“`html
The outcome of the Line 5 pipeline stands at another pivotal point in its history spanning over 70 years. This pipeline transports over 500,000 barrels of petroleum products daily throughout the Great Lakes area from Wisconsin into Canada, following a route that traverses underneath the Straits of Mackinac.
Throughout its existence, the pipeline has experienced leaks more than 30 times, resulting in over 1 million gallons of oil being discharged. A 2016 study by the University of Michigan indicated that over 700 miles of Great Lakes coastline is liable to contamination if the pipeline fails in the straits.
Enbridge, the Canadian firm responsible for the pipeline, has suggested drilling a tunnel beneath the straits to safeguard the pipeline and maintain its functionality. Following an executive order that declared a national energy emergency, the Trump administration directed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to expedite its environmental impact assessment of this tunnel initiative.
The Corps of Engineers is anticipated to unveil its draft Environmental Impact Statement on May 30, possibly paving the way for Enbridge to proceed after a 30-day public feedback period, despite facing opposition.
Mike Shriberg, a practice professor at the U-M School for Environment and Sustainability, is available to discuss this contentious issue. Shriberg, who also serves as the associate director of the Cooperative Institute for Great Lakes Research, has endeavored to document the pipeline’s history, which has pitched environmental organizations and the state of Michigan against an oil enterprise—and the Canadian government (Shriberg and U-M students developed a case study on the Line 5 dispute that is freely accessible online).
Before his tenure at U-M, Shriberg held the position of Great Lakes regional executive director at the National Wildlife Federation and was a member of former Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder’s Pipeline Safety Advisory Board.
What makes the pipeline so contentious?
I consider Line 5 to be a significant issue in its own right, but it also symbolizes who holds the rights to access our natural resources and waterways, which is immensely critical, extending beyond the particulars of the topic.
My perspective on Line 5 encompasses what the overarching conflict signifies through various lenses. One of these is Indigenous rights. All tribal governments in Michigan oppose the ongoing operation of Line 5. Some have effectively expelled Enbridge from their reservations and tribal territories. This is a matter that tribal authorities take with great seriousness, and the continuation of Line 5—the construction of a pipeline—would signify the triumph of corporate rights over Indigenous rights.
Additionally, the state of Michigan revoked Line 5’s easement for operation. Gov. Whitmer enacted this decision in 2021. The state articulated that Enbridge no longer possesses the right to operate in the Straits of Mackinac. Conversely, Enbridge has asserted that they do not acknowledge the state’s jurisdiction in this matter. Consequently, this underscores the significance of states’ rights and Michigan’s ability to safeguard the Great Lakes. The stakes could not be higher.
How has Enbridge responded to these actions against the pipeline?
Enbridge’s legal stance in response to these challenges is, “If you terminate this, you’re going to undermine the U.S. economy.” No judge wishes to bear the responsibility for that. Publicly, it is known as the “freezing grandma” strategy. Enbridge argues, “If you stop this pipeline, there are individuals in the U.P. who will not be able to afford their propane.” However, neither of these strategies is substantiated by the facts. Indeed, whenever Enbridge has had to testify under oath, they have had to retract these assertions and concede that there would be no significant economic ramifications from a shutdown. Yet, they continue to deploy these fear tactics publicly.
For many years, Enbridge Energy has initiated a detailed, costly media and messaging campaign as well as a lobbying endeavor. They have invested considerable millions into this marketing and political pressure campaign, with the clear objective of altering both public perception and the behavior of decision-makers regarding Line 5.
How does the expedited approval process influence the situation?
This was part of President Trump’s executive order proclaiming the energy emergency and instructing all agencies to accelerate federal projects related to energy. The truth is that the U.S. does not face an energy crisis and, even if it did, Line 5 is not a major contributor to U.S. energy supplies.
Line 5 is a pipeline that transports oil and natural gas liquids from Superior, Wisconsin, to Sarnia, Ontario, utilizing the Great Lakes and Michigan as a shortcut. The oil and natural gas liquids primarily originate from Canadian tar sands and are predominantly directed toward Canadian refineries for export. A relatively small amount is produced or consumed within the U.S.
Consequently, it seems the U.S. is hastening a project that primarily benefits Canadian oil extraction, refining, and export. This appears misaligned with the stated priorities. It is also worth noting that the proposed Great Lakes Tunnel by Enbridge would require state permits that are currently not in place. They had them initially, but they have since expired, necessitating that Enbridge reapplies. The Army Corps does not have the final say on whether this project receives approval.
What is Canada’s position on all of this?
Canada has been actively advocating for the continued operation of Line 5—indeed, it has filed briefs in U.S. courts on behalf of Enbridge, a significant economic entity in Canada. Canada’s self-interest lies in ensuring their oil reaches markets and in transferring the risks of spills onto the U.S. In light of the current trade tensions between the U.S. and Canada, I believe this might place Line 5 in a somewhat different perspective.
The U.S. and Michigan, or the Great Lakes region, are bearing the risks while reaping little of the rewards. The partnership between the U.S. and Canada…
“““html
The situation with Line 5 is deteriorating at this moment, and I believe it raises an intriguing question about whether the U.S. is willing to persist in taking this risk on behalf of Canada. It’s a compelling point in this dispute, this connection that I wouldn’t have foreseen six months prior.
When did the public discourse on the issue commence?
One astounding aspect of this matter is that it seemingly emerged from nowhere. It began in 2010, following Enbridge’s oil spill in the Kalamazoo River. A member of the National Wildlife Federation—this was before I joined—named Beth Wallace began to probe into Enbridge’s history and other pipelines in the area. What started with someone questioning the status quo has escalated to the highest tiers of governmental focus, something central to the future of our water policy, Indigenous rights, and energy strategy in the U.S.
It’s astonishing, and it’s experienced more twists and turns than a spy thriller. It has fluctuated back and forth numerous times. Advocates have felt that they nearly succeeded in shutting down the pipeline on various occasions. Likewise, Enbridge has been confident about Line 5’s viability being guaranteed for a century multiple times.
The dialogue and the concerns continue to evolve. It’s one of the most extraordinary situations I’ve ever engaged with and observed. It has been a significant environmental narrative in Michigan for years. It serves as a microcosm of many larger conflicts. It’s significant on its own, but it also carries larger implications.
Related articles:
Line 5 and climate change: ‘We don’t have an energy emergency. We have a willpower emergency.’
Line 5 and American Indian law: ‘It’s really quite Orwellian.’
Line 5 and its risks: ‘The consequences of failure would be catastrophic.’
“`