I hope Michael Cummins is OK. He nearly tripped over himself fawning over Enbridge in his May 3 Local View commentary, " Northern Minnesotans counting on Line 3 pipeline replacement ."
Cummins wrote, "Virtually every recent problem with moving petroleum products has come from train accidents or from spills initiated by opponents of oil." A quick Google search shows this to be false: There were eight pipeline spills in the U.S. in 2017, one of them resulting in the death of a worker. A similar search for train accidents comes up with one; it involved a commuter train in Brooklyn. I hate to even bother with the accusation that "opponents of oil" have anything to do with "virtually every spill." This simply cannot be true.
Cummins also wrote, "Enbridge Energy will carry petroleum products (and) will employ thousands." I found where he got this, directly from Enbridge's website. But I don't believe Line 3 would create thousands of jobs for Minnesotans. For the similar Sandpiper pipeline project, Enbridge claimed construction would employ about 1,600 people, and only half of them locally contracted. Most pipeline jobs end when construction is complete. There is no boom in economic development created by a pipeline; there's just the permanent threat of a spill into Minnesota waters.
Cummins wrote, "The alternative to things like Line 3 is greater reliance on Middle Eastern oil." Actually, the alternative to things like Line 3 is U.S. domestic oil (Line 3 carries Canadian crude) and increasing reliance on renewable energy, which is underway.
What oil companies seem to be attempting - and Cummins should know this - is using tar-sands oil to create excess reserves in the U.S. so they can sell domestic oil overseas. That's what Line 3 is about, in my opinion. It's not about us or the U.S. It's about profits for oil executives, period.
ADVERTISEMENT
Janet Hill
McGregor, Minn.
