Posted Draft EIS Comments

JUST NO. After 123 plus "incidents" Enbridge has proven they are not concerned about the environment. How about the millions of gallons spilled in the upper peninsula that went un- reported for years? When are we as a society going to learn that protecting the environment cannot have a dollar figure attached. Please also forward names, addresses of persons, agencies whom I can sue when the foreseeable catastrophe occurs and our Great Lakes suffer catastrophic damages. The past is the best predictor of the future.

Community engagement is absolutely critical for any improvements that affect quality of life.

As a life long citizen of Michigan I’m concerned that our Great Lakes are protected. I feel this is the best way to transport energy and protect our environment.

This project puts the entire Great Lakes system at risk. A leak from this proposed pipeline endangers citizens, wildlife, and fresh water system millions of residents depend on.

We need to stop burning fossil fuels for our children’s and the planets sake. This simply income use.

Please don't approve the line 5 tunnel. 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.

Thank you for your consideration.

It is difficult to agree with a risky land/water use that is only a pass through to benefit another country or foreign business entity. Embridge is not American owned and Sarnia is not US soil. I cannot agree that we need risk any resources to the benefit in any way, especially economic, of others above our own. Surely a more northern, Canadian route can be crafted. Our drinking water is limited to what we have. Our recreation and of opportunities to enjoy our state are also limited. In the short term, noise etc may be the only term for small businesses and older visitors. In the long term, loss of any species and vegetation may be an end game as we see so many companies fall back on plans with weak promises in their eagerness to profit!!

It's obvious that the Line 5 Pipeline has not undergone proper environmental and cultural impact reviews. I oppose the proposed Line 5 continued pipeline project.

Many in favor of building a new Line 5 tunnel argue that the economic benefits from building a tunnel and the hydrocarbons it transports are worth the risk of a possible spill in the Great Lakes. I would argue that no amount of oil or natural gas from a single pipeline is worth the potential harm caused by a spill.

The Great Lakes make up 20% of the world's freshwater supply, drinking water for approximately 40 million people, and over 200,000 tourism jobs. A spill would threaten all of this. A spill in the Straits of Mackinac could contaminate up to 150 miles of shoreline and the cleanup could cost $2 to $6 billion. That number doesn't include the harm to drinking water or the economic harm to the tourism industry.

Line 5 has already spilled 29 times in the last 50 years, and even if we broke ground tomorrow to build a new tunnel it would still operate for 6 more years as the new tunnel is being built. Taking the risk of a spill and the increasing chance of one occurring, the only logical step to protect the Great Lakes is to shut down and decommission the pipeline and not build a new one. Even under the new tunnel, there is still a risk of a spill which I cannot in good conscience tolerate.

If you have a wooden fireplace in your house; you don't buy a new wooden fireplace, you put out the damn fire.