Enbridge laying pipe for Line 3 in Minnesota

Enbridge has started trenching and welding for its 760,000 b/d Line 3 crude pipeline replacement in Minnesota, which is on track to start service in the fourth quarter.

The right of way is "mostly clear" and the company is welding pipes on seven spreads, Enbridge said today while reporting fourth quarter earnings.

The company raised the official price-tag for the overall Line 3 replacement by 13pc to $7.3bn (C$9.3bn) because of regulatory delays in Minnesota, extra costs for building in winter, expenses related to building in a Covid-19 environment, and enhancements to environmental protections and construction techniques.

The overall project will replace and expand capacity on Line 3 from Alberta in western Canada to Wisconsin, proving more export capacity for Canadian crude. Line 3 has been running at 390,000 b/d in recent years and will be expanded to 760,000 b/d.

The roughly 300-mile (692km) Minnesota segment is the last one needed to complete the project and was delayed because of regulatory and legal issues. The sections in Canada, Wisconsin, and North Dakota are already built.

The project has seen opposition from environmental groups and Native American tribes as the route crosses an area that local tribes value for wild rice, hunting and fishing.

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) in November issued a construction storm water permit for the project, the latest in a string of approvals including a final permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers.

The MPCA also issued a water quality certification for Line 3 which requires Enbridge to meet 35 conditions to ensure compliance with state water quality standards, including mitigation and post-construction restoration requirements, seasonal restrictions, and protections for wild rice waters.

Minnesota regulators in February approved a revised environmental review for the Line 3 project following a ruling by the Minnesota Court of Appeals in June 2019 that the original environmental review was inadequate because it did not address the potential ramifications of an oil spill into the Lake Superior watershed.

By Eunice Bridges