Dialogues on Rebuilding the Canadian Pipeline: Enbridge Too Far

Attribution: USEPA Environmental-Protection-Agency, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Featuring The Fabulous Dadbots: Mark M., Dave S., Mark O., Dennis C., and Geoff Carter

Bots,

You may have heard of the controversy over Enbridge Line 5. Or not. You may not even be interested! But here goes. Sorry, this is lengthy and the payoff is not that great.

Line 5 is a pipeline that runs from the oil producing areas of western Canada (presumably Alberta). It carries “light crude oil”, and it runs east through northern Wisconsin, then through the U.P. It crosses Lake Michigan/Huron at the Straits of Mackinac, where it runs roughly beneath the Mackinac Bridge. It then proceeds southward through mainland Michigan to a refinery in Ontario.

The line has been in place since 1953. The Enbridge Pipeline company had an easement to route its line through the Bad River Indian Reservation, which is just east of Ashland, Wisconsin.

Enbridge wants to rebuild the pipeline. One issue is that the Bad River Band of Indians no longer wants the pipeline to run through its territory. The assumption of many was that the Indians simply wanted to hold up the pipeline company for more money. But that does not seem to be the case. The Indians are completely opposed to the line, and want no part of it. (Or it may be that an “environmental” faction within the tribe held sway over a faction that wanted the money. I have no insight into those internal workings, if there are any.)

So Enbridge is planning to reroute the line around the reservation, to its south. The tribe is not happy about this because the rerouted line would still pass through the watershed of the Bad River. They would be heavily impacted by a spill.

Further east, there’s controversy over the routing of the line under the Straits of Mackinac. These are pristine waters and a spill would be catastrophic. However, it appears that the design for the rebuilt line, which would be in a tunnel 100 feet below the lake bed, would be far safer than the existing line, which sits exposed on the lake bed. Anchors have damaged the existing line twice in the last decade.

Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan opposes the line and has revoked the easement which allows Enbridge to pump oil through the straits.

It needs to be pointed out that the record of Enbridge is far from perfect. In 2010, there was a catastrophic spill on the Kalamazoo River in lower Michigan. The oil spilled for a long time, even though the company’s monitoring functions should have caught it right away.

The Wisconsin DNR has approved Enbridge’s application. The DNR says they studied the application in depth. There are many short term impacts—cutting of trees, trenching, blasting, and so on–related to the actual construction of the pipeline. There are some long term impacts, including fragmentation of habitat, the threat of spills, the potential introduction of exotic species, and more. But nothing that the DNR sees as a showstopper.

I have very mixed feelings about this.

Western Canadian oil, at least from the tar sands region, is some of the dirtiest there is. The extraction and processing of this crude generates huge levels of carbon emissions. They basically need to cook the oil out of the tar sands. I’m not sure to what extent Line 5 actually moves tar sands oil. I don’t believe that the tar sands were being exploited back in 1953, when this line went into operation. So maybe it moves oil from “conventional” oil fields.

I do think that, if you’re going to move oil, pipelines are the way to do it. These long trains of oil cars carrying crude from the Bakken fields in North Dakota are a menace. What are these trains but a mobile pipeline? It makes a lot more sense to build a stationary pipeline, bury it, and not be forced to drag millions of barrels of highly combustible crude through populated areas.

The Straits piece is a winner, as far as I’m concerned. The existing pipe is an accident waiting to happen.

Much as I would like to protect the climate, I don’t see the targeting of individual pieces of fossil fuel infrastructure as the answer. That is arbitrary. We need to build out broad based, alternative, renewable energy sources. But oil is not going away anytime soon.

So my vote would be to go ahead and rebuild.

If you have any interest in this, see the MJS Article.

or Wiki (this is actually more detailed): WikipediaEnbridge 5

Oooo man, Mark. Once again you present a rather intricate, complex problem for the ‘bot collective to ponder. An intriguing conundrum. A quandary. Food for thought… or, perhaps, as I consult the Thesaurus, a “cleft stick”, a “stew”, a “mare’s nest”, an “unfortunate situation”, or a “clusterfuck”.

Is it noble environmental concern, or is it counterproductive virtue signaling that urges blocking the replacement of an aging oil pipeline? At first glance, I would tend to think the latter, since even a cursory weighing of potential disastrous consequences points to the logic of replacing a decaying old pipeline with a newer and stronger one. All stakeholders have probably conceded (at least privately) that the oil is going to get from point A to point B one way or another. The demand for oil is, like it or not, still much too strong to deny. So what gives? Do these folks really want to risk environmental catastrophe just to show off how green they are? That’s either stupid or sociopathic.

I’m thinking the “virtue signalers” are better than that and this stonewalling is all part of an intricate negotiating process. Gretchen is no dummy–and the Tribal powers have learned the hard way how to play the game. Over a half-million barrels of sweet and sour crude flow through those crusty old pipes every day! WTF. That is a whole lot of black gold, baby. $$$. Follow the frickin’ money. Enbridge pipeline and the oil interests can afford to shell out a whole lot more to ensure environmental safety and even have some left over for a legit college fund for tribal kids and a big up nort’ brat fry. The Wisconsin DNR caved too soon.

I predict the new pipeline will eventually go through–followed by a new remake of the Beverly Hillbillies featuring Gretchen Whitmer and Bad River Tribal leaders.

I am blissfully ignorant of the politics of this issue. I’m sure there are palms to grease, favors to call in, backs to scratch, etc… No doubt there is plenty of money at stake for plenty of “stakeholders”, so following the filthy lucre is probably the best predictor of the outcome.

There is no question that replacing an old pipeline is the safest alternative. But maybe safety shouldn’t be the criteria. A new pipeline will guarantee that oil will continue flowing across the continent for at least 40 more years. Pipelines aren’t a short term investment. Should we as a society commit to 40 more years of burning Alberta oil in the eastern North American markets? You may have noticed some of those rumored global warming symptoms in your lives. I have, and lots of people have experienced it in much more traumatic forms than me.

I know the elimination of one pipeline won’t fix our climate change problems. But we have to start somewhere. If not now when? Plus, all pipeline companies are dirty bastards who engage in dirty tricks to get their way in the courts and statehouses of the country.

For me, I’ll put my money on the pipeline replacement. Safetyism and short term payoffs will carry the day.

MarkO

This is indeed a “mares-nest”, “conundrum”, or “cleft stick.” Thank you Dennis, for the pithy synonymity (say that five times after eating a gummy)—I think that’s a word. I like rat’s-nest or even ratfuck myself. I have mixed feelings on this pipeline. The Keystone pipeline spill in Kansas was disastrous both economically and ecologically. Moving the oil underground is probably the most efficient, but it’s definitely not the safest for the environment. What’s the plan for slow underground leaks? Is every inch of the line covered by sensors? And how long would a leak seep into the water table before the repairs would commence. Also taking into account, as MM points out, the damage to the habitat would be substantial—and not short-term. Even considering spills and accidents, I think alternative forms of transportation might be an option that forces the industry to consider renewables.

As MO says, if we want to start weaning ourselves off fossil fuels, we have to start somewhere. Why not here? Transport the oil on rail, ship, and OTR rather than give the oil companies forty years worth of excuses to keep the status quo. I know there’s a risk of an oil spill on the Great Lakes or a rail accident anywhere between point A and B, but a pipeline spill could be just as nasty. And the major oil companies are urging Trump to roll back Biden’s energy policies, which I’m sure he will do.

I do have my own selfish concerns. Over the years, I’ve seen the woods near our place up near Lake Tomahawk get chopped down and chipped away. Development keeps creeping in and it sucks. All we need would be to have an oil slick appear on the ground or on the lake out of nowhere. Not “Black Gold”or “Texas Tea” but an environmental disaster.

I vote no pipeline. Don’t make it easy for these guys.

Thanks for indulging my personal hobby horse, bots.

One thing that nobody pointed out is that Trump will soon be running the EPA and the Interior Department. His mantra is “Drill Baby Drill”. So environmental concerns, whether they be virtue signallers or wily negotiators, will be operating from a weakened position. This particular project does need Army Corps of Engineers approval, but those jamokes approve anything that involves pouring concrete, no matter who is President. So Federal approval is a given. It looks like Gretchen must strike a statuesque pose to stop this thing, since Wisconsin has caved. (As it turns out, the actual Line 5 begins in Superior. Lines 1-4 get the oil to the Superior terminus. So for this particular project, it’s only WI and MI involved.)

I guess this proves to me how difficult it is to be a moderate. Both Geoff and MarkO are taking pretty hard line “no pipeline” positions. And those make sense. When the dirty bastards have as dirty a record as Enbridge, I can’t argue with opposing those SOBs at every turn.

But I feel like a squishy moderate on this. “Golly Geez, guys, the new pipeline is going to be a lot safer! And we all know that our renewables nirvana is just out of reach. We need this oil as a bridge to a climate friendly future! Let’s all work together!”

The problem is, the hardline Trumpeteers and Koch Brothers followers are taking me for a useful idiot on this. They basically want to pave it all over, and the squishy moderates are just a weapon to use to score points against the green opposition.

That’s actually a big problem with all politics now. If you try to stake out a middle position, you’re just a stooge for the hardline conservatives. For example, I believe in entitlement reform. Reasonable reform. I want to save our future budgets from massive deficits, and our future economy from a debt crisis. But, meanwhile, the conservatives take every opportunity to slash taxes and put the government’s fiscal situation on even shakier ground. I feel as if my calls for “entitlement reform” are going to be converted to work requirements, massive cuts, and privatization.

I guess the only answer is to change my gender, get off the grid, and support Defund the Police. At least then I won’t be a stooge for Trump.

Great “awareness-ing” Mark M.

Thanks. Good takes from our fellow 286 powered bots as well. I have little to add, save for a NIMBY observation. Will refrain from being critical, merely observing that wind turbines, even offshore, are a cross for locals to bear (and protest). We protest certain bus line routes here in Madison. Yet we all need to share the burden of infra. If one lives in an energy prime time, especially a clean energy zone, sorry, that’s the way the cookie crumbles. On my street there was massive resistance to adding sidewalks…sharing Lake Mendota Drive, making it safer, more accessible for others, and giving the snow plowers a place to push the snow (the terrace, not the sidewalk, but they are hand in glove.—not looking for an attaboy here, just sharing the resistance was high, the support (me) was low. And wait…then came the phony “sacred tribal history…and save the tree campaigns”… all blatant camouflage for NIMBY selfishness.

Okay, (2) things to add re line 5, then extra credit, (for all!)

Pretty sure that train and rail transfer would pollute far more than pumping it. (quick google says pumping is 66% less emissions). Plus pumping uses less oil, and may even be fueled by renewables.
One drillbit that which connects our patriot Kirk Bangstad to Gretchen Whitmer: Tom Tiffany. My wife has been warning me about this Republican, forever-trumper, for years. He’s mentioned in the line 5 wiki—you can guess his stance….essentially: drill baby drill.

My humble offering is a 7 slide ppt. Here are your learning objectives:

Big Picture; US Energy Uses and Sources: PPT

Have a feel for the sources and uses of energy in the US (per Penn State, as of 2019, extrapolate as you see fit)
Understand where “electrification” fits into the migration from fossil or renewables to the grid and then to the cars and the homes, (as MM alluded to recently our gas stove is not our atmosphere’s friend.)
Many conclusions/insights but the big (2) for me are:
1. Fossil is still, by far, the largest source. (So yes, We should do the infra correctly on line 5—weaning off the teat is the goal, but not for many decades).
2. Re USE and Transportation, specifically, (about 1/3^rd of the total use pie): look at the 91 to 1 ratio. Long way to go.
Jevon’s paradox is a fun fact…the essence of capitalism, human nature (same diff?) or someth’en. I could elaborate, but not now. Wait, just one, my favorite example is AC. I used to be fat and happy with 1 small window unit. Would only turn it on for an hour or two to knock down the humidity, say 20 days in summer. Keep the house buttoned up and it was just fine. But then came…life…and eventually central AC. 10 times more efficient than the window unit…but 100 times bigger. And with the “efficiency” of the programmable stat…it runs more. The last part could be improved but in a household there are compromises. Bottom line, I consume more energy. And of course many examples beyond residential. All public buildings are now AC. Automotive: the Sportabout, though visionary….is no longer unique.
The California duck curve is fascinating. It is famous in energy circles—you don’t have to complete the words on a google search. It took me a while to appreciate it so here’s a primer and the conclusion:

It is the CA grid It is both generation and usage.
Over 1 day.
It documents the rise of solar over a number of recent years—via the droop of the duck’s belly.. When the sun is out…(almost always in CA, but not at night)… Solar percentage is the lion’s share of CA’s grid energy source.
CA’s grid was over 50% renewable in the mid 2000 teens. Remarkable since CA is the world’s 6^th largest economy. That and the growth of solar and wind on the PSU sources histogram provides hope. (note: the growth since 2019 is not shown, I’d like to see an updated chart…solar PV panels have become inexpensive (albeit from jina) and coal’s share of the histogram shrivels, like the last zinnia of summer.
Trends:
- On the source side: Solar PV is growing fast. So is wind. This is great! And everywhere, not just CA. Solar PV is cost competitive, a no brainer if the social costs of the alternatives are on the scale. There are also the typical efficiency gains in old tech and the many one-offs—e.g. there is new type of geothermal going in Utah. Hot rocks. Cape Geothermal, operated by Fervo, 428 F water (not steam, not nasty geyser (sulfur) geothermal of the 60s). Number of things going on in nuclear. Smaller, not all for power generation. Very active R & D time right now in nuclear.
- On the use side:

EVs: growing slower, remains to be seen if that is due to range anxiety, charging stations, auto companies dialing back the marketing… But I predict it will be dominant by our kids’ middle age. Once the charging infra is up to snuff—and it appears with the ‘GM-Musk-Trump accord’ plug standardization is fast upon us. Once the charging stations are common, the marketing machines will fire up. So many benefits: torque up the wazoo, yet quiet and convenient charging (for many, not most). And the marketing flames can be lethal. Have I ever shared Noam Chomsky’s observations? 😎.
AVs : ‘more slower’. The current taxi betas in SF (Waymo) and China, will be interesting to watch.
Electrification of commercial buildings and residential stoves: slowest (but that is due to the lifespan of buildings. If you looked at new construction only, you’d see a rapid rise in “electrification”. Heat pumps—both air and the water side are central to the heating changeover. They were always good for cooling, but due to advances (and social cost recognition), they are now good, (competitive with dirty natural gas), for heating.
The mechanics of making the grid work given rising solar are interesting but a problem that is easily solved—don’t tax your 286’s with that. Couple slides go into managing overgeneration. Batteries are the most likely answer.

Not in our lifetime, but eventually, on a worldwide scale, one could argue that the sources become mostly renewables. Basis is 1. CA—been there done that and it is large sample size. 2. Price and efficiency of PVs. But….dunno…not as optimistic…India, China and Africa have a long way to go…and Jevon is constantly impeding progress.

Last not in the slide, I’ll leave you with my “win any argument” observation of why we should take climate change with ice bowl urgency.

Fact: There are a zillion planets out there.

Fact: So far, only one has life.

Fact: Our ability to keep adding to both numbers above (zillions and uno) keeps going up with satellites, space telescopes: Hubbel, James Webb.

Fact: So far, only one has an atmosphere capable of supporting life.

Hmmm…maybe the atmosphere and life are related?

Never mind all the theories, carbon this, carbon that, hockey stick curves, glacier shrinking, biblical floods, svelte polar bears…just look at it through the lens of a Polymarket bookie. The ratio (aka “odds) of planets with life and an atmosphere (1, earth) to those with neither (a zillion, billion, quantity squared…the double it…(Garth imitation there at the end) are a no brainer. The ratio is one to a gazillion. Why not play it conservatively and recognize, accept, even “assume for now”, that this atmosphere is a unicorn which provides life, protects us from the sun, but also traps carbon. That’s why they call it the greenhouse effect. I’d like to see less emphasis put on clean air, clean water…they are just “meh”, compared to preserving our most precious resource, our atmosphere. Earth is an anomaly.

Well…as usual that evolved as I wrote it…apologies, I really do not mean to hijack the line 5 topic. I know the UP pretty well and it is of high interest to me.

D-bot.

BTW, did the bots see the “news” that, back in November, Enbridge reported to the EPA that their Line 6 had sprung a leak and dropped about 70,000 gallons of crude into the wilds of Jefferson County, between Milwauikee and Madison? It had apparently been leaking for some time before it was noticed and reported by Enbridge. Oops. I guess their safest of all transport technologies ain’t all that safe after all. No worries, at about the same time, a different government agency approved the permits to allow Enbridge to reroute their Line 5 around that Indian Reservation up north. Business as usual!

MarkO