Posted Draft EIS Comments

After the Army Corps review, it is obvious that the tunnel will have overall detrimental effects. Do not build the tunnel and shut down line 5 for the best result.

The historic record is clear that despite the best intentions of engineering and human assurances, petrol/gas and waterways (especially the world’s largest freshwater surface ecosystem) just do not mix and pose unnecessary risks. Please take public sentiment informed by past spills and disasters and a view towards hindsight in not approving further fossil fuels moving via Line 5 or permits allowing further risks to present and future.

Of course we need oil, but coming through our beautiful Great Lakes is a potential for disaster. Can we please find another way to get it or another source in a way that might not be so harmful! Thank you for allowing me to comment.

To whom it may concern,

The Michigan Oil and Gas Association, on behalf of our nearly 400 members, strongly encourages the approval of the proposed pipeline tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. We believe the proposed utility tunnel is the best solution to both protect the environment and support Michigan’s families.

Michigan’s homegrown energy production provides safe, affordable, and reliable energy that drives our economy. The gasoline, diesel, home heating propane, and thousands of petroleum-based products derived from these resources must continue reaching communities across our state.

We provide an energy supply that keeps Michigan families warm and fuels businesses. Additionally, our industry contributes to approximately 47,000 jobs and a $13 billion economic impact in Michigan. These small businesses rely on a secure and operational Line 5 to transport their product to market in the safest, most efficient, and affordable way possible, with minimal impact on communities, roadways, and the environment.

MOGA’s members are Michigan residents and Michigan businesses. Michigan’s energy producers take great pride in powering our economy while demonstrating a deep commitment to protecting the places we all cherish. Michigan’s pipeline infrastructure’s safe and continued operation is one of our highest priorities. Without Line 5, an estimated 503,104 additional trucking miles would be driven each month on Michigan’s highways to deliver crude oil to refineries in Toledo and Detroit. This represents an unnecessary risk that Michigan can avoid by constructing the tunnel and placing Line 5 safely beneath the Straits of Mackinac. No viable alternative currently exists that would have a less significant impact on the environment than placing Line 5 in a utility tunnel under the Straits.

It is in the best interest of every Michigan resident who cares about our Great Lakes and environment to move forward with the Great Lakes Tunnel Project, ensuring we do everything possible to protect the Straits of Mackinac while maintaining our critical energy infrastructure. We believe the applicant has more than met the requirements necessary for this permit and urge the Corps to move this project forward without further delay.

Given Line 5’s critical importance to Michigan’s communities, economy, and businesses, we strongly urge the United States Army Corps of Engineers to issue the permit for Enbridge to proceed with construction of the utility tunnel. This would ensure energy reliability while eliminating the environmental risk of an oil spill from Line 5 in the Straits of Mackinac.

Sincerely,

Jason Geer
President & CEO

We know through multiple scientific inquiries and experience that our human impact on the environment is substantial. In continuing the use of Line 5, we are risking the health of our magnificent water system, the Great Lakes. The DEIS report outlines multiple impacts to the environment that can be avoided by simply enlisting an alternative to pumping oil and gas products under the Straits of Mackinac. I propose abandoning the current stretch of Line 5 which runs under the water and potentially endangers local wildlife and water quality, as does the proposed construction project, opting into a new delivery method which at the very least greatly reduces the potential for oil and gas spills affecting the water and environment. Using trucks or trains to transport the current flow of product provides more employment to the area and lowers the potential risk to the water system. Granted it would continue to affect air, and the need for a local transfer station likely would affect a certain amount of acreage in the area, but this method could be more readily abandoned as we move away from fossil fuel use and dependence in our future.
Taking these risks with the water system are unconscionable. We are fortunate that so far no major oil emergencies have been initiated from this pipeline, and the proposal to build this tunnel is a reflection of the concern for this type of potential disaster. But we will be better served by removing the transmission of these gas and oil products from underneath the water where their potential to silently threaten the environment is greatest.

I’m requesting an extension. Because reviewing the roughly 1,000 pages of detailed technical information in 30 days is not enough time for the public to review and respond. Please provide the public with an extension.

Comments on the draft Environmental Impact Statement for Enbridge Line 5 Tunnel Project (Permit Application No. LRE-2010-00463-56-A19) are included in the attached file.

Please show more time for the public to read and comment on this

Dear U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Detroit District: I wish to express opposition to the proposed Line 5 Tunnel Project. Of primary issue is that the tunnel project does not address the overall Line 5 concerns regarding its age and history of problematic leaks. In the assessment of alternatives to the tunnel, shutting down the line and using alternative lines was not considered and therefore no opportunity to assess a more global fix to the Line 5 problems. I join the Michigan tribes in supporting the decommissioning of Line 5. There are court cases pending that may result in requiring another action with Line 5 and potentially result in another solution other than commencing with a potentially problematice tunnel. Thank you for your consideration. Laura Sabo

I’m requesting an extension. Because reviewing the roughly 1,000 pages of detailed technical information in 30 days is not enough time for the public to review and respond. Please provide the public an extension.