Skip to content
View Featured Image

Counties Urge Revocation Of Pipeline Permit

Dane County supervisors approved a resolution Thursday urging the Department of Natural Resources to revoke a permit awarded earlier that day to Enbridge Energy and undertake a environmental review of plans the company has to boost production along its main Wisconsin oil pipeline.

Installed in 2006, Enbridge’s Line 61 transports roughly 400,000 barrels of Canadian tar sands soil per day from Superior to Pontiac, Ill. The 42-inch diameter line crosses northeast Dane County through the towns of York and Medina.

But Enbridge has plans to increase Line 61’s capacity to 1.2 million barrels per day by late 2015 with the construction or modification of pump stations throughout Wisconsin. The project was first announced approximately two years ago.

According to Enbridge, the two-phase expansion is part of “ongoing efforts to meet North America’s needs for reliable and secure transportation of petroleum energy supplies,” and the project “will help generate benefits for local economies,” in the form of jobs, tax revenue and the purchase of goods and services.

Enbridge is also working to beef up the capacity by adding new pump stations to its Alberta Clipper pipeline that runs from Alberta, Canada through North Dakota and northern Minnesota to Superior.

The air construction permit awarded to Enbridge by the DNR is for the expansion of storage tank capacity at the company’s Superior terminal — not changes to Line 61’s pumps. DNR spokesman Bill Cosh said the department received more than 200 written comments and 3,400 emails from the public prior to issuing the permit.

“Most of the comments received concerned Enbridge’s pipeline, which was not part of the air permit review and determination,” said Cosh in a release. “Many comments requested the agency to do an environmental assessment or an environmental impact review.”

Cosh noted that the DNR did conduct environmental assessments for both Line 61 (2006)and the Alberta Clipper (2009) before each was operational.

“Under current law, the air permit issued to the company does not require additional analysis,” said Cosh.

Enbridge spokesman Bill McCoshen appeared before the board Thursday in Madison and asked that supervisors table their resolution or refer it back to the board’s executive committee for further vetting.

“I think that the resolution ought to be tabled or referred back to committee to give us a chance to meet with you and explain how we operate from Superior to the edge of the Illinois border,” McCoshen said. “You guys are rushing to this resolution before you’ve even met with us.”

Multiple residents turned out Thursday to offer concerns regarding Line 61 and the possible threat of an oil spill in Dane County.

“Thank you very much for taking this issue up and please consider the common good [and] the safety of the citizens of Dane County,” said Carl Whiting, who accused the DNR of being a “chamber of commerce” for corporations.

“The Line 61 expansion is a really new proposition and we need more information about the real risks that it poses to our communities,” Laura Schlachter testified.

Bruce Noble with Grassroots Pipeline Awareness Group said that Enbridge had three oil spills in Wisconsin between January 2007 and July 2012. He also said an Enbridge line in Michigan spilled 877,000 gallons and required more than $1 billion in clean up costs.

“If you look at the immediate dangers of the possibility of a spill and the damage to our resources … there’s a price to pay for that,” said Harry Bennett.

The concerns expressed in Madison on Thursday about the pipeline are not unique. Supervisors in Jefferson County last month passed a resolution similar to the one adopted by the Dane County Board.

Sup. Dennis O’Loughlin of DeForest specifically questioned whether equipment installed eight years ago would be capable of handling twice the pressure and oil flow once the pump upgrades are complete.

“The question that bothers me is the sustainability of the equipment that’s in the ground right now,” O’Loughlin remarked. “I would like to be reassured that it’s capable of handling double the material going through at obviously a much faster pace.”

McCoshen responded that Line 61 was originally “designed, built and tested” for 1.2 million barrels per day. He again added that by taking the resolution back to the Executive Committee would allow Enbridge a chance to “bring the right people” forward to address any further concerns.

The board’s vote to adopt the resolution — which will not halt the Line 61 project — was unanimous.

Urgent End Of Year Fundraising Campaign

Online donations are back! Keep independent media alive. 

Due to the attacks on our fiscal sponsor, we were unable to raise funds online for nearly two years.  As the bills pile up, your help is needed now to cover the monthly costs of operating Popular Resistance.

Urgent End Of Year Fundraising Campaign

Online donations are back! 

Keep independent media alive. 

Due to the attacks on our fiscal sponsor, we were unable to raise funds online for nearly two years.  As the bills pile up, your help is needed now to cover the monthly costs of operating Popular Resistance.

Sign Up To Our Daily Digest

Independent media outlets are being suppressed and dropped by corporations like Google, Facebook and Twitter. Sign up for our daily email digest before it’s too late so you don’t miss the latest movement news.