Enbridge line 5

[scottish]

The governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer, has given Enbridge notice that their easement for this oil and gas pipeline will expire next Tuesday.    The pipeline travels across the straits of Mackinac (between Lake Michigan and Lake Huron) which is a major shipping route.   There were 2 incidents in the last few years where ship's anchors had caught on the pipeline.   Fortunately there have been no spills, however there is a not unreasonable environmental concern that we may not be so lucky next time.

There's a big legal and political exercise underway to determine if Michigan has the legal ability to shut down the pipeline.    This is a really big deal for Canada - the pipeline provides approximately half of the crude oil which is refined into gasoline for our major population centers in Ontario and Quebec.   It's also a big deal in Michigan, but not nearly as big as it is in Canada.  Making it even more interesting, 14 state attorney generals and 2 state governors have piled on to support Governor Whitmer in her endeavour.   

So what's going on in the states?   This isn't a very friendly move.   I get the environmental concern....    is this the only way the environmental risk can be addressed?    The big refiners are building contingency plans to ship crude oil in via the Saint Lawrence seaway and the great lakes.   This contingency doesn't sound like a great environmental solution either.

[PDXTabs]

My knee jerk reaction is: why don't you just refine that tar sands oil you keep exporting to the USA?

[RetiredAt63]

My knee jerk reaction is: why don't you just refine that tar sands oil you keep exporting to the USA?

Geography. 

Plus a lot of the companies operating in the tar sands are American owned, and the refineries that process that type of crude are mostly on the Gulf.  There is a reason Alberta is sometimes called Texas of Canada.

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-say-that-Alberta-is-the-Texas-of-Canada

[PDXTabs]

Plus a lot of the companies operating in the tar sands are American owned, and the refineries that process that type of crude are mostly on the Gulf.

Wikipedia says that Athabasca started production before I was born. I'm not sure that Michigan voters are going to care that Canada never developed enough refining capabilities.

[RetiredAt63]

Plus a lot of the companies operating in the tar sands are American owned, and the refineries that process that type of crude are mostly on the Gulf.

Wikipedia says that Athabasca started production before I was born. I'm not sure that Michigan voters are going to care that Canada never developed enough refining capabilities.

We used to have way more refineries, most got shut down because imports were cheaper.  Story of our manufacturing, we used to have vaccine manufacturing too.  Foreign companies buy them up, then close them down. 

Plus, first, we don't use nearly close to the oil that we produce, we have excess.  The US burns our oil and has to import less from overseas (think OPEC).  Second, refineries are set for the type of oil coming in.  Not all crudes are the same.

Things can change.  This article is interesting.  It is about Montreal because Montreal has a good ocean port (the St. Lawrence Seaway starts just upriver) and refineries (used to have more).  In 5 years Montreal went from 1% US oil to 37% US oil.  That was 4 years ago, no idea what is happening now.  In my area the trend is away from heating oil, and this year at least gasoline and aviation fuel were use were down.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/11/13/news/guess-where-quebec-gets-its-oil

[MDM]

So what's going on in the states?   This isn't a very friendly move.   I get the environmental concern....    is this the only way the environmental risk can be addressed?    The big refiners are building contingency plans to ship crude oil in via the Saint Lawrence seaway and the great lakes.   This contingency doesn't sound like a great environmental solution either.

Yes, it's not clear whether the "cure" or the "disease" has more risk.

Some Michigan propane suppliers switching to rail cars in anticipation of Line 5 closure is one article that seems objective enough.  Internet searches will find many others....

[scottish]

Plus a lot of the companies operating in the tar sands are American owned, and the refineries that process that type of crude are mostly on the Gulf.

Wikipedia says that Athabasca started production before I was born. I'm not sure that Michigan voters are going to care that Canada never developed enough refining capabilities.

The refiners *are* Canadian.   It's just the pipeline that cuts through Michigan.   This was probably a lot cheaper than going the long way around Lake Superior back when they built it in 1953.   The pipeline also delivers quite a bit of propane to Michigan...

As I understand more of the backstory, I have a lot of sympathy for the environmental position.    The fact that a ship's anchor could catch on the pipeline is a huge red flag that should have been addressed a long time ago.   

There were some crazy ideas around the tar sands back in the day.   Some oil patch engineers thought they should detonate nuclear weapons underground to melt all the tar!    Personally, I think the tar oil sands is a big mess and we should figure out better ways to make a buck.

[Tyler durden]

There were 2 incidents in the last few years where ship's anchors had caught on the pipeline.   Fortunately there have been no spills, however there is a not unreasonable environmental concern that we may not be so lucky next time.

2 incidents seems pretty minor. Were the incidents more than minor? And if they are expected to repeat themselves and the risk with no solution, I can see why the governor has the concern.

[RetiredAt63]

There were 2 incidents in the last few years where ship's anchors had caught on the pipeline.   Fortunately there have been no spills, however there is a not unreasonable environmental concern that we may not be so lucky next time.

2 incidents seems pretty minor. Were the incidents more than minor? And if they are expected to repeat themselves and the risk with no solution, I can see why the governor has the concern.

That seems like a relatively easy fix compared to some of the other potential problems.  A proposed pipeline here was going to go across major tributaries in areas that are seismically active.  Pipeline plus river plus earthquake?  Not good.  Railway cars are iffy, here we still remember the Lac Megantic fire.  We all still remember the Exxon Valdez, right?  The thing is, oil is hard to transport safely, no matter the method.   Which means good environmental controls no matter what the method. 

[HPstache]

Ooooh international drama... I'll be following this, could get interesting.  Sounds like from the tiny amount of research I have done, canada has offered to bore and cement line the pipes under water in the past but the US said no.

[GuitarStv]

Interesting.  I don't know enough about the history of this dispute to make informed comments at this point.

[gooki]

Just put a line of buoys along the pipeline route to better mark it and whack fucking big fines for anyone that anchors within 100 meters of a buoy.

You can use realtime satellite imagery and cameras on the buoys with some basic AI to police it.

Then ensure there are cut off valves at either end of the lake to limit any damage in the event of an incident. (I expect they have these already).

And finally have an oil spill emergency kit large enough to contain 2x the amount of oil in the pipeline section of the lake in the vacinity with trained professionals ready to go at a moments notice.

The cost for this system and any pipeline maintenance is paid for by the oil exporter/pipeline owner.

[GuitarStv]

Just put a line of buoys along the pipeline route to better mark it and whack fucking big fines for anyone that anchors within 100 meters of a buoy.

That's what I thought too, but apparently the concern is that an 'emergency anchor' event might still occur.  Seems unlikely, but dumping barrels of oil into our great lakes is worth being very careful about.

[scottish]

Just put a line of buoys along the pipeline route to better mark it and whack fucking big fines for anyone that anchors within 100 meters of a buoy.

That's what I thought too, but apparently the concern is that an 'emergency anchor' event might still occur.  Seems unlikely, but dumping barrels of oil into our great lakes is worth being very careful about.

The last case was a ship that unknowingly dragged it's anchor over the pipeline.    Those anchors are pretty big - 12,000 pounds.    Enbridge has a patrol boat that goes about warning ships to make sure their anchors are stowed.     Linky:   https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2021/04/enbridge-settles-with-shipping-firm-after-2018-line-5-anchor-strike.html

[Luke Warm]

how big is the pipe and how wide is the span of water? they can do some fairly sizable directional bores now.

[scottish]

how big is the pipe and how wide is the span of water? they can do some fairly sizable directional bores now.

Here's a photo.   The article that goes with the photo provides some backstory as well:  https://www.oilandwaterdontmix.org/problem

[ender]

Ooooh international drama... I'll be following this, could get interesting.  Sounds like from the tiny amount of research I have done, canada has offered to bore and cement line the pipes under water in the past but the US said no.

This seems like the obvious solution to me, if Canada was already willing to do this...

[HPstache]

Ooooh international drama... I'll be following this, could get interesting.  Sounds like from the tiny amount of research I have done, canada has offered to bore and cement line the pipes under water in the past but the US said no.

This seems like the obvious solution to me, if Canada was already willing to do this...

I would say the problem is that the US is heading the direction of "All oil pipelines = BAD"... even if it's an improvement.  Does not surprise me in the least that they would say no.

[scottish]

I'm being pedantic, but it's not actually Canada's pipeline, it's a Canadian company's pipeline.     We're not so far gone as to have the government take over the mean so oil production!

I suspect the bigger problem is that, rather that building pipelines that are very safe, Enbridge builds pipelines that are as inexpensive as possible.    The company has a long history of spills and doesn't seem to be very interested in learning from experience.   

[bacchi]

I'm being pedantic, but it's not actually Canada's pipeline, it's a Canadian company's pipeline.     We're not so far gone as to have the government take over the mean so oil production!

I suspect the bigger problem is that, rather that building pipelines that are very safe, Enbridge builds pipelines that are as inexpensive as possible.    The company has a long history of spills and doesn't seem to be very interested in learning from experience.   

The Kalamazoo River leak comes to mind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalamazoo_River_oil_spill

The NTSB report is pretty damning of Enbridge's ineptitude (most likely driven by $$$).

NTSB Chair Deborah Hersman likened "Enbridge's poor handling" of the spill to the Keystone Kops...

[Luke Warm]

how big is the pipe and how wide is the span of water? they can do some fairly sizable directional bores now.

Here's a photo.   The article that goes with the photo provides some backstory as well:  https://www.oilandwaterdontmix.org/problem

cool! thanks!
i've worked on projects boring 12" water line about a mile and that was 15 years ago. i bet it could be done with 24" pipes although that's a pretty long span. elon musk has the boring company. i wonder if he could cut a tunnel to run some pipes through?

[roomtempmayo]

I'm being pedantic, but it's not actually Canada's pipeline, it's a Canadian company's pipeline.     We're not so far gone as to have the government take over the mean so oil production!

I suspect the bigger problem is that, rather that building pipelines that are very safe, Enbridge builds pipelines that are as inexpensive as possible.    The company has a long history of spills and doesn't seem to be very interested in learning from experience.   

Correct.

The other issue is that states do not have the power to tax the oil that moves through the pipeline.

That creates a situation where they have moderate incentives to allow new construction (some construction jobs and sales taxes), but little or no incentive to continue permitting legacy infrastructure. 

The older the infrastructure, the more risk there is for states in the form of pollution, and it looks like all risk for little or no reward.  Meanwhile, the oil companies have exactly the opposite incentive to maximize the return on their sunk costs.

So, here we are: Michigan gets nothing for allowing 1950s infrastructure to continue but the ROI to Enbridge is likely pretty high.

If states were able to tax oil passing through the pipeline directly, I suspect we'd have a whole lot more pipelines.