Enbridge is giving a lukewarm response to pressure from a Minnesota agency that it reroute the proposed Sandpiper pipeline out of the Bakken to avoid sensitive northern lakes, wetlands and streams.
The state’s Department of Natural Resources, in a regulatory filing Aug. 21, urged Minnesota’s Public Utilities Commission to “strongly consider” one of eight alternative routes to reduce the environmental impact of the planned right of way.
But Enbridge, in arguing that its preferred route to provide an additional outlet for Bakken crude is the best for natural resources, said the other options could extend the pipeline by 74 miles to 182 miles, increase costs by $185 million to $455 million, and add three years to the completion date.
Pros and cons
Meanwhile, the public comment phase of Sandpiper was launched Aug. 25 in Superior, Wisconsin, the end-point for Sandpiper, with proponents making their case for job-creation, while opponents arguing for an environmental impact statement, EIS.
Dan Heldt, an engineer with LHB Consulting, said his company’s 200-plus workers are proof of the long-term benefits of the pipeline industry in his region, noting the average employee has been with LHB for 10 years.
Jeff Daveau, of the Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 11 union, said U.S. dependence on crude from the war-torn Middle East seems to be affected by “any little conflict” which causes shortages of supplies and raises pump prices.
He said many environmental concerns about the safety of pipelines could be overcome by using high-standard U.S. steel, claiming most pipeline cracks and breaks have occurred in foreign steel.
Opponents said each pipeline project should undergo an EIS, with Great Northern Solar Chief Executive Officer Christopher LaForge noting that the contents of each pipeline are “significantly different.”
LaForge said an even greater concern facing six Wisconsin cities is a recent reduction in hazardous materials response plans at a time when we are “potentially seeing a huge increase in the volume of dangerous” hazmat shipments.
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, DNR, has set a Sept. 30 deadline for written public comments on the $2.6 billion, 610-mile Sandpiper line that is designed to carry an initial 225,000 barrels per day from North Dakota to Superior, the terminal for six existing or planned Enbridge pipelines.
Ben Callan, a regulations and zoning specialist with the DNR, was emphatic that Sandpiper will need an EIS in Wisconsin, which is impacted by only 14 miles of the current pipeline route, and will face similar scrutiny in Minnesota and North Dakota.
Enbridge spokeswoman Lorraine Little said the company has spent 88,000 hours surveying the Sandpiper right of way and expects to devote another 75,000 hours to that aspect this year.
She said Enbridge, which still carries the scars of its Kalamazoo River spill four years ago, is making major investments in new technology and pipeline monitoring systems to detect and prevent leaks.
Little said C$4 billion has been spent over the last two years on system upgrades and maintenance, including different leak detection technologies and control center procedures.
DNR’s reasoning
The case by the Minnesota DNR for rerouting is the first time a state regulator has suggested an entirely different route from that proposed by an applicant.
“The preferred route for the Sandpiper project is proposed in a region of the state that contains a concentration of important lakes for fisheries, trout streams, sensitive aquifers, public conservation lands a and mineral and forest resources,” said a letter by Jamie Schrenzel, a principal planner in the agency’s environmental review unit.
He said the DNR believes the proposed route could become a “new corridor” for multiple pipelines, including Enbridge’s indication that it is considering another pipeline on a parallel route.
The Minneapolis Star-Tribune reported that Enbridge countered the route it has chosen “travels along an existing utility right-of-way ... and minimizes impacts on people and the environment. We are committed to continuing to work cooperatively with the appropriate regulatory and environmental agencies throughout the approval process.”
Because Sandpiper is a U.S. domestic pipeline and does not cross the U.S.-Canada border it does not require a Presidential Permit.
State and environmental reviews are under way and public hearings are tentatively scheduled for later this year, leading to regulatory decisions in 2015.
