MPR continues to disappoint in its coverage of Enbridge Line 3.
Today’s MPR story: Dayton: No ‘viable way’ to build new Line 3 pipeline on current route includes the following lines:
The governor said he is not taking a position on the issue [Line 3] until the Public Utilities Commission decides whether to give Enbridge its blessing to construct the Line 3 replacement.
Comment: This is a sin of omission. The story fails to acknowledge that Gov. Dayton’s own Department of Commerce issued a statement September 11 stating Minnesota did not need Line 3:
Oil market analysis indicates that Enbridge has not established a need for the proposed project; the pipeline would primarily benefit areas outside Minnesota; and serious environmental and socioeconomic risks and effects outweigh limited benefits.
Further, that same day Commerce released its analysis, Gov. Dayton issued a statement saying:
“The Minnesota Department of Commerce has filed its review of Enbridge’s proposed Line 3 Pipeline project. I commend the Department’s professional staff for its very comprehensive analysis.
Lastly, an MPR ran a story that day with the headline: State better off without Enbridge oil pipeline, Dayton agency says.
Seems like the Sept. 25 story left out important context.
That is the lesser of my MPR complaints. Continue reading