Tag: Line 5 alternatives

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

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

FLOW Releases New Fact Sheets Regarding Line 5

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:

# # #