Enbridge Line 3

Line 3 is a sands oil pipeline owned and operated since 1968 by Enbridge, a Canadian energy transportation company.[1] It runs from Hardisty, Alberta to Superior, Wisconsin.[1] In 2014, Enbridge proposed the construction of a new route for the Line 3 pipeline which would increase the volume oil they could transport daily.[1] While that project has been approved in Canada,[2] Wisconsin,[3] and North Dakota,[4] it has sparked continued resistance from climate justice groups and Native American communities in Minnesota.[5]

History

The original Line 3 pipeline began operating in 1968.[6] Numerous cracks and holes have developed along the pipeline over time.[7] Resulting concerns about the safety of the pipeline have led Enbridge to reduce the amount of oil transported daily and propose the construction of a new pipeline.[1] In 2014, Enbridge announced plans to build the new Line 3 pipeline.[6] That multi-billion dollar project which would allow Enbridge to restore their historic operating capacity and move nearly 800,000 barrels of oil per day.[1][8]

By 2016, governing bodies in Canada,[2] North Dakota,[4] and Wisconsin[3] had approved their segments of the pipeline. However, the process has been more complicated in Minnesota where climate justice organizers, Native groups, and homeowners along the proposed route have resisted the project.[9] In 2018, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) solicited public input about the project.[10] Most feedback they received opposed the pipeline.[10] Of the nearly 70,000 individual comments submitted, 68,244, or 94%, were in opposition.[10] Nevertheless, in June of 2018 the PUC approved Enbridge´s desired route and granted the certificate of need, a necessary permit for the project.[11] In June 2019, that decision was overturned when the Minnesota Court of Appeals found the PUC´s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was inadequate, siding with several Native and climate justice groups.[12] In February of 2020, the PUC approved a revised EIS in a 3-1 vote, and granted the certificate of need and the route permit again.[13]

As of February 2020, Enbridge still needed permits from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the MN Department of Natural Resources, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the new pipeline.[13] Climate justice organizers and Native communities in Minnesota have pledged to continue resisting the pipeline's construction.[5]

Debate in Minnesota

Opposing arguments

Climate Change

Much of the resistance to the Line 3 project comes from concerns over climate change. Climate justice groups such as the North Star Chapter of the Sierra Club,[14] MN350,[15] and Honor the Earth[16] have Stop Line 3 campaigns. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which was conducted by the Minnesota Department of Commerce, explains how the new Line 3 pipeline would contribute to deforestation, increase risk of pollution to Minnesota's pristine water ecosystems and wild rice beds, and generate the greenhouse gasses that contribute to climate change.[7] The EIS estimated that the social cost of carbon from those emissions would total more than $120 billion over 30 years.[17] The MN Department of Commerce under Governor Mark Dayton formally denounced the proposed Line 3 project on environmental grounds.[18] That appeal was renewed under Governor Tim Walz's administration.[19]

In light of the serious risks and effects on the natural and socioeconomic environments of the existing Line 3 and the limited benefit that the existing Line 3 provides to Minnesota refineries, it is reasonable to conclude that Minnesota would be better off if Enbridge proposed to cease operations of the existing Line 3, without any new pipeline being built.

— Minnesota Department of Commerce, The Bemidji Pioneer

Oil Spills

Many people are concerned about potential oil spills along Line 3.[20] In recent years, Enbridge has safely transported 99.999% of oil, [21] but among other accidental releases, the original Line 3 pipeline was responsible for the largest ever inland oil spill in the U.S.[6] In 1991, 1.7 million gallons of oil ruptured from Line 3 in Grand Rapids, MN.[22] Enbridge was also responsible for the 2010 Kalamazoo River oil spill in Michigan.[6] Clean up of that spill cost over a billion dollars and took nearly a decade.[6] The resulting pollution has adversely affected the economy,[23] public health,[24] and the environment[25] in Michigan. Enbridge has reassured the public that pipeline safety is their primary goal, employing technology to monitor pipelines, and train employees on emergency response.[26] While big oil spills (>238 barrels of oil) have decreased in recent years,[27] activists in Minnesota feel that the potential for even one serious spill is too much of a risk.[20] The Environmental Impact Statement of Line 3 acknowledges that some accidental release of oil is inevitable and that serious oil spills are possible.[27]

Ojibwe Treaty Rights

Some Native American communities in Minnesota have opposed the project on the basis of treaty rights. Most of the land in northern Minnesota was ceded to the U.S. through treaties with Ojibwe peoples throughout the 1800s.[28] Those treaties established reservations, as well as land use rights for Ojibwe people to hunt, fish, and harvest manoomin (wild rice) on the rest of that ceded territory.[29] The proposed route for the new Line 3 pipeline would cross through that protected land.[30] Several Ojibwe communities have said that construction of the pipeline would violate treaty rights by disrupting and threatening the resources promised to them on their ancestral land.[30] The Environmental Impact Statement acknowledges that construction of Line 3 would disrupt Native historic and cultural sites such as burial grounds.[31] However, a complete Traditional Cultural Properties Survey has not been conducted of the proposed route.[32]

Five Ojibwe bands have resisted the pipeline replacement project in court. The White Earth, Red Lake, Mille Lacs, Fond du Lac, and Leech Lake bands all opposed the pipeline and held status as intervening parties against the project in the PUC's initial permit deliberations.[33] After the PUC’s June 2017 approval, the White Earth and Red Lake bands were part of a joint appeal of the Certificate of Need,[34] while the Mille Lacs, White Earth, and Red Lake bands appealed the Environmental Impact Statement.[12] In August of 2018, the Fond du Lac band signed a right-of-way agreement with Enbridge, allowing the company to route the pipeline through their reservation.[35] Ahead of that decision, Tribal council chairman Kevin Dupuis, Sr., said “as a sovereign nation, we are confounded that we are being forced to choose between two evils as both routes pass through our lands,” either through the reservation or ceded treaty land.[36] The Leech Lake Band also stepped back from formal appeals in December of 2018 when Enbridge agreed to remove the old pipeline from their reservation if construction of the new pipeline starts.[37]

Pipeline "abandonment"

The agreement between Enbridge and the Leech Lake Band centers on another debate, namely: what will happen to the infrastructure of the old Line 3 pipeline if the new one is built? Enbridge proposed a process they call "deactivation." [1] Many who oppose the project call this "abandonment."[38] Enbridge explains deactivation of a pipeline as a 5 step process: remove the oil, clean the pipe, disconnect it from facilities, put corrosion controls in place, and then leave the pipe in the ground.[1] Minnesotans for Pipeline Cleanup, an organization opposed to Line 3, has expressed concerns about the potential for pollutants to remain after the clean up.[39] Many landowners along the old route worry that they will bear the financial burden for the decommissioned pipe, either through costs of cleanup, removal, or lost property value.[39][40] Both the Pipeline Abandonment Report from Minnesotans for Pipeline Cleanup and the Chippewa Cumulative Impact Statement, written to supplement the EIS, mention that Line 3 would be the first pipeline ever to be decommissioned in MN, and worry about what sort of precedent that might set.[39][40]

Increase in Drug and Sex Trafficking

Native activists and allies are bringing awareness to the connection between fossil fuel infrastructure projects like Line 3 and increased drug and sex trafficking in and around Native American reservations.[41] While oil pipelines like Line 3 are being built, the construction workers stay in concentrated, temporary housing along the route, often known as “man camps.”[42] The high wages and social isolation in man camps lead to increased drug use, as well as violence perpetrated by employees on the surrounding Native communities.[43] In 2019, Native and climate justice activists held a “March on Enbridge to Protect the Sacred,” at the Enbridge terminal in Clearbrook, Minnesota.[44] They demanded an end to the Line 3 project citing, among other things, “the direct link between the fossil fuel industry and Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Relatives.”[45] The Environmental Impact Statement on Line 3 acknowledges that connection as well, saying “The addition of a temporary, cash-rich workforce increases the likelihood that sex trafficking or sexual abuse will occur.”[46] Under the EIS, Enbridge was required to prepare a Human Trafficking Prevention Plan for the project.[47][48] Enbridge’s plan has been critiqued, however, as a step made more to follow procedure than a true commitment to ending violence by their employees.[41][49] Groups of Native activists and climate justice organizers maintain opposition to the pipeline over the potential for increased violence and drug trafficking along the proposed pipeline route.[50][51][52][53]

Arguments in Support

Job Creation

Supporters of Line 3 cite job creation as a key reason to build the pipeline. A large study published by the University of Minnesota Duluth in 2017 claimed that the Line 3 Replacement Project would create thousands of jobs.[54] However, later that year, investigative journalists uncovered that a business group funded by Enbridge, APEX, financed the study, and that data inputs for it were provided by Enbridge themselves.[55] In the end, a UMD Professor behind the research severed the school's ties with APEX.[56] While there might not be significant long term job creation, supporters assert that even some temporary employment would be a key source of income for numerous families in Minnesota.[57] The original EIS also distinguished between long and short term jobs, but came to different conclusions saying, "Based on the small number of permanent jobs, it is likely that operation of the pipeline would result in no to negligible impact on the per capita household income, median household income, or unemployment rates in the ROI (region of interest.)” [58] The pipeline’s possible impact on jobs in Minnesota remains contested.

Tax Revenue

Line 3 supporters argue that counties along the proposed route will benefit from the revenue of Enbridge's property taxes.[59] In the first year of the new pipeline's operations, Enbridge bas been projected to pay $19.5 million in property taxes along the route.[60] That number would increase over time.[60] Climate justice organizers hold some reservations about the promise of that revenue,[61] however, citing lawsuits in which Enbridge claimed that they had been overtaxed, and left counties across Minnesota in debt for tens of millions of dollars.[62]

Needed by the Oil Industry

Construction of the Line 3 pipeline would help the Canadian oil industry increase their production and stabilize prices. Enbridge has argued that Line 3 would help meet the demand of Minnesota's oil refineries,[63] and they're not the only companies hoping the pipeline is built.[64] Line 3 is seen as key to the Canadian oil industry.[64] Difficulty transporting oil out of Alberta has led to production cuts and price discounting.[65] While climate justice organizers might celebrate the decreased output and profitability of oilfields, thousands of Canadians are losing their jobs in oil infrastructure due to that instability.[66] Additionally, companies which are unable to ship their product through pipelines have considered expanding train shipments of oil.[65] Recent studies have highlighted that train transportation of oil results in more regular spills than transport by pipe.[67][7] In his endorsement of Line 3, the Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, supported this argument:[68]

(Transport of oil by rail) is less economic, and more dangerous for communities, and is higher in terms of greenhouse gas emissions than modern pipelines would be.

— Justin Trudeau, Canadian Prime Minister, CBC

Enbridge estimates that Line 3 would replace more than 10,000 rail cars transporting oil every day.[1] Minnesotans for Line 3 say that by approving the pipeline, government regulators could ensure safer transport of millions of barrels of oil a year.[69] The MN Department of Commerce, in their testimony against Line 3, questioned these projections, claiming that they depend on an unrealistic idea of the future demand of oil.[70]

Action on Both Sides

With environmentalists vowing to fight the pipeline,[5] Minnesota county officials in 2018 have been concerned about what sort of resistance might materialize as construction begins.[71] In June 2018 commentators have compared the potential resistance to the front line protests over the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines.[72] As of 2017, environmentalists had pursued legal intervention,[73] direct action,[74][75] and as of 2018 creative resistance[76] to the pipeline, so officials along the route fear that the next phase of resistance to Line 3 could incur high security costs and disruption to life along the proposed route.[71]

gollark: Yes it is.
gollark: I... don't think that actually has always been the case, or at least you didn't really have to do ridiculous stuff like heat up phones to loosen adhesives to replace any part whatsoever before.
gollark: With heat or something.
gollark: On some of them you literally have to unglue the screen.
gollark: Apparently, though, most consumers do not actually care, and thus the magic of capitalism™ has produced slightly shinier and harder to repair phones.

See also
  • List of oil pipelines in North America
  • List of pipeline accidents in the United States in the 21st century

References
  1. "Line 3 Replacement Project Summary" (PDF). Enbridge.
  2. Bakx, Kyle (April 25, 2016). "NEB approves Enbridge Line 3 pipeline replacement". CBC.
  3. Verburg, Steven (August 30, 2016). "Wisconsin DNR approves 1 Enbridge oil line". Wisconsin State Journal.
  4. Liedke, Mattew (September 10, 2016). "Sandpiper deferred, but Enbridge is moving forward with Line 3 replacement". Grand Forks Herald.
  5. Kraker, Dan (June 29, 2018). "Line 3 opponents girding for fight over approved pipeline". MPRNews.
  6. Nelson, Cody (April 23, 2018). "Line 3 timeline: From construction to present day battles". MPRNews.
  7. "Line 3 EIS: Executive Summary". Minnesota Department of Commerce.
  8. Solomon Associates (March 14, 2019). "Western Canadian Pipeline Capacities and Flow: Will We Have Enough Pipeline Capacity After 2021?".
  9. Kraker, Dan (March 5, 2019). "Line 3 project delay leaves supporters, opponents hopeful". MPRNews.
  10. "STATE OF MINNESOTA, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, FOR THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION; In the Matter of the Application of Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership, for a Certificate of Need for the Line 3 Project in Minnesota from the North Dakota Border to the Wisconsin Border; In the Matter of the Application of Applicant Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership for a Routing Permit for the Line 3 Project in Minnesota from the North Dakota Border to the Wisconsin Border; FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND RECOMMENDATION" (PDF). Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.
  11. "State Regulators Approve Enbridge Pipeline Proposal Certificate of Need". 5 ABC: Eyewitness News. June 28, 2018.
  12. Kraker, Dan (June 3, 2019). "MN court says PUC didn't weigh oil spill impact in Line 3 pipeline decision". MPRNews.
  13. Hughlett, Mike (February 3, 2020). "Minnesota utility regulators pass measures to reapprove the proposed $2.6 billion Enbridge pipeline". StarTribune.
  14. "Line 3 and the Pipeline System" (PDF). Sierra Club North Star Chapter.
  15. "Pipeline Resistance". MN350.
  16. "Line 3". Honor the Earth.
  17. Orenstein, Walker (June 4, 2019). "A setback for Line 3: What the latest court ruling means for the future of the project". MinnPost.
  18. Johnson, Brooks (September 11, 2017). "Enbridge Line 3 replacement not needed, Minn. commerce department says". Bemidji Pioneer.
  19. Kraker, Dan (February 12, 2019). "Walz's Commerce Dept. to renew Line 3 appeal". MPRNews.
  20. Kraker, Dan (May 27, 2019). "Spill fears rise even as Line 3 backers vow new pipeline will be safe". MPRNews.
  21. Kraker, Dan (June 20, 2018). "Rivers of Oil, Episode 2: The largest inland spill". MPRNews.
  22. "Company Revises Minnesota Oil Spill Upward to 1.7 Million Gallons". AP News. March 13, 1991.
  23. Chicklas, Dana (July 20, 2016). "2010 Enbridge oil spill in Kalamazoo River: a lasting effect on local business". FOX 17 West Michigan.
  24. "Public Health Assessment Kalamazoo River/Enbridge Spill" (PDF). Michigan Department of Community Health. May 23, 2012.
  25. Parham, Georgia (June 8, 2015). "For Immediate Release: Enbridge Must Restore Environment Injured by 2010 Kalamazoo River Oil Spill". U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
  26. "Our commitment to pipeline safety" (PDF). Enbridge.
  27. "Line 3 EIS: Chapter 10 - Accidental Crude Oil Releases". Minnesota Department of Commerce.
  28. Enger, John (February 1, 2016). "Explaining Minnesota's 1837, 1854 and 1855 Ojibwe treaties". MPRNews.
  29. "Line 3 and Treaty Rights" (PDF). Sierra Club North Star Chapter.
  30. "Treaty Rights and Oil Pipelines: What You Need to Know" (PDF). Honor the Earth.
  31. "Line 3 EIS: Chapter 9 - Tribal Resources". Minnesota Department of Commerce.
  32. Hughlett, Mike (January 4, 2018). "Tribes ask PUC to reconsider review of new Enbridge pipeline route, saying cultural study wasn't done". Star Tribune.
  33. "5 Ojibwe Tribes Intervene in Minnesota's Contested Case Process for Line 3". Stop Line 3. July 13, 2017.
  34. Kraker, Dan (December 19, 2018). "Line 3 pipeline opponents file suit challenging state approval". MPRNews.
  35. Kraker, Dan (August 31, 2018). "Enbridge, Fond du Lac Band reach deal to route Line 3 through reservation". MPRNews.
  36. "Fond du Lac Band says all options open regarding Line 3". Duluth News Tribune. August 3, 2018.
  37. Bowen, Joseph (December 14, 2018). "Leech Lake, Enbridge reach agreement to remove existing Line 3 if new pipeline is built". The Bemidji Pioneer.
  38. "Line 3 Abandonment Factsheet". Minnesotans for Pipeline Cleanup.
  39. "Enbridge's Mess An Historic Moment for Minnesota Landowners" (PDF). Minnesotans for Pipeline Cleanup.
  40. "Chippewa Cumulative Impact Assessment: Chapter 4" (PDF). Minnesota Chippewa Tribe.
  41. Walsh, Kayla. "Moving More than Oil: The intimate link between human trafficking and dirty energy in Minnesota". Earth Island Journal.
  42. Horwitz, Sari (September 28, 2014). "Dark side of the boom: North Dakota's oil rush brings cash and promise to reservation, along with drug-fueled crime". The Washington Post.
  43. Kathryn Nagle, Mary; Steinem, Gloria (September 29, 2016). "Sexual assault on the pipeline". Boston Globe.
  44. Diehl, Amelia (October 14, 2019). "On Indigenous People's Day, Anishinaabeg Leaders March Against Enbridge's $7.5 Billion Oil Pipeline". In These Times.
  45. "March to Protect The Sacred on Indigenous People's Day 2019". Unicorn Riot. October 14, 2019.
  46. ""Line 3 EIS: Chapter 11 - Environmental Justice"" (PDF). Department of Commerce.
  47. "Public Utilities Commission, Enbridge need to go back to square one on Line 3's Human Trafficking Prevention Plan". Healing Minnesota Stories. September 12, 2019.
  48. "More people are talking about it now': The fight to eliminate human trafficking". Enbridge. January 28, 2019.
  49. LaDuke, Winona (January 16, 2020). "New Faces of Courage". Duluth Reader.
  50. "Man Camps Fact Sheet". Honor the Earth.
  51. "Issues: Construction Impacts". Stop Line 3.
  52. "Stop Line 3". Sierra Club.
  53. Evelyn, Julia. "The history and future of Line 3 resistance". MN350.
  54. "New study: Economic impact of Enbridge Line 3 will be massive". Business North. June 13, 2017.
  55. Seidman, Derek (November 15, 2017). "The University of Minnesota Duluth Sold Its Credibility to Enbridge. Can It Get It Back?". Eyes on the Ties.
  56. Seidman, Derek (December 21, 2017). "UPDATE: University of Minnesota Duluth Professor Resigns from Board of Enbridge-Backed Group in Response to PAI Report". Eyes on the Ties.
  57. "Enbridge poised to provide jobs". Mesabi Daily News. October 25, 2016.
  58. "Line 3 EIS: Chapter 5 - Existing Conditions, Impacts, and Mitigation - Certificate of Need". Minnesota Department of Commerce.
  59. "The Line 3 Replacement Project: Safety, Efficiency, Jobs". Minnesotans for Line 3.
  60. "Line 3 Replacement Project". Enbridge.
  61. "Understanding the Minnesota DOC's Opposition Testimony for Line 3". Honor the Earth.
  62. Hughlett, Mike (May 15, 2018). "Enbridge prevails in Minnesota property tax challenge". Star Tribune.
  63. Kraker, Dan (October 11, 2017). "Enbridge argues Line 3 oil pipeline needed for Minnesota, region". MPRNews.
  64. Orland, Kevin (March 2, 2019). "Enbridge Pipeline Delayed a Year in Hit to Canadian Oil Industry". Bloomberg.
  65. Slav, Irina (December 3, 2018). "Alberta Enforces 8.7% Oil Production Cut". Oilprice.com.
  66. "Canada to lose 12,500 oil and gas jobs in 2019, report predicts, mostly in Alberta". April 8, 2019.
  67. Morris, David (August 28, 2016). "Pipelines: The Worst Way to Move Oil, Except For All the Rest". Fortune.
  68. Tasker, John (November 29, 2016). "Trudeau cabinet approves Trans Mountain, Line 3 pipelines, rejects Northern Gateway". CBC.
  69. "Fact Check Friday #8: Supply, demand and why pipelines like Line 3 are so important". Minnesotans for Line 3. May 11, 2018.
  70. "BEFORE THE MINNESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS; FOR THE MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION; IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ENBRIDGE ENERGY, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FOR A CERTIFICATE OF NEED FOR THE LINE 3 REPLACEMENT PROJECT IN MINNESOTA FROM THE NORTH DAKOTA BORDER TO THE WISCONSIN BORDER; DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DR. MARIE FAGAN ON BEHALF OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE DIVISION OF ENERGY RESOURCES" (PDF). Minnesota Department of Commerce.
  71. "Minnesota county officials worry about potential pipeline protest cost". MPRNews. May 3, 2018.
  72. Orr, Isaac (June 18, 2018). "Will Line 3 Become the Next Major Pipeline Protest?". Center of the American Experiment.
  73. Jossi, Frank (October 23, 2017). "'Landmark' decision casts youth as official intervenors in pipeline case". Energy News Network.
  74. Marozas, Ramona (August 29, 2017). "Six arrested: Enbridge says they were unlawful, Honor the Earth says it was peaceful". KBJR6.
  75. Slater, Brady (January 12, 2018). "Three arrested in protest at Wells Fargo bank in downtown Duluth". Duluth News Tribune.
  76. Regan, Sheila (May 17, 2018). "Activists protest the Line 3 oil pipeline this weekend in St. Paul with art and music". City Pages.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.