The federal environmental impact statement used to grant a Presidential Permit to build Enbridge Energy's  pipeline across northern Minnesota was seriously flawed and any further construction should be halted, environmental lawyers told a federal judge Wednesday.

In seeking a preliminary injunction from U.S. District Court Judge Donovan Frank, attorneys for Earthjustice, Sierra Club and Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy said the pipeline from Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wis. would cause “long term, severe harm” to the environment.

Earthjustice lawyer Sarah Burt argued in the nearly two hour hearing that the environmental impact statement done by the U.S. State Department was flawed in three major ways.

First, it did not even look at the diluent line, which would transport those hazardous hydrocarbons from the U.S. back to the tar sands mining operations in Alberta.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, in commenting on the impact statement, pointed out that mistake and stated that how the diluent reacted in the environment when there is a pipeline leak needed to be studied, Burt said.

Second, the document never looked at the indirect and cumulative effects of the pipeline. For instance, Burt said, the impact statement did not look at the impacts on the United States of the strip mining of the tar sands in Canada. Those impacts include the destruction to the habitat and lives of birds that migrate from Canada to the United States, Burt said. It also includes the impacts of global warming on the U.S., caused by the mining of this dirty fuel, which takes much more energy, and creates significantly more greenhouse gases, than pumping conventional crude oil.

Finally, the environmental impact statement’s analysis of alternatives to the pipelines was based on an erroneous statement of need, she said. The document projected a need in the future for Canadian oil. However, the U.S. government is forecasting flat demand for petroleum in the U.S. through 2030 and small drop in overall imports of oil, Burt said.

Donovan pointed out that Enbridge, in its filings, indicated that 88 percent of the proposed pipeline already has been laid since Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued the presidential permit to allow the cross-border pipeline in August. Burt said much of the pipeline that remains to be constructed goes through the Chippewa National Forest making it imperative that he issue the preliminary injunction.

She also had sharp words for how Enbridge has gone forward, knowing there was a lawsuit against the project.

“Enbridge is doing everything it can to get it done before we can have... review,” Burt said. “Enbridge has walked into many of the costs they raised. This is a calculated business risk they are taking.”

Enbridge and the State Department attorneys argued in their briefs that the two pipelines would follow an existing right-of-way and that the United States needs oil from a stable source like Canada.

Donovan indicated he would rule on the preliminary injunction within about two weeks.