Ongoing Legal Disputes Surround Short Oil Pipeline Beneath Great Lakes Straits

The prolonged battle to maintain the flow of oil and natural gas under a crucial Michigan waterway could soon reach the state Supreme Court.

The straits represent the junction point in northern Michigan where Lake Huron and Lake Michigan converge.

The proposal involves constructing a new concrete-lined tunnel to protect a four-mile section of Line 5—a 645-mile-long metal pipeline that transports light crude oil and natural gas liquids from Wisconsin, through Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, and across the Lower Peninsula to refineries and distribution hubs in Sarnia, Ontario.

Currently, this segment consists of two 20-inch metal pipes responsible for transporting natural gas liquids and 540,000 barrels of light crude oil daily across the straits.

Related Stories

Opponents of Enbridge cite the significant crude oil spill that polluted the Kalamazoo River in southern Michigan in 2010 as evidence of the risks associated with pipelines.

The legal disputes that led to the recent appeal began in 2023 when the Michigan Public Service Commission (PSC) conditionally granted Enbridge’s permit application to relocate its existing underwater pipeline to a tunnel constructed beneath the lakebed.

Two conditions stipulated that Enbridge must acquire all necessary state and federal permits and devise a comprehensive risk management plan.

Enbridge submitted its PSC permit request in April 2020.

The appeal was initiated by the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians in conjunction with a coalition of environmental organizations.

The appellants assert that the PSC should not have granted Enbridge’s permit as they maintain that the entire Line 5 pipeline constitutes an environmental risk that should be decommissioned.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel is pursuing a separate ongoing lawsuit against Enbridge aiming for this outcome.

In late 2020, Governor Gretchen Whitmer ordered Enbridge to cease operations of oil and natural gas through Line 5 within six months. This directive was overturned in the courts.

Environmental Threat Mitigation

As noted in legal documents referenced in the appeals court’s ruling, Enbridge indicated that the main threat to the existing underwater section of the pipeline comes from tugboats, freighters, and other large vessels that might drag or drop anchors onto it.

Shifting to a subterranean tunnel lined with concrete would mitigate this risk and serve as an effective barrier against potential oil spills, as stated by the company.

In October 2018, the U.S. Coast Guard prohibited large vessels from anchoring in the straits due to ongoing damage to utility cables and the risk of rupturing the pipeline, which has been struck multiple times but has not leaked.

Successfully acquiring the PSC permit marked the first significant milestone in a project that has faced bureaucratic and legal hurdles since 2018.

More Permits Required

Prior to any construction, the project must also receive permits from the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy, in addition to the United States Army Corps of Engineers.

Executive orders and policies from former President Donald Trump regarding energy development placed Line 5 on a fast-track for federal approval.

Critics argue that Line 5 primarily serves Canadian interests, exposing Michigan’s waters and lands to spill risks without providing substantial benefits to its residents.

According to the appeals court ruling, Enbridge officials responded that Line 5 benefits Michigan by supplying natural gas liquids to a propane production facility in Rapid River and delivering light crude oil to facilities in Lewiston and Marysville that connect with other pipelines serving many of the state’s industries.

As much as 65% of Upper Peninsula residents depend on propane for heating, per Enbridge’s claims.

In 2018, the Michigan Legislature affirmed that the purposes of Line 5 were “for the benefit of the people of this state,” as indicated in the appeals court decision.

Opponents Made Their Case

The tribes and environmental groups claimed in the ruling that the PSC failed to recognize that with the growth of renewable energy, Line 5 might no longer be necessary.

The appellants contended that the Michigan Environmental Protection Act’s provisions regarding project alternatives were not adequately considered.

Some of the alternatives to pipeline oil transport that were dismissed included railcars, tankers, and barges.

There were also concerns raised about the greenhouse gas emissions “in relation to the supply of and demand for petroleum products.”

The transition to relocating the oil pipeline into a tunnel that may also ultimately serve as a utility corridor for powerlines and communication cables received backing from a number of energy companies, a labor union, and various statewide business organizations, who highlighted the project’s economic advantages.

Working Together

According to legal filings, Enbridge remarked that the Michigan Legislature enacted a law in 2018 creating a body within the Michigan Department of Transportation known as the Mackinac Straits Corridor Authority (MSCA) to facilitate agreements on construction, operation, and maintenance of the tunnel.

Latter in 2018, Enbridge committed to constructing the tunnel and managing the 30-inch pipeline inside it at its own cost, though under the authority’s jurisdiction.

In 2018, the MSCA also obtained an easement from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources for the tunnel—a decision met with strong opposition from environmental advocates.

Upon its completion, Enbridge will enter into a 99-year lease with the authority to operate and supervise the new 30-inch pipeline.

The MSCA was also a co-defendant in the appeal.

Once the new pipeline is finalized, the two existing underwater pipes of the old Line 5 that sit atop the lakebed will be permanently deactivated.