In this post:
- ‘Drop the Charges’ petition launched for water protectors arrested during Line 3 resistance
- Recent videos of frac out sites near the Mississippi Headwaters available
- Indigenous groups engaged in ongoing Line 3 monitoring, including thermal imaging
- The Star Tribune’s uncritical eye on Line 3 revisited
‘Drop the Charges’ petition launched for water protectors arrested during Line 3 resistance
A petition drive began today to pressure public officials to ‘Drop the Charges‘ against hundreds of water protectors with open criminal cases.
These people were “standing in defense of the water, the climate, and the treaty rights of the Anishinaabeg people,” the website said. It continued:
These individuals put their bodies on the line to stop Enbridge’s Line 3 pipeline, a massive tar sands project that threatens the state’s lakes, rivers, aquifers and wild rice beds. Police forces – directly funded by Enbridge – have responded to this massive movement with surveillance, harassment, physical torture (“pain compliance”), and trumped-up charges, including felonies. In this time of climate catastrophe, governments must listen to water protectors instead of criminalizing and prosecuting them.
Water protectors have been doing the work that the State of Minnesota should be doing. Drop the charges!
Click on the link above to learn more and sign the petition.
Recent videos of frac out sites near the Mississippi Headwaters available
Check out these one-minute videos of the Enbridge Line 3 route at Coffee Pot Landing near the Mississippi Headwaters. This is where Enbridge drilled under the river and surrounding wetlands and had a frac out, where the drilling fluid breaks out of the drilling tunnel and escapes into the surrounding wetlands and river. These videos were taken about a week ago.
Indigenous groups engaged in ongoing Line 3 monitoring, including thermal imaging
With little if any confidence that state regulators are doing their job monitoring Line 3-related environmental problems, Indigenous groups are raising money for more sophisticated equipment to monitor for themselves.
According to a Star Tribune report
Thermal imaging is a new direction for the Indigenous-led Line 3 opposition. It comes as state environmental regulators investigate whether construction crews damaged aquifers at two locations along the Line 3 route, in addition to the major aquifer breach in Clearwater County for which energy company Enbridge has been fined. The state’s latest estimates are that the breach has spilled about 50 million gallons of groundwater, up from previous estimates of around 24 million gallons.
Stay tuned.
The Star Tribune’s uncritical eye on Line 3 revisited
In his book 1984, George Orwell wrote: “Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”
In a recent Star Tribune story on Line 3, Enbridge served up a double scoop of doublethink and the Pulitzer Prize-winning publication swallowed it whole, without even a burp.
On Oct. 4, the Star Tribune ran the article: Oil flows through Line 3, but cleanup work remains at site of ruptured aquifer. The subhead was: “Breach threatens a rare biodiversity hot spot in Clearwater County.”
Enbridge made “a significant blunder” in puncturing the aquifer, the story said. Then, Enbridge “failed to tell regulators about it for several months.” Then Enbridge only started a major clean-up when state regulators forced the issue.
The Star Tribune dutifully printed Enbridge’s response uncritically.
“Enbridge said it has been monitoring the rupture since January and is working closely with the DNR [Department of Natural Resources],” the story reported.
Where were the follow up questions: “How can you say Enbridge was working hand-in-hand with the DNR when the rupture happened in January and the DNR didn’t learn about it until June, and even then more by happenstance? Why did you wait until state regulators to require it before you started clean-up operations? That doesn’t sound like the practices of a company that cares about the environment?
The story cited Enbridge spokesperson Juli Kellner, who said: “We share a strong desire to protect Minnesota waters and the environment, and we are committed to restoration,” she said.
Where’s the follow up question: “How can you expect to take Enbridge at its word when your actions regarding the aquifer breach clearly show you lack a desire protect Minnesota’s waters and environment?”
If Enbridge doesn’t answer the questions, point it out in the story. The paper isn’t required to simply reprint self-serving and empty PR spin that avoids the question.
Returning to 1984: War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Environmental destruction is environmental protection.
healingmnstories.wordpress.com 