Where things stand
The section of pipeline in Minnesota is about 60 percent complete
There are some legal issues in the court that could slow or stop the project
Protesters are maintaining a presence along the current route
What is the Line 3 project?
Enbridge, based in Calgary, Alberta, is building an oil pipeline running southeast from Canada's tar sands region to Lake Superior's western tip near the Minnesota-Wisconsin border. The pipeline replaces Enbridge's current Line 3, but with a larger line along a different route.
Enbridge says the existing Line 3 pipeline, built in the 1960s, needs to be replaced because it's corroded and cracked and requires extensive ongoing maintenance. As a result, it can't carry as much oil as it once could. It also means the line can't carry heavier grades of crude that come out of the oil sands region.
The company is building along a new route that avoids the reservation of the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, which opposed locating the new line across its land. Find a map of the current route here.
What's the argument for replacing Line 3?
Enbridge has long said that the rationale for building a new Line 3 is driven by safety and maintenance concerns. The company says it’s much safer to build a new pipeline, using modern construction methods, than operating an aging, corroding pipe with a history of significant leaks.
Line 3 supporters also point out that society's demand for oil is still huge, and that pipelines are a safer option for transporting crude than trains or trucks.
Originally, Line 3 could carry 760,000 barrels of oil a day. But as the line has aged, it can only handle about half that amount. A new Line 3 would boost capacity back to its original level.
What are the arguments against it?
Environmental groups, activists and some northern Minnesota Ojibwe bands argue that building Line 3 opens up a new part of the state to the possibility of an oil spill, which could threaten lakes, rivers and wild rice waters. The new pipeline corridor crosses several waterways, including the Mississippi River twice.
The nation's biggest inland oil spill happened in 1991 on the current Line 3 near Grand Rapids, Minn. The line has leaked crude other times, too.
They also say building the project would exacerbate global climate change. They argue that by allowing the construction and operation of the new Line 3, we are locking in the transport and use of more carbon-intensive oil for decades to come. They say blocking Line 3 would keep that oil in the ground, reducing carbon emissions.
An environmental review conducted for the project found the societal costs of climate change that might result from Line 3 could reach $287 billion over the next 30 years.
But in approving the project, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission found that not building Line 3 would not significantly reduce demand for Canadian oil. Rather, the PUC said more crude would likely be shipped “via more dangerous means such as rail.”
Lastly, opponents also say the project threatens Native American rights to hunt, fish and gather wild rice on land outside reservation borders where tribal members have retained those rights, as outlined in several treaties with the U.S. government.
What’s the expected economic impact?
Enbridge promised that the project would create about 4,200 construction jobs in Minnesota over the two-year construction period. It is expected to fill about half of those locally.
The company also has said the Line 3 project would inject millions of dollars into local economies through the payment of property taxes, the purchase of local materials and workers staying in hotels and eating at restaurants.
The actual economic impact isn’t yet determined. Line 3 opponents point out that the pipeline is expected to create only about 20 permanent jobs.
How far along is construction?
Work is finished in Canada, North Dakota and Wisconsin and, as of mid-June, is 60 percent complete in Minnesota, where 337 miles of new pipe is being laid. A new section veers south around reservation land of the Leech Lake tribe, which objected to the project. The detour adds about 50 miles to the length.
What’s happening in the courts?
Tribal and environmental groups have asked the Minnesota Supreme Court to overturn a lower court decision on Line 3, which affirmed the approvals by state regulators that allowed construction to begin.
The Minnesota Department of Commerce was part of the earlier challenge, arguing that Enbridge failed to prove that the new pipeline is needed. The commerce department has not joined the latest appeal.
Line 3 opponents also have challenged the project’s state and federal water permits, and appealed to the Biden administration to cancel the project. But so far, there’s been no indication that the administration plans to do so.
In fact, the administration said in a court filing last month that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which issued the federal water permit, met all requirements under federal law.
State and federal judges have refused to halt construction while the cases proceed.
What’s happening with protests?
At the beginning of June, hundreds of Line 3 protesters, who call themselves water protectors, gathered at pump stations and river crossings. Numbers have gone down somewhat since then, but resistance efforts are expected to continue throughout the summer.
Opponents are focusing on blocking the rebuilding project along its route. Some strategies have included blocking roads and locking themselves to construction equipment.
Several celebrities — including Leonardo DiCaprio, Jane Fonda and Danny Glover — have joined the cause by urging President Joe Biden to cancel the project.
What other concerns do people have about the project?
Opponents of Line 3, including indigenous groups, raised concerns about a potential rise in sex trafficking in the region as the state was debating whether to approve the project.
Last month, local and state officials arrested six men during a sting operation to combat human trafficking in Beltrami County. Two of the men arrested were working for a subcontractor on Line 3.
Two pipeline workers were arrested in a different sex trafficking sting in Itasca County earlier this year.
Enbridge says the workers were fired, and all workers are required to complete human trafficking awareness training.
Your support matters.
You make MPR News possible. Individual donations are behind the clarity in coverage from our reporters across the state, stories that connect us, and conversations that provide perspectives. Help ensure MPR remains a resource that brings Minnesotans together.