READ THE TROUBLING FACTS surrounding the Synder-Enbridge oil tunnel deal.

Enbridge and Michigan's Governor made a backroom deal to explore build a tunnel in the Straits of Mackinac that would keep Canadian oil flowing through the Great Lakes for at least 7 to 10 more years, if not forever. The deal would also put the Mackinac Bridge Authority and Michigan taxpayers at financial risk.

We have questions. You probably do too.

On November 8 in St. Ignace, Enbridge will pitch its tunnel proposal to members of the bridge authority for the first time. Gov. Snyder wants the bridge authority to own Enbridge’s tunnel, marking the first time since the authority was created in 1950 that its sole mission of maintaining and operating the Mighty Mac would be compromised.

Let the Mackinac Bridge Authority know your thoughts about this proposed tunnel for Canadian oil

Bridge authority members are inviting questions from the public, which is great. The bridge authority was not asked in advance by the Snyder administration to be part of this mess, so we encourage you to respectfully email authority Secretary Bob Sweeney with your questions. 

Click to compose an email to Bob Sweeney or copy his address: sweeneyb@michigan.gov

Here are some questions you may choose to ask the bridge authority (feel free to copy & paste):

Why should the bridge authority own the risky tunnel and be saddled with Enbridge through a 99-year lease, especially given Enbridge’s horrible track record in Michigan?

Why should the bridge authority assume financial risk in the event of a tunnel collapse and pipeline rupture for a private Canadian oil company when most of the oil in Enbridge’s Line 5 is for Canada’s use?

The agreement between Enbridge and Gov. Snyder would only provide $1.88 billion in financial pledges from Enbridge in the case of major damages when economists estimate the cost of a worst-case spill could reach $6.3 billion. Why should the bridge authority potentially put the financial health of the Mackinac Bridge at risk by taking responsibility for Enbridge’s oil tunnel?

Why is the administration considering bypassing a thorough environmental review of the Snyder-Enbridge oil tunnel under the Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act instead of looking at better alternatives which include decommissioning Line 5 now?

Once you send your email let us know by reporting it below. We also invite you to attend the November 8th meeting where Enbridge will present their oil tunnel plan to the Mackinac Bridge Authority. RSVP Here.

 

274 Emails Sent
300 Emails

Did you send and email?


Showing 286 reactions

  • Cheryl Sparks
    endorsed 2018-10-24 11:56:09 -0400
  • Susan Wheadon
    endorsed 2018-10-24 09:41:11 -0400
    Thank you for giving me this opportunity.
  • Karen Gould
    endorsed via 2018-10-23 22:49:12 -0400
    Why should the bridge authority own the risky tunnel and be saddled with Enbridge through a 99-year lease, especially given Enbridge’s horrible track record in Michigan?


    Why should the bridge authority assume financial risk in the event of a tunnel collapse and pipeline rupture for a private Canadian oil company when most of the oil in Enbridge’s Line 5 is for Canada’s use?


    The agreement between Enbridge and Gov. Snyder would only provide $1.88 billion in financial pledges from Enbridge in the case of major damages when economists estimate the cost of a worst-case spill could reach $6.3 billion. Why should the bridge authority potentially put the financial health of the Mackinac Bridge at risk by taking responsibility for Enbridge’s oil tunnel?


    Why is the administration considering bypassing a thorough environmental review of the Snyder-Enbridge oil tunnel under the Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act instead of looking at better alternatives which include decommissioning Line 5 now?
  • Lauren Stroh
    endorsed 2018-10-23 20:13:57 -0400
  • Linda Baker
    endorsed 2018-10-23 17:30:51 -0400
    when you know from past experience that Enbridge does not maintain their current pipeline and that they have lied in the past – why would you allow this to happen? There is oil presence along the supposedly cleaned rivers and land of northern Michigan from their past spills – shut it down and keep Michigan and the Great Lakes safe from their pollution.
  • Lynn Hartung
    endorsed 2018-10-23 17:04:15 -0400
  • Suzanne Sorkin
    endorsed 2018-10-23 15:34:42 -0400
    I learned of this thru Rogans List.
  • Justin Smith
    endorsed 2018-10-23 14:59:27 -0400
  • Julie Dudderar
    endorsed 2018-10-23 11:23:28 -0400
  • Marsha Boettger
    endorsed 2018-10-23 09:20:22 -0400
  • Jim Hamp
    Crystal Lake &Watershed Assoc. endorsed 2018-10-22 21:48:50 -0400
  • Helen Hankins
    endorsed 2018-10-22 21:44:01 -0400
  • Marcia Oreilly
    endorsed 2018-10-22 21:43:35 -0400
    I think it is a questional plan to transfer the risk to the bridge authority. We cannot allow any spill or accident occur in the Great Lakes. We cannot take the risk that Snyder is proposing. The Flint situation happened when Snyder had an interim Flint manager, so his judgement with water and incompetent people should be self evident. Vote against this horrendous plan.
  • Cory Monty
    endorsed 2018-10-22 20:34:12 -0400
    Why should the bridge authority own the risky tunnel and be saddled with Enbridge through a 99-year lease, especially given Enbridge’s horrible track record in Michigan?


    Why should the bridge authority assume financial risk in the event of a tunnel collapse and pipeline rupture for a private Canadian oil company when most of the oil in Enbridge’s Line 5 is for Canada’s use?


    The agreement between Enbridge and Gov. Snyder would only provide $1.88 billion in financial pledges from Enbridge in the case of major damages when economists estimate the cost of a worst-case spill could reach $6.3 billion. Why should the bridge authority potentially put the financial health of the Mackinac Bridge at risk by taking responsibility for Enbridge’s oil tunnel?


    Why is the administration considering bypassing a thorough environmental review of the Snyder-Enbridge oil tunnel under the Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act instead of looking at better alternatives which include decommissioning Line 5 now?
  • Jane Speer
    endorsed 2018-10-22 18:25:21 -0400
  • Michele St Peter
    endorsed 2018-10-22 17:01:39 -0400
    Why is the administration considering bypassing a thorough environmental review of the Snyder-Enbridge oil tunnel under the Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act instead of looking at better alternatives which include decommissioning Line 5 now? DO NOT ENDANGER OUR WATER WITH THEIR OIL!!!
  • Abby Reeg
    endorsed 2018-10-22 14:16:16 -0400
  • Kyle Vanderzee
    endorsed 2018-10-22 13:53:26 -0400
  • Jandy Sprouse
    endorsed 2018-10-22 12:34:08 -0400
  • Gerry Niedermaier
    endorsed 2018-10-22 11:41:07 -0400
  • Nick Fleezanis
    endorsed 2018-10-22 10:49:02 -0400
  • Charlene Adams Fountain
    endorsed 2018-10-22 10:42:42 -0400
    Please stop thus backroom deal. Protect our Great Lakes and bridge.
  • john McLane
    endorsed 2018-10-22 10:14:05 -0400
    Here’s my prediction. Despite the "engineering prowess of one Bill Schuette, Enbridge is never going to buy into a stupid tunnel. Don’t need it for ultra sonic and smart pigging maintenance on Line 5, the Straits Crossing. The compromise will be a directional bore for state of the art construction and engineering. And they will get the people of the State of Michigan to pay for it!
  • Margo Czinski
    endorsed 2018-10-22 09:49:27 -0400
  • Brenda Kennedy
    endorsed 2018-10-22 09:11:05 -0400
  • Kasey Hutchinson
    endorsed 2018-10-22 08:36:46 -0400
  • Kathryn Carolan
    endorsed 2018-10-22 08:19:12 -0400
  • Sally Rogers
    endorsed 2018-10-22 07:45:05 -0400
  • Julia Chambers
    endorsed 2018-10-22 07:36:18 -0400
  • Kenneth Ford
    endorsed 2018-10-22 07:26:53 -0400

You can help now.


Add your voice to those working for a clean Great Lakes & healthier economy.

@OilWaterDntMix

Get updates