On May 7th, with less than 24 hours notice, Michigan House of Representatives introduced HR 91 "A resolution to support President Trump’s policies to increase the nation’s energy infrastructure and security, which have facilitated emergency permitting for the Enbridge Line 5 project" in the Natural Resources and Tourism Committee.
Line 5 is a 70 year old tar sands pipeline that runs as a shortcut for Canadian Enbridge Inc. through the Straits of Mackinac, an ecologically critical area of the Great Lakes: University of Michigan scientists modeling spill scenarios called it "the worst possible place for an oil spill in the Great Lakes". Its expected lifespan was 50 years. The proposed tunnel would keep the dangerous pipeline open for an expected additional decade, while the plan for the tunnel itself raises serious questions with scientists raising red flags. However, responding to a executive order from President Trump the Army Corps of Engineers is speed-running the tunnel approval process - despite the immense risk.
Clean Water Action Mid-Michigan Organizer Dr. Nichole Keway Biber and Michigan Director Sean McBrearty testified against the resolution.
Good morning everyone. I’m Nicole Keway Biber, n'dizhinikaaz. Waganakising Odawa Anishinaabekwe. So some good news. There's studies that say there's more jobs decommissioning Line 5 than there would be building the tunnel. And that those decommissioning jobs would be a chance to pay local union labor, which Enbridge lobbied against any such requirements for their tunnel project.
Propane providers have repeatedly confirmed that they can take over supply for the UP. Other existing pipelines can take over the transport of oil. Enbridge’s own lawyers, when under oath, admitted that likely fuel cost increases would be about 1 cent a gallon. So the opportunity to draw down from fossil fuels rather than doubling down and propping up a pipeline that's 20 years past its projected lifespan.
645 miles long, those four miles under the Straits get a lot of attention because it's probably a PR headache for Enbridge because it's such an obvious place that's so risky for an oil pipeline. So this threat to the critical water supply - you know Asian carp? Say Canadian crude oil instead and I think you can get the picture.
Drawing down from fossil fuels rather than doubling down opens the door to innovation. We could invest in solutions that don't require further destruction of wetlands or endangered species or continue sickening communities on the front lines of these refineries. Things that aren't an MIT class project that was sort of deemed infeasible by those students, but Enbridge kind of ran with it because it's a way to keep their oil flowing - for millions of dollars every day - while ignoring the red flags.The limited boring samples they took - the limited ones - showed it's not all bedrock there. There's the unanswered questions about methane leaks that could lead to explosions. And also when talking about partnerships and upholding them could remain aligned with the US and Michigan constitutions and long-standing treaties with tribal nations by upholding tribal consultation that's supposed to be meaningful and robust.
Why avoid this if it's so safe?
If they’re just so certain it's safe - tribal nations and a lot of other people around the state are working on recovery and restoration efforts. For example, the wild fish population projects to bring those populations back. Take the long view. We aren't locked into this extraction, right? We have a choice. We can prioritize the water.
Um, “trust Enbridge”?. Well, this summer it’s going to be 15 years since the Line 6B spill, which just a couple weeks before that happened - a million gallons right in the Kalamazoo River - they said it's perfectly safe. When their own sort of “state-of-the-art” monitors said something's going on there? They increased the flow! Like maybe something's stuck rather than shutting it down. That's who we're supposed to trust. Their Line 3 pipeline in Minnesota. Those Enbridge employees got caught with human trafficking. That's preying on indigenous communities in particular.
So, you know, they're spending their money on a lot of propaganda, but refusing to answer hard questions about the actual feasibility of this tunnel. You can vote no or you can take a pass and say, Enbridge, why don't you do your homework? Why don't you answer hard questions? What's the rush? Why not have a full review? Why not have tribal consultation? Why not uphold those partnerships? Miigwetch.
My name is Sean McBrearty. I'm the Michigan Director for Clean Water Action, which represents over 130,000 members across the state who understand that our Great Lakes are more valuable and more important than oil industry profits. We strongly oppose this inaccurate and unnecessary resolution to support the building of an oil tunnel underneath the Great Lakes.
To begin with, this resolution states that Line 5 is critical for meeting Michigan's energy needs. Independent expert studies as well as Enbridge's own experts when under oath in court have confirmed that this is not true. In fact, during The Bad River Band v. Enbridge case in Wisconsin, Enbridge's own experts when they took the stand admitted that if the worst case scenario were to happen and a rupture were to cause the immediate shutdown of Line 5 with no planning, there would be no oil or gas shortages and the only impact would be a temporary rise of half of 1 cent in gas prices regionally.
Further, expert reporting from PLG Consulting, which is an oil industry logistics leader, says that every barrel of Line 5's oil would be delivered to refineries within 18 months of Line 5 shutting down, and 87% of it would be delivered within 3 months, and the costs would be virtually the same. This resolution also states that without Line 5 the oil and gas from the pipeline would need to be moved across the state by truck and rail. This is also false as according to the same experts, there is existing capacity within the Lakehead pipeline system that could carry most of what is carried through Line 5 currently and Michigan would see no increase in truck or rail transport. We would also not have barges of oil on the Great Lakes because when they rebuilt Line 6B after the spill 15 years ago, (Line 6B also starts in Superior, Wisconsin, ends in Sarnia, Ontario, but goes around the Lakes) - when they rebuilt that pipeline, they doubled its capacity from 400,000 barrels a day to 800,000 barrels a day. Line 5's full capacity is 540,000 barrels a day, but it's not running at that right now. So, we have room for almost the entire capacity on Line 6B - again, according to expert testimony.
I also want to share more on what exactly this resolution is supporting. Fast-tracking a process that has already been deeply flawed to build an unprecedented oil tunnel underneath one of the most ecologically sensitive parts of the Great Lakes. Enbridge only did roughly 1/10th of the industry standard geotechnical research in planning this oil tunnel. Even in that small amount of research, over half of the rock samples they took were rated poor to very poor as drilling material. The water infiltration through the rock was closer to infiltration rates for sand than for bedrock. And Enbridge has done nothing in their plan and design for the heavy water infiltration they should expect to encounter when building the tunnel. The research also uncovered traces of methane in groundwater, which is a sign of potential methane pockets.
One of the largest industrial accidents in our state's history happened in 1971 when they were building a water intake tunnel underneath Lake Huron for Detroit Water and Sewage District. They hit a methane pocket. Somebody dropped a drill and the ensuing blast killed 21 workers.
This would also be the most highly pressurized tunnel in the world. They would encounter the pressure of 17 atmospheres in the tunnel. Workers would need to be in hyperbaric suits to work on it as the pressure of five atmospheres is enough to crush a person. These are all things that we're skipping analyzing these things in fast-tracking this process.
Further, no agency has actually examined the environmental impacts of tunneling through the Great Lakes bottomlands in an area where we'd have explosion risks underneath an operating pipeline. This does not make the Great Lakes safer. This is not safer for Michigan's workers or for our Great Lakes. This actually makes things worse and makes things more risky with the Line 5 situation.
Also - with all these unknowns, despite all these unknowns, the plan at this point is for Michigan taxpayers once this tunnel is built to take ownership of the project. Meaning Enbridge has no further liability and liability for anything that happens after construction that we're working to fast track falls on Michigan taxpayers. Studies show we could be seeing 4 to 6 billion dollars in damages from a spill, $46 billion in economic impacts from a just a 15-day shutdown of the Straits shipping lane.
Lastly, this is all framed in President Trump's energy emergency resolution - so-called energy emergency that we have. Right now the United States is producing more oil and gas and more of all forms of energy domestically than we ever have in history. In 2023, we produced more energy than any other country on Earth. It's clear that we don't have an energy emergency. At the same time, the 10 hottest years on record have occurred between 2015 and present. What's clear is that we have a climate emergency.
And I know that my testimony is not going to change things today and that this resolution is going to be political theater voted on on the floor. I would encourage the majority to put this on the board so that we can see who's going to stand with our Great Lakes and who's going to stand with the industry. Thank you.
