The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) is moving to the next phase of permitting two new pipelines in Wisconsin. The Line 3 ‘replacement’ and Sandpiper pipelines enter Wisconsin through Minnesota and end at Enbridge’s terminal in Superior.
Line 3 ‘Replacement’
One of the pipelines is meant to ‘replace’ Line 3, an existing pipeline that brings oil from Canada into Superior. However, when Enbridge has recognizes the need to replace a pipeline, they instead use it as an excuse to build an even bigger pipeline. For example, Enbridge ‘replaced’ the pipeline responsible for the notorious Kalamazoo spill, they doubled the size.
Currently Line 3 is 390,000 barrels per day (bpd). The replacement would mean a new, bigger pipeline that would almost double it to 760,000 bpd, increasing the oil coming into the state. This brand new pipeline won’t even be in the same place as the existing Line 3. Enbridge plans to build a new one next to the current one and leave the existing pipeline in the ground! The pipeline actually diverts quite a bit in some places.
Leaving the pipeline in the ground can be dangerous. Enbridge plans to get as much oil as possible out of the pipeline, fill it with nitrogen gas, and seal it off. If leaks occurred, this could be dangerous for those using the land or could drain a wetland or river if there was a leak that moved the water far away. Even worse, there have been a lot of questions about who ‘owns’ or is responsible for the pipeline after the pipeline has been abandoned.
Sandpiper Pipeline
The other pipeline would bring fracked oil from the North Dakota Bakken fields to Superior. This new pipeline has caused a lot of concern in Minnesota as the proposed path cuts right through Minnesota’s lake country, including treaty territory where hunting, fishing, and gathering rights are protected.
Winona La Duke of Honor the Earth explains, “Let us be clear, this is the only place in the world where there are Anishinaabeg and this is the only place in the world where there is wild rice. We understand that, and fully intend to protect all that is essential to our lives as Anishinaabeg people.”
This new pipeline will also mean that Enbridge can ship this fracked oil it is currently shipping on its other pipelines through the new one, creating more space for tar sands oil to be pumped into Wisconsin. Finally, the DNR’s analysis states Enbridge may plan to increase the pipeline up to 640,000 bpd.
More oil means more pipelines
Together, these pipelines could bring up to 1 million more barrels of oil into Superior. That oil will not stay there. Like Enbridge’s other expansion plans, this oil will have to move through Wisconsin, to the south—requiring a new pipeline south of Superior.
Enbridge has started the first steps to building another pipeline through the heart of Wisconsin, calling it a Line-61 twin, meaning they will likely build another pipeline right next to the existing Line 61. When complete, Line 61 will be the largest tar sands pipeline in the world, outside of Russia. We could soon have the two largest pipelines in the world outside of Russia, right next to each other—two pipelines going through the St. Croix River (a National Scenic and Wildlife River), the Wisconsin River, the Rock River, and the other important areas in Wisconsin. ‘Twinning’ the pipeline means twinning the threat that is posed through Wisconsin.
In the Environmental Impact Statement, the DNR did not consider the environmental concerns about the Line 61-twin. However, if the DNR permits these two pipelines, Enbridge will need to build a pipeline to move this oil. The DNR should study all three pipelines as one project.
These pipelines are all risk and no reward for Wisconsin.
A recently released report from the National Academy of Sciences examined the difference between tar sands oil and traditional oil. It found that cleaning up a tar sands spill in a waterway is significantly more difficult and potentially up to 14.5 times more expensive than cleaning up a non-tar sands oil spill. The disastrous Enbridge Line 6B tar sands spill in Michigan in 2010 made it clear that even a smaller rupture with a quicker response time in the Wisconsin River, Rock River, or the St. Croix River (a National Scenic and Wildlife River) could be devastating. The DNR needs to scrutinize how spills would be cleaned up, the permanent damage to waterways, and the impacts to Wisconsin’s economy. The DNR’s review does not consider how difficult (or impossible) it could be to clean up a spill if it were to occur under snow or ice.
Wisconsin Shouldn’t Rush this Process
Finally, given that Minnesota just began reviewing these pipelines, it is premature for the DNR to move forward with these dangerous pipeline proposals. The two state entities should work together to look at the cumulative impacts of this pipeline network in its entirety. If the DNR will not work with agencies in Minnesota, the DNR should wait until Minnesota permits the pipelines. Right now, it is uncertain whether these pipelines will even get permitted in Minnesota. If they are, it’s unclear if they will even be routed to Wisconsin. Given this uncertainty, the DNR should wait for these questions to be resolved before moving forward. The DNR does not need to curtail to Enbridge, especially when it does not make sense.
Speak Out!
The DNR is accepting public comments the proposals. Click here to submit written comments to the DNR.