×

Officials: Tunnel best plan for Line 5

ALPENA — An agreement between the State of Michigan and Enbridge Inc. to decommission the oil pipeline known as Line 5 and have a new pipeline built in the confines of a tunnel through the Straits of Mackinac has several hurdles to clear, but progress is being made, state officials told The News.

On Thursday, officials from the Michigan departments of Natural Resources and Transportation visited Alpena to provide more details on the proposed project and what is developing behind the scenes. The plan has faced criticism from residents near the straits, environmental activists and others for not going far enough fast enough, but the officials on Thursday defended the plan as the best available option.

After numerous studies and debate about the best means to protect the Great Lakes from a possible rupture of Line 5, only a few options were deemed feasible, the officials said, none of which would likely please everyone.

At this point, the state and Enbridge seem to believe that the tunnel is the best option to safely and efficiently transport oil through the straits. It is estimated the tunnel would cost between $300 million and $500 million, and Enbridge would pay for it. The company would also cover the cost to maintain the pipeline laid within the tunnel.

Enbridge has also agreed to hold $1.8 billion in reserve, should there be a catastrophic failure of the pipes and a large spill occurs.

DNR Director Keith Creagh said everyone involved has the same goals, including a separation between the commodity and Michigan’s natural resources.

“We should not tolerate any risk relative to the Great Lakes, so, fundamentally, no matter what side of the issue you may be on, we all appreciate the Great Lakes and make sure we want to do the most to protect them,” Creagh said.

TWO STRATEGIES

Creagh said there were two strategies to approaching the issue, which has gained attention this year after an anchor struck and damaged the pipeline.

Creagh said one strategy was to work with Enbridge to set a date for decommission of the pipeline, as the state has done.

The other was to try a legal remedy, which would have had an uncertain outcome. He said that, although the state could have come out ahead in court, that would be a costly, time-consuming process, and there is no guarantee the state would win because of some of the language in an open-ended easement agreement between the state and Enbridge established in 1953.

“The agreement may not be written as tightly as you would do it in today’s terms, but, in it, it says, should there be a failure or breach, the state has to give the company time to rectify that,” Creagh said. “It doesn’t say, if there is a breach it is an automatic shutdown. It gives them a reasonable amount of time for remedial action, and it has 90 days to begin the process.”

Creagh said an alternative analysis study was done to find other means to get oil from point A to point B, without placing a burden on residents and customers of Enbridge.

Some say Enbridge could close Line 5 and take steps to increase pressure and volumes on another Enbridge pipe, Line 6B, to still deliver product.

But that “wouldn’t solve the issue of getting things to market up north or help the propane issue,” Creagh said. He said Michigan uses more propane than any other state and, if there was a disruption, costs could soar for residents who depend on propane for heat.

Line 6B is the Enbridge pipe that ruptured in 2010 near Marshall, causing one of the largest inland oil spills in history.

Another option considered, Creagh said, was to do horizontal, directional drilling through the straits, but that was deemed not feasible. Yet another option was to dig a trench for the pipes and then fill it in, but that option wouldn’t separate commodity and resources, Creagh said, and wasn’t appealing to anyone.

The third option was a tunnel, which would house the pipes and have enough room for other utilities, such as electric and broadband services, to utilize.

“It would be a utility corridor and help provide fiber, electric and others services needed, when it is needed,” Creagh said.

BRIDGE AUTHORITY DECISION

The proposed deal with Enbridge for the tunnel project is for 99 years and it could take as long as three to four years to construct. Creagh said that is a conservative timeline, because he is sure there will be some protests and legal challenges from entities who oppose the plan.

Several steps have been taken recently to protect Line 5 and the Great Lakes. The Legislature passed bills saying ships can no longer anchor in the straits and the U.S Coast Guard will patrol and enforce the new law. Enbridge will have a 24-hour office near the bridge, where a staff of six will work around the clock and react if there is an issue.

Creagh said those employees will be able to shut the current line down in 15 minutes or less, should something happen. There will also be high-definition cameras in place so ships can be sure their anchors are up and not being dragged.

Another goal for the new agreement is to have an independent body own and govern the tunnel.

Today, a draft proposal will be presented to the Mackinac Bridge Authority which, if accepted, would transfer ownership and oversight of the tunnel to the authority. That group, which was established in the early 1950s to manage the soon-to-be-built bridge, does not have a say on whether the tunnel is built.

“It’s not for the authority to decide if a utility corridor should be built,” Creagh said. “It’s about the oversight, transparency and rigor the authority is really good at. It has done a great job with the bridge and it makes sense, because whatever happens in the vicinity of the bridge has an impact on the bridge.”

Toll revenues will remain earmarked for the bridge and will not be used in any manner for the tunnel’s construction, operation or care, Creagh said.

The proposed agreement with the Mackinac Bridge Authority is expected to be discussed at the authority’s Nov. 8 meeting, and there is a chance amendments to it could be requested. A vote on the agreement could be made before the end of the year.

MDOT spokesman Jeff Cranson said it is important for people to know that the authority does not have a vote on whether the tunnel is built, but that the authority can provide the needed management for the tunnel, once completed.

“The authority has to decide if it wants to own the tunnel and, basically, oversee its operation,” Cranson said. “It is an existing authority that does have credibility and has done a good job for a long time. They will not, however, be asked about the merits of the tunnel. I think the protesters are going to show up in mass and think they can sink this whole thing if they should down the authority, but it has no say in if it’s built or not.”

Creagh said that, although there will be a new governor and new lawmakers chosen in Tuesday’s election, he thinks the plan is concrete enough to move forward, regardless of who is governor or who controls the state House and Senate.

“This could be the most certain path to decommission and deactivate the dual lines and the agreement is date-certain on when they will be shut down,” Creagh said. “This has certainty, where the legal strategy raises some questions that are unclear. I never predict what can happen when there is a change in administration, but, if there is a plan that is very thoughtful and deliberative put forward that increases the stewardship and that the people are behind, it should be supported.”

Creagh said the tunnel project is a large step in getting Line 5 shut down and having a new one built in a protected area.

“It gets us from if Line 5 will be shut down to when it is going to be shut down,” he said.

Steve Schulwitz can be reached at sschulwitz@thealpenanews.com or 989-358-5689. Follow Steve on Twitter @ss_alpenanews.

Newsletter

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *
   

Starting at $4.62/week.

Subscribe Today