Winona LaDuke speaks out against the Line 3 decision in St. Paul, Minn., June 28, 2018.
Photo: Richard Tsong-Taatarii/Associated PressClimate-change activists want to ban fossil fuels, and that means opposing all pipelines that move oil from producers to the market. Green activists succeeded in delaying Enbridge’s Line 3 in the Upper Midwest for more than a year, but last week the oil pipeline cleared a key regulatory hurdle. That's good news for the environment.
The proposed Line 3 would run nearly 350 miles through Minnesota, and in 2018 the state’s Public Utilities Commission voted to let the $2.6 billion project proceed. Opponents sued, claiming the initial 13,500-page environmental review wasn’t adequate. An appeals court rejected most of the claims but ruled that the review needed to further address the risks of a spill in the Lake Superior watershed. That revised review took another 16 months but last week won approval from the Public Utilities Commission.
The Minnesota chapter of 350.org called the decision “immoral” and said the commission “has chosen to stand for climate chaos.” Winona LaDuke, the executive director of Honor the Earth, said the commission’s vote was “egregious” and that the pipeline reflects “the craziness of Canada and the US at the end of the fossil fuel era.” Line 3 still needs to secure federal and state permits before it can break ground, and self-proclaimed “water protectors” have vowed to continue their obstructionism.
But allowing Line 3 to proceed is the best way to protect the environment in Minnesota and beyond. The new pipeline would replace the old Line 3, which was built more than 50 years ago. That aging pipe now can’t operate at full capacity because of corrosion and seam cracking, and Enbridge estimates it will require some 7,000 repairs by 2035. The new Line 3 would come equipped with the latest technology for the prevention and early detection of spills.
Environmentalists would prefer to shut down the old Line 3 without replacing it. But demand for oil endures, and without a pipeline it would reach consumers by road or rail. The risks of a spill persist, and the alternative methods of transportation are more carbon-intensive than pipelines.
Credit Minnesota’s Public Utilities Commission for recognizing these realities. As usual, climate-change absolutists brook no dissent in their demands for the fantasy of a world without fossil fuels.
Copyright ©2019 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
"oil" - Google News
February 11, 2020 at 07:19AM
https://ift.tt/37j1snI
Better Pipes for Safer Oil Transport - The Wall Street Journal
"oil" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2PqPpxF
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Better Pipes for Safer Oil Transport - The Wall Street Journal"
Post a Comment