State DNR Poised to Approve Enbridge’s Crude Oil Storage Facility and Pipeline Expansion


Enbridge Energy Co., located at 2800 E 21st St, Superior, Douglas County, Wisconsin, FID 816010580, has submitted to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) a permit application, including plans and specifications for construction and operation of three new large (24.5 million gallons each) crude oil storage tanks, modification of two large (under construction) crude oil storage tanks, increased pipeline 61 tar sands derived crude oil carrying capacity, associated piping components, increasing pumping pressure at 3 stations and installing 9 new pump stations, cleaning emissions from existing tanks T35 – T40, and a new diesel emergency generator.

Enbridge Company’s permit application proposes tripling the volume of tar sands derived crude oil transported by Pipeline 61. This pipeline is currently carrying Canadian tar sands oil through Wisconsin from Superior, WI, then south to Delevan, WI. The pipeline then crosses over the Illinois state line and continues south where the tar sands are distributed to refineries.

DNR has already made its preliminary determination that Enbridge Company’s application meets state and federal air pollution control requirements, and that the permit should be approved. DNR’s analysis and draft permit is available for inspection at the Bureau of Air Management Headquarters, Seventh Floor, 101 South Webster Street, Madison, Wisconsin, 53703; (608) 266-2621; and at the Northern Region Air Program, Superior Area Office, 1701 N. 4th Street, Superior, WI 54880, tel. (715) 392-7989; and at the Superior Public Library 1530 Tower Ave., Superior, WI 54880-4880. Alternatively, the public may contact Don C. Faith, III at (608) 267-3135, or by e-mail at DNR’s public notice says the information is also available for downloading at:

The DNR held a public hearing on Monday, May 5, 2014 in Superior, Wisconsin. The purpose of the hearing was for the DNR to hear public testimony on Enbridge Company’s proposal. A dozen people testified against DNR issuing the permit at the hearing while four registered in favor of DNR’s granting of the permit.

The proposed Endbridge Co. expansion is planned in two phases: phase 1 will involve the modification of 3 existing pump stations to increase tar sands crude flow from 400,000 bpd (barrels per day) to 560,000 bpd; phase 2 will involve the construction of 9 new pumping stations in Wisconsin along the pipeline route and increase the tar sands crude flow to 1,200,000 bpd. That is an awful large amount of heavy crude oil to be flowing through Enbridge’s pipelines every single day.

Enbridge’s Pipeline 61 will be an avenue to export dirty tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada, outside of the United States, to overseas oil markets, where it is likely to be used for combustion into energy, with the primary byproducts of (1) carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas that is being up to dangerous level in the atmosphere and oceans, as it remain in the atmosphere for over a century, adding to the warming of the atmosphere, in combination with the greenhouse gases emitted before and after it’s emission. This quantity of oil burning will greatly and negatively affect air quality around the surface because warming air is more conducive to carrying the pollutants and soot which emerge from all sources, causing disastrous air quality affects on human health all over when breathed.

The DNR claims that it has already made a determination under ch. NR 150, Wisconsin Administrative Code, that this type of proposal normally does not have the potential to cause significant adverse environmental or secondary effects; also DNR’s hearing notice states that “This is a preliminary determination and does not constitute a final approval from the Air Management Program or any other DNR sections which may also require a review of the project.

DNR decides to issue this permit to Enbridge Company, this will lead to more tar sands spills, water pollution, increased demand for tar sands oil, more climate change pollution, and more air pollution.

Warmer air holds more moisture, and thus more air pollution in the United States. DNR should deny the permit application for Enbridge Company’s Line 61 and the proposed massive oil storage facilities on that basis alone.

Line 61 crosses through Wisconsin from Superior to Flanagan, IL and will include new pumping stations (in Hawthorne, Ladysmith, Owen, Marshfield, Minong, Stone Lake, Adams, Portage, and Waterloo) and increased pumping pressure at existing stations (Sheldon, Vesper, and Delavan). This puts a number of our water bodies at risk, from Castle Rock Lake, the Rock River, Lake Koshkonong, the Flambeau River, and most importantly, Lake Superior and the Great Lakes, which provide drinking water for 42 million people. A spill could devastate these waterways, and the jobs and economy that depend on them.

Tar sands oil is more carbon intensive than traditional oil—greenhouse gas emissions of tar sands oil are about 17% greater than the average barrel of oil on a life-cycle basis. We are already seeing the effects of climate change in Wisconsin. The drought and heat wave in 2012, followed by relentless rain and flooding last year give us a glimpse of what climate change could cost Wisconsin in the future, from our farms to our forests to our cold-water fisheries. More tar sands oil is the last thing our climate needs.

The deadline for commenting to DNR on Enbridge’s permit application is May 18, 2014: Mail your comments to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Air Management, ATTN: Don C. Faith, III, 101 S. Webster Street, Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707-7921, or email them to the address listed above.

Tars sands oil means more spilled oil: in order to extract the oil, it is mixed with chemicals, this makes it more acidic and leads to more ruptures and spills. Tar sands pipelines in the Midwest spill 3.6 times more per mile than traditional pipelines.

Enbridge’s track record is terrible: Since 1999, Enbridge has had 800 spills, including the very severe, very significant spill in the Kalamazoo River. The pipeline spewed tar sands oil for over 17 hours, before Enbridge realized it was leaking. The environmental damage to the wetlands, Kalamazoo River, and Talmadge Creek will likely never fully remedied. The full extent of public health effects will possibly never be known, but 320 homes had to be evacuated.

Enbridge is responsible for a number of spills in Wisconsin as well: In January 2007, an Enbridge pipeline ruptured, pouring more than 29,000 gallons of crude oil onto a farm field in the town of Curtis in Clark County. A month later, another Enbridge pipeline rupture dumped 176,000 gallons of heavy crude oil in a Rusk County farm field. In January 2009, Enbridge Energy Partners paid the State of Wisconsin $1.1 million to settle claims under Wisconsin’s waterway and wetland protection and storm water control laws. In July 2012 a farm field in Grand Marsh, Wisconsin was covered by at least 1,200 barrels of oil after an Enbridge pipeline ruptured there. Enbridge had to purchase a nearby home that a local resident described as being “covered in oil.”

Tar Sands oil poses a greater threat to our water resources: unlike traditional oil, tar sands oil is dense and does not float, so the way to clean it out of a river is unknown. Four years later, the Kalamazoo spill is still not cleaned up and the Environmental Protection Agency ordered Enbridge dredge the river. Clean-up costs will exceed $1 Billion.

Technology cannot properly detect or prevent a spill: a Natural Resources Defense Council investigation found that leak detection systems missed 19 out of 20 spills and 4 out of 5 of the larger spills.

The climate cannot afford tar sands oil: Tar sands oil is the dirtiest and most carbon intensive form of oil. The extraction process is incredibly carbon intensive and requires destroying the Canadian boreal forest, one of the largest carbon sequestration sources in the world, capturing twice as much carbon as the tropical forests. As a result, greenhouse gas emissions of tar sands oil are about 17% greater than the average barrel of oil on a life-cycle basis.


About Mike Neuman

Identical twin; Long-time advocate of protection of our environment; Married; Father to three sons; Grandfather to one granddaughter; Born and raised in Wisconsin; Graduate of University of Wisconsin; post graduate degrees in agricultural economics and Water Resources Management fro UWMadison; Former School Crossing Guard for City of Madison; Bike to Work for 31 years with Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources; Retired from DNR in 2007; Biked to school crossing guard site 2 X daily for 7 years retiring in 2019; in addition to being an advocate of safeguarding our environment, I am also an advocate for humane treatment of animal, children, and people in need of financial resource for humane living. I am presently a Volunteer for Habitat for Humanity, Madison, Wisconsin. I oppose all long (>500 miles) distance travel (via fossil fuel burning) for nonessential purposes and all ownership of more than one home. I am opposed to militarism in any form particularly for the purpose of monetary gain. I am a Strong believer in people everywhere having the right to speak their minds openly, without any fear of reprisal, regarding any concerns; especially against those in authority who are not acting for the public good?in a timely fashion and in all countries of the world not just the U S.. My identical twin, Pat, died in June 2009. He was fired from his job with the National Weather Service despite having a long and successful career as a flood forecaster with the Kansas City National Weather Service. He took a new position in the Midwest Regional Office in Minneapolis. Unfortunately, Pat’s work for the NWS went sour after he began to see the evidence for concern about rising global temperatures shortly after relocating to Minneapolis, and how they appeared to effect of flooding on the Red River that flows out of Canada before entering the U.S. in North Dakota. . Pat and I conversed on a regular basis with other scientists on the Yahoo Group named “Climate Concern “ and by personal email. The NWS denied his recommendation to give his public presentation o n his research at the “Minneapolis Mall of America” in February 2000, which deeply affected h,im. I will h He strongly believed the information ought be shared with the public to which I concurred. That was the beginning of the vendetta against my brother, Patrick J. Neuman, for speaking strongly of the obligations the federal government was responsible for accurately informing the citizenry. A way great similar response to my raising the issue of too many greenhouse gases being emitted by drivers of vehicles on Wisconsin highway system, my immediate supervisors directed: “that neither global warming, climate change nor the long term impacts upon the natural resources of Wisconsin from expansion of the state highway system were to be any part of my job requirements, and that I must not communicate, nor in a memorandum to all the bureau, shall any person who works in the same bureau I do communicate with me, neither verbally on the phone, by email.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: