Pipelines: Just say no

Spread the love

Two pieces of news about pipelines.

From MPR: MN court says PUC didn’t weigh oil spill impact in Line 3 pipeline decision

In a victory for Line 3 oil pipeline opponents, the Minnesota Court of Appeals on Monday reversed the state Public Utilities Commission’s approval of the Line 3 replacement project’s environmental review, saying it didn’t adequately address the potential impact of a spill in the Lake Superior watershed.

Last June, the PUC approved Enbridge Energy’s plan to replace its aging Line 3 oil pipeline, which has been transporting oil across northern Minnesota from Alberta, Canada, since the 1960s.

From Politico: Trump administration seeks criminal crackdown on pipeline protests

The Trump administration is joining calls to treat some pipeline protests as a federal crime, mirroring state legislative efforts that have spread in the wake of high-profile demonstrations around the country.

Bring it on, suckas. Even a conservative federal judge has read the constitution.

Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:

In Search of Sungudogo by Greg Laden, now in Kindle or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.

Spread the love

5 thoughts on “Pipelines: Just say no

  1. I don’t understand the logic of opposing replacing an aging pipeline with a new pipeline.

    Which one will be more likely to leak – the aging one or the new one?

    Do protesters want to cause spills by forcing the pipeline company to use the old one until failure?

    In Michigan, protesters oppose replacing a pipeline which is literally on the bottom of a great lake (in the water), with one which is moved into a tunnel below the lake.


    I just don’t get the logic!

    Which have more spills – pipelines or trains and trucks?

    Hopefully common sense will prevail and we will end up with new pipelines and fewer spills and less transport by trains and trucks.

  2. I’m not surprised at rickA’s asinine comments — there is nothing related to issues about protecting the environment he won’t lie about and oppose.

    The bit about protesters ‘want to cause spills’ is especially galling, but it is another perfect example of just what a scumbag he is.

    There is not enough space here to give a full discussion of the issues relating to the pipelines under the Straights, so here’s just a summary:

    Line 5 (as it’s commonly referred to) starts at Superior Wisconsin, moves into the UP and across the southern portion to the Straights of Mackinac. The single line is split into two pipes as it passes through. After it crosses the Straights it continues southeast and takes oil to refineries in Montreal and Quebec. Enbridge itself describes it to shareholders as the “Eastern Canadian Refinery Access Initiative”. Couple that with the fact that just a few years ago Canadian officials canned building a pipeline to their east cost that would stay entirely inside their borders because of significant concerns about the environmental damage and you get a sense of one reason for our opposition

    * The legislation creating the board that would oversee the tunnel was passed under shady means:

    Michigan’s constitution states:

    “No law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title. No bill shall be altered or amended on its passage through either house so as to change its original purpose as determined by its total content and not alone by its title.”

    When the Republicans were cobbling together the tunnel bill they ran into another requirement that said a bill cannot be passed until it spends at least five days in each chamber. They got around the two requirements by placing the bill creating the new Mackinac Straights Corridor Authority in a bill (one related to the Mackinac Bridge Authority) that had been introduced earlier in the session

    * Enbridge Energy has an abysmal record when it comes to safety and honesty.

    After a 2010 oil spill into the Kalamazoo River near Battle Creek, reviews
    of Enbridge records showed some of their sensors failed to detect the spill and signals from other sensors were ignored for over 18 hours before the company began to mobilize a response.

    It was found that they had failed to perform basic maintenance on the pipeline while recording it had been done.

    As part of their settlement with the government after the cleanup they agreed on new maintenance guidelines: Guess what: it was found in 2016 that they hadn’t done that and were fine a (measly) $1 million. They paid the fine while denied any wrongdoing.

    A review of their cleanup plans (for a spill in the Straights) concluded that they were “woefully inadequate”.

    If there is a spill under the Straights the economic impacts are estimated at a minimum of $3 billion. The environmental impact is described as incalculable.

    For the pipeline in the Straights they were discovered to have provided misleading reports about its safety and state: a review of the line by external agencies found more evidence of damage than Enbridge included in its official reports.

    In the spring of 2018 a ship’s anchor struck and damaged the two lines . Examination by regulatory teams noted that Enbridge had skimped on maintenance here as well: anchor supports were missing and causing the pipeline to sag, protective coating was gone from significant sections and the lines showed signs of corrosion.

    So why express opposition to the tunnel under our Straights? Other than the shady way the plan was okayed, the long history of lies about maintenance, failure to live up to agreements, and inadequate response plans by the company that owns the line you mean?

    rickA, with the shitty job you do researching issues it’s a wonder you ever got out of preschool. If you really have any sort of college degree it’s a safe bet it’s from one of the places that sends them based on how quickly a check clears rather than any academic effort.

    1. dean:

      Yes – I guess it is just better to continue to use the aging pipeline which runs the oil right through the water, rather than move the pipeline under the lake (run the pipeline through rock).

      Good idea.

  3. The Trump administration is joining calls to treat some pipeline protests as a federal crime…

    I saw that earlier. I view it this way: a first attempt (and a feeling out of public opinion) by Trump and his people to clamp down on protest of any kind. They linked it to pipeline protest because they knew their base of idiots (Example A: rickA above) would agree with it.

  4. Yes – I guess it is just better to continue to use the aging pipeline which runs the oil right through the water, rather than move the pipeline under the lake (run the pipeline through rock).

    You really can’t read for understanding can you?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.