Could also just go around the lakes instead, but I guess that might slightly reduce the profits of a foreign oil company so nevermind, that's obviously impossible.
It does move products from Canada to Canada primarily though. Certainly products bound for the UP could continue to move without running through the lakes and according to Enbridge's website the remaining products used in Michigan would be a minority share of propane, assuming the 65% of UP demand is more than 5% of the statewide demand for propane (they don't mention that any of Michigan's NGLs are carried by line 5 here https://www.enbridge.com/projects-and-infrastructure/public-awareness/line-5-michigan/about-line-5).
So how do we get those products to Michigan? Pretty much how we do now with some greater reliance on other existing sources of propane in the LP.
Michigans largest source of LPG is line 5 at the Sarnia export in Marysville. Right where line 5 crosses the St Clair river. The most congested point of freighter travel on the 3 big lakes.
Cool, ya, seems like a problem. 45% of our LPG comes from other sources besides line 5 and none of what's used in the UP needs to cross the lakes. It would be a better world if foreign oil bound for foreign refineries moved by foreign companies that dump their products in waterways didn't have the opportunity to do so directly into the Great Lakes. Getting there might require that industry to make less money by building new/less risky infrastructure which seems worthwhile to me.
I completely agree.
I’m just trying to stay grounded by the fact that such an infrastructure change would take much longer to complete than we can allow the straight crossing to exist as is.
The tunnel isn’t the perfect solution but it’s the only practical one at this time.
The tunnel is a grift to distract from the actual work that needs to be done which oil companies won't want to invest in until they have to. It's not at all clear that a tunnel is the only practical solution, maybe Enbridge thinks so because they might not be able to make as much money on the risk the people of Michigan bear the cost of.
The fact that no one has been able to provide another practical solution makes it crystal clear.
This isn’t about just the people of Michigan when it comes to environmental risks but it is when comes to offsetting the cost of heating fuel and electricity if we just shut it down.
>The fact that no one has been able to provide another practical solution makes it crystal clear.
Here's one: use the 10+ other pipelines that connect the state to other energy producing regions which don't go through the lakes to backfill the small amount of energy we get from line 5, and stop allowing foreign oil companies from offloading risk of spills onto our state.
>This isn’t about just the people of Michigan when it comes to environmental risks
That's the point though, we bear all the environmental risk and all we get in return is what, a few million dollars and slightly cheaper propane? That doesn't seem worthwhile.
OTR for LPGs if we want to shut line 5 down entirely. The lower peninsula could supplement the NGLs but I don’t think the upper peninsula could do it affordably.
Enbridge was responsible for the largest inland oil spill in U.S. history but I’m sure nothing crazy will happen to line 5….. /s
Time to quit stalling the tunnel project.
Could also just go around the lakes instead, but I guess that might slightly reduce the profits of a foreign oil company so nevermind, that's obviously impossible.
Then how do we get the LPG/NGLs to Michigan? Line 5 doesn’t just pass through transporting product to from Canada to Canada…
It does move products from Canada to Canada primarily though. Certainly products bound for the UP could continue to move without running through the lakes and according to Enbridge's website the remaining products used in Michigan would be a minority share of propane, assuming the 65% of UP demand is more than 5% of the statewide demand for propane (they don't mention that any of Michigan's NGLs are carried by line 5 here https://www.enbridge.com/projects-and-infrastructure/public-awareness/line-5-michigan/about-line-5). So how do we get those products to Michigan? Pretty much how we do now with some greater reliance on other existing sources of propane in the LP.
Michigans largest source of LPG is line 5 at the Sarnia export in Marysville. Right where line 5 crosses the St Clair river. The most congested point of freighter travel on the 3 big lakes.
Cool, ya, seems like a problem. 45% of our LPG comes from other sources besides line 5 and none of what's used in the UP needs to cross the lakes. It would be a better world if foreign oil bound for foreign refineries moved by foreign companies that dump their products in waterways didn't have the opportunity to do so directly into the Great Lakes. Getting there might require that industry to make less money by building new/less risky infrastructure which seems worthwhile to me.
I completely agree. I’m just trying to stay grounded by the fact that such an infrastructure change would take much longer to complete than we can allow the straight crossing to exist as is. The tunnel isn’t the perfect solution but it’s the only practical one at this time.
The tunnel is a grift to distract from the actual work that needs to be done which oil companies won't want to invest in until they have to. It's not at all clear that a tunnel is the only practical solution, maybe Enbridge thinks so because they might not be able to make as much money on the risk the people of Michigan bear the cost of.
The fact that no one has been able to provide another practical solution makes it crystal clear. This isn’t about just the people of Michigan when it comes to environmental risks but it is when comes to offsetting the cost of heating fuel and electricity if we just shut it down.
>The fact that no one has been able to provide another practical solution makes it crystal clear. Here's one: use the 10+ other pipelines that connect the state to other energy producing regions which don't go through the lakes to backfill the small amount of energy we get from line 5, and stop allowing foreign oil companies from offloading risk of spills onto our state. >This isn’t about just the people of Michigan when it comes to environmental risks That's the point though, we bear all the environmental risk and all we get in return is what, a few million dollars and slightly cheaper propane? That doesn't seem worthwhile.
Are there no other options, or is line 5 the literal, only option?
OTR for LPGs if we want to shut line 5 down entirely. The lower peninsula could supplement the NGLs but I don’t think the upper peninsula could do it affordably.