Posted Draft EIS Comments

Please accept the Government of Saskatchewan's comments on the Line 5 Tunnel EIS. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments.

Any leak could affect all of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway. Are you ready to take the chance?

Please don't touch the tunnel! We can't risk the damage it would cause to the Great Lakes.

Please OPPOSE the proposed Line 5 tunnel. Experts not hired by Enbridge energy agree that the soil underneath the lake is not even appropriate for a tunnel. Also a major catastrophe remains with the rest of the tunnel still running along the shoreline!! Any leak in many 10s of miles will be going straight into the lake anyway. So basically the tunnel does NOTHING. We don't need the oil. We don't need the tunnel.

Thank you for denying this and saving our beautiful lakes.

Line five is a good thing. It protects the Great Lakes as well as supplying needed energy. It also replaces the old and much more dangerous line 5. The tunnel could also serve many other purposes.

Install the new line 5

I am a lifelong Michigan resident. The health of the Great Lakes is vital not only to the people of Michigan and bordering states, but to all living beings that draw from its resource. To risk damaging our precious resources, as is certain to happen, as documented in section 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, is negligent and short sighted.

The review and decision process has been fast tracked for reasons that are political (1.4.1.2 Continued Product Transport), which undermines the importance of a careful, thorough review and comment period that considers a larger scale question of whether this pipeline is necessary for the future. The current administration states the U.S. is in an energy crisis, but many experts disagree. Example of two sources: https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-administration-wrong-energy-crisis-us-experts/story?id=119668360. https://www.nrdc.org/stories/no-were-not-emergency-energy-crisis.

While I lack credentials as a scientist, my career in finance taught me to weigh the risks and rewards of any business investment. What is not clear to me is how line 5 benefits Michigan or the U.S. as a whole. In 2018, The Detroit Free Press reported on a study conducted by The Groundwork Center for Resilient Communities that Detroit refineries have moved to refining less light and more heavy crude oil. https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/05/30/enbridge-canada-line-5-michigan-risk/652405002/. Although Enbridge pays millions of dollars in property taxes in Michigan, what are the hidden costs to Michigan's tourism industry during the years long construction period, let alone long after with regard to the known detriment to our natural assets?

Finally, at least one study prepared for Environmental Defence Canada reports viable, (some not desirable by Canadian citizens or companies) alternatives to Line 5. Viable alternatives, even those that are at a higher cost but impose less risk must be prioritized. https://environmentaldefence.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Potential-Enbridge-Line-5-Closure-Meyers-Energy-Consulting-LLC-FINAL.pdf

Is this the best, most viable solution that benefits Michigan residents, U.S. citizens, a significantly important water resource and the affiliated life sustained by it? If the answer is yes, please provide the details in your final report, because a significant number of Michigan residents, as evidenced by the AC's public comments during scoping, oppose this project.

The Great Lakes are just too important to make a hasty decision on this. I want every study possible to be done first and be done honestly. If these waters are damaged it will be disastrous. Please take the time to study this!!!

The proposed Line 5 tunnel is a deeply flawed and dangerous idea. This pipeline has already leaked significant amounts of oil, posing serious threats to our water, land, and communities. Building a tunnel to extend the life of this aging and hazardous infrastructure only increases the risk of further environmental damage. The permits for Line 5 have expired and it's time to shut it down, not prolong its operation. Our future depends on protecting the Great Lakes and transitioning away from fossil fuels, not doubling down on outdated and risky projects. The Line 5 tunnel is a horrible idea! This pipeline has already leaked a substantial amount of oil. To build a tunnel so this pipeline can continue to operate and leak oil is dangerous. The pipeline needs to be shut down as it permits have expired.

This new line is much safer than what we have now and provides much needed low cost energy. Yes , build the new line.

The Great Lakes are a critical source of freshwater for not just our generation, but many to come. The Line 5 tunnel project has not undergone a comprehensive risk assessment, which is crucial for a project that poses risks to the Great Lakes, our climate, and our future. For this reason and more, I urge you to reject this rushed process and reject Enbridge's plan to bore an oil tunnel under the Great Lakes.

Enbridge has proven that they cannot be trusted to protect our water resources, having spilled over 2,000,000 gallons of oil into our Great Lakes watersheds in the past. We must ask the critical question: if this Canadian company is extracting oil from Canada, and using this pipeline to transport 95% of it back to Canada-- why are we allowing Michigan and the Great Lakes to be impacted by its use in the first place? This decision must consider the fact that if Line 5 were decommissioned in the United States, transportation oil prices in the Great Lakes region would only rise marginally. Placing so much of the world's surface freshwater at risk for this low return on investment to the US just isn't worth the burden.

Additionally, many tunnel experts who have reviewed Enbridge's plans share concerns for the logistics of placing a tunnel under the lakebed, considering it to be complicated, dangerous, and technically challenging. Experts also share concerns for the workers who are subjected to the dangerous pipeline construction and operations.

An oil spill in the Great Lakes would be catastrophic for drinking water, wildlife, and Michigan’s economy. More than 1.3 million jobs, equating to $82 billion in wages, are directly tied to the Great Lakes.

If I have heard correctly, 6 tribal nations with treaty rights in the Straits area have officially stated opposition to the tunnel project. As the original inhabitants of this land, with the knowledge and wisdom they hold for safeguarding this land, tribal nations and Indigenous communities have not been meaningfully consulted. Their rights, treaties, and voices must be honored.

In sum, even USACE's draft EIS shows Enbridge's Line 5 Tunnel Project would have very detrimental effects to our environment and our future. As this rushed permitting process is purely politically motivated through a false "energy emergency", USACE must refuse to bypass the incredibly important steps of this process; allow significantly more time for public input; and conduct a full, thorough environmental review before making a decision on this permit.