PIPELINE PERIL

Transcription

PIPELINE PERIL

PIPELINE
PERIL
Tar Sands
Expansion
and the Threat
to Wildlife in
the Great Lakes
Region
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
AUTHORS
Shelley Kath
Paul Blackburn
Jim Murphy
REVIEWERS/EDITORS
Andy Buchsbaum
Lena Moffitt
Neil Kagan
Hope Lemieux
COVER PHOTOS
top background: Emily Stark; inset: National Transportation Safety Board
bottom from left: Gary Lackie/NWF photo contest, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
David Kenyon, Michael Thomasson
This Report is available online at www.nwf.com/PipelinePeril
© 2014 National Wildlife Federation
ii
| NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
KATHRYN KASS
F
rom the skyscrapers of bustling Chicago to the remote, rocky shores
of Lake Superior, the Great Lakes region is one of America’s most
precious resources for people and wildlife. The Great Lakes directly
offer countless opportunities to connect with the outdoors.1 Few places
on earth grant as many opportunities to enjoy wildlife from fishing to
bird watching to hiking. The Great Lakes region also provides a multitude
of sporting opportunities including sailing, kayaking, running, biking and
skiing along the gorgeous shores of these immense fresh water seas. The
Great Lakes are the largest unfrozen freshwater source in the world and
the region provides valuable habitat for iconic species like Moose, Lynx,
Wolves and Loons, as well as endangered species like the beautiful Karner
Blue Butterfly, Cerulean Warbler and prehistoric Lake Sturgeon.2
Yet, a growing threat looms, putting the health and future of the Great Lakes region at grave risk.
The region is encircled by a vast array of pipelines sending toxic, spill-prone, and impossible-to-cleanup tar sands oil through the Great Lakes region. Tar sands oil is a carbon-intensive, sticky substance
that is mined and drilled from deposits in the evergreen forests and rich wetlands of Northern
Alberta. This substance is eventually refined into gasoline, jet fuel, and other transportation fuels.3
Tar sands oil poses several direct threats to the Great Lakes region:
➤ TOXIC TAR SANDS OIL SPILLS AND OIL TRAIN EXPLOSIONS. With pipelines throughout
the Great Lakes region, the threat of catastrophic tar sands oil spills imperils extensive habitat
NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION
|1
RONALD L. BELL/U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
provide one in ten Americans with water for drinking and agriculture, and
MINNESOTA
WISCONSIN
ILLINOIS
KEY
Possible Expansions
Public Expansions
No Change
Oil Refinery
Treasured Habitat Areas
Oil Terminal
Drinking Water Supply
and water supply areas. The Great Lakes region has already suffered a horrific spill in 2010,
when nearly a million gallons of tar sands oil spilled into the Kalamazoo River.4 Thousands of
birds, turtles, and small mammals, such as Beavers, were affected by the spill, and many died.
Portions of a 40-mile stretch of the Kalamazoo River are still polluted and will likely be affected
for decades. Tar sands oil pipelines currently threaten areas where wildlife thrive such as the
Chippewa National Forest, Saint Louis River Estuary, and Necedah National Wildlife Refuge.
Plans are currently being drawn up to allow tar sands oil to enter the Great Lakes region via
tanker and some is already starting to come in by rail.5 Such threats pose further spill risks to
the Great Lakes region. The tragic explosion in Lac Mégantic, Quebec last summer resulted in
the deaths of 47 people and destruction of the town.6 While it was not tar sands oil, this example
shows the extreme threats that increased oil transportation by rail and other modes pose to the
Great Lakes region and the surrounding communities.
➤ CLIMATE IMPACTS. Tar sands oil is far more carbon polluting than conventional fossil
fuels, with up to a 37% higher life-cycle basis than regular oil.7 The tar sands oil industry
currently plans a massive expansion of the mining and export of tar sands oil provided they
are able to transport their product to market. These tar sands oil transportation projects and
the development they will trigger will serve to lock in run-away climate change. The Great
Lakes region has already begun seeing the harsh impacts of climate change, such as reduced
water levels (due in particular to decreased winter ice cover allowing more evaporation),
increased frequency of intense storm events (altering the timing of inflows), and warmer water
temperatures, all of which feed massive toxic algae blooms.8 Toxic algal blooms make recreation
in the Great Lakes dangerous, smelly and unpleasant, and can also cause fish and wildlife dead
zones in the usually productive Great Lakes.9 These harms will plague the Great Lakes region
and harm the wildlife that depends on it if climate change is not curbed.
NATIONAL
2 | NATIONAL
WILDLIFE
WILDLIFE
FEDERATION
FEDERATION
|2
from the oil refineries processing tar sands oil throughout the
region. Unrefined tar sands oil is heavier and contains substantially
more toxins than conventional oil, resulting in a more intensive and
polluting refining process. These pollutants may be released into
the communities surrounding the refineries, harming wildlife and
jeopardizing the health of people living nearby. Refining tar sands oil
also creates a harmful, coal-like solid byproduct called petroleum coke,
or petcoke. This byproduct is often stored in massive, uncovered piles
outside of refineries, frequently along rivers, allowing dust from the
piles to contaminate neighboring rivers and communities. Petcoke can
also be burned to create electricity, releasing more carbon pollution
into the atmosphere and further exacerbating all the negative impacts
of climate change.10
These threats will grow if the tar sands oil industry is allowed to expand.
The tar sands oil industry is seeking to send even more tar sands oil
through the Great Lakes region in an attempt to move its product
abroad and receive top market prices. Chiefly, the industry is seeking to
The tar sands oil
industry is seeking
to send even more
tar sands oil through
the Great Lakes
region in an attempt
to move its product
abroad and receive top
market prices.
approximately double the amount of tar sands oil that crosses the border
along a pipeline
called the Alberta Clipper.11 The Alberta
Bypass Project
(800,000 bpd)
Clipper pipeline is the aorta of Enbridge’s
pipeline system, which winds through the
Great Lakes region. This expansion would
New 36-inch
Pipeline
allow the industry to push forward plans to
transport tar sands oil to key export points on
the Gulf Coast and East Coast.
Despite committing to a public process of
Canada
review and permitting before any tar sands oil
New Border
Segment
(34-inch diameter)
U.S.
expansion in the Great Lakes region involving
the Alberta Clipper would be decided upon,
450,000 bpd limit
the State Department recently approved a
behind-the-scenes scheme by Enbridge to
almost double the amount of tar sands oil
New 36-inch
Pipeline
Existing
Line 3
Line 67
New
Pipeline
Not drawn to scale
Enbridge has hatched an illegal scheme to try and
avoid review of the impacts of tar sands expansion to
wildlife and natural places in the Great Lakes region
by manipulating border flows on parallel pipelines.
However, this scheme clearly violates the need for
public review and is being challenged in court.
|3
AINDRILA MUKHOPADHYAYFROM SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA - FLICKR
➤ DIRTY REFINERIES. More tar sands will mean more pollution
LA VACA VEGETARIANA AT FLICKR.COM
moving into the Great Lakes region. This scheme would temporarily divert the flow of tar sands oil
from the Alberta Clipper to a new pipe segment that would replace the border crossing of an older
parallel line, which had been used for moving conventional oil.12 This approval occurred with no
public process or input,13 undermining the public review process and the legal permitting process
the State Department had committed to follow. A diverse coalition of indigenous and conservation
groups are challenging this illegal approval in court.
Something can be done.
The State Department must reverse this decision, prohibit
Enbridge from moving forward with any capacity increase until the current public review process is
completed and ensure the President’s climate test is applied to any plan to increase the amount of
toxic tar sands entering the Great Lakes region.14
This report details the threat of tar sands oil expansion to the wildlife and people of the Great
Lakes region and explains why tar sands oil expansion presents too high a risk. Fortunately, concern
over the threat of tar sands is rising, and communities are speaking up against risky tar sands oil
projects and in favor of responsible, wildlife friendly clean energy solutions.
NATIONAL
4 | NATIONAL
WILDLIFE
WILDLIFE
FEDERATION
FEDERATION
|4
To protect wildlife, resources, and communities, we recommend:
➤ The State Department should conduct a thorough public environmental review of the proposed
Alberta Clipper expansion that accounts for all of the risks posed to the Great Lakes region and
beyond from increased tar sands oil transport across the border.
➤ The State Department should consider the comprehensive impact of the multiple tar sands oil
pipelines with permit applications before them, including the Alberta Clipper and Keystone XL.
Taken together, these two lines will have a substantial impact on the industry’s ability to expand
and create more pollution and spill risks.
➤ President Obama should consistently apply his “climate test”15 to all tar sands oil pipelines, and
reject them if they are found to significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution, as he
has committed to doing with Keystone XL.
➤ President Obama should deny the Alberta Clipper expansion because it poses too high a risk to
the people and wildlife of the Great Lakes region, fails his climate test, and is therefore not in
the nation’s best interest.
➤ President Obama should direct his Administration to utilize existing regulatory authority
to require the best technology and safest methods for transporting tar sands oil. The
Administration must update old, industry-friendly pipeline safety and rail regulations that
unnecessarily place wildlife and communities at risk.
➤ States in the Great Lakes region should put in place policies, like Clean Fuel Standards, that
will reduce reliance on dirty fossil fuels and speed the transition to clean, renewable sources of
KELLY DANIELS/NWF PHOTO CONTEST
energy that protect wildlife and people.
|5
The Great Lakes Region
A GLOBAL TREASURE
UNDER THREAT
STACI MORGAN
MDF/CREATIVE COMMONS
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
T
he Great Lakes are among the world’s most valuable
resources. At 95,000 square miles of surface area, the
Great Lakes hold approximately 22% of the planet’s
fresh water, and constitute the world’s largest source of
available fresh water.16 The Great Lakes are a mecca for
outdoor recreation and wildlife enjoyment. From remote shores
where Loons call, Wolves howl, and the Milky Way paints
the night sky, to the busy metropolises of Chicago, Detroit,
and Cleveland where waterfront parks and beaches serve as
oases for outdoor enjoyment, the region provides millions
of Americans with the opportunity to experience wildlife
and nature.
The Great Lakes basin “supports more than one-tenth of the
U.S. population and more than one-fourth of the population
of Canada.”20 Approximately 7% of the total U.S. agricultural
production occurs in the basin (nearly 25% for Canada) as
well.21 A critical source of drinking water in the middle of
the continent, the Great Lakes provide drinking water to
approximately 40 million people.22
6
RICHARD ROTHSTEIN
Together, the massive Great Lakes basin makes up “one of the
world’s most remarkable ecosystems”17 containing globally
significant biological diversity that has been described as
“unique in the world.”18 It provides habitat for species from
Bald Eagles to Moose, serves as an immense fishery, and gives
home to a great many threatened and endangered species,
including Lake Sturgeon, the Canada Lynx, the Kirtland’s
Warbler, the Karner Blue Butterfly, and the Indiana Bat.19
However, this highly important region is under immense threat.
The multiple risks associated with the extraction, transport and
combustion of tar sands oil—one of the dirtiest, high-carbon
fuels on the planet—jeopardizes the Great Lakes region and the
millions of people and countless wildlife species that depend
on the treasured resources of this area.
Tar sands oil is a dirty, carbon-intensive form of crude oil
transported from vast extraction sites in northern Alberta
to the Great Lakes region. Today, tar sands oil is transported
to and through the Great Lakes region via pipeline, rail, and
barge, and could come across the lakes on tankers if tar sands
expansion continues. Ruptures, accidents and spills happen on
all transport options.
Most tar sands oil shipments, however, occur via pipeline.23
Enbridge, a major pipeline company, owns the system of
pipelines that carry tar sands oil from Alberta to and then
through the Great Lakes region. Of these, a line called the
Alberta Clipper functions as the “aorta,” pumping tar sands
across the border into North Dakota to a byzantine array of
pipelines that then carry tar sands through the region and
beyond, increasingly bound for export terminals.
Most tar sands oil is transported as a heavy grade oil known
as diluted bitumen, or “dilbit.” Dilbit is heavy, toxic, and nearly
impossible to clean up.24 Tar sands oil spills could cause
irreparable harm in the Great Lakes region and to the bountiful
wildlife of this wonderful area. Pipelines and rail routes cut
across huge swaths of forested land, rivers, wetlands, lakes and
other bodies of water that wildlife depend upon. At-risk wildlife
includes the majestic Moose in Minnesota’s north woods, the
tiny endangered Illinois Chorus Frog near the Mississippi River
in Illinois, the Trumpeter Swans in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula
and the Whooping Cranes in Wisconsin. The Great Lakes region
cannot afford the risks of tar sands oil.
What is Tar Sands
Tar sands oil spills could
cause irreparable harm in the
Great Lakes region and to
the bountiful wildlife of this
wonderful area. Pipelines and
rail routes cut across huge
swaths of forested land, rivers,
wetlands, lakes and other
bodies of water that wildlife
depend upon.
JANE BECKER
|7
Oil and Why It Is
So Dangerous to People and Wildlife
COREL
T
sands oil development, and many species of birds, mammals
and endangered wildlife like Whooping Crane and Woodland
Caribou are threatened by habitat destruction and the
massive toxic tailings ponds that birds often mistake for safe
landing sites.29
Because it is so
heavy and sticky, tar
sands oil cannot be
pumped out of the
ground in liquid form
like conventional
oil, so producers
must extract it using
energy-intensive
processes. Originally,
most tar sands
oil extraction was
accomplished through open pit mining.26 While surface mining
continues, an even more energy-intensive method called
“in-situ” extraction is now largely employed.27 This involves
drilling a series of horizontal pipelines some 600-700 feet
into the ground and injecting steam to heat up and soften
the bitumen for extraction.28 In addition to using enormous
amounts of energy, this form of drilling fragments and destroys
large tracts of evergreen boreal forest—habitat for countless
North American migratory birds and other wildlife. Overall,
an area the size of Florida is potentially threatened by tar
A Carbon Bomb
8
GARY LACKIE/ NWF PHOTO CONTEST
ar sands oil is found in the ground as a mix of tar-like
bitumen and sand. The largest deposit exists in Northern
Alberta.25 Similar to hardened tar in consistency, tar
sands oil is a mixture of sand, clay, water and a semi-solid
form of petroleum formally known as “bitumen” that has little
resemblance to conventional crude oil.
Tar sands oil is one of the most carbon-intensive forms of oil
on the planet.30 Average greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from
tar sands oil extraction and upgrading (a pre-refining process)
are an estimated three to five times as intensive per barrel
as emissions from conventional oil.31 Over its full cycle (from
production to transport to refining to transport), tar sands oil
is between 8% and 37% more carbon polluting than regular
crude oil32 due to higher emissions caused by mining, drilling
and separating the bitumen from the sand and clay in which it
is found.33 Estimates by groups evaluating numbers from the
International Energy Agency show that tar sands expansion
plans, if allowed, would greatly exceed carbon pollution levels
scientists have agreed would avert catastrophic climate
change impacts.34
Extreme Spill and Transport Risk
Since it is landlocked in a remote region, getting tar sands
oil to market means transporting it over long distances by
pipeline, rail, ship or barge. This transport creates risks for
wildlife and communities along those routes. Nowhere has this
across inland waterways by barge. While thus far companies
have only transported tar sands oil by barge via rivers, such
as the Mississippi,41 signs suggest the Great Lakes are next.42
That could mean ships as well as barges. A barge spill on the
Great Lakes would be catastrophic, with oil potentially coating
habitat and shorelines for miles.
been more tragically illustrated than with the disastrous July
2010 spill of roughly one million gallons of tar sands oil into the
Kalamazoo River, the largest inland oil spill in U.S. history. After
pouring into the river, much of the tar sands oil sank to the
bottom, causing widespread contamination, which has proved
nearly impossible to remediate.35
While spills, leaks and ruptures are becoming almost
commonplace in the world of crude oil transport, the risks of
moving tar sands are greater than those associated with the
transport of conventional crude oil. Tar sands oil is so heavy
it must be mixed with toxic diluents to be moved through
pipelines or onto barges,36 and the increased friction from
thick tar sands oil pushing through a pipeline makes it hotter.37
The heat may increase the chances of a pipeline rupture, and
once spilled, the weight of the tar sands oil causes it to sink
when released into bodies of water.38
Pollution and “Petcoke” at Refineries
Refining tar sands oil to produce fuels like gasoline and diesel
causes serious air pollution problems for local communities
and wildlife. In addition to producing toxic air emissions,
refineries located on rivers and lakes pose spill risks to fresh
water, which is what happened at the BP Whiting, Indiana
refinery. This refinery spilled roughly 1,200 gallons of crude
oil, likely tar sands, into Lake Michigan in March 2014.43
Fortunately, this spill was relatively small and appears to have
been contained, but it serves as a warning of the dangers of
refining tar sands on the banks of the Great Lakes.
In addition to pipelines, the tar sands oil industry has also
begun to use other modes of transport. “Crude-by-rail”
for example, while not serving as an economic or scalable
replacement for tar sands oil pipelines, is expanding with
derailments, explosions and spills as the sad result.39 Since
2005, there has been a 70-fold increase in oil rail shipments in
the United States, with approximately 800,000 bpd currently
being shipped.40 Rail is used mainly to move oil from the
Bakken fields in the Dakotas and Montana, but tar sands oil
shipments by rail from Canada to U.S. refineries are on the
rise. Tar sands oil is now also being transported long distances
MIKE HUDEMA
NWF PHOTO
Refining heavy grade tar sands oil also creates a solid
byproduct similar to coal but with even higher carbon
emissions, known as petroleum coke or “petcoke.”44 Heaps of
this dusty, polluting substance are now piling up near refineries
in places like Chicago and Detroit. These piles often sit
adjacent to communities, whose residents are often no longer
able to keep their windows open given the high level of dust in
the air.
|9
What’s at Risk for People and Wildlife in the Great Lakes
Region if a Tar Sands Pipeline Spills?
4
5
9
6
2
8
10
1
3
12
4
5
13
7
11
8
IN MINNESOTA…
IN WISCONSIN…
IN ILLINOIS…
PIPELINES
PIPELINES
PIPELINES
Southern Access Pipeline
(Line 61)
Southern Access Pipeline
(Line 61)
SPECIAL PLACES
Line 6A (feeds Line 6B)
Southern Access Extension
1. Chippewa National Forest
new Wisconsin-Illinois pipeline
(not yet announced)
Line 6A (feeds Line 6B)
Flanagan South, Line 62
Line 78
Eastern Gulf Crude Access
Pipeline
new Wisconsin-Illinois pipeline
(not yet announced)
Alberta Clipper, Line 3
2. Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge
3. Itasca State Park (headwaters of
the Mississippi River)
SPECIAL PLACES
4. Saint Louis River Estuary
6. Chequamegon-Nicolet
National Forest
5. Lake Superior
7. Necedah National Wildlife
Refuge
SPECIES THREATENED
OR AT RISK
4. St. Louis River Estuary
SPECIAL PLACES
5. Lake Superior
8. Lake Michigan
8. Lake Michigan
10. Coastal gems in the Chicago
area such as Lincoln Park/
Montrose Bird Sanctuary and
Chicago’s 26 miles of beaches
9. Brule River State Forest
SPECIES THREATENED
OR AT RISK
11. Illinois River
12. Midewin National Tallgrass
Prairie
DFAULDER
Moose, Canada Lynx, Wood Turtle,
Hooded Warbler, Horned Grebe,
Trumpeter Swan, Burrowing Owl,
Peregrine Falcon, Red-shouldered
Hawk, American White Pelican,
Sprague’s Pipit, Henslow’s Sparrow,
Baird’s Sparrow, Lake Sturgeon
13. Mississippi River
SUSAN LOCKE
Karner Blue Butterfly, Whooping
Crane, Piping Plover, Kirtland’s
Warbler, Red-Necked Grebe,
Common Goldeneye, Black Tern,
Rufa Red Knot, Long-eared Owl,
Blanding’s Turtle, Canada Lynx
NATIONAL
10 | NATIONAL
WILDLIFE
WILDLIFE
FEDERATION
FEDERATION
| 10
SPECIES THREATENED
OR AT RISK
Spotted Turtle, Ornate Box Turtle,
Illinois Chorus Frog, Cerulean
Warbler, Wood Duck, Barn Owl,
Loggerhead Shrike, Least Bittern,
Upland Sandpiper, Wilson’s
Phalarope, Osprey, rare Freshwater
Mussels, Lake Sturgeon
DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES
➤Chicago, Illinois and suburbs rely on Lake Michigan
to supply drinking water to some 7 million people,46
living at the edge of a complex tangle of tar sands
oil pipelines and feeding area refineries like the BP
refinery at Whiting, IN. Lake Michigan is the largest
public drinking water supply in the State of Illinois,
serving nearly 8.5 million people (of a total of over 10
million lake-wide).47
➤Duluth, Minnesota depends on Lake Superior for its
drinking water,45 and is located next door to Superior,
WI, where the Alberta Clipper pipeline pumps tar
sands oil to connecting pipelines and supplies the
refinery on Lake Superior’s shores.
➤Gary, Indiana, the state’s ninth largest city, also taps
Lake Michigan. A spill at or near BP’s Whiting refinery
could devastate Gary’s water supply.48
➤Milwaukee, Wisconsin’s largest city, also relies
on Lake Michigan49 and is at risk of spills from Line
61 and other tar sands pipelines passing between
it and Madison en route to Chicago area refineries
and beyond.
DORI
➤Toledo, Ohio relies on Lake Erie for its drinking
water,50 but is also home to the BP-Husky Toledo
Refinery, fed by Enbridge’s Line 17 tar sands
oil pipeline.
TREASURED HABITAT AREAS
➤Chippewa National Forest, northern Minnesota:
The Alberta Clipper and other Enbridge pipelines
cross parts of this 1.6 million-acre forest,51 home to
the highest breeding population of Bald Eagles in the
lower 48 United States.52 The forest also provides
habitat for Osprey, Eagles, Pileated Woodpeckers,
Hawks, Red Foxes and White Tail Deer,53 and contains
eight different types of wetlands, each with distinct
plant and animal life.54
port on Lake Superior: This highly prized 12,000acre freshwater estuary is representative of the
unique biodiversity of the Great Lakes region.55 The
Alberta Clipper’s expansion would put the estuary at
great risk given its close proximity. The estuary “is
critical to the life-cycle of millions of fish, waterfowl,
raptors and song birds in the Lake Superior region”56
and is part of the National Estuarine Research
Reserve System.57
➤Brule River State Forest, Wisconsin: This forest,
adjacent to Line 61, encompasses all 44 miles of
the Bois Brule River, a renowned trout stream for
over one hundred years, containing native brook,
brown and rainbow trout.58 Lake Brown and Rainbow
(Steelhead) Trout and Coho and Chinook Salmon
make their annual migration up the Brule from
Lake Superior.59
KEVIN FEIND
➤Saint Louis River Estuary, at the Duluth-Superior
➤Necedah National Wildlife Refuge, Wisconsin: This
refuge takes the lead in the recovery and restoration
of the Whooping Crane60 and is located next to
Line 61 and the other Enbridge pipelines running
diagonally across the state. The Whooping Crane
was brought back from the brink of extinction and is
currently on the trail of recovery, representing a true
symbol of hope for endangered species.61 Tar sands
oil expansion would put this phenomenal progress in
jeopardy by destroying breeding habitat in Alberta,
creating hazardous tailing ponds near extraction
sites, and posing risks such as pipeline spills along
migrations routes.
| 11
Climate Change
Impacts in the
Great Lakes Region
TODAY AND
TOMORROW
STEVE PERRY
➤Toxic Algal Blooms. Toxic
algal blooms are on the rise
as waters warm and storms
The dangers of toxic algal blooms have already reached crisis levels in the Great Lakes
region. This was shown this summer when drinking water supplies were cut off for half a
million residents of Toledo, Ohio when an algal bloom turned the drinking water toxic.63 Lake
Erie—once a shining example of a lake returned to health—is now suffering from some of the
worst algal blooms in its history with decades of clean-up efforts increasingly thwarted by
climate-driven extreme weather and associated increases in runoff of agricultural pollution.
A 2011 algal bloom caused an estimated $2.4 million dollar loss in Ohio’s recreational
fishing industry and could easily be seen from space, as roughly a sixth of the lake’s
surface was pea green.64 Climate change feeds algal blooms by creating the conditions in
which cyanobacteria—which is also called blue green algae—thrives. Dry periods followed
by intense rain events—something that will increase with climate change—cause nutrients
from agriculture and urban development to be flushed at higher rates into nearby waters.
These nutrients, along with higher temperatures, feed cyanobacteria and make algal blooms
larger, more frequent, and more toxic.65
CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
12
COLLIN OMARA
OHIO SEA GRANT, 2009
G
iven its high life cycle
carbon emissions, tar
sands oil exacerbates
climate change. As was just
seen in the Toledo, Ohio
drinking water crisis, the
Great Lakes region has much
to lose if climate change
goes unchecked under a
“business as usual” scenario
with planned tar sands oil
expansion. The 2014 National
Climate Assessment,62 paints
a disturbing picture of such
impacts. The special and
irreplaceable ecosystems of
the Great Lakes region are
likely to suffer greatly if we do
not stem the tide of climate
change. Many impacts have
already arrived and will only
worsen if we do not take action
to reduce climate-changing
carbon pollution.
worsen, providing conditions ripe for blue-green algae
to flourish, choking and poisoning the lakes. This creates
massive dead zones for fish and wildlife, turning water into
a toxic, smelly, pea soup that is not only perilous to wildlife,
but also unpleasant and even dangerous for outdoor
recreation. It can also be devastating to drinking water
supplies.
➤Reduced Ice Coverage. Despite last winter’s high ice
coverage, ice coverage on the Great Lakes is trending down
substantially from historical levels, making shorelines more
vulnerable to floods and erosion, which in turn causes
nutrient pollution that feeds algal blooms.66
➤Heavier Rains. Midwest precipitation has increased 37%
since 1958, with more increases expected.67 There has been
more flooding in the region due to the sudden and heavy
downpour variety of precipitation associated with climate
change. This has increased sediment and nutrient loading,
feeding toxic algal blooms and destroying fish and wildlife
habitat areas.
➤Drought in dry regions. While the plains region of the
Midwest is not nearly as dry as the drought-stricken
Southwest, it too is at risk to become dryer as climate
change accelerates. The heavier rains mentioned above will
not, unfortunately, reach the dry regions on a regular basis,
and when they do, they will be too intense to be helpful
when parched ground is unable to absorb massive amounts
of sudden rainfall.
➤There has been more flooding in the region, and lower
crop yields as warming increases. Despite the possibility
of longer growing seasons for some crops, unstable weather
will cause things like unpredictable frosts and thaws at the
wrong time, wreaking havoc on agricultural cycles. Droughts
like the record-breaker in the Midwest in 201268 may also
become more frequent.
➤Extreme heat in summer. While the polar vortex made
this year relatively cool in the Great Lakes region, the clear
trend towards higher air temperatures will trigger a whole
set of serious problems involving increased air pollution and
ozone problems aggravated by heat waves. Worsened air
quality means less healthy air for wildlife and people who
seek to enjoy the outdoors.
All of these impacts of climate change will be exacerbated by a
shift to higher-carbon sources of fuel, like tar sands oil.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
| 13
The Kalamazoo River Calamity
The Enbridge tar sands oil spill at Kalamazoo was the
largest inland oil pipeline spill in U.S. history.71 Cleanup
has cost Enbridge an estimated $1 billion72 and a key
reason for the incident’s high cost is that the substance
spilled was tar sands oil. It coated marsh grasses,
Great Blue Herons, turtles and other wildlife. About
one-quarter of the birds died and the fate of small
mammals, like Beavers, was even worse: nearly 63.5%
died.73 What didn’t coat flora and fauna above the
water, sank to the bottom. Officials evaluating impacts
one year after the spill worried that the spill had
harmed fish eggs and the main diet for fish, tiny midges
and flies.74
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
investigation75 concluded that the rupture was most
likely caused by “corrosion fatigue cracks that grew
and coalesced from crack and corrosion defects,”
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
Sadly, the Great Lakes region has already suffered a
horrific example of what can happen when tar sands
oil pipelines fail. The tar sands oil pipeline spill into
Michigan’s Kalamazoo River in July 2010 showed
what happens when heavy tar sands oil spills in a
marsh, stream or river: an environmental catastrophe
occurs that cannot be reversed.69 Now well-known by
citizens and environmentalists around the country, the
spill happened when Enbridge Line 6B (operated by
Enbridge Energy Partners) split open near Marshall,
Michigan and more than one million gallons of tar
sands oil gushed out through a six-and-a-half-foot
gash in the pipeline. The spill ultimately contaminated
roughly 40 miles of the Kalamazoo River. It also caused
families and businesses to evacuate, and many of those
who evacuated reported a host of medical problems,
from headaches to vomiting to rashes.70
The six-and-a-half foot rupture in Enbridge Line 6B: over one million gallons of tar sands oil gushed into
the Kalamazoo River.
NATIONAL
14 | NATIONAL
WILDLIFE
WILDLIFE
FEDERATION
FEDERATION
| 14
A controlled burn to limit the spread of a crude oil spill from an Enbridge pipeline in Cohasset, MN in 2002.
Enbridge’s overall track record on spills is consistent
with the NTSB’s assessment of their failure during the
Kalamazoo spill. According to Enbridge’s own reports,
the company has been responsible for 1,100 pipeline
spills over the last 15 years (1999-2013).79 Together,
these Enbridge spills amounted to approximately
7.5 million gallons of oil-related products, over
two-thirds of the amount of oil spilled by the Exxon
Valdez (11 million).
The spill, which originated in a nearby marsh, shows
how complicated responding to remote area spills can
be.80 Enbridge had to build a 1/4-mile-long road of wood
mats, just to access the site. Responders feared that
if it rained, booms placed in a nearby creek might not
prevent contamination of the upper Mississippi River,
and so opted for a controlled burn (photo above, left).
The resulting smoke plume one mile high and five miles
long (photo above, right).
Kalamazoo is not the only major tar sands oil spill in the
industry’s relative short history of bringing tar sands oil
through pipelines in the United States. In March of 2013,
the ExxonMobil-owned Pegasus Pipeline burst, sending
tar sands oil gushing through the streets of a quiet,
residential neighborhood not far from the Arkansas
capital of Little Rock. Before it burst, the 65-year-old
pipeline carried 95,000 barrels per day of tar sands
crude from Patoka, Illinois to Nederland, Texas crossing
a large piece of southwestern Illinois.81 Like many
pipelines, it traversed numerous neighborhoods, farms
and waterways. As in Marshall, Michigan, people living
near the tar sands spill site experienced multiple health
issues, and increased levels of benzene were found in
the air following the spill.82
© KARK
which in turn produced a spill “that went undetected
by the control center for over 17 hours.” In evaluating
Enbridge’s handling of the spill, the NTSB found that
the rupture and prolonged release were made possible
by “pervasive organizational failures at Enbridge
Incorporated.”76 When it announced the result of
the investigation, the NTSB blamed Enbridge for a
“complete breakdown of safety” in relation to the
response to the spill.77 Human error, combined with
hard-to-detect leaks,78 makes tar sands pipeline spills a
question of when, not if.
Tar sands crude gushes between homes following a tar
sands spill in Mayflower, Arkansas in 2013. The pipeline originates in Illinois.
| 15
Big Oil’s Bid to Export
Harmful Tar Sands through
the Great Lakes Region
CATHERINE HENNESSEY/NWF PHOTO CONTEST
T
he primary reason the tar sands oil industry needs these
pipelines is to export their product overseas. To date, the
Canadian tar sands oil industry’s biggest customer has
been the United States.83 However, thanks in part to effective
policies from the Obama Administration that have helped
improve vehicle efficiency and reduce our oil consumption,
U.S. demand is dropping.84 This, along with increased oil
production within the U.S.,85 leaves the tar sands oil industry
looking for new markets for their product. This is why tar
sands oil producers are interested in moving their product to
coastal, export-oriented markets where demand, crude prices,
and profits are higher, so they can sell to oil-hungry countries
abroad that will pay top dollar.
As a result, where most tar sands previously traveled from
Canada to the Great Lakes region, it may also soon travel
through the Great Lakes region. Using the Great Lakes region
as shortcut to world markets and higher profits is a move that
threatens the region’s communities, wildlife and habitat.
Tar Sands Oil Pathways to—and Through—
the Great Lakes Region
Once tar sands oil is extracted, it leaves Alberta and heads
towards the U.S. border on a large trunk of Enbridge pipelines
known in Canada as the “Mainline”86 and in the U.S. as the
“Lakehead system.”87 Enbridge boasts that it owns and
operates the largest system of crude oil pipelines in the
world,88 with over 15,000 miles of pipeline already transporting
16
crude oil to or through the U.S.89 At the town of Neche, North
Dakota, just a few miles from Minnesota’s northwest corner,
Enbridge’s main pipelines cross the U.S./Canadian border.
From there, the bundle of pipelines that make up the Lakehead
system head southeast through the wildlife rich forests of
Northern Minnesota toward the Great Lakes region. The
primary arterial lines run southeast in parallel to Superior,
Wisconsin, where they then broadly branch out to supply crude
oil to U.S. refineries and coastal ports.
Alberta Clipper: Linchpin of Enbridge
Expansion Plans
Of the various Enbridge pipelines that carry tar sands from
Alberta to the U.S., the Alberta Clipper is the largest dedicated
trans-boundary tar sands oil line, and the key to expanding the
tar sands oil industry’s export potential out of Canada.90 Also
referred to as Line 67, the Alberta Clipper takes tar sands oil
over 1000 miles from Hardisty, Alberta to Superior, Wisconsin
near the shores of the largest of the Great Lakes, Lake
Superior, not far from Duluth, Minnesota.
Tar sands oil is delivered to Superior , Wisconsin, for refining
at the Calumet Specialty Products Partners Refinery, which,
like 90% of the refineries in the Great Lakes bi-national region,
processes tar sands oil.91 Tar sands oil flowing on the Alberta
Clipper is also transferred to other pipelines headed for the
Gulf Coast and Central-Eastern Canada. These pipelines run
throughout the region, cutting across streams, wetlands and
ENBRIDGE PIPELINES
EXISTING AND…
…PROPOSED LINES
SHOWN BELOW
Chicago Area Refineries
BP . . . . . . . . . . . 413 kbpd
Exxon Mobil . . . 250 kbpd
PVD . . . . . . . . . . 180 kbpd
CLICK HERE
Superior
Refinery
Line 5
491 kbpd
Sarnia Refineries
Imperial . . . . .121 kbpd
Shell . . . . . . . . 71 kbpd
Sunoco . . . . . .85 kbpd
Nova . . . . . . . 80 kbpd
Tanker
Shipments
Montreal
Refinery
Suncor
137 kbpd
Nanticoke
Refinery
112 kbpd
Quebec City
Refinery
Valero
235 kbpd
Line 7
150 kbpd
Tanker
Shipments
Lines 1, 2, 4,
& 65
Combined
1,660 kbpd
Line 6a
667 kbpd
Line 14/64
318 kbpd
Line 79
80 kbpd
New
Sandpiper
365 kbpd
Line 62
150
kbpd
Line 10
74
kbpd
Kiantone
70 kbpd
KEY
Line 17 Sunoco
101
190
kbpd
kbpd
MI & OH Refineries
DETROIT
Marathon . . . . . 102 kbpd
Line 11
117 kbpd
United
Refinery
70 kbpd
TOLEDO
BP Husky. . . . . . 160 kbpd
PBF . . . . . . . . . . 140 kbpd
Possible Expansions
Public Expansions
No Change
kbpd
| 17
Oil Refinery
Oil Terminal
Thousand barrels
per day
ENBRIDGE PIPELINES
EXISTING AND…
…PROPOSED LINES
CLICK HERE
Chicago Area Refineries
BP . . . . . . . . . . . 413 kbpd
Exxon Mobil . . . 250 kbpd
PVD . . . . . . . . . . 180 kbpd
SHOWN BELOW
Sarnia Refineries
Imperial . . . . .121 kbpd
Shell . . . . . . . . 71 kbpd
Sunoco . . . . . .85 kbpd
Nova . . . . . . . 80 kbpd
Superior
Refinery
Line 5
491 kbpd
Lines 1, 2, 4,
& 65
Combined
1,660 kbpd
NEW Line 3
760 kbpd
Replaced and
Expanded
Line 6a
667 kbpd
Tanker
Shipments
Montreal
Refinery
Suncor
137 kbpd
Nanticoke
Refinery
112 kbpd
Quebec City
Refinery
Valero
235 kbpd
Line 9
300 kbpd
Reversal and
Expansion
Line 7
150 kbpd
Tanker
Shipments
Line 14/64
318 kbpd
Line 79
80 kbpd
New
Sandpiper
365 kbpd
Alberta Clipper
(Line 67) 450 bpd
Expanded to
800 kbpd
Line 61
400 bpd
Expanded to
1,200 kbpd
Line 62
150
kbpd
Line 10
74
kbpd
New Line 66
Est. 800
kbpd
Kiantone
70 kbpd
PMPL 18”
190 kbpd
(Reversal)
PMPL 24”
410 kbpd
(Reversal)
Flanagan South/
Seaway to Gulf
800 kbpd
New Southern
Access
Extension
365 kbpd
MI & OH Refineries
DETROIT
Marathon . . . . . 102 kbpd
TOLEDO
NEW
Line 78
800
kbpd
Possible
Capline
Reversal
1,200 kbpd
KEY
Line 17 Sunoco
101
190
kbpd
kbpd
Line 6b
Expanded to
800 kbpd
Line 11
117 kbpd
United
Refinery
70 kbpd
BP Husky. . . . . . 160 kbpd
PBF . . . . . . . . . . 140 kbpd
Possible Expansions
Public Expansions
No Change
kbpd
NATIONAL
18 | NATIONAL
WILDLIFE
WILDLIFE
FEDERATION
FEDERATION
| 18
Oil Refinery
Oil Terminal
Thousand barrels
per day
rivers that flow into the Great Lakes. These lines include Line
6B—the line whose rupture caused the horrific Kalamazoo
River disaster in July of 2010. The vast pipeline network feeds
multiple refineries throughout the region, primarily in larger
urban areas like Chicago and Detroit. Industry is increasingly
seeking new routes south and east to access export markets
available from the Gulf Coast and East Coast.
The Alberta Clipper feeds this entire network and92 its
expansion is sought for increasing tar sands oil into the
Great Lakes region. Enbridge is currently seeking to expand
the Alberta Clipper’s capacity from 450,000 bpd to as much
as 800,000 bpd by constructing new pumping stations and
making other modifications.93 The proposed expansion is
to take place in two phases. The Minnesota Public Utilities
Commission has already approved the upgrades.94
This expansion needs to be considered under a public
environmental review process and national interest
determination by the President, a process started last year
by the Department of State, which has primary permitting
authority. However, the State Department has acquiesced
to a scheme from Enbridge that would allow this expansion
to occur via a supposedly temporary diversion of tar sands
oil from the Alberta Clipper to parallel Line 3 at the border
crossing.95 Line 3 is an aging pipeline that sits next to the
Alberta Clipper and has historically carried conventional oil.
While Line 3 has not been used for heavy tar sands oil at a high
capacity, Enbridge is arguing that the lack of an express limit
on that Line’s capacity makes the scheme permissible.
However, the scheme is contrary to the permit Enbridge
currently holds that limits tar sands oil capacity to 450,000
bpd on the Alberta Clipper,96 violates Federal Law requirements
of an environmental review and a national interest
determination, and undermines the ongoing public review
process.97 It is critical that the State Department reverse this
decision and ensures that no tar sands oil expansion of the
Alberta Clipper will proceed without the proper legal process.98
Ultimately, the Presidential Permit should be denied because
this proposed expansion places the Great Lakes region at
unneeded and unacceptable risk.
GEORGE GENTRY/U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
| 19
Riding the Coat Tails
of the Alberta Clipper
YET MORE PLANNED PIPELINE EXTENSIONS
ANDYTALLEY
T
he list below shows the primary pipeline expansions
Enbridge could use to carry tar sands through the Great
Lakes region and to distant export markets if the Alberta
Clipper is expanded along with other pipelines in Enbridge’s
Lakehead system crossing from Canada into the U.S.
EXPANSION Southern Access Pipeline (Line 61): This
Enbridge pipeline from Superior, WI to Flanagan, IL is one of
the widest pipelines in the system, 42-inches in diameter. It
can carry large volumes of tar sands and would function as
a critical link between the Alberta Clipper and a new pipeline
Enbridge would like to build in its rush to the Gulf Coast,
Flanagan South (described below). Line 61’s expansion is slated
to happen in two phases, which together would boost pipeline
capacity from 400,000 to 1.2 million bpd. Only an initial part of
the project has gone forward, involving a capacity increase to
560,000 bpd expected to be in operation by Fall 2014.99
NEW Southern Access Extension (aka SAX): This new
300,000 bpd Enbridge pipeline proposed to run from
Flanagan, IL to Patoka, IL would extend the reach of Line
61.100 Its relatively small length and size relative to other
components in Enbridge’s expansion plans is deceiving: SAX
provides a key link that is enabling yet another massive northto-south pipeline (See “Eastern Gulf Crude Access Pipeline,”
below). It has yet to receive regulatory and other approvals.
NEW Flanagan South: Also entirely new, this Enbridge
project will run a 36-inch pipeline from Flanagan IL to Cushing
OK, closely paralleling the existing Enbridge Spearhead
20
pipeline. While it’s starting capacity would be 585,000 bpd
that could be increased to 800,000 bpd—nearly the capacity of
Keystone XL.101 The National Wildlife Federation and the Sierra
Club have taken legal action to stop further progress of the
pipeline, but received a decision that no comprehensive review
is needed.102 This decision has been appealed. Yet, construction
is nearing completion, and the pipeline is slated to be in service
by the end of 2014.103
EXPANSION Eastern Gulf Crude Access Pipeline (EGCAP
or “Trunkline Conversion”): While not an Enbridge project
per se, the EGCAP project is closely tied to Enbridge’s plan to
push more Canadian tar sands to the Gulf. Proposed by Energy
Transfer Partners (ETP), the pipeline would convert a natural
gas pipeline to crude oil, and reverse its direction104 to run
south from Patoka IL to Boyce LA.105 If completed, the 420,000
bpd EGCAP project would create the first “express route”
from the Midwest (Patoka, IL) to the refineries of Louisiana.106
The Alberta Clipper and other Enbridge expansions to the
north would make it possible: EGCAP would connect in the
north, at Pakota, with the Southern Access Extension (SAX),
linking EGCAP directly to Line 61 in Enbridge’s massive
Lakehead system.107
EXPANSION Line 6B: In 2013 and early 2014, Enbridge
replaced some 75 miles of Line 6B, the pipeline that caused
the Kalamazoo tar sands spill of 2010. Additional replacements
are planned in both Indiana and Michigan, and in conjunction
with new pumps and other upgrades, capacity will be increased
from 240,000 to 500,000 bpd.108 Enbridge is also planning
an additional capacity boost from 500,000 to 570,000 bpd.109
The expansion of Line 6B is especially concerning in light of
the Line’s recent history, Enbridge’s publicly denigrated safety
record, and the huge harms already suffered by people and
wildlife along the line.
EXPANSION Line 62/NEW Line 78: Line 62, also called
Spearhead North, is a short pipeline connecting Flanagan IL
to Griffith IN. Line 61 feeds it from the north. The expansion
of Line 62 was completed in 2013 and increased the line’s
capacity from 130,000 to 235,000 bpd. Enbridge plans to also
build a new line, Line 78, which would parallel Line 62 for most
of its route and run north from Enbridge’s Flanagan terminal
near Pontiac, IL to Griffith, IN. This new pipeline, also known
as the Spearhead North Twin, would have an initial capacity of
570,000 bpd.110
EXPANSION Line 3: The modifications planned for Line 3,
which runs from Hardisty, AB to Superior, WI, are some of
the largest Enbridge expansions planned for the Great Lakes
region. Billed by Enbridge as a pipe replacement project, this
is an expansion in disguise. According to Enbridge, the project
will let Line 3 reach an “equivalent capacity of 760,000 bpd”111
compared to its current capacity of 390,000 bpd. The U.S.
segment would be replaced with new, larger pipe in most
areas. To carry tar sands on Line 3 would constitute change
from previous use, and thus a Presidential Permit and new
environmental and safety reviews should be required.112 As
described above, Enbridge has already signaled its intentions
to push tar sands through a segment of Line 3 that crosses the
U.S.-Canada border.
NEW Wisconsin-Illinois Pipeline: While not yet formally
announced or given a project name, there are signs that
Enbridge is planning to build yet another pipeline in the region.
Landowners along current Enbridge Line 61, which cuts across
Wisconsin into northern Illinois, received notices in early 2014
indicating that the company would be conducting survey
activities in relation to a “potential expansion of its pipeline
system in Wisconsin and Illinois.”113
JOHN J. MOSESSO, NBII
| 21
Taking Action
MANJITH KAINICKARA - FLICKR
T
ar sands oil poses unacceptable risks to the Great
Lakes region’s treasures of wildlife, communities and
outdoor enjoyment. We do not have to accept those
risks. Rather than building dangerous infrastructure that
places our largest freshwater resources at risk, we need to
invest in clean, wildlife-friendly energy sources and expand
clean transportation solutions. The climate crisis requires
serious efforts in the reduction of carbon pollution and further
transition from dirty fossil fuels to clean energy resources
such as, geothermal, on and offshore wind, solar, sustainable
bioenergy, and efficient transportation technologies. We can
make changes to reduce our energy use and simultaneously
lower our energy bills. We can make changes that connect us
to one another and our communities. We can create more open
space for wildlife and recreation to be enjoyed for generations
to come. We can build an energy future that promotes and
protects wildlife, communities and the many treasures of the
Great Lakes, rather than continuing to put these resources in
harm’s way.
To protect wildlife, resources, and communities, we
recommend:
➤The State Department should conduct a thorough public
environmental review of the proposed Alberta Clipper
expansion that accounts for all of the risks posed to the
Great Lakes region and beyond from increased tar sands oil
transport across the border.
22
➤The State Department should consider the comprehensive
impact of the multiple tar sands oil pipelines with permit
applications before them, including the Alberta Clipper and
Keystone XL. Taken together, these two lines will have a
substantial impact on the industry’s ability to expand and
create more pollution and spill risks.
➤President Obama should consistently apply his “climate
test”114 to all tar sands oil pipelines, and reject them if they
are found to significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon
pollution, as he has committed to doing with Keystone XL.
➤President Obama should deny the Alberta Clipper expansion
because it poses too high a risk to the people and wildlife of
the Great Lakes, fails his climate test, and is therefore not in
the nation’s best interest.
➤President Obama should direct his Administration to utilize
existing regulatory authority to require the best technology
and safest methods for transporting tar sands oil. The
Administration must update old, industry-friendly pipeline
safety and rail regulations that unnecessarily place wildlife
and communities at risk.
➤States in the Great Lakes region should put in place policies,
like Clean Fuels Standards, that will reduce reliance on dirty
fossil fuels and speed the transition to clean, renewable
sources of energy that protect wildlife and people.
Endnotes
1.
18. Ibid.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). June 26, 2012. Great
Lakes Monitoring—Where Would We Be Without the Great Lakes. U,S,
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. URL: ,http://www.
epa.gov/glnpo/monitoring/great_minds_great_lakes/social_studies/
without.html (accessed August 15, 2014).
2. EPA. September 25, 2013. Great Lakes Ecosystems. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. URL: http://www.epa.gov/ecopage/
glbd/issues/intro.html (accessed August 4, 2014). (Butterfly and Lake
Sturgeon)
3. For a general description of the process and impacts of tar sands
extraction, see e.g., Kunzing, R. March 2009. The Canadian Oil
Boom.,National Geographic. URL: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.
com/2009/03/canadian-oil-sands/kunzig-text/1 (accessed August 4,
2014); For facts related to end-uses for tar sands, see e.g., Lattanzio,
R. March 10, 2014.Canadian Oil Sands: Life-Cycle Assessments of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. U.S. Congressional Research Service,
Washington, D.C.:3. URL: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42537.pdf
(accessed August 4, 2014).
4. EPA, , July 14, 2014. EPA Response to Enbridge Spill in Michigan. . U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. URL: http://www.
epa.gov/enbridgespill/ (accessed August 6, 2014).
5. National Wildlife Federation. Growth of Tar Sands Across Midwest. URL:
http://www.nwf.org/What-We-Do/Energy-and-Climate/Drilling-andMining/Tar-Sands/Michigan-Oil-Spill.aspx (accessed November 4, 2014).
6. Jake Edmiston and Andrew Barr, Mike Faille, Jonathan Rivait, Richard
Johnson. August 7, 2014. The Lac-Mégantic Railway Disaster—The Night
a Train Destroyed a Town. National Post. URL: http://news.nationalpost.
com/2013/07/12/graphic-the-lac-megantic-runaway-train-disaster/
(accessed September 10, 2014).
7.
Natural Resources Defense Council. November 2010. Setting the Record
Straight: Lifecycle Emissions of Tar Sands. URL: http://docs.nrdc.org/
energy/files/ene_10110501a.pdf (accessed September 6, 2014).
8. National Wildlife Federation. Global Warming and the Great Lakes.
URL: http://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Threats-to-Wildlife/Global-Warming/
Effects-on-Wildlife-and-Habitat/Great-Lakes.aspx (accessed September
10, 2014).
9. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). September
3, 2014. What Is A Dead Zone? URL:. http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/
facts/deadzone.html (accessed September 14, 2014).
10. Seville, L. November 8, 2013. Illinois AG and neighbors sue over
humongous heaps of ‘petcoke.’ NBC News. URL: http://www.nbcnews.
com/news/other/illinois-ag-neighbors-sue-over-humongous-heapspetcoke-f8C11566275 (accessed September 1, 2014).
11. Enbridge. 2014. Alberta Clipper—Line 67 Capacity Expansion Phase II.
URL: http://www.enbridge.com/MainlineEnhancementProgram/Canada/
Alberta-Clipper-Capacity-Expansion-Phase-II.aspx (accessed October 6,
2014).
12. Jim Snyder, Rebecca Penty. August 24, 2014. Enbridge Avoids U.S.
Review With Plan to Boost Oil Sands, Bloomberg. URL: http://www.
bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-21/enbridge-avoids-u-s-review-with-planto-boost-oil-sands.html (accessed September 5, 2014).
13. Ibid.
14. Murphy, J. August 25, 2014. State Department Approves Illegal Scheme
for Doubling Tar Sands Flowing Through the Great Lakes. National
Wildlife Federation. Washington, D.C. URL: http://blog.nwf.org/2014/08/
state-department-approves-illegal-scheme-for-doubling-tar-sandsflowing-through-the-great-lakes/ (accessed September 2, 2014).
15. The White House. June 25, 2013, 1:45 P.M. Remarks by President
on Climate Change, Georgetown University. Office of the Press
Secretary, Washington, D.C. URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/thepress-office/2013/06/25/remarks-president-climate-change (accessed
November 7, 2014).
16. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. Lake Michigan Monitoring
Program. URL: http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/surface-water/lakemichigan-mon.html (accessed October 17, 2014).
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid.
22. NOAA. About our Great Lakes: Great Lakes Basin Facts. URL: http://
www.glerl.noaa.gov/pr/ourlakes/facts.html (accessed September 9,
2014).
23. U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2013. Refinery receipts of
crude by method of transportation.U.S.: URL: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/
pet/pet_pnp_caprec_dcu_nus_a.htm (accessed September 9, 2014).;
Midwest: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_caprec_dcu_r20_a.htm
24. Song, L. June 26, 2012. A Dilbit Primer: How It’s Different From
Conventional Oil. Inside Climate News. URL: http://insideclimatenews.
org/news/20120626/dilbit-primer-diluted-bitumen-conventional-oil-tarsands-Alberta-Kalamazoo-Keystone-XL-Enbridge (accessed November
4, 2014).
25. The oil industry currently uses the term “oil sands”, but as even a wellread industry blog admits, this was a marketing move employed after
the original term, “tar sands” was found to have negative connotations.
Braziel, R. March 9 2012. It’s a Bitumen Oil….RBN Energy. URL: https://
rbnenergy.com/Its-a-bitumen-oil-Does-it-go-too-far-Canadian-oil-sandscrude (accessed September 9, 2014).
26. National Wildlife Federation. May 2014. Migratory Birds and Tar Sands:
5. URL: http://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Global-Warming/2014/
nwf_issue_briefs_Interactive2.pdf (accessed November 4, 2014).
27. The eight tar sands mines currently operating and under active
development are: CNRL Horizon, Suncor Fort Hills, Imperial/Exxon
Kearl, Shell Muskeg River, Shell Jackpine, Suncor, Syncrude, and Total
Joslyn North. Mike Priaro. March 5, 2014. We Are The Champions—
Could Alberta’s Oil Sands Reserves Be The Largest on Earth?. RBN
Energy. URL: https://rbnenergy.com/we-are-the-champions-couldalberta-s-oil-sands-reserves-be-the-largest-on-earth (accessed
September 8, 2014).
28. ISAACS, E. E. 2005. Canadian Oil Sands: Development and Future
Outlook. IV International Workshop on Oil and Gas Depletion: ASPO.
URL: http://www.cge.uevora.pt/aspo2005/ASPO2005_Proceedings.
pdf (accessed November 7, 2014). See also: NEB-EMA. 2006. Canada’s
Oil Sands: Opportunities and Challenges to 2015: An update. Calgary,
AB, National Energy Board—Energy Market Assessment (NEB-EMA).
URL: https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrg/sttstc/crdlndptrlmprdct/rprt/
archive/pprtntsndchllngs20152006/pprtntsndchllngs20152006-eng.pdf
(accessed November 7, 2014).
29. National Wildlife Federation. May 2014. Migratory Birds and Tar Sands:
3–4. URL: http://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Global-Warming/2014/
nwf_issue_briefs_Interactive2.pdf (accessed November 5, 2014).
30. Brandt, A. 2012 Variability and Uncertainty in Life Cycle Assessment
Models for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Canadian Oil Sands
Production. Environmental Science & Technology. 46: 1253–1261.
URL: http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2013/01/OCI.Petcoke.
FINALSCREEN.pdf (accessed November 5, 2014).
31. National Energy Technology Laboratory. 2008. Development of
Baseline Data and Analysis of Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions
of Petroleum-Based Fuels. DOE/NETL-2009/1346. 13: table 2–4. URL:
http://www.netl.doe.gov/File%20Library/Research/Energy%20
Analysis/Publications/DOE-NETL-2009-1346-LCAPetr-BasedFuelsNov08.pdf (accessed November 5, 2014).
32. Natural Resources Defense Council. 2010. Setting the Record Straight:
Lifecycle Emissions of Tar Sands: 2. URL: http://docs.nrdc.org/energy/
files/ene_10110501a.pdf (accessed November 3, 2014).
33. The separation is done by grinding, sorting, and the use of hot water
or chemicals, all of which consume large amounts of energy. Swift, A.
2011. Tar Sands Pipeline Safety Risks: 5. National Wildlife Federation.
Washington, D.C. URL: http://www.nwf.org/pdf/Tar-Sands/Tar%20
Sands%20Pipeline%20Safety%20Risks.pdf (accessed November 6,
2014).
17. EPA. Last updated September 25, 2013. Conservation of Biological
Diversity in the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem: Issues and
Opportunities. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
URL: http://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/ecopage/glbd/issues/intro.html
| 23
34. Biello, D. January 15, 2013. More Oil from Canada’s Tar Sands Could
Mean Game Over for Climate Change. Scientific American. URL: http://
www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-oil-from-canadas-tar-sandscould-mean-game-over-climate-change/ (accessed November 6, 2014);
Stockman, L. November 1, 2012. Tar sands planned growth is 3X carbon
limit. PriceofOil.org. URL: http://priceofoil.org/2012/11/01/tar-sandsplanned-growth-is-3x-climate-limit/ (accessed November 6, 2014).
35. National Wildlife Federation. Growth of Tar Sands Across Midwest. URL:
http://www.nwf.org/What-We-Do/Energy-and-Climate/Drilling-andMining/Tar-Sands/Michigan-Oil-Spill.aspx (accessed November 7, 2014).
36. The substances used for dilution (“diluents”), tend to be flammable,
toxic liquids derived from natural gas, such as natural gas condensate.
See, Headwaters Initiative and Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, Fact Sheet:
A Brief on Condensate and Diluents. URL: http://boldnebraska.org/
uploaded/pdf/HeadwatersInitiative-CondensateFactSheet.pdf (accessed
November 6, 2014); J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corp. and JP Morgan
Commodities Canada Corp. February 1, 2013. Safety Data Sheet: Natural
gas condensate, sweet or sour. URL: https://www.jpmorgan.com/
directdoc/commodities_condensate.pdf (accessed November 5, 2014).
37. U.S. Department of State. August 26, 2011. Appendix L: Pipeline
Temperature Effects Study, Final Environmental Impact Statement,
Volume 7.L-2: Figure 1. URL: http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/
documents/organization/182235.pdf (accessed October 24, 2014).
38. Environment Canada (Emergencies Science and Technology).
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Centre for Offshore Oil, Gas and Energy
Research), Natural Resources Canada (Canmet ENERGY). November
30, 2013. Properties, Composition and Marine Spill Behaviour, Fate
and Transport of Two Diluted Bitumen Products from the Canadian Oil
Sands : 5 and 19. URL: http://crrc.unh.edu/sites/crrc.unh.edu/files/1633_
dilbit_technical_report_e_v2_final-s.pdf (accessed October 24, 2014);
Paris, M. September 13, 2013. Enbridge’s Kalamazoo cleanup dredges
up 3-year-old spill. CBC News. URL: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/
enbridge-s-kalamazoo-cleanup-dredges-up-3-year-old-oil-spill-1.1327268
(accessed October 24, 2014).
39. Oil Change International. May 2014. Runaway Train: The Reckless
Expansion of Crude-by-Rail in North America. URL: http://priceofoil.
org/content/uploads/2014/05/OCI_Runaway_Train_Single_reduce.pdf
(accessed August 11, 2014).
40. Ibid. at 4.
41. RBN Energy. 2014. Rock the Boat, Don’t Rock the Boat: Impact of
the Jones Act on U.S. Crude Oil Markets (RBN Drill Down Report).
(subscription only, available at URL: https://rbnenergy.com/subscriber/
reports/previews/rock-the-boat-dont-rock-the-boat-impact-of-thejones-act); Oil Change International report. May 2014. Runaway Train:
the Reckless Expansion of Crude-by-Rail in North America. URL: http://
priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2014/05/OCI_Runaway_Train_Single_
reduce.pdf (see specifically the sidebar “Rolling down the river”
for a discussion of barge movements on the Mississippi) (accessed
August 25, 2014).
42. Alliance for the Great Lakes. November 20, 2013. Oil and Water: Tar
Sands Crude Shipping Meets the Great Lakes? URL: http://www.
greatlakes.org/document.doc?id=1425 (accessed November 5, 2014);
Hussain, Y. October 16, 2014. Beyond Energy East: The great push to
get Alberta’s crude to market. National Post. URL: http://business.
financialpost.com/2014/10/16/beyond-energy-east-the-great-push-toget-albertas-crude-to-market/?__lsa=4693-7b3f (accessed November
5, 2014).
43. Michael, H. March 25, 2014. BP Confirms Oil Spill Into Lake Michigan
from Whiting Refinery. Chicago Tribune. URL: http://articles.
chicagotribune.com/2014-03-25/news/chi-bp-whiting-crude-oillake-michigan-spill-20140325_1_whiting-refinery-oil-spill-scott-dean
44. Oil Sands International. January 2013. Petroleum Coke: The Coal Hiding
in the Tar Sands: 4. URL: http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2013/01/
OCI.Petcoke.FINALSCREEN.pdf (accessed November 4, 2014).
45. Lake Superior Streams. Duluth Drinking Water. URL: http://www.
lakesuperiorstreams.org/understanding/drinking.html (accessed
September 11, 2014).
46. Michael, H. .March 25, 2014. BP Confirms Oil Spill Into Lake Michigan
from Whiting Refinery. Chicago Tribune. URL: http://articles.
chicagotribune.com/2014-03-25/news/chi-bp-whiting-crude-oillake-michigan-spill-20140325_1_whiting-refinery-oil-spill-scott-dean
24
47. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. Lake Michigan Monitoring
Program. URL :http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/surface-water/lakemichigan-mon.html (accessed September 20, 2014).
48. Indiana American Water. 2007. 2007 Annual Water Quality Report.
URL: http://www.gary.in.us/environmentalaffairs/pdf/care/INAmWater_
info.pdf (accessed November 3, 2014).
49. Milwaukee Water Works. 2014. About the Milwaukee Water Works. URL:
http://milwaukee.gov/water/about (accessed September 16, 2014).
50. City of Toledo. 2014. Division of Water Treatment. URL: http://toledo.
oh.gov/services/public-utilities/water-treatment/ (accessed September
15, 2014).
51. FEIS. 2014. Alberta Clipper Project : 4-250. URL: http://mn.gov/
commerce/energyfacilities/documents/33599/_C%201%20Loretta%20
Cartner.pdf (accessed August 30, 2014).
52. United States Department of Agriculture—Forest Service. Chippewa
National Forest—Bald Eagles and Heritage Resources. URL: http://
www.fs.usda.gov/attmain/chippewa/specialplaces. The Chippewa
National Forest, it should be noted, shares boundaries with the Leech
Lake Reservation of the Anishinabe (Ojibwe/Chippewa) people, many
of whom continue traditional ways of life close to the forest and its
resources (accessed November 5, 2014).
53. Wildlife Viewing Areas. Suomi Hills Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized Area
(Chippewa National Forest). URL: http://www.wildlifeviewingareas.com/
wv-app/ParkDetail.aspx?ParkID=505 (accessed November 5, 2014).
54. United States Department of Agriculture—Forest Service. Chippewa
National Forest—Lakes and Wetlands. URL: http://www.fs.usda.gov/
attmain/chippewa/specialplaces (accessed November 5, 2014).
55. St. Louis River Citizens Action Committee. May 2002. Lower St. Louis
River Habitat Plan : ix. URL: http://www.stlouisriver.org/habitatplan/
habitatplan.pdf (accessed November 5, 2014).
56. Minnesota Land Trust. St. Louis River Restoration Initiative. URL:
http://www.mnland.org/st-louis-estuary/ (accessed November 4, 2014).
57. Lake Superior National Estuarine Research Reserve,. February 3, 2014.
Project Overview. URL: http://lsnerr.uwex.edu/index.html (accessed
November 5, 2014).
58. Wisconsin State Parks and Forests. February 13, 2014. Brule River State
Forest. URL: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/stateforests/bruleriver/ (accessed
November 5, 2014).
59. Ibid.
60. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. November 20, 2013. Necedah
National Wildlife Refuge. URL: http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Necedah/
wildlife_and_habitat/index.html (accessed November 4, 2014).
61. International Crane Foundation. Whooping Crane. URL: http://www.
savingcranes.org/whooping-crane-conservation.html (accessed
September 14, 2014).
62. Pryor, S. C., D. Scavia, C. Downer, M. Gaden, L. Iverson, R. Nordstrom,
J. Patz, and G. P. Robertson. 2014. Ch. 18: Mid- west. Climate Change
Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment,
J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global
Change Research Program. 418–440. doi:10.7930/J0J1012N. URL:
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/system/files_force/downloads/low/
NCA3_Full_Report_18_Midwest_LowRes.pdf?download=1 (accessed
August 28, 2014).
63. Yeager-Kozacek, C. August 3, 2014. Toxic Algae Bloom Leaves 500,000
Without Drinking Water in Ohio. EcoWatch. URL: http://ecowatch.
com/2014/08/03/toxic-algae-bloom-500000-without-drinking-waterohio/ (accessed September 20, 2014).
64. Baehr, L., March 8, 2011. Lake Erie is Turning to Slime. Business Insider.
URL: http://www.businessinsider.com/lake-erie-algal-blooms-are-out-ofcontrol-2014-3 (accessed September 20, 2014).
65. National Environmental Education Foundation. Climate Change
Influences Algal Blooms. URL: http://www.earthgauge.net/2014/
climate-change-influences-algal-blooms (accessed November 3, 2014).
66. University of Wisconsin-Madison. 2011. Wisconsin’s Changing Climate:
Impacts and Adaptation, Chapter 3—Water Resources: 55. URL: http://
www.wicci.wisc.edu/report/WICCI-Chapter-3.pdf (accessed November 5,
2014).
67. Koslow, M. June 28, 2012. Thoughts On a New Normal. National Wildlife
Federation. Washington, D.C. URL: http://blog.nwf.org/2012/06/
thoughts-on-a-new-normal/ (August 17, 2014).
68. Plume, C. August 2, 2012 Drought Worsens in U.S. Farm
States: Climatologists. Reuters. URL: http://www.reuters.com/
article/2012/08/02/us-drought-idUSBRE87110A20120802 (accessed
September 2, 2014).
69. McGowen, E and Song, L. June 26, 2012. The Dilbit Disaster: Inside the
Biggest Oil Spill You’ve Ever Heard of, Part One. Inside Climate News.
URL: http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120626/dilbit-dilutedbitumen-enbridge-kalamazoo-river-marshall-michigan-oil-spill-6bpipeline-epa (accessed September 2, 2014).
70. Michigan Department of Community Health. December 20, 2010.
Acute Health Effects of the Enbridge Oil Spill. URL: http://www.
michigan.gov/documents/mdch/enbridge_oil_spill_epi_report_with_
cover_11_22_10_339101_7.pdf (accessed September 9, 2014).
71. Hasemyer, D. December 32, 2013. Enbridge Dilbit Spill Still Not Cleaned
Up as 2013 Closes, Irritating the EPA. Inside Climate News. URL: http://
insideclimatenews.org/news/20131223/enbridge-dilbit-spill-still-notcleaned-2013-closes-irritating-epa (accessed September 15, 2014).
72. Ibid.
73. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. September 15, 2010. Statement
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, on the
Enbridge Pipeline Oil Spill Near Marshall, Michigan before the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. URL: http://www.fws.
gov/midwest/oilspill/documents/statement.pdf (accessed on August 20,
2014).
74 Ibid.
75. National Transportation Safety Board. July 10, 2012. Report—Kalamazoo
Pipeline Spill : xii. URL: http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2012/
par1201.pdf (accessed August 11, 2014).
76. Ibid.
77. National Transportation Safety Board. Press Release. July 10, 2012.
URL: http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2012/120710.html/ (accessed August 5,
2014).
78. “[O]il exiting a pinhole may create a medium to large spill due to
difficulties for supervisory control and data acquisition or aerial
surveillance to detect such a leak.” Keystone XL Draft Environmental
Impact Statement. March 2013. Affected Environment—Operation:
3.13–17. URL: http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/
organization/205638.pdf (accessed November 5, 2014).
79. Enbridge. 2009 and 2013. Corporate Responsibility Report. URL: http://
www.enbridge.com/AboutEnbridge/CorporateSocialResponsibility/
CSRReports.aspx (accessed November 4, 2014).
80. National Transportation Safety Board. June 23, 2004. Rupture of
Enbridge Pipeline and Release of Crude Oil near Cohasset, Minnesota
July 4, 2002. Pipeline Accident Report NTSB/PAR-04/01: 3, URL: www.
ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2004/PAR0401.pdf (accessed August 5, 2014).
81. Only the southern portion of the Pegasus pipeline had been re-opened.
Associated Press. ExxonMobil restarts Pegasus pipeline in Texas.
URL: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/30/exxonmobilrestarts-pegasus-pipeline-in-texas/ (accessed November 3, 2014).
82. Song, L. June 18, 2013. What Sickens People in Oil Spills, and
How Badly, Is Anybody’s Guess. InsideClimateNews. URL: http://
insideclimatenews.org/news/20130618/what-sickens-people-oil-spillsand-how-badly-anybodys-guess (accessed August 15, 2014).
83. Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. June 2014. Crude Oil
Forecast. Markets & Transportion: 13. URL: http://www.capp.ca/getdoc.
aspx?DocId=247759&DT=NTV (accessed October 22, 2014).
84. Dhillon, K. April 17, 2014. Why are U.S. Oil Imports Falling. TIME.com.
URL: http://time.com/67163/why-are-u-s-oil-imports-falling/ (accessed
October 22, 2014).
85. United States Energy Information Administration. U.S. Field Production
of Crude Oil, Monthly, 1920—August 2014. URL: http://www.eia.gov/
dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS2&f=M (accessed
November 3, 2014).
86. These are owned by Enbridge Inc., a Canadian company. Enbridge.
Liquid Pipelines—Mainline. URL: http://www.enbridge.com/
DeliveringEnergy/OurPipelines/LiquidsPipelines.aspx (accessed
November 4, 2014).
87. While most Enbridge pipelines running through the Great Lakes region
are owned by Enbridge’s U.S. branch, Enbridge Energy Partners L.P.,
certain (e.g., Line 17 to Toledo), are owned straight out by Enbridge
Inc., the Canadian parent company. Enbridge Inc. Liquids Pipelines.
URL: http://www.enbridge.com/DeliveringEnergy/OurPipelines/
LiquidsPipelines.aspx (accessed November 3, 2014). Enbridge’s
“Midcontinent system, which includes Line 55 (“Spearhead”) between
Flanagan IL and Cushing OK, as well the Mustang and Chicap lines
connecting Chicago to Patoka are also owned by Enbridge Inc. Ibid.
Enbridge Inc. holds a 21.1 percent ownership interest in Enbridge
Energy Partners L. P. Enbridge. About Enbridge—Corporate Overview.
URL: http://www.enbridge.com/AboutEnbridge/CorporateOverview.
aspx (accessed November 3, 2014).
88. “As a transporter of energy, Enbridge operates, in Canada and
the U.S., the world’s longest crude oil and liquids transportation
system.” Enbridge. September 25, 2014. News Release (text in
footer). URL: http://www.enbridge.com/~/media/www/Site%20
Documents/Investor%20Relations/2014/2014_ENB_Day_Advisory.
pdf (accessed November 3, 2014); Enbridge states: “We transport
energy, operating the world’s longest, most sophisticated crude
oil and liquids transportation system.” Enbridge. About Enbridge—
Corporate Overview. URL: http://www.enbridge.com/AboutEnbridge/
CorporateOverview.aspx (accessed November 3, 2014).
89. Enbridge Inc. Liquids Pipelines. URL: http://www.enbridge.com/
DeliveringEnergy/OurPipelines/LiquidsPipelines.aspx (accessed
November 3, 2014).
90. At present, the other Alberta to U.S. pipeline carrying heavy tar
sands crude is Line 4, but for various reasons, including the fact
that it is used to transport other types of crude as well, Line 4 is
not the centerpiece of industry’s expansion plans. Minnesota Public
Utilities Commission. June 27, 2014. PL9/CN-13-153 In the Matter
of the Application of Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership for a
Certificate of Need for the Line 67—Phase 2 Upgrade Project. Docket
PL9/CN-13-153. URL: https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/
edockets/searchDocuments.do?method=showPoup&documentId=%
7B561DC6CE-AE98-465B-90E8-0B0A3EA404CF%7D&documentTit
le=20146-100926-01 (accessed November 4, 2014).
91. Figure derived from: Oil Change International. 2012. Refinery
Report. URL: http://refineryreport.org/refineries-list.php (accessed
November 4, 2014).
92. Song, L. June 3, 2013. Map: Another Major Tar Sands Pipeline Seeking
U.S. Permit. InsideClimateNews. URL: http://insideclimatenews.org/
news/20130603/map-another-major-tar-sands-pipeline-seeking-uspermit (accessed November 7, 2014).
93. Natural Resources Defense Council. July 30, 2012. Scoping Comments
of the Natural Resources Defense Council, et al., to the Department of
State on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the
TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline. URL: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/
blogs/aswift/NRDC%20et%20al%20KXL%20SEIS%20Scoping%20
Comments%20FINAL%20July%2030%202012.pdf (accessed
August 15, 2014).
94. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. July 17, 2013. PL9/CN-12-590 In
the Matter of the Application of Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership
for a Certificate of Need for the Line 67 Station Upgrade Project in
Marshall, Clearwater, and Itasca Counties, Minnesota. Docket PL9/
CN-12-590. URL: https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/edockets/
searchDocuments.do?method=showPoup&documentId={A3D9DD5CCF23-4EA7-A021-B30D325AD2BB}&documentTitle=201210-79329-10
(accessed November 4, 2014); August 28, 2014, PL9/CN-13-153, In the
Matter of the Application of Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership for
a Certificate of Need for the Line 67 Station Upgrade Project—Phase
2 in Kittson, Red Lake, Cass, and St. Louis Counties, Minnesota. URL:
https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/edockets/searchDocuments.
do?method=showPoup&documentId={F1B13575-3D71-4CAA-A86A-05CE
1EBBCA38}&documentTitle=20138-90363-03 (accessed November 4,
2014).
95. Shaffer, D. August 27, 2014. Pipeline changes will send more Canadian
oil into Minnesota. StarTribune. URL: http://www.startribune.com/
business/272089211.html (accessed September 2, 2014).
96. The original Presidential permit was granted in 2009. U.S. Department
of State. August 20, 2009. Permit for Alberta Clipper Pipeline Issued
(Media Note). URL: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/aug/128164.
htm (accessed August 10, 2014).
97. 42 U.S.C.A. § 4332 (West); Executive Order 13337, Issuance of
Permits With Respect to Certain Energy-Related Facilities and Land
Transportation Crossings on the International Boundaries of the United
States, 69 FR 25299, April 30, 2004.
98. Executive Order 11423, 33 Fed. Reg. 11741 (Aug. 16, 1968), as amended by
| 25
Executive Order 13337, 69 Fed. Reg. 25229 (Apr. 30, 2004); 40 C.F.R. §
1502.9, 43 Fed. Reg. 55994 (Nov. 29, 1978).
99. Enbridge Inc. 2014. Line 61 Upgrade Project—Phase 1. URL:
http://www.enbridge.com/MainlineEnhancementProgram/US/
Line61UpgradeProjectPhase1.aspx (accessed September 6, 2014).
100.Reed, M. November 2013. Projects Reflect Midstream Expansion,
Restructuring. Pipeline and Gas Journal. URL: http://www.
pipelineandgasjournal.com/projects-reflect-midstream-expansionrestructuring?page=show (accessed August 24, 2014).
101. BakkenOilReport. May 8, 2013. No Crude Left Behind. URL: http://
bakkenoilreport.com/no-crude-left-behind/ (accessed September 5,
2014).
102.Sierra Club, Inc. v. Bostick, CIV-12-742-R, 2012 WL 3230552 (W.D. Okla.
Aug. 5, 2012) aff’d, 539 F. App’x 885 (10th Cir. 2013). NWF and Sierra
Club argue that federal agencies erred in approving the project via
a grievous misapplication of an obscure Army Corp of Engineers
permitting process, resulting in a shamelessly flawed, piecemeal
approval process.
103.Enbridge Inc. September 2014. Investment Community Presentation:
23. URL: http://www.enbridge.com/~/media/www/Site%20
Documents/Investor%20Relations/2014/2014_ENB_Investment%20
Community%20Booklet.pdf (accessed October 22, 2014); Lewis, J.
October 8, 2014. New Enbridge pipeline could give Alberta crude
another conduit to world markets. The Globe & Mail. URL: http://www.
theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-andresources/new-enbridge-pipeline-could-give-alberta-crude-anotherconduit-to-world-markets/article20993504/ (accessed November 4,
2014).
104.Energy Transfer Partners. November 20, 2013. 2013 Analyst
Presentation: 23. URL: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.
ile?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MjI2MjkyfENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1
(accessed August 13, 2014); Song, L. August 4, 2013. Little known
pipeline nearly as big as Keystone could win the race to the Gulf. Inside
Climate News. URL: http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20130804/maplittle-known-pipeline-nearly-big-keystone-could-win-race-gulf (Accessed
August 13, 2014).
105.Originally, Energy Transfer Partners hoped to also build a 160-mile
extension at the southern end, to Saint James LA, RBN Energy, which
is not far from the largest waterborne crude oil import terminal in
the U.S., the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port or LOOP. That extension has
been put on ice—for now. Houston (Platts). November 6, 2013. Eastern
Gulf Crude Access pipeline won’t be linked to St. James: ETP. URL:
http://www.platts.com/latest-news/oil/houston/eastern-gulf-crudeaccess-pipeline-wont-be-linked-21786375 (accessed August 11, 2014);
Fielden, S. December 23, 2012. Thrown for a LOOP—Crude Imports and
the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port Terminal. RBN Energy. URL: https://
rbnenergy.com/thrown-for-a-loop-the-louisiana-offshore-oil-portterminal (accessed August 11, 2014).
106.It would avoid the current crooked path that crude headed for
the Gulf must currently follow, through the congested Cushing OK
pipeline interchange. Eastern Gulf Crude Access Pipeline Project.
June 5, 2013. Information Memorandum and Notice of Binding
Open Season. URL: http://www.energytransfer.com/documents/
PublicInformationMemorandum.pdf (accessed November 4, 2014).
26
107. According to a key energy blog, EGCAP was “pitched at exactly the
same time as a complimentary project operated by Enbridge that
would link the latter’s huge Lakehead system running from Western
Canada to Flanagan, IL with EGCAP in Patoka.” Fielden, S. June 11, 2013.
The Enbridge SAX and East Gulf Pipeline Band—Music to Canadian
Crude Producer’s Ears! RBN Energy. URL: https://rbnenergy.com/theenbridge-sax-and-east-gulf-pipeline-band (accessed August 10, 2014).
108.The segment between Griffith and Stockbridge was completed in
May 2014, and Enbridge expects to finish the Ortonville, MI-to-Saint
Clair River segment in the Fall of 2014. Enbridge Inc. September
2014. Investment Community Presentation: 25, URL: http://www.
enbridge.com/~/media/www/Site%20Documents/Investor%20
Relations/2014/2014_ENB_Investment%20Community%20Booklet.pdf
(accessed October 22, 2014).
109.Enbridge Energy Management LLC. May 2, 2014. SEC Filing Form—10-Q:
53—U.S. Mainline Expansions. URL: http://www.enbridgemanagement.
com/Investor-Relations/EEQ/Financial-Information/SEC-Filings/
9565617/220095/ (accessed August 2, 2014).
110. Enbridge Inc. 2012-2013. Line 78 Pipeline Project. URL: http://www.
enbridge.com/~/media/www/Site%20Documents/Delivering%20
Energy/Projects/US/ENB2013-Line78-L11.pdf?la=en (accessed August
2, 2014).
111. Enbridge Inc. September 30, 2014. Enbridge Day 2014 Annual
Investment Community Conference – Toronto, September 30, 2014,
(transcript):19. URL: http://www.enbridge.com/~/media/www/Site%20
Documents/Investor%20Relations/2014/ENBDays/2014_ENB_Days_
Transcript.pdf (accessed November 2, 2014).
112. Ibid.
113. Enbridge. February 11, 2014. Letter to Wisconsin Conservation
Commission. URL: https://doc-10-7g-apps-viewer.googleusercontent.
com/viewer/secure/pdf/hf65vmt9gsnnfbahqirkkav0p2c91plk/
1dhf45e1n8oj474v01ocefp3dsmlp4c5/1414992750000/
gmail/06836116497116554278/ACFrOgDVbep3AtbLZmmS9sExfvan3sucwvTXnOYqI6AAl7oMsQP0u1cc5KAknwyHuFBCQEFPB_
jNB8TeyDtq51Ci1LUm8wg9Xmsgk62_zg5PMjNhT1tS-k37EAD1uk=?print
=true&nonce=235lcu9fn5nqm&user=06836116497116554278&hash=n1
1769212kcjobrkq3ist8a9p9428fla (accessed November 3, 2014);Friends
of the Headwaters. August 21, 2014. Comments on Consideration of
System Alternatives and the Legal Basis for Consideration of System
Alternatives in the Need and Routing Proceedings. Submission to
the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission in matters concerning
the proposed Sandpiper project, dockets PL-6668/CN-13-473 and
PL-6668/CN-13-473: 17. URL: http://www.friendsoftheheadwaters.
org/uploads/3/4/4/2/3442631/foh_comments_8_21.pdf. (accessed
November 3, 2014). As evident in the Friends of the Headwaters
comments, some believe this line may be called “Line 66, but this
seems unlikely since there is already another Line 66 in the Midwest,
more frequently referred to as the Mustang pipeline. The new WI-IL
Pipeline could be as much as 800,000 barrels per day.
114. The White House—Office of the Press Secretary. June 25, 2013, 1:45
P.M. Remarks by President on Climate Change. Georgetown University. Washington, D.C. URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2013/06/25/remarks-president-climate-change (accessed
September 6, 2014).
| 27
Inspiring Americans
to protect wildlife
for our
children’s future
EMILY STARK
www.nwf.org

PIPELINE PERIL

Transcription

Similar documents

1. After Login to SAFRA Online, click on Book located at the left

No trophy could ever fully express our

TS Trailbreaker Presentation 2012 [Compatibility Mode]

importing disaster - The National Wildlife Federation Blog

10 Threats from the Canadian Tar Sands Industry | NRDC

Eostar 2011 - Earth First! Journal

Captive Sun by Brian Holmes - Museum of Contemporary

Salato Wildlife Education Center Nov. 1, 2014

The Cottage Goodrington Lodge Alta Visa Road Goodrington Sands

FREE† - Motor Caravanners Club