One aspect missing in the conversation about Line 3 is the life cycle of the old pipeline.
This project is what you would expect a responsible company to do when faced with aging infrastructure that needs to be replaced. And aging is an understatement when you consider that the current Line 3 is more than 60 years old.
If you had a piece of equipment that’s going to cost you a fixed amount to maintain on an annual basis, would you keep spending the money to fix it or look at replacing it with something that is a safer, modern, more advanced alternative that lasts even longer than the original asset would last? We make major adjustments and fixes to our roads and bridges. Why should a pipeline be any different?
RELATED: Read more letters to the editor
Line 3 supplies the crude oil we need to refine and distill into fuels and make components that are part of products we use every day. Some of that oil is refined in Superior, Wis., and provides most of the gasoline used in the Northland. Other byproducts are used to make medicines, medical devices, and hundreds of other household products.
On Earth Day, Line 3 pipeline opponents made noise about the negatives surrounding this project, but the facts are clear and this project will improve, not hurt, our environment.
Simply put, this is the safest and best option for protecting our environment and our communities while delivering the energy we need, and I’m glad that Enbridge has made the investment.