Summary of Line 5 Alternatives Explored in Independent Analysis
+Share
Construct new pipeline(s) that do not cross the open waters of the Great Lakes
Northern route through Ontario deemed infeasible
Central route connecting existing Line 5 to a new pipeline across the St. Mary’s River into Ontario deemed infeasible
Southern route following the Enbridge system through Chicago and on to existing infrastructure in southern Michigan deemed feasible
Utilize existing infrastructure
Use alternative transportation methods
Water transport via tankers and barges deemed infeasible
$4.3 billion investment required for tank farms and fleet of vessels
Truck transport deemed infeasible
Need 3,200 trucks
1 truck must be loaded/unloaded every 40 seconds, 24 hrs/day, 7 days/week
Public costs/strain, congestion on highway infrastructure
Rail transport deemed feasible
9-100 train cars per day
Three routes evaluated: North (Winnipeg), Central (Sault Ste. Marie), South (Chicago) — Central eliminated due to load restrictions on St. Marys River bridge
Storage required for rail outages (both scheduled and unscheduled)
Replace Line 5
New tunnel under the lake bed deemed feasible
Depth: Up to 330ft
Cost: $150 million in capital expenditures
New trenched crossing on the lakebed deemed feasible
Reinforced with new coating, concrete
Depth: up to 230ft
Cost: $30 million capital expenditures
Maintain the existing pipeline
Principal threats
Anchor hooking
Incorrect operations
Vortex-induced vibrations
Spanning stress
Assessment of Line 5 health
No evidence of corrosion
Coal tar enamel coating in “excellent condition”
Bends not in exceedance of evaluation threshold
Decommission only the Straits segment of Line 5 and operate the Upper Peninsula and Lower Peninsula segments as separate lines.
Deemed infeasible because there isn’t enough product to support both halves of the pipeline