Enbridge line 5

[ed]

One can only imagine what damage a 17 hour delay would have on our water system when a rupture happens at the Straits. Michigan has everything to loose on this line and gains absolutely nothing in return.

More than 1 million gallons of tar sands oil spilled into the Kalamazoo River near Marshall, Mich., when a 6-foot rupture in Enbridge pipeline 6B opened on July 25, 2010. Despite warnings of trouble, oil flowed for 17 hours before Enbridge shut down the pipeline. Because the river was reaching peak flood stage, the oil spread quickly downriver and was carried past the shoreline the next day.

[Guest]

Since the cost so far of the Marshall Line 5 leak is well over $1 billion, I suspect that $2 billion is an underestimate of the cost of cleaning up a Straits spill of similar size.

[ed]

The P B S station here in Detroit aired a 1/2 hour show last night ( 7/26 ) on the enbridge line 5. they presented a host of facts relating to the enbridge company and line 5 which runs thru Michigan. in 2010, enbridge was responsible for a 6 foot pipe rupture near Marshal Michigan which fouled 40 miles of river before being contained. that clean up is still ongoing today. U of M conducted a study of line 5 which runs under the straights of Michigan ( line 5 is actually two pipe lines running under water ). they found that a failure of line 5 will foul 740 miles of Michigan shore line and foul the drinking water for over 40 million people. if such a breach were to happen during the winter months, our coast guard could not contain the spill and the ice covered oil would not be contained. under water pictures show the decaying condition of the pipes outer wrapping which was installed in 1953. Michigan gets almost no value from this line but, we stand to loose much - should a failure result. enbridge would simply go out of business in the event of a line failure and the taxpayers of Michigan would be left to suffer and pay for the clean up.

[ed]

I think Michigan has a large liability with this pipeline with absolutely no asset value to it's taxpayers. The oil flowing thru this pipeline goes directly to Sarnia's 'chemical valley' refineries with zero benefit to the U S. Sarnia's 'chemical valley' has a long history of chemical spills into the Saint Clair river system. These spills have resulted in drinking water intakes being shut down as a result. Divers in the river have reported 'globs' of chemicals being carried along the bottom of the river. Cancer rates, of towns along the river that get their drinking water from the river, have increased. Dow chemical and the oil refineries along Sarnia's coast line have been fined by the Canadian government ( with minor fines ) many times over but - continue to operate. I'd like to hear from folks living along the river -- what do you think ?

[Guest]

Good idea, but you can't drink a bond.

I've said this before but it bears repeating: Enbridge is telling Minnesota that its 50-year-old underground pipeline must be replaced because of its age, yet it's telling Michigan that its 60-year-old pipeline under the straits is just fine and will last indefinitely. Either the company is lying to Minnesota or it's lying to Michigan. Why trust an invaluable resource to a company that lies, and only seems to detect problems with its pipeline after somebody else points them out?

Enbridge makes a big deal out of all the product this pipeline hauls to Michigan, but the truth is nearly all of it goes straight to Sarnia. It should be shut down.

[ed]

In today's news ( 7/21 ) the D E Q has estimated that a breach in Enbridge line 5 could release 32,000 to 58,000 barrels of oil. This would result in a cost of about 2 billion dollars ( U S ) to clean up. I believe and support the idea that Enbridge be required to place a 2 billion dollar bond ( U S funds ) into escrow in the U S to insure such a clean up would indeed be funded. As it stands currently, if such a breach were to happen, Enbridge would simply declare a bankrupt situation and go out of business. The 2 billion dollar clean up of such a breach would be up to the U S taxpayers to fund. It is not unusual for a business to be required to post such a bond, held in an escrow fund, to conduct hazard related business.
That's my feelings on this dangerous D E Q report and I'm interested on other folks feelings. Please let us know !