Rerouting our energy future: an analysis of the Sandpiper Pipeline

By: Madeline Norgaard, Advisors: Jean Lavigne and Christopher Thoms

The Sandpiper Pipeline project proposed by Enbridge Energy Corporation in late

2013 is seeking a 616 mile pipeline route to transport 375,000 barrels per day of

light crude oil from the North Dakota Bakken formation to a terminal in Superior,

Wisconsin. Due to the drastic rise in oil production, pipelines are seemingly

necessary to meet the growing demand to transport oil to refineries in the Midwest

and Eastern United States. Anticipated benefits include high paying construction

and operation jobs, tax revenue, and reliable energy transport. This route is the

shortest and least costly, and will traverse 302 miles across northern Minnesota’s

high quality watersheds, wildlife habitat, and cultural resources. Since proposed,

this route faces contention from a variety of environmental, citizen, and Native

American organizations arguing numerous environmental, societal, cultural, and

economic risks of the pipeline. I seek to answer, why are pipelines more

contentious today than pipelines built in the past?

Oil pipelines proposed today are far more contested than at any time in recent history

due to: 1) the large number of people, communities, and landowners affected by de-

velopment, 2) the mobilization and connected networks of concerned citizen groups,

3) recognized inadequacies in environmental review, policy, and regulation, and 4) an

increased understanding of oil production’s impact on the local environment and cli-

mate change. Concerned citizens are the driving force behind the movement that is

critical of oil pipeline development in Minnesota. Armed with a greater knowledge of

and growing concern for the impact and effects that pipelines can have on the envi-

ronment, citizens are placing increased pressure on decision makers in both the legis-

lature and regulatory government agencies. Those in positions of responsibility are be-

ing made aware of the value Minnesotans place on the preservation and quality of

northern Minnesota ecosystems. In the case of whether or not to support the Sandpi-

per Pipeline, Minnesota will have the opportunity to make a pivotal decision that will

have long term effects not only with regard to our dependence on fossil fuels as an en-

ergy source; but also the desire for a cleaner energy future and protected environ-

ment for all.

First, I compare the political, economic, and environmental context of pipelines

constructed in the past across Minnesota and the Midwest including: Enbridge

owned Line 5 (built: 1953), Line 3 (built: 1968), Line 67 (built: 2008), and the

MinnCan pipeline (built: 2007) owned by the Minnesota Pipe Line Company and

operated by Koch Pipeline Company. Constructed with relative ease, in total the

pipelines analyzed carry 1,522,000 barrels (42 gallons/barrel) of crude oil per day

to meet the transport demands of tar sands oil production in Alberta, Canada.

Second, in order to understand the contention of the Sandpiper Pipeline, I analyze

recent newspaper articles, public comments, memorandums, testimony,

governmental reports and reviews, along with social media sites and organization

websites to understand: how and by whom issues are framed; how the decision

making and environmental review process works; and how controversy over the

Sandpiper Pipeline contributes to the wider fossil fuel dependence/climate

change/and energy future discussions.

Figure 1. Network of oil pipelines and shale plays (brown color) in Minnesota and surrounding states. There are

approximately 190,000 miles of pipeline that transport liquid petroleum products throughout the U.S. Source:

U.S. Energy Information Administration: Minnesota State Profile and Energy Estimates. http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=MN

Hundreds of pipes sit waiting to be installed along the proposed route before permits are issued. Enbridge is

confident that regardless of public contention over the route, the Sandpiper will be built where proposed.

Figure 2. Miles of oil pipelines installed in Minnesota from 1920 to 2014. Data Source: U.S. Department of

Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 10/30/2014

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Pre 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2014

Tota

l M

Iles

Year

Minnesota Oil Pipeline Mileage by Installation Year

1950-1960: 1,197

miles of pipelines

installed

2000-2010: 1,047

miles of pipelines

installed

2014: 4,130 total miles

of crude oil pipelines

in Minnesota

Introduction

High Quality Water Resources

Limited Emergency Access to 28

Water Bodies

Crosses 137 Public Lands

Construction Damage to Habitat,

Wetland Hydrology, and

Agricultural Land

Wild Rice Harvesting Lakes

Subsistence Land Uses

Tribal Treaty Rights and Values

Sacred Land and Waters of

Anishinaabe people

Northern Minnesota Tourist Industry

Private Property Values

Agricultural Land Productivity

Source: Enbridge

Methods

Proposed Sandpiper Pipeline

Conclusion

Environmental Risks

Cultural and Societal Risks

Economic Risks

Picture Sources: http://www.thedickinsonpress.com/energy/oil/3709682-minnesota-critical-part-north-american-energy-picture http://www.boydlodge.com/images/couple-canoe.jpg http://thebakken.com/articles/434/bakken-sandpiper-pipeline-gets-anchor-shipper-open-season-begins http://www.exploreminnesota.com/site-images/644/400x401 http://www.midwestenergynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/sandpiper-protest-signs800.jpg http://gardenwarriorsgoodseeds.com/2015/02/02/honor-the-earth-pipeline-ride-saving-minnesotas-water-and-wild-rice/ http://iowa-city-climate-advocates.org/