WASHINGTON
According to a new report by a Canadian environmental organization, Line 5 has viable alternatives if it is closed down. This is according to a new report that seeks to bridge the ideological divide in the public debate on North America’s dependence on fossil fuels.
The report, commissioned by Environmental Defence and released Wednesday, recommends Enbridge Inc. upgrading its Line 78 pipeline in order to handle the bulk energy Line 5 currently delivers.
Michelle Woodhouse, the group’s water manager and co-author of this report, said that Line 5 is a real threat and that she is aware of all the factors that can lead to ecological disaster.
Woodhouse stated that it is clear that North America’s infrastructure to replace oil and gas with renewable energy sources and transition to a more sustainable economy is still far from being a reality.
She said, “We don’t have all the necessary equipment to shut down every pipeline right away.”
I wanted the public to see the data about our dependence on the pipeline and to find a viable way of shutting it down that did not compromise between protecting the Great Lakes as well as meeting our current crude oil needs.
Line 5 opponents, including the Michigan governor, are fierce. Gretchen Whitmer calls for the immediate shutdown of the pipeline because it crosses under the Straits of Mackinac. This Strait of Mackinac is an environmentally sensitive shipping lane linking Lake Huron to Lake Michigan.
Line 5 is a vital and essential source of energy for many Midwestern states, including Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. It is also a crucial source of feedstock for important refineries on the northern border, including those that supply fuel to some of Canada’s busiest airfields.
Line 78 runs across the southern portion of the state, connecting Sarnia, Ont. with junctions in northern Indiana at the southernmost tip Lake Michigan. It connects with existing lines that originate from Superior, Wisc. It was built in 2015 to replace Line 6B, the famous pipeline that pumped 3.1 million litres oil into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan in 2010.
The report supports upgrading Line 78 to carry the bulk Line 5’s crude oil load. The rest – a best-case estimate at 119,000 barrels per hour – could be handled by additional rail capacity or marine tanker capacity with minimal environmental impact.
Line 5 must be closed, either by court order or because of a rupture. The report also states that this would cause energy shortages in all the regions and facilities that depend upon it for energy.
A planned shutdown is a better solution. Enbridge, the refineries, and governments will work together to determine how best to meet demand. This report clearly shows that there are many options.
Enbridge insists otherwise.
Line 78 is already fully operational and serving other customers, the company stated in a statement. Line 5 is one of two Mainline pipelines that can handle natural gas liquids, which are used to make propane in Michigan.
The statement stated that Enbridge’s Mainline system was at capacity and is frequently apportioned or oversubscribed.
This misguided plan has only one thing to prove: a shutdown at Line 5 would have a significant impact on the region’s energy supply and businesses, as well as hard-working families in Michigan and Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Canada’s two largest provinces. It makes no sense.
According to the report, Line 78’s two sections can currently carry 570,000 and 500,000 barrels per day. However, they could be upgraded to 800,000 and 525,000, respectively – which is what the report calls the ultimate design scenario.
Line 5 has a maximum daily production of 540,000 barrels. However, neither pipeline is currently at its full capacity, according to the report. This means Line 78’s spare capacity is sufficient to make up the majority of Line 5’s closure.
According to the report, a Line 5 closure in the constrained Line 78 scenario would leave a shortfall at 255,000 barrels per hour to be made up somewhere else, while the shortfall is reduced to 119,000 barrels in the expanded-capacity scenario.
It estimates that up to three additional trains could transport the additional 119,000 barrels of oil on routes already used for oil transportation, and one additional marine tanker. It also projects a modest increase in gasoline’s price: 1.8 cents a litre.
Enbridge claims that it would take too many years to develop and receive approval for the necessary increase – a conclusion reached by Michigan’s own energy taskforce. Enbridge also makes a point to stress the environmental impact that adding trains, trucks, and tankers onto the network will have.
They argue that the plan would cause environmental damage as it would burn more fuel for transporting energy, clog critical roads, create unnecessary energy dislocations, and raise prices.
Martin Meyers, an independent energy analyst with a 40-year history in the industry on both sides the Canada-U.S. Border, assisted in compiling this report. However, he acknowledged that it doesn’t include what’s currently being shipped via line 78.
He said that the company’s capacity numbers are based on its own data submitted to regulators in 2013, as part of the process to replace Line 6B.
Concerning the issue of natural gas liquids: There is enough natural gas production and refining capability in the region south to meet the demand. He said: There is a significant resource being produced, and it is growing rapidly.
This report by The Canadian Press first appeared February 16, 2022.