IMPORTANT!! - Please disperse widely:
November 26 Public Hearing on Docking Facilities on Lake Superior at Superior, WI for Great Lakes marine shipping of both tar sands synthetic crude and conventional crude oil. This permit focuses on docking facilities. Other permits may be in play.
From the Duluth News Tribune:
The terminal, as proposed, could load about one tanker or barge every four days. Each tanker holds about 77,000 barrels (3.2 million gallons) of crude oil; each barge about 110,000 barrels (4.6 million gallons).
Shipping large amounts of oil and gas [SIC] on the Great Lakes is not a new idea — carbon-based fuel has moved on the Great Lakes since at least the 1880s, as recently as 1992 in Superior, and currently is a major cargo in and out of other ports on the lakes.
The project would have to obtain several permits for dredging, pier repairs, storage tanks and vapor emissions. Steve LaValley, water management specialist for the Wisconsin DNR, said the public comment period for a proposed dredging permit for the site already has concluded without a major issue.
Here is the full Duluth Tribune News article.
What I don't understand at this point is whether the entire facility's function is ever going to be subjected to any hearing/comment period and what authority would require such a hearing, and whether any federal permit might require an EIS where the increased shipping on the Great Lakes would be assessed and addressed.
Again, from the Duluth paper:
The DNR’s public meeting is set for Nov. 26 at the Superior Public Library from 12:30 to 4:30 p.m. and will focus on the dock repair proposed for the site, not the merits of the oil terminal. [SNIP]
The DNR meeting also has a time for public comments. Several environmental groups are expected to have representatives at the meeting after expressing concern that a Lake Superior oil spill could have devastating consequences.
I previously blogged with a brief report about the tar sands pipeline-Superior Great Lakes shipping connection here.
Yesterday, the Alliance for Great Lakes in Chicago released a report on the threat of increased crude oil shipping on the Great Lakes and the risks posed by such activity:
Oil and Water: Tar Sands Crude Shipping Meets Great Lakes?
Report cites gaps in oil-spill prevention, response; says Great Lakes not ready for the risk
As tar sands extraction continues and proposals for expanded pipelines from Canada into the U.S. form a backdrop, the Great Lakes themselves could become the next frontier for moving crude oil to a vast Midwest refinery network.
The region faces a critical choice about whether the Great Lakes should become a thoroughfare for tar sands crude shipping, warns a report released today by the Alliance for the Great Lakes. The report finds that neither the Great Lakes shipping fleet nor its ports were designed to ship tar sands crude over the Great Lakes, and cites serious gaps in the region’s oil-spill prevention and response policies. Click to tweet.
Already, plans are in the works to dramatically increase the flow of tar sands crude to the Midwest as early as next year; permitting is sought for a $25 million loading dock on Lake Superior to ship the crude in 2015; and a tar sands shipping route has been mapped across the waters of the Great Lakes.
“We're at a crossroads now, with companies starting to seek permits for new oil terminals,” says Lyman Welch, director of the Alliance’s Water Quality Program and the report’s lead author. “Before our region starts sinking money into shipping terminals for the Great Lakes, our task should be to ask ‘if’ rather than ‘when.’”
Western Michigan residents learned firsthand the risk of mixing tar sands oil with water in 2010 after a cataclysmic pipeline spill in the Kalamazoo River. Three years and $1 billion-plus worth of cleanup later, more than 20 percent of the oil spill remains at the bottom of the river: a heavy, viscous muck synonymous with this form of crude oil.
The report questions the rush to capitalize on the growing flow of tar sands oil, destined for 19 U.S. and Canadian refineries on or near the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway. Enbridge, responsible for the Kalamazoo spill and owner of pipelines to several of these refineries, plans next year to expand its pipeline to Superior, Wis. to accommodate another 120,000 barrels per day, up from 450,000. As companies jockey to take advantage of the demand for this unique and significantly cheaper crude, pressures are also mounting to find economical ways to move it out -- and Great Lakes vessel shipping is emerging as a key contender.
“Great Lakers have a track record of making smart choices as a region when the lakes are at risk,” says Welch. “We need to pause for breath and decide which fork in the road leads to a healthy Great Lakes.”
The report’s authors probe deeply into whether regulators tasked with overseeing the health of the world’s largest body of surface freshwater are prepared to safeguard the Great Lakes from a potential tar sands crude spill, and to direct a cleanup should disaster strike. They cite the following shortcomings:
* A recent U.S. Coast Guard and Department of Homeland Security report on spill-response protocols for submerged oil found current methods for locating and recovering submerged oil inadequate.
* A “Worst-Case Discharge” scenario developed by the Coast Guard involves a Great Lakes vessel carrying a type of oil that is much different, and less damaging to the environment, than tar sands crude.
* Limited resources are available to learn about the risk of oil spills by vessels and oil-spill management in the region; most information about spills is outdated or discontinued.
“The current regulatory net has far too many holes,” the report says. “The regulatory and response framework for petroleum shipping on the Great Lakes is not fully up to the task of protecting the lakes from spills today, and is certainly not an adequate starting point from which to consider the viability of tar sands crude shipment by vessel.”
Noting the Great Lakes provide more than 40 million people with drinking water, the report stresses the importance of strengthening efforts now to prevent a potential Great Lakes oil spill.
Among its recommendations are that the U.S. improve coordination among federal agencies involved in large-scale spill prevention and response, with a special emphasis on tar sands crude and other “submerged” oil spills. The report also calls on Congress to increase funding for prevention, preparedness and response programs, and on Great Lakes states to expand and enhance state laws to prevent and better protect their shorelines from oil-shipping spills.
For their part, the report says tar sands crude shippers should improve safety and maintain spill-prevention and response equipment.
“The movement of oil across water increases the risks of oil in water, a clash in which the environment is the loser,” the report states. “We must preface our choice of whether to ship tar sands crude by vessel with proactively improving our oil-spill prevention and response policies. The health of the Great Lakes is at risk unless we take swift action.”
See executive summary:
http://www.greatlakes.org/...
See report:
http://www.greatlakes.org/...
Click to tweet:
http://clicktotweet.com/...
##
Formed in 1970, the Alliance for the Great Lakes is the oldest Great Lakes organization in North America. Our mission is to: conserve and restore the world's largest freshwater resource using policy, education and local efforts, ensuring a healthy Great Lakes and clean water for generations of people and wildlife. More about the Alliance for the Great Lakes is online at www.greatlakes.org
Lyman C. Welch | Water Quality Program Director | lwelch@greatlakes.org
Alliance for the Great Lakes | www.greatlakes.org
17 N. State Street, Suite 1390 | Chicago, IL 60602 | 312.445.9739
Protect Your Lakes at http://takeaction.greatlakes.org/...
12:02 PM PT: Here some information published about the November 26 public hearing by the Minnesota Environmental Partnership:
http://www.mepartnership.org/...
12:22 PM PT: In my first version I inadvertently left out the link to the Duluth paper article about this 11/26 public hearing:
http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/...
2:58 PM PT: Here is a note I just shared with a fellow Michigan enviro on this issue:
Dear Rita:
The question I have is who is quarterbacking the specific
campaign issue of this particular proposed facility
at the present time, including who is taking the lead
at addressing any and all of the permit proceedings
going on and also for purposes of next Tuesday afternoon's
public meeting/hearing....whatever it is?????
The next question I have is whether Canada or Ontario
have addressed the prospects of this facility causing a
signficant expansion of crude oil navigation on the
the Great Lakes?
After wondering about that, I wonder if anyone in the
International Joint Commission has taken notice of
this entire matter for purposes of U.S.-Canada
relations and environmental issues in the transboundary
area of the the Great Lakes??
After that, my next question is what are the prospects
[under what regulatory authority is available] for
having a federal EIS-style review of the implications of
such a significant increase in Great Lakes marine
crude oil transportation? On this particular question I'd
especially like to know sooner than later if the
public can expect that there will be no major federal
environmental review of the implications of
this Great Lakes marine crude oil shipping terminal
and the collateral increased rate of hydrocarbon marine
navigation on the Great Lakes.
After wondering about that, I'm wondering how long
it will be before Senate candidate Gary Peters and
gubernatorial candidate Mark Schauer understand that
Rick Snyder isn't going to have anything at all to say
about this Great Lakes marine shipping increase issuer so
Peters/Schauer can be first out of the gate to frame this issue to
the people of Michigan?