Minnesota PUC to review Enbridge oil pipeline expansion

  • Article by: David Shaffer , Star Tribune
  • Updated: September 5, 2013 - 7:53 AM

Enbridge Energy’s plan to boost the carrying capacity of a crude oil pipeline through Minnesota will go to a contested-case review, a hearing similar to a trial.

  • 8
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 8 of 8
davehougSep. 4, 1311:14 AM

The fight against the Minnesota line expansion is the latest effort by climate change activists to erect barriers to Canadian oil imports with the goal of curbing greenhouse gas emissions. - - - Not sure how stopping a pipeline stops greenhouse gas. The oil WILL move just via rail with more CO2 used and higher risk to public. If the goal was less CO2 and safety, wouldn't advocates ASK for a pipeline???

6
5
honeybooSep. 4, 1311:21 AM

Doesn't the PUC ave anything to do?

5
4
ruphinaSep. 4, 1311:22 AM

refusing to allow the upgrade means about 1000 tank cars streaming across northern MN a day each way. Bill G.

8
4
JPetersen3Sep. 4, 1312:21 PM

Three points: 'davehoug': the tar sands oil takes an enormous amount of energy to extract and process. It's a sulfurous crude that does increase the CO2 output from the fuels generated and leads to destruction of the land from which it is taken. 'honeyboo': It's the JOB of the PUC to look into issues like environmental and workplace safety when there are massive projects like this. 'rupina': Yup. More tankers. But maybe we should just start conserving, buy fewer low mileage SUVs and trucks and upgrade the rail infrastructure to make such shipping safer.

3
4
ti1310Sep. 4, 13 4:02 PM

---Three points: 'davehoug': the tar sands oil takes an enormous amount of energy to extract and process. It's a sulfurous crude that does increase the CO2 output from the fuels generated and leads to destruction of the land from which it is taken. 'honeyboo': It's the JOB of the PUC to look into issues like environmental and workplace safety when there are massive projects like this. 'rupina': Yup. More tankers. But maybe we should just start conserving, buy fewer low mileage SUVs and trucks and upgrade the rail infrastructure to make such shipping safer.---- All the issues you bring up the PUC does not have the ability to control. Furthermore the crude will get moved, one way or another, it can be done efficiently and safely via the line. If its not approved they will move it by rail or truck. If you feel that strongly about this then you need to take the issue up with the Canadian Govt..

5
1
Lifeguard06Sep. 4, 13 4:32 PM

Let me get this straight the pipeline runs across northern Minnesota, why was the hearing in the twin cities? Couldn't the University of Minnesota at Crookston or Duluth or bemidji state university have hosted the commission's hearing so you know us northerners could have attended? Or if they did that would too many people who favor the pipeline attend. After all enbridge is the largest property tax payer in Polk county.

3
1
unemployableSep. 4, 1310:08 PM

At a 6% toll for allowing the oil to be transported through Minnesota we could lower our taxes by 1.8 billion per year;)

3
1
FrankLSep. 12, 13 3:34 PM

Why does some crackpot group get to be involved? They have no standing. This seems to be a technical issue for engineers to decide. Can the pipeline safely handle higher pressures? If it can then there is no reason to stop the project.

0
0
  • 1 - 8 of 8

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT