Comments on: A Monster Rises: Enbridge’s Tar Sands Frankenstein

By: BREAKING: Enbridge Tar Sands Pipeline Accident in Minnesota : Wildlife Promise

BREAKING: Enbridge Tar Sands Pipeline Accident in Minnesota : Wildlife Promise — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 23:12:03 +0000

[...] currently under review for a truly giant expansion that would double its capacity and make it the biggest tar sands pipeline in the United States. That’s right — bigger than Keystone 1, Keystone XL, or the Northeast pipeline, capable [...]

By: Take Action: Prevent Great Lakes Tar Sands Spills : Wildlife Promise

Take Action: Prevent Great Lakes Tar Sands Spills : Wildlife Promise — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 18:30:37 +0000

[...] crude is not to benefit the Midwest or the U.S. – Enbridge has already started to pump tar sands south for export and has plans to do the same out east. This means that we are assuming an increased risk of much [...]

By: Kathy

Kathy — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 22:41:00 +0000

OOPs – Your numbers are correct. You were quoting gallons, and I was using barrels per day, and since there are about 42 gallons in a barrel, your numbers are correct. Apologies!

By: Pipeline Companies’ Crude Behavior Exposed : Wildlife Promise

Pipeline Companies’ Crude Behavior Exposed : Wildlife Promise — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 21:12:32 +0000

[...] sands spill cleanup workshops. And in the Midwest, Enbridge Inc. is plowing ahead with a massive expansion plan despite the lingering effects of the biggest inland oil spill in US history, the 2010 Kalamazoo [...]

By: Kathy

Kathy — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 20:59:00 +0000

Could you please check your numbers? The numbers of 35 million are quite high – don’t get me wrong, I’m all for stopping this flow of oil, but the amount of oil is NOT this high. For example, in MN, Enbridge’s pipelines are sending about 1.7 million barrels per day of toxic sludge – and they have applied for capacity increases of up to 800,000 barrels total on the Alberta Clipper line. That would raise MN’s output to over 2 million bpd. Some of the oil flowing in from ND/Canada about equals what is directed down to the Twin Cities via the MPL line. But as I count it, this number is not even close to 35 million. Is it possible that you added all the capacities of all the lines together, instead of thinking of the oil flowing en mass from Alberta down to the Coast, etc. Each pipeline’s capacity is fed from Canada or North Dakota in Enbridge’s case – the same oil starts in Canada and flows along the route. I want to stop the flow of ALberta Bitumen, but we have to work together and all get the facts right.

By: Grace Adams

Grace Adams — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 10:15:00 +0000

We need to BUY those Alberta tar sand oil reserves as reserves BEFORE anybody else can buy them to be delivered and burned.

By: Jeffrey Insko

Jeffrey Insko — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:36:00 +0000

Enbridge is perfecting (or trying to) the piece-meal approach (and circumventing regulatory oversight) in Michigan with its Line 6B project. I hope that local residents across and within states will talk to and learn from one another. Thank you for helping connect THOSE dots!

Jeff
http://grangehallpress.com/Enbridgeblog