Illinois county sues Enbridge, contractor for bridge collapse

SYCAMORE, Ill. – After 10 months of trying to reach a settlement with the companies accused of causing the collapse of Keslinger Bridge, DeKalb County State's Attorney Clay Campbell filed a lawsuit seeking compensation.

Campbell and Afton Township officials named Enbridge Energy and Welded Construction in a lawsuit seeking an excess of $150,000 for damage they claim happened to Keslinger Bridge during work on an oil pipeline in 2008.

A final push was made in negotiations, but Campbell said the two sides could not come to an agreement. The 10-month negotiation was the second round of talks among the parties. Former DeKalb County State’s Attorney John Farrell also tried negotiating a resolution.

Campbell said he did everything he could to avoid litigation because of the cost, but he said the county had to pursue compensation. To minimize costs, Campbell said Farrell - now chief of the civil bureau - will handle the case.

"The company that destroyed this bridge is refusing to take responsibility," Campbell said. "The citizens of DeKalb County should look forward to having their day in court because they are entitled to it."

The lawsuit, which was filed Oct. 7, seeks damages for the repair of the bridge in excess of $150,000, in an amount to be determined at trial. DeKalb County Engineer Nathan Schwartz previously has estimated the repairs could cost about $1 million.

"I feel very confident because we have a strong case in our support," Schwartz said.

Lorraine Little, spokeswoman for Enbridge Energy, said the company has not had a chance to review the lawsuit and declined comment.

The Keslinger Road bridge collapsed Aug. 19, 2008, when its eight timber piles buckled, splitting the concrete deck in two and plunging it into the Kishwaukee River.

Investigations by the Illinois Center for Transportation and the DeKalb County Sheriff's Office showed the bridge likely collapsed because of trucks that weighed more than the legal limit crossing the structure.

Representatives from Welded Construction - which was contracted by Enbridge Energy to expand an oil pipeline in the area - admitted it had trucks weighing between 150,000-155,000 pounds crossing the bridge without proper permits.

Linefill under way for new Enbridge Clipper line to Superior, Wis.

DULUTH, Minn. – The last weld on Enbridge’s new 1,000-mile Alberta Clipper crude oil pipeline was completed on March 3.
The $1.2 billion Enbridge Energy pipeline has been laid, buried, welded, hydro-tested and inspected. It will start carrying Canadian crude oil from Alberta’s oil sands to Superior in April - months earlier than the company expected when work started.
"We're ready to go. We're hoping to have the line in service by about April 1,'' Enbridge spokeswoman Lorraine Grymala said.
But the big celebration will come, Grymala said, when oil flows through the line.
Most of the 3,000 construction workers, equipment operators and welders who laid the pipeline already have left for home or for their next project.
Six crews from three pipeline construction companies, about 500 workers in each crew, worked on the 326 miles of pipe laid across northern Minnesota roughly parallel to U.S. Highway 2.

Enbridge announces LaCrosse pipeline to serve Haynesville Shale

SHREVEPORT, La. - Another large pipeline project to move natural gas from the Haynesville Shale and East Texas wells is being proposed by Enbridge Energy, according to the Shreveport Times.
The 340-mile interstate natural gas pipeline would originate at the Enbridge Carthage Hub in Panola County, Texas, enter DeSoto Parish north of Logansport and slice southeast before entering Natchitoches Parish. It will ultimately connect with Southern Natural Gas Pipeline in Washington Parish.
Enbridge held pen houses on Jan. 19 in Logansport and Jan. 20 in Natchitoches to provide information about the proposed 340-mile interstate pipeline.
The LaCrosse Pipeline will join a number of other major pipeline projects that have been announced since Haynesville Shale drilling exploded in northwest Louisiana and East Texas in the spring of 2008.

Enbridge Alberta Clipper permit sparks criticism in Canada and U.S.

FORT McMURRAY, Alta. - The U.S. presidential permit granted Aug. 20 for Enbridge's controversial Alberta Clipper pipeline has launched environmental protests on both sides of the border, with opponents vowing a legal challenge.
According to a coalition of environmental and Native American groups, the decision goes against U.S. President Barack Obama's promise to cut global warming pollution and America’s addition to oil while investing in clean energy.
The groups - Earthjustice and the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy as well as the Canadian and American offices of the Sierra Club and the Indigenous Environmental Network - have vowed to challenge the decision in court.
In addition, the indigenous network based in Minnesota is looking into the validity of the permit, as it wasn't signed by Hillary Clinton, U.S. secretary of state, as required. Marty Cobenais of the network said it was signed by the deputy assistant director instead, and he wants to check its validity. Cobenais says the coalition, especially the Leech Lake Band, which stands to be the most affected by the pipeline, is in for a David and Goliath fight with a multibillion-dollar industry and the American government.
“This fight isn't even just about the pipeline. We're fighting this fight down here … because we're against the expansion of the (Alberta) tar sands also,” said Cobenais.
The $3.6-billion Alberta Clipper pipeline will carry oil sands product from Hardisty, Alta. It will extend 525 kilometers from the U.S.-Canadian border near Neche, N.D., across northern Minnesota to an Enbridge terminal in Superior, Wis. The project also includes associated pumping and terminal stations. Scheduled to be up and running in 2010, the pipeline will have an initial capacity of 450,000 b/d of heavy bituminous syncrude. A second 51-centimeter parallel pipeline, Southern Lights, will extend 307 kilometers from Superior to an Enbridge terminal in Clearbrook, Minn.

Environmental groups still hope to halt Enbridge Alberta Clipper line

WASHINGTON – In an announcement on Aug. 20 that surprised no one, the Obama administration approved construction of the proposed Enbridge Alberta Clipper Pipeline to carry oil-sands fuel from Canada into Superior, Wis., saying its action was designed to send "a positive economic signal in a difficult economic period".
Many environmentalists had expressed hopes that Hillary Clinton, secretary of state, would reject a permit to build the Alberta Clipper, a 1,000-mile pipeline designed to carry up to 800,000 b/d of bitumen from Canada's oil sands.
The State Department said greenhouse-gas emissions are best addressed through each country's domestic policies and a strong international agreement.
After undertaking what it said was considerable evaluation, the State Department said it would permit Enbridge Energy to build the pipeline to advance a number of U.S. strategic interests.
These interests include increasing the diversity of oil supplies for the U.S., amid political tension in many major oil-producing regions; shortening the transportation path for crude oil supplies; and increasing crude oil supplies from a major non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries producer.
"Canada is a stable and reliable ally and trading partner of the United States, with which we have free trade agreements, which augment the security of this energy supply," the State Department said ina prepared news release. "Approval of the permit sends a positive economic signal, in a difficult economic period, about the future reliability and availability of a portion of the United States' energy imports.''
The State Department also said the project would provide construction jobs for U.S. workers.
Environmentalists on both sides of the border seized on the approval as a contradiction of Washington's promise to cut global warming pollution and the U.S. addiction to oil.
"Importing dirty tar-sands oil is not in our national interest," said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, an environmental group. "At a time when concern is growing about the national security threat posted by global warming, it doesn't make sense to open our gates to one of the dirtiest fuels on earth."
Pope said that approving such a big, long-term project locked the U.S. into a dirty energy infrastructure for years to come. "This is exactly the kind of project the State Department should be protecting us from," he said.
An international coalition of environmental and Native American groups said they would challenge the permit in court to ensure all impacts of the pipeline were considered.
"The tar-sands pipeline connects U.S. refiners and consumers with the dirtiest, most carbon-intensive crude oil on earth," said Kevin Reuther, legal director for the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy.

U.S. State Department approves Enbridge Alberta Clipper construction

WASHINGTON – In an announcement on Aug. 20 that surprised no one, the Obama administration approved construction of the proposed Enbridge Alberta Clipper Pipeline to carry oil-sands fuel from Canada into Superior, Wis., saying its action was designed to send "a positive economic signal in a difficult economic period".
Many environmentalists had expressed hopes that Hillary Clinton, secretary of state, would reject a permit to build the Alberta Clipper, a 1,000-mile pipeline designed to carry up to 800,000 b/d of fuel from Canada's oil sands.
The State Department said greenhouse-gas emissions are best addressed through each country's domestic policies and a strong international agreement.
After undertaking what it said was considerable evaluation, the State Department said it would permit Enbridge Energy to build the pipeline to advance a number of U.S. strategic interests.
These interests include increasing the diversity of oil supplies for the U.S., amid political tension in many major oil-producing regions; shortening the transportation path for crude oil supplies; and increasing crude oil supplies from a major non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries producer.