About Me

My photo
For me it is All About Being of Service & Living the Life of the Give-Away....

Being Mindful of those who are unable to speak for themselves; our Non-Two Legged Relations and the Future Generations.

It's about walking on the Canka Luta Waste Behind the Cannunpa and the ceremonies.

It's about Mindfulness and Respect. It's about Honesty and owning up to my foibles.

It's about: Mi Takuye Oyacin

Monday, January 19, 2015

A Secret Network of Pipelines That You Don't Know About


Andrew Breiner

While America Spars Over

Keystone XL, 

A Vast Network Of 

Pipelines Is Quietly 

Being Approved

POSTED ON  
"While America Spars Over Keystone XL, A Vast Network Of Pipelines Is Quietly Being Approved"
 
After countless marches, arrests, Congressional votes, 
and editorials, the five-and-a-half year battle over the 
controversial Keystone XL pipeline is nearing its end. 
If a recent ruling in Nebraska doesn’t delay the 
decision further, America could find out 
as soon as this spring whether or not the pipeline, 
which has become a focal point in America’s
 environmental movement, will be built.

But while critics and proponents of Keystone 
XL have sparred over the last few years, numerous 
pipelines — many of them slated to carry the same 
Canadian tar sands crude as Keystone — have been 
proposed, permitted, and even seen construction 
begin in the U.S. and Canada. Some rival Keystone 
XL in size and capacity; others, when linked up 
with existing and planned pipelines, would carry 
more oil than the 1,179-mile pipeline.

With the public eye turned on Keystone, some 
of these pipelines have faced little opposition. 
But it’s not just new pipelines that worry Carl 
Weimer, executive director of the Pipeline 
Safety Trust. Weimer said companies are beginning
 to revamp old pipelines by expanding their 
capacity or reversing their flow, changes that 
can be troubling if proper safety measures
 aren’t put in place.








“Some of these pipelines have been in the ground 
for 40, 50, 60 years, so they were put in the ground
 before pipelines had the latest and greatest c
oatings or before the welding was up to snuff,” 
he said. “So there’s lots of issues about how 
you verify that the pipe that’s been in the ground
 that long is really up to additional pressures.”

Weimer said that while Keystone has served as a 
distraction from these other pipelines, it’s also 
increased the public’s awareness of the dangers 
of transporting tar sands crude. But post-Keystone 
decision, he said, he’s not sure whether that 
interest will wane, or whether activists will 
pick right back up where they left off on 
Keystone and tackle other pipeline proposals.

“It could go either way,” he said. “It could be 
that people put so much energy into Keystone 
that if it gets approved it might take the wind 
out of everybody’s sails, and they’ll figure 
‘what’s the point,’ or it might be that there’s a lot 
more people that are interested and will continue 
on with all these other ones.”

America will have to wait for the White House’s 
decision on Keystone XL to find out. Meanwhile, 
here are ten other pipelines — projects that haven’t
 been waylayed by international approval 
processes or political skirmishes — 
you should know about.

Energy East

Energy-East-Pipeline-Conceptual-Route-Map













If CREDIT: TRANSCANADA
Energy East is approved, the pipeline would 
carry about 1.1 million barrels of tar sands 
crude each day — a huge capacity compared
 to Keystone XL’s 830,000 barrels per day (bpd)
 — from Saskatchewan and Alberta’s Athabasca
region to Canada’s East Coast. About two-thirds 
of the pipeline already exists, meaning a major 
part of the project will be converting that existing 
line, which carries natural gas, into a crude oil 
pipeline.

The pipeline has gotten some push-back in Canada,
 however. A February report from the Pembina 
Institutefound Energy East would have an even 
greater impact on the climate than Keystone XL, 
with the potential to generate 30 to 32 million 
metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions each year — 
the equivalent of adding more than seven million 
cars to the roads, and more than the 22 million 
metric tons that the think tank predicts Keystone XL
 will produce. And a March report from multiple
 Canadian environmental organizations argued 
that the benefits of Energy East to Canadian oil 
refineries had been overblown.

TransCanada filed its project description for 
the pipeline with the National Energy Board 
in early March, marking the first step in the 
pipeline’s approval process.
Line9route
CREDIT: NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD

Line 9 Reversal And Expansion

On March 6, Canada’s National Energy Board 
approved Enbridge’s Line 9 expansion and 
reversal plan, which will allow the currently 
westward-flowing Line 9 pipeline to flow east, 
enabling it to carry 300,000 barrels of tar sands 
from Alberta to refineries in Quebec each day. 
The NEB’s approval of the plan will hold only if
 Enbridge meets 30 conditions laid out by the 
NEB relating to emergency response, public 
consultation and other safety issues. 
Enbridge has one year to meet these conditions
 and cannot begin the reversal operations until
 the conditions are met and the pipeline is inspected.

Environmentalists have decried the NEB’s 
decision to approve the project. “Enbridge’s 
Line 9 pipeline project is a recipe for disaster,”
 Adam Scott of Canada’s Environmental Defense
 said. “The 39-year-old pipeline runs directly 
through the most densely populated parts of 
Canada, threatening the health, safety and 
environment of Canadians.”

But it’s not just Canadians who are concerned
 about the pipeline. The reversal means tar sands
 will be travelling dangerously close to communities
 in New England, and the pipeline will connect at 
the end of its route to another pipeline that 
could carry the crude to Portland, Maine. 
Enbridge has denied that this is their plan, 
saying they won’t ship Line 9’s tar sands past 
the Canadian border, but New England 
residents are still worried.

“Today’s decision should energize residents of 
New England to stand up and say unequivocally: 
We do not want tar sands in our communities 
and we do not want to play any role in 
encouraging the tar sands industry to continue 
with its irresponsible and dangerous development,” 
NRDC’s Canada Project Director Danielle Droitsch
 wrote in a blog post on March 7.

Alberta Clipper Expansion

CREDIT: ENBRIDGE
clipper

Enbridge is already in the process of increasing
 the capacity of the existing Alberta Clipper 
pipeline from 450,000 to 570,000 barrels 
per day by installing new pumps and metering 
terminals along the route. Ultimately, the 
company seeks to increase the pipeline’s 
capacity to 880,000 bpd — more than the 
capacity of Keystone XL — but approval for 
that is still in the works. The existing pipeline 
carries tar sands crude from Hardisty, Alberta 
to Superior, Wisconsin, and was shut down 
last month after a leak at a Saskatchewan pump 
station spilled about 125 barrels of oil.

The expansion project has faced some opposition. 
In January, the Sierra Club called on the State 
Department to consider the cumulative effects 
of the Alberta Clipper expansion in its review 
of the Keystone XL pipeline — but overall, Alberta Clipper hasn’t gotten the attention Keystone XL has.

“We’re very concerned this has flown under 
the public’s radar,” Peter LaFontaine, an energy 
policy advocate for the National Wildlife Federation 
told Bloomberg News in May. “The public 
doesn’t seem to have the same sort of attention
 for pipeline expansions as they do for pipeline 
construction. But we’re talking about a lot of crude.”

The State Department announced on February 14 
that the permitting process for the Alberta Clipper 
expansion would be delayed beyond the anticipated 
mid-2014 decision.
white-cliffs
CREDIT: ANDREW BREINER






White Cliffs Twin Pipeline

On March 17, commissioners in Adams County, 
Colorado approved the construction of the 
White Cliffs Twin Pipeline, which will carry 
crude oil 527 miles from Platteville, 
Colorado to Cushing, Oklahoma. The pipeline 
will run along an existing pipeline, a twinning 
effort that will give the two pipelines a total
 capacity of about 150,000 bpd.

According to the Denver Post, most of the 
Adams County residents who showed up to
 the pipeline’s public hearing supported the project
 — all except one, who said the approval of 
the pipeline meant the county’s residents 
were “selling ourselves down the wrong road.”

Northern Gateway

If the $7.9-billion Northern Gateway pipeline 
project is approved, two pipelines will be built 
stretching about 730 miles from Bruderheim, 
Alberta to Kitimat, British Columbia. One pipeline 
will transport approximately 525,000 barrels of tar 
sands bitumen each day from Alberta to B.C. for 
export to Asian markets, while the other would 
carry around 193,000 barrels per day of condensate, 
the mix of liquid hydrocarbons that’s used to dilute 
heavy tar sands so it can be transported, 
back to Alberta.
northern gateway







CREDIT: ENBRIDGE, WWW.GATEWAYFACTS.CA
In December, a Canadian review panel 
recommended that the Northern Gateway 
pipeline project be given the go-ahead by the 
federal government as long as 209 conditions 
are met (none of which address climate change 
or carbon pollution). The project has run into
 serious opposition, however, with the country’s
 First Nations tribes growing particularly vocal. 
One spokesman recently vowed that the groups
 will maintain a “wall of opposition” against the
 project. About 130 First Nations have signed
 on to the Save the Fraser declaration, which 
aims to ban all tar sands pipelines from First Nations
 territory and from the ocean migration routes 
of the Fraser River salmon. The Canadian federal
 cabinet is expected to make its final decision 
on Northern Gateway by July.

Trans Mountain Expansion Project


mg01-eng
CREDIT: CANADA NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD
Kinder Morgan filed a proposal for an expansion
 of its Trans Mountain Pipeline system in
 December 2013, seeking to build another 
pipeline to carry Canadian tar sands from 
Edmonton, Alberta to the West Coast of Canada,
 near Vancouver. If approved, the pipeline would
 increase the capacity of the Trans Mountain 
pipeline system from 300,000 to 890,000 barrels 
per day.

Like the Northern Gateway, the pipeline 
has sparked substantial opposition in Canada,
 especially on the West Coast. The city of 
Vancouver has filed for intervenor status against
 the pipeline, which would allow it to make 
submissions to Canada’s National Energy Board
 and take an active role in the hearings on the
 pipeline. Native tribes in Washington and 
British Columbia have also announced 
their intent to oppose the Trans Mountain project
 as intervenors, citing their worries about the major
 environmental impacts the pipeline would have, 
especially the uptick of oil tankers in their tribal
 waters.

Eastern Gulf 

eastern-access







CREDIT: ANDREW BREINER
If approved, the Eastern Gulf Crude Access pipeline 
would carry oil from the Bakken region and Alberta’s 
tar sands from Patoka, Illinois about 770 miles to Boyce, 
Louisiana. Like many other pipeline projects, the Eastern 
Gulf Crude Access is part construction, part restructuring —
 the proposal would re-purpose 574 miles of existing 
natural gas pipeline to carry oil, and construct 40 miles 
of new pipeline at the beginning of the line’s route, 
from Patoka to Johnsonville, Illinois.The companies 
in charge of the project — Enbridge and Energy Transfer 
Partners of Dallas, Texas — originally wanted it to 
go to St. James, Louisiana, but didn’t gain enough 
customer support to build that leg of the pipeline.

Sandpiper Pipeline

Enbridge’s Sandpiper pipeline would carry 
Bakken crude oil about 610 miles from Tioga, 
North Dakota to Superior, Wisconsin. North Dakota 
officials have heralded the pipeline, which is the largest in 
development in the state.
(14AUG2013)SandpiperPipelineProject-Mainline






CREDIT: ENBRIDGE
“This is going to add that additional pipeline capacity 
that we need going forward,” Justin Kringstad of 
North Dakota Pipeline Authority told KUMV-TV
“As we continue to rise our production levels we 
need that adequate means of transportation 
to move that crude to markets around the U.S.”

But Sandpiper still needs state and federal approval, 
and the pipeline has drawn opposition from some 
students and native tribes. Farmers and property owners 
along the pipeline route have also voiced their concerns with the pipeline.

“We limed and put manure on that this spring, and then 
we find out in July that’s exactly where they want to 
put a pipeline,” organic farmer Janaki Fisher-Merritt 
told MPR News in October. “If they go through there it just 
increases our risk too much, we won’t grow vegetables on it.”

If approved, construction on the pipeline is slated to start 
in December 2014, and officials hope the pipeline is in service by 2016

Flanagan South


FlanaganSouth

CREDIT: ENBRIDGE
CREDIT: ENBRIDGE
Flanagan South, an Enbridge project, is already in 
the works, and once constructed will carry tar sands
 and Bakken crude 589 miles from Flanagan, Illinois 
to Cushing, Oklahoma. The pipeline, which workers
 began constructing last fall, will run alongside the 
existing Spearhead Pipeline, which carries about
173,000 barrels of Canadian oil each day. Flanagan’s 
initial capacity will be 600,000 barrels of oil from 
 by comparison, Keystone XL will be 1,179 miles 
in its entirety and have a capacity of 830,000 barrels per day.

The pipeline was approved by the Army Corps of 
Engineers using a permit called NWP 12, a tactic 
that has resulted in lawsuits from the Sierra Club, 
who say it allows the Corps to “piecemeal” the 
pipeline project into separate water crossings, making 
it easier to approve. Doug Hayes, staff attorney for the 
Sierra Club, said he thinks the NWP 12 process doesn’t
 provide citizens along the pipeline route adequate 
opportunity to voice their opinions on the pipeline, 
resulting in a dearth of public knowledge about Flanagan South.

“When we were talking to people along the pipeline route, 
many of them were surprised and shocked to learn that 
there was this major tar sands pipeline being approved 
without any public involvement whatsoever in their 
backyards,” Hayes said. “So no, there was not adequate public 
awareness of this. There still isn’t.”

Line 3 Replacement

newsphoto-5313









CREDIT: ENBRIDGE
Enbridge plans to replace a major pipeline running 
from Edmonton, Alberta to Superior, Wisconsin, an 
update that would nearly double the size of the existing 
pipeline. The existing pipeline has ruptured multiple times 
over its 46-year lifespan, and the update would replace 
the aging pipes with new steel and coating. 
Enbridge says it can complete the update without 
getting a State Department permit, even though the 
project crosses a national boundary, but 
environmentalists have taken issue with that claim.

“Like with their proposed Alberta Clipper pipeline 
expansion, Enbridge will need a new presidential permit
 for the project,” Sierra Club staff attorney Doug Hayes
 said in a statement. “And the same climate test that the president
 set for the Keystone XL pipeline will apply.”

The project is the largest in Enbridge’s history and replacing
 the 1,031 miles of pipeline is projected to cost the company $7 billion.
Andrew Breiner contributed the ThinkProgress graphics for this piece.

No comments:

Post a Comment