Country United States Type light crude oil | ||
Owner Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. | ||
The Sandpiper pipeline is a 616-mile-long (991 km) underground oil pipeline project in the United States. It would carry light crude oil from the Bakken oil fields in Northwest North Dakota, through Minnesota, to end in Superior, Wisconsin. The project was planned by Enbridge Energy Partners, and Williston Basin Pipe Line LLC, an indirect subsidiary of Marathon Petroleum Corporation. Enbridge had estimated the pipeline will cost about $2.6 billion.
Contents
History
The project was made public by the media in 2013, and informational hearings for landowners took place in three North Dakota towns during March 2014. The North Dakota Public Service Commission approved the pipeline on 25 June 2014. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission unanimously approved the Sandpiper pipeline, but its decision was overturned in September 2015.
In September 2016, Enbridge Energy Partners announced that due to “extensive and unprecedented [regulatory] delays [which] have plagued the Sandpiper pipeline,” they were withdrawing their state application and asking for an end to regulatory proceedings, including work on an environmental-impact statement. An Enbridge spokesperson said that the pipeline may be reconsidered once the oil market rebounds but it is presently “outside the company’s current five-year planning horizon.”
Description
The pipeline would enter Minnesota just south of Grand Forks, North Dakota, east to Clearbrook Enbridge's terminal. and then south toward Park Rapids along an existing crude oil corridor. Afterwards, the pipeline would run in a transmission line corridor to Superior, Wisconsin.
The route passes through 28 rivers, including the Mississippi River headwaters, and lakes and wetlands that can’t be reached by nearby roads if a spill should occur.
Purpose
Enbridge had stated that "The Sandpiper Pipeline serves the oil conducting needs of North Dakota residents, which constitutes a public benefit". Per Enbridge, the Sandpiper pipeline represents a "public use", a "statutorily defined public utility.", and its route was chosen with the "greatest public benefit and the least private injury." and "As long as the public benefit can be demonstrated, it is immaterial that private interests are also served."
Per Enbridge, the pipeline is necessary "to meet demand for Bakken oil". The corporation projects economic benefits of $69 million in property tax revenue for the 3 states, and 3000 construction jobs for workers in Minnesota and North Dakota.
North Dakota portion
Informational hearings for landowners took place in three North Dakota towns during March 2014. The North Dakota Public Service Commission approved the pipeline on 25 June 2014.
Enbridge sued a couple in Grand Forks in 2014, because they refused to give Enbridge an easement and right-of-way. the couple quoted NDPL's abuse of eminent domain, continued reliance on fossil fuels their effect on the environment and possibility for spills as arguments. In August 2015 the couple agreed on an easement, and forfeited compensation, in order to file an appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court.
Minnesota portion
Enbridge applied at the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) in November 2013. The MPUC unanimously approved the project, allowing to do an environmental review later. In September 2015, the Minnesota Court of Appeals overruled the PUC decision as a violation of state law.
In a Star Tribune commentary a Polk County commissioner, a Clearwater County commissioner and a Red Lake County commissioner opined in November 2014, that the Sandpiper pipeline was the "best choice for the state...better than trucks or rail and also offer[ing] economic benefits."
The White Earth Indian Reservation, represented by Winona LaDuke has stated that the pipeline would cross a portion of its land, which Enbridge disputes. La Duke has been against the pipeline because it would violate Indian sovereignty and for environmental reasons.
The President of North America’s Building Trades Unions came out in a commentary criticizing the Minnesota Court of Appeals decision, accused the court was "robbing hard-working Minnesotans of jobs" that would provide workers with a path to middle class.