Letter to the editor: Support for Enbridge's Line 3 replacement project
While energy and fuel are most often cited as reasons for the Line 3 replacement project, petroleum byproducts are another critical need. I can speak to that personally.
Last year my 5-year-old son had two seizures after coming home from kindergarten. When I arrived from work, the medics had inserted an IV into his arm and a plastic breathing tube into his nose as we headed to the hospital. Once there, the medical staff put him through testing that included X-rays, CT and EEG scans and numerous other tests.
It's hard to imagine what my son's treatment and recovery would have been like if the medical professionals hadn't had access to petroleum-based medical products that were used in his care as well as the gas in the ambulance, the tires on the vehicle and the pavement on the road.
Looking back one year removed, it makes any parent realize just how important all of these products are to our health and welfare.
Additionally, the fundamental purpose of the Line 3 replacement project is for safety. There is a quantifiable need to replace this older pipeline with an equivalent new, upgraded - and safer - pipeline that moves the same amount of product of the original pipeline installed over 50 years ago.
By replacing Line 3, Enbridge is investing in the protection and safety of our environment and most importantly for the safety of Minnesotans, not because it's the easy investment, but because it's the right investment.
That's why I support the Enbridge Line 3 replacement project.