Line 3 pipeline costs us environmentally, socially and economically

In 2014, the natural gas distribution company Enbridge Inc. proposed a project that would replace the 60-yearold pipeline that carries crude oil through northern Minnesota called Line 3. The Line 3 Replacement Project has faced stiff opposition from environmental justice advocates, leading to massive delays in its construction that continue today.

CSB seniors Melissa Burrell and Brigit Stattelman-Scanlan have been involved in the movement against the new pipeline. Burrell is an Environmental and Peace Studies double major whose activism is the focal point for the Climate Justice Club (CJC) and is currently on the Pipeline Resistance Team for MN350.

Stattelman-Scanlan is also an Environmental Studies major but with a Political Science minor. She is the student director for the Institute for Women’s Leadership (IWL) and interned at 350 Madison and the Sierra Club this summer on the Tar Sands and Climate Justice Team.

Burrell and Stattelman-Scanlan shared each other’s sentiment against the pipeline.

“It won’t go”, Burrell said, referencing the pipeline’s delays. “It was supposed to be built last case scenario in 2018 and here we are in 2020.”

Reasons for replacement:

Meandering through 13 miles of North Dakota, 337 miles of Minnesota, and 14 miles of Wisconsin from the Tar Sands in Alberta, Canada, the Replacement Project would have twice the carrying capacity of the old Line 3. Reaching an annual average capacity of 760,000 barrels a day.

The replacement will “maintain our high safety standards, reduce future maintenance activities and create fewer disruptions to landowners and the environment, and restore the historical operating capabilities of Line 3” Enbridge said. Providing reliable crude oil and energy savings are also incentives for this project.

Enbridge outlines various benefits to the installation of this pipeline, including 8,600 jobs, 6,500 local, in Minnesota over a two-week period, a $2 billion boost to the Minnesota economy during its design and construction, and $334 million in payroll to workers, half to local workers.

Impending oil spill:

First, Enbridge has had a history of oil spills. Burrell outlined these concerns by saying that the current Line 3 has over 900 holes and anomalies. A past rupture in the line caused one of the largest inland oil spills in history.

Enbridge hopes to make the new line safer with newer technology and thicker pipes. As of now, MN350 says on their website that Enbridge has had one spill every week for the last 15 years.

“It is not a matter of if it will rupture, it is a matter of when it will rupture”, said Stattelman-Scanlan.

Environmental and social consequences:

The route of the replacement line is also controversial. The pipeline would cross various bodies of water that have not seen much human influence. This includes the Mississippi headwaters twice, wild rice lakes, wetlands, forests and farmland.

An accident would not only have environmental consequences but social consequences to those who live in the surrounding area, namely indigenous people. The proposed route would also go through treaty land from 1855 where indigenous people from the Fond du Lac, Red Lake and White Earth reservations have rights to hunt, fish and gather.

Climate cost:

Economically, the state of Minnesota says that Line 3 has a climate change cost to society of $278 billion in damage over 30 years. So, while there are economic advantages to installing the pipeline, there are also disadvantages.

Human cost:

Construction of the line can also bring social consequences. Among many that Burrell shared, one is that when you bring a large amount of men working on an extractive job (like this pipeline), that there are issues with missing and murdered indigenous relatives. This has targeted indigenous women and queer people, and has unfortunately been somewhat normalized and tucked under the rug.

Legal issues:

Climate activists are not the only ones opposed to the new line. MN350 notes that the MN Department of Commerce, the Pollution Control Agency, the Department of Natural Resources, the Administrative Law Judge and sovereign indigenous nations have “held that Enbridge’s project does not meet the necessary conditions under Minnesota law and should not be built as proposed.”

Burrell also mentioned that action on this topic is still happening today. In August, the Department of Commerce refiled their original lawsuit against the pipeline process. At the end of October 2020, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency must decide whether or not to pass the water permits required for construction. Without these permits, Enbridge cannot continue forward.

The environment and politics:
Stattelman-Scanlan also emphasized the importance of voting in the presidential election in November 2020, as the outcome will play a large role in environmental policies as well as “Indigenous sovereignty and human rights,” Stattelman-Scanlan said.

There is an event coming up that Burrell and others have been organizing to show support for clean water. On Sept. 30, CSB/SJU students will take a pint of Mississippi water that has passed through 200 individuals over 500 miles and walk with it between campuses.