x
Breaking News
More () »

2 Enbridge: Tunnel could replace pipelines in Straits of Mackinac

The tunnel cost would be astronomical, however: $300 million to $500 million in a six-year project, according to Enbridge estimates.
Credit: Courtesy of National Wildlife Federation
A diver working on behalf of the nonprofit National Wildlife Federation inspects the Line 5 oil pipelines at the lake bottom in the Straits of Mackinac during a July 2013 dive.

A new oil transmission pipeline in a tunnel below the Straits of Mackinac, or buried on the lake bottom under feet of rock and other cover, would be feasible replacements to the existing, 65-year-old underwater pipelines where lakes Michigan and Huron meet, Canadian oil transport giant Enbridge states in an alternatives analysis submitted to the State of Michigan on Friday.

The tunnel cost would be astronomical, however: $300 million to $500 million in a six-year project, according to Enbridge estimates.

Environmentalists swiftly panned the concepts, saying the Great Lakes are too valuable a resource to subject to the threat of a major oil spill for further decades to come. Enbridge, however, said the tunnel would reduce spill potentials into the Straits to "virtually zero."

Line 5 moves 23 million gallons of oil and natural gas liquids per day east through the Upper Peninsula, splitting into twin underwater pipelines through the Straits, before returning to a single transmission pipeline through the Lower Peninsula that runs south to Sarnia, Ontario.

Enbridge's alternatives plan was required under an agreement the company reached with state officials last November, in which it also agreed to additional safety measures on the underwater pipes' operation.

The possibility of tunneling under the Straits of Mackinac for Line 5 was one of the most feasible alternatives outlined by contracted, Texas-based engineering firm Dynamic Risk in its alternatives analysis for state officials issued last year. Gov. Rick Snyder and state Attorney General Bill Schuette have both previously expressed support for the tunnel concept.

"This report is the result of the coordinated efforts between state-appointed experts, independent consultants and our team and will serve as a starting point to help the state and Enbridge determine a possible path forward for the future of Line 5 in Michigan," company spokesman Ryan Duffy said in a statement.

The proposed tunnel would be excavated with a special boring machine, and its maximum depth would be approximately 350 feet below the lake surface and approximately 100 feet beneath the lake bed at its deepest point. The completed tunnel would contain one, 30-inch, hydrocarbon pipeline that would then be encased in a secondary, outer containment structure, featuring layers of different materials for protection.

Under the second, "open-cut construction" alternative that Enbridge sees as feasible, a new pipeline configured in the same way as the under-the-tunnel alternative would be placed in a trench along the Straits bottom, then covered in up to 17 feet of gravel and rock as a protective measure. Enbridge estimates the cost of that proposal at up to $300 million, with a timeline of four to five years.

Both alternatives are still a bad deal for Michigan, said Sean McBrearty, Michigan program organizer for the nonprofit Clean Water Action.

McBrearty noted that more than 95% of the oil and gas moved through Line 5 is a Canadian product destined for Canadian refineries and overseas markets, but a spill from the pipeline could have an economic impact to Michigan of more than $6.3 billion, according to a recent economic study by Michigan State University ecological economist Robert Richardson.

“Michigan does not need Line 5, yet our state bears all the risks associated with a devastating Line 5 oil spill and gets next to nothing in return,” he said “Feasible and prudent alternatives to Line 5 can be found in existing pipeline infrastructure or in building a new pipeline through Ontario. There is no reason that we should continue to expose the Great Lakes to such a risk.”

A new Straits pipeline in a tunnel could also prompt Enbridge to transition from only transporting light crude oil to heavier, tar sands oil from western Canada — the kind that prompted a four-year, more than $1 billion cleanup after an Enbridge pipeline burst near the Kalamazoo River in 2010, said Allison LaPlatt, Great Lakes organizer for the Michigan chapter of the environmental nonprofit Sierra Club.

Mike Shriberg, the nonprofit National Wildlife Federation's Great Lakes executive director and a member of Michigan's Pipeline Safety Advisory Board, called the proposed alternatives a diversion from what should be the most important focus: "How to protect the Great Lakes and our way of life from a potentially catastrophic oil spill now."

"Expert analysis shows that Michigan does not need Line 5," he said. "We have safer ways to meet our energy needs that don’t jeopardize our Great Lakes and our communities. There is simply no reason to risk our waters, wildlife and way of life so that Enbridge can use the Great Lakes as a shortcut."

Duffy said Line 5 "safely and reliably delivers the energy Michigan families and businesses rely on each day."

"Both feasible alternatives would help ensure the continued safety and protection of the Great Lakes for future generations, and we look forward to our continued collaboration with the State to further explore the viability of these options," he said.

There are three more Enbridge reports due at the end of June, under the November 2017 agreement with the state, state Agency for Energy spokesman Nick Assendelft said. By June 30, Enbridge is also expected to provide:

  • An assessment of technologies that would provide additional benefits over and above technologies in place at the Line 5 Straits crossing.
  • A report on options to mitigate the risk of a vessel anchor damaging Line 5 in the Straits.
  • A list of priority waters crossed by Line 5 — jointly identified by the state and Enbridge — and an assessment of measures at each crossing to minimize the likelihood and consequences of a spill.

A draft is also due in late July of a Line 5 risk analysis being conducted by Guy Meadows, director of the Great Lakes Research Center at Michigan Technological University.

"All the reports and public input will help to inform the state’s decision this fall on the final disposition of Line 5," Assendelft said.

Contact Keith Matheny: 313-222-5021 or kmatheny@freepress.com. Follow on Twitter @keithmatheny.

Make it easy to keep up to date with more stories like this. Download the WZZM 13 app now.

Have a news tip? Email news@wzzm13.com, visit our Facebook page or Twitter.

Before You Leave, Check This Out