Posted Draft EIS Comments

We need the tunnel to protect the environment and to ensure reliable energy sources for Michiganders and others. Many in Michigan rely on the propane carried in the pipeline to heat their homes. Many industries need the pipeline for transporting their product. Thousands of people directly and indirectly earn their income from this pipeline. Most reasonable sources say it will take a long time to switch to mainly renewable energy so we need this pipeline to ensure reliable energy during the transition and protect the Great Lakes.

I am writing regarding the Enbridge The Line 5 tunnel project. If approved, this project would put our precious Great Lakes waters at high risk of contamination. Enbridge has a poor record and is responsible for one of, if not the worst, oil leakage events in Michigan. In addition to this risk, continuing the extraction and burning of fossil fuels puts all life on the planet at great risk. It is time to transition to clean energy for the sake of our health now and for our future.

To whom it may concern,

I strongly encourage the approval of the proposed pipeline tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. I have worked in the oil and gas industry over 35 years and I know the proposed utility tunnel is the best solution to both protect the environment and support Michigan’s families. As a resident of Otsego County that went through the recent ice storm, my family and many others soon realized the need for fossil fuels when fragile electrical systems are compromised. The need for portable fuels like gasoline and propane were evident to all area residents as sources like wind and solar were useless to keep families warm and food safe from spoiling.
Michigan’s 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.
The Michigan oil and gas industry 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.
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 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 will have less 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.

Thank you,
Brian Dorr

I support the Army Corp’s issuance of the permit for the Line 5 tunnel as it is essential for Michiganders and other US citizens, providing reliable energy to many people without impacting the environment.

Please see the attached letter.

If you look at the map of north America and you were asked to pick one place on the map where there should never be an oil pipeline, there would be only one obvious choice….the Great Lakes and especially the water crossing at the Straits of Mackinaw. It was a mistake to put it there in the first place but we have avoided a major disaster . But we can no longer threaten the largest source of fresh water in north America. And the pipeline is not the answer. Close down the pipepline now and forever. We owe it to the future of Michigan, the Great Lakes and all of North America. A spill would be catastrophic and we have the choice to avert it. No pipeline…No tunnel.

Please stop Line 5. By the time the tunnel is built oil consumption will be declining. Building the tunnel is too risky. Studies have shown that other pipelines have plenty of room to carry the oil.
Thank you

Hello, thank you for carefully scrutinizing Enbridge Line 5 risky proposal. Enbridge has a very poor safety track record. No infrastructure is fail-proof, and no energy need justifies risking the Great Lakes. We must prioritize renewable solutions over a risky tunnel. This tunnel will benefit only the commercial profits of a Canadian oil transport company, while disregarding Michigans efforts towards permanent sustainable energy needs. Please keep the world’s largest fresh water resource safe and protected forever. Please demand Enbridge remove the current outdated oil pipeline and do not approve construction of Line 5. Thank you.

Please offer an extension to this comment period.

If there is an extension it will enable me to submit better and substantial comments based on our experience here in Minnesota (where we had no USACE EIS ) as I have not yet had the time to compare your EIS to the aftermath of damages we’re finding here in Minnesota along Enbridge’s Line 3/93 corridor.

Waadookawaad Amikwag has identified several damage sites not yet reported to the public, some of which brought permanent damages to land, water, and wild rice. There are likely similar or increased likelihood for failures on a tunnel project, in light of what we experienced here on a pipeline installation project that should have been easy peasey for a Pipeline company.

An extension of the comment period would also allow our group, and others like us, to follow proper protocols for approval in a reasonable timeframe for our members in order to respond with additional comments.

Thank you for your consideration.
Miigwech.