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

  • Thomas Mead
    endorsed 2018-10-16 19:59:19 -0400
  • Chiara Barbier
    endorsed 2018-10-16 19:55:23 -0400
  • Jo Ford
    endorsed 2018-10-16 19:23:32 -0400
    I questioned their mission state and MI law Act 21 of 1950 allowing them to own a tunnel for oil and gas.
  • Alexandra Lindstrom
    endorsed 2018-10-16 19:20:31 -0400
    This is what I sent:

    Dear Mr. Sweeney,


    I am writing as a concerned Michigan citizen about the proposed Enbridge tunnel that the Governor has proposed. I want to begin by thanking you for inviting public comment, and I encourage you to continue to engage with Michiganders about this issue.


    I’ll begin by pointing out the obvious—Enbridge has long been an irresponsible business partner with Michigan, hiding and mischaracterizing wear and tear and outright damage to the current Line 5 pipeline. The Great Lakes continue to face risk of an oil spill from this pipeline, which would have devastating environmental, public health, and economic impacts, which our economy and population would be unable to bear without significant damage. We cannot forget the risk that this corporation is willing to burden Michiganders with in the present when considering future business deals.


    Without going into the questions about whether a bridge authority should assume responsibility for a tunnel, I would also like to raise the point that any tunnel construction, or tunnel collapse or oil spill would directly impact the operation of the Mackinac Bridge. It’s well known that northern Michigan relies heavily on shipping and tourism for its economy—I myself have visited every year for as long as I can remember to enjoy the beauty of the area, particularly its clean water. Any disruption to the peaceful and pristine nature of the area will discourage visitors such as myself, and hurt the local economy.


    It is also outright irresponsible to invest in a 99 year lease for fossil fuel infrastructure as the world commits to moving towards renewables. In light of the most recent IPCC report, which predict more damage and risk from climate change with each release, we have until 2040 before we start seeing serious impacts from climate change. I am a young person (and a Michigan voter for many more years), and I need my government to invest in long-term solutions for my future and my generation, not business profits and short term political gain. I want to see my state putting more wind and solar on the grid, something northern Michigan has been spearheading. An oil pipeline is a step back, and quite frankly, the economy or voters such as myself will put it out of commission long before it turns a profit. Investing in the infrastructure only serves to waste taxpayer dollars and support a dying, toxic industry.


    The Governor wants to seal in the oil tunnel for a century, but a century from now we will be unable and unwilling to invest in the fossil fuel industry. This is the wrong choice for Michiganders in the long term and the short term.


    I hope you take this into consideration and keep doing what the Bridge Authority does best—connect Michiganders to the natural and cultural beauty of Northern Michigan. For that, generations will continue to thank you.


    Best,


    Alexandra Lindstrom
  • Randy OConnell
    endorsed 2018-10-16 19:02:24 -0400
    Isn’t said that “doing the same thing and expecting different results is insane”?

    That is what you are doing by not decommissioning Line 5.

    Do it Gov. Snyder. Or live with the fact that you could have stopped it, but didn’t.
  • Dennis Katakowski
    endorsed 2018-10-16 18:59:48 -0400
  • Joyce Belgan-Marlo
    endorsed 2018-10-16 18:49:54 -0400
    Let’s not ruin our natural resources. this is a bad idea.
  • Robert Courson
    endorsed 2018-10-16 18:44:39 -0400
  • Josef Zook
    endorsed 2018-10-16 18:25:23 -0400
  • Y suarez
    endorsed 2018-10-16 17:31:38 -0400
    I sent an E mail.
  • Roger Corpolongo
    endorsed 2018-10-16 17:26:26 -0400
  • Sandra Terry-Morrison
    endorsed 2018-10-16 16:25:53 -0400
    I sent an email with my concerns
  • Robert Aguirre
    endorsed 2018-10-16 16:21:51 -0400
  • Rhoda Maschino
    endorsed 2018-10-16 16:08:12 -0400
  • Catherine Marshall
    endorsed 2018-10-16 16:03:34 -0400
  • Jenny Langham
    endorsed 2018-10-16 15:55:11 -0400
  • Terry Deegan
    endorsed 2018-10-16 15:49:53 -0400
  • Joan Knipe
    endorsed 2018-10-16 15:32:35 -0400
  • Annie Pardington
    endorsed 2018-10-16 15:22:10 -0400
  • Karen Donahue
    endorsed 2018-10-16 15:21:10 -0400
    Why is the Governor proposing this risky deal with Enbridge? It is yet another example of protecting private profits while shifting liability to the public. A catastrophic spill in the Straits of Mackinac devastate the Great Lakes and lay a huge burden on the people of Michigan.
  • Tracy Reed
    endorsed 2018-10-16 15:16:28 -0400
  • Ron Collins
    endorsed 2018-10-16 15:14:01 -0400
    with 20 % of the worlds fresh water in the 5 great lakes we must stop the project and stop the present pipe line
  • Clayton Lewis
    endorsed 2018-10-16 15:12:41 -0400
  • steven carpenter
    endorsed 2018-10-16 15:07:10 -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?


    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?
  • Peggy Greenwood
    endorsed 2018-10-16 14:57:40 -0400
  • Karin Gallagher
    endorsed 2018-10-16 14:56:28 -0400
    What does Michigan gain from a 99 year lease with Enbridge? Is it enough to cover the catastrophic destruction that would result if the line malfunctions? Michigan’s Great Lakes would take on all the risk for a fraction, if any, of the reward. This sounds like another Nestle deal, in which Nestle makes millions at the expense of our most precious resource: water, while Michigan makes $200 per year from the deal. Water is the lifeblood of our state. We must protect it and preserve it for future generations. This is a non-partisan issue: Michiganders must strongly speak out against “deals” like this.
  • Patty Kubala
    endorsed 2018-10-16 14:50:28 -0400
  • Ryan Dybdahl
    endorsed 2018-10-16 14:45:52 -0400
    Don’t allow Snyder to bypass the law and risak further environmental destruction from Enbridge.
  • Darcel Schlitt
    endorsed 2018-10-16 14:44:38 -0400
    If Canada can build a new tunnel, they can spend the same amount or a little more to put it on land!
  • Jody and Patrick Prestine
    endorsed 2018-10-16 14:28:50 -0400

You can help now.


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

@OilWaterDntMix

Get updates