Demystifying Ultrasonic Crack Data Analysis
Tuesday 24th April 2018, 8 am GMT & 4 pm GMT
Inspecting Pipelines With Discovery™, The World’s Only Subsea CT Scanner
Jennifer Briddon / Ben Metcalfe >>> Tracerco
Risk Reduction of Dropped Objects on Pipelines around Offshore Platforms
Henning Bø >>> TDW Offshore Services
Systematic Handling and “Live” Repair of Gas Pipeline Leaks
Asle Venas / Jens P. Tronskar / Lee Chon Gee >>> DNV GL
Corrosion Prevention
For a century now, DENSO Group Germany represents experience, quality and reliability for corrosion prevention and sealing technology
Integrity of Subsea Pipeline Butt Welds through Design, Construction & Operational Life
Harry Cotton / Istvan Bartha >>> Wood
Innovative Technology of Non–Contact Magnetic Tomography for Subsea Pipeline
N. H. A. Ahmad / R. Z. Ismail / M. P. Othman / I. Kolesnikov >>> Transkor (M) Sdn Bhd / PETRONAS
Ultra-deep Water Gas Pipelines Collapse and Consequences
Hossein Pirzad / Leif Collberg / Samaneh Etemadi >>> EGIS / DNV GL / University of Oslo
Take a look at the newest ptj Issue OFFSHORE PIPELINES

Minnesota Completes Amended Review of Enbridge Oil Pipeline

Minnesota Completes Amended Review of Enbridge Oil Pipeline (Enbridge)

As the name suggests, the multibillion dollar New Line 3 planned by Enbridge is to take the place of Line 3 (or "Old Line 3"). The original 1960 vintage 34-inch diameter pipeline runs 1765-km from Edmonton, Alberta to Superior, Wisconsin. Apart from being old, corroded and prone to mishaps, it lacks the newest technologies that the New Line would have. New Line 3 will also be 36 inches in diameter, follow the existing Line 3 route from Joliette, North Dakota to Clearbrook, Minnesota, and then create a new path on existing transmission routes from Clearbrook to Superior, Wisconsin.

Environmental groups and local Indian tribes are not convinced that New Line 3 will be any more secure than the old line, and its new southward trajectory they say would open a new region of lakes and rivers to possible degradation from oil spills.

They have asked the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to reconsider its December decision on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), claiming the document should be rejected because it is fundamentally flawed, lacking among other things an assessment of large oil spills. The PUC is expected to hear their reconsideration arguments next week.

The PUC is slated to vote again on the EIS's adequacy in March. The commission is expected in June to make a ruling on the larger issue of whether the pipeline is needed.

Add new comment


Subscribe for free in order to get the next issue of Pipeline Technology Journal and the bi-weekly ptj Newsletter directly into your mailbox. You could unsubscribe at any time if you wish.



Admir Celovic
Phone: : +49 (0)511 90 99 2-20

Contact Page
Go to top