The 2010 oil spill from Enbridge’s Line 6B into the Kalamazoo River near Marshall, Michigan, never got a lot of attention.
 
The spill from the ruptured 30-inch line was lost in the shadow of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, fire and spill in the Gulf of Mexico that had occurred a few months earlier.
 
Big, but no publicity
 
The spill in south-central Michigan has been called “the biggest oil spill you have never heard of.”
 
According to federal agencies, more than 1 million gallons of tar sands oil from Alberta spilled into Talmadge Creek that flows into the river after there was a six-foot rupture in the pipeline on July 25. The heavy crude oil flowed for 17 hours before Enbridge could shut down the line.
 
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said 1.1 million gallons, or 46,200 barrels, were recovered. The company said the spill was smaller: 843,000 gallons, or 20,000 barrels.
 
The oil spread quickly downstream because the river was high. The river and shorelines were fouled for nearly 40 miles.
 
More than 100 families voluntarily left their homes, mostly because of high levels of benzene that had evaporated from the oil into the air. It had been used to dilute the heavy crude.
 
Very costly
 
The Kalamazoo River spill remains one of the biggest and costliest inland oil spills ever in the U.S., and it was the first spill of diluted bitumen from Canada for U.S. agencies to deal with, Kallanish Energy reports.
 
Usual oil spill cleanup methods did not work. The bitumen did not float on water like most oils. It sank to the bottom.
 
The National Transportation Safety Review Board cited Enbridge for a “complete breakdown of safety.”
 
Exterior corrosion
 
The rupture was caused by exterior corrosion after tape failed and trapped moisture between the pipe and the tape, federal agencies said.
 
What happened near Marshall. Michigan, in 2010, is still having big impacts in the Great Lakes region.
 
Projects to replace Line 3 in Minnesota, Wisconsin and North Dakota and to upgrade underwater pipeline leak detection systems at the Straits of Mackinac in Michigan were mandated in a 2016 consent decree between the U.S. Justice Department/the U.S. EPA and Enbridge to settle the Michigan spill.
 
Costly settlement
 
In 2014, two years before the $177 million settlement, the company had committed to replacing Line 3, so adding Line 3 to the consent decree was inconsequential. It was part of Enbridge’s corporate plan, some observers note.
 
The 2016 agreement ordered that the Minnesota project move forward “as expeditiously as practicable.”
 
The federal government directed that the aging Line 3 oil pipeline, stretching 292 miles, be replaced between Neche, North Dakota, and Superior, Wisconsin, as soon as the needed permits can be acquired.
 
It also spelled out timetables for cleaning and abandoning the old line.
 
The 224-page Michigan consent decree that took two years of negotiations included a $61 million fine against Enbridge for Clean Water Act violations. It was one of the largest fines ever for an inland spill.
 
Cleanup took four years
 
The legally binding agreement also spelled out that Enbridge would spend $110 million on inspections, pipeline safety improvements and spill prevention safeguards in its Lakehead pipeline system, with 14 pipelines stretching 2,000 miles in seven states in the Great Lakes region.
 
Enbridge’s Lakehead system delivers about 1.7 million barrels a day (MMBPD) of heavy crude to Midwest refineries.
 
The Michigan cleanup took four years to complete and cost Enbridge $1.2 billion. The company paid nearly $1.8 billion in fines, penalties and other costs.
 
The company also spent $1.6 billion to replace Line 6B, a 286-mile pipeline between Griffith, Indiana, and Sarnia, Ontario, and to U.S. refineries in the Midwest. It had been used since 1999 to transport the diluted bitumen.
 
Mission accomplished
 
In announcing the settlement, Enbridge president and CEO Al Monaco said, in a statement: “From the beginning, Enbridge and EEP made a commitment to the people of Michigan that we would clean up and restore the Kalamazoo River and surrounding areas, and cover the costs. We've done that. We've worked extremely hard to fulfil our commitments and make good on our promises.”
 
He added, "The learnings from our experience have made us a better company and the way we think about safety has changed. Over the past six years, we've intensified our focus on the safety and integrity of our systems enterprise-wide and we've invested significantly in our people, processes, equipment and technology.”
 
The order to replace Line 3 got only 23 words in the official press release announcing the settlement.
 
Preferred route approved
 
On June 28, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission approved the replacement of Enbridge’s Line 3 and approved the company’s preferred route. That route avoids two Indian reservations where the tribes are opposed to the new pipeline and planning major protests.
 
The alternate Minnesota route is being finalized. New appeals and lawsuits are expected in Minnesota.
 
Enbridge has said it expects to have full authorization to build by November. Construction could start in early 2019, and the pipeline could be in service in late 2019.
 
The company has said that the old line built is corroding and its maintenance is costly.
 
$8.2 billion pricetag
 
The new $8.2 billion line would be 1,097 miles in length and traverse three states and part of Canada.
 
Line 3 runs from Hardisty, Alberta, to Superior, Wisconsin.  It is a key part of Enbridge’s Mainline System for transporting crude oil to refineries and markets in the U.S. and eastern Canada.
 
The pipeline, now 34 inches in diameter, will be replaced with a 36-inch line. The initial capacity would be about 760,000 barrels per day.
 
The 2016 consent decree also calls for improved inspection procedures at Michigan’s four-miles-wide Straits of Mackinac, between Lake Michigan and Lake Huron.
 
Business as usual unacceptable
 
Last November, Michigan and Enbridge signed another consent decree that ordered new studies on replacing the pipeline under Mackinac and for installing a replacement pipeline under the St. Clair River that connects Lake Huron and Lake Erie. It also spelled out additional safety precautions on Line 5. That includes shutting down the pipeline when the waves are too high in the straits.
 
The Mackinac replacement project would be costly, $300 million to $500 million, and it would take five to six years to build, Enbridge told Michigan officials last June after the first studies were completed.
 
It could be a concrete-lined tunnel as much as 100 feet below the lake bed and 350 feet below the surface of the water to prevent any oil spills from reaching the Great Lakes water.

Another option is burying the pipeline at the bottom of the straits. That would require a trench and would cost $250 million to $300 million. It would take four to five years to build. An outer 36-inch pipe would be built around a 30-inch liquids pipeline. The outer pipe would include a leak detection system.
 
A final decision is expected in the coming months.
 
A tugboat’s anchor had damaged the pipeline last April and had raised concerns about future leaks and spills. Some local officials want the underwater pipelines removed. Michigan’s elected leaders asked Enbridge to consider its options.

“Business as usual by Enbridge is not acceptable,” Gov. Rick Snyder said last fall, in a statement.
 
The company said its technical studies and understanding “haven’t translated well into reassuring the public or Michigan leaders about the ongoing safe operations of Line 5,” spokesman Ryan Duffy told the local media. “We apologize if our actions sometimes have caused confusion.”
 
Enbridge’s Line 5 moves roughly 547,619 barrels per day (BPD) of oil and natural gas liquids from Michigan’s Upper Peninsula through two underwater, 20-inch lines at Mackinac before the liquids are returned to a single pipeline heading south to a hub in Sarnia, Ontario.


Source: Kallanish Energy