The dispute was supposed to arrive at a critical juncture this week with the planned release of twin reports: one detailing the risks of a rupture along Line 5, and the second looking at alternative routes to move Enbridge oil to U.S. refineries.

Instead, policymakers and advocates are scrambling to determine next steps after the risk-assessment report was cancelled, and the firm behind it fired, when it was learned that a member of the reporting team was also performing side work for Enbridge.

The cancelled report may delay a drama that Enbridge critics say the state could have ended long ago by shutting down Line 5. That decision, when it comes, will carry consequences not only for the Great Lakes, but for the future of politicians who have attached themselves to the controversy, including state Attorney General Bill Schuette, who has talked tough about Enbridge but is viewed as not being sufficiently aggressive by some environmental groups, and of course Gov. Rick Snyder, whose environmental legacy is already bruised by the ongoing water crisis in Flint.

But even as Schuette and Snyder head toward an intraparty showdown over culpability in Flint, Democratic and Republican office holders in Lansing and Washington are building a consensus that seems headed toward decommissioning of the Straits pipelines.

Some conclude that the only solution is to “Shut It Down!” ‒ as large segments of audiences roared in unison at meetings of the Michigan Pipeline Safety Advisory Board including one held June 12 in Petoskey. Others are more circumspect but want greater transparency from Enbridge, and proof that the risk of a spill is infinitesimal and, if it did happen, would be very limited.

The Line 5 controversy “has has hit a chord unlike anything I’ve worked with before,” Mike Shriberg, regional executive director of the National Wildlife Federation’s Great Lakes Center in Ann Arbor, said of public sentiment. “When I give a talk and hands go up at the end, nine times out of 10 this is what they want to talk about. It hits the core of our Great Lakes values. It (the Straits pipeline) is either going to be there or not.”

GUEST COMMENTARY: Is time running out on the Enbridge Straits pipeline 5?

Later this week, the state is still to release the second planned report: on alternatives to using the 64-year-old Straits pipelines to transport oil. Options include using new or existing pipes that avoid the Great Lakes entirely; building a new pipeline to replace the existing one, possibly by digging under the floor of the Straits, or routing the oil north through Ontario to refineries in Sarnia.

Each option would be expensive and likely fraught with its own environmental issues.

But many who have participated in the Line 5 debate say they are skeptical that any resolution can be reached without a reliable risk analysis report.

Gail Gruenwald, executive director and attorney for the Tip of the Mitt Watershed in Petoskey, said while she agrees with the state’s decision to fire the risk-assessment contractor that it’s a huge setback for resolving the controversy.

“It’s been a challenge to get any information for the last four years,” she said. “We had heard so many different numbers and now none of that will be answered.”

Shriberg, of the National Wildlife Federation and Michigan advisory panel, said he doesn’t believe the state should seek a new independent risk report. It would delay the process dramatically, he said, and there are other ways to get the needed numbers.

“It was certainly another bombshell in the process. But we still have a pathway to decommission this line. We need to come up with numbers, yes. But we don’t need a $3.5 million study to get us there.”

“We’re taking almost all the risks of this pipeline with almost none of the benefits.”