Supplemental Draft EIS Comments

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

This tunnel should never have 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 kind 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. The main problem is and continues to be Enbridge's safety record.

Again the preferred alternative should be the No Action Alternative 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 my view that my preferred alternative is the No Action Alternative along with Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1.

This tunnel should never have 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 kind 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. The main problem is and continues to be Enbridge's safety record.

Again the preferred alternative should be the No Action Alternative along with Decommissioning Sub Alternative 1. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

As I understand it, it has been determined the main environmental damage would be forest destruction. I don’t see anything else in the summary. This is, of course, absurd. The pipeline will permanently disrupt and disturb wildlife habitat and the threat of pipeline rupture is 100% unavoidable at some point. The company’s track record is less than admirable. Please do not proceed with this project. Do the right thing for Life’s sake.

this will be a BIG disaster in the making, this company has the worst safety record of any other pipeline company, their leak into the Kalamazoo river, still is NOT back to normal, this pipeline is just basically a short cut to Windsor Ont. we as a country are trying to faze out fossil fuels, so why are we in a hurry, to back having more pollution, how can we as a state or country trust this company to follow all the in place cautions (rules) when they don't now, they just thumb their collective noses at the rules that are already in place, how many years will it take to build the pipeline, by that time we probably won't need it, plus all the bottom of the lakes will be disturbed, all that silt will go to who knows where, how many millions gallons of oil were leaked in WI, before they even knew there was a leak, we drink the water from the great lakes, where is anyone going to get that replaced, when its contaminated with oil, how are the fish that won't be edible or even survive, be replaced, why are we paying to have a foreign company boost their profit margin at the expense of our own companies, how much is that oil going to benefit us, look at other pipelines that go to Texas, only not to be used by us, but is exported. the line that is now in use, has had leaks and has been damaged, their upkeep isn't keeping up either, are your kids or their kids be happy when it leaks and all the lakes usefulness won't be useful, not only all of that, with the now in place President, wants us to be self sufficient and not import oil and do more drilling in our country, so how does that fit in with those wishes? the minuses far outweigh the pluses think along the lines of what is best for our citizens, not BIG businesses

The location of the line 5 project poses a great threat to the largest freshwater resources in North America, the Great Lakes. If Enbridge wishes to install or resume a pipeline, please do so elsewhere with less potentially catastrophic risks to the health and safety of the people and wildlife of the Great Lakes region, and place it outside of the Great Lakes Basin/watershed. Oil spills are devastating, and we cannot afford the potential catastrophe here, for an oil pipeline. Perhaps run it much farther west, from Canada through the Dakotas or Montana, and pump it back east, if need be. Thank you.

The location of the line 5 project poses a great threat to the largest freshwater resources in North America, the Great Lakes. If Enbridge wishes to install or resume a pipeline, please do so elsewhere with less potentially catastrophic risks to the health and safety of the people and wildlife of the Great Lakes region, and place it outside of the Great Lakes Basin/watershed. Oil spills are devastating, and we cannot afford the potential catastrophe here, for an oil pipeline. Perhaps run it much farther west, from Canada through the Dakotas or Montana, and pump it back east, if need be. Thank you.

The location of the line 5 project poses a great threat to the largest freshwater resources in North America, the Great Lakes. If Enbridge wishes to install or resume a pipeline, please do so elsewhere with less potentially catastrophic risks to the health and safety of the people and wildlife of the Great Lakes region, and place it outside of the Great Lakes Basin/watershed. Oil spills are devastating, and we cannot afford the potential catastrophe here, for an oil pipeline. Perhaps run it much farther west, from Canada through the Dakotas or Montana, and pump it back east, if need be. Thank you.

The location of the line 5 project poses a great threat to the largest freshwater resources in North America, the Great Lakes. If Enbridge wishes to install or resume a pipeline, please do so elsewhere with less potentially catastrophic risks to the health and safety of the people and wildlife of the Great Lakes region, and place it outside of the Great Lakes Basin/watershed. Oil spills are devastating, and we cannot afford the potential catastrophe here, for an oil pipeline. Perhaps run it much farther west, from Canada through the Dakotas or Montana, and pump it back east, if need be. Thank you.

We live on the north shore of Lake Michigan about 10 miles west of the Enbridge pipeline.
We support the tunnel project and the sooner it is built, the safer we'll be.

DONT DO THIS - WHY ARE WE EVEN CONSIDERING ANYTHING NEAR THE GREAT LAKES REGION - DO YOU NOT HAVE GRANDCHILDREN?