Fact Check Friday #2

For this week’s segment, we have focused on providing context to material that claims to tell people things “they need to know” about Line 3

Fact Checked Article:

https://canadians.org/blog/10-things-you-need-know-about-line-3-pipeline

Fact Check Item #1:

“Enbridge spills are among the worst in history and the pipeline could bring major risks to water.

Many people know about the massive Kalamazoo spill. Less known is the spill in 1991 which spilled 1.3 million gallons.”

The Fact Check Reality #1:

A great deal of information is known about the spill in Grand Rapids, MN in the spring of 1991. Enbridge held numerous public news conferences to address questions, concerns, and updates related to the spill which were covered by many local and statewide news outlets.

Enbridge cooperated fully with all local agencies, state agencies, community groups, environmental groups, and other stakeholders to ensure that cleanup of the spill exceeded regulations and expectations and it did. Minnesota Governor Arne Carlson applauded Enbridge and their efforts to quickly clean up the spill and the state was pleased with Enbridge’s performance and cooperation.

Fact Check Item #2:

“The economics of Line 3 don’t work – governments are approving pipelines that we don’t have oil for.

Anti-pipeline and anti-energy activist Winona Laduke cited a Globe and Mail article that explained that in approving Trans Mountain, Line 3, and Keystone, there actually is not enough oil for these pipelines. Why is the government investing billions on stranded assets …

The Fact Check Reality #2:

The six Enbridge pipelines across northern Minnesota are so full, oil is now being rationed. This hurts refineries across the Midwest including Flint Hills in Rosemount.

Enbridge wants to spend $2.6 billion to replace the aging and corroding Line 3 that would restore the line’s original capacity to safely transport oil. Line 3 today can only carry half of its original capacity while the need for oil products has remained steady. The reduced capacity has created a challenge of customers needing more oil than the existing pipeline can deliver. The result is rationing — or apportionment as it’s known in the oil business. It means that pipeline customers have to wait to get the oil they need. It is a situation that will just get worse at a time when demand for petroleum products is strong.

Flint Hills has spent about $750 million in upgrades at its Pine Bend facility over the past five years with the anticipation that replacing Line 3 will restore the line’s original capacity. A replaced Line 3 would make sure there is the restored capacity from the Line 3 pipeline that will allow Flint Hills to continue to serve its customers with fuels and other products we need and depend on.

Government at the state or federal level is not investing one single dollar into the Line 3 Replacement project. Enbridge and the other companies associated with the replacement project have contractually binding commitments to ensure that transportation volumes through the pipelines are needed and based on demand.

We can’t afford to wait any longer for Line 3

“It’s long overdue for those making decisions in this state to pause and look at the facts. We cannot afford another appeal. Too much time and taxpayer dollars have been used to repeatedly determine that Line 3 is necessary.

If we do not approve Line 3 and get started soon, the people of Minnesota will deserve an explanation about why the most studied pipeline project in our state’s history – that literally checks every box – was stalled at a time when our economy needs it so much.”

Rich Siegert, Rochester Post Bulletin

Minnesota needs Line 3 project

“Let’s get one thing clear: Minnesota needs Line 3.

Replacing Line 3 will bring thousands of jobs to our state at a time when we desperately need it. While our legislature stalls on a bonding bill and other forms of relief, how about Governor Walz and his administration making an easy decision to stop delaying a project that will bring thousands of jobs to northern Minnesota?”

Craig Gaasvig, Grand Forks Herald

Nearly six years to replace Line 3 is too long

“My family has farmed in Clearwater County for 85 years. As farmers, we take pride in our land and work hard to take care of the soil and water around us. We also take very seriously planning our farming operations, including rotating our crops and maintaining our equipment.

For 48 years, we’ve hosted six pipelines on our property and have always had a good relationship with the company. In 2014, we received a letter from Enbridge about the company’s intention to replace its Line 3 pipeline. Since that initial letter, we’ve worked with Enbridge on the easement for the replacement pipe and have considered our farming plans to accommodate construction.”

Brian Emmel, Bemidji Pioneer

Support Minnesotans by supporting Line 3

“In trying times like these, you would think local governments would try to work together to get things done. The fact of the matter is, they can’t — or they won’t. The gridlock in our state house is at an all-time high, and neither side seems willing to concede anything to the other. You would think they would care more about the people than these political chess matches; but for the most part, that’s not the case. Minnesota needs jobs more than ever — as well as the hope that things can get better. As we struggle with COVID19, the changes it has forced upon us have left too many of our businesses to drop like flies, with more people applying for unemployment every day.”

Dave Langfeld, Duluth News Tribune

Letters to the Editor Supporting Line 3:

We can’t afford to wait any longer for Line 3

Minnesota needs Line 3 project

Nearly six years to replace Line 3 is too long

Support Minnesotans by supporting Line 3

Stay Informed:
Be the first to know about Line 3 news as it happens by joining the Minnesotans for Line 3 email list.

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!