Controversy is described as a disagreement that is prolonged, public, and heated.

It can surround us like a heavy blanket of fog, making it difficult to see through the motives, antics, and deceptions employed to sway us to one side or the other.

We in Michigan have one such controversy. It perfectly fits the description of prolonged, public and heated. It is the now-famous — or infamous, depending on your point of view — Enbridge Inc. Line 5. It’s an oil pipeline running from Canada through Wisconsin, through the highly volatile Straits of Mackinac, ending up in Sarnia, Ontario, Canada.

In other words, it’s a pipeline from Canada to Canada, where in a Sarnia refinery the oil is turned into gasoline primarily for Canadians.

Most likely, you fall into one of three groups concerning Line 5. You want it, you don’t want it, or you don’t care.

For those of you who fall into the “don’t care” category, I suggest you take another look, because Line 5 does have an impact on us here in northern Michigan.

But, first, a bit of history.

Enbridge’s Line 5 received an easement from the state of Michigan in 1953 to lay two pipelines at the bottom of the Straits of Mackinac. We didn’t know then what we know now about the impacts of major oil spills, and I have no doubt an easement would not be granted if it was applied for today. Now 70 years old, the pipeline has far outlived its initial 50-year lifespan.

So what to do with it is the question.

The easement has been revoked by the state of Michigan, yet Enbridge ignored it and currently the validity of the easement is tied up in the courts. Meanwhile, Enbridge wants to build a tunnel under the Straits to encase the pipeline, claiming that would be safe and not endanger the Great Lakes. But, of course that’s what they are going to say.

There, my friends, is the controversy.

So, would the tunnel be safer than the pipe lying on the bottom, up to 270 feet below the surface?

It may be safer, but it would not be failproof.

In fact, Michigan Advance reported two longtime geological experts, Brian O’Mara, a geologic engineer and tunnel project consultant, and Mike Wilczynski, a former Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy senior geologist, have major concerns about the tunnel, citing the pollutants that would be dumped into Lake Michigan would be “up to 5 million gallons a day of: treated noncontact cooling water, tunnel/portal construction water, tunnel boring machine air intervention water, slurry treatment facility wastewater, tunnel drainage, groundwater seepage, hydrostatic pressure test water, and an unknown amount of stormwater.”

The two geologists also agree not nearly enough research has been done on the geology of the area beneath the tunnel route. Enbridge only drilled 20 boreholes when industry standards call for at least 100 to nearly 400 borings over the 19,000-foot span. The geologists also noted the danger of methane explosions drilling in similar conditions to a tunnel under Lake Huron that exploded in 1972, killing 22 men.

And, even if the tunnel is eventually approved, has anyone looked at Enbridge’s history of environmental compliance and the ability to safely pull off a monumental and dangerous project such as this, when any mistake could be catastrophic for the Great Lakes?

Well, I took a look at Violation Tracker, which keeps highly detailed reports on corporations’ environmental and safety records, and found Enbridge’s record is so dismal anyone with any common sense would say, “No way, Enbridge, are we going to entrust the 20% of the world’s freshwater contained in the Great Lakes to you!”

Violation Tracker reports 113 Enbridge violations since 2001 and $284 million in fines, with the vast majority of fines in the Environmental and Safety categories. Enbridge has 98 environmental violations resulting in more than $282 million in fines.

Folks, that is an average of one environmental violation every two-and-a-half months over a 21-year period!

That says about all we need to know about their concern for the environment, and they actually believe we can just ignore that when it comes to our Great Lakes?

Here in Michigan, we are blessed to be surrounded by the Great Lakes, which are one of the world’s greatest natural wonders. They have been here for 3,000 years and we have the responsibility to preserve and protect them at any and all costs. A significant oil spill would disrupt the shipping, tourism, and fishing industries and coastal oil pollution would fill Alpena’s Thunder Bay.

All that is well-documented in an exhaustive study by the University of Michigan, which in summary stated the Straits of Mackinac are the worst possible place to have an oil pipeline.

That is why any discussion of Line 5 and the proposed tunnel should end now and plans need to begin immediately by the energy industry to build the alternate infrastructure to enable the closure of Line 5 forever.

If Line 5 was to close right now, an Enbridge consultant even admitted in court documents that gasoline prices would only go up in Michigan an insignificant one-half of 1 cent per gallon.

But Line 5 also transports propane, which is needed by northern Michiganders. That’s the infrastructure that needs immediate attention.

Of course, Enbridge will fight us all the way. They are a for-profit, foreign corporation with big money, highly skilled lobbyists, and no doubt a host of attorneys ready and willing to drag this out as long as they can.

This is not the time, nor was there ever a time when we should put our freshwater at risk when there are viable alternatives such as there are for Line 5. But it is time Michiganders need to see through the controversial fog and realize there is really only one sensible and responsible solution, which is to do everything in our power to preserve and protect the Great Lakes for another 3,000 years.

I started by saying this was a controversy, but I am interested in your thoughts about Line 5. Please share them with me at gregawtry@awtry.com.