Why this Canada-U.S. pipeline has emerged as a midterm election issue in the U.S. Midwest

OTTAWA — A frightening scene played out on Tuesday morning, when a parked semi-truck rolled into an excavation site and hit an exposed section of the Enbridge Line 5 pipeline near the Wisconsin-Michigan border.

Drone footage that was widely circulated online showed a thick, white cloud of natural gas spreading from the accident site to a meadow on the other side of a dirt road.

While the leak was quickly isolated and no injuries were reported, the incident exacerbated an already tense political divide around the Canada-U.S. pipeline.

Fred Clark, a Democrat running for Congress in northern Wisconsin, quickly called on the state’s department of natural resources to halt work on Line 5 until a “thorough review of Enbridge’s construction methods and safety protocols can be conducted.”

“ Based on these incidents it’s clear that Enbridge does not have all of the details right when it comes to ensuring that this project can be executed safely,” said Clark in a press release.

Clark’s campaign didn’t respond to multiple calls from National Post.

The department sent Enbridge a letter on Thursday asking the Calgary-based company to stop work in the area while it investigated the spill. The letter didn’t say how long the investigation would take.

Tony Evers, Wisconsin’s Democratic governor, said he was “exceedingly concerned” about the spill and “other recent events involving Enbridge,” and called on the company to work “expeditiously” with state investigators.

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, also a Democrat, filed a legal brief on Friday calling for an underwater section of the pipeline running through her state to be removed.

The timing of the spill, coinciding with competitive, high-profile statewide races in both Michigan and Wisconsin, is likely to keep Line 5 in the spotlight heading into November’s midterm elections.

Here’s what you need to know about the debate over Line 5 south of the border.

Enbridge Line 5 is a 1,038 km pipeline that runs from northern Wisconsin to Sarnia, Ont., and forms one segment of the company’s larger continental pipeline system. It moves up to 540,000 barrels per day of light crude oil, light synthetic crude, and natural gas liquids used to make propane. Roughly 80 per cent of this product originates in Alberta’s oilsands, with the rest coming from smaller deposits in the Midwest.

Completed in 1953, Line 5 was originally designed to bypass seasonal interruptions in oil tanker shipments across the Great Lakes.

“The ice cover on the lakes meant that they only got eight months a year of shipping,” said Jeffrey Insko, a professor at Oakland University in Rochester, Mich., who’s writing a book on the history of Line 5.

Insko said the construction of Line 5 helped accelerate an era of booming postwar oil production in North America.

Line 5 came under increased scrutiny in 2010, after a rupture in nearby Enbridge Line 6B caused upwards of one million gallons (3.79 million litres) to spill into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River.

The Line 6B spill raised fears that a major rupture of Line 5 could do catastrophic damage to the Great Lakes, which supply drinking water to about 10 per cent of the U.S. population. One especially sensitive section of the pipeline runs underwater through the Straits of Mackinac, which bisect Lake Michigan and Lake Huron.

Environmentalists have also raised concerns about the 73-year-old pipeline’s aging infrastructure, which has already led to smaller-scale spills and seepage. Dave Holtz, a spokesperson for anti-pipeline campaign Oil & Water Don’t Mix told National Post that Line 5 has spilled at least 1.2 million gallons of product through its lifespan.

A long list of Tribal Nations have also called for Line 5 to be shut down, claiming it violates treaty rights and threatens their way of life.

Line 5 is currently caught up in deep legal and regulatory certainty amid challenges from both the Michigan government and a coalition of Tribal Nations across Michigan and Wisconsin.

Governor Whitmer tried to terminate an easement allowing Enbridge to run the pipeline through the Straits of Mackinac in 2020, but was blocked from doing so by a federal judge.

Whitmer reversed course somewhat last month, giving Enbridge the green-light to build a $500-million tunnel under the Great Lakes as part of a Line 5 replacement project.

Mike Shriberg, director of the University of Michigan Water Centre, said locals were surprised to see the Government of Canada intervene on Enbridge’s behalf during the litigation.

“It’s pretty extraordinary for the Canadian government to weigh in, in the U.S. court system on behalf of a private company, over the objections of the state of Michigan and Tribal Nations,” said Shriberg.

Enbridge has also been mired in a separate legal dispute with the Bad River Band of northern Wisconsin. The company has agreed to re-route 41 miles of pipeline in response to a trespassing order from the band, which was upheld by a federal appeals court earlier this month.

Holtz’s says Line 5 will likely be on its last legs if the Michigan tunnel project doesn’t go forward.

“If there’s no tunnel, Enbridge has lost the excuse for avoiding the discussion about the orderly decommissioning of the old existing pipeline,” Holtz.

Shriberg agrees that Line 5 could be shut down, noting that Michigan and the other Great Lake states are by no means dependent on the pipeline.

“There’s plenty of excess capacity in other areas to supply the needs of the U.S.,” said Shriberg.

Shriberg noted that, historically, temporary disruptions in the flow of product through Line 5 have not substantially affected energy prices in the region.

He added that a decommissioning of the pipeline would need to be “orderly” and take energy needs on both sides of the border into account.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s escalating feud with Ontario Premier Doug Ford has sparked chatter that he could use Line 5 as a cudgel to attack his foe. (Trump issued an executive order changing the name of Lake Ontario to Lake America on Thursday, in response to a series of slights from Ford.)

Trump could theoretically try to disrupt the operations of Line 5 but he’d need to jump several hurdles to do so.

First, this would be a clear violation of a pipeline treaty struck between Canada and the U.S. in 1977. Trump would also likely need to get Enbridge, a private (and Canadian) company onboard.

Shriberg said that attacking Line 5 would be a retreat from Trump’s lengthy track record of support for oil companies. The Trump administration has notably sided with Enbridge in it’s legal battle with Michigan.

“President Trump is so closely aligned with the fossil fuel industry that I can’t see it happening,” said Shriberg.

National Postrmohamed@postmedia.com

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.