pipelineconstruction2

Word is out, confirming scuttlebutt, that Enbridge will pull the plug on the Sandpiper pipeline.  It’s not official yet, nothing has happened beyond an announcement, but if Enbridge is saying it, IN WRITING, then that means it’s highly likely, eh?

Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. and Enbridge Inc. Announce Agreement to Acquire Equity Interest in the Bakken Pipeline System Establishing New Path to the U.S. Gulf Coast

Here’s the important part:

Upon successful closing of the transaction, EEP and Marathon Petroleum plan to terminate their transportation services and joint venture agreements for the Sandpiper Pipeline Project. EEP continues to believe the Bakken region is a highly productive and attractive basin, which has significant crude oil supply growth potential that will require additional pipeline capacity in the future. The scope and timing of the Sandpiper Pipeline Project will be evaluated during the quarter to ensure that it is positioned to meet the growing need for pipeline capacity while offering customers competitive tolls and strong netbacks. Additionally, in conjunction with a termination of the Sandpiper joint venture agreements with Marathon Petroleum, EEP will retain 100 percent ownership in our legacy North Dakota system, which is one of the most competitive outlets available to producers in the State.

(what’s a “netback?”).

Reuters has it right with the “OVERBUILD” characterization:

Enbridge’s Sandpiper looks to be latest victim of pipeline overbuild

For this to be “official,” Enbridge will need to file a request to withdraw their application with the Public Utilities Commission, there will be a comment period, then the Commission will decide whether to approve the request to withdraw.

Suffice it to say, this will/would also mean that the transmission for the Sandpiper tank farm NW of Clearbrook is not necessary because the tank farm will not be built there (or in an alternate site)!  And that’s good news for my clients next to that tank farm.

As happened with Hollydale, because the Sandpiper part is before OAH, Enbridge has to request a Withdrawal, which will be certified to the Commission for its blessing.  Here’s the Hollydale request:

Xcel/GRE Hollydale Withdrawal Petition

And for Clearbrook-Clearbrook West 115 kV transmission for Sandpiper’s Clearbrook tank farm, it’s time for Minnkota to withdraw their application!

So I fired off this missive to the PUC:

PUC Correspondence_Enbridge Press Release

Iit’s time to make sure the PUC knows of this Enbridge plan and the impact of this pullout on the need for transmission support!

Dog_shocked

WHAT!?!?!  Yes… Really… after the delightful decision from the Appellate Court requiring an Environmental Impact Statement, telling the Public Utilities Commission that an EIS must be completed before a Certificate of Need can be issue, the Applicants dropped  Petition.  Read this whale-eye inducing filing from North Dakota Pipeline Company, LLC (a/k/a Enbridge) hot off the press:

North Dakota Pipeline Company _ Petition for Rejoinder and Comment Period 20159-114150-03

Here’s the short version:

Untitled

Once more with feeling, here’s the Appellate Court’s decision:

OPa150016-091415

And the bottom line:

BottomLine

So from this order of the Appellate Court “to complete an EIS” the Applicant now asks for the “need” docket and “routing” docket to be brought back together and to use the “Comparative Environmental Analysis” that the Appellate Court says isn’t sufficient.  Yes, that what they’re saying:

Untitled

What planet is North Dakota Pipeline Company living on?  Earth to Mars!!!!!  A “CEA” is not sufficient.  MEPA requires an EIS.  The court told the Public Utilities Commission to complete an EIS.  The Court did NOT say to go ahead with a “CEA.”

Not too long ago, Lisa Agrimonti sent around notice that she had moved over to Fredrickson & Byron.  $50 says that she’ll be filing Notice of Appearance for this docket!

 

 

 

KeystoneMap

595 arrested so far… There’s been a lot online about opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline for Tar Sands oil.

TAR SANDS ACTION

I’m looking at all of this and I’m wondering where the resistance was to the MinnCan pipeline, just one of our own tar sands crude oil pipeline through Minnesota.  Why is the Keystone XL pipeline project special?  Why are people waking up about tar sands pipelines?  Is it because Keystone XL is a “Presidential Permit” project at the Dept. of State?

MPIRG helped some of the landowners affected by MinnCan organize after they got very late notice they were potentially affected, but they lost bigtime, were denied intervention status by the ALJ because they were “late,” and then after it was permitted, booted out of the Appellate Court because they were not formal intervenors.  As they were in condemnation court for the pipeline, they got notice that they were targeted for CapX 2020 transmission.  At that point they became dyed-in-the-wool activists and joined with NoCapX 2020 as intervenors, in the Certificate of Need case and subsequent routing dockets for CapX transmission across Minnesota, right now in the Hampton-LaCrosse CapX 2020 routing docket .

For more info, here’s the MinnCan routing docket at PUC:

http://energyfacilities.puc.state.mn.us/Docket.html?Id=18339

Here is a link to a post with the Appellate decision:

Appellate court affirms PUC in pipeline appeal

Here are county maps, from Clearwater Co. down to the refinery in Dakota County:

http://energyfacilities.puc.state.mn.us/resource.html?Id=19000

And the Certificate of Need, go hear and search for docket “06-02” (year-docket no.)

https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/edockets/searchDocuments.do?method=showeDocketsSearch&searchType=new

Here’re some other tar sands pipelines in Minnesota, completed:

The “Alberta Clipper” pipeline project:

http://energyfacilities.puc.state.mn.us/Docket.html?Id=19203

And another Enbridge “Southern Lights” oil pipeline project

http://energyfacilities.puc.state.mn.us/Docket.html?Id=19133