Disappointed by governor’s action on pipeline

I was deeply troubled, if not insulted and outraged, that Gov. Snyder went ahead and negotiated an agreement with Enbridge Energy Partners several days after release of the final version of the Line 5 Independent Alternative Analysis Report and prior to any public comment period. I consider his action an attempt to gag the public and devalue any say we might have in protecting the Great Lakes.

Regarding the final recommendations of the Dynamic Risk Alternative Analysis report, I believe that it is biased and narrow inscope. For example, the report states that it would be more expensive to decommission Line 5 than to build an oil tunnel under the Straits to house the pipeline.

​ How does this make any kind of sense?

The whole idea of building a tunnel is problematic for several reasons: (1) it ignores the feasible alternative of using existing pipeline infrastructure around the Great Lakes, (2) remains still vulnerable to spills because of corrosion and human error, and (3) contradicts Michigan’s legal policy against oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes.

In conclusion, we should have made a decision on Line 5 this summer. We had plenty of technical and scientific analysis data to reference, for example, The Technical Update Note on Enbridge Energy Partners and Line 5, completed by Dr. Edward Timm (July – November, 2018) which clearly outlines Line 5’s potential for disaster.

Instead of moving toward a plan to uphold the public trust by protecting our state’s most valuable resource, the governor has placed us right back into the untrustworthy hands of Enbridge.

Enbridge is rewarded for their regulatory neglect while the people of Michigan face a disaster comparable to the Deepwater Horizon blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.

Janet Fairchild

Northeastern Michigan

People for Social Justice Environmental

Committee, Alpena