Green Car Congress  
Go to GCC Discussions forum About GCC Contact  RSS Subscribe Twitter headlines

« Shanghai GM introduces new Chevrolet Cruze; up to 24% more fuel efficient than current generation | Main | DOE launches major 10-year project to use high performance computing for climate change research; ACME »

Print this post

Details on how Enbridge will expand capacity of Alberta Clipper oil sands crude pipeline without US review

23 August 2014

Enbridge has devised a way to ship more oil sands crude from Alberta to the US via its Alberta Clipper pipeline without getting further tangled in the type of review that has kept TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline proposal mired in limbo for years: switching crude from one pipeline in its existing system to another before it crosses the border and then back again.

The US State Department, which bears the responsibility for approving cross-border energy projects, said that Enbridge can indeed proceed with its plan under authority granted by previously issued permits.

Enbridge says it operates the largest, longest, and most complex petroleum pipeline system in the world: approximately 25,420 kilometers (15,795 miles) of pipe delivers an average of more than 2.2-million barrels per day of crude oil and liquids. The Enbridge Mainline system is the largest conduit of oil into the United States. Enbridge transports 53% of US-bound Canadian production, a figure that accounts for approximately 15% of total US crude oil imports.

The existing Mainline system into the US constitutes four primary pipelines (Lines 1, 2, 3 and 4) as well as related lines, including Line 67—the Alberta Clipper.

Enbridge_US_Mainline_West_August 2014
Enbridge US Mainline West as of August 2014. Click to enlarge.

In 2009, the State Department issued a Presidential Permit authorizing the construction, operation and maintenance of the 36-inch diameter Line 67 pipeline extending between the US-Canada border near Neche, ND and the first US mainline shut off valve or pumping station in the United States. (Earlier post.)

That near-border segment of the Pipeline authorized by the 2009 Permit is only 3-miles long. Enbridge constructed the remainder of the Line 67 Pipeline in the United States to its southern terminus at Superior, Wisconsin, pursuant to other local, state and federal permits. Enbridge completed construction and began operations of Line 67 (Alberta Clipper) in 2010; the pipeline currently transports an average annual capacity of approximately 495,000 bpd of crude oil across the border.

In 2012, Enbridge requested that the US Department of State issue a new Presidential Permit to authorize Enbridge to operate the border segment of its existing Line 67 crude oil pipeline up to its full design capacity. Full design capacity for Line 67 is 880,000 bpd for heavy crude. (This will vary based on the type of product transported. For example, the full design capacity of Line 67 would be greater than 880,000 bpd were light crudes transported on the line, which could be case in the future, the company noted.)

However, the permitting process did not proceed as smoothly or quickly as Enbridge had planned. Hence, in a 16 June 2014 letter to the State Department, law firm Steptoe & Johnson explained that:

… shipper needs dictate that the annual average capacity of Line 67 in the United States be increased up to 570,000 bpd by mid-2014 (referred to as “Phase I”), and up to 800,000 bpd by mid-2015 (referred to as “Phase II”). As we explained, the unforeseen Line 67 Project permitting delay at the Department of over a year has led Enbridge to recently assess options for achieving this additional capacity both at the border, albeit not on Line 67, and on the portion of Line 67 south of the border segment, consistent with Enbridge’s obligations as a common carrier pipeline operator and its existing Presidential Permits.

… To avoid adverse impacts to shippers of the sort described by the ALJ [Administrative Law Judge], Enbridge has decided to optimize its existing Mainline System to provide the flexibility and efficiency that it would need to transport increased volumes of crude oil from Canada into the United States within the terms of its existing Presidential Permits, as explained below.

The basic plan is to build interconnections between Line 67 and the adjacent Line 3 to give Enbridge the capability to increase the volume of crude oil. The increased flow will:

  1. Move on Line 67 in Canada towards the border;

  2. be transferred to Line 3 at Enbridge’s Gretna, Manitoba station at a point approximately 1.5 miles (2.4 km) north of the US-Canada border;

  3. cross the US-Canada border on the Line 3 border segment; and

  4. then be transferred back to Line 67 approximately 16 miles (25.7 km) south of the US-Canada border for delivery to Superior.

Enbridge is planning four interconnections between Lines 3 and 67 as part of this project. Two interconnections will be constructed between Line 67 and Line 3 at the Gretna station in Canada to allow crude oil to move between the lines north of the border crossing; and two interconnections will be constructed between Line 67 and Line 3 in the United States to allow crude oil to move between the lines at a point in North Dakota about 16 miles south of the border, which is south of the first US mainline valve for each line.

Enbridge
From Enbridge Exhibit B as published by the US State Department. The red lines show the connections between the Alberta Clipper and Line 3. The dotted lines show future connections. Mileposts are relative to Edmonton. Click to enlarge.

Enbridge envisions possible future interconnections between Line 3 and Line 4.

The construction and operation of the US interconnections does not require any federal, state, and/or local approvals, the company said. The Canadian interconnections will be constructed within the boundaries of Enbridge’s existing Gretna station; Canadian approvals have already been obtained.

The company also has Canadian approval to transport increased volumes of crude oil on Line 67 in Canada up to 800,000 bpd. Enbridge is currently constructing the pump upgrades in Canada to allow for an increase in the authorized capacity of the line in that country. Once construction of those pump upgrades is complete, which is expected in the coming weeks, Enbridge will have the operational flexibility to flow an increased amount of oil on Line 67 in Canada to the Line 3 border segment for transportation across the US-Canada border.

Enbridge said it has also obtained all necessary US approvals to transport an average annual capacity of 570,000 bpd on Line 67 south of the Line 3 interconnection and plans to do so.

Enbridge has already received approval for and has begun construction of a pump upgrade in Minnesota to support 570,000 bpd. However:

… unless and until the Department issues the requested Presidential Permit allowing Enbridge to transport more than 500,000 bpd across the border on Line 67, the interconnections will actually result in a decrease of 105,000 bpd of crude oil across the Line 67 border segment (from the current 495,000 bpd of heavy crude to 390,000 bpd of light crude), and an increase of 180,000 bpd of crude oil (from 390,000 bpd of light crude to 570,000 bpd of heavy crude) across the Line 3 border segment. These cross-border volumes are compliant with the currently applicable Presidential Permits for both lines.

The pipeline interconnections thus provide Enbridge with the operational flexibility to transport crude oil in the range of 800,000 bpd of oil on Line 67 south of the Line 3 interconnection through the construction and operation of the pump upgrade.

The use of pipeline interconnections is a standard industry practice; multiple interconnections already exist between Enbridge Lines 2, 3, and 4 both in Canada and the United States. Enbridge is also constructing an interconnection between Line 67 and Line 4 at Hardisty in the event of a shutdown of Line 4 between Edmonton and Hardisty.

Enbridge said that it will construct the interconnections and pump upgrades, and to operate those facilities to increase the flow of oil on Line 67 south of border segment, whether or not the requested new Presidential Permit is issued by the State Department.

In other words, the interconnections and Pump Upgrades are not a result (either directly or indirectly) of the Department’s action on Enbridge’s pending application because the Pump Upgrades and interconnections, and any resulting environmental impacts, will occur regardless of whether the Department issues a new Permit to authorize an increased level of flow on the border segment of Line 67.

—Letter to the State Department

August 23, 2014 in Canada, Oil sands | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef01a511fbdf3d970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Details on how Enbridge will expand capacity of Alberta Clipper oil sands crude pipeline without US review:

Comments

Are regulations designed to be bypassed?

In some cases yes. Legislators are politicians that want to get reelected, contributions from corporations help them to do that. They need to look like they are doing something for the country and its people, while creating laws that the contributors can get around. ONLY Public Money for Public Office will fix that.

This is great!! Obstruction be dammed. The world is going to burn Canadian oil, better to refine in the USA where clean and responsible operators are the rule.

This means a lot less stuff on trains, and a lot less risk of wrecks, spills, fires and just plain dangers to the public at grade crossings.

Without adequate (applied) regulations, both transport systems can have major accidents.

Who should pick up the tab and pay for repairs etc?

This appears to be a (small) win-win, as described by Tim and E-P.

And just what regulations do the others think are being bypassed?

The fact that the administration does things that are illegal, should not make one assume that others do also.

This posted “letter” (letter from whom?) appears a bit disingenuous.

It says that “the interconnections will actually result in a decrease of 105,000 bpd of crude oil across the Line 67 border .., and an increase of 180,000 bpd of crude oil … across the Line 3 border segment.”

So apparently there will be a nominal increase of 75,000 bpd - while the letter implies that the Alberta Clipper line will increase flow by almost 400,000 bpd (from 495,000 to 880,000 bpd).

And near the end it says “Enbridge … will construct the interconnections and pump upgrades, and to operate those facilities to increase the flow of oil …, whether or not the requested new Presidential Permit is issued by the State Department.”

Which I can only assume should read something like “The upgrades will be made regardless, to allow flow to increase in the event the permit is issued”. A harmless preparation.

And the last paragraph? It is pure doubletalk.

'...what safety regulations are being bypassed?)

According the very recent Transport Canada Investigation Report, on the Lac Megatic QC disaster, (47 casualties and $500+M in property damages) most of the safety regulation were ignored by the operator (MMA)and employees.

The main reason is the lack of government inspectors.

The same shortcoming exist with Pipelines.

@ Harvey, Government inspectors and regulations do not utopia make. Police are just human like the rest of us, see Ferguson, Mo tragedy. Regulations are forever behind if not obsolete, unduly expensive and often just plain stupid, see our big to fail banking regulations, courtesy of Dodd-Frank still only half written after 4 yrs & tens of thousands of pages.
As far as who pays, it should certainly be those parties directly responsible and their insurance.

Havey, how do you back up your short comings assursion and equivalence statements regading pipelines.

Pipelines are still inherently safer than rails but the number of incidents-accidents has been going up almost every year due to reduced maintenance and inspections and relaxed regulations.

There are 101 ways to make pipelines safer but regulations must be enforced.

New pipelines could be better built and installed. Improved monitoring and automated shut down could reduce environmental damages. Older pipelines (30+ year) should be replaced and or equipped with improved monitoring and shut down systems.

Of course, railroads and pipelines owners-operators should have enough insurances to cover the worse disasters. MMA's insurances will not cover more than 5% of the real cost for the Lac Megantic, QC disaster of July 2013. Our taxes will have to be used for the other 95+%. Poor Canadians will end up paying over $500,000,000 and the families of the 47 casualties will never be fully compensated.

@TM:

A quick check with Wikimedia will give you you a fair idea of the daily pipeline accidents in USA.

It may may safer to ship that black stuff but there too we had many major disasters.

All modes could be made to be safer as we did with car fatalities in the last 20 years or so. Human negligence and lack of proficiency cases have to be reduced with improved automation.

NYC reduced its crime rate with more, better policing.
Automated radar cameras are very effective to drastically reduce infractions, accidents, injuries and fatalities on city streets and highways. Their NET cost is negative after a few months. Why not install a few more thousands (fixed and mobile) every year?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Green Car Congress © 2014 BioAge Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved. | Home | BioAge Group