Supplemental Draft EIS Comments

We need to switch to clean energy

In my original remarks on the Enbridge Line 5 Tunnel Project, I expressed by view that my preferred alternative is the No Action Alternative along with Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1.

This tunnel should never been constructed in the first place, the reasons among which include Native American treaty rights. The damage was originally done in 1953 when the pipelines were constructed and became operational. Although there have been no spills from the twin pipelines in the actual Straits, there have been 29 spills since 1968 spewing at least 1.13 million gallons of oil along Line 5. If that is not a significant warning, I don't know what is.

Enbridge's safety record is abysmal. The most egregious example was the largest and most costly inland oil spill in United States history. On July 25th, 2010, that spill saturated approximately 40 miles of the Kalamazoo River watershed. Compounding the spill was the fact that the rupture went undetected and unreported for almost 17 hours. What king of a safety record is that?

Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1 poses the least amount of damage to the Strait itself, the surrounding environment and its wildlife. I therefore support this alternative. Just because horizontal directional drilling (HDD) is now considered feasible does not make this alternative worth considering. Again the preferred alternative should be the No Action along with Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

In my original remarks on the Enbridge Line 5 Tunnel Project, I expressed by view that my preferred alternative is the No Action Alternative along with Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1.

This tunnel should never been constructed in the first place, the reasons among which include Native American treaty rights. The damage was originally done in 1953 when the pipelines were constructed and became operational. Although there have been no spills from the twin pipelines in the actual Straits, there have been 29 spills since 1968 spewing at least 1.13 million gallons of oil along Line 5. If that is not a significant warning, I don't know what is.

Enbridge's safety record is abysmal. The most egregious example was the largest and most costly inland oil spill in United States history. On July 25th, 2010, that spill saturated approximately 40 miles of the Kalamazoo River watershed. Compounding the spill was the fact that the rupture went undetected and unreported for almost 17 hours. What king of a safety record is that?

Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1 poses the least amount of damage to the Strait itself, the surrounding environment and its wildlife. I therefore support this alternative. Just because horizontal directional drilling (HDD) is now considered feasible does not make this alternative worth considering. Again the preferred alternative should be the No Action along with Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

In my original remarks on the Enbridge Line 5 Tunnel Project, I expressed by view that my preferred alternative is the No Action Alternative along with Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1.

This tunnel should never been constructed in the first place, the reasons among which include Native American treaty rights. The damage was originally done in 1953 when the pipelines were constructed and became operational. Although there have been no spills from the twin pipelines in the actual Straits, there have been 29 spills since 1968 spewing at least 1.13 million gallons of oil along Line 5. If that is not a significant warning, I don't know what is.

Enbridge's safety record is abysmal. The most egregious example was the largest and most costly inland oil spill in United States history. On July 25th, 2010, that spill saturated approximately 40 miles of the Kalamazoo River watershed. Compounding the spill was the fact that the rupture went undetected and unreported for almost 17 hours. What king of a safety record is that?

Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1 poses the least amount of damage to the Strait itself, the surrounding environment and its wildlife. I therefore support this alternative. Just because horizontal directional drilling (HDD) is now considered feasible does not make this alternative worth considering. Again the preferred alternative should be the No Action along with Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

In my original remarks on the Enbridge Line 5 Tunnel Project, I expressed by view that my preferred alternative is the No Action Alternative along with Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1.

This tunnel should never been constructed in the first place, the reasons among which include Native American treaty rights. The damage was originally done in 1953 when the pipelines were constructed and became operational. Although there have been no spills from the twin pipelines in the actual Straits, there have been 29 spills since 1968 spewing at least 1.13 million gallons of oil along Line 5. If that is not a significant warning, I don't know what is.

Enbridge's safety record is abysmal. The most egregious example was the largest and most costly inland oil spill in United States history. On July 25th, 2010, that spill saturated approximately 40 miles of the Kalamazoo River watershed. Compounding the spill was the fact that the rupture went undetected and unreported for almost 17 hours. What king of a safety record is that?

Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1 poses the least amount of damage to the Strait itself, the surrounding environment and its wildlife. I therefore support this alternative. Just because horizontal directional drilling (HDD) is now considered feasible does not make this alternative worth considering. Again the preferred alternative should be the No Action along with Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

In my original remarks on the Enbridge Line 5 Tunnel Project, I expressed by view that my preferred alternative is the No Action Alternative along with Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1.

This tunnel should never been constructed in the first place, the reasons among which include Native American treaty rights. The damage was originally done in 1953 when the pipelines were constructed and became operational. Although there have been no spills from the twin pipelines in the actual Straits, there have been 29 spills since 1968 spewing at least 1.13 million gallons of oil along Line 5. If that is not a significant warning, I don't know what is.

Enbridge's safety record is abysmal. The most egregious example was the largest and most costly inland oil spill in United States history. On July 25th, 2010, that spill saturated approximately 40 miles of the Kalamazoo River watershed. Compounding the spill was the fact that the rupture went undetected and unreported for almost 17 hours. What king of a safety record is that?

Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1 poses the least amount of damage to the Strait itself, the surrounding environment and its wildlife. I therefore support this alternative. Just because horizontal directional drilling (HDD) is now considered feasible does not make this alternative worth considering. Again the preferred alternative should be the No Action along with Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

In my original remarks on the Enbridge Line 5 Tunnel Project, I expressed by view that my preferred alternative is the No Action Alternative along with Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1.

This tunnel should never been constructed in the first place, the reasons among which include Native American treaty rights. The damage was originally done in 1953 when the pipelines were constructed and became operational. Although there have been no spills from the twin pipelines in the actual Straits, there have been 29 spills since 1968 spewing at least 1.13 million gallons of oil along Line 5. If that is not a significant warning, I don't know what is.

Enbridge's safety record is abysmal. The most egregious example was the largest and most costly inland oil spill in United States history. On July 25th, 2010, that spill saturated approximately 40 miles of the Kalamazoo River watershed. Compounding the spill was the fact that the rupture went undetected and unreported for almost 17 hours. What king of a safety record is that?

Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1 poses the least amount of damage to the Strait itself, the surrounding environment and its wildlife. I therefore support this alternative. Just because horizontal directional drilling (HDD) is now considered feasible does not make this alternative worth considering. Again the preferred alternative should be the No Action along with Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

In my original remarks on the Enbridge Line 5 Tunnel Project, I expressed by view that my preferred alternative is the No Action Alternative along with Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1.

This tunnel should never been constructed in the first place, the reasons among which include Native American treaty rights. The damage was originally done in 1953 when the pipelines were constructed and became operational. Although there have been no spills from the twin pipelines in the actual Straits, there have been 29 spills since 1968 spewing at least 1.13 million gallons of oil along Line 5. If that is not a significant warning, I don't know what is.

Enbridge's safety record is abysmal. The most egregious example was the largest and most costly inland oil spill in United States history. On July 25th, 2010, that spill saturated approximately 40 miles of the Kalamazoo River watershed. Compounding the spill was the fact that the rupture went undetected and unreported for almost 17 hours. What king of a safety record is that?

Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1 poses the least amount of damage to the Strait itself, the surrounding environment and its wildlife. I therefore support this alternative. Just because horizontal directional drilling (HDD) is now considered feasible does not make this alternative worth considering. Again the preferred alternative should be the No Action along with Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

In my original remarks on the Enbridge Line 5 Tunnel Project, I expressed by view that my preferred alternative is the No Action Alternative along with Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1.

This tunnel should never been constructed in the first place, the reasons among which include Native American treaty rights. The damage was originally done in 1953 when the pipelines were constructed and became operational. Although there have been no spills from the twin pipelines in the actual Straits, there have been 29 spills since 1968 spewing at least 1.13 million gallons of oil along Line 5. If that is not a significant warning, I don't know what is.

Enbridge's safety record is abysmal. The most egregious example was the largest and most costly inland oil spill in United States history. On July 25th, 2010, that spill saturated approximately 40 miles of the Kalamazoo River watershed. Compounding the spill was the fact that the rupture went undetected and unreported for almost 17 hours. What king of a safety record is that?

Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1 poses the least amount of damage to the Strait itself, the surrounding environment and its wildlife. I therefore support this alternative. Just because horizontal directional drilling (HDD) is now considered feasible does not make this alternative worth considering. Again the preferred alternative should be the No Action along with Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

In my original remarks on the Enbridge Line 5 Tunnel Project, I expressed by view that my preferred alternative is the No Action Alternative along with Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1.

This tunnel should never been constructed in the first place, the reasons among which include Native American treaty rights. The damage was originally done in 1953 when the pipelines were constructed and became operational. Although there have been no spills from the twin pipelines in the actual Straits, there have been 29 spills since 1968 spewing at least 1.13 million gallons of oil along Line 5. If that is not a significant warning, I don't know what is.

Enbridge's safety record is abysmal. The most egregious example was the largest and most costly inland oil spill in United States history. On July 25th, 2010, that spill saturated approximately 40 miles of the Kalamazoo River watershed. Compounding the spill was the fact that the rupture went undetected and unreported for almost 17 hours. What king of a safety record is that?

Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1 poses the least amount of damage to the Strait itself, the surrounding environment and its wildlife. I therefore support this alternative. Just because horizontal directional drilling (HDD) is now considered feasible does not make this alternative worth considering. Again the preferred alternative should be the No Action along with Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.