In Minnesota, pipeline protestors prepare for 'summer of resistance'

In northern Minnesota, protesters have pledged a “summer of resistance” as a Canadian energy company prepares to rebuild an oil pipeline across the region. The resistance to energy pipelines comes with growing awareness of environmental inequality.

Alex Kormann/AP
Jesse Barrientez, aka Red Feather (center) performs with other Indigenous people during a march, on June 7, 2021, in Clearwater County, Minnesota. Indigenous activists have been at the forefront of protests against energy pipe lines.

As Enbridge Energy prepares to finish rebuilding an oil pipeline across rural northern Minnesota, protesters are occupying part of the construction area and pledging a “summer of resistance” on the ground and in court.

Enbridge, which has obtained all necessary state and federal permits for the Line 3 project, says it will be finished by year’s end.

The Canadian company describes it as essential for reliable oil supplies in both nations, saying the plan has undergone rigorous environmental permitting and will boost Minnesota’s economy. Opponents contend it endangers waterways, violates indigenous treaty rights, and abets dependence on fossil fuels that will further overheat the planet.

What’s beyond dispute is that the project fits into an escalating battle over the future of energy pipelines, which federal regulators say are generally safer than hauling fuels by rail or highway but pose their own hazards, particularly spills in ecologically sensitive places.

What is the Line 3 project?

The 1,097-mile line is part of an Enbridge network that moves oil from fields in Canada’s Alberta province to refineries in southern Ontario and the U.S. Midwest. It crosses the far northeastern tip of North Dakota, then cuts through northern Minnesota to a terminal at Superior, Wisconsin. The line carries nearly 16.4 million gallons of oil used in fuels and other products.

Enbridge says the original 1960s pipe is deteriorating and carrying about half its capacity. The company is replacing it with pipe made of stronger steel that it says would enable resumption of a normal flow – about 32 million gallons daily.

Work is finished in Canada, North Dakota, and Wisconsin and 60% complete in Minnesota, where 337 miles  of new pipe is being laid. A new section veers south around reservation land of the Leech Lake tribe, which objected to the project. The detour adds about 50 miles to the length.

Aside from protests and civil disobedience, what options do opponents have?

They await a ruling from the Minnesota Court of Appeals on whether the state Public Utilities Commission’s approval was lawful. A pending suit challenges the Army Corps of Engineers’ issuance of a permit. State and federal judges have refused to halt construction while the cases proceed.

Also, groups are pushing President Joe Biden to order the Corps to withdraw the Clean Water Act permit. During a protest Monday, actress Jane Fonda carried a placard with Mr. Biden’s image and the words, “Which side are you on?”

Although Mr. Biden pleased environmentalists by canceling the Keystone XL project, his administration has not done likewise with other disputed pipelines, including the Dakota Access line near the Standing Rock Reservation in the Dakotas.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has stayed on the sidelines while the legal process over Line 3 unfolds. His hands-off approach differs from that of Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a fellow Democrat who ordered Enbridge to shut down Line 5, which moves oil from Superior, Wisconsin, through Michigan to Sarnia, Ontario.

Governor Whitmer’s demand focuses on a roughly 4-mile section beneath a channel that connects Lake Huron and Lake Michigan, where the state granted an easement for the pipeline in 1953 and now seeks to revoke it. That action is also tied up in court.

Line 3 opponents are focusing on blocking the rebuilding project instead of shutting down the line, although their long-term goal is making it obsolete through conversion from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

Why are energy pipelines becoming a cause célèbre?

The day after Ms. Fonda joined Line 3 protesters in Minnesota, the National Wildlife Federation in Michigan announced a radio and television ad campaign against Line 5 featuring actor Jeff Daniels. While environmental and indigenous activists have fought energy pipelines for years, the involvement of celebrities is one illustration of widening resistance. It comes after high-profile spills in the past decade, including a 2010 rupture of an Enbridge line in southern Michigan that sent oil into the Kalamazoo River. A resulting federal consent decree required Enbridge to upgrade the U.S. portion of Line 3.

Another factor: rising awareness that racial minorities suffer disproportionate harm from environmental damage.

Native Americans have been on the front lines of opposition to pipelines, some of which run through or near reservations. They say Line 3 threatens their waters and rights to gather wild rice, fish, and hunt on ancestral lands. Enbridge says it consulted with tribes in rerouting the line to protect cultural resources and has employed more than 500 native people for the project.

Also fueling the battle against pipelines is climate change. Many activists consider virtually any project – whether new, an expansion, or a replacement of existing pipes – a lifeline for fossil fuels that delays the transition to cleaner energy that scientists say is needed quickly to avoid catastrophic warming.

Enbridge says people will need oil for years to come and shutting down pipelines will mean more shipments by train and truck.

This story was reported by The Associated Press. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.