Skip to main content

World Aging Enbridge oil pipelines face setbacks in U.S. over fears of Great Lakes spills

Fears about oil spills into the Great Lakes from two aging U.S. pipelines have flared, raising doubts about their future and creating fresh headaches for operator Enbridge Inc. and the Canadian energy sector.

Canada has faced years of delay in getting new oil pipelines built because of environmental opposition, resulting in severe congestion in Alberta, the country’s main crude-producing province, that forced the provincial government to impose production cuts this year. Pipelines face increasing scrutiny from environmental groups worried about leaks and U.S. Great Lakes states are taking a hard look at the risks.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled on June 3 that the environmental impact statement for Enbridge’s Line 3 failed to properly address the spill risk in Lake Superior, imposing a fresh challenge to the company’s construction schedule. Also last week, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer repeated a threat to shut down Line 5 unless Enbridge accelerated its timeline to replace it.

Story continues below advertisement

“That is a real-time problem because [Line 3] was the most imminent chance for Canadian production to see some pressure release on the system,” said Rafi Tahmazian, senior portfolio manager at Canoe Financial, which owns shares of Canadian Natural Resources and other oil producers. “It’s disappointing and concerning.”

Enbridge shares dropped 5 per cent last week, hovering near a three-month low.

Line 3 carries oil from Alberta to U.S. refineries in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Line 5 takes oil from Wisconsin to refineries in Sarnia, Ont., passing through the Straits of Mackinac channel connecting Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. Both were built in the 1960s.

In a statement on Friday, Enbridge said it was still analyzing the court’s decision on Line 3.

Without a valid environment statement, Enbridge’s certificate of need and route permit, which it received from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) a year ago over boisterous opposition, are void.

Minnesota’s Department of Commerce and Enbridge must now redraft the statement to the PUC’s satisfaction, a process likely to take at least six months, said Alexandra Klass, a University of Minnesota law professor.

Enbridge has previously said it expects to have the remaining Minnesota permits for Line 3 by November and will put it into service in the second half of 2020. It has not said how the appeal court’s ruling may now affect that plan.

Story continues below advertisement

“As of now they do not have any valid state permits,” Prof. Klass said. “I don’t know their construction schedule, but it does seem ambitious.”

PUC officials declined to comment.

With no valid environment statement, Minnesota’s natural-resources department and pollution-control agency cannot issue the required state permits either, said Scott Strand, lawyer for the Friends of the Headwaters environmental group.

“It doesn’t seem likely that the calendar can just stay in place,” he said.

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency must issue Line 3’s water-quality certification by Oct. 30 or Enbridge would need to reapply, restarting a year-long process, spokesman Darin Broton said.

Minnesota’s Department of Natural Resources said in a statement that it was determining its next steps.

Story continues below advertisement

In Michigan, Enbridge said it is taking legal action regarding Line 5 to enforce agreements with a previous Michigan administration that allowed it to build a tunnel under the Straits to replace an underwater section of pipe. The governor has said she fears anchors from boats could rupture the existing pipe.

Ms. Whitmer’s insistence on shutting down Line 5 in two years, ahead of the 2024 completion date for the tunnel, led to Enbridge’s legal action, the company said.

Ms. Whitmer wrote to Enbridge chief executive Al Monaco on Monday saying that she wants a firm date to shut down the underwater portion of the pipeline, and that the state could otherwise shut down Line 5. She did not comment further on Friday.

Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter