Tag: Shut Down Line 5

What Enbridge Really Knows About the Risk of a Line 5 Rupture in the Straits of Mackinac

Published on May 17th, 2024 by - Blog Posts

“Safety. It’s a core value that makes us Enbridge. It’s our way of life.”
Enbridge, Our Commitment

 

Universally considered among the most vulnerable, at-risk pipelines in the world, the 4-mile segment of Line 5 crossing the Straits of Mackinac, where Lake Michigan and Lake Huron meet, is quite literally, an accident waiting to happen.

Line 5: America’s Most Dangerous Pipeline

Owned and operated by Canadian corporation Enbridge, the 71-year-old dual pipelines known as Line 5 no longer rest on the lakebed floor as the original engineers in the early 1950s had planned. Due to massive erosion and lakebed scouring from the strong lake currents, Line 5 is now haphazardly tethered and suspended above the bottom of the Straits of Mackinac by more than 200 supports added over time.

And yet every day, this high-wire act moves 23 million gallons of oil and natural gas liquids through the water. Given the extraordinary currents in the Straits, the structural integrity of the now-elevated pipelines is a continuing concern, second only to the ever-present risk of an anchor strike from a passing ship rupturing one or both of the pipelines.

The chasm between Enbridge’s public statements regarding its pipeline safety measures and Enbridge’s internal understanding of the actual risk of Line 5 failing catastrophically should alarm everyone in the Great Lakes region.

Like the oil industry concealing its long-held understanding of the climate effects of fossil fuel combustion, or the denials of the tobacco companies regarding the cancer risks from smoking, Enbridge has deceived the public by underplaying its internal findings that Line 5 could rupture at any time.

In its public statements, Enbridge assures the public that everything is fine. But Enbridge’s internal assessment of the risk of a catastrophic oil spill from a Line 5 failure is at odds with its PR statements. And its commitment to safety appears as porous as its pipelines.

The Anchor Strike Threat: Immediate, Incontrovertible, and Fully Acknowledged by Enbridge

Shipping on the Great Lakes accounts for nearly 40% of total cross-border trade between the US and Canada, and the Straits of Mackinac are one of the busiest shipping lanes in the region. Each year, hundreds of cargo vessels – some measuring 1,000 feet and carrying as much as 70,000 tons of cargo – pass through the turbulent 5-mile wide strait, and directly over Line 5.

In 2015, Dynamic Risk Assessment Systems, Inc. conducted a comprehensive risk analysis of the Straits pipelines. The analysis found that the risk of a pipeline-anchor incident depends largely on four “vulnerability factors”:

  1. size of the pipeline;
  2. water depth (relative to anchor chain length);
  3. pipeline protection (depth of burial, use of armoring material); and
  4. number and size distribution of ship crossings per unit of time.

The report found that the Line 5 pipelines scored high on all four risk factors:

“[I]t must be noted that with respect to the above vulnerability factors, the Straits Crossing segments cross a busy shipping lane…They are also situated in water that is shallow, relative to the anchor chain lengths of most cargo vessels. Furthermore, a 20-in. diameter pipeline is small enough to fit between the shank and flukes [emphasis added] of a stockless anchor for a large cargo vessel, and thus, is physically capable of being hooked.”


[Illustration of the approximate size of a Great Lakes freighter anchor relative to Line 5. Click to enlarge.]

The Dynamic Risk report concluded that the chance of a pipeline rupture caused by an anchor strike in the Straits within the next 35 years is one in sixty. Those are the same odds that the average person has of being involved in a traffic accident this year.

In a 2018 Enbridge commissioned report, Enbridge acknowledged the threat of an anchor strike in the section titled: Potential Impacts of Anchor Drops and Drags.

“Dragging of an anchor across an unburied pipeline may result in impact, pull-over or, less frequently, a hooking interaction with the pipeline. A large-diameter pipeline could safely resist the pull-over anchor loads of small vessels, but anchor loads of larger vessels could potentially pull the pipeline beyond its bending capacity [emphasis added]. If an anchor is dragging along the lakebed and is not pulled over the pipeline, it could be hooked under the pipeline.” (p. 21)

Predictably, Line 5 has been struck by at least three anchor strikes or cable drags in the last 5 years – even with heightened scrutiny – that have damaged the pipelines or severed nearby transmission cables.

Documented Anchor Strikes on Line 5

In April 2018, the tug Clyde S. Van Enkevort in articulated combination with the barge Erie Trader, dragged an anchor and chain over both Line 5 pipelines. The large anchor, weighing 12,000 pounds, dented the pipelines and easily could have ruptured either the eastern or western pipeline had the anchor’s fluke caught a pipeline. The same incident severed electrical cables in the Straits close to Line 5, releasing approximately 800 gallons of dielectric fluid into the Straits that the Coast Guard never recovered.

Enbridge sued the owner of the tug Van Enkevort. In its complaint, Enbridge’s attorneys asserted that “a reasonable vessel operator would be cognizant of the potential for severe harm to the Great Lakes should any of the pipelines and cables in the Straits of Mackinac be struck by an anchor…” [emphasis added].

In other words, Enbridge is fully aware of the dangers of running fossil fuel pipelines through the open waters of the Straits of Mackinac, and the environmental disaster that could occur.

Later inspections in May and June 2020 revealed extensive new damage to the coatings and surface of both east and west pipelines. Enbridge’s internal investigation revealed that a ship under contract to Enbridge likely dragged a cable that became entangled with a pipeline support, damaging both the support and the pipeline.

In June 2020, following the discovery of the damage and Enbridge’s admitted failure to fully notify the State of Michigan as it is required to do, Michigan Circuit Court Judge James Jamo ordered a temporary shutdown of the pipeline, writing that the risk of harm to the Great Lakes would be “not only substantial but also in some respects irreparable.”

In July 2021, another 15,000-pound anchor lost by an Enbridge-contracted vessel was found on the lakebed between the two Line 5 pipelines. Larger than the Van Enkevort anchor, if the flukes had caught either of the pipelines, disaster would have ensued.

Pipeline breaches by anchor strikes are not uncommon. The Associated Press reviewed more than 10,000 reports submitted to federal regulators and found at least 17 pipeline accidents linked to anchor strikes from 1986-2020. Federal agencies report 22 pipeline accidents in the period 1979 through 2021, all of which resulted in the release of oil.

Anchor strikes are, unfortunately, all too frequent–and the Line 5 pipelines are uniquely vulnerable.

Anchor Deployments in the Great Lakes

The Coast Guard’s realization of the apparent danger of anchor strikes and cable drags in the Straits resulted in the promulgation of a rule establishing a Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) that restricts anchoring in the area proximate to the pipelines. The RNA, however, specifically allows anchoring in the event of an emergency. A ship may deploy an anchor to protect the ship and crew in the event of a loss of power or steerage, or in the event of a collision, grounding, explosions, fires, or heavy weather.

The unfortunate reality is that vessels on the Great Lakes can lose propulsion or steerage within areas designated a “no anchor” zone.

A recent review of U.S. Coast Guard records by the Detroit News revealed that freighters on the Great Lakes lost steerage, propulsion, or electrical power more than 200 times between 2012 and 2022. When such an emergency occurs, a ship captain’s first responsibility is to protect the vessel from damage and ensure the safety of the crew by deploying anchorage.

That is precisely why the dual pipelines in the Straits are uniquely vulnerable to anchor strikes and catastrophic rupture – as affirmed by Enbridge itself. The record of the last five years alone is one of repeated anchor strikes, cable drags, and detached anchors discovered lying near the pipelines.

To justify the continued operation of Line 5 in the Straits, Enbridge touts a “suite of extra safety measures at the Line 5 Straits crossing.” They include the establishment of the Enbridge Straits Maritime Operations Center (ESMOC), the “nerve center” of the marine traffic safety system put in place by Enbridge in the Straits that ostensibly warns ships of the danger of anchoring in the Straits.

But the ESMOC has a loophole you could sail a freighter through: it can only operate as intended 1) in daylight, and 2) if weather conditions permit. But even if it operates as intended, a ship will almost certainly throw an anchor in the event of an emergency loss of power or steerage – which happens on average 20 times per year in the Great Lakes.

Only by sheer luck has the Great Lakes region avoided a multibillion-dollar economic and environmental catastrophe.

Enbridge’s calamitous safety record


Enbridge is responsible for the most destructive pipeline rupture in United States history. The July 2010 failure near Marshall, Michigan released more than 1 million gallons of diluted bitumen (known as “dilbit”) into a direct tributary of the Kalamazoo River. The rupture of Line 6B resulted in devastating impacts to human health and the environment. The Michigan Department of Community Health identified 320 individuals experiencing acute adverse health effects.

The NTSB’s accident report documented how malfeasance and mismanagement exacerbated the pipeline failure, resulting in pervasive contamination and massive ecological damage to the waters and surrounding wetlands from the oil that flowed from Marshall Creek and contaminated a 40-mile stretch of the Kalamazoo River.

Get Line 5 updates

* indicates required

The NTSB concluded that “the rupture and prolonged release were made possible by pervasive organizational failures at Enbridge. [emphasis added]” According to then NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman, “The investigation identified a complete breakdown of safety at Enbridge.” “Their employees performed like Keystone Kops and failed to recognize their pipeline had ruptured and continued to pump crude into the environment. Despite multiple alarms and a loss of pressure in the pipeline…they failed to follow their own shutdown procedures.”Since the Kalamazoo disaster, Enbridge has claimed a renewed ethic of responsible oversight and commitment, stating that the “safety of the public and the environment, and the operational reliability of our systems will always be our Number One priority.” Sued by the Environmental Protection Agency over the catastrophe, Enbridge entered into a consent decree in 2017 where it agreed to undertake a suite of pipeline monitoring and preventative measures aimed at reducing the likelihood of future pipeline failures. Enbridge paid over $177M in a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice for the Kalamazoo disaster.

While Enbridge makes much of its new safety-first principles, the record indicates a pattern of systemic noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the 2017 consent decree. Since Enbridge entered the agreement with the federal government, the United States has assessed stipulated penalties for allegedly violating the inspection requirements and other terms of the consent decree, indicating that Enbridge has repeatedly failed to implement required safety measures in a timely manner.

In total, the United States has assessed Enbridge with penalties of $16,462,000 for failing to live up to its commitments and responsibilities under the 2017 consent decree.

Even after the most consequential pipeline disaster in U.S. history that, according to Enbridge, led to sweeping safety reforms throughout the company, Enbridge was penalized six times by the United States for failing to live up to its commitments on safety.

Line 5 must be shut down now

The incident history of the Enbridge pipeline system reveals a pattern and practice of negligence and willful indifference to the strict requirements of federal pipeline safety regulations. Enbridge’s safety record speaks for itself. Data from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) indicate that the U.S. segments of Enbridge’s pipeline network experienced 215 hazardous liquids “incidents” from 2002 to August 2018 – an average of one every twenty-eight days. Line 5 alone has experienced at least thirty-three reportable leaks and spills since its installation.

There is overwhelming evidence that the dual underwater pipelines crossing the Straits of Mackinac are particularly vulnerable to catastrophic ruptures and could fail at any time – a possibility acknowledged and affirmed by Enbridge itself. As Enbridge has asserted in its pleadings in the Van Enkevort litigation, the elevated pipelines are clearly vulnerable to anchor strikes and cable drags that could result in the catastrophic failure of the pipelines at the center of the most sensitive and valuable fresh surface water system in the world.

Enbridge knows that anchor drags and strikes have occurred in the Straits of Mackinac.

Enbridge knows that Line 5 is uniquely vulnerable to anchor strikes.

Enbridge knows its warning system is half-baked.

Enbridge knows that an oil spill in the Straits would be catastrophic.

Enbridge knows that today could be the day.

And Enbridge knows it makes a whole lot of money sending fossil fuels through pipes – and through our Great Lakes.

Enbridge continues to violate inspection and monitoring agreements, safety standards, and regulations. It has breached the terms of easement granted by the State of Michigan for the operation of Line 5, defied a lawful Notice of Revocation and Termination of the easement from the Governor of the State of Michigan to cease operation of the pipelines crossing the Straits of Mackinac. And it benefits from a continuing trespass on the sovereign lands of the Bad River Band in northern Wisconsin.

Enbridge’s defiance is a lethal combination of greed, arrogance, and a breach of corporate and civic responsibility. The continued operation of Line 5 must end now.

FLOW Appeals MPSC Decision Approving the Line 5 Tunnel

Published on April 15th, 2024 by - Blog Posts, Reports & Media Releases

Download FLOW Appellate Brief  (PDF)

Traverse City, Mich.— On April 11, 2024, FLOW filed a brief before the Michigan Court of Appeals aimed at reversing the Michigan Public Services Commission’s (MPSC) approval of the proposed Line 5 tunnel project.

Enbridge’s proposed tunnel received a green light from the MPSC on December 1, 2023. FLOW is challenging the approval arguing that the MPSC’s action violated the Michigan Environmental Protection Act by failing to determine whether feasible and prudent alternatives were available that would render the estimated $2 billion project unnecessary. FLOW also contends that the MPSC failed to undertake any analysis of whether there was a “public need” for the project, given growing concerns over greenhouse gas emissions and projected reductions in the use of transportation fuels.

“Enbridge has admitted that growing U.S. and Canadian concerns over climate change will significantly reduce the serviceable lifetime of Line 5 and the tunnel,” stated FLOW’s Executive Director Liz Kirkwood. “The project is demonstrably an environmental and economic albatross.”

FLOW has joined numerous Native American tribes and other advocacy organizations in formally opposing the tunnel project.

Nessel v. Enbridge: Oral arguments in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Published on March 21st, 2024 by - Blog Posts, Reports & Media Releases

Download as PDF

Listen to audio recording of the oral arguments

Traverse City, Mich.— Today, March 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit heard oral arguments in Michigan Attorney General Nessel v. Enbridge, the 2019 lawsuit seeking to shut down Line 5 in the open waters of the Straits of Mackinac. Michigan Attorney General Nessel maintains that this case belongs in state court based on the state of Michigan’s sovereign responsibility to protect the public trust in the waters of the Great Lakes.

Both before and after Nessel’s suit, the Straits pipelines have been repeatedly struck by anchors or cables dragged by passing vessels, and two anchors have been found lying on the lakebed near the pipelines. “The threat of rupturing the aging pipeline and causing a catastrophic oil spill in the Great Lakes is a clear and ever-present danger,” stated FLOW Executive Director Liz Kirkwood. “The largest fresh surface water system in the world is at great risk.”

The Attorney General filed her lawsuit in Michigan state court in 2019 to force shutdown of Line 5. Since then, Enbridge, following Big Oil’s playbook of delay, has thrown up numerous procedural roadblocks to try to derail the lawsuit, including removal of the case to federal court. The Attorney General challenged that removal on the grounds that Enbridge’s tactic came way too late, and the federal courts lacked jurisdiction over the state law-based claims in the complaint originally filed in state court.

In 2023, the federal district court sitting in Grand Rapids sided with Enbridge, and the Attorney General appealed. Today, Assistant Attorney General Dan Bock argued to the Sixth Circuit that by waiting more than two years to remove the case to federal court, Enbridge’s removal was untimely and must be rejected. Mr. Bock also argued that, timing issues aside, the federal court misapplied the law when it ruled that the case belongs in federal court rather than state court. The Attorney General argued that yanking the case out of state court simply because Enbridge prefers a federal forum violates the State’s right to have state claims resolved in state court.

Enbridge’s attorney Alice Loughran argued that the removal to federal court was timely, and should remain in federal court because federal issues dominate the case. Those issues include the effect of the 1977 U.S. – Canada transnational pipelines treaty, the federal Submerged Lands Act, and the extensive federal regulation of oil pipelines. Enbridge essentially argued that Michigan’s sovereign rights and responsibility to protect the clean waters of the Great Lakes from another Enbridge oil pipeline disaster are not enforceable in state court and must yield to the need for continuous crude oil delivery through Line 5. In short, the protection of commerce and Enbridge’s Line 5 profits (roughly $2 million per day) are federal issues that must take precedence.

The arguments were presented to a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal: Judges Griffin, Thapar and Nalbandian. The questioning by the judges reflected deep skepticism of Enbridge’s argument that the district court was correct when it excused the company from compliance with the time requirements for removal of the case from state court to federal court. On the question of jurisdiction, the judges seemed divided on whether the federal Submerged Lands Act or the pipelines treaty with Canada provide a sufficient basis for the exercise of federal court jurisdiction. At the conclusion of the arguments the case was taken under advisement. While no timeline was given, we expect the court to issue its ruling this spring.

FLOW filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in support of the Attorney General. In its brief, FLOW argued that removal of the case to federal court upset the traditional balance of responsibilities between the federal and state judiciaries. In particular, an affirmance of removal would deprive the State of Michigan and the Attorney General of well-established rights under Michigan law and U.S. Supreme Court precedent to assert the public trust doctrine to prevent the use of state-owned Lake Michigan bottomlands for private, commercial gain. FLOW also argued that Enbridge’s reliance upon the so-called “foreign affairs doctrine” to shield it from state remedies for violation of the public trust, nuisance law, and enforcement of the Michigan Environmental Protection Act is a gross distortion of federal-state relations under our federal system of government guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Bock acknowledged FLOW’s arguments during his presentation to the court.

FLOW strongly supports Attorney Nessel’s effort to return this case to state court and proceed to a trial on the merits of her claim that Line 5 is unreasonably dangerous, and that the threat of an enormous environmental disaster must be terminated without further delay.

Federal Court Hears Arguments from Bad River Band and Enbridge in Appeal of Line 5 Pipeline Shutdown Order

Published on February 8th, 2024 by - Blog Posts

Traverse City, Mich.— On February 7, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago heard oral arguments in the Line 5 case involving northern Wisconsin’s Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa and Enbridge, Inc., a Canadian multinational pipeline and energy company headquartered in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. The panel of Appellate Judges was Frank H. Easterbrook, Michael Y. Scudder, Jr., and Amy J. St. Eve. Line 5 is a 71-year-old pipeline, threatening the Great Lakes with a catastrophic spill to deliver oil and gas to Canada.

In 2019, the Bad River Band initiated this litigation to evict Enbridge’s 12-mile stretch of Line 5 oil pipeline from their territory based on claims of trespass, nuisance, unjust enrichment, and injunctive. The band then filed for emergency injunctive relief in May 2023, following massive spring flooding events that caused alarming rates of erosion along the Medicine River and threatened to destabilize and rupture the pipeline. On June 16, 2023, U.S. Western District Court of Wisconsin Judge Conley issued a remarkable decision, finding Enbridge in “conscious and willful trespass” and ordering shut down by June 2026 of a Line 5 section running through the tribe’s sovereign territory, and pay the tribe $5.1 million. This is the first time a date has been set to shut down Line 5. 

On appeal, Enbridge’s attorney Alice Loughran argued the Seventh Circuit should vacate Judge Conley’s order, relying on two key arguments: (1) the Bad River Band was not acting pursuant to the “best efforts” clause of the 1992 easement agreement; and (2) Judge Conley’s order violated the 1977 Pipeline Treaty between the U.S. and Canada, which limits the authority of each country to impede the flow of oil and natural gas through pipelines between the nations. 

In response, the Bad River Band’s lawyer, Paul Clement, urged the appellate court to affirm the lower court’s order requiring Enbridge to stop trespassing, and require immediate compliance, not three more years on top of ten years of trespass. Clement also argued that Enbridge must turn over the Line 5 profits realized since its reservation easements expired in 2013. Three additional years of ongoing trespass is unreasonable, Clement said, particularly given the upcoming spring flooding threat, like last year’s, which eroded the land to within 11 feet of the pipeline.

The judges probed why federal agencies were not working faster to approve Enbridge’s proposed 41-mile pipeline re-route around the Bad River reservation. They also questioned why the tribe has not taken precautionary measures like using sandbags to mitigate the risk created by Enbridge. Clement countered that it is unreasonable and unfair to expect the tribe to take affirmative steps that sanction and reinforce the trespasser’s illegal and intentional occupation of the tribe’s land. 

The hearing concluded with Judge Easterbrook announcing that the court would not decide this case until at least next month, after the court receives a briefing on the federal government’s position. 

Next month on March 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit will hear oral arguments in Michigan Attorney General Nessel v. Enbridge, the 2019 lawsuit seeking to shut down Line 5 in the open waters of the Straits of Mackinac. Multiple anchor strikes have occurred, threatening to rupture the line and causing a catastrophic oil spill in the Great Lakes. Michigan Attorney General Nessel maintains that this case belongs in state court based on the state of Michigan’s sovereign responsibility to protect the public trust in the waters of the Great Lakes.

###

FLOW is an independent, 501(c)(3) nonprofit that serves as a Great Lakes water law and policy center dedicated to ensuring the waters of the Great Lakes Basin are healthy, public, and protected for all. The enduring idea of the commons and legal principles of the public trust offer unifying adaptive solutions to address basin-wide threats. FLOW’s staff of legal and policy experts, journalists, and community-builders makes FLOW an authoritative resource for Great Lakes advocates. FLOW builds a knowledge base for communities, state agencies, and legislators to inform policy and advocacy for water issues. Learn more at www.ForLoveOfWater.org.

###

FLOW Welcomes Court Order in Michigan Attorney General’s Case to Shut Down Line 5

Published on February 22nd, 2023 by - Blog Posts, News, Reports & Media Releases

Editor’s note: The following is a press statement from Zach Welcker, Legal Director of FLOW (For Love of Water), the Great Lakes law and policy center based in Traverse City, Michigan, in response to a federal district court’s certification on Tuesday of questions for interlocutory review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The decision comes in the case of Nessel v. Enbridge, filed by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel on June 27, 2019, in the Michigan Circuit Court for the County of Ingham, to shut down the Line 5 oil pipelines in the Great Lakes. Members of the media can reach Zach Welcker, FLOW Legal Director, at Zach@flowforwater.org or by cell at 231.620.7911.

“This is a welcome development in Attorney General Dana Nessel’s effort to return to state court her state-law claims seeking the shutdown of Enbridge’s dual oil pipelines on state-owned bottomlands in the Straits of Mackinac. FLOW credits her petition for mandamus—filed just two business days before the certification order—for prompting the federal district court to finally take action on a motion that the Attorney General filed more than five months ago.

“Although the district court’s order does not guarantee that the Sixth Circuit will agree to resolve the certified questions, we are hopeful that the Court will recognize that interlocutory review is necessary to protect the fundamental state rights that are undermined by the district court’s erroneous procedural and jurisdictional rulings. 

“The Attorney General’s extraordinary efforts to obtain appellate review before the right is available via direct appeal is a testament to her commitment to protect the Great Lakes—and our public rights to use and enjoy them—from being impaired by Enbridge, the same company that is responsible for the Kalamazoo River oil-spill disaster,” said FLOW Legal Director Zach Welcker 

“The Attorney General’s extraordinary efforts to obtain appellate review before the right is available via direct appeal is a testament to her commitment to protect the Great Lakes—and our public rights to use and enjoy them—from being impaired by Enbridge, the same company that is responsible for the Kalamazoo River oil-spill disaster.” 

Additional Resources:

Petition for Writ of Mandamus in Nessel v. Enbridge-2023-2-17 

Opinion and Order Granting Motion to Certify-Nessel v. Enbridge-2023-2-21

FLOW’s Line 5 Program

FLOW’s Line 5 News

Hundreds Attend Army Corps Hearing, Strong Majority Speaks Out against Proposed Oil Pipeline Tunnel under the Great Lakes

Published on September 12th, 2022 by - Blog Posts

Above: Hundreds of people attend a public comment session held by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the oil pipeline tunnel proposed by Enbridge under the Straits of Mackinac, on Sept. 8, 2022, at Little Bear East Arena in St. Ignace, Michigan. Photos by Kelly Thayer.

By Kelly Thayer, FLOW Deputy Director

Katie Otanez, Regulatory Project Manager for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District, delivers a presentation on Sept. 8, 2022, in St. Ignace, Mich., while Army Corps staff look on.

Five-and-half hours into a marathon federal hearing that lasted seven hours on Thursday, September 8, in St. Ignace, Michigan, more than 4 out of 5 people who spoke said that an oil pipeline tunnel proposed under the Great Lakes was a dangerous idea that would rob future generations by threatening the most precious thing on earth — fresh water — and worsening the climate crisis.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers held the public comment session to help set the scope of its environmental impact statement study of a proposal by Enbridge, Inc., of Canada, to build an oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac to house its Line 5 oil pipeline, which carries oil from western Canada primarily to refineries in Sarnia, Ontario. The Army Corps study is expected to continue through at least 2023.

U.S. Army Corps welcome sign on Sept. 8, 2022, in St. Ignace, Mich.

Hundreds of people attended the meeting at Little Bear East Arena, a local hockey facility just north of the Mackinac Bridge in the eastern Upper Peninsula, with each commenter taking up to three minutes to address the Army Corps staff seated up front. Most people expressed deep concern for the harm that construction or a potential explosion or spill from the operation of an oil pipeline tunnel could have on their children and grandchildren’s future, local residents, the Great Lakes, drinking water, tourist economy, and jobs — as well as tribal rights, tribal member survival, cultural heritage, the fishery, ecology of the Straits of Mackinac, and the climate.

Whitney Gravelle, president of the Bay Mills Indian Community, was the first to speak at the Army Corps meeting against the tunnel proposal and sought to change the narrative promoted by Enbridge in its multimillion-dollar advertising campaign. “Line 5 is not about Enbridge. It is not about jobs. It is not about profit. It is about the continued existence of my people here in the State of Michigan.”

Whitney Gravelle, President of the Bay Mills Indian Community

“Line 5 is not about Enbridge. It is not about jobs. It is not about profit. It is about the continued existence of my people here in the State of Michigan.” — Whitney Gravelle, president of the Bay Mills Indian Community

“We rely on all of those natural resources to be able to live, to be able to support our families and just exist as Anishinaabe people,” said President Gravelle, emphasizing that more than half of Bay Mills tribe members depend on their treaty rights to hunt, fish, and gather for subsistence.

Ian Bund, venture capitalist

Ian Bund, a venture capital investor who attended the hearing on his birthday to oppose the tunnel project, said, “There’s no evidence that Enbridge’s board of directors has approved the tunnel. Is it a PR stunt? Enbridge is largely uninsured, uninsurable, and un-bondable…. There’s no evidence how Enbridge would finance the tunnel project. One wonders if they might look to taxpayers.”

Enbridge, in fact, lacks adequate liability insurance, according to a report released by the Attorney General Dana Nessel’s office revealing that Enbridge’s subsidiaries, not its parent company, hold Line 5’s 1953 easement and signed the proposed tunnel agreement; the assets of the subsidiaries’ parent Enbridge are inadequate to cover the costs and economic damages in the event of a moderate spill.

Many Troubling Aspects of the Tunnel Proposal

Enbridge wants to blast and bore an oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac just west of the Mackinac Bridge. Credit: Flickr

Enbridge is proposing to bore and blast a 20-foot-in-diameter tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac to house a new Line 5 pipeline. The Canadian company’s goal is to continue for another 99 years carrying up to 23 million gallons of oil and natural gas liquids a day through Line 5 and State of Michigan public trust bottomlands where Lake Michigan meets Lake Huron, just west of the Mackinac Bridge.

FLOW and our partners have identified critical deficiencies in the project’s construction permit application, its legal authorization, and the review by State of Michigan environmental agencies of expected impacts to wetlands, bottomlands, and surface water, including from the daily discharge of millions of gallons of wastewater during construction. FLOW has expressed continuing concerns about the impact to the Great Lakes and lack of public necessity for the project, which would worsen climate change by adding greenhouse gas emissions each year equivalent to almost seven new coal-fired power plants or nearly 6 million new cars to the road, according to experts.

FLOW’s position, as expressed at the hearing in St. Ignace, is that the Army Corps’ environmental study of the tunnel proposal and alternatives must include, at a minimum:

  1. A no action alternative that would use existing capacity in other pipelines and, if necessary, other transportations solutions–such as rail and truck transport of natural gas liquids–in lieu of building new pipeline infrastructure.
  2. An alternative to connect Enbridge’s Superior, Wisc., and Sarnia, Ontario, terminals without crossing the Great Lakes. (See FLOW’s fact sheet on alternatives).
  3. A tunnel alternative that fully eliminates the risk of oil intrusion into the Straits in the event of an explosion or similar event.

Tribal Nations, agencies, communities, organizations, citizens, and other stakeholders can comment on the tunnel proposal through Oct. 14, 2022, via mail, through the Army Corps project website, or at the Army Corps’ Oct. 6, 2022, online meeting. The Oil & Water Don’t Mix campaign, of which FLOW is a founding steering committee member, also is collecting and forwarding comments to the Army Corps using an email template that suggests key points to make.

Oil & Water Don’t Mix Campaign Mobilizes Great Lakes Advocates

The Oil & Water Don’t Mix campaign chartered two buses that gathered people in Ann Arbor, East Lansing, and Traverse City to attend the Army Corps’ September 8 meeting, with FLOW, the Sierra Club Michigan Chapter, and several other allied groups helping organize the effort. Many riders wore the campaign’s black t-shirts with white letters proclaiming “No Line 5 Oil Tunnel.” At the session, Enbridge and some allied trade unions also wore bright blue or orange shirts expressing support for the proposed tunnel or labor to show their solidarity.

Kim Gribi of Traverse City

Lana Pollack, former U.S. Chair of the International Joint Commission

Several people, including Lana Pollack, former U.S. chair of the International Joint Commission, called Enbridge a “bad actor” with a long history of oil spills from Line 5, which runs through the Straits, and Line 6B in southern Michigan that burst in 2010 into the Kalamazoo River watershed.

Kim Gribi, a concerned citizen from Traverse City, also pointed to Enbridge’s “bad track record.” Gribi said that with her professional background in human resources and evaluating applicants for jobs, when it comes to the tunnel project and Enbridge, “I wouldn’t hire them.”

Barbara Stamiris of the Northern MI Environmental Action Council

Barbara Stamiris of the Northern Michigan Environmental Action Council and others questioned whether the tunnel proposal was a delay tactic by Enbridge to allow the Canadian energy-transport giant to keep running its Line 5 oil pipelines indefinitely in the open waters of the Straits of Mackinac, despite a standing order issued in November 2020 by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer to shut down the risky 69-year-old pipeline segment.

A number of people in their public remarks in St. Ignace requested that the Army Corps extend the 60-day comment period on the proposed tunnel and hold additional in-person meetings downstate to reach more people on such a critical matter as the future of the Great Lakes and the drinking water supply.

FLOW: There’s No Alternative to Fresh Water

FLOW Board member Barbara Brown, a St. Ignace resident who served for 14 years on the Mackinac Bridge Authority, pointed to what the region must protect above all else: our freshwater heritage. “We are rapidly moving toward alternative forms of energy. Enbridge already has, in Line 78 [in southern Michigan], an alternative route of delivery… What we do not have is an alternative to water.”

FLOW Board Member Barbara Brown, a resident of St. Ignace, Mich., addresses the Army Corps staff.

“We are rapidly moving toward alternative forms of energy. Enbridge already has an alternative route of delivery… What we do not have is an alternative to water,” said Barbara Brown, FLOW Board Member and St. Ignace resident

In fact, the North American energy pipeline system operated by Enbridge and its competitors has available capacity and flexibility to meet energy demand in the Great Lakes region without threatening public waters and the economy, according to multiple studies. One of Enbridge’s own experts has concluded gasoline prices will rise by about only half a penny in Michigan if the Line 5 oil pipeline shuts down.

“We are sitting today at the very heart of 20% of the world’s fresh surface water,” Brown said. “With much of humanity and the animal world on the brink of death for want of water, and we being at the center of the largest body of fresh surface water on the planet, it is bordering on the immoral to even entertain the unnecessary, continued operation of Line 5 through the Great Lakes whether by pipe or tunnel.”

As FLOW’s Deputy Director, I (the author of this article) helped coordinate the bus from Traverse City and in my comments, said, “The Straits of Mackinac is the worst possible place to build and operate an oil pipeline tunnel. Any rupture, explosion, or other event resulting in a major oil spill in the Straits would contaminate the very heart of the Great Lakes, which hold 95% of the fresh surface water in the United States.”

As a result, “the Army Corps’ Environmental Impact Statement or ‘EIS’ review of the project should be scoped to eliminate the risk of a pipeline-related oil spill into the Great Lakes.” (Click to read Kelly Thayer’s full comment delivered on behalf of FLOW).

Regional and Binational Perspectives

Beth Wallace of the National Wildlife Federation

Michelle Woodhouse of Environmental Defence in Canada

Michelle Woodhouse, representing Environmental Defence Canada, came from Toronto to convey that many Canadians want to move rapidly away from oil extraction as a key driver of the economy in order to cope with the “climate emergency.” Woodhouse also pointed to indigenous cultural artifacts in the Straits of Mackinac that could be damaged by the tunnel proposal and said “clear alternatives exists” that would not harm the Great Lakes.

Beth Wallace of the National Wildlife Federation, Great Lakes Regional Center, spoke next and emphasized that Enbridge’s history of nearly three dozen oil spills from Line 5 and the 2010 oil spill disaster from Line 6B in Marshall, Michigan, are forewarnings of what could happen in the Straits of Mackinac.

Maya Ponton Aronoff pointed to better ways for Enbridge and trade workers to aid the residents of Michigan than building an oil pipeline tunnel under the Great Lakes.

“[Enbridge] could be replacing every lead-lined water pipe in Michigan that’s poisoning our children and our communities. They could be investing in renewable energy, creating jobs in solar and wind. They could be doing anything with their billions of dollars. But they’re making us believe this lie that we have to choose between jobs and our future,” said Maya Ponton Aronoff

“[Enbridge] could be replacing every lead-lined water pipe in Michigan that’s poisoning our children and our communities,” Ponton Aronoff said. “They could be investing in renewable energy, creating jobs in solar and wind. They could be doing anything with their billions of dollars. But they’re making us believe this lie that we have to choose between jobs and our future.”

Army Corps Process to Continue through at Least 2023

Enbridge’s has applied for a Army Corps permit under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and the Clean Water Act, seeking federal approval to discharge dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States, as well as the construction of structures or work that may affect navigable waters. The Army Corps also will conduct an ethnographic/traditional cultural landscape study as part of the environmental impact statement under the National Historic Preservation Act. After considering public comment and issuing the draft EIS likely by fall 2023, the Army Corps will seek additional public feedback, release a final study, and then issue a “record of decision” regarding whether to issue, issue with modification, or deny the Department of the Army permit altogether — consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act.

The Army Corps, Detroit District, to date has identified general concerns in the following categories:

  • Potential direct effects to waters of the United States including wetlands; water and sediment quality; aquatic species and fisheries; threatened and endangered species;
  • Archaeological and cultural resources, including the Straits as a Traditional Cultural Landscape; Tribal treaty rights and interests;
  • Recreation and recreational resources; waste management; aesthetics; noise; air quality; climate change, including greenhouse gas emissions and the social cost of greenhouse gases;
  • Public health and safety during construction and operations; navigation; erosion; invasive species; energy needs; environmental justice; needs and welfare of the people; and cumulative effects.

FLOW’s legal team aided in this effort in December 2020 by submitting comprehensive comments to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers calling for an environmental impact statement on behalf of a dozen organizations: Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority, Clean Water Action—Michigan, FLOW, Groundwork Center, League of Women Voters of Michigan, Michigan Environmental Council, Michigan League of Conservation Voters, NMEAC, Sierra Club Michigan Chapter, Straits Area Concerned Citizens for Peace, Justice and Environment, Straits of Mackinac Alliance, and TC 350. The comments demonstrated a serious gap in Enbridge’s evaluation of the presence of loose, unconsolidated rock and sediment in the bottom of the Straits of Mackinac that Enbridge has characterized as solid bedrock.

Learn more about FLOW’s efforts to shut down Line 5 and stop the proposed oil pipeline tunnel on FLOW’s Line 5 program page and new Line 5 fact sheet.

FLOW to U.S. Army Corps: Oil Tunnel in the Great Lakes Is Not a Solution

Published on September 12th, 2022 by - Blog Posts

Editor’s note: The following are comments made by FLOW Deputy Director Kelly Thayer on September 8, 2022, in St. Ignace, Michigan, at a public meeting of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps). The Army Corps, Detroit District, held the session to help set the scope of its environmental impact statement (EIS) study of a proposal by Enbridge, Inc., of Canada, to build an oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac to house its Line 5 oil pipeline, which carries oil from western Canada primarily to refineries in Sarnia, Ontario.

Tribal Nations, agencies, communities, organizations, citizens, and other stakeholders can comment on the tunnel proposal through Oct. 14, 2022, via mail, through the Army Corps project website, or at the Army Corps’ Oct. 6, 2022, online meeting. The Oil & Water Don’t Mix campaign, of which FLOW is a founding steering committee member, also is collecting and forwarding comments to the Army Corps using an email template that suggests key points to make.

Learn more about FLOW’s efforts to shut down Line 5 and stop the proposed oil pipeline tunnel on FLOW’s Line 5 program page and new Line 5 fact sheet.

Good evening. My name is Kelly Thayer. I am Deputy Director of the nonprofit organization For Love of Water or “FLOW”, the Great Lakes law and policy center located in Traverse City, Michigan.

Kelly Thayer, FLOW Deputy Director

Thank you to Commander Boyle and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District, for this opportunity to comment. FLOW has supporters throughout the Great Lakes Basin, including right here in St. Ignace. They rely on us to ensure that the Great Lakes remain healthy, public, and protected for all.

Simply put, the Straits of Mackinac is the worst possible place to build and operate an oil pipeline tunnel. Any rupture, explosion, or other event resulting in a major oil spill in the Straits would contaminate the very heart of the Great Lakes, which hold 95% of the fresh surface water in the United States.

Simply put, the Straits of Mackinac is the worst possible place to build and operate an oil pipeline tunnel. Any rupture, explosion, or other event resulting in a major oil spill in the Straits would contaminate the very heart of the Great Lakes, which hold 95% of the fresh surface water in the United States.

In the best case scenario, Enbridge-contracted, oil spill response teams would be able to remove no more than 30% of the oil from such a spill.

With this in mind, the Army Corps’ Environmental Impact Statement or “EIS” review of the project should be scoped to eliminate the risk of a pipeline-related oil spill into the Great Lakes.

Unfortunately, the draft purpose and need statement limits the range of risk-elimination options by focusing only on connecting Enbridge’s existing North Straits Facility and Mackinaw City pump station. The purpose and need statement should be revised to eliminate these geographic constraints and focus more generally on liquid-petroleum product transportation solutions to approximate the existing capacity of Line 5.

The draft purpose and need statement’s language regarding the minimization of environmental risks is not specific enough in the context of project-related oil spills. The statement should be revised to include both minimizing environmental risks and avoiding any risk of a pipeline-related oil spill into the Great Lakes.

The environmental study’s focus “should be revised to include both minimizing environmental risks and avoiding any risk of a pipeline-related oil spill into the Great Lakes.”

The alternatives analysis must include, at a minimum:

  1. A no action alternative that would use existing capacity in other pipelines and, if necessary, other transportations solutions–such as rail and truck transport of natural gas liquids–in lieu of building new pipeline infrastructure.
  2. An alternative to connect Enbridge’s Superior, Wisc., and Sarnia, Ontario, terminals without crossing the Great Lakes.
  3. A tunnel alternative that fully eliminates the risk of oil intrusion into the Straits in the event of an explosion or similar event.

The relative risks of the proposed oil tunnel project don’t matter when Enbridge is unlawfully operating the existing oil pipelines in the Straits.

In performing this alternatives analysis, the EIS must evaluate the environmental risks of the proposed project independently of Enbridge’s existing oil pipeline infrastructure in the Straits.

Nearly two years ago, the State of Michigan revoked and terminated the 1953 Easement that allegedly authorizes Enbridge to occupy state bottomlands. The relative risks of the proposed oil tunnel project don’t matter when Enbridge is unlawfully operating the existing oil pipelines in the Straits.

FLOW looks forward to submitting written comments by the October 14, 2022, deadline, in addition to these preliminary, verbal comments.

In short, we recommend that the Army Corps scope its EIS review of the oil tunnel project to eliminate the risk of a pipeline-related oil spill into the Great Lakes, which provide drinking water for millions of people in the United States and Canada, drive our economy, and define our way of life. Thank you.

FLOW: Today’s Line 5 Court Decision is Bad for the State of Michigan, Bad for State Courts, and Bad for Plaintiffs

Published on August 18th, 2022 by - Blog Posts, Reports & Media Releases

Editor’s note: The following is a press statement from Zach Welcker, Legal Director of FLOW (For Love of Water), the Great Lakes law and policy center based, in response to U.S. District Judge Janet Neff’s 13-page decision today to deny the motion to remand the case to state court in Nessel v. Enbridge, filed by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel on June 27, 2019. Members of the media can reach Zach Welcker, FLOW Legal Director, at Zach@flowforwater.org or by cell at 231.620.7911.

“The U.S. District Court’s decision today to exercise federal jurisdiction over the State of Michigan’s Line 5 oil pipeline lawsuit, which Line 5-owner Enbridge had previously chosen to litigate in state court for more than 2 years, is bad for the State of Michigan, bad for state courts, and bad for plaintiffs.

“State-court defendants who have a plausible basis for federal jurisdiction are no longer obligated to seek removal within the statutory timelines established by Congress, but can now play their removal card at the time of their choosing. This gives defendants nearly unfettered discretion to seek refuge in federal court when things are not going their way in state court.

“The effect is that the State of Michigan now will have to expend precious resources relitigating matters it has already litigated in state court for more than two years and, more generally, that federal courts are free to pull the rug out from under state-court proceedings at the whim of opportunistic defendants like Enbridge.”

‘A Step toward Victory for the Public and the Great Lakes’

Published on July 7th, 2022 by - Blog Posts, Reports & Media Releases

Editor’s Note: The following is a statement from Jim Olson, Senior Legal Advisor at FLOW (For Love of Water), the Great Lakes law and policy center based in Traverse City. The statement is in response to the decision today by the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) at its regular meeting to reopen the record to gather more information on the safety and engineering of a 21-foot-diameter tunnel intended to house a new segment of the Line 5 pipeline, as proposed by Canadian oil-transport giant Enbridge. Enbridge proposes to bore and blast a tunnel through the public bottomlands in the Straits of Mackinac, where Lake Michigan meets Lake Huron at the very heart of the Great Lakes. The MPSC also requested additional information on the safety of the existing Line 5 oil pipelines in the open waters of the Straits, which Enbridge continues to operate in defiance of a shutdown order issued in November 2020 by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. FLOW also filed a formal comment today with the MPSC.

“Today’s approval by the Michigan Public Service Commission of an order to reopen the record and gather more information on the safety and engineering of the oil pipeline tunnel that Enbridge proposes to construct through the public bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac before making any final decision is a step toward victory for the public and the Great Lakes.

Jim Olson, FLOW’s Founder and Senior Legal Advisor

“The MPSC also wisely requested more information on the safety of the dangerous, nearly 70-year-old Line 5 oil pipelines in the open waters of the Great Lakes. The MPSC has once more demonstrated its strong sense of responsibility to address Line 5’s inevitable, adverse effects on the Great Lakes, communities, and the rights of the public and environment in the Great Lakes and Straits of  Mackinac.

Today’s approval by the Michigan Public Service Commission of an order to reopen the record and gather more information on the safety and engineering of the oil pipeline tunnel that Enbridge proposes… is a step toward victory for the public and the Great Lakes.

“More than two years after Enbridge applied for the MPSC’s approval to construct a massive, 21-foot-diameter oil tunnel under the Great Lakes, it’s clear that Enbridge has failed to demonstrate the safety and feasibility of the $1 billion-plus project and even more questions are being raised about the Line 5 oil pipelines that continue to endanger the Great Lakes, our economy, and way of life.

Screenshot of MPSC commissioners meeting July 7, 2022, in Lansing, Mich. From left: Katherine Peretick, Chairman Dan Scripps, & Tremaine Phillips.

“FLOW and other interested parties have identified critical deficiencies in the tunnel project’s construction permit application, its legal authorization, and the review by state environmental agencies of expected impacts to wetlands, bottomlands, and surface water, including from the daily discharge of millions of gallons of wastewater during construction. FLOW also has deep concerns about the lack of public necessity for the project, which would worsen climate change and related impacts to the Great Lakes.

FLOW has deep concerns about the lack of public necessity for the project, which would worsen climate change and related impacts to the Great Lakes.

Screenshot of Marshall Clabeaux, of Lansing, expresses opposition to the proposed Line 5 oil tunnel during public comment at the July 7, 2022, MPSC meeting in Lansing.

“The MPSC’s decision to seek more safety information upholds its solemn, legal responsibility under Michigan’s constitution and environmental and public trust laws to protect people, communities, the Great Lakes, and the environment from the effects of climate change from this massive project that would facilitate the continued production and consumption of 8.3 billion gallons of oil a year for the next 99 years. 

“No one disputes the obligations of the State and MPSC to protect the public rights of citizens in the Great Lakes. Based on Michigan Supreme Court decisions, the MPSC  is one of the ‘sworn guardians’ of the Great Lakes and the public trust rights of all citizens in Michigan. The threat of devastating physical impacts to the Straits, the fish habitat, risks to the environment, the rights of citizens for fishing, boating, swimming, drinking water and health, and the tribal culture and fishing rights are real. The effects from climate change to the Great Lakes, infrastructure, communities, health, and environment are devastating and undeniable.

The threat of devastating physical impacts to the Straits, the fish habitat, risks to the environment, the rights of citizens for fishing, boating, swimming, drinking water and health, and the tribal culture and fishing rights are real.

“The MPSC on April 21, 2021 ordered a full and complete hearing record on climate and environmental effects and the rights of  citizens under the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA). Today’s Order is consistent with that decision and the duties of the MPSC under the MEPA and public trust law.  Under MEPA, given these likely effects, the Enbridge Line 5 tunnel project was properly remanded for a more thorough investigation of these matters. This includes consideration of reduction of greenhouse gases through alternatives to Line 5 and the Tunnel Project. 

With society’s urgent need to tackle climate change head on and ensure freshwater security, Enbridge cannot show that its proposed fossil fuel infrastructure is a credible solution for Michigan’s 21st century just and equitable future.

“Moreover, the tunnel and tunnel pipeline have never been authorized by the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy as required by  the Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act and public trust law. Under these laws, the company must obtain authorization to use, not just construct, the public trust waters and submerged lands of Michigan. Enbridge has never obtained this authority. 

“With society’s urgent need to tackle climate change head on and ensure freshwater security, Enbridge cannot show that its proposed fossil fuel infrastructure is a credible solution for Michigan’s 21st century just and equitable future.”

Background: See FLOW’s additional coverage of the MPSC review of the Enbridge oil pipeline tunnel here: https://flowwateradvocates.org/?s=MPSC.

FLOW to Mackinac Straits Corridor Authority: No Enbridge Oil Tunnel Without Authorization Under the Public Trust Doctrine

Published on June 7th, 2022 by - Blog Posts

Editor’s Note: FLOW today resubmitted the following formal comments from February to the Mackinac Straits Corridor Authority in advance of the Authority’s 10 a.m. public meeting in St. Ignace regarding Enbridge’s oil tunnel proposed through public bottomlands in the Straits of Mackinac. See the Authority’s June 7, 2022, meeting agenda, and learn about the opportunity to comment in person or online. Members of the media, please contact FLOW Legal Director Zach Welcker at (231) 620-7911 or Zach@FLOWforWater.org with any questions.

June 7, 2022 (Originally submitted on February 14, 2022)

Dear Honorable Members of the Mackinac Straits Corridor Authority (“MSCA”):

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

FLOW urges the MSCA to suspend further consideration of this ill-conceived oil tunnel project until Enbridge seeks and obtains legal authorization to occupy state bottomlands from appropriate state agencies.

FLOW urges the MSCA to suspend further consideration of this ill-conceived oil tunnel project until Enbridge seeks and obtains legal authorization to occupy state bottomlands from appropriate state agencies.

We have previously provided the MSCA with detailed analyses of this issue and hereby incorporate those by reference in lieu of repeating them here. See FLOW’s September 21, 2021 Letter; FLOW’s March 5, 2020 Comments; FLOW’s December 18, 2018 Comments; oral testimony to the MSCA on March 6, 2020, February 3, 2021, and October 13, 2021. Suffice to say, Enbridge has not received authorization from EGLE to occupy state-owned bottomlands under the Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act, 324.32502-32508 and rules. Nor has the DNR made the required public trust findings to authorize a public-utility easement under Act 10, now MCL 324.2129. Without such authorization, Enbridge does not have a “legal warrant” to occupy state-owned bottomlands. See Obrecht v. Nat’l Gypsum Co., 361 Mich. 399, 416 (1960). Thus, it would be a waste of time and resources for the MSCA to continue considering Enbridge’s proposal at this time.

If the MSCA decides to the peril of Michiganders to disregard Enbridge’s lack of authorization for this project, it must contend with the fact that Enbridge’s proposal to build a new oil pipeline inside a new tunnel underneath the Straits of Mackinac has ballooned into a supersized infrastructure project. In comparison to the original project, the diameter of the tunnel will now require a tunnel boring machine four times the size initially proposed. Correspondingly, the amount of excavated material that must be transported and disposed of has quadrupled.

Testimony from Enbridge’s geotechnical expert, Michael Mooney, before the Michigan Public Service Commission (“MPSC”) indicates that the tunnel must also be bored deeper than the original design, stating: “The depth to rock was determined to be deeper than assumed during the Alternative study and the resulting vertical profile takes the tunnel deeper in order to remain fully within rock. The geotechnical investigation also revealed highly fractured rock in places that would yield high groundwater pressures during construction.” On file with the MPSC, pp. 19-20.

Yet Enbridge’s initial $500 million estimate of the cost of the tunnel has not been revised. Experts have raised a host of related geotechnical and safety concerns. Significantly, Enbridge has also recently informed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that climate concerns may limit the expected service life of the proposed tunnel to twenty years. The MSCA must accordingly reevaluate the prudence of moving forward with this project in light of these significant developments.