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

  • Linda Wallman
    endorsed 2018-10-21 08:06:16 -0400
  • Debra Moore
    endorsed 2018-10-21 08:04:40 -0400
  • Michael Zimmerman
    endorsed 2018-10-21 08:01:03 -0400
    oil and water don’t mix
  • Denise Hartsough
    endorsed 2018-10-20 15:47:29 -0400
  • Be Aligned
    endorsed 2018-10-20 15:27:14 -0400
  • Billiruth Wickey
    endorsed 2018-10-20 11:37:59 -0400
    I participated in a two hour focus group commissioned by Enbridge on October 10th in Mackinaw City however it was more like an hour and a half high pressure sales pitch with a few questions thrown in. I have designed and participated in many focus groups and none were anything remotely similar to the Enbridge commissioned group.
  • Mk Vereen
    endorsed 2018-10-20 10:21:10 -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?
  • Mary Lu Norton
    endorsed 2018-10-20 08:11:41 -0400
  • Jennie Hoffmann
    endorsed 2018-10-20 08:06:50 -0400
  • Steve Jakubiak
    endorsed 2018-10-19 20:30:46 -0400
    close line 5 …. keep our state clean
  • Jim Mirkle
    endorsed 2018-10-19 20:25:07 -0400
  • Karrigan Atkins
    endorsed 2018-10-19 20:06:27 -0400
  • Abby Potts
    endorsed 2018-10-19 16:56:51 -0400
  • Roberta Noss
    endorsed 2018-10-19 15:20:56 -0400
  • Oliver Warner
    endorsed 2018-10-19 11:20:35 -0400
    99 year lease; 10 years to build! Yet another long term investment in the carbon based economy and one that doesn’t even provide a direct economic benefit to Michigan. Don’t you see that we must reduce our carbon fuel consumption significantly in just 10 years? If it’s revenue the Authority wants, then provide a lease for a electric cable from the bridge structure … cheaper, inspectable, servicable, and no risk of pollution … even in the winter!


    At the very least, don’t push this through, wait till after the elections.
  • Martha Swain
    endorsed 2018-10-18 22:00:21 -0400
  • Amy Pflughoeft
    endorsed 2018-10-18 21:52:06 -0400
  • Howard Prince
    endorsed 2018-10-18 21:15:16 -0400
  • Janis Ley
    endorsed 2018-10-18 21:03:16 -0400
  • Pam Westerhold
    endorsed 2018-10-18 18:11:43 -0400
    This is a poor idea for Enbridge to build a tunnel for the pipeline to continue to carry oil sands to Ontario. Seems like a responsibility the state of MI does not need. Why do it? Who does it serve? 99 years down the road we will all be dead and I am sure Michiganders will think…."what in the world was the Mackinac Bridge Authority thinking? Why should you be burdened with the oversight of a project for Enbridge. Remember Kalamazoo.
  • Lynn Barrett
    endorsed 2018-10-18 15:11:53 -0400
  • Matt Stolle
    endorsed 2018-10-18 14:21:43 -0400
  • Kate DeRosier
    endorsed 2018-10-18 13:45:11 -0400
  • Andrew Frykberg
    endorsed 2018-10-18 13:28:24 -0400
  • Lisa Daniels
    endorsed 2018-10-18 11:04:47 -0400
    Do not sacrifice our great lakes
  • Marion Evashevski
    endorsed 2018-10-17 20:18:31 -0400
  • Rachel Havrelock
    @RachelHavrelock tweeted link to this page. 2018-10-17 17:04:18 -0400
    Send an email to the Mackinac Bridge Authority before Gov. Snyder and Enbridge get their way to build a tunnel under the Great Lakes for Canadian oil. https://www.oilandwaterdontmix.org/contact_the_mackinac_bridge_authority?recruiter_id=6371
  • Rachel Havrelock
    endorsed 2018-10-17 17:03:30 -0400
    Dear Bob Sweeney, I write to express a widely held conviction across the Great Lakes that under public trust law, the lakes belong to us and to future generations not to private companies who do not hold our interests in mind. Tragically, we saw the outcomes when private corporations were entrusted with water delivery to the citizens of Flint. When it comes to the water quality of the lakes, we cannot gamble our health, our future, or the chance that local businesses will greatly benefit from our water wealth as other sources disappear across the world. For what reason would anyone agree to keep an aging pipeline in our fierce and mighty fresh water with a privately run tunnel around it? We have not seen Enbridge or related corporations hold the interests of the people of Michigan and neighboring states in mind, so why would we run the risk? This is not the plan for Michigan. I urge you to stop this rushed, foolhardy plan that goes against the will of the public and prefers private, multinational interests.
  • Katey Carey
    endorsed 2018-10-17 16:53:37 -0400
  • Frank Roder
    endorsed 2018-10-17 16:15:46 -0400
    To: Mackinac Bridge Authority Secretary Robert Sweeny


    Dear Mr. Sweeney,


    I am distressed to learn that instead of closing down the Enbridge Line 5 Pipeline beneath the Straits of Mackinac, Governor Snyder wants to create a tunnel beneath the Straits to house a new pipeline. I am further distressed to learn that the Mackinac Bridge Authority may be involved in funding and managing this project.


    I am asking these questions and would like your response.


    A) Why should the Mackinac Bridge Authority choose to own the risky tunnel and be saddled with Enbridge through a 99 year lease, especially given Enbridge’s horrible track record in Michigan? Ex: The Kalamazoo River oil spill.


    B) Why should the Mackinac 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 Enbridges’s Line 5 is for Canadian use and Enbridge profit? Enbridge is playing Michigan for a sucker.


    C) The agreement between Enbridge and Governor 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 Mackinac Bridge Authority potentially put the financial health of the Mackinac Bridge at risk by taking responsibility for Enbridge’s oil tunnel beneath the Straits of Mackinac? Michigan has all risk and no gain.


    D) Why is the Mackinac Bridge Authority considering bypassing a thorough environmental review of the Snyder-Enbridge oil tunnel under the Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act instead of looking for better alternatives which include decommissioning the Line 5 Pipeline now?


    “Pure Michigan!” Bah, humbug. Something really stinks here.


    Frank Roder

    Grand Haven, MI

You can help now.


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

@OilWaterDntMix

Get updates