Posted Draft EIS Comments

I plead with you to stop the Line 5 agreement. This is way too high of a risk for our precious Great Lakes which are our most valuable natural resource of clean water for our human survival as well as recreation. Oil leaks happen, and have happened in Michigan before. No pipeline should exist through these waters.

I oppose the proposal to install a tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac.
I am a retired Professional Chemical Engineer with over 40 years experience in industry.
My reasons to oppose this tunnel are:
1. It does not address the potential impacts of the aging remainder of Line 5 and it’s trespasses on indigenous lands and out natural habitats,
2. Enbridge is a Canadian company that has been ordered to shut down Line 5 and find other means to get their crude to Sarnia, Ontario. They have arrogantly continued to operate despite this court order and record of minor spills turning into fairly major environmental issues that have not adequately be cleaned up.
3. The job created would be temporary with the likelihood of many from out of state coming to do the work.
4. This is unproven technology and cannot be compared to the Detroit-Windsor tunnel. No where near the same endeavor. It will be unsafe during building and remains a threat under operation. Experts have discussed the dangers of unstable ground makeup as well as dissolved Methane gas in the ground water. All this creating potential for damage, explosions and crude oil spills.
5. The Enbridge oil spill in the Kalamazoo River was a prolonged disaster and has yet to be adequately cleaned up. That spill was allowed to go on for over 17 hours and likely will never be completely cleaned up.
6. This project is a reminder of the Deep Water Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. That spill had devastating effects to the gulf, the coast and has never been adequately cleaned up.
7. I don’t believe the statements that Michigan UP needs Line 5 for propane supply to heat their homes. With the population of the UP being about 3% of Michigan’s population, they should be easily be accommodated. Besides, shifting the flow from crude to propane seems to be a messy option.
8. As to alternatives, that is Enbridge’s problem. Running a 70 year old line is not a viable one.
Please be sure to consider my concerns as an engineer who has worked in industry for decades and has seen some short sighted decisions being made.

Sincerely yours,
Doug Cornell PE, Retired
501-318-4534

Hello, I am a Michigan resident and one of the millions of people who depend on our Great Lakes for clean water. 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.
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. Based on Enbridge’s previous history with safety regulations and oil spills, I believe that this rushed project also puts our agriculture and fishing industries, as well. I urge you to thoroughly assess this project for its greenhouse gas emissions and health impacts before proceeding. Thank you for your time, and I hope very much that you take your job of protecting the Great Lakes region seriously.

Thank you for the report and consideration. As a licensed professional civil engineer in the State of Michigan, I take some issue with the scale of consideration and grading for the design alternatives. These all note potential short- and long-term impacts on various categories of consideration, however, no account is made as to the order of magnitude of impacts. In accordance with established Asset Management principals, a view of the risk of failure as well as the consequence of failure should be taken into account. Anecdotally, this is obviously seen from the concern that a spill from tunnel or gravel alternatives could have a negative impact that is orders of magnitude higher than short-term disturbance from the construction period. An appropriate consequence of failure outlook would need to address the risks associated with environmental impacts as well as public health and economic impacts. As a community that has the drinking water intake in Lake Michigan, I think a consideration of this sort is absolutely necessary.

Hello,

I’m writing to share my deep concern with the inadequacy of this EIS from Enbridge. First, even before looking at the permit, one must weigh the history of Enbridge and how they have done projects in the past. As we’ve seen with their operations, they are responsible for over 1 million gallons of oil spilled from their pipelines and has a record of repeatedly lying to the Michigan public and our Governmental officials in the past about the safety of their pipelines and the work they are doing. With that history and the possible catastrophic impact to 21% of the world’s surface freshwater and our multi-billion dollar economy derived from the lakes, it is unfathomable to me that anyone would fast track a permit from Enbridge. They have proven time and time again that they don’t have our citizens’ best interests at heart. Because of that, we need to hold them to the highest standards for projects.

For example, their draft fails to address multiple key factors. First, they don’t analyze viable alternatives to the tunnel route. When considering putting a tunnel in the heart of the Great Lakes, it is an insult and gross negligence to not even look at other routes.

Second, for an ENVIRONMENTAL impact assessment, they completely failed to consider cumulative climate impacts of new fossil fuel infrastructure. Climate experts said we needed to stop building new fossil fuel infrastructure in 2020! To continue to invest in old, uneeded infrastructure, especially when cheaper energy options are available, is short-sighted and fiscally irresponsible.

Third, the report doesn’t account for geologic concerns and explosion risks. Enbridge doesn’t have the expertise to drill a tunnel, they simply don’t drill tunnels under large bodies of water. That is clear when their assement here doesn’t even address the very real and present concern of poor substrate they’d drill through nor the risks of what an explosion could look like in a confined space under the lakes. If you’re looking at varous environmental impacts, you need to consider all possible impacts.

Lastly, and I mentioned this before, but the report fails to evaluate Enbridge’s horrific track record of spills and violations as well as lying to the public and public officials. When someone shows you who they are, believe them! Enbridge has shown time and time again that they don’t care about Michiganders, just their bottom dollar. That means it is your job to hold them accountable and to the high bar we need and deserve when looking at projects with such severe risks.

Thank you for your time and consideration and I truly hope you weigh the possible consequences of rushing this project forward with a foreign company that has proven hostile to our values as Michiganders without doing full diligence on an environmental impact report.

Kindly,
Nicholas Jansen
Fife Lake
517-581-5829

We are destroying our world and Americans especially Trump are a huge part of why this is happening. But together 8.2 Billion people are simply too many for our planet to support. That is especially true when a majority of us grab all we can no matter the damage it may do. But the worst contributor to the ruining of our beautiful planet are the war-mongers like Putin and Netanyahu and Trump and thousands of others. And right behind the warmongers are the excessively greedy–the TAKERS who are insatiable…

I don’t have any solution…
But we must start cutting back on everything including reducing how many more people we bring into this finite world.

If this goes through and a catastrophic oil spill happens, I hope you don’t have children. They will never forgive you for desecrating our great lakes. Clean fresh water is necessary for all terrestrial life. To risk spoiling our lakes is shortsighted and selfish. Again, think of your progeny living on this planet.

If I were to tell you that a foreign based company you had trusted to safely handle a petroleum product had an OIL SPILL which contaminated one of your rivers, what would you do? Not just any OIL SPILL but one of the largest inland OIL SPILLS ever. Anyone with common sense would immediately CEASE doing business with that company. That is a REAL LIFE story of Canadian based ENBRIDGE and yes, they were the same company that contaminated the Kalamazoo River and Talmadge Creek. ENBRIDGE can never be trusted EVER AGAIN. The RISK to Michigan and our clean water is too great. Not only do we demand that Line 5 be SHUT DOWN but we also do not trust ENBRIDGE to construct a very expensive tunnel. #ShutDownLine5

water is the blood of mother earth ! get the pipeline away from the water!!v

I would urge you to slow down the process of installing line 5 and perform a complete environmental assessment first. There is too much stake to move ahead without dotting all eyes and crossing all tees with regard to the safety of the project and its ultimate impact on our water systems. We have seen that pipelines can degrade or break. Our water system is too precious to allow any unthought of problems to occur. Please slow things down. Do all possible assessments prior to install installing the pipeline.