ST. IGNACE, MI -- A group opposed to the Line 5 oil pipelines running under the Straits of Mackinac, frustrated by a lack of action by state officials, have released a written plan for decommissioning.
"Simply put, the state must stop the delays and stop kicking the can," said Liz Kirkwood, executive director of For Love of Water (FLOW). "The 65-year-old Line 5 pipelines pose too great a threat to the Great Lakes."
FLOW and other organizations, which have banded together against Line 5 under the banner Oil & Water Don't Mix, released the four-page plan on the coalition's website Tuesday, Jan. 16.
- Oil and Water Don't Mix plan
The announcement from Oil & Water Don't Mix Tuesday comes nearly two months after a new agreement between Enbridge Inc. and the state government intended to improve safety and transparency issues tied to the 64-year-old twin underwater pipelines crossing the Straits of Mackinac.
Tanya Baker, deputy press secretary for Gov. Rick Snyder, said that agreement addresses those issues while the state continues to examine the risk of a potential oil spill, pointing to a new risk analysis being completed before a final decision is made about Line 5's future.
"As the state awaits the completion of thorough analyses of Line 5 to determine the best course of action, the current agreement in place with Enbridge provides additional transparency and measures Enbridge must meet in order to keep the pipeline operating safely," Baker said in a statement. "We continue to enforce the agreement and monitor Enbridge's compliance."
She pointed to the state's new contract with a Michigan Technological University team led by professor Guy Meadows for a new risk analysis, which will evaluate Enbridge's liability for a worst-case-scenario pipeline spill and the impact it would have on Michigan's environment and economy.
"While a shutdown of the pipeline is not off the table, the state looks forward to the completion of the risk analysis to ensure all information is in hand to make an informed decision on the future of Line 5 and how to best protect Michigan's waterways," Baker said.
The 645-mile Line 5 pipeline, built in 1953, runs from Superior, Wisc., to Sarnia, Canada, and transports up to 540,000 barrels of light crude oil and natural gas liquids per day. Enbridge has faced harsh scrutiny in recent years from environmental advocates and government officials alike over the viability of the aging pipeline.
Discussing the advocacy group's plan on a telephone conference call with reporters, representatives from the organizations referenced a June statement from Attorney General Bill Schuette calling for a "specific and definite timetable" to decommission the portion of the pipeline crossing the Straits.
"For far too long, at this point, state leaders have delayed any meaningful actions to protect our great lakes from a catastrophic oil spill," said Sean McBrearty, Oil & Water Don't Mix campaign coordinator. "Since the state of Michigan has yet to produce any sort of plan, timeline or any indication that they intend to do so, Oil & Water Don't Mix is laying out a clear, straightforward, common-sense plan to shut down Line 5 once and for all."
The five-step plan recommends the state immediately initiative legal action against Enbridge Inc., examine alternatives for transporting crude oil and propane in and out of the state and formulate plans for decommissioning and dismantling pipeline infrastructure at the Straits and elsewhere throughout the state.
"It's time to move forward with legal action to compel strict enforcement of the current easement and to set a timetable for ending the easement," Kirkwood said.
In response to the renewed calls for the state to decommission Line 5, Enbridge spokesperson Ryan Duffy said in a statement the agreement with the state is "a clear path forward for safely operating Line 5 well into the future."
"The agreement outlines actions that Enbridge will take to drive down risk in the operation of Line 5 as it continues to provide energy to Michigan," Duffy said. "It spells out real goals that have to be met during the period of the agreement. It sets a specific timetable for both parties to know what work will take place and when."
Pointing to issues with the protective coating along the underwater portion of the pipeline, questions about how it's anchored to the lake bed and bending and deformation of the pipe itself, Kirkwood said the group is confident a court action would ultimately result in decommissioning.
"Because of the ongoing threat that this pipeline presents to the public trust waters that the state of Michigan is the trustee of," she said.
In the wake of a hotly-debated contractor's analysis by Dynamic Risk Assessments of Calgary on alternatives to the existing pipeline released in November, the company and state signed an agreement on Nov. 27 with a new set of safeguards, including a requirement for flow to be temporarily suspended during high waves.
The agreement came just weeks after revelations about numerous gaps in the pipeline's protective coating in a report from Enbridge Gov. Snyder called "deeply concerning" that led state agencies to issue as statement calling for "a full accounting" of the pipeline's condition from Enbridge.
Two weeks after the new agreement, members of Michigan's Pipeline Safety Advisory Board rebuked the governor's action, with formal resolutions asking for deal revisions, a new analysis of pipeline alternatives and a shutdown order until damage to the dual pipeline's protective coating can be repaired.
Representatives from Oil & Water Don't Mix were also critcal of the decision to negotiate a new agreement with Enbridge.
At the time of the Nov. 27 agreement, Kirkwood called the deal a "reward for failure."
James Clift, the policy director of Michigan Environmental Council, said the organizations want to see decisions about Line 5 being examined and made publicly, calling the Nov. 27 agreement a "backroom deal."
"What we're looking for is transparency," Clift said. "What we're worried about is they just want to do a backroom deal and not have anybody review this."
He called on state officials for a definitive answer on how a determiniation will be made about the viability of alternatives explored in the recent Dynamic Risk report and details about who will make those decisions and a timeline for doing so.
"There's just been a real lack of clarity from the administration," Clift said.