This is in response to the recent Pioneer article concerning the University of Minnesota Duluth economic report on the Enbridge Line 3 replacement pipeline and Jim Lucachick's letter to the editor (June 17). When reviewing the actual U of M Duluth document it appears little consideration was given to the disclaimer or notes. Although the Pioneer article states that the study was commissioned by pipeline backers, it neglected to state that the data was also supplied by Enbridge.
The Pioneer Sandpiper editorial (April 18) leaves a lot to be desired. Yes, we all use and need oil. Does that mean that the oil industry can place pipelines across our country anyplace they want? Does the industry know something we do not? They must, because Enbridge stockpiled pipe along their proposed route. This was done long before the hearings and recent "certificate of need" recommendation of Judge Lipman. Approval is still needed by Minnesota Department of Commerce (DOC) and Public Utilities Commission (PUC). Arrogance? North Dakota apparently has extremely lax oil laws.
This is in regard to the letter from Tim Neft of the Beltrami County Farm Bureau (Sept. 12) urging Pioneer readers to write the governor and legislators in support of the proposed Sandpiper Pipeline in order to reduce the transportation of crude oil via rail line; thus making more room to get grain crops to market. This is a valid consideration.