Tag: Line 5

State should end discussion, take action on Line 5


When the police pulls a resident over for going 100 mph in a 55-mph zone, they don't cluck their tongues -- they click their ticket books.

But when Michigan’s state government catches Enbridge Energy putting the Great Lakes at risk by failing again to disclose dangerous conditions on its Line 5 oil pipelines in the Mackinac Straits, the response is paralysis. The state has again caught Enbridge ignoring its legal obligation to be a proper steward of the submerged land that the state allows the company to occupy with its pipeline.

But all we're hearing out of Lansing, and particularly Attorney General Bill Schuette is an expression of disappointment.

The difference between strict enforcement of laws against individuals and giving an oil transport giant chance after chance to meet its fundamental responsibility not to harm public waters is as stark as the difference between a single speeding motorist and a catastrophic oil spill fouling the drinking water source for millions.

The accumulation of studies, evidence of pipeline delamination and bends in June, and now exposed metal with likely corrosion, signals a dangerously flawed and ultimately incurable pair of sunken pipelines.

It’s time for our state government to stop treating the 1963 Constitution, statutes, and common law that protect our lakes as nice but meaningless environmental policy statements and start treating them as the duty the people through the Constitution and our courts have mandated. More than ever, it’s time to shut down Line 5.


FLOW's senior advisor, Dave Dempsey, has 35 years experience in environmental policy. He served as environmental advisor to former Michigan Governor James Blanchard and as policy advisor on the staff of the International Joint Commission.  He has also provided policy support to the Michigan Environmental Council and Clean Water Action.  He has authored several books on the Great Lakes and water protection.


Illuminating Information in the Straits of Mackinac

Deep beneath the Straits of Mackinac, where twin petroleum pipelines cross the lakebed, sunlight has difficulty penetrating. But there’s more illumination at that depth than there is on key information involving the safety of the pipelines, thanks to deplorable tactics of state agencies and the pipeline owner, Enbridge. The recent disclosure of state-company cooperation to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) should concern all citizens.

The pipelines, part of the Line 5 route, qualify as a matter of significant public interest because they were laid down 64 years ago and have been poorly maintained by Enbridge. An August 30 underwater inspection of the pipelines revealed that the screw-anchors used to shore up the pipeline are themselves causing damage to the pipeline coating and creating bare metal gaps in the cathodic protection. Seven bare areas on the pipeline the size of dinner plates were identified. This is the latest in a long list of disclosures that reveal Enbridge to be cavalier in its stewardship responsibilities – and its most important duty – to prevent a catastrophic oil spill fouling a vast area of the Great Lakes.

Why, then, would state government agencies want to collaborate with Enbridge or the contractors hired with their money in eluding public scrutiny of information related to the pipeline risks? But that’s what they did.

Instead of obtaining copies of documents that citizens could request under FOIA, state officials accessed a website controlled by a private contractor, Det Norske Veritas, where they could view but not download the information. This was not pedestrian material. It included “figures depicting hypothetical migration of oil in the environment” from a spill. Michigan citizens, not just state officials, have every right to view that information.

This is not the first time the state has participated in a scheme to keep information about Line 5 from the public. In 2014, when Enbridge originally provided information to the state as part of the Line 5 review, the company set up a password protected portal for the state to review information but not to download. The logic was similar to that of the most recent subterfuge: that because the information was not downloaded, it was not in the possession of the state, and therefore not subject to FOIA. It took the state two years to release Enbridge’s information, in April 2016.

The state ultimately fired Det Norske Veritas for undisclosed conflicts of interest. But the firm’s effort to circumvent FOIA – and the state’s willing cooperation – were equally egregious. Access to information is one of the core tenets of government accountability. 

Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act declares “a public policy of this state” that the citizenry is entitled to “full and complete information” so that they may “fully participate in the democratic process.” Although the act has been chipped away at since its passage in 1976, its policy prevails in law. Freedom of information is not merely an option to be chosen when it’s convenient to state officials or regulated companies.

Statutes like FOIA are nicknamed “sunshine laws.”  They were written for a reason, to assure protection of the public’s right to know about matters like a potential oil spill affecting public waters.  It’s time for the state to clearly and unhesitatingly affirm its commitment to letting the sun shine on everything pertaining to a grave threat to the Great Lakes.


Pitting Corrosion and the Impact of Zebra and Quagga Mussels on Bare Steel Pipelines

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE TO MEDIA: November 3, 2017


Liz Kirkwood, Executive Director                                                                  Cell: 570-872-4956
FLOW (For Love of Water)                                                                             Email: liz@flowforwater.org

Gary Street, Technical Advisor                                                                       Phone: 231-944-1568
FLOW (For Love of Water)                                                               


Portions of the steel oil pipelines in the Mackinac Straits may have lost half their wall thickness since installation in 1953 and become dangerously weakened due to hard-to-detect pitting corrosion, an engineering expert said today.

The independent analysis further strengthens the case for an immediate shutdown of Line 5 to prevent a catastrophic oil spill in the Great Lakes, according to FLOW, a Great Lakes law and policy center based in Traverse City. The full analysis can be found at www.FLOWforWater.org.

The possible damage stems from invasive zebra and quagga mussels that have covered portions of the dual underwater pipelines for years, inhibiting external inspection of Line 5 while possibly weakening the steel.

“The cause of their corrosiveness is the excrement from the mussels, which is acidic. An acidic deposit on bare steel leads to corrosion,” said Gary Street, MS, PE, the former director of engineering at Dow Environmental who conducted the analysis. Street notes that pipeline inspection tools called “smart pigs,” which Enbridge uses to detect corrosion, are not very accurate in detecting pitting corrosion.

The disturbing possibility of a significantly weakened Line 5 in the Mackinac Straits comes after recent acknowledgement by the pipeline owner and operator, Enbridge, that there are several large areas of the pipeline where the protective coating is missing. According to Enbridge, the bare steel on Line 5 in the Mackinac Straits was detected by Canadian oil transport giant Enbridge in 2014 when the company installed more supports, but not revealed to regulators until this summer.

“What else is Enbridge hiding from the public and state regulators?” asked Liz Kirkwood, executive director of FLOW and an environmental lawyer. “Attorney General Bill Schuette must immediately enforce the laws protecting the Great Lakes and revoke the state easement that has allowed a private Canadian company conditional use of our public waters and bottomlands.”

Not all types of corrosion are equally harmful. Some forms are far worse than others. Pitting corrosion is a localized form of corrosion by which tiny cavities or “holes” are produced in the material. The National Association of Corrosion Engineers has stated, “While corrosion of bare steel can take many forms, the most insidious, is pitting corrosion.”

“The prudent scenario is to assume that damage originally occurred in 2003 when the first of the new supports was installed,” said Street, whose 35+ year career in industry and consulting has covered an extensive range of experience in environmental engineering, chemical process design, ethanol production processes, minimization of waste materials, project management, and engineering management. “That being the case, it is very possible that the Line 5 pipe wall has suffered serious pitting corrosion beginning at that time. Making the matter worse, pitting corrosion is very difficult to detect.”

Enbridge acknowledged the areas of external anti-corrosion coating loss in September. Several of the areas are larger than the “Band-Aid“-sized areas Enbridge initially described when the gaps were revealed. The largest patch of exposed pipeline metal is 16 inches long and 10 inches wide. Others are narrower but also exceed a foot in length.

Also detailed in the Enbridge reports is a “disturbed” coating area that’s more than 3 feet long, a “dislodged” coating area that’s 13 feet long and a mysterious 8-inch “white deposit” of unknown origin that Enbridge says “remains under investigation.”

#   #   #


Ecological disasters do not wait for political elections.


Ecological disasters do not wait for political elections.

And Line 5 at the Straits of Mackinac seems oblivious to the campaign calendar.

To date, the Band-Aid fix-it approach for line 5 has only resulted in Band-Aid size – oh, I mean dinnerplate size -- bare metal spots on the pipeline itself.

The law is clear. Public trust waters are the paramount interest and must be the priority of state protection and action.

Enbridge's ongoing violations on Line 5 are blindingly obvious. And they have continued to mount over the last three years while the state has delayed a safe solution through endless study. A quick sampling of violations includes: lack of adequate anchor supports, loss of protective coating, bent pipeline, bare metal, lack of a credible emergency oil spill response plan, deficient liability insurance, and so on.

Time and time again, Enbridge has asked the public and the state to trust them. And we have only later found out that Enbridge has misled the citizens of Michigan and the state government about the true condition of their aging 64-year-old dual pipelines.

Enbridge has an outstanding permit request to install 22 additional anchors. But the state is in no position to authorize these permits because the anchors themselves have caused the bare metal exposure on the pipeline.

Now the state has decided to engage university experts to spend months finishing a risk study put on hold last summer due to contractor conflicts of interest. A risk study only further delays meaningful state action on Line 5 to avoid a pipeline oil spill. We already know that the risk of any oil spill in the heart of the Great Lakes is unacceptable. Thus, we are merely asking ourselves: How fast will the Titanic sink? 1 hour or 3 hours.

Any credible risk study will simply conjure a more realistic disaster scenario than Enbridge would like us to imagine. It appears that the state is committed to completing the risk study; however, it should at the very least recommend that the state temporarily shut down the flow of oil while the risk study marches on.

No one today would ever authorize oil pipelines to pump 23,000,000 gallons of oil daily in the open waters of the Great Lakes. While consultants completes a risk analysis, the state at a bare minimum should temporarily shut down the flow of oil.

So let's be clear ourselves. Line 5 must be decommissioned and we, the citizens of Michigan, demand that this process starts immediately.

The time to act is now.


Liz Kirkwood is FLOW's Executive Director, an environmental lawyer with seventeen years of experience working on water, sanitation, energy, and environmental governance issues both nationally and internationally. She oversees the direction of the organization, prioritizing policy research and corresponding educational initiatives to ensure their consistency and high quality. 

Statement to Pipeline Safety Advisory Board

Line 5 Pipeline

 

The state pipeline safety advisory board met Monday to discuss next steps on Line 5 at the Straits of Mackinac, in the wake of new revelations about shoddy Line 5 maintenance by Enbridge. FLOW's statement at the meeting said enough is known about the pipeline's condition and poor maintenance for the state to immediately revoke the pipeline's easement to traverse the Straits.


 

FLOW Comments on the Draft 2017 Lake Huron Lakewide Action and Management Plan

Line 5 Pipeline

Tuesday, FLOW submitted comments regarding the draft 2017 Lakewide Action and Management Plan (LAMP) for Lake Huron.  We are concerned about the LAMP’s failure to address a major threat to the waters and ecosystem of Lake Huron: the Enbridge Corporation’s Line 5 pipelines traversing 4.6 miles on the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac.  

You can read our full comments here.

FLOW Comments on Draft 2017 LAMP

Enbridge’s Neglect of 64-Year-Old “Line 5” Pipelines in Mackinac Straits Requires State to Apply Law, Stop Oil, Reject Permit

Liz Kirkwood, Executive Director                                                  Cell: 570-872-4956
FLOW (For Love of Water)                                                          Email: liz@flowforwater.org

Jim Olson, Founder & President                                                   Cell: 231-499-8831
FLOW (For Love of Water)                                                          Email: olson@envlaw.com


ST. IGNACE – The state of Michigan must immediately apply the law, stop Line 5’s oil flow, and reject a Canadian company’s application to extract more life out of its decaying steel pipelines built in 1953, according to FLOW, a Traverse City-based Great Lakes water law and policy center in public comments made today. The comments came at a public hearing in St. Ignace on Enbridge’s bid for state approval to shore up parts of Line 5 that are bent or deformed due to the company’s neglect and support other areas potentially prone to erosion.

“Enbridge characterizes the application as seeking authorization for routine maintenance,” said Liz Kirkwood, FLOW’s Executive Director and environmental attorney. “The reality is that Enbridge is scurrying to rectify its dangerous neglect of maintenance over decades, including multiple violations of a legal agreement to properly anchor its dual pipelines against the swift currents in the Straits.” 

A recent report by Dr. Ed Timm, a FLOW adviser and former Dow Chemical engineer, shows Line 5 is bent and deformed where Enbridge wants to anchor it. The report presents new evidence of structural damage to the western pipe where Enbridge seeks to install five of the 22 anchors into Lake Michigan’s public bottomlands, stemming from a company pattern of violating a 1953 easement granted by the state allowing Enbridge to occupy the Mackinac Straits.

The state’s easement agreement allowing Line 5 to occupy the Mackinac Straits limits unsupported spans to no more than 75 feet, but a 2003 survey identified 16 unsupported spans greater than 140 feet; the longest at 224 feet on the east leg and 286 feet on the west leg. Other Enbridge inspection report revealed nearly 250 instances between 2005 and 2016 of unsupported spans on the pipelines exceeded a 75-foot legal limit in violation of Michigan’s easement agreement with Enbridge. This track record does not provide confidence that the company will fulfill its obligations in the future.

By attempting to cloak the results of its neglect and avoiding an assessment of Line 5’s impacts and alternatives, Enbridge is perpetuating the imminent threat to the Great Lakes and the protected public uses that include fishing, commerce, navigation, recreation, and drinking, according to a legal analysis by FLOW.

In fact, the company’s poor performance as well as the massive work proposed provides a compelling legal basis for the state to consider feasible and prudent alternatives to continued operation of the dual Line 5 pipelines.

“The state of Michigan must consider under rule of law whether there are viable options to the piecemeal patch-up of these aging steel oil pipelines threatening the Great Lakes,” said Jim Olson, FLOW’s founder and president and a renowned water rights attorney. “Enbridge has expanded Line 5 and the new Line 78 from Indiana across lower Michigan to Sarnia under the rubric of ‘maintenance.’ Our cities, villages, and citizens have ended up with Enbridge’s version of the Keystone XL right here in the Great Lakes, and it happened without the public notice, hearings, and independent impact and alternative analyses required by law.”

Line 5 transports nearly 23 million gallons of oil and natural gas liquids each day through the Mackinac Straits, 80 percent more volume than its past design capacity after several of its so-called “maintenance” upgrades.

Of particular concern is Enbridge’s continued failure to predict and prevent the cumulative impacts on Line 5 of lakebed erosion caused by Straits currents that frequently reverse and can exceed 10 times the flow over Niagara Falls.

Contrary to assertions by Enbridge, the state taking action to stop Line 5’s oil flow in the Mackinac Straits to prevent a catastrophic oil spill would not disrupt Michigan’s or the Midwest’s crude oil and propane supply, according to a set of expert reports FLOW released in December 2015. Available capacity and flexibility to meet energy demand in the Great Lakes region already exists in the North American pipeline system run not only by Enbridge, but also by competitors supplying the same refineries in Detroit, Toledo, and Sarnia, Ontario.

“The fact is, Line 5 is not essential,” said Rick Kane, a Michigan-based hazardous materials risk management specialist advising FLOW. “The regional pipeline system can supply crude oil to Michigan and surrounding refineries while eliminating the risk that Line 5 poses to the Great Lakes,” Kane said. “Feasible and prudent alternatives exist to support domestic needs, as well as exports.  However, pipeline company owners will not move to implement any alternatives as long as Line 5 operates and the public continues to carry the risk.”


Analysis of Alternatives to 64-Year-Old “Line 5” Pipelines Riddled with Bad Assumptions, Miscalculations





 

TRAVERSE CITY – A draft report for the State by Dynamic Risk Inc. of alternatives to Enbridge’s risky twin oil pipelines crossing the lakebed at the Straits of Mackinac is so deeply flawed, according to FLOW, a Traverse City-based Great Lakes water law and policy center, that the State cannot credibly rely on its findings to decide Line 5’s future.

“The report is unreliable and should not be used,” said Liz Kirkwood, Executive Director of FLOW. “Instead, the State should protect the Great Lakes from the potential of a catastrophic oil spill and exercise its legal authority to revoke Enbridge’s permission to use the waters and lakebed that belong to the people of Michigan.”

Prepared by Dynamic Risk Assessment Systems of Calgary – a firm with business ties to Enbridge – the study is rife with biased assumptions and technical errors that skew its findings, said FLOW representatives at a public meeting on the campus of Northwestern Michigan College.

“The process of developing these now-discredited reports has cost Michigan well over a year that should have been spent crafting a thoughtful decommissioning process that protects the Great Lakes, prioritizes citizens, businesses, and tribes, and ultimately addresses Michigan’s energy needs,” said Kirkwood, “Enbridge has been granted an extension through distraction.”

Among the draft report’s flaws:

• It completely ignores the most suitable alternative to Line 5, which is existing infrastructure. The state asked consultant Dynamic Risk to analyze it. Failure to do so taints the analysis.

• The draft report assumes that the state must guarantee that Enbridge deliver 23 million gallons of oil that is now being transported daily through Line 5, rather than protecting the energy needs of its citizens. This bias results in the tunnel option appearing as a favored report alternative.

• The draft report assumes the best-case scenario for a spill, not the worst. The consultant uses assumptions of risk that are woefully inadequate and are not credible. It estimates that an average 20 miles of shoreline would be impacted by a spill. This is just 3% of the 720-mile area the University of Michigan found vulnerable to a spill in its 2016 study.

• It significantly understates the likelihood of pipeline failure at an already-alarming 1 in 60 chance by ignoring 50 years of neglect, unsupported spans, powerful currents, and gravity. Applying DOT engineering standards and adding up the failure probability on a yearly basis gives the 2017 failure probability at 46.4% and the 2053 failure probability at 72.5%, or odds of about 3-1. These figures are far different from the Alternatives Analysis estimate of 1.6% by 2053.

• It relies on flawed economic impact modeling that unreasonably concludes that a spill in the open waters of the Great Lakes would only cost $100-200 million in damages.

• It estimates an impact to propane supply much greater than what FLOW’s independent experts have determined would be necessary to provide the Upper Peninsula’s Rapid River facility with an alternative supply. The flawed alternatives report finds that up to 35 railcars per week or 15 truckloads per day would be necessary to replace the Line 5 supply of natural gas liquids, while FLOW’s expert studies have found it would take only one railcar or 3-4 truckloads per day. Line 5 supplies only 35-50 percent of the Upper Peninsula’s propane.

“The fact is, Line 5 is not essential,” said Rick Kane, a Michigan-based hazardous materials risk management specialist advising FLOW. “The regional pipeline system can supply crude oil to Michigan and surrounding refineries while eliminating the risk that Line 5 poses to the Great Lakes,” Kane said. “Feasible and prudent alternatives exist to support domestic needs, as well as exports. However, pipeline company owners will not move to implement any alternatives as long as Line 5 operates and the public continues to carry the risk.”
Last month, the state cancelled a contract for an analysis of the financial risks associated with the Mackinac pipeline when it was disclosed an employee of contractor Det Norske Veritas worked on another project for Enbridge, creating a conflict of interest.

“The risk is far too high for State leaders to use this flawed report as an excuse for more delay, especially when there are obvious alternatives for Enbridge, Michigan, and Canada without Line 5 in the Straits,” said Jim Olson, FLOW’s founder and president and a renowned water rights attorney. “Good leadership calls for interim measures now, based on the clear authority and duties imposed on the State to protect the Straits and Great Lakes. This means prohibiting the transport of crude through Line 5, pending further proceedings and final decisions.”

After the revelation last month that Enbridge for years routinely violated a legal agreement to properly anchor its dual pipelines against the swift currents in the Mackinac Straits, FLOW argued the state of Michigan now must apply the law, stop Line 5’s oil flow, and hold public hearings as it considers the Canadian company’s application to squeeze more life out of its decaying steel infrastructure built in 1953.

###

Line 5 Straits New Anchor Structures

 Public Statement

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

Line 5 Straits New Anchor Structures

Jim Olson

President and Legal Advisor, FLOW (For Love of Water)

July 25, 2017


Director Grether, Division and Unit Chief Fisher, and the Gaylord Office Unit Supervisor Haas, and Great Lakes Submerged Land Specialist Graft:

This statement addresses a primary legal requirement for Enbridge concerning its proposal to locate, occupy, and engage in construction activity for twenty-two (22) new anchor supports on the public trust bottomlands and waters of Lake Michigan. The application as filed requests an activities permit pursuant to the Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act and Rules (“GLSA”) for placement of these twenty-two anchors as “other materials.”  As will be seen, these anchors and the pipeline are new and involve far more than placing spoils or other materials as an activities permit. In fact, these anchor supports and line, in combination with the dual lines in the Straits, have never been authorized under the GLSA and public trust law.

FLOW submitted public comments into the record on this application on June 29, 2017, and will submit supplemental public comments and technical reports on or before August 4, 2017, the end of the extended public comment period.  For purposes of the public hearing I offer the following specific comment on the legal framework for the proceedings under the GLSA for these twenty-two support anchors and the dual pipelines in the Straits of Mackinac.

First, the history of these new anchor supports, including the proposed twenty-two supports for the dual pipelines is directly related to the failure in design and construction of the original pipelines as authorized by the terms of the 1953 Easement and the substantial increase in crude oil flow rate from 300,000 bpd approved by the Public Service Commission in 1953 and the very new increase to 540,000 bpd as part of Enbridge’s project to expand its Lakeside System. A more detailed description of these anchors and why they are new and need approval to operate these dual lines are contained in FLOW’s June 29 public comment as supplemented by the comments to be filed on or before August 4, including the additional supplemental that will be submitted by technical experts Ed Timm and Gary Street.

Second, these anchor supports are new because they fall outside and were not authorized as part of the pipelines by the 1953 Easement. These anchors are new because they are proposed to prevent further bending in the compromised and deformed lines because of powerful currents and other forces in the Straits. As noted, they are also new because these supports together with other new facilities and equipment along Line 5 are part of the Enbridge expansion of its entire Lakehead System, including the doubling of Line 6b (now Line 78) to Stockbridge in southern Michigan.

In lay person terms, what does this mean?  It means that the dual pipelines with these new anchor supports and increased flow volume have not been authorized by agreements to permit the occupancy of these anchor supports on the bottomlands and n the waters of the Great Lakes as required by the GLSLA and its Rules. It means that the pending application for the proposed new twenty-two new supports does not comply with the requirements under the GLSLA and its Rules for a proper agreement or authorization for occupying bottomlands and waters in the Straits.

New structures to prop up a previously authorized line based on the existing define and new and increased volumes as part of a major single expansion project require new authorization. It is as simple as that.  Before the Department can act on Enbridge’s application for the construction activity permit for the anchor supports, Enbridge must first apply for and the State must authorize an occupancy conveyance or agreement in accordance with Sections 32502, 32503, and 32505 and other parts of the GLSLA and its Rules.

What to do, then?  The most straightforward way to proceed is for the MDEQ to notify Enbridge that it must comply with the requirements for authorization to occupy as I have described above, and to cease or halt the use of the lines in the Straits unless and until these lines with these new anchor supports have been applied for and determined to satisfy the standards and requirements of the GLSLA and its Rules. Recent evidence from Enbridge records and grueling evaluation by Dr. Ed Timm demonstrate that the integrity of the pipelines, as noted above has been precariously compromised, and as a result, according to Dr. Timm, there is in 2017 a probability of a failure in one of the lines as high as forty-six percent (46%).

The only prudent and correct thing for the State to do to prevent impairment or injury to the public trust and public and private riparian rights, public health, and safety, is to halt the flow of oil and put the onus on Enbridge to apply for proper conveyance authorization for these new structures in conjunction with these pipelines—they are inextricably related. Enbridge can decide to apply for these new supports in conjunction with the condition of the pipelines and the eighty percent (80%) increase in flow of crude oil.  The State DEQ can now once and for all finally consider and determine as trustee of the public trust protected by the GLSLA, whether Enbridge has shown there is no likely high risk of serious impairment to the public trust interests of Michigan and its citizens.

To date, not one agency has considered the environmental impact or existence of other alternatives related to the increase in flow of crude oil, the new supports and the condition of these lines.  The State can now evaluate in an orderly legal process whether the dual lines in the Straits can be or should be authorized. If Enbridge does not apply in order to comply and demonstrate a right to authorization and approval, then that is its own choice, and the State has the power, duty, and right to halt the transport of crude oil or demand decommissioning of the dual lines because they do not comply with state law and regulations enacted under its title and police power to protect its public trust lands and waters.

Thank you.


 

A Disappointing Distraction: FLOW’s Statement on the Line 5 Alternatives Study

On June 29, the State of Michigan released for public comment a consultant’s study on alternatives to Line 5, the risky 64-year-old dual oil pipelines that cross the lakebed of the Straits of Mackinac.  The state is now holding public meetings on the study.

The study is a major disappointment and contributes little of value to the discussion on the fate of the oil pipelines operating in the Great Lakes since 1953. 

FLOW’s position is unchanged:  the State of Michigan must terminate the easement allowing Enbridge to use Lake Michigan’s lakebed for the pipelines.  The state has the authority and the responsibility to do so to prevent a catastrophic oil spill.  In light of Enbridge’s consistent record of disregard for maintenance of Line 5, the state must do so.

* FLOW rejects the alternatives study as fatally tainted by the authors’ blatant conflict of interest. The consulting firm’s vice president has an extensive history of working alongside of, and in support of, Enbridge.  The state’s process is now revealed for what it always has been – a distraction from its responsibility to protect the Great Lakes by shutting down Line 5 now.

* Substantively, the alternatives study can’t be taken seriously because it:

  1. Completely ignores the most suitable alternative to Line 5, which is existing infrastructure. The state asked consultant Dynamic Risk to analyze it. Failure to do so skews the analysis. Since the state and consultant won’t do their jobs and analyze the existing infrastructure, FLOW will continue to analyze it by updating our 2015 independent expert report on that alternative in the near future.
  2. Assumes the best-case scenario for a spill. The consultant uses assumptions of risk that are woefully inadequate and are not credible. It estimates that:
  • Only 20 miles of shoreline would be impacted by a spill. This is just 3% of the 720-mile area the University of Michigan found vulnerable to a spill in its 2016 study.
  • An oil spill would cost $100 million to $200 million, when Enbridge’s cleanup costs for its Line 6B pipeline oil spill into the Kalamazoo River watershed in 2010 cost more than $1.2 billion.
  1. Inflates the impact of shutting down Line 5 to the U.P.’s propane supply. The report estimates an impact to propane supply much greater than what FLOW’s independent experts have determined would be necessary to provide the Upper Peninsula’s Rapid River facility with an alternative supply. The flawed report finds that up to 35 railcars per week or 15 truckloads per day would be necessary to replace the Line 5 supply of natural gas liquids, while FLOW’s expert studies have found it would take only one railcar or 3 – 4 truckloads per day.

FLOW is a leader in the Oil & Water Don’t Mix campaign uniting citizens, businesses, groups, governments, tribes, and faith communities in support of shutting down Line 5 to avoid a catastrophic Great Lakes oil spill.

Please submit your comments on the State of Michigan’s Line 5 alternatives study by August 4 by visiting the Oil & Water Don’t Mix website here: www.OilandWaterDontMix.org.