Enbridge Line 3

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]

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