Integrity Management
Development of a Novel Subsurface Monitoring and Oil Leak Detection System - SubSense LDS
Stephen Edmondson, Kaushik Parmar, Adrian Banica >>> Direct-C
Corrosion Prevention
For a century now, DENSO Group Germany represents experience, quality and reliability for corrosion prevention and sealing technology
Steel pipeline failure probability evaluation based on in-line inspection results
Maciej Witek >>> GAZ-SYSTEM
Assessing Repeat ILI Data Using Signal-to-Signal Comparison Techniques
Jane Dawson, Geoffrey Hurd >>> Baker Hughes, a GE company
Condition Assessment for Optimizing Gasunie's Network Improvement Program (GNIP)
Martin Hommes, Karen van Bloemendaal, Roelof Corster, Maurice Gielisse >>> DNV GL Martin van Agteren, E.E.R. Jäger >>> Gasunie Transport Services
Data-driven approaches to Pipeline Cleaning
Otto Huisman >>> ROSEN Group
Trial of a Process for the Identification of Reduced Depth of Cover on Buried Pipelines
Daniel Finley, Michiel Roeleveld, Simon Daniels, Klaas Kole >>> ROSEN Group Paul Ogden >>> National Grid

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

Subscription

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.

Subscribe

Contact

Admir Celovic
E-mail: ptj@eitep.de
Phone: : +49 (0)511 90 99 2-20



Contact Page
Go to top