Line 3

[Matthew Hajicek]

https://www.stopline3.org/news/january092021">https://www.stopline3.org/news/january092021

[YoDoug]

I don't know how I feel about that subject. We need oil and gas. It's not going to go away with the flick of a switch. So in the meantime, what is the best choice to move it. Here is an interesting article I found talking about the difference in crude oil shipping methods.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/10/11/which-is-safer-for-transporting-crude-oil-rail-truck-pipeline-or-boat/?sh=26bea8b7b237">https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca ... bea8b7b237">https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/10/11/which-is-safer-for-transporting-crude-oil-rail-truck-pipeline-or-boat/?sh=26bea8b7b237

[Matthew Hajicek]

From what I read, no one but the oil company thinks the new line is needed.  There is also the matter of spoiling virgin wildlands that are protected under a treaty with the local Native American tribe.  Not that that's ever stopped anyone.

[RobertELee]

[quote="Matthew Hajicek" post_id=3437 time=1610661234 user_id=57]
From what I read, no one but the oil company thinks the new line is needed.  There is also the matter of spoiling virgin wildlands that are protected under a treaty with the local Native American tribe.  Not that that's ever stopped anyone.
[/quote]

It's needed because the existing line 3 is over 50 years old(built in the 1960s). Obviously the older it gets the more susceptible it is to catastrophic damage that could cause bigger problems.

[Matthew Hajicek]

It's needed because the existing line 3 is over 50 years old(built in the 1960s). Obviously the older it gets the more susceptible it is to catastrophic damage that could cause bigger problems.

Why not replace it in place, a section at a time?  Or run a new one alongside the old, then swap over?  Why carve a whole new rout through virgin wetlands dozens of miles out of the way?

[RobertELee]

[quote="Matthew Hajicek" post_id=3451 time=1610664292 user_id=57]

It's needed because the existing line 3 is over 50 years old(built in the 1960s). Obviously the older it gets the more susceptible it is to catastrophic damage that could cause bigger problems.

Why not replace it in place, a section at a time?  Or run a new one alongside the old, then swap over?  Why carve a whole new rout through virgin wetlands dozens of miles out of the way?
[/quote]

That was an option however it was the most risky option and didn't fully suite all parties involved. And its not as easy as just replacing a section at a time, its a buried 34" pipe that is dangerously corroded in areas and intertwined with 5 other lines all pumping crude oil.

The Leech Lake Reservation would prefer the line removed from their land so that eventually all 6 lines that are already there are gone and the land can be returned to what it was prior, hopefully before a major catastrophe happens. Enbridge is accommodating them.

[Matthew Hajicek]

The Leech Lake Reservation would prefer the line removed from their land

NIMBY then.  Put it in someone else's land and make them deal with it.  Sounds like a bad compromise, especially when those who should have say over the land get it forced on them.  In the long run we'll have twice as much polluted land to clean up.

[RobertELee]

[quote="Matthew Hajicek" post_id=3462 time=1610668656 user_id=57]

The Leech Lake Reservation would prefer the line removed from their land

NIMBY then.  Put it in someone else's land and make them deal with it.  Sounds like a bad compromise, especially when those who should have say over the land get it forced on them.  In the long run we'll have twice as much polluted land to clean up.
[/quote]

I agree. Unfortunately it's not as easy as just running a straight line through the middle of Nodak and Kanada.
However saying we'll have twice as much polluted land to clean up is assuming both lines will fail. As long as they clean up the remnants of the abandoned lines there will still be the same lines in the ground, just in a different location.

I honestly don't know the perfect solution. Oil isn't going away anytime soon, so safely transporting it needs to be done. But finding a solution for all parties involved won't come easy.

[Matthew Hajicek]

However saying we'll have twice as much polluted land to clean up is assuming both lines will fail.

Every oil line in history has leaked, despite omnipresent promises to the contrary.  I do think if you run the second right next to the first, like a few feet away, the cleanup will be much easier in the long run.  But ultimately the decision should be in the hands of those who own and control the land; if they say "no" the answer should be "no".  Eminent domain saying "we're going to mess up your land because profit" pretty much sucks.  A couple decades ago we had a whole bunch of people kicked out of their homes and businesses just so Best Buy could build a giant new headquarters right where they wanted.

[Zoober]

[quote="Matthew Hajicek" post_id=3472 time=1610681143 user_id=57]

However saying we'll have twice as much polluted land to clean up is assuming both lines will fail.

Every oil line in history has leaked
[/quote]

Citation needed.
I've got a few hundred people that I know in Ok, Tx, and Alaska oil that will dispute that claim. In fact, they will prove that pipelines are the most environmentally pure method of moving oil. Way more environmentally protective than rail and truck moved oil.

[Matthew Hajicek]

In fact, they will prove that pipelines are the most environmentally pure method of moving oil. Way more environmentally protective than rail and truck moved oil.

That much I do agree with.  But no method is perfect, and I think it sucks to violate a treaty by forcing someone to accept a pipeline through their land.

[Matthew Hajicek]

Citation needed.

Only showing "significant" leaks:

">

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/americas_dangerous_pipelines/">https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/cam ... pipelines/">https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/americas_dangerous_pipelines/

[RobertELee]

[quote="Matthew Hajicek" post_id=3475 time=1610682607 user_id=57]

That much I do agree with.  But no method is perfect, and I think it sucks to violate a treaty by forcing someone to accept a pipeline through their land.
[/quote]

They aren't forcing any new pipelines through treaty land.... they are removing them.

https://i.ibb.co/CB6fThB/Line3-Map-1407x800.jpg">

[Zoober]

[quote="Matthew Hajicek" post_id=3475 time=1610682607 user_id=57]

In fact, they will prove that pipelines are the most environmentally pure method of moving oil. Way more environmentally protective than rail and truck moved oil.

That much I do agree with.  But no method is perfect, and I think it sucks to violate a treaty by forcing someone to accept a pipeline through their land.
[/quote]

It sucks to violate treaties. Period. But it equally sucks to hijack a sovereign nation's treaty violation to push ones political climate agenda, ala Honor Earth and Indigo Girls. They are no "water Protectors"

[Matthew Hajicek]

They aren't forcing any new pipelines through treaty land.... they are removing them.

Enbridge Energy wants to "replace" an oil pipeline (Line 3), but along a different route, plowing straight through the wild rice waters the Ojibwe people maintain the rights to use through the Treaty of 1855.

https://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2019/05/line-3-pipeline-proposal-yet-another-abuse-against-native-americans/">https://www.minnpost.com/community-voic ... americans/">https://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2019/05/line-3-pipeline-proposal-yet-another-abuse-against-native-americans/