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

  • Pam Pfeiffer
    coalition to oppose the expansion of U S Ecology endorsed 2018-10-17 15:17:53 -0400
  • Leslie Sutliff
    endorsed 2018-10-17 14:47:11 -0400
  • Jan Shumaker
    endorsed 2018-10-17 12:23:23 -0400
    this does not sound like a safe plan or anything good for the great lakes. The water is too valuable to risk with this plan. No pipeline like this should be set down
  • Christina Riddle
    endorsed 2018-10-17 11:39:07 -0400
    Thanks for showing us how to protest. I will copy my letter to local paper.
  • Susan McLaughlin
    endorsed 2018-10-17 10:40:20 -0400
  • Hannah McKinney
    endorsed 2018-10-17 10:31:15 -0400
  • Janis Beard
    endorsed 2018-10-17 10:26:43 -0400
    Dear Mr. Sweeney,

    RE: Enbridge Line 5 Tunnel

    If I understand correctly, it is proposed that the Mackinac Bridge Authority own the tunnel and lease it to Enbridge. Why should the authority be liable for the tunnel that Enbridge is using?

    More importantly, the tunnel’s safety from catastrophic spills and explosions is in question. We don’t want to risk permanently harming our most precious resource, the Great Lakes.

    Sincerely,

    Janis Beard
  • Graham Grubb
    endorsed 2018-10-17 10:20:16 -0400
  • Nancy Dotlo
    endorsed 2018-10-17 09:05:44 -0400
    The governor’s plan does not secure the health of the water or those of us, humans, plants, animals, that depend and cherish it. Please don’t implement it.
  • Robert Morley Palmateer
    @golfnut666 tweeted link to this page. 2018-10-17 08:13:24 -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=38092
  • R Morley Palmateer
    endorsed 2018-10-17 08:13:11 -0400
    I live in Oscoda Michigan on the shore of Lake Huron. Our water service is provided from the lake, an our lives are centered around the lake for recreation and family gatherings.


    Based on the past history of Enbridge I have no confidence that a tunnel will provide protection from future containment from spills. The construction of a tunnel will just add to the structure of the lake bottom.


    This entire pipeline is not necessary for Michigan. We get no value from the contents of the pipeline.
  • Maureen Loftus
    endorsed 2018-10-17 08:03:39 -0400
  • Matthew Genaze
    endorsed 2018-10-17 07:17:02 -0400
  • april
    @aevertree tweeted link to this page. 2018-10-17 01:49:13 -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=51847
  • April Mckenzie
    endorsed 2018-10-17 01:48:50 -0400
  • Martha and Lawrence Wallen
    endorsed 2018-10-16 23:24:32 -0400
  • Dane Farner
    endorsed 2018-10-16 22:50:20 -0400
  • Katherine Heins
    endorsed 2018-10-16 22:46:59 -0400
    Dear Secretary Sweeney,


    I am writing to express my deep concerns with the tunnel for Line 5 that is proposed to be the responsibility of the Mackinac Bridge Authority.


    Line 5 is a pipeline that has already exceeded its intended lifespan. It carries oil from Canada under the Straits, across Michigan, and back to Canada, bringing minimal benefit to the people of Michigan. Its continued existence is a constant risk to the irreplaceable waters of the Mackinac Straits. An anchor strike on the pipeline last winter demonstrated that even under rather average winter conditions, neither Enbridge, the pipeline’s owner, nor the Michigan Coast Guard are equipped to respond to emergencies in a timely or efficient fashion.


    Now I understand the State of Michigan wants to build a tunnel for Line 5 and place it under the purview of the Mackinac Bridge Authority. You will be asked to consider this matter on November 8. As a Michigan citizen, I urge you to turn down this plan and recommend decommissioning Line 5 instead. At the very least, please insist on a thorough environmental review before any agreement is made.


    As you are evaluating the proposal, please consider the following questions:


    Why would the Mackinac Bridge Authority enter into a 99-year lease with Enbridge, a company that has shown repeatedly that it cannot be trusted to safeguard the health of Michigan’s citizens and natural resources?


    How does it make sense for the bridge authority assume financial risk for damage to Line 5 and the proposed tunnel when most of the oil running through the pipeline will not stay in the US?


    Why should the agreement limit Enbridge’s liability to less than a quarter of the possible cost of spill cleanup in the event that their pipeline ruptured?


    I hope you take into account the enormous potential harm to our great state, its resources, and its people that the Line 5 tunnel proposal represents.


    Thank you for your attention to this matter.


    Yours,


    Katherine Heins

    Traverse City
  • Art Hanson
    endorsed 2018-10-16 22:34:38 -0400
    Dear MBA Secretary Bob Sweeney:


    I strongly urge you to oppose the risky proposed tunnel for Canadian oil.


    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 bridge authority 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?


    Sincerely,


    Art Hanson


    1815 Briarwood Dr.


    Lansing, MI 48917
  • Adam Wells
    endorsed 2018-10-16 22:21:28 -0400
    I’m am so concerned and saddened by this reckless and greedy behavior from our Governor. The residents of Michigan DO NOT WANT THIS TUNNEL. This pipeline is an unnecessary threatens our Great Lakes. Why is the bridge authority 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?

    Sincerely,

    Adam Wells
  • Ross Rhizal
    endorsed 2018-10-16 21:35:00 -0400
  • Lisa Shoemaker-Young
    endorsed 2018-10-16 21:24:59 -0400
  • Terry (Theresa) Townley
    endorsed 2018-10-16 21:08:17 -0400
  • Margaret LaChapelle
    endorsed 2018-10-16 21:07:34 -0400
  • Roth Woods
    endorsed 2018-10-16 21:03:48 -0400
  • Anne Steinberg
    endorsed 2018-10-16 20:59:05 -0400
    This is what I wrote: Dear Mr. Sweeney,


    I’m concerned about the proposed Enbridge tunnel that would carry oil under Lake Michigan.


    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 Enbridge’s Line 5 is for Canada’s use? Why isn’t Enbridge being required to have insurance or bonds that would cover the costs of a worst-case spill?


    Why is Enbridge going to be able to continue to run oil through Line 5 for many years while this tunnel is being built? Years of risk for Lake Michigan and the surrounding communities. Line 5 should be shut down as soon as possible.


    The tunnel MAY lessen the chances for a spill under the Straits of Mackinac, but what about all along the old Line 5? It runs across Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula — over and near many bodies of water and through many communities. There will still be risks to our water and communities if Line 5 is allowed to continue operation.


    I don’t live in Michigan, but I live near Lake Michigan in Milwaukee. We get our drinking water from Lake Michigan and enjoy the Lake for fishing, swimming and other recreation. In addition, I often travel to the U.P. to hike and paddle and ski. I would choose to spend my vacations (and spend my dollars) elsewhere if there was an oil spill from Line 5.


    Sincerely,


    Anne Steinberg

    Milwaukee, WI
  • Ken Faris
    endorsed 2018-10-16 20:55:29 -0400
  • Joe Tinsley
    endorsed 2018-10-16 20:32:47 -0400
  • Lorraine Coburn
    endorsed 2018-10-16 20:25:55 -0400
  • Jill Bohr Jacob
    endorsed 2018-10-16 20:08:23 -0400

You can help now.


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

@OilWaterDntMix

Get updates