Canadian oil giant Enbridge has consistently crafted a narrative — both publicly and in court — that dangerously minimizes the real risks and inevitable consequences posed by its existing Line 5 dual pipelines and the proposed tunnel project beneath the Straits of Mackinac.
In late 2018, Enbridge entered into an agreement, led by the departing Snyder administration, with the State of Michigan for its proposed oil tunnel project. The project aimed to house the portion of Line 5 that crosses Lakes Michigan and Huron, and has faced strong public scrutiny.
On March 11, 2026, the Michigan Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a hotly contested case in which FLOW Water Advocates and the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians challenged the permit issued to Enbridge by the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) to construct the pipeline and tunnel.
Numerous additional lawsuits challenge both the continued operation of the existing dual pipelines and Enbridge’s proposed oil tunnel. Currently, these issues are being litigated at the Iron County Circuit Court in Wisconsin, Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and additional permit appeals are anticipated over two U.S. Army Corps permits and potential Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) permits. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Enbridge last week, saying it waited too long to ask to move a case to federal court.
The groups argued that the MPSC exceeded its authority, failed to evaluate environmental risks fully and did not adequately protect treaty-guaranteed Great Lakes resources. During the hearing on the appeal of the MPSC permit for Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel, attorney John Bursch, representing Enbridge, made several statements that warrant closer scrutiny.
Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel has real risks
First, Bursch claimed the risk of an anchor strike was negligible – just 0.001% or 0.0001%, depending on which part of his argument you listen to.
Yet this claim is at odds with multiple recent documented strikes by both anchors and cables – most notably, one anchor strike in April 2018 and another in June 2020, that temporarily shut down the pipeline.
Two documented strikes within just two years show us that the risk is very real, and the strikes are far more convincing than a risk calculation.
Bursch claimed that “the pipeline has the same integrity today as when it was approved back in 1953,” asserting that the existing twin pipelines won’t fail and can continue operating indefinitely.
However, pipelines face numerous risks, including maintenance challenges, human error, and biological accumulation. In these dual pipelines, heavy buildup of zebra mussels and other biota hindered Enbridge’s inspection efforts for at least 13 years. Protective coatings are not foolproof; reports indicate that Line 5’s coating has degraded or been damaged in several areas over its 72-year lifespan. Enbridge’s own 2017 report documented peeling or significant delamination in 18 pipe sections. Decades of corrosion science suggest this pipeline cannot and should not operate indefinitely, contrary to Bursch’s testimony.
Bafflingly, Bursch referred to the tunnel project as a “modest change.” However, the project would actually be a tremendous undertaking, given that no oil tunnel of this magnitude and under such extreme physical pressures exists anywhere else in the world – exceeding 250 pounds per square inch in one of the most vital freshwater ecosystems on the planet.
‘I’ve never seen worse’
Enbridge’s own recently disclosed geotechnical baseline report raises further concerns about the tunnel’s safety and feasibility. Brian O’Mara, a world-class geotechnical consultant and tunnel expert, has criticized Enbridge’s geotechnical investigations as inadequate and shown how they fail to meet industry standards.
“I was surprised at how poor the rock quality appeared in most of the cores,” O’Mara said. “And frankly, I’ve never seen worse cores for a tunnel project.”
Enbridge claimed “the most pro-environment position here,” presenting the tunnel as a solution to prevent oil spills in the Straits.
Truly championing the environment, however, involves respecting the ecosystems and Indigenous peoples who have historically cared for and managed their ancestral lands and resources.
The Army Corps of Engineers, a key permitting authority for the project, acknowledged in its final Environmental Impact Statement that construction of the tunnel would also adversely affect archaeological sites and traditional cultural landscapes.
During tunnel construction, lake trout and lake whitefish – two cornerstone native fish species in Michigan – along with their spawning grounds, would likely be negatively affected by blasting and changes in water quality.
Whitefish in particular are already suffering a severe decline in population. This could lead to significant long-term damage to their habitat and have serious repercussions for Indigenous fisheries. In this area considered the ecological heart of the Great Lakes, the project would permanently destroy critical wetlands and require excavation of approximately 665,000 cubic yards of bedrock – enough to fill a line of gravel trucks stretching from Mackinaw City to the Ohio line. It defies logic to call that magnitude of excavation a “modest change.”
Additionally, the tunnel would affect only a four-mile segment, leaving the other 641 miles of aging Line 5 across Wisconsin and Michigan unchanged, meaning the majority of the pipeline would continue operating as it does today. That system has already spilled more than 1.1 million gallons over its 72-year lifespan – roughly equal to the devastating Kalamazoo River oil spill.
Decommission the pipeline
Bursch also ignores the very real climate impacts of the tunnel, which equate Line 5’s total greenhouse gas emissions to about 87 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually, or the equivalent of 19 million gasoline-powered passenger vehicles. The best way to protect the environment is to fully decommission the Line 5 pipeline.
Ultimately, it is the Michigan Supreme Court that will have the final word on the appeal of the Michigan Public Service Commission permit.
In making its decision, the court must thoroughly examine the record, assess the evidence, and consider the arguments presented during the proceedings. The public deserves a ruling based on a careful and comprehensive evaluation of all the facts, not conjecture.
Lyla Hollis is a clean energy policy specialist with Groundwork Center, based in Traverse City Michigan. Submit a letter to the editor at freep.com/letters, and we may run it in print or online.
This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Enbridge’s tunnel plan ignores obvious risks | Opinion
Reporting by Lyla Hollis, Op-ed contributor / Detroit Free Press
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
