Makwa Initiative against Enbridge's Line 3 Replacement Project, USA

"The Anishinaabe people were told by the creator to protect the minowan/wild rice. We are standing up against this pipeline and by doing so we are standing up for our wild rice." The Makwa Initiative is stopping Enbridge's Line 3 Replacement Project.


Description

"The Makwa Initiative stands to protect the sacred land and rice lakes of the Anishinaabe people" [1.1] against Enbridge's Line 3 Replacement Project (L3RP), a $7.5 billion project to add 1,031 miles (1,660 km) of new pipeline that will expand existing capacity to carry diluted bitumen and other crude oil from Alberta's Tar Sands to 760,000 barrels per day (bpd) from 390,000 bpd. Enbridge's plans for the existing Line 3, which has "experienced an accelerated rate of deterioration" indicated by an unusually large number of identified "anomalies" that threaten the integrity of the pipeline, is to leave it in the ground. The deterioration of the pipeline has required Enbridge to operate at a low pressure with high maintenance costs [4, 8]. Due to the adhesive nature of diluted bitumen, a spill in hydrological areas is especially devastating and effective clean up methods don't exist [17]. Both the existing Line 3 and the proposed new Line 3 threaten "pristine aquatic ecosystems, the largest wild rice bed in the world, the headwaters of the Mississippi River, and and the Great Lake Superior" [4.2].

See more...
Basic Data
NameMakwa Initiative against Enbridge's Line 3 Replacement Project, USA
CountryUnited States of America
ProvinceMinnesota
SiteCloquet
Accuracy of LocationHIGH local level
Source of Conflict
Type of Conflict (1st level)Fossil Fuels and Climate Justice/Energy
Type of Conflict (2nd level)Transport infrastructure networks (roads, railways, hydroways, canals and pipelines)
Pollution related to transport (spills, dust, emissions)
Land acquisition conflicts
Oil and gas exploration and extraction
Oil and gas refining
Water access rights and entitlements
Invasive species
Wetlands and coastal zone management
Specific CommoditiesTar Sands Crude Oil: Diluted Bitumen, other types of heavy oil, and light crude oil
Crude oil
Project Details and Actors
Project DetailsThe existing Line 3 is a 34-inch outside diameter, 1,097-mile-long pipeline that was built in the 1960's and put into use in 1968 [20.1.1]. It was originally intended to be able to transport all types of crude oil at varying capacities [20.1.1]. Due to the presence of a large number of anomalies that threaten the integrity of the pipeline, a Consent Decree with the U.S. Department of Justice has required Enbridge to transport light crude oil at a lowered capacity of 390,000 barrels per day (bpd) [8]. The existing Line 3 is experiencing an "accelerated rate of deterioration associated with external corrosion, SCC, and long-seam cracking" [8]. External corrosion growth is increasing exponentially and is not affected by lowered capacity [8]. This is primarily due to the use of Polyethylene (“PE”) tape, which disbonds from pipe, and the use of flash welding ("FW"), a "manufacturing process that has an inherently higher susceptibility to the formation of defects along the long seam of the pipe" [8]. Enbridge estimates that the existing Line 3 will require approximately 7,000 maintenance digs in the U.S. over the next 15 years to maintain the current operating capacity [8].

According to a company spokesperson, "Line 3 is a replacement project intended to upgrade and improve the pipeline while restoring capacity to its original volume to meet the demands of refineries in Minnesota and the Midwest" [21]. The Line 3 Replacement Project (LR3) entails the construction of a new 36-inch pipeline using "the latest available high strength steel and coating technology" [23]. The new pipeline will be built for the most part alongside the existing Line 3, except for a portion of its route in Minnesota where it diverges to the south before the Clearbrook Terminal and then reconnects with the existing Line 3 route and Mainline system before the Wisconsin border [20.1.1]. It is described as the "largest project in Enbridge history" and "one of North America's largest infrastructure programs" with a total capitalization cost of over $7.5 billion USD.

The new Line 3 will have the capacity to transport 760,000 bpd of various types of crude oil, more than doubling the current operating capacity [20.1.1]. It is designed as 'mixed use', meaning it can carry a range of light to heavy crude oil. Enbridge maintains that the type of crude oil the new Line 3 will transport depends on shipper demand [20.1.1]. In a 2014 conference call with investors and media, Enbridge CEO Al Monaco said "my lean would be more towards the heavier side, but it will carry both." [22]. The Project also includes the construction of four new pump stations, upgrades to four existing pump stations, and approximately 27 valves [20.1.2].

Enbridge plans to abandon ('deactivate') the existing Line 3 once the new Line 3 is operational [20.1.2]. The existing Line 3 will continue to be used until then [20.1.2]. The deactivation process includes removing any oil and cleaning the pipe, physically disconnecting and sealing pipeline segments, and then continuous monitoring of the deactivated pipeline and maintenance of the right of way [20.1.2].

Enbridge operates 17,018 miles (27,388 kilometers) of active crude pipeline across North America [20.2]. The entire system, referred to as Enbridge GXL, delivers on average 2.8 million barrels of crude oil and liquids every day [20.2]. Line 3 is described as an integral part of Enbridge's Mainline System, which is an operationally integrated cross-border transportation system that includes the Canadian Mainline System and the U.S. Lakehead System [20.2]. Line 3 is one of six crude oil pipelines that make up the Mainline System [23]. Lines 1, 2, 3, 4, and 67 connect Edmonton, AB to Superior, WI [20.2]. The L3RP project is one part of Enbridge's larger plans to expand its capacity to transport crude oil from Alberta's Tar Sands and to expand its access to the U.S. and other markets.

On April 25, 2016, the NEB concluded that the LR3 project is in the Canadian public interest and recommended Project approval to the federal Governor in Council. The Canadian federal government approved the program on Nov. 29, 2016. The project also has regulatory approval in North Dakota and Wisconsin and is under construction in Wisconsin. The project is waiting on Minnesota's Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to decide whether or not it will issue a route permit and certificate of need. This decision is expected by the end of April 2018. The Minnesota Department of Commerce wrote in testimony that "[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." [24]. In other words, "Enbridge has not established a need for the proposed project; the pipeline would primarily benefit areas outside Minnesota; and serious environmental and socioeconomic risks and effects outweigh limited benefits." [24].

Despite this regulatory uncertainty, Enbridge has already purchased most of the pipe for the Minnesota segment of the new Line 3, is storing the pipe in the state under permits that were applied for illegally, and has already conducted pre-construction work in Minnesota (not to mention actual construction in Canada and Wisconsin) [4.4 November 22, 2017]. For more information on the Line 3 review process in the state of Minnesota, please see: https://mn.gov/puc/line3/process/

The portion of the L3R project that is north of the border will be undertaken by Enbridge's wholly-owned subsidiary, Enbridge Pipelines Inc. The portion south of the border, most of which is in Minnesota, will be undertaken by Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. (EEP) "with funding provided jointly by Enbridge and EEP at participation levels to be finalized and approved by the EEP Special Committee." [20.3].

The financial institutions listed are providing some form of financial support to Enbridge. This financial support comes in the form of credit/ loan agreements, and/or underwriting commitments. See mazaskatalks.org for more information.
Project Area (in hectares)267,028
Level of Investment (in USD)7,539,000,000.00
Type of PopulationRural
Potential Affected Population100,000 - millions
Start Date03/03/2014
Company Names or State EnterprisesEnbridge Inc. from Canada - Project Owner
Enbridge Pipelines Inc. from Canada - Approval and Construction of Line 3 Replacement Project in Canada
Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. (EEP) (EEP) from United States of America - Responsible for the U.S. L3R Project
Relevant government actorsState Level:

Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MN PUC)

Minnesota Department of Commerce (MN DOC), Energy Environmental Review and Analysis (EERA) Unit

Minnesota Office of Pipeline Safety

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MN PCA)

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR)

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin

North Dakota Public Service Commission

Federal:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

National Response Center (US Coast Guard)

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)

Local:

Soil and Water Conservation Districts

County Commissioners
International and Financial InstitutionsBarclays (BARC) from United Kingdom - Enbridge financier (credit facility/loan agreements and/or underwriting commitments)
JP Morgan Chase (JPM) from United States of America - Enbridge financier (credit facility/loan agreements and/or underwriting commitments)
Citibank (C) from United States of America - Enbridge financier (credit facility/loan agreements and/or underwriting commitments)
The Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ (MUFG) from Japan - Enbridge financier (credit facility/loan agreements and/or underwriting commitments)
Deutsche Bank (DB) from Germany
Mizuho Bank (MFG) from Japan - Enbridge financier (credit facility/loan agreements and/or underwriting commitments)
Wells Fargo (WFC) from United States of America - Enbridge financier (credit facility/loan agreements and/or underwriting commitments)
Credit Suisse (CS) from Switzerland - Enbridge financier (credit facility/loan agreements and/or underwriting commitments)
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation (SMBC) from Japan - Enbridge financier (credit facility/loan agreements and/or underwriting commitments)
Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD) from Canada - Enbridge financier (credit facility/loan agreements and/or underwriting commitments)
Credit Agricole (ACA) from France - Enbridge financier (credit facility/loan agreements and/or underwriting commitments)
Bank of Nova Scotia (BNS) from Canada - Enbridge financier (credit facility/loan agreements and/or underwriting commitments)
HSBC Bank (HSBC) from United Kingdom - Enbridge financier (credit facility/loan agreements and/or underwriting commitments)
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) from Canada - Enbridge financier (credit facility/loan agreements and/or underwriting commitments)
Bank of Montreal (BMO) from Canada - Enbridge financier (credit facility/loan agreements and/or underwriting commitments)
De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB) from Netherlands - Enbridge financier (credit facility/loan agreements and/or underwriting commitments)
Morgan Stanley (MS) from United States of America - Enbridge financier (credit facility/loan agreements and/or underwriting commitments)
UBS (UBSG) from Switzerland - Enbridge financier (credit facility/loan agreements and/or underwriting commitments)
Societe Generale (SGA) from France - Enbridge financier (credit facility/loan agreements and/or underwriting commitments)
National Bank of Canada (NBC) from Canada - Enbridge financier (credit facility/loan agreements and/or underwriting commitments)
Export Development Canada (EDC) from Canada - Enbridge financier (credit facility/loan agreements and/or underwriting commitments)
U.S. Bank (USB) from United States of America - Enbridge financier (credit facility/loan agreements and/or underwriting commitments)
Environmental justice organisations and other supportersHonor the Earth

Last Real Indians

Mazaska Talks

Young Peoples Action Coalition

Rainforest Action Network

Rising Tide North America

Showing Up for Racial Justice

Powershift Network

MN 350

Northwoods 350

Semillas Autónomas

Chi-Nations Youth Council

Centro de Trabajadores Unidos en Lucha

EcoSattva

Earth First!

North-Central Wisconsin ExPO

Midwest Prisoner Support

Earth Defense Coalition

Twin Cities General Defense Committee Local 14

Minnesota Public Interest Relations Group

Chi Resists

Water Protector Legal Collective

Youth Climate Intervenors

Friends of the Headwaters

Sierra Club

The Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy
The Conflict and the Mobilization
Intensity of Conflict (at highest level)MEDIUM (street protests, visible mobilization)
When did the mobilization beginPREVENTIVE resistance (precautionary phase)
Groups MobilizingIndigenous groups or traditional communities
International ejos
Ethnically/racially discriminated groups
Religious groups
Farmers
Social movements
Neighbours/citizens/communities
Trade unions
Local scientists/professionals
Women
Industrial workers
Forms of MobilizationDevelopment of a network/collective action
Arguments for the rights of mother nature
Public campaigns
Involvement of national and international NGOs
Land occupation
Media based activism/alternative media
Shareholder/financial activism.
Street protest/marches
Development of alternative proposals
Official complaint letters and petitions
Boycotts of companies-products
Lawsuits, court cases, judicial activism
Objections to the EIA
Creation of alternative reports/knowledge
Blockades
Occupation of buildings/public spaces
Impacts
Environmental ImpactsVisible: Biodiversity loss (wildlife, agro-diversity), Food insecurity (crop damage), Loss of landscape/aesthetic degradation, Oil spills, Surface water pollution / Decreasing water (physico-chemical, biological) quality, Groundwater pollution or depletion, Large-scale disturbance of hydro and geological systems, Global warming, Soil contamination, Deforestation and loss of vegetation cover
Potential: Reduced ecological / hydrological connectivity, Soil erosion, Air pollution, Mine tailing spills
Other There are numerous concerns surrounding the abandonment of Line 3 in the ground.

"Potential sources of soil and groundwater contamination include:

• substances produced in the reservoir and deposited on the walls of the pipeline;

• treatment chemicals in the pipeline;

• the line pipe and associated facilities;

• pipeline coatings and their degradation products;

• historical leaks and spills;

• possible PCB contamination, from lubricants" [4.2 Pipeline Abandonment Fact Sheet]

There are also potential hydrological impacts. Over time, abandoned pipelines can transform into water conduits, and can lead to the unnatural drainage of water based ecosystems, and thereby increasing the risk of soil and water contamination [4.2 Pipeline Abandonment Fact Sheet].

The current Line 3 has an unusually large number of "anomalies" (external corrosion and stress corrosion cracking (SCC)), that threaten its integrity, which increases the chances of leaks, spills, and contamination [8].
Health ImpactsVisible: Violence related health impacts (homicides, rape, etc..) , Other Health impacts, Health problems related to alcoholism, prostitution, Mental problems including stress, depression and suicide
Potential: Accidents, Occupational disease and accidents, Malnutrition, Deaths, Exposure to unknown or uncertain complex risks (radiation, etc…)
Socio-economic ImpactsVisible: Loss of livelihood, Specific impacts on women, Violations of human rights, Loss of landscape/sense of place, Militarization and increased police presence, Increase in violence and crime
Potential: Displacement, Increase in Corruption/Co-optation of different actors, Loss of traditional knowledge/practices/cultures, Social problems (alcoholism, prostitution, etc..), Land dispossession, Lack of work security, labour absenteeism, firings, unemployment
OtherPipeline abandonment "would pass on an enormous financial liability to landowners along the line, and to our children and grandchildren" [10].

Anishinaabe "regional fisheries generate $7.2 billion annually, and support 49,000 jobs. The tourism economy of northern Minnesota represents $11.9 billion in gross sales (or 240,000 jobs)" [4.2].
Outcome
Project StatusPlanned (decision to go ahead eg EIA undertaken, etc)
Pathways for conflict outcome / responseStill in regulatory process
Development of AlternativesIn the Anishinaabeg Cumulative Impact Statement, Honor the Earth "strongly advocates that existing Line 3 needs to be removed from service, and no new pipeline built" [3.7]. The Statement argues that the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe and its Bands "have the authority to develop regulations that govern what actions a pipeline company takes to minimize risks posed by old pipelines, particularly when they cross reservation lands" [3.7]. It urges the Bands and MCT to create a policy and regulatory framework that is "responsive to the evolving statutory context and the likelihood of additional large decommissioning and abandonment applications in the future" [3.7].

In particular, the statement argues that Enbridge should be required to make "additional filings and studies before commencing decommissioning activities", including a Tribally approved Final Abandonment Plan, Minimally-Invasive Procedure Evaluation Report, and "a plan to completely remove the existing line, remediation any and all contamination and restore the corridor to it's pre-installation condition" [3.7]. The recommendations require a large participatory role for tribal members in planning and participating in a robust monitoring plan for any decommissioned line. Tribal members should be trained, with Enbridge funding, to "undertake remedial actions or adaptive management measures" and should be present at "any future digs or other maintenance activities" [3.7]. Enbridge should be required to create a fund "to cover the costs of future abandonment of pipelines on reservation, trust, and treaty areas" [3.]. The Statement argues that the "remediation and restoration activities that would need to be undertaken to fully restore the existing corridor has [the] potential to jump-start the regenerative economy for the region" [3.7].

According to the Statement, "if Enbridge was run by intelligent, thoughtful people, we would be discussing the expansion of a regional public transportation network." [3.7]. The Statement additionally argues that "[t]he infrastructure [minority/low-income communities] require is not a crude oil pipeline that is part and parcel of a global export economy, but rather renewable energy grids, water and sewage, and other elements of a restoration economy" [3.7]. The Statement's recommendations for "investment in ecological infrastructure [that] will strengthen the economy and communities by creating jobs, new industries and protect future generations well being" are comprehensive and timely.
Do you consider this as a success?No
Why? Explain briefly.The Line 3 Replacement Project is still waiting on obtaining regulatory approval from Minnesota's Public Utilities Commission. This decision will come by the end of April 2018.

Any perspective on success and failure will have to account for whether the existing Line 3 will be removed or decommissioned, whether the Tar Sands will continue to be developed, and to what extent the Minnesota Chippewa tribe and other tribes and First Nations regain autonomy and sovereignty.
Sources and Materials
Legislations

Minnesota Rules 7853, CERTIFICATE OF NEED; PETROLEUM FACILITY

MN Rules for Certificate of Need
[click to view]

"National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) of 1969", as amended. 42 USC § 4321 et seq.
[click to view]

"Minnesota Field Archaeology Act" Minnesota Statutes 1963, Section 138.31.
[click to view]

"Minnesota Historic Sites Act" Minnesota Statutes 1965, Section 138.661.
[click to view]

"National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)" 54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq.
[click to view]

1837 and 1854 treaties and related laws
[click to view]

"Minnesota Environmental Protection Act" (MEPA). Minnesota Statutes 1973, Section 116D.



Other Minnesota Statutes relating to Environmental Protection: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?view=part&header=ENVIRONMENTAL+PROTECTION
[click to view]

Minnesota Statutes 216G. "Pipelines"

MN Statutes for Route Permit
[click to view]

Minnesota Statute 216B.243 "CERTIFICATE OF NEED FOR LARGE ENERGY FACILITY"

MN Statute for Certificate of Need
[click to view]

Minnesota Rules 7852. "Route Permit: Pipeline"

MN Rules for Route Permit

See 7852.1900 for Route Selection Criteria
[click to view]

References

[3] Anishinaabeg Cumulative Impact Statement

[3.1] - Intro

[3.2] - Chapter 1

[3.3] - Chapter 2

[3.4] - Chapter 3

[3.5] - Chapter 4

[3.6] - Chapter 5

[3.7] - Chapter 6
[click to view]

Marchman, Patrick. 2012. "Little NEPAs: State Equivalents to the National Environmental Policy Act in Indiana, Minnesota and Wisconsin".
[click to view]

"OPS TTO8 – Stress Corrosion Cracking Study" submitted by Michael Baker Jr., Inc. January 2005.

Study on Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) commissioned by the Office of Pipeline Safety of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration within the U.S. Department of Transportation.

See Chapter 4: "Understanding Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) in Pipelines"
[click to view]

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. "Spills of Diluted Bitumen from Pipelines: A Comparative Study of Environmental Fate, Effects, and Response". Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/21834.
[click to view]

[15] Harris, Stuart and Barbara Harper. 1999. "ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IN INDIAN COUNTRY: Using Equity Assessments to Evaluate Impacts to Trust Resources, Watersheds and Eco-cultural Landscapes". Presented at: "Environmental Justice: Strengthening the Bridge Between Tribal Governments and Indigenous Communities, Economic Development and Sustainable Communities". Conference sponsored by EPA and Medical University of South Carolina. June 11, 1999, Hilton Head, SC
[click to view]

[16] "Natural Wild Rice In Minnesota: A Wild Rice Study document submitted to the Minnesota Legislature by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources", February 15, 2008
[click to view]

[19] Unruh, Gregory C. 2000. "Understanding Carbon Lock In", Energy Policy 28(12): 817-830
[click to view]

[12] Walters K.L., Beltran R., Huh D., Evans-Campbell T. 2011. "Dis-placement and Dis-ease: Land, Place, and Health Among American Indians and Alaska Natives". In: Burton L., Matthews S., Leung M., Kemp S., Takeuchi D. (eds) Communities, Neighborhoods, and Health. Social Disparities in Health and Health Care, vol 1. Springer, New York, NY

(Link is to download of chapter)
[click to view]

[13] L Walters, Karina & A Mohammed, Selina & Evans-Campbell, Teresa & Beltran, Ramona & Chae, David & Duran, Bonnie. 2011. "BODIES DON'T JUST TELL STORIES, THEY TELL HISTORIES Embodiment of Historical Trauma among American Indians and Alaska Natives." Du Bois Review Social Science Research on Race. 8. 179-189.
[click to view]

[17] National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Spills of Diluted Bitumen from Pipelines: A Comparative Study of Environmental Fate, Effects, and Response. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/21834.



PDF downloads are free!
[click to view]

[18] Brandt, Adam R. 2011. "Upstream greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from Canadian oil sands as a feedstock for European

refineries." Report for the European Union.
[click to view]

[25] Dr. David Shaw, Dr. Martin Phillips, Ron Baker, Eduardo Munoz, Hamood Rehman, Carol Gibson, Christine Mayernik. 2012. "Leak Detection Study – DTPH56-11-D-000001". Final Report for U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
[click to view]

Borrows, John. 2015. "Crown and Aboriginal Occupations of Land: A History & Comparison" in Ipperwash Inquiry Research Series., Policing Aboriginal occupations and Aboriginal/police relations. Online.



The first section provides an overview of the historical context of the use of occupations and blockades in order to accomplish objectives relating to land, treaty, and other rights. Focused on pre-Canadian settler-colonial relations, but includes significant information on the use of occupations and diplomatic relations between Anishinaabeg bands and First Nations and Crown settlers.
[click to view]

"American Indian Fishing and Hunting Rights: Minnesota Issues Resource Guides". Minnesota Legislative Reference Library.





"This guide is compiled by staff at the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library on a topic of interest to state legislators. It introduces the topic and points to sources for further research. It is not intended to be exhaustive."

Legislative History, Books and Reports, Articles, Internet Resources, Additional Library Resources
[click to view]

Treuer, Anton. 2010. Ojibwe in Minnesota. St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society Press, Project Muse.
[click to view]

Rubin, Jeff. 2017. "Evaluating the Need for Pipelines: A False Narrative for the Canadian Economy". Center for International Governance Innovation: Policy Brief No. 115. Online
[click to view]

Links

Commentary piece in the StarTribune: "Enbridge pipeline's ripple effect: Abuse of women and girls" by Ann Manning. January 5th, 2018
[click to view]

[7] Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Letter to Enbridge. "Sandpiper Pipeline Project and Line 3 Replacement Project Storage/Pipe Yards". March 3rd, 2017
[click to view]

"Tribes Across the Midwest Are Gearing up for a Big New Pipeline Battle" by Yessenia Funes in Earther. November 10th, 2017.
[click to view]

"How Canada’s pipeline watchdog secretly discusses "ticking time bombs" with industry" by Mike de Souza in National Observer. July 5th, 2016.

Covers Canada's National Energy Board's (NEB) efforts to end Enbridge's and Kinder Morgan's use of substandard (shoddy) materials and parts in their pipelines.
[click to view]

[8] Excerpt from Testimony of Laura Kennett at Minnesota's Public Utility Commission. MPUC DOCKET NOS. PL9/CN-14-916, January 31, 2017

Extensive information on pipeline integrity threats, current Line 3 deterioration resulting in external corrosion and stress corrosion cracking (SCC), reasons for leaving abandoning current Line 3 and building a new Line 3 (cost of 'dig and repair' vs. 'replacement'), methods of repair and monitoring, and more.
[click to view]

"Pipeline abandonment emerges as key issue in Grand Rapids" by Brady Slater in Duluth News Tribune. December 28th, 2017
[click to view]

"Enbridge’s plans to build tar sands pipeline through Minnesota just hit a snag" by Samantha Page in Think Progress. September 12, 2017.
[click to view]

"Opinion -- Though Enbridge's Line 3 oil pipeline replacement project is far from approved, debate already is stirring: What happens to old Line 3?" in Opinion section of Duluth News Tribune. September 21st, 2017.



Includes quotes from Enbridge CEO Al Monaco, Winona LaDuke of White Earth Reservation and Director of Honor the Earth, and Paul Blackburn, staff attorney for Honor the Earth.
[click to view]

Line 3 Review Process, Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.

Includes information on how the Certificate of Need process, Route Permit process, and Environmental Impact Statement process works specific to the Line 3 project including relevant statutes and rules.
[click to view]

5] "Joint Tribal Petition to Reconsider and Amend the PUC’s December 14 Order", Before the Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings for the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission
[click to view]

[9] "Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Line 3 Pipeline Project - Revised" (FEIS- Revised). Minnesota Department of Commerce. February 12th, 2018.
[click to view]

[6] "Order Finding Environmental Impact Statement Inadequate", December 14th, 2017. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. Docket Nos. PL-9/CN-14-916 and PL-9/PPL-15-137
[click to view]

[11] "Oxendine Molliver Resignation Letter". The Intercept_Documents. August 12, 2017.

Full Intercept story: "Tribal Liaison in Minnesota Pipeline Review Is Sidelined After Oil Company Complains to Governor" by Alleen Brown.

https://theintercept.com/2017/08/12/tribal-liaison-in-minnesota-pipeline-review-is-sidelined-after-oil-company-complains-to-governor/
[click to view]

[21] "A look at Enbridge’s next big pipeline project, the Line 3 Replacement" by Brooks Johnson in Duluth News Tribune. April 16, 2017.
[click to view]

[23] "Enbridge to Undertake $7 Billion Mainline Replacement Program" Enbridge Media Center. March 3rd, 2014.

Press release and announcement of Line 3 Replacement Project
[click to view]

[22] "Enbridge Announces $7B Line 3 Rebuild, Largest Project in Company History" by Heather Libby in DeSmog Canada. March 4th, 2014.
[click to view]

"Enbridge Energy's Proposed Line 3 Pipeline Project", Minnesota Department of Commerce. Includes project summary, latest news, key project documents, links to e-docket information, regulatory information.
[click to view]

[20] Enbridge Inc. Website.

[20.1] Line 3 Project (U.S.) page: http://www.enbridge.com/line3us

[20.1.1] "Project Background" Section

[20.1.2] "Project Scope" Section

[20.2] Line 3 Project (Canada) page: http://www.enbridge.com/projects-and-infrastructure/projects/line-3-replacement-program-canada
[click to view]

[24] "After extensive review, Minnesota Commerce Department releases expert analysis and recommendation on the certificate of need for Enbridge’s proposed Line 3 oil pipeline project", Minnesota Department of Commerce, Press Release. September 11, 2017.

Direct Testimony of Department of Commerce can be found here: https://mn.gov/commerce/energyfacilities/resource.html?Id=34746
[click to view]

[27] "Tar Sands Crude Oil: Health Effects of a Dirty and Destructive Fuel" Natural Resources Defense Council Issue Brief. February 2014.
[click to view]

[28] "Enbridge to pay $1 million for pollution violations" by John Myers, in The Duluth News Tribune. October 8th, 2010.
[click to view]

[26] LaDuke, Winona. "LaDuke: The Largest Inland Oil Spill in U.S. History Happened Today in Minnesota" in Indian Country Today. March 3, 2017
[click to view]

[29] "FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND RECOMMENDATION" for Line 3 Replacement Project Application for Certificate of Need and Route Permit. STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FOR THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION. OAH 65-2500-32764

Includes non-binding recommendation of Administrative Law Judge to the PUC to grant a Certificate of Need, but only if the Route Permit is for in-trench replacement along the existing Line 3.

Also includes considerable information on Enbridge, Mainline System, Project Background, History of Line 3 Spills, Funding of Project, Agreement with Shippers, and more.
[click to view]

"Final Environmental Impact Statement for Enbridge Sandpiper Pipeline and Line 3 Replacement Projects". Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2016.
[click to view]

Lovrien, Jimmy and Brooks Johnson. 2018. "Judge says Line 3 should go forward along old route" in Duluth News Tribune
[click to view]

"Line 3 Replacement Project Summary". Enbridge.

Slideshow presentation on L3RP.
[click to view]

[30] " Representative Shipper Group (RSG) Issue Resolution Sheet (IRS)". Appendix D in Application for Certificate of Need for Enbridge's Line 3 Replacement Project. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.



Agreement Enbridge and its customers (shippers) to implement a per barrel surcharge on the entire Mainline System to support the recovery of the costs of the L3RP.
[click to view]

Bruno, Kenny et al. "Enbridge Over Troubled Water: The Enbridge GXL System's Threat to the Great Lakes". Report.
[click to view]

Media Links

[4] "Stop Line 3" Campaign website with support from Honor the Earth. Features information and fact sheets, maps Enbridge submitted in their Route Permit Application, news, and information for taking action and getting involved.

[4.1] Intro Section - Home Page

[4.2] About Section - "What is Line 3?"

[4.3] Maps Section

[4.4] News Section

[4.5] "Take Action" Section
[click to view]

[1] Facebook page of the Makwa Initative - "Makwa Initiative Line 3 Frontline Resistance": https://www.facebook.com/makwainitiative/

[1.1] "Our Story" section (located on right hand sidebar)

[1.2] Posts

[1.3] Videos: https://www.facebook.com/makwainitiative/videos/
[click to view]

[10] "Minnesotans for Pipeline Cleanup" Website. Includes petition, fact sheet, and information for becoming involved.
[click to view]

"Dakota and Ojibwe Treaties". Treaties Matter. Minnesota Indian Affairs Council and Minnesota Humanities Council. Website.
[click to view]

[14] "SCIENTISTS CALL FOR A MORATORIUM ON OIL SANDS DEVELOPMENT" Letter from Canadian and US scientists calling for a moratorium on oil sands development, includes 10 reasons for a moratorium.
[click to view]

Other Documents

[click to view]

[click to view]

Other CommentsAll sources and materials have in-text citations in the form of a nested structure in order to cite information more accurately within a source that has multiple segments (e.g. multiple sections of a single Facebook page).

For example, every source is provided with a unique identifying number (e.g [1] for the Facebook page of the Makwa Initiative, [2] for a media article, etc.).

When it is necessary to cite information more accurately within a single source, a second number is included in the in-text citation that corresponds with a more specific area within the source (e.g. [1.1] refers to the "Our Story" section of the Makwa Initative Facebook page, and [3.1] refers to the Intro section of the Anishinaabeg Cumulative Impact Statement).

Please see each specific source or material for an explanation of the in-text citations. Page numbers are also included when applicable.

The "Take Action" section of the stopline3 website provides multiple ways for interested supporters to become involved. Supporters can donate to the Makwa camp fund and legal fund, educate (via speaking at public hearings, writing articles, and contacting public regulatory and political actors), divest personal and community financial holdings from banks backing fossil fuel corporations (see mazaskatalks.org), organize local events and actions in solidarity with the Initiative, and also donate directly to support the development of the Anishinaabeg Cumulative Impact Statement and Honor the Earth [4.5]. For more information please see: https://www.stopline3.org/take-action/
Meta Information
ContributorZach, [email protected]
Last update25/06/2018
Related conflicts
Comments