A Look at Line 5
A naïve Michigander's formalized familiarization on Enbridge Line 5, specifically the segment through the Straits of Mackinac
I have something embarrassing to admit. Up until writing this, I’ve been relatively uninformed regarding Line 5 and why every Michigander seemingly has an opinion on it. I knew the gist - there’s an oil pipeline running through the Straits of Mackinac, and some people want to shut it down - but I really didn’t know much more beyond that. One of the main purposes of this blog is to give me an opportunity to explore environmental policy issues that I haven’t previously had a reason to.
Line 5 seemed like a good place to start for a number of reasons. First, it’s a local issue. I think it’s important to know what’s happening in your community, and as I said it seems like everywhere I go someone has an opinion on this specific pipeline. I’ve done a tremendous amount of driving around Michigan over the last few months; from Ann Arbor to Houghton, Traverse City to Alpena and more. Depending on where you were in the State it seemed as though there were almost an equal number of people posting yard signs in support of the pipeline as there were in opposition to it. I didn’t want to continue plugging my ears to something all of my neighbors were talking about.
Second, it’s a current and ongoing topic. This debate is far from settled and people from every walk of life have opinions on both sides. I haven’t written much on environmental issues, and I’m not exactly sure the right way to approach it. I’ve spent a while mulling on that very issue trying to figure out an appropriate format. Should I read from a variety of sources on both sides of a given issue and try to write a factual but neutral piece that serves as a quick “up-to-speed”? Or maybe handle it like a more typical academic essay where I state a thesis and try to lay out evidence to convince anyone who might read that my opinion is the correct one?
All of that is to say that this piece is my foray into figuring out how to cover environmental policy. I probably won’t cover everything that needs to be said, so I’m leaving the door open. Later down the line I may return to this topic as new events unfold and there’s more to say. For the time being, these are my thoughts on Enbridge Line 5 that runs through both peninsulas of Michigan and the controversy regarding the crossing at the Straits of Mackinac.
Enbridge Line 5 is a pipeline that extends for 645 miles across Michigan, from where the Upper Peninsula buts up to Wisconsin down to the St. Clair river where it crosses into Canada. Every day it carries more than 22 million gallons of light crude oil and natural gas for refining. A portion of this oil remains in Michigan for refining with another portion being destined for similar treatment in Ohio. However the majority of the oil is intended for Canada where it’s either refined or rejoined with other Enbridge pipelines.
The topic of concern regarding Enbridge is the aforementioned crossing at the Straits of Mackinac. Once the pipe reaches the southern shore of the Upper Peninsula it splits into two smaller pipes where it then dives below the surface of the water and is anchored to the lakebed. It travels the 4.5 miles towards the Lower Peninsula of Michigan underground until it reaches a minimum depth of 65 feet where it’s then housed in a dredged trench.
The reason that this crossing is the subject of so much debate in recent years is the risk it poses to the entire Great Lakes ecosystem. The Great Lakes make up 21% of the Earth’s freshwater, making it extremely important to everyone in the region, as well as the planet at large. Aside from the simple fact that humans need freshwater to survive, the Great Lakes play so many other important roles, ranging from providing a source of food to boosting the economies of those areas bordering the lakes. Even a small upset to the lakes could prove disastrous to both local and statewide economies and communities.
As stated previously: Line 5 carries an immense amount of crude light oil and natural gas across the entire expanse of Michigan. This means that there’s constantly an impressive flow of oil through the pipeline. Along with that the currents through the Straits are strong, meaning that any cleanup effort is going to be cumbersome. A 2016 study published by the University of Michigan estimated that a leak in the pipeline could negatively impact 700 miles of lakeshore. While the chance of disaster in the Straits is debated, it’s clear they pose an immense risk by simply existing.
The concern around Line 5 and the calls for its discontinuation and removal from Michigan waters didn’t pop up out of nowhere. Line 5 has been responsible for numerous spills across Michigan soil since its foundation, but this most recent push for discontinuation was brought about following a leak in Enbridge Line 6 in a tributary to the Kalamazoo river in 2010. It’s estimated that more than 1 million gallons of heavy crude spilled into the river with cleanup costs exceeding 1 billion U$D and taking years to mend. With one of the largest inland oil spills in U.S. history happening on their soil, Michiganders began asking whether or not the reward was worth the risk.
At this point Enbridge has been operating Line 5 through Michigan for 70 years. What has the State gotten out of it? More importantly, what have the people gotten from it? Many households and businesses across the State rely on the types of products moved by Line 5 to heat their buildings. We are amongst the States with the highest propane usage per household in the country. This is especially true in the Upper Peninsula where infrastructure is less developed and houses are more dispersed and secluded. As it stands currently, we are dependent on propane, natural gas and all of the crude resources piped in through Enbridge.
Further, because the infrastructure is already in place and running constantly the cost per gallon for any of the refined products is lower than it might otherwise be if we relied on alternative modes of transportation. Should Line 5 no longer be in operation, it’s entirely likely that the cost for heating our homes could rise, depending on where you are in the State.
Enbridge Line 5 is a tricky situation. On one hand, it’s an old pipeline that has a track record of spilling oil across Michigan, and the crossing in the Straits has already suffered damage from an arrant boat anchor. The cost-benefit analysis seems completely one sided when you start to consider the worst case scenario, with millions of gallons of oil tainting these precious waters. On the other hand, those are worst case scenarios. The pipeline was engineered to stand the tests of time and is monitored by Enbridge who in turn is watched by the State. Furthermore the costs of heating your home is already a constant anxiety for many families across the state. What might seem like a nominal increase on paper can in reality be the tipping point for some. It’s hard to worry about possible risks on a statewide scale when you’re putting your energy into keeping your family warm. I can understand why this issue is being hotly debated, and over the process of researching this I was struggling to find the right way to express my overall thoughts on the matter.
Helpfully, Enbridge has done a good job on summarizing my thoughts on Line 5. To quote them directly, “The Straits of Mackinac is extraordinary. The health and the protection of these waterways are essential to the vitality, sustainability, and economic prosperity of Michigan, and the region overall”. The waters that surround and flow through Michigan are one of the greatest strengths of this State as well as our entire country. The protection of the Great Lakes should be one of our highest priorities. Their purity and posterity cannot be compromised.
To move away from Line 5 would be a complicated, lengthy and costly process. There would need to be a complete reevaluation of our State’s oil and gas needs and exploration into alternative methods to meet those needs, or else risk unacceptable shortages. To once again directly quote Enbridge: “Alternatives for the above shortages are limited—and that would mean massive investment in pipeline infrastructure, or significantly increasing rail or trucking capacity, to make up for the shortfall caused by a Line 5 shutdown”. Thankfully, the State has already done a lot of the legwork to figure out how to divorce ourselves from Enbridge dependency.
A report by the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) that was released in 2020, following Governor Whitmer’s statements that she intends to shut down the oil pipeline, goes through the process of assessing our State’s energy needs and laying out recommendations for how we could manage in a post-Line 5 world. Included in the document are several calls for expanded rail and storage infrastructure, which aligns with what the Governor’s office has called for directly. Estimates from a panel of experts puts the immediate rise in cost to propane prices at a negligible level and the report calls for several reforms that could mitigate or erase these costs and expand consumer access to low and stable propane prices. A departure from Line 5 wouldn’t be insurmountable for the State.
In short, I believe that Michigan would be best served by shutting down Line 5. Our relationship seems to be based more on convenience and precedent rather than true benefit to the State and the people. To divorce ourselves would be a process that necessitates a massive amount of investment into our infrastructure across the board. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing, especially considering what we stand to lose by continuing to rely on these old oil pipelines. While nobody knows for certain how likely it is that the Line 5 fails and leaks in the Straits, the resulting disaster would be catastrophic. As Michiganders we owe it to ourselves, our neighbors, our countrymen and the entire world to protect the Great Lakes - now and forever.
