STPAUL, Minn. – The Minnesota Appeals Court voted 2-1 to allow Enbridge Energy to complete its Line 3 oil pipeline through northern Minnesota’s boreal forests and swampy Mississippi River headwaters. Judge Lucinda Jesson acknowledged environmental risks but said the original Line 3 line, now 60 years old, was even more a risk. “With an existing, deteriorating pipeline carrying crude oil through Minnesota, there was no option without environmental consequences,” Jesson wrote. “The challenge: To balance those harms.” Judge Michael Kirk shared the opinion. About tribal objections, Jesson said: ”There was no option without impacts on the rights of Indigenous peoples. The challenge: To alleviate those harms to the extent possible.” She softened the impact of the decision by suggesting that declines in global demand for oil may render the pipeline moot gradually: “There was no crystal ball to forecast demand for crude oil in this ever-changing environment.” Judge Peter Reyes was the lone dissenter: “Enbridge needs Minnesota for its new pipeline, but Enbridge has not shown that Minnesota needs the pipeline.”

Earlier:  Cops use bolt-cutters, sonic weaponry on protestors

Earlier: U.S. pipeline paths a crisis for Canada leadership

Earlier: Federal judge OKs Line 3 replacement

The issues

The Canadian Enbridge company had sought a state Public Utilities Commission certificate to build a 337-mile Minnesota segment of a larger project to replace a 1960s-era Line 3. The $7 billion project is complete except for the Minnesota leg, which is about 60% complete. The pipeline was badly deteriorated and running at only half capacity. The commission granted the certificate.

Objections came from tribes, environmentalists and the state Department of Commerce. They argued that Enbridge failed to meet the legal requirements. Their argument: The heavy tar-sand oil carried by Line 3 would accelerate climate change. Also: Spills would jeopardize treaty-protected tribal lands where Indians harvest wild rice, hunt and fish, and gather medicinal plants.

Enbridge argued that the replacement Line 3 would be made of stronger steel and will better protect the environment while restoring its capacity to carry oil and ensure reliable deliveries to U.S. refineries.

The Line 3 replacement would carry Canadian tar sands oil and regular crude from Alberta to Enbridge’s terminal in Superior, Wisconsin.