ST. IGNACE, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – In what’s being referred to by critics as a review of “narrow scope,” the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers put out a memorandum on June 28th saying that they would only be doing an environmental review of a four-mile portion of the Line 5 pipeline – the portion that crosses the Straits of Mackinac.
The Enbridge Energy’s Great Lakes Tunnel Project, a $500-million private investment to build a tunnel deep under the Straits to house Line 5, has been a source of much consternation for Michigan Democrats and their allies who have been trying to shut down the project, fearful that the project – and the pipeline itself – are a threat to the environment.
MORE NEWS: Shutdown Skies: FAA to Ground Flights if Paychecks Don’t Land
One of their allies in the fight, Clean Water Action, believes the pipeline poses a danger to the Great Lakes. Sean McBrearty, Michigan legislative and policy director for Clean Water Action said, “The Line 5 oil tunnel stands in the way of ongoing national and state commitments to fighting the climate crisis and building out 21st century green infrastructure, and any action to extend the lifespan of this 70-year-old ticking time bomb is a fool’s errand. The decision from the Army Corps reaffirms our call to President [Joe] Biden to revoke the presidential permit for Line 5 – we’re just one oil spill away from disaster.”
McBrearty, also said about the decision, “It looks like the Army Corps is intentionally not seeing the forest for the trees. They’re focusing on a very narrow scope of review for a project that has huge implications for the Great Lakes themselves and for the future of our state and our region.”
Opponents of the pipeline and the tunnel project had hoped that the federal engineers would consider reviewing the entire pipeline, which runs 645 miles from Superior, Wisconsin through Michigan to Sarnia, but the Corps said in their memo that they would only be reviewing a limited portion of Line 5.
The 14-page memo, drafted by Charles M. Simon, chief of the Corps’ Regulatory Branch, says that the Enbridge Notice of Intent (NOI) regarding the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) states “ The purpose of the project is to provide transportation of light crude oil, light synthetic crude oil, light sweet crude oil, and natural gas liquids between Enbridge’s existing North Straits Facility and Mackinaw Station, and to approximately maintain the existing capacity of the Line 5 pipeline while minimizing environmental risks.”
There is reported to be 540,000 barrels per day of petroleum products that are currently carried on the Line 5 Dual Pipelines and Enbridge says about the tunnel project “The underground tunnel will provide secondary containment for any potential release of petroleum products from the Line 5 Replacement Segment into the tunnel, thereby preventing a release into the Straits and minimizing risk to the environment.”
The Corps of Engineers says in the memo that “The Corps’ authority and scope of analysis are limited to the activities associated with crossing the Straits and its adjacent wetlands” rather than the entirety of Line 5.
MORE NEWS: FBI: Accused Terrorists Had 9/11, Suicide Bomber Videos On Social Media Accounts
“Though a Corps permit is required for construction of a pipeline tunnel crossing the Straits, this does not give the Corps sufficient control and responsibility to warrant review of the entire pipeline,” they wrote. They went on to say that they affirm Enbridges’ statement of purpose of the project with their revision to include the phrase “safe transportation.”
Michigan News Source reached out the Enbridge about the decision by the Corps and spokesperson Ryan Duffy provided the following statement, “The Great Lakes Tunnel Project covers only approximately four miles in length and will require no construction within the waters of the Straits. Line 5’s need has been firmly established over the last 70 years. Michigan and the entire region depend on the energy that Line 5 safely delivers every day. Line 5 is a critical source of 540,000 barrels per day of natural gas liquids and crude oil for Michigan and the Great Lakes Region.”
He went on to say, “Enbridge believes strongly in the advantages of the tunnel to protect the environment, provide reliable energy, and bolster the regional economy for years to come. We are committed to this project, the continued safe operation of the Line 5 crossing of the Straits, and ensuring an uninterrupted supply of reliable, affordable energy to Michigan and the region.”
On the other side of the issue, opponents of the tunnel project and the pipeline itself don’t appear to be reassured by any of the safety assurances coming out of Enbridge. And those reassurances certainly haven’t stopped the lawsuits coming out of Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel’s office or from others concerned with the issue.
In a recent victory for Line 5 Pipeline opponents, after a recent lawsuit in Wisconsin, in which Nessel had filed an amicus brief, Enbridge was given three years to shut down parts of their oil pipeline that crosses reservation land. They were also ordered to pay a Native American tribe more than $5 million for trespassing. Enbridge announced that they are appealing the decision.
If the opponents of the pipeline ultimately win and are able to shut down the pipeline, it would mean that alternative modes of transportation would be needed to transport the oil including what some call a more dangerous and more expensive situation with trains and trucks having to carry the product. According to Enbridge, that would mean 2,000 trucks would be needed one way per day or 800 rail cars one way per day.
In a previous statement by Enbridge spokesperson Ryan Duffy, had warned “It is clear that a shut-down of Line 5 would only add to the current disruption of the energy market, and would hurt hard-working families and small businesses in Michigan and throughout the region, at a time when they can least afford it.” He has also said it would violate the treaty between the U.S. and Canada that governs the flower of cross-border pipelines.
