The Tar Sands Pipelines Safety Risks report top three locations at risk of a raw tar sands oil spill

This announcement comes nearly a week after NWF released a report warning that pipeline rules and regulations do not adequately protect the Great Lakes from spills.

For some time now the Great Lakes states have been one of the lead transporters for raw tar sands oil. This issue came to light after one of the largest tar sands inland oil spills in history, when Enbridge spilled approximately 1 million gallons of oil into the Kalamazoo River watershed.

This disaster caused widespread environmental damage, health impacts, and baffled clean-up crews when officials discovered the oil sinks rather than floats – the spill is still being cleaned up today and a majority of the river remains closed.

Nearly two years later, before the investigation into the cause of that spill is complete, Enbridge has announced plans to expand the very pipeline that burst in Marshall, MI, to pump even more tar sands oil through the Great Lakes. 

Not only is the risk of disastrous pipeline spills going to increase, but the pollution from refining tar sands oil is also going to impact our health and ecosystems as Enbridge pumps this more corrosive and toxic oil to refineries that dot our waters. 

The hits don’t stop there. A large amount of the oil will not stay in Michigan, let alone the US. These projects have been advertised to investors as aiding in pushing large amounts of oil to the coasts for export. If the Michigan Public Service Commission approves the Line 6B expansion projects, the Great Lakes will be at the heart of the tar sands transportation debate, above Keystone XL and the Northern Gateway.

One major problem with these expansion projects is how Enbridge’s plans conveniently (for them) evolved through the permitting process. There appears to be no federal review of the entire replacement project despite this being an international pipeline. While federal law requires the US Department of State to approve maintenance activities at border crossings, Enbridge was apparently allowed to repair the pipeline that crosses into Canada under an existing permit.

Since that phase has been mostly completed, Enbridge has continued to put forth, piece-by-piece, projects labeled as “maintenance and rehabilitation.” These in fact replace a majority of the existing Line 6B with larger pipeline, which will eventually increase flow rates by almost double.

The pipeline that burst during the Enbridge tar sands oil spill in Michigan - July 2010

Instead, Enbridge has only been required to obtain approval by the Michigan Public Service Commission. This leaves major concerns and gaps in the review process, since the State of Michigan does not consider the long-term environmental impact of pipeline routes or the impact of tar sands oil on the environment.

The National Wildlife Federation is calling for an investigation into the entire project, asking the Michigan Public Service Commission to suspend any pending permits on Line 6B until the US Department of State reviews filings and determines if federal permitting should be required. 

Long Term: The Michigan State Legislature, Congress and the US Department of State need to review current rules and regulations for expanding international pipelines, such as Line 6B. These large-scale projects should not fall to the states, which in most cases require little environmental review.

Congress should also consider halting approval of any tar sands pipelines until: 

• The federal regulatory agency, PHMSA, completes the study on the corrosive nature of raw tar sands in conventional pipelines and those findings are applied to current regulations
• The investigation into the cause of the Enbridge 2010 Marshall tar sands oil spill is complete and recommendations by the National Transportation Safety Board are considered
• All pipeline operators transporting raw tar sands develop alternative emergency response plans to address the irregular nature of the product.

• 

  Enbridge provides the public with wipes incase they come into contact with toxic tar sands oil

  

  Enbridge misinforms the public on the dangers of coming in contact with oil that has sunk in the Kalamazoo River

Great Lakes Remain Vulnerable to New Wave of Dangerous Mining, According to New Report

May 10 – Gaps, inconsistencies and loopholes in U.S. state and Canadian provincial laws are leaving the Great Lakes and other natural resources vulnerable to a new wave of mining activity sweeping the Upper Great Lakes states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota and Canadian province of Ontario, according to a new legal analysis by the National Wildlife Federation and Ecojustice Canada.

“Weak laws and lax enforcement undermine efforts to protect our water, wildlife and communities from this dangerous form of mining,” said Michelle Halley, National Wildlife Federation attorney. “There is an urgent need for the region to address these issues now or likely face decades of contamination and clean-up.”

And here is some news from our sister organization, NWF Action Fund

New Ad: Cleaner Air Isn’t Just Good For Our Lungs; It’s Good For Our Economy

May 10 – If politicians in Washington know that protecting the air we breathe not only protects people and wildlife, but also helps spur our economy, then why are they trying to gut Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) clean air standards? On Thursday, May 10, the National Wildlife Federation Action Fund (NWF Action Fund) and Earthjustice are launching a seven-figure TV ad buy that highlights the economic and health benefits associated with a transition to a greener economy, while also raising public awareness and support for EPA’s new clean air standards to limit industrial air pollution from power plants.

Here are highlights from NWF in the News:

• The Detroit News: Wildlife federation gives Michigan poor rating for mining regulatory system
• Gannett: Groups say mining laws too weak to protect Great Lakes
• Minnesota Public Radio: NWF wants more study of Great Lakes-area mining
• Minneapolis Star Tribune: Rep. Cravaack: Cut climate change education funds
• UPI: Keystone XL debate enters new phase

For more, visit www.nwf.org/News

There is an old expression: “Money speaks and politicians listen.” With public confidence in Congress at a low point, the last thing America now needs is to have big energy companies trying to buy elections and wielding even greater influence in the halls of Capitol Hill and in state legislatures.

Yet in one reckless sweep in January, the U.S. Supreme Court ignored the potentially corrupting influence of money and redefined “people” in the Constitution to include corporations. Equating money to free speech, the court extended First Amendment protections to corporations.

Some energy companies have been working for decades to oppose common sense protections for wildlife and undermine some of our nation’s most important conservation laws. Now they want to block emerging clean energy technologies and keep America addicted to dirty and dangerous energy. Oil companies have been enjoying record profits at our expense, and they have plenty of money to spend on electing their friends to Congress and state legislatures throughout the country.

This incredible judicial activism threatens the integrity of our democracy. Justifying “legislation from the bench,” the Supreme Court’s majority opinion breaks completely free of logic and places enormous and undeserved confidence on the Internet to prevent abuse by saying: “With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation’s political speech advances the corporation’s interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are ‘in the pocket’ of so-called moneyed interests.”

Right. How many voters on the eve of an election will be digging through the next attack advertiser’s records on the Internet to discover that the ads are actually produced by a group that fronts for a Big Oil baron. Not going to happen.

Make no mistake about it. This decision will make protecting the environment much more difficult than it already is as elected officials will increasingly fear the excessive power that large polluting corporations wield though misleading advertising.

In their dissenting opinion, the four justices who opposed the decision pointed out the important “distinction between corporate and human speakers.” They added, “Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it.”

Did our founding fathers really intend big banks and other corporations to have the same constitutional status as the people?

We get insight into the answer from Thomas Jefferson. During the famous 1809 bank bill debate, he warned, “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. . . .” Later, in a 1816 letter to Dr. George Logan of Philadelphia, Jefferson expanded his concern by writing, “I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

Will our government become a limited access toll road? In a court brief filed on this matter, the U.S. Solicitor General warned that the corrupting influence of unrestrained corporate spending may lead to a “pay-to-play” government, giving advantage to large corporations that are able “to afford the ante.”

The court’s minority opinion also noted that corporations “cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.”

At this stage, there appears to be little that can be done to change this Supreme Court ruling short of amending the Constitution. It is up to American voters now to be more vigilant than ever to reject corporate influence peddling in its many forms.

National Wildlife Federation is a not-for-profit charity, and as such, our free speech is constrained by law. We cannot participate in elections. We have, however, a sister organization, the National Wildlife Federation Action Fund, that is allowed to support lawmakers who stand up for wildlife. They will desperately need our help to fight against the flood of influence peddling. You can learn more by visiting www.nwfactionfund.org.