I recently read an article in another newspaper that seemed rather biased against the Line 3 replacement project that is currently under construction. This piece seemed to be utilizing pipeline opponent talking points that claim the pipeline will drastically increase greenhouse gas emissions, when the Public Utilities Commission, the Department of Commerce and Enbridge show evidence to the contrary.

While opponents might disagree with the PUC ruling on this matter, this article certainly stretches the facts. Oil is here to stay, at least for the foreseeable future, which means that it is required to get that oil to market, and transporting by pipeline is the most safe and efficient way to do that.

It is important to ask: What is the alternative? To transport the same oil by train or truck? This would increase greenhouse gas emissions at a far greater rate. In fact, the Environmental Impact Study for this project states that if we took the full amount of oil that will be transported via Line 3 to other methods, it would be equivalent to 10 trains of 110 cars each, or 4,000 tanker trucks daily.

Greenhouse gas emissions largely come from the usage of oil. And the amount of oil that would be used to transport even more oil by any means other than the pipeline should be of much more concern.

Remember that all issues have multiple sides, and it is disappointing that the recent article on Line 3 was so one sided against this crucial project for our state.

Newsletter signup for email alerts

Greg J. Gallas, Rochester