We mentioned this morning that we have quite a lot to say about Christopher Behnan’s Daily Press & Argus story this morning. If you missed part 1, discussing whether Enbridge is, in fact, “exempt” from the Howell Township ordinance, it’s here. On that question, we thought portions of the article seemed to present Enbridge’s point of view as fact, rather than as arguable claims.
Nevertheless, the article does contain some very interesting new information, perhaps even a couple of minor bombshells. One of them is the topic of our second post:
Behnan (quite rightly) connects the Howell ordinance to the Brandon Township resolution. The article concludes by quoting Enbridge spokeswoman Lorraine Little (we’re not sure why Joe Martucci is not the one speaking for Enbridge here). And what she says is quite tantalizing:
Little said Brandon officials “misconstrued” the news release to mean the Gateway project would have better piping materials than the Line 6B project.
She said the design, safety standards and piping quality are identical for both projects.
“Identical” for both projects! This is interesting because a recurring question about the Brandon resolution (the trustees were asked about this at their meeting and I’ve been asked it as well) has to do with the specific details of the standards the resolution calls for. As we’ve discussed before, those standards are based on an Enbridge press release in which they pledge to “go above and beyond anything that has ever been done before in the industry.” Brandon, quite reasonably, simply wanted those same standards applied here in Michigan.
However, when Enbridge states, in that press release, that their additional measures will include “increasing pipeline wall thickness of the oil pipeline” it only begs the question: okay, increase wall thickness how much? It may well be that Enbridge is being deliberately vague on this sort of point; that would certainly fit their general approach to communication. And in fact, it does seem to be more difficult than one might expect to get a straight answer to the simple question: how thick will the Northern Gateway pipeline walls be?
Whatever the answer to that question is, we now have an Enbridge spokesperson on record as saying that that thickness will be “identical” to the thickness of the pipe in Brandon. That is potentially good news. Yet the question remains: how thick? We’ve tried to find out. Here’s what we’ve learned so far:
Back in July of this year, when Enbridge issued its press release, the Canadian press asked Enbridge this very question. And they were told this by Enbridge engineering manager Ray Doering:
“For the 36-inch diameter oil pipeline, the current design has an average .67 inch wall thickness, which is about 17 millimetres.”
Doering then said:
“We’re looking at several potential design enhancements, potentially including reducing the operating stress of the pipeline, which wold provide an overall wall thickness increase really, from one end of the pipeline to the other, likely in the range of about 10%.
“And we’re looking at increasing wall thickness over and above that in sensitive areas as well.”
Now I am no engineer. Nor am I a mathematician. But increasing a thickness of .67 inches by about 10% would put the pipeline thickness at close to three-quarters of an inch. And since Enbridge is now on record as saying that the Brandon specs will be “identical” to the Northern Gateway specs, we should expect 36-inch pipe at a thickness of close to .75 (or so) inches. Right?
Well, let’s see. As it turns out, pipeline wall thickness is one of the things Enbridge describes in its application to the Michigan Public Service Commission. Here is what they say: for 36 inch pipe, wall thickness will be .500 inch minimum. That’s nearly a quarter-inch less than their Northern Gateway pledge. What’s more, the pipe that they are installing across Brandon Township is not 36-inch pipe anyway; it’s only 30-inch. According to their specs, 30-inch pipe will have an average wall thickness of only .375 inches minimum– half the thickness of the Northern Gateway standard.
Based on this information, the situation is ambiguous at best. Either Enbridge has changed its plans since its original MPSC application or they plan to exceed– quite significantly– the “minimums” they stated in their application. Or there is a third possibility: that Lorraine Little is not telling the truth when she says that “the design, safety standards and piping quality are identical for both projects.”
Shouldn’t be too hard to determine which of these possibilities is correct, should it?
I spoke with Mike at Mr Brad Jacobsen’s office yesterday about some questions I had written to him in a letter. I was told the following: Mr. Jacobsens office had a meeting with Enbridge last week & they posed my questions to Enbridge. The pipe they are putting in Groveland is supposed to be .67 wall thickness. I asked also about parts of the contract they want homeowners to sign, specifically the “hold harmless” clause which is so dangerous to us.Enbridge stated to Mr Jacobsen they are required by law to put everything back the way it was, BUT I asked, what about the question of shifting the liability to the homeowner, and the possiblity of damage to house foundations, etc. not just putting on grass seed and dirt? My other question is how can they sue homeowners for condemnation of their property to use it as TWS? Allegedly they said it would not be cost effective for them to do that. But we were threatened with a lawsuit for condemnation of our yard for TWS; and I am sure I heard other homeowners at the Groveland Township meeting saying the same thing (If any homeowners are facing this please post).I also am extremely opposed to any plans to reactivate the old pipeline or install a new one in its place. Allegedly Enbridge told Mr Jacobsen they will not be reactivating the old abandoned pipe. But there was no response about any possibility of installing a second new pipe in the same 60′ easement. If anybody has a problem with these issues please call Mr Jacobsen’s office at 517-373-8574 and write a letter. Also there is a meeting of the Energy & Tech Committee in Lansing (not scheduled yet but should be in September) where we can go and will be able to speak to the committee about our concerns.