Whatever they think about oil pipelines crossing the state, Minnesotans need to rely on a clear and predictable review process.

That hasn’t happened on the long and tangled permitting-process path for Enbridge Energy’s Sandpiper Pipeline.

The proposed 600-mile line — described by the company as a $2.6 billion infrastructure project — would cross North Dakota and northern Minnesota, bringing oil from the Bakken reserves to a terminal in Superior, Wisconsin, from which it would be distributed to refineries.

Enbridge expresses disappointment with the long process, acknowledging at a meeting with the editorial board this month that proceedings, both in court and before regulators, have left its work substantially behind schedule.

The proceedings have included what’s considered an unusual step by the state’s Public Utilities Commission, separating consideration of project need from routing.

In a meeting earlier this month that dragged on for more than seven hours, those matters were rejoined, according to a commission spokesman, and the commission decided that an Environmental Impact Statement — the subject of court action — will go forward. Enbridge officials had told us they agreed to preparation of the impact statement in an effort to keep things moving.

There’s frustration among opponents, as well. With the downturn in the oil market, “it’s an excellent time for the state to say, ‘Whoa,’ “ said Richard Smith, president of Friends of the Headwaters, an organization dedicated to protecting the source of the Mississippi River and its surroundings in northern Minnesota.

“Let’s just step back; let’s look at this whole process. Right now it’s not really working. It’s kind of a mess.”

Smith makes a meaningful point about the challenges citizens face when they seek to make their voices heard as such complex proceedings unfold: “We’re just private citizens,” he told us, emphasizing the volunteer nature of the organization. “It’s difficult to understand some of the statutes and rules around all of this,” he contends. “It takes a while for us to figure that out.”

Further, the utilities commission’s process for engaging the public isn’t “particularly friendly,” Smith said. “I think they would just prefer to deal with the company.”

While Smith’s organization expresses reservations about the routing near various waters of Sandpiper and Enbridge’s Line 3 — a project that would combine both an existing route and a new one to replace an aging pipeline — opponents like MN350 include climate concerns among their objections.

The biggest single take-away from recent climate talks in Paris, said Andy Pearson, MN350’s Midwest tar sands coordinator, is that we need to keep “carbon in the ground.”

“The era of fossil fuels has got to be wrapping up,” he said. “Building the pipeline is a way of continuing that for decades.”

Winona LaDuke, executive director of the native-led organization Honor the Earth, contends that need for the pipeline is “manufactured” and that the proposed lines threaten areas that are “the lifeblood of our people.”

In the meantime, however, oil trains rumble across the state, feeding demand that isn’t going away anytime soon.

Gov. Mark Dayton, who has said he supports Sandpiper, brought attention to the matter this fall in a letter to a railroad executive that called into question the increased routing of such trains through the state.

With the added traffic — including that near such people-packed locations as Target Field, Target Center and the University of Minnesota, Dayton said — an additional 99,000 people now are living within the half-mile evacuation zone of crude oil routes, bringing the statewide total to more than 425,000.

We consumers rely on the petroleum that rides the rails, and it’s going to move, one way or another.

Enbridge contends that pipelines are the safest and most efficient way to move oil. As much as 70 percent of North Dakota crude is transported by rail or truck — much of it through Minnesota, the company says, noting that Sandpiper’s capacity will free up rail cars to move other products, including the state’s valuable agricultural commodities.

The company also says Sandpiper will create 1,500 construction jobs, and that it expects to pay an additional $25 million in annual Minnesota property taxes after the line’s first year in operation.

Enbridge applied to build the Sandpiper in the fall of 2013. Its timetable called for concluding design, public outreach and permitting early this year, with construction beginning in 2016 and completion in 2017.

When it comes to making judgments about tapping and moving the Earth’s resources, we’ve maintained we Minnesotans can do so with more confidence — under our stringent and exacting environmental requirements — than folks elsewhere, without those standards.

Diligence is good, and so is facing facts: Oil is going to move; moving it safely and efficiently must be a priority; compromise is useful.

The stringent process by which we make decisions about how it moves should give us confidence in the decision, provided that process is followed, and that it’s predictable — for everyone involved.

 

— St. Paul Pioneer Press, Dec. 26