Posted Draft EIS Comments

I am very concerned about the safety of the tunnel. I understand that a seasoned tunnel engineer with more than 30 years of experience, issued serious warnings about the tunnel’s design. He said the following, which raises serious issues about the rock conditions involved.

“They assumed very good rock conditions, they assumed minimal groundwater inflow, they assumed no toxic gases or methane. Most importantly they assumed that the tunnel annulus, which is the space between the pipeline and tunnel wall, be completely filled or backfilled with concrete … none of those conditions came true…. They didn’t do nearly enough borings, they didn’t go nearly deep enough, and they didn’t take the samples where they should have. And despite all of those deficiencies in their study they came back—and the report is open to the public—the rock quality is extremely poor to very poor quality. They grade rocks from 0-100%. 25% of the rock was a zero …This is the worst rock I’ve ever seen anyone think about putting a tunnel in… because the rock is so bad it doesn’t behave like rock, it behaves more like gravel.”

I realize that there is a market for the petroleum products the tunnel would provide. I remain unconvinced, however, that the benefits in any way outweigh the dangers. This would be a terrible place for an accident to take place and Enbridge has a problematic record. Please do not allow the Line 5 Tunnel to proceed. As a proud Michigander, I highly value our Great Lakes, not only for their economic benefits (which are enormous) but for the life they support and the pleasure they give both locals and visitors.

I am firmly against the continuance of the line 3 project through the sovereign lands of original Americans. There should also be an extension of the comment period to allow for more public imput and project review.

I ask that you give more time for review of the EIS. I live in Minnesota and am familiar with the aquifer breaches environmental damage associated with Line 3 construction in our state. None of us want Wisconsin and Michigan to have similar problems if Enbridge is allowed to move forward with a Line 5 tunnel. Giving everyone more time will help us all – including me – give better and more detailed feedback about our concerns. Thank you!

Hello! Please allow more time for our review of the EIS. I’m a Minnesotan who has followed Line 3 and the damaging results already being noted by an environmental scientific community group Waadookawaad Amikwag (https://waadookawaadamikwag.org/). I am concerned that WI and MI will face similar troubles if the Line 5 tunnel is allowed to proceed. More time will allow me to give more details about my concerns, as you ask for on your website.

Please do not “fast track” such a large project that could have major implications for the future of our land, wildlife, and waterways. We must preserve our natural integrity for future generations and not accelerate the weirding weather. At minimum, full impact studies should be completed and reviewed to make educated decisions on something we can’t get back once gone.
Thank you

To whom it may concern,
As a tribal citizen of Northwest lower peninsula of Michigan, I am greatly concerned about the continued use of the aging line 5 pipeline and also the proposed tunnel. The environmental impact on the land, water and all life is huge and the region is at risk. The benefits are small and the danger is great!
We depend on the water for so much, and it needs to be honored and protected for the present and future generations. The permit for the tunnel must not be given. In regards to the aging line 5 pipeline it must be decommissioned. We need to move forward with a healthier ,better vision,and action for the future generations!
George Brewbaker

The proposed Line 5 oil tunnel poses an extreme threat to human health and to our natural resources. A full environmental review is absolutely necessary! Construction would destroy wetlands, disrupt aquatic habitat, and perpetuate our reliance on fossil fuels during a critical time for climate action. Worse, the tunnel poses risks of explosion from natural gas liquids, shifting financial liability to Michigan taxpayers for 100 years. Please do not fast track this dangerous project!

Michigan is home to the largest supply of the world’s most precious, life-sustaining resource: Fresh surface water. We have a responsibility to use it wisely, and protect it in perpetuity. Line 5 poses reckless and unnecessary risks with regard to the Great Lakes environment, economy, and culture. Even if the pipeline is leak-free for ever and ever, burning the fossil fuel it transports flies in the face of all we know about climate science. Fossil fuel alternatives exist now, the technologies are competitive in cost and getting cheaper by the year. And, they come with far less risk. Every incentive to build Line 5 is shortsighted and overlooks the immeasurable value of our Great Lakes. Risking a world treasure for quick profit is the height of hubris.

The expedited timeline for review of this EIS is absurd and will cause harm. Please extend the review period for the EIS to allow the affected community to engage with the information that has been prepared. The “energy emergency” premise of the shortened timeline is false and not a cause to shortcut required engagement.