Posted Draft EIS Comments

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

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.