ST. PAUL -- The first public hearing of a weeklong tour of the state regarding the proposed Sandpiper pipeline Monday afternoon had a very different feel to it than past Minnesota Public Utilities Commission meetings on the subject.
The commission held the hearing in a ballroom at the RiverCenter. In past public hearings about the Sandpiper, members of the public had been denied entry to the commission’s chambers due to capacity concerns. Several hundred members of the public -- including some turned away at previous meetings -- filled the ballroom for a chance to voice their opinion on Canadian company Enbridge’s application for a certificate of need to build Minnesota’s 300-mile portion of the proposed pipeline.
“It takes a lot of effort for people to take time out of their days to come sit through six hours of a hearing -- especially in this cold weather,” Enbridge spokesperson Lorraine Little said. “We are very appreciative of the turnout.”
The proposed 618-mile project would run from near Tioga, N.D., to an existing Enbridge terminal in Clearbrook, Minn., then across the state to Superior, Wis. Enbridge estimates the project will cost $2.6 billion, and will include a new pump station in Clearbrook and a brand new pipeline that can carry up to 375,000 barrels of crude oil per day.
Topics ranging from polar bears to Twin Cities traffic were brought forward during the hearing as proponents and opponents alternated time at the dias to provide evidence and testimony to Eric Lipman, the administrative law judge tasked with gathering evidence to make a recommendation to the commission in mid-April.
ADVERTISEMENT
Other options
Some, like Delano Erickson, said they thought using pipeline right of ways that already exist make more sense than creating a new route.
“There are other alternatives that seem to be better solutions (than the Sandpiper route) to bring North Dakota oil to refiners,” he said. “The pipeline that exists along U.S. Highway 2 needs to be upgraded or replaced. It seems to me the capacity upgrade that needs to happen could happen there.”
Central to many anti-pipeline arguments was oil consumption’s role in climate change.
“Global warming is a reality,” Ruth Lindh said. “What’s the wise way to handle this resource: Turn on more spigots and gulp it down like pigs at a trough, or lean back a bit and save some for our children?”
More than just human livelihoods are at stake, as Patty O’Keefe reminded the commission.
“Animals can’t speak, so I like to think I speak for them in times like this,” she said. “But we aren’t just fighting climate change to save polar bears anymore. We are fighting climate change for our own survival, for our own species.”
Helping families
ADVERTISEMENT
Granting Enbridge the certificate of need has a chance to benefit families across the state. William Sanson, a pipeline builder with family in southern Minnesota, said that part of the state has felt the negative impacts of increased rail traffic.
“It’s farm country, and the farmers had a hard time getting grain to market this year,” he said. “The oil cars are consuming the tracks.”
Even the Twin Cities stands to benefit from pipeline construction more than 100 miles to the north. Anoka County Commissioner Scott Schulte said the often mile-long trains are causing safety issues for the northern suburb of Coon Rapids, blocking emergency vehicles and other traffic on key county highways.
“Our rail traffic through Coon Rapids has doubled since Bakken oil has been transported by rail,” he said. “Our crossings are blocked from anywhere from eight to 12 minutes. Getting half of those trains off the rails by putting oil in the pipeline makes all the sense in the world.”
