{"id":4601,"date":"2019-06-04T10:08:30","date_gmt":"2019-06-04T14:08:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/?p=4601"},"modified":"2019-06-04T18:44:31","modified_gmt":"2019-06-04T22:44:31","slug":"whats-in-store-for-a-line-5-tunnel-consider-line-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/2019\/06\/04\/whats-in-store-for-a-line-5-tunnel-consider-line-3\/","title":{"rendered":"What’s in Store for a Line 5 Tunnel? Consider Line 3"},"content":{"rendered":"

Like me, many of you are probably old enough to remember watching the popular 1970s television game show “Name That Tune.”<\/a> Contestants would compete against one another to see who could identify a song by hearing the fewest notes. One contestant would claim she could name that tune in, say, five notes; her competitor would try to do so in fewer.<\/p>\n

I thought of this game last week when, in response to increasing pressure from Governor Whitmer and Attorney General Nessel for some kind of resolution to the ongoing Line 5 problem, Enbridge suddenly began playing a game of “Name that Construction Deadline.” A 7-10 year timeline quickly became 5, as Enbridge claimed its engineers had discovered some fancy new technology that could have their concrete tunnel complete and a new Line 5 up and running by 2024<\/a>. Since then, Governor Whitmer has intimated that even five years is too long to wait. So don’t be surprised if Enbridge somehow projects an even earlier date: “We can build that tunnel in four<\/em>\u00a0years. Maybe three<\/em>!”<\/p>\n

But however much Enbridge would like to convince Michigan state officials that their new five-year timeline is feasible, the reality is that it’s no more likely than the possibility that a contestant on “Name That Tune,” backed into a corner by her competitor, can identify a song by a single note. Last week, I explained why five years (and probably even ten) is a ludicrous claim<\/a>. I also pointed out that Enbridge likewise knows how unlikely that projection is, which is why they had their army of lawyers churning out legalistic disclaimers about “forward-looking statements.” And I provided some telling examples of Enbridge’s unfortunate habit of missing deadlines.<\/p>\n

Yesterday provided another illustration of just how unrealistic the 2024 projection is. You may have heard that Enbridge has also proposed a new pipeline project up in Minnesota. Their plan is to replace their aging– and ailing– Line 3 pipeline (which I’ve written about in the past<\/a>). The trouble is, they’ve chosen a route that all sorts of sensible people, from ordinary citizens (with whom I’ve been fortunate to meet and speak<\/a>) to tribal groups<\/a>, find objectionable, not least because it would cross through some very sensitive waterways, including the headwaters of the Mississippi River. As a result, Enbridge’s plans have been bogged down by regulatory processes, legal interventions, and activism.<\/p>\n

Sound familiar? Let’s roll the tape on Line 3, keeping in mind that this is exactly what’s in store for Line 5 if some kind of tunnel agreement is reached:<\/p>\n

Enbridge announced the Line 3 project in spring 2014<\/a>. At the time, they acknowledged that the project would require both a presidential permit from the U.S. state department and regulatory approval from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. Taking those approvals into account, Enbridge projected the new Line 3 would be up and running in late 2017.<\/p>\n

But by 2017, the project remained in regulatory limbo in Minnesota. Despite that uncertainty, Enbridge plowed forward with the project, beginning construction in Wisconsin and anticipating that construction in Minnesota would begin some time in 2018<\/a>. These new projections would have the line operational “sometime in 2019.”<\/p>\n

A year later, Enbridge was feeling optimistic after the Minnesota PUC gave its approval to the project in June 2018. In response to that news, Enbridge optimistically predicted that construction could begin in early 2019.<\/a><\/p>\n

But here we are midway through 2019 and Enbridge still hasn’t received all the necessary permits to begin construction. Facing that reality, last March Enbridge announced that Line 3 would be placed in service “a year later than anticipated.”<\/a> The new projection, then, would have a new Line 3 pumping oil some time in 2020.<\/p>\n

Then came yesterday’s news<\/a>: a Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that the state’s environmental assessment failed to consider the effects of a spill on the Lake Superior watershed. The ruling therefore reversed the PUC’s approval of the project. A new environmental review is sure to take many months to complete, which means Enbridge would be lucky to begin construction before 2020. That means the best case scenario for Enbridge’s Line 3 start up is probably 2021\u2014 assuming there are no more delays, courts challenges, protests, or other impediments.<\/p>\n

Get the picture? In 2014, Enbridge projected a 2017 startup date for Line 3, which got pushed to 2019, then to 2020, and now (in all probability) to 2021. There is no end in sight– there is not even a beginning in sight– for Line 3.<\/p>\n

Does anyone believe things will go any differently for Line 5? Does anybody believe for one second that Enbridge’s new five year timeline is even remotely plausible? 2024 is 2026 is 2028 is 2029 is…<\/p>\n

So I’ll say it again: there is no future for Line 5.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Like me, many of you are probably old enough to remember watching the popular 1970s television game show “Name That Tune.” Contestants would compete against one another to see who could identify a song by hearing the fewest notes. One contestant would claim she could name that tune in, say, five notes; her competitor would […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":3399,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4601","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4601","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4601"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4601\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4613,"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4601\/revisions\/4613"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3399"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4601"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4601"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4601"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}