Where to begin? First, I’ll admit… I’m a little late to the party. 15 years or so. Regardless, I’ve finally decided to look into the fuss regarding Line 5. It’s constantly in our news, and since it has to do with the Great Lakes, it’s something we should all be concerned about.
Since I try to avoid the red and blue of politics, I’ll suggest the issues surrounding Line 5 transcend those identities. Yes, libs seem to lean more to the environmental side while conservatives might favor corporate capitalism. But those labels are fluid. And though there are political influences, neither side is monolithic. Opinions on the future of Line 5 shouldn’t be assigned to any specific party or persuasion. What happens with Line 5, good or bad, will impact all of us equally.
Word on the Straits
For those just arriving, here’s a little background on the subject.
Line 5 is the Enbridge owned pipeline that travels some 645 miles from Superior, Wisconsin to Sarnia, Ontario, crossing the Straits of Mackinac, seen above, in the process. It carries up to 22 million gallons per day of light crude oil and natural gas liquids. The construction of Line 5 was completed in 1953. So yeah, we might want to check that “expired by” date.
The fossil fuels products carried by Line 5 are used in a variety of applications, too many to mention here. We’re talking about oil and everything oil facilitates. Like diesel. Gas and jet fuel. And propane.
To illustrate local impact, Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline supplies approximately 65% of the propane used in the Upper Peninsula and 55% of the state’s total propane needs.
Unless you’re hooked up to a natural gas line, or you’re all electric, or you’re off the grid entirely, you’ve got a guy like Hank Hill in your life. For “propane and propane accessories.”
So, let’s agree on this. With propane needs alone, the fuel transported by Line 5 is very important. We aren’t quite past the need for fossil fuels. Yet. The transition to renewables is in progress, but still faces well-entrenched practices in the fossil fuel industry.
The Controversy
Like other controversies of our time, Line 5 didn’t become a big headline until the industry suffered an environmental disaster. The 2010 Kalamazoo River spill heightened public awareness, and in particular, scrutiny on Enbridge, the fuel delivery company responsible. Environmental groups and state officials began questioning the safety and general condition of the dual Line 5 pipelines Enbridge has resting under the Straits of Mackinac.
Oh boy. An oil spill in the Kalamazoo River is one thing… somewhat localized. The possibility of an oil spill in the Great Lakes gets everyone’s attention. Enbridge was suddenly on the cusp of becoming our very own Exxon Valdez.
Line 5, at least the 4.5 mile stretch bisecting lakes Huron and Michigan, was now on the green agenda.
Protest and a Plan
Environmental organizations, as well as Michigan’s tribal nations, began the fight by declaring Line 5 to be a threat too real to be ignored. The plea was for Line 5 to be shut down. Let Enbridge figure out another way to transport their product. One that won’t cause an environmental disaster of epic proportions.
Though Enbridge stands by the reliability of Line 5, claiming no significant spills in its 70 plus years of operation, they came up with a proposal to placate the naysayers… the construction of an underground tunnel to house the aging pipeline.
Here’s where it gets tricky. Though it seems like a tunnel would be a reasonable solution to address the concerns, many, if not most Line 5 detractors have not been moved. The demand to shut down Line 5 is as fervent as ever. And they don’t want no damn tunnel either. (My words.)
The Michigan League of Conservation Voters is just one environmental group calling for the end of Line 5, asserting on their website, “A Line 5 rupture would impact 700 miles of Great Lakes shoreline, take years to clean up, and would devastate our Great Lakes economy — putting 214,000 Michigan tourism jobs at risk. The Great Lakes are 20% of the world’s freshwater — we can’t afford to contaminate them with oil.”
The advocacy group, “Oil and Water Don’t Mix,” is also front and center in the fight to close down Line 5. Along with a coalition of other environmental organizations, they’re using all available tools to stop the flow and end a practice they believe is unnecessary and unsafe. They say there are alternatives to the pipeline, and the tunnel, which haven’t been fully examined.
It’s Complicated
Are you still with me? I’m trying to keep this as simple as possible, without omitting relevant information. I’m linking with sites that can help you dive deeper, at your own leisure.
The tunnel idea got rolling back in 2018, when, near the end of his term, Former Governor Rick Snyder set the wheels in motion to pave the way for the big dig, Michigan style.
Gretchen Whitmer, when running to become governor, campaigned with a pledge to shut down Line 5, and in 2021 attempted to do just that. She ordered the closure of the line but was overruled by a federal court.
Now, nearing her final days in office, it looks like she’s punting, and leaving it up to the state’s environmental agencies, and the courts. The project was greenlighted by the Michigan Public Service Commission and EGLE, only to be temporarily shot down by the courts for a more thorough examination of the impact of a tunnel, and other options. A rare win for the opposition.
For their part, Enbridge is trying to say all the right things as they present the tunnel as the best of the alternative delivery strategies. Others include trucking, rail, or a pipeline that circumvents the Great Lakes altogether and never leaves Canada.
Canada, by the way, is actually a big player in this. The oil comes from the fields in western Canada and ends up in Ontario. And they ultimately use the lion’s share of the final product. Basically, Michigan is just a convenient short cut, thank you very much.
Anyway, one theory on the tunnel proposal is that Enbridge is just trying to delay having to do anything other than what they’re doing right now. Every day that passes without spending a whole lot of money on a tunnel is music to the Enbridge ears.
And every day that passes is one day closer to the unthinkable. Even if the tunnel were to get through the multiple layers of approvals and court challenges, it would still be years away from hosting Line 5 in its protective shell. The tunnel boring machine itself, grinding away at 40 feet a day, will take about two years to connect the peninsulas.
That’s why the focus is still on the closing of Line 5, now.
Local Impact
I reached out to Dan Harrington of U.P. Propane to get some local perspective from an industry insider. He confirmed that they do get a large amount of product from Line 5, but have options were it to cease operations.
Other than that, Harrington doesn’t see the need to change what’s working. “I believe the line is safe and reliable. It has a track record.”
As for the tunnel? “I don’t think it’s necessary. Unfortunately, it’s the consumers who will have to pay for it.”
Harrington also says the implications of using trucks for transport would have a negative impact both financially and environmentally. “10,000 trucks and trailers at a cost of 2 billion dollars. Diesel fuel consumed would be 920,000 gallons per day, at a cost of 2.76 million dollars per day, or just over a billion dollars per year. We may need another pipeline just to supply that. The environmental impact of that much diesel fuel consumption would not be small.” He’s not wrong.
The Courts Have a Say
I won’t go into detail about the judicial ramifications. This is “Line 5 for Dummies,” remember? And this dummie is not qualified to explain the impact of all the court proceedings, of which there will be many. Suffice it to say, the lawyers will win again.
What Does it All Mean?
In summary… whew, Enbridge wants to keep Line 5 open, but is proposing a tunnel as an alternative. Environmentalists and Michigan tribal entities want Line 5 shut down before age or an accident cause a rupture and a catastrophe. And they don’t want a tunnel, which they also consider to be a threat to the straits’ sensitive ecosystem.
I mentioned the transition to renewables. Proponents of that movement include Bill McKibben, author, educator, and activist. “How stupid is it to put up a potentially century-long fossil fuel infrastructure project right at the moment the rest of the world is headed in the entirely different direction. We should be winding down our fossil fuel infrastructure, not building it anew.” He’s not wrong either.
On November 3rd, we’ll be electing the people who have a say in how this all goes down. Choose wisely.
I guess the party is far from over. Glad I finally made it. I think.