Letter to the Editor: Tar sands oil not needed
French bank BNP Parabus recently joined other international lenders such as Dutch bank ING and the Royal Bank of Scotland in shutting down any investments in Canadian tar sands oil.
Meanwhile, at least seven major oil producers, including Royal Dutch Shell, Marathon, Statoil and even Koch Industries, are exiting tar sands oil production by either selling off or writing down their Canadian tar sands assets.
With investors and oil companies pulling out of tar sands production, one wonders what producers will be left to ship the world's most polluting and expensive-to-produce oil?
And the tar sands glunk, which a new Line 3 pipeline would carry, is scheduled to cross some of Minnesota's cleanest and most iconic waters en route to Enbridge's Superior, Wisconsin, terminal, there to be dispersed to refineries outside of Minnesota. Enbridge has already achieved new transport capacity of tar sands to their Superior terminal with its Line 67, a capacity equivalent to Enbridge's stated need to increase capacity on Line 3.
With minimal (if any) benefit to Minnesota, why should we take all the associated environmental and socioeconomic risks with a new tar sands pipeline?
The Minnesota Department of Commerce nailed it when they concluded, "Minnesota would be better off if Enbridge proposed to cease operations of the existing Line 3, without any new pipeline being built."
If jobs are an issue there should be plenty available when the old Line 3 is removed.