders?”

The state issued its March 8 letter in response to February 17 correspondence from the Oil & Water Don’t Mix campaign, which FLOW co-leads with several other leading organizations, that raised grave and detailed concerns about the condition of Line 5 and called for its immediate shutdown.

An Enbridge representative is expected to explain its report at the March 13 quarterly meeting in Lansing of the governor-appointed Michigan Pipeline Safety Advisory Board, whose members include Attorney General Schuette. The advisory board is overseeing the completion of two nominally 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 June 2017.

Enbridge is infamous for leaking more than one million gallons of heavy tar sands oil into the Kalamazoo River watershed near Marshall, Michigan, in 2010, fouling nearly 40 miles of the river and shore, sickening numerous people, harming wildlife, and forcing more than 100 families to permanently abandon their homes and property.

The failure to adequately maintain the Line 5 pipelines, including a lack of supports to prevent bending of the pipeline – is a breach of Enbridge’s 1953 legal easement agreement with the State of Michigan that allows the company to occupy public waters and state bottomlands. The failures documented in the Enbridge report add to the mounting evidence of the unacceptable risk that this infrastructure poses to the Great Lakes.

A three-minute video of Line 5 pipelines in the Straits, researched and edited by FLOW’s engineering expert Dr. Ed Timm, reveals the physical deterioration of Line 5, with missing and dislodged coating, broken bands, detached wooden structural slats, unsupported segments, and possible rust and pitting.

In addition, a just-released technical note prepared by Dr. Timm regarding Line 5 reinforces the urgent need for the state to immediately shut down Line 5 while it evaluates the integrity of the aging infrastructure that pumps nearly 23 million gallons of oil a day through the Mackinac Straits before eventually reaching refineries in Sarnia, Ontario. Specifically, this technical note concludes the following:

  • Line 5 is not immune to corrosion and stress cracking despite its thick walls, contrary to Enbridge’s claims;
  • The asphalt enamel based coating system is compromised or missing on many areas of the pipe;
  • The extent of the coverage by invasive mussels on the pipelines makes it “impossible” to evaluate how much of the coating system is compromised;
  • The easement-required wooden slats that were designed to protect from point loads and abrasion are missing entirely on portions of the pipelines; and
  • The peak currents in the Mackinac Straits are nearly twice the maximum velocity considered when the pipeline was designed, adding significant stress;
  • A full study of the integrity of the coating system that includes a careful examination of the impact of the biofouling on the pipelines is critical to making a proper fitness-for-service evaluation.

“The evidence demands that the State of Michigan respond and fulfill its affirmative fiduciary duty,” wrote Jim Olson, an environmental attorney and FLOW’s president, in a March 9 follow-up letter to the State of Michigan. “It is not enough to stand by the sidelines and merely request additional information from Enbridge given the high risk of a catastrophic oil spill in the Great Lakes that would devastate our public drinking waters and our water-dependent economy. ‘Pure Michigan’ should not just be an advertising slogan.”

For more information, visit the FLOW website at www.FLOWforWater.org

# # #

FINAL FLOW-Line 5 Media Release-Pipeline Coating 3-9-2017

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.

 

Interview with Brooke Weatherford from Eightfold Creative

Published on December 30th, 2016 by - News

I support keeping oil out of the Great Lakes

FLOW is forever spreading awareness. It is our job to educate people about public trust and about what is happening with the Great Lakes in the world today – the joys and potential threats, and what we can do about our water. Part of that awareness is through social media. We teamed up with Eightfold Creative to gather awareness in an eye-catching way to important Great Lakes issues. I have Brooke Weatherford here today to talk about the process.

 

Brooke, thanks for joining us. Tell us a bit about yourself.

My name is Brooke Weatherford. I am a recent graduate of Michigan State University’s Master’s in Advertising program with a specialization in Non-Profit Fundraising. I earned my B.A. from MSU as well in 2015 in Marketing. I currently work as a social media coordinator under the brand Eightfold Creative out of Detroit, Michigan. Eightfold Creative is a high-quality video production company founded by a group of my friends in 2013 that has grown into a highly competitive force in the industry. I have always been passionate about advertising strategy and knew that I wanted to do some type of creative branding. Two years ago, I began independently managing social media pages for a few local businesses under the Eightfold brand. Fast forward to today, and I have been doing social media management, content creation, and design work consistently, while finishing my degrees and working on a number of other Eightfold Projects. 
 

Tell us some more about Eightfold Creative, and what makes it unique.

Eightfold is unique because it was started from the ground up by a group of MSU students in film and business only five short years ago. Since then, the company has acquired a number of high profile clients and has developed strong relationships with top level advertising agencies in Detroit. Eightfold is the perfect example of the next generation taking the reigns of an industry and doing things their own way. The culture and work ethic of this group is truly outstanding, and even though I never expected to be immersed in the film industry, I really love where it has taken me. The best way to understand Eightfold is to visit our site and view the productions. They truly speak for themselves. 
 

It’s a Michigan-based company. And a lot of the work you have been doing for FLOW focuses specifically on Michigan and the Great Lakes. A passion and personal investment is often present in your work. What instigated this passion for the Great Lakes?

I have always had a strong love for the outdoors. Growing up, my parents always had a boat, and I would spend every weekend out on the lakes being rocked to sleep by the waves, and waking up to the sound of the Lake Michigan seagulls. As I have grown older and began traveling the world, I have developed a sense of pride for Michigan and its natural beauty, feeling almost as if it is a secret that people don’t always understand unless they have experienced it first-hand. Growing up in East Lansing, I learned about community activism early on, and participated in it throughout high school. But the idea of involving it into my career didn’t hit me until midway through my college career. As I traversed through a series of corporate internships, I learned more and more about what it means to love what you do. I found that getting involved and pursuing ways to contribute to helping non-profits by doing what I do best was a way to get fulfillment out of my career. Today, I have worked on social media and branding campaigns for 4 non-profits and hope to expand this portfolio. I spent last summer creating media for an eco-village in the Panamanian jungle, where I learned exactly what it meant to live 100% sustainably, in harmony with the land and water, and how to communicate the teachings of that lifestyle back to people at home.  Much of my free time today is spent loving the outdoors and surrounding myself with that culture.
 

That’s excellent. There is so much outdoor beauty right here in Michigan. To take that one step further, tell us about how your experiences inspired your ideas for the social media campaigns. 

The idea behind the imagery in the campaigns for FLOW were based in the goals of creating an emotional connection that would boost awareness about key issues like shutting down Line 5. Fortunately, the beauty of the outdoors is something that we all have in common, so using the beautiful attention grabbing photography to stop people from scrolling was an easy first step for me. Beyond that, the key to this campaign was consistency and simplicity, and the call to action about sharing that really made the connections with people. The posts are meant not only to educate but to give users a sense of pride by posting the photo. When they share a post that clearly states their support for a cause like protecting wildlife, or keeping pollution out of the Great Lakes, they automatically gain rapport from their online peers. Caring about something is becoming trendy, and posting about it online helps people not only feel like they are helping contribute, but puts them in a positive light in their friends’ eyes. Capitalizing on these emotions to boost awareness about important environmental issues was my primary strategy with this campaign. 
 

Aside from sharing the posts, what can our readers do to help contribute?

I think the best way to help care for the Great Lakes is to talk about them with the people around you. As impactful as social media can be, it is the social part that makes the most difference. Telling your friends, family, and co-workers about risks the Great Lakes are facing, or educating them on how to be a more responsible citizen is what will make the most difference. Being vocally appreciative for the natural world is another way to make people think. If someone who respects you hears you speak fondly of the Great Lakes and their pristine beauty, they may consider their own impact or appreciation more deeply. 10 of these conversations could then turn into 40 and then into 100 and then into thousands. A change in culture is the only way to make a real difference, and changing culture starts with the confident and sincere voice of a friend. 
 

Well, we have been glad to hear your voice today. Brooke, where can people find out more about you and your work?

You can learn more about me and my work at www.brookeweatherford.com,

and also at www.eightfold-creative.com.

 

Thanks for sharing, Brooke.