Jump to content

Line 3 pipeline

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hmains (talk | contribs) at 04:08, 8 October 2018 (standard quote handling in WP;standard Apostrophe/quotation marks in WP; MOS general fixes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Line 3 is an oil sands crude oil pipeline that runs from Hardisty, Alberta to Superior, Wisconsin.[1] Construction of a new route for Line 3 has been proposed by the Canadian oil company, Enbridge.[1] While this project was easily approved in Canada,[2] Wisconsin,[3] and North Dakota,[4] the proposed pipeline has received resistance from environmental groups and U.S. Native American communities in Minnesota.[5]

History of Line 3 and the New Proposed Route

Construction on the original Line 3 pipeline started in 1962.[6] It began operating in 1968 to meet growing U.S. demand for oil.[6] Since its construction, the pipeline has carried on average between 390,000 and 760,000 barrels of oil per day.[1] Numerous structural anomalies have developed along the pipeline over time.[7] These holes, and concerns about the safety of the pipeline, have led Enbridge to reduce the amount of oil transported daily.[1] Enbridge announced plans to build the new Line 3 in 2014.[6] That multi-billion dollar project would allow Enbridge to restore their historic operating capacity and move nearly 800,000 barrels per day.[1]

While governing bodies in Canada,[2] North Dakota,[4] and Wisconsin[3] had approved their segments of the pipeline by 2016, approval took longer in Minnesota where environmentalists have resisted the project.[8] In advance of their decision on Line 3 the MN Public Utilities Commission (PUC) solicited public input about Line 3.[9] Most feedback they received opposed the pipeline.[9] Of the nearly 70,000 individual comments that were submitted, 68,244, or 94%, voiced opposition to the pipeline's completion.[9] However, in June 2018 the PUC granted Enbridge the Certificate of Need and approved their desired route for Line 3.[10] Environmentalists and Native communities in the state have pledged to resist the pipeline's construction.[5]

Line 3 Controversy in Minnesota

Much of the resistance to the Line 3 project comes from concerns over climate change. Environmental groups such as the North Star Chapter of the Sierra Club,[11] MN350,[12] and Honor the Earth[13] have anti-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 greenhouse gasses that contribute to climate change.[7] Since the publication of the EIS, the MN Department of Commerce has formally denounced the proposed Line 3 project on environmental grounds, going so far as to say that they would prefer to see the old pipeline cease operations:[14]

The EPA tries to clean oil out of the front yards of residents near the spill
2010 Enbridge Oil Spill

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 [14]

One specific concern about the project is the potential for oil spills along Line 3.[15] In recent years, Enbridge has safely transported 99.999% of oil.[16] However, 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.[17] Enbridge was also responsible for the 2010 spill on the Kalamazoo river in Michigan.[6] After 8 years and over a billion dollars spent, that spill is still being cleaned up.[6] The resulting pollution has adversely affected the economy,[18] public health,[19] and the environment[20] in MIchigan. Enbridge has consistently reassured the public that pipeline safety is their primary goal.[21] They employ technology to monitor pipelines, and train employees on emergency response.[21] While significant oil spills (>238 barrels of oil) have decreased in recent years,[22] organizers in Minnesota feel that the potential for even one serious spill is too much of a risk.[15] The Environmental Impact Statement on Line 3 acknowledges that some accidental release of oil is inevitable and that serious oil spills are possible.[22]

Many Native communities in Minnesota oppose Line 3. Five Anishinaabe tribes, the White Earth, Red Lake, Mille Lacs, Fond du Lac, and Leech Lake bands hold status as intervening parties against the project in the PUC's permit deliberations.[23] The Environmental Impact Statement acknowledges that the construction of Line 3 would disrupt tribal cultural sites such as burial grounds and historic locales, and degrade natural resources such as wild rice beds and healthy water ecosystems.[24] A complete Traditional Cultural Properties Survey has not been conducted of the proposed route.[25] One will not take place unless a permit for construction is granted to Enbridge.[25] This lack has been criticized by tribal groups.[25] The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, in conjunction with Honor the Earth, an Indigenous climate justice organization, released their own assessment of the cultural and environmental determinants Line 3 would have on their land.[26] The Chippewa Cumulative Impact Assessment reflects grave concern in that community and strongly opposes the pipeline's construction.[26] In response to such concerns, Enbridge has an 'Indigenous Peoples Policy' which lays out guidelines for the company's work on Native land.[27]

Another debate surrounding the proposed Line 3 project is what will happen to the infrastructure of the old Line 3. Enbridge has proposed a process they call "deactivation." [1] Many who oppose the project call it "abandonment."[28] 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] The method that Enbridge would use to prevent corrosion is called cathodic protection.[1] Minnesotans for Pipeline Cleanup, an organization opposed to Line 3, has expressed concerns about the efficacy of that process.[29] 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.[29][30] Both the Pipeline Abandonment Report from Minnesotans for Pipeline Cleanup and the Chippewa Cumulative Impact Statement mention that Line 3 would be the first pipeline ever to be decommissioned in MN, and try to interrogate what sort of precedent that might set.[29][30]

Many Minnesotans support the Line 3 project for its potential to support the economy of communities along the route. Enbridge has said that thousands of jobs will be created as a result of the pipeline's construction.[1] However, the Environmental Impact Statement draws a distinction between the temporary employment that would be available during construction and the likelihood of long term job creation:[31]

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.)

— Line 3 Environmental Impact Statement (Chapter 5, page 578) [31]

In addition to job creation, Line 3 supporters also cite the positive impact that Enbridge property taxes could have on communities in Northern Minnesota.[32] In the first year of the new Line 3's operations, Enbridge would pay $19.5 million in property taxes along the route.[33] That number would increase over time.[33] Organizers hold some reservations about how impactful that revenue might be,[34] citing Enbridge's recent lawsuit in which their claim that they had been overtaxed indebted counties across Minnesota to Enbridge for tens of millions of dollars.[35]

Another argument in support of the pipeline ties safety to the economic concept of supply and demand. Recent studies have highlighted that train and truck transportation of oil results in more regular spills than transport by pipe.[36][7] Among their arguments in support of the pipeline, Minnesotans for Line 3 cites the growing number of trains transporting oil through the state.[37] They argue that, due to high U.S. demand, oil will be moved through the states by whatever means are available.[37] Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, also advanced this argument in his public endorsement of the Canadian section of Line 3:[38]

(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 [38]

Enbridge estimates that Line 3 would replace more than 10,000 rail cars or 24,000 tanker trucks transporting oil everyday.[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.[37] 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.[39]

Enbridge's key argument in support of the pipeline relates to that critique from the Department of Commerce. Today, U.S. Americans consume more petroleum than any other source of energy.[40] Oil and its byproducts fuel cars, pave roads, and even make up the foundation for many cosmetic products and synthetic fabrics.[41] Enbridge calls Line 3 a "vital link," supplying that highly demanded oil to Minnesota and the United States.[1] While many analysts in the industry believe that demand for oil will eventually begin to fall, no one can predict when that will be.[42] Some environmentalists worry about future decreased demand, concerned with the notion of stranded assets.[43] A stranded asset is equipment or a product that can't be turned into profit because of some change in the demand.[43] Environmentalists raise the question of what will happen to oil infrastructure when the companies that owned them are no longer profitable or cease to operate.[43]

With environmentalists vowing to fight the pipeline,[5] government officials are concerned about what sort of resistance might materialize as construction begins.[44] Commentators have compared the potential resistance to the front line protests over the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines.[45] Environmentalists have already pursued legal intervention,[46] direct action,[47][48] and more creative resistance[49] 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.[44]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k "Line 3 Replacement Project Summary" (PDF). Enbridge. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  2. ^ a b Bakx, Kyle (April 25, 2016). "NEB approves Enbridge Line 3 pipeline replacement". CBC. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  3. ^ a b Verburg, Steven (August 30, 2016). "Wisconsin DNR approves 1 Enbridge oil line". Wisconsin State Journal. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  4. ^ a b Liedke, Mattew (September 10, 2016). "Sandpiper deferred, but Enbridge is moving forward with Line 3 replacement". Grand Forks Herald. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  5. ^ a b c Kraker, Dan (June 29, 2018). "Line 3 opponents girding for fight over approved pipeline". MPRNews. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  6. ^ a b c d e f Nelson, Cody (April 23, 2018). "Line 3 timeline: From construction to present day battles". MPRNews. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  7. ^ a b c "Line 3 EIS: Executive Summary". Minnesota Department of Commerce. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  8. ^ "Minnesota regulators to decide this week on Enbridge Line 3". MPRNews. June 25, 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  9. ^ a b c "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. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  10. ^ "State Regulators Approve Enbridge Pipeline Proposal Certificate of Need". 5 ABC: Eyewitness News. June 28, 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  11. ^ "Line 3 and the Pipeline System" (PDF). Sierra Club North Star Chapter. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  12. ^ "Pipeline Resistance". MN350. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  13. ^ "Line 3". Honor the Earth. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  14. ^ a b Johnson, Brooks (September 11, 2017). "Enbridge Line 3 replacement not needed, Minn. commerce department says". Bemidji Pioneer. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  15. ^ a b Kraker, Dan (May 27, 2019). "Spill fears rise even as Line 3 backers vow new pipeline will be safe". MPRNews. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  16. ^ Kraker, Dan (June 20, 2018). "Rivers of Oil, Episode 2: The largest inland spill". MPRNews. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  17. ^ "Company Revises Minnesota Oil Spill Upward to 1.7 Million Gallons". AP News. March 13, 1991. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  18. ^ Chicklas, Dana (July 20, 2016). "2010 Enbridge oil spill in Kalamazoo River: a lasting effect on local business". FOX 17 West Michigan. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  19. ^ "Public Health Assessment Kalamazoo River/Enbridge Spill" (PDF). Michigan Department of Community Health. May 23, 2012. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  20. ^ Parham, Georgia (June 8, 2015). "For Immediate Release: Enbridge Must Restore Environment Injured by 2010 Kalamazoo River Oil Spill". U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  21. ^ a b "Our commitment to pipeline safety" (PDF). Enbridge. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  22. ^ a b "Line 3 EIS: Chapter 10 - Accidental Crude Oil Releases". Minnesota Department of Commerce. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  23. ^ "5 Ojibwe Tribes Intervene in Minnesota's Contested Case Process for Line 3". Stop Line 3. July 13, 2017. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  24. ^ "Line 3 EIS: Chapter 9 - Tribal Resources". Minnesota Department of Commerce. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  25. ^ a b c Hughlett, Mike (January 4, 2018). "Tribes ask PUC to reconsider review of new Enbridge pipeline route, saying cultural study wasn't done". Star Tribune. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  26. ^ a b "Anishinaabe Cumulative Impact Assessment on the Proposed Enbridge Line 3 Expansion and Abandonment Plan" (PDF). Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  27. ^ "Enbridge's Indigenous Peoples Policy". Enbridge. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  28. ^ "Line 3 Abandonment Factsheet". Minnesotans for Pipeline Cleanup. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  29. ^ a b c "Enbridge's Mess An Historic Moment for Minnesota Landowners" (PDF). Minnesotans for Pipeline Cleanup. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  30. ^ a b "Chippewa Cumulative Impact Assessment: Chapter 4" (PDF). Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  31. ^ a b "Line 3 EIS: Chapter 5 - Existing Conditions, Impacts, and Mitigation - Certificate of Need". Minnesota Department of Commerce. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  32. ^ "The Line 3 Replacement Project: Safety, Efficiency, Jobs". Minnesotans for Line 3. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  33. ^ a b "Line 3 Replacement Project". Enbridge. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  34. ^ "Understanding the Minnesota DOC's Opposition Testimony for Line 3". Honor the Earth. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  35. ^ Hughlett, Mike (May 15, 2018). "Enbridge prevails in Minnesota property tax challenge". Star Tribune. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  36. ^ Morris, David (August 28, 2016). "Pipelines: The Worst Way to Move Oil, Except For All the Rest". Fortune. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  37. ^ a b c "Fact Check Friday #8: Supply, demand and why pipelines like Line 3 are so important". Minnesotans for Line 3. May 11, 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  38. ^ a b Tasker, John (November 29, 2016). "Trudeau cabinet approves Trans Mountain, Line 3 pipelines, rejects Northern Gateway". CBC. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  39. ^ "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. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  40. ^ "History of energy consumption in the United States". U.S. Energy Information Administration. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  41. ^ Sullivan, Jason (December 23, 2012). "10 Everyday Things That Started Life As Oil". Listverse. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  42. ^ Cook, Lynn; Cherney, Elena (May 26, 2017). "Get Ready for Peak Oil Demand". Wall Street Journal. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  43. ^ a b c Pittis, Don (April 8, 2016). "Warning for investors, not just environmentalists, in fossil fuel spending: Don Pittis". CBC. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  44. ^ a b "Minnesota county officials worry about potential pipeline protest cost". MPRNews. May 3, 2018. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  45. ^ Orr, Isaac (June 18, 2018). "Will Line 3 Become the Next Major Pipeline Protest?". Center of the American Experiment. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  46. ^ Jossi, Frank (October 23, 2017). "'Landmark' decision casts youth as official intervenors in pipeline case". Energy News Network. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  47. ^ Marozas, Ramona (August 29, 2017). "Six arrested: Enbridge says they were unlawful, Honor the Earth says it was peaceful". KBJR6. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  48. ^ Slater, Brady (January 12, 2018). "Three arrested in protest at Wells Fargo bank in downtown Duluth". Duluth News Tribune. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
  49. ^ Regan, Sheila (May 17, 2018). "Activists protest the Line 3 oil pipeline this weekend in St. Paul with art and music". City Pages. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Line_3_pipeline&oldid=863012148"