In a column in the News Tribune on Jan. 17, the director of Enbridge’s Line 3 Replacement Project painted a false picture about it and those who opposed it (In Response: “ Line 3 protests endangered Minnesotans, the environment ”).

This pipeline shouldn't have been built; the need for it wasn’t adequately established. It seemed to be built in a hurry, leading to extensive damage to sensitive natural areas. There were many improper leaks of drilling fluid, and aquifers were illegally punctured in at least two places.

Due to the need to rapidly cut back on the use of fossil fuels because of their role in advancing the climate crisis, the oil carried by Line 3 shouldn’t be needed at all. There are buyers for the oil the pipeline carries; however, the great need to reduce the use of oil will or should lead quickly to a big drop in oil being purchased by these buyers in order to keep the climate crisis from becoming larger.

Monitors of the pipeline’s construction too often failed to find damage being done. Private individuals found much of the damage, perhaps due to what seemed like hurried construction. Law enforcement officers, paid from funds provided by Enbridge, made arrests of protestors that did not hold up in court.

More could be said about the way Line 3 project Director Barry Simonson portrayed the project. Engridge has massive financial resources and made extensive use of these funds to push through the Line 3 pipeline. Doing so disregarded the urgent need to cut back on fossil-fuel use in order to prevent the climate crisis from advancing. It seems Endbridge cares more about building a pipeline than it does about the environment.

Jim Tjepkema

Minneapolis