If you’ve been paying attention to Line 5 matters in the past few weeks, you may have noticed that Enbridge has turned up the volume on its campaign to gain public support for its phantom tunnel. In addition to their own radio spots, Enbridge has enlisted some of their influential friends in the effort, like the Michigan Chamber of Commerce and even the powerful American Petroleum Institute. More recently, it appears they have convinced some credulous county commissions to join in their public relations effort by adopting a formal resolution in support of Line 5. It’s not clear who wrote the thing and at least one commissioner claims it wasn’t Enbridge, but from start to finish it is taken verbatim from well-worn Enbridge talking points.

Unfortunately, this is an old pattern. As a landowner who lives along the Enbridge Line 6B pipeline route, I have spent years observing, recording their misdeeds, and sometimes even working closely with Enbridge. During the replacement project, I watched over and over as sweet-talking Enbridge reps seduced local officials into believing their every word. What’s disheartening about this dynamic is that we have mountains of evidence that Enbridge’s words can’t be trusted. Since the Marshall spill in 2010, Enbridge has compiled a long and not-so-distinguished record that illustrates vividly how they deal with Michigan elected officials. Perhaps these county commissioners are unaware of this sordid history. So let’s recall just a handful of examples:

• In the days following the spill in late July 2010, then Enbridge CEO Patrick Daniel was asked repeatedly by reporters if the material spilled from Line 6B was tar sands oil. On more than one occasion, Daniel categorically denied that the line carried tar sands. Pressed on the question by reporters days later, Daniel finally conceded the point, but not without some verbal gymnastics and hair-splitting that included denying his original denial. This failure to be honest had severe consequences. It meant that residents along the river were not evacuated as soon as they probably should have been and it rendered initial cleanup efforts less effective, as first responders assumed they were dealing with conventional crude, which behaves differently in fresh water.
• Beginning in 2011, when Enbridge embarked upon its replacement of Line 6B across the State of Michigan, they left countless landowners feeling mistreated, misinformed, and taken advantage of. They also dealt dishonestly with local officials. When one township dared to ask Enbridge for compliance with their local ordinances, Enbridge dragged its feet and made all manner of false promises and assurances in a tortuous process that dragged on for months. At one point, the township supervisor offered this frank assessment:“Enbridge does not appear to be sincere in what they have communicated to the township.
• Nor was Enbridge’s lack of sincerity confined to its dealing with township officials. Midway through the Kalamazoo River cleanup, Enbridge Vice President Rich Adams offered up a brazen falsehood to the Environmental Protection Agency—in writing. In 2013, Enbridge sought an extension of the EPA-imposed deadline to complete its dredging of the river. In his letter making this request, Adams specifically claimed that Enbridge had “promptly applied for all necessary local permits for the operation.” But in fact, the reason Enbridge’s dredging work was delayed was precisely because Comstock Township officials discovered that Enbridge was beginning work without having sought the appropriate permits.
• At times, Enbridge has difficulty speaking forthrightly about even the simplest of things. In 2014, Enbridge took out full-page ads in Michigan newspapers to commemorate the anniversary of the spill and to convince the public that the spill was an event they would always remember. President Brad Shamla put it this way, “July 26, 2010 is a day no one at Enbridge will ever forget.” But of course everyone knows that the spill did not happen on July 26; Line 6B ruptured on July 25. It took seventeen hours for Enbridge to discover the spill, a fact that their public remembrance apparently tried to make everyone forget.
• Enbridge has proven no more trustworthy in its communications with the state about Line 5. In 2017, Enbridge ensured members of the state’s Pipeline Safety Advisory Board that the protective coating on Line 5 was without defects. Later, however, it was revealed that Enbridge knew about damage to the pipeline’s protective coating in 2014 but failed to disclose the information to state regulatory agencies.

Further examples abound (preserved in the Line 6B Citizens’ Blog archives); these are simply some of the most egregious. The lesson is clear. For nearly a decade, Enbridge has exhibited a pattern of behavior that indicates they will say or do almost anything to advance their own interests. They have withheld information, dissembled, and distorted the truth repeatedly in their dealings with Michigan elected officials at almost every level. In the face of such demonstrable evidence of their untrustworthy actions and at an historical moment that calls for urgent action to mitigate the effects of climate change, why would state elected officials—whether it’s the Governor, the legislature, or count commissioners—trust Enbridge to do what’s right for the Great Lakes and what’s right for the planet? The tunnel is never going to be built; it’s a fantasy, a cheap ploy to stall, delay, and keep Line 5 up and running as long as possible. Let’s not let our elected representatives continue to act as Enbridge’s dupes.