LANSING, MI — A Canadian provincial government has waded into the Enbridge Line 5 debate, calling the pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac “a critical piece of infrastructure to Ontario.”
Ontario energy minister Glenn Thibeault emphasized Line 5’s importance to Canadian oil refineries and petrochemical companies in an Aug. 1 letter to Michigan’s Pipeline Safety Advisory Board.
“Enbridge Line 5 provides a significant volume of crude oil for processing by Ontario refineries and ensures a cost-effective supply of gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and other petroleum products,” wrote Thibeault.
“The refinery capacity in Ontario helps to moderate prices for consumers in both Ontario and Michigan, particularly by reducing reliance on imports from refineries in Ohio, Indiana and Illinois.”
Thibeault called Line 5 “key” to natural gas liquid production in Sarnia, Ont., where Line 5 terminates after crossing under the St. Clair River at Marysville.
Thibeault called the Sarnia natural gas liquids supply important to regional markets, refineries, the transportation sector and exports to the U.S. East Coast and Midwest. The petrochemical industry conglomeration in Sarnia is informally called “Chemical Valley.”
“In summary, Enbridge Line 5 is a critical piece of infrastructure to Ontario, it’s petrochemical industry in Sarnia and the Great Lakes region on the whole,” he wrote.
Enbridge spokesperson Ryan Duffy could not confirm whether Enbridge has had specific discussions with ministry about Line 5, but said via email that “Enbridge meets regularly with Ministry of Energy staff to talk about important energy issues in the region.”
Line 5 is bent and deformed where Enbridge wants to anchor it
Thibeault’s letter was posted on the state’s Line 5 review website, which is collecting public comment on draft analysis of alternatives to the pipeline under the straits developed by Dynamic Risk Assessments of Calgary, Canada. The website has accumulated 29 pages of comments about the pipeline since early July, when the report was released.
The deadline to comment is Friday, Aug. 4.
The report, coupled with a petition drive to limit Line 5 to only transporting natural gas liquids, helped push the Michigan oil and gas industry off the sidelines and into debate over whether the state government acts to shut the pipeline down or not.
On July 24, members of seven different industry groups defended a continued reliance on the aging underwater pipeline, which opponents fear could rupture and spill oil into the Great Lakes where Lake Michigan and Lake Huron meet.
Line 5 begins in Superior, Wis., and ends in Sarnia. It supplies propane to the Upper Peninsula and some light crude to refineries in Detroit and Toledo. Most of the product in Line 5 crosses into Canada where an Enbridge terminal connects to Line 9, which moves light oil from Line 5 and heavy oil from Line 6b along the northern coast of Lake Ontario to refineries in Montreal.
In a letter posted to the state website, Matthew Slotwinski, acting CEO of the Sarnia-Lambton Economic Partnership, wrote that Line 5 provides important supply for “refineries and chemical facilities operated by companies such as Imperial Oil (ExxonMobile), Suncor, Shell, NOVA Chemicals, and Plains Midstream.”
He called Line 5 a “critical piece of infrastructure.”
Opponents to the pipeline argue the exact opposite.
Traverse City advocacy group FLOW argues Line 5 is not critical infrastructure and the regional pipeline system can supply crude oil to Michigan and surrounding refineries while eliminating the risk the pipeline poses to the Great Lakes.
Anti-Line 5 group: Pipeline not vital infrastructure
In a letter signed by each of the twelve Michigan Native American tribes, the Dynamic Risk report is sharply criticized for “skewed focus” on Enbridge’s commercial needs over the interests of Michigan citizens and tribe members.
The letter argues that Michigan consumers and businesses rely on a modest amount of crude oil and natural gas liquids transported by Line 5 and feasible alternatives are available to offset the supply loss in state should the line shut down. The risk of a spill is “being borne by the people of Michigan for the benefit of out-of-state interests.”
David Holtz, chair of the Michigan Sierra Club and coordinator of the Oil & Water Don’t Mix campaign, called Michigan a “bridge for Canadian oil” that puts jobs and communities at risk from a spill.
“No doubt Canada will do all it can to protect these 64-year-old pipelines, which as Ontario’s energy minister identified this week are critical to keep the massive profits flowing for Canadian oil companies, even if Michigan families have to shoulder all the risk.”
Analyst: Line 5 has 1 in 60 chance of breaking by 2053
Dynamic Risk is supposed to take technical feedback from the public review and give the state a revised draft report this fall. From there, the state pipeline board will make a recommendation on what, if anything, should be done about the pipeline.
Separately, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality is reviewing an Enbridge request to install 22 supports on the pipeline, including five in an area where inspections show the pipe is bent and misshapen.
Public comment on both the Enbridge application to install anchors and the Dynamic Risk report ends Aug. 4 at midnight. From Aug. 5 to 19, the public can respond to comments about the report on the state’s Line 5 website.
Comments on the anchor supports can be submitted to the DEQ through the MiWaters database (click here), or mailed to the DEQ Gaylord Field Office at 2100 West M-32, Gaylord, Michigan 49735.
