How 1.7M gallons of oil spilled near Grand Rapids


On March 3, 1991, Line 3 of the Lakehead Pipeline Company burst near Grand Rapids, Minnesota. An estimated 1.7 million gallons of oil spilled into the nearby Prairie River and surrounding wetlands, making it the largest inland oil spill in US history. 

Line 3 was built in the 1960s by the Lakehead Pipeline Company to transport oil from Canada to the Midwest. It passed east of Grand Rapids, Minnesota, near the Prairie River. On March 3, 1991, the thirty-four-inch pipeline ruptured along a small crack, resulting in a five-foot-long gash in the pipe. The pressurized oil shot into the air, immediately covering the surrounding trees and spilling into the Prairie River and the nearby wetlands.

At 12:40 p.m. a local resident reported a strong oil odor to the fire department, which immediately notified Lakehead. The company turned off the line at 1:30 p.m. Between two and three hundred residents who lived near the oil spill site were evacuated for the remainder of the day and Highway 169 was closed east of Grand Rapids for several hours due to proximity to the spill.

Related: December 1962: Oil spill into the Mississippi triggers ecological disaster

Lakehead initially estimated that about 630,000 gallons of oil had spilled as a result of the ruptured pipe, but they nearly tripled the estimate later to 1.7 million gallons of oil. Marshes and vegetated riverbanks were the primary environment affected by the spill and samples were taken of river water, groundwater and well water to determine the extent of the damage. Several fish died where oil first entered the water stream, but there were few other wildlife impacts.

Because the Prairie River is a tributary of the Mississippi River, the repercussions could have been far-reaching, but several factors limited the harm. Cold air temperatures made the oil viscous, so it moved more slowly than it would have in warmer months. Additionally, the Prairie River was covered by eighteen inches of ice, which barred much of the oil from entering the water stream. The frozen ground limited the amount of oil absorbed into the soil and the absence of migratory birds prevented extensive wildlife impact.

The cleanup effort took several months and cost millions of dollars. Steve Wuori managed the onsite cleanup for Lakehead, supervising about ninety people from several Midwest states. Crews worked around the clock in twelve-hour shifts, except when temperatures were too cold to safely operate machinery and employed several methods of stopping and recovering the spilled oil.

Downriver from the spill, personnel cut large slots in the ice with chainsaws to install booms in the water, preventing oil from spreading to the Mississippi River. Large berms of absorbent material were built on top of the ice to absorb any oil still sliding downstream on the surface. Personnel pushed the oil across the ice with squeegees to designated collection points, where vacuums removed it. Oil-permeated ice was cut into moveable blocks and taken to an unaffected part of the river. Crews sprayed the blocks with warm water, releasing the oil and recovering it with skimmers. Ice that was only slightly contaminated was removed from the river and set to thaw in lined holding ponds. Once the ice had melted, the oil was recovered from the ponds. Governor Arne Carlson visited the oil spill site during the cleanup and commended Lakehead on its efforts and cooperation with state officials.

After the initial cleanup was complete, Lakehead built a pond near the oil spill site to collect runoff as the ground thawed and released more oil. By June, Lakehead had spent seven million dollars on cleanup and they petitioned for a permit to release the water from the holding pond into the Prairie River.

Related: Big Oil should pay for making life more expensive in Minnesota

Twenty-five locals who lived near the oil spill site unsuccessfully opposed granting the permit, arguing that doing so would release the company of responsibility for the damage, as well as increase the amount of environmental harm. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency countered that additional damage to the ecosystem was unlikely at that point and maintained that the water met state quality standards. The board granted the permit to release the water once all of the petroleum compounds had sunk to the bottom of the pond and the volatile compounds had evaporated. The draining of the pond was the final step in Lakehead’s cleanup process after the Line 3 spill.

For more information on this topic, check out the original entry on MNopedia.

Bibliography

Boyko, John. “Enbridge.” Canadian Encyclopedia, Historica Canada, February 2, 2019.

Brunswick, Mark. “Oil Runs into Prairie River from Grand Rapids Spill.” Minneapolis Star Tribune, March 4, 1991.

Final Environmental Impact Statement: Enbridge Sandpiper Pipeline and Line 3 Replacement Projects. Douglas County, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2016.

Incident News. Lakehead Pipeline Company; Grand Rapids, Minnesota.

Kraker, Dan, and Kirsti Marohn. “30 Years Later, Echoes of Largest Inland Oil Spill Remain in Line 3 Fight.” MPR News, March 3, 2021.

“Lawsuit Calls Oil Spill Cleanup Inadequate.” St. Paul Pioneer Press, June 13, 1991.

Oakes, Larry, and Betty Wilson. “Carlson Urges a New System to Handle Oil Spills.” Minneapolis Star Tribune, March 15, 1991.

“Oil Spill Revised Upward to 1.7 Million Gallons.” St. Paul Pioneer Press, March 13, 1991.

“Tiny Crack in Pipe Cited as Cause of Spill.” St. Paul Pioneer Press, May 11, 1991.

Von Sternberg, Bob. “Remnants of Oil Spill Can Be Pumped into River.” Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 26, 1991.

Related Resources

Primary

Chin, Richard. “Carlson Tours Site of Oil Spill, Proposes Clean-Up Legislation.” St. Paul Pioneer Press, March 15, 1991. 

Web

Kelley, Alexandra. “Pipeline Foes Double Down on Efforts to Halt Line 3 Construction.” The Hill, June 8, 2021.

MN350. An Anniversary Minnesotans Shouldn’t Forget.

MPR News. Oil and Water: The Line 3 Debate.

Siple, Julie, Bill Wareham, Dan Kraker, and Cody Nelson. “Rivers of Oil, Episode 2: The Largest Inland Spill.” MPR News, June 20, 2018.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


Amazon Fire Phone Jeff Bezos

Bloomberg / Getty Images

Follow ZDNET: Add us as a preferred source on Google.


ZDNET’s key takeaways

  • Amazon is reportedly developing a new Fire Phone.
  • The previous model had several issues, including an inferior app store experience.
  • Under new supervision (and with more experience), Amazon can do better this time.

Well, I don’t know about you, but I certainly didn’t have “new Amazon smartphone” on my 2026 bingo card. As it turns out, according to Reuters, the retailer may be developing a new smartphone, internally known as “Transformer.” 

Those familiar with the industry will instantly draw parallels to Amazon’s previous smartphone effort, the Fire Phone from 2014. Appropriately, that phone ended up as part of a fire sale about a year later.

Now, in 2026, with no fewer than five phone brands in the US — Apple, Samsung, Google, Motorola, and OnePlus — Amazon faces a lot of competition. In fairness, it also has two fewer platforms to compete against. In 2014, Windows Phone and BlackBerry were still very much part of the smartphone conversation; these days, not so much.

The AppStore problem

But there’s one mistake Amazon made in its first effort that will absolutely torpedo its chances at succeeding — the Amazon AppStore and specifically the decision to forego Google Play services. Google is simply too valuable in too many lives to not support the platform. Oh, and the Amazon AppStore is terrible.

Also: What’s right (and wrong) with the Amazon Fire Phone

It has admittedly been a few years since I last inventoried the Amazon AppStore, but when I last checked, the Amazon AppStore was a wasteland of half-supported or unsupported apps, with two notable exceptions. Finance, home control, and communication apps were either absent or had not received updates for years prior.

The only apps in the Amazon AppStore that remained up to date were productivity apps (largely powered by Microsoft) and streaming apps. Those two categories work very well on the cheap, underpowered hardware that Amazon usually launches, and that’s fine. A coffee-table tablet is a nice thing to have lying around.

A spark of hope

Amazon Fire Phone

Liam Tung/ZDNET

But a phone is another animal entirely. If a tablet is a device to entertain, a phone is a device for everything else. One of the key reasons Windows Phone failed was its lack of an app ecosystem. The Senior Vice President of Devices and Services,  Panos Panay, is very familiar with that saga, so I’m hopeful that he will make the same arguments to the powers that be at Amazon. 

Honestly, if there is anyone who I think can pull off an Amazon phone revival, it’s probably Panay, who understands design and product development better than most, and to be perfectly honest, he’s my absolute favorite product presenter.

Also: Amazon Fire Phone review: Not a great smartphone

Of course, all of this is early days. This phone is being worked on internally, and even Reuters reports that it could get the axe long before it sees the light of day. Personally, I’m intrigued by the idea, but I sincerely hope that Amazon doesn’t make this the shopping phone it tried to build in 2014. 

If Amazon just wants to make a nice, well-built smartphone, with a skin that pushes Amazon content to the fore, I’m fine with that. But leaving Google behind is a mistake that Amazon cannot afford to make again. Fool me once, and all that.

So, if this phone is to have a chance at success, it needs to embrace Google services so it can be a phone that everyone can use. Amazon has the brand power to make a phone like this work, even up against juggernauts like Apple and Samsung, but it needs to approach this correctly, lest it end up in yet another Fire phone fire sale.





Source link