Enbridge Line 3 alternate route recommendation means more risks facing investors

Press release - April 23, 2018
Greenpeace responds to Minnesota Administrative Law Judge's recommendation of an alternate, non-preferred route for Enbridge’s Line 3 pipeline.

23 April 2018 (EDMONTON) — In response to the Minnesota Administrative Law Judge's recommendation of an alternate, non-preferred route for Enbridge’s Line 3 pipeline, Greenpeace Canada Climate & Energy Campaigner Mike Hudema said:

“Anytime you hear ‘alternate route’ it means more costs and longer delays and that’s not good news for the pipeline and its investors. In addition to greater costs that would be associated with the alternative route, Enbridge’s pipeline still faces several hurdles it cannot overcome. Line 3 earned a negative recommendation from the Minnesota Department of Commerce, it lacks consent from impacted Indigenous communities, grassroots resistance on the ground continues to grow, and more and more financial institutions are turning their backs on tar sands projects. 

"As both Kinder Morgan and Justin Trudeau are discovering, tar sands pipelines are a reputational, political and economic liability. Europe’s two biggest banks have now publicly refused to provide project financing for new tar sands pipelines like Line 3 and Keystone XL. Meanwhile, the viability of Kinder Morgan’s pipeline is teetering on the edge of collapse in the face of delays, First Nations' court challenges and public opposition. So, the question for Minnesota regulators in June is, why take on the risk when there is no future for tar sands pipelines?"

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission will make a decision on the project in June, which is expected to take the Judge’s recommendation into account.




Jesse Firempong, Communications Officer, Greenpeace Canada, 778-996-6549,