As more tar sands oil moves in U.S. pipelines, new safety studies urged

WASHINGTON - A report released in late February, around the seven-month anniversary of the 843,000-gallon oil spill that contaminated the Kalamazoo River, cites the type of oil that was running through the ruptured Enbridge oil pipeline.

The report, "Tar Sands Pipeline Safety Risks," was prepared in a collaborative effort of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the National Wildlife Federation, the Pipeline Safety Trust and the Sierra Club.

"When the spill happened and we realized it was tar sand oil, we saw there were questions that no one had clearly answered," said Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, international program director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. She is one of the report's authors.

"We decided it was time to do a technical, in-depth research study," Casey-Lefkowitz said. "After several months of research and lots of technical review, we put it all together in the report."

The report says it could be more dangerous to transport tar sands oil (the type that was flowing through Enbridge Line 6B on July 25, when the rupture occurred) than other forms of crude oil.

On the day in question, the oil flowing through the pipeline was a mix of a relatively raw tar sands oil and liquid natural gas, called "dilbit," short for diluted bitumen, according to the report.

"Dilbit is actually more corrosive (than typical crude oil)," Casey-Lefkowitz said. "It causes more spills. It's a dangerous substance that we're not really regulating in the United States."

The federal government regulates pipelines through the Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Currently, PHMSA does not differentiate between crude oil and tar sands oil, Casey-Lefkowitz said.

Enbridge spokeswoman Lorraine Grymala said there's no need for different regulations for the tar sands oil.

Enbridge Energy environmental assessment available for comment

MADISON, Wis. – Environmental officials in Wisconsin have invited the public to comment on an Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for the Enbridge Alberta Clipper petroleum pipeline system project.
Enbridge Energy Co. of Superior has applied to the Wisconsin DNR for waterway and wetland crossing permits and air quality permits for the proposed project. The company will also need a stormwater permit and an endangered resources review for the project.
The proposed project consists of constructing a new 36-inch diameter petroleum pipeline known as the Alberta Clipper, a new 20-inch diameter diluent return pipeline known as the Southern Lights, an associated pump station for the Southern Lights pipeline and five 250,000-barrel breakout tanks. The proposed pipelines would be constructed along a 13-mile route in Douglas County from the Wisconsin-Minnesota border to the Enbridge Superior Terminal in Superior.
It requires 17 water body crossings, including 10 tributaries to the Pokegama River, three un-named waterways, two tributaries to the Little Pokegama River, one crossing of the Pokegama River and one crossing of an unnamed tributary to the Nemadji River.
The proposed pipelines would temporarily impact approximately 75 acres of wetland.
The pump station and breakout tanks at the Superior Terminal would fill approximately 12 acres of wetland and temporarily impact approximately three acres of wetland.
The project as proposed is not anticipated to result in significant adverse environmental effects, according to DNR officials. DNR has made a preliminary determination that an environmental impact statement will not be required.