Posted Draft EIS Comments

Line 5 is not the essential provider of propane to the UP of Michigan. Currently, propane is purchased and trucked to the UP by Enbridge which is much safer than continuing or building a tunnel under the straits of Mackinaw. There are other propane providers who can meet the needs of the UP.
The state of Michigan, the citizens of Michigan and the US Army Corp of engineers are the Stewarts of the Great lakes. There is no reason to continue utilizing risky and potentially devastating processes to meet our power needs.
Enbridge has an extensive history of perpetuating environmental damage. Why would we let them continue to act in the same manner on yet another pipeline project. We need you to deny a permit to Enbridge for the safety of the people of Michigan and the Great Lakes. Thank You

This is about the need, the urgent, legal, environmental-safety need to STOP LINE 5. No tunnel. No line 5. No more investigating and discussion and delaying. If you allow this pipeline to continue, if you allow this pipeline to continue covered up by a tunnel, then please prove to me that you are not being paid off, either by money, or pressure, or people with deep pockets, and companies who care more about their profits than the environment. There is no justification for the continued operation of Line 5. That's been known for years. Please, stop it. Do the just, right thing.

Our family, since 1958, has owned a residence less than a mile from Line 5 West of Topinabee, Michigan. For decades, we've worried about the security of that line.

We oppose Enbridge's proposal to continue transporting Canadian oil to Canadian refineries for Canadian company profit through the State of Michigan. We've read the USACE's Draft EIS and Executive Summary. The drastic impacts to the local environment from the 6 years of estimated construction (certain to be more) are admitted and evident. The effects on the sub-Straits geology from years of blasting are necessarily unknown and potentially disastrous. Enbridge has an atrocious record of safety and transparency. We should not be abetting or subsidizing, with our environment, its shortcuts to more profits.

Moreover, in 6 or 10 years, when a proposed tunnel is completed, will Canadian oil be available, or needed? Will Canada be a U.S. ally? Canada, insulted and demeaned by the current U.S. president, is wisely planning to re-route its oil export capacity. U.S energy policy is in flux, too. The Draft EIS acknowledges, "Furthermore, these projections were calculated prior to the Executive Office of the President revoking and replacing previously established energy policies as part of its directive to encourage domestic energy exploration and production (DOE 2025)." No citation to authority is given (or could be) for the baseless speculation that Line 5 oil will be needed by the U.S. in 6, 8 or 10 years. By the time a tunnel would be ready, the man who signed off on the latest energy "policy" will be out of office or otherwise nonfunctional. The impacts of a fossil-fueled warming climate will be much worse by then. U.S. energy policy may well change to recognize that fossil fuel use is killing the planet. We should not be making 21st Century energy decisions based on 20th Century ignorance and stupidity.

There is much bleating from Enbridge and those in its service (like Michigan Rep. Jack Bergman) that Michigan simply can't survive without the propane carried by Line 5. If so, the simple, logical solution is to limit Line 5 to carrying propane, thereby eliminating the danger from an oil spill.

Line 5 should be shut down or limited to carrying gaseous products.

Thank you for reading.

I strongly urge the Corps to reject any premature or expedited approval of the Line 5 tunnel project under the current Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Beyond the environmental, legal, and climate-related risks of this proposal our nation seems to be in a precarious position with Canada.
Once our closest, friendliest allies, we now seem to be on thin ice. Remember 1973 and the oil embargo?

This is not a time to rush forward in the present environment.

Let us be reminded of the old adage, “fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”

Be smart. Be prudent.

For now, give it time. And, perhaps the time needed to see the environmental and cultural benefits of not permitting this at all.

We urge you to pause this process, reject a rushed approval, and fully consider all the social, environmental, and economic costs of the Line 5 tunnel. The public deserves a just and responsible energy future—this project is not it.

I am a concerned citizen who has followed the impact and safety violations of Embridge for many years. They have repeated oil leaks that have impacted quality of life for Michigan population (noted the Kalamazoo and Lake Michigan large leaks, as well as the smaller leaks in the tribal areas of the State). The company has NO plans for recifying or monetarily insuring against a leak in the Great Lakes. Embridge profits from this pipeline NOT Michigan NOR the United States. A RESPECTED environmental group inspected the pipeline underwater with documented images of failed supports and anchor strike damage of the 70 year old out dated pipeline. Questions of whether it will last and not leak during the 10 years it will take for the tunnel construction is questionable especially since the original engineers predicted that it had a specific lifetime, which NOW has been exceeded. The residents of northern Michigan have been falsely led to believe that new jobs will be created to help the local economy and such a small number of jobs is NOT WORTH THE DAMAGE THAT would occur if the pipeline OR TUNNEL LEAK. AND ON TOP OF ALL THIS THERE ARE MILLIONS of humans who rely on clean drinking water, not to even mention the aquatic and terrestrial wildlife that will be impacted on this peril facing our country’s largest amount of fresh water. Gov Whitmer campaigned on decommissioning Line 5, what happened to this promise?

LINE 5 and the TUNNEL under the Straits are an abomination to the senses of intelligence and knowledge of logical thinking humans. No need to supply files of proof of all my statements; the information has been published repeatedly over the last several years. STOP WASTING taxpayer money on repeated environmental impacts…any thinking, caring citizen is aware of the dangers of Line 5 and a tunnel. JUST STOP IT NOW, it’s not too late!

The proposed Enbridge Line 5 pipeline oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac poses an unacceptable threat to one of the most precious resources we have - the Great Lakes ecosystem and a supply of fresh water. All this with a company that has a terrible record of spills, operating pipeline beyond their safe life, and violating tribal treaty rights.
I am firmly against allowing such a dangerous project to go forward.

Here are my primary concerns, in short:
1. The Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, the Bay Mills Indian Community, and many other area tribes are in court trying to stop this violation of their treaty rights.
2. The Straits of Mackinac are sacred.
3. The Great Lakes contain 21% of the world's surface fresh water. This is why Line 5 should be shut down, not enclosed.
4. The tunnel is experimental. Such an experiment should not be conducted in the Great Lakes, where consequences could be catastrophic.
5. The EIS is over 1000 pages long. People need adequate time to read and respond.
6. Earth's heating is accelerating toward a point of no return, in human terms.
7. There is no Planet B, even the IEA has said we can't afford to continue developing fossil fuels.
8. “Enbridge’s track record speaks for itself—catastrophic spills, environmental destruction, and a complete disregard for tribal sovereignty and the rights of future generations.” President Whitney Gravelle, Bay Mills Indian Community

Having read ALL the research and estimates provided by both sides of this issue: It's true this pipeline would bring a lot of money and energy savings to the state, but here's the bottom line: NO AMOUNT of money is worth putting our Great Lakes at this UN-GUARANTEE-ABLE risk. Also, It's not just one lake that would be grievously damaged, it's likely ALL the Great Lakes AND possibly every river and tributary that feed in or out of the Lakes that would be, sooner or later, badly affected. I'm willing to pay more for utilities and their dependent industries/products if it saves the Lakes. It's just TOO BIG a risk.

Enbridge is an irresponsible company with multiple past oil spills. Consider the Kalamazoo river oil spill in 2010– one of the largest inland oil spills in history. Just last year they spilled 70,000 gallons of oil in Wisconsin. They don’t check their pipelines .

Any additional oil transport on, under or through any of connected bodies of the Great Lakes has the grave potential of leakage, spill or rupture. Committing to an expensive, inaccessible pipeline that in the case of failure will destroy natural ecosystems and human health on both sides of the border. Before proceeding, get permission from the people to change borders & regimes first: TugOfWall.com / GreatCanadianWall.ca