Take Action
Add your name to these public comments to be submitted to MDEQ by signing this petition.
Take Action Now
Michigan’s year-long study of Line 5 alternatives has been released. Now is the time to submit your comment calling for the only way to truly protect the Great Lakes from an oil spill: decommission the Enbridge Line 5 pipelines through the Straits of Mackinac.
Protect the Great Lakes from a Catastrophic Oil Spill
Deadline for comments is August 4, so please submit yours today via this online form in support of protecting the Great Lakes from a catastrophic oil spill.
To the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Michigan Agency for Energy, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, and Office of the Attorney General:
I am writing to submit my official comment in response to the State of Michigan’s Line 5 alternatives analysis. This report was expressly commissioned for the overall purpose of “providing the State, Enbridge and the public with information that can be used to help guide decisions for the future of [Line 5 in the Straits].”
I am deeply disappointed in this analysis and this process riddled with conflict of interest. It lacks credibility because Dynamic Risk, a firm with ties to Enbridge, is its author. Even worse, it absurdly underestimates the impact of a spill and ignores a viable alternative to Line 5 – use of existing infrastructure. An expert review in December 2015 by advisors to a Great Lakes policy organization documented the practicality of this alternative.
Decommissioning Line 5 in the Straits of Mackinac is the only alternative that will prevent an oil spill with catastrophic consequences for the Great Lakes and the State of Michigan. It is time for the state to stop delaying action with flawed studies, exercise its legal duty as public trustee, and shut down Line 5. The state should use that authority through enforcement of its easement, an agreement that Enbridge has consistently violated.
Specifically, the draft report on alternatives to Line 5 in the Mackinac Straits:
- Fails to follow the recommendations and standards outlined in the Michigan Petroleum Pipeline Task Force Report and should be withdrawn.
- Neglects to provide the state with an independent, fair analysis of the alternatives to Line 5. This report is clearly biased toward allowing Line 5 to continue to operate and/or allowing Enbridge to build new oil infrastructure and further expand its operations. That bias grows out of past, and potentially future, business relationships between Enbridge and the report’s authors. Clearly, the authors are not “wholly independent from any influence by Enbridge,” a standard for establishing credibility in the report’s findings that is outlined in the Task Force Report.
- Ignores using existing pipeline infrastructure as an alternative to Line 5 in the Straits, which was one of the alternatives the state required Dynamic Risk to analyze, and leaving it out is in conflict with Task Force recommendation 3 (b). It is unacceptable that the contractor eliminated this alternative in the early stages of analysis, and this must be remedied in the final report.
-
Does not provide a worst-case scenario spill and cost analysis, which was one of the main objectives of this report and was specifically required by the state in its request for proposals under Section II-B. Instead, Dynamic Risk uses assumptions of risk that are woefully inadequate and are not credible. It estimates that:
- Only 20-miles of shoreline would be impacted by a spill. This is 3% of the 720-mile area the University of Michigan found vulnerable to a spill in its 2016 study.
- An oil spill would cost $100 to $200 million when Enbridge’s cleanup costs of its Kalamazoo River Line 6B pipeline oil spill in 2010 cost more than $1.2 billion.
- Overestimates an impact to propane supply, greatly exceeding what independent experts have determined would be necessary to provide the Upper Peninsula’s Rapid River facility with an alternative supply. The flawed report finds that up to 35 railcars per week or 15 truckloads per day would be necessary, while another study found it would take only one railcar or 3 - 4 truckloads per day to replace Line 5 propane supply to the U.P.
- Shows unfair bias towards building a tunneled pipeline. The report estimates the cost of a tunnel much lower than other estimates for this type of infrastructure; it fails to consider the risk of a spill to the Great Lakes, rivers and streams from other portions of the 64-year-old pipeline if the Straits portion were rebuilt; and it fails to look at the other health and environmental consequences of allowing Enbridge to build a tunnel and further expand its transport of mostly Canadian oil through Michigan for export. Dynamic Risk has a preference for new pipelines, which was evident when the firm aggressively promoted building a tunnel in its proposal to do this report, and its analysis is deeply flawed.
The magnitude of the risk of a spill is too severe to allow Line 5 to continue to operate in the Great Lakes. Michigan should not put the Great Lakes, our economy, health, drinking water, fisheries, and way of life at risk from a catastrophic oil spill any longer.
I urge you to act as legal public trustees of our waters and bottomlands, enforce the ongoing easement violations, and begin the process of decommissioning Line 5 in the Straits of Mackinac to protect the Great Lakes from a catastrophic oil spill. The State of Michigan has an independent legal duty to take this enforcement action based on Enbridge’s ongoing violations.
Please note that submitting your public comment here has nothing to do with the Line 5 ballot proposal that is being circulated.
Showing 7651 reactions
1) What are the BENEFITS to MI in keeping Line 5 open?
A) Pipeline5 is 64yr old & has a HISTORY of 29 spills. We been LUCKY it hasn’t happened in the Straits YET.
B) Are that many"LOCALS" ACTUALLY employed @ the stations along the line? OR are specially trained personal hired as the previous one leaves / retire?
C) From what I understand SMALL PERCENTAGE of the oil is utilized in MI. That most passes on through to be used in the East or exported.
D) I do NOT SEE any SAVINGS is any fuel cost. Our gas prices jump all over the board. I was in AR for 3.5 weeks, their prices were much lower & held steady It may have rose $0.01? They said it had been the same for a long period. Ours can shoot up $0.20 – $0.30 in ONE Day! Then take weeks to come back down…..if it does.
E)) I understood that it would cost ONLY $0.02 per gal to DECOMMISSION the pipeline. I’m willing to pay that, rather than take the risk of a break. I paid $6gal daily for gas in Haiti. I’ve paid as high as $18gal under the embargo.. It got up to $36gal. I’ve also sat in a gas line for 9hrs, & also 4 days / 3 nights.
2) A) Do you realize MOST ALL of the Task Forces DATA came from Enbridge, or the companies they have check the lines? Check the recorded footage- MORE THAN ONCE the Task Force SAID AS MUCH THEMSELVES. Any knowledgeable person, a university student writing a thesis, could have compiled most, if not all, of the same information. Besides, isn’t that kind of like asking the enemy for their battle strategies?
B) The Task Force DID NOT even have their OWN VISUAL done, but used Enbridge’s visual report. It is my understanding watching"A 3 Minute Tour of Line 5 @ the Straights" that there are MANY improperly or non supported spans. Several UNSUPPORTED for up to 200+ feet.
3) The MANY very LONG UNSUPPORTED spans ARE more PRONE to “VORTEX VIBRATIONS”? The Task Force named Vortex Vibrations as their. #2 concern. I would think with so many long unsupported, or improperly supported, spans Vortex Vibrations would be their #1 concern.
4) Mechanical, mainly"Anchor Dragging," was the Task Force 1st concern. Yet they did not consider SUPER-TANKERS may be traveling through the Straits in the near future.
That means longer, stronger chains that could possibly catch onto LONG UNSUPPORTED spans of pipeline.
Even though there may have been only 1 report of anchor dragging, the Task Force named it their #1 concern. So it must be a great concern.
5) Concerning Simulations Outcomes of a Possible Spill. It sounded like RANDOM simulations were completed at distant RANDOM times, RATHER than consecutive days. Also it sounded like the many Upper/ Top & Lower/ Bottom CURRENTS were NOT considered.
You may want to watch the UofM simulation on YouTube. Talk with the Professor doing it.
6) Geological: Had the Task Force considered using CPM SCANNING or DEM (3D Digital Elevation Models& views)? There was no mention of the Great Lakes Telltonic Zone ,the Keeweenaw Fault, or Morris Fault. How are the Onondaga Formations similar to the Straits, which are part of the Morris Fault?
The mention of the Niagara Escarpment was brushed aside. BUT a Harold H has been using CPM Scanning near Hamilton, Ontario. He was surprised to find a fault line in the Escarpment under layers of sediment. Check his website .
I’d seen a program where CPM Scanning or DEM was used in Lk Superior. They were surprised to find that it was probably formed by volcanoes.
I often feel, & HEAR MOVEMENT, with very slight tremors. They have awaken me many times. MI may be classified as low risk, but I’d think the frequent slight tremors can be a sign of something bigger in the future. Having lived 6mo in Irian Jaya, Indonesia (in the Ring of Fire) I am very sensitive to HEARING & feeling the tremors. Tremors were throughout the day. Slight to 8.0 one night.
I know most earthquakes give warnings, but not all. Just like a long inactive volcano suddenlybecomes active.
7) Are there any RECOMMENDATIONS about holding Enbridge to their end of the original contract? They have BREECHED the contract. The Task Force seem to ‘freeze’ when I bought up about the long UNSUPPORTED SPANS & Enbridge breeching that portion of the contract. (They appeared to ‘FREEZE’ several times during the Q&A portion of the presentation. Similar to an “oops” moment.) Check the recorded Q&A footage.
8) What does Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Ontario, & Shipping Companies think about Pipeline 5. After all if there is a spill, they will all be EFFECTED one way or other.
9) A) Was the Task Force worth the cost to MI taxpayers? Again, I point out, any knowledgeable person could compile the same information from Enbridge. I didn’t see any real in-depth study. Just compiled information from Enbridge. My brother is a Chemical Engineer & was in charge of making steel before retiring. Then he bought steel for a “Big 3” auto company. He is very detailed & would have made a more comprehensive report, ….for less money. He would have had his own visual done. He would have done a more in-depth spill study. Maybe you should have hired my brother !?!?!
B) How many of the men on the Task Force actually live in MI? Will they be liable at all for their report? After all, it is “no skin of their nose” if there is a break in the pipeline.
There is a YouTube video when someone is interviewing an Enbridge employee. Several times the employee BREAKS EYE CONTACT. It makes one WONDER: does he realize that Enbridge is in the WRONG? Is he NOT telling the TRUTH? Just as the Task Force seem to FREEZE several times during the Q&A.
IN CONCLUSION:
Michigan has been ENTRUSTED with the world’s largest fresh water resource. We are obligated to PROPERLY care for it.
Pipeline 5 has a HISTORY of 29 spills ! We have been LUCKY there has not been a spill@ the Straits YET !!
What is the advantage to MICHIGAN to keep Line 5? We use so little of the oil.
Does the advantage OUTWEIGH the chance of a spill?
When/ how will Enbridge be held RESPONSIBLE to correct their BREECH of contract, by not properly supporting the pipeline? View the “3 Minute Tour of Pipeline5 Under the Straits.”
What are the OTHER states, & the shipping companies view of Pipeline5? Michigan is NOT the only one that will be effected.
Was the Task Force report worth taxpayers money? Maybe you should have hired my brother. He’d have completed a more in-depth study on his owe w/o just compiling Enbridge’s information. Can bet he’d have had his own VISUAL done. Also more extensive spill simulation. Possibly consult with the UofM Scientists &/or Harold H. Maybe even do CPM Scan or DEM. He would have been more thorough, collecting his OWN DATA. …..& Still COST LESS.
REMEMBER the Kalamazoo spill. How long was it before Enbridge properly diagnosed that problem. They actually made it worse. That was more a human error than mechanical. ….. Also REMEMBER the Flint Water situation. There was a lot of misinformation& cover-up. Can MDEQ afford another"black mark"?
Thank you for your time. This did end up very long. And I didn’t even recap the ENVIRONMENTAL or ECONOMIC damage/cost if there is a spill. We sure would loose our PURE MICHIGAN status.
Carol Speirs
[email protected].
It’s a CANADIAN pipeline. Let them route it through Canada. Or is it Indian lan? Have the Indians considered the risks & don’t want a pipeline?
Hogs will goto slaughter
#sickofjagoffgreed
There should be a zero chance of ever having an oil spill