EDITOR:

There have been several letters over the past few weeks that show significantly different approaches to making a point. Letters from Chas. Smouthers, Jr. and Mike Cousineau are examples of well thought-out and researched positions citing credible sources in their defense. These are in sharp contrast to the one by Diana Peach regarding Line 5. Hers used fearful hyperbole and dire prophecy. She asks “… why has Enbridge not offered to clean up tons of dead fish and wildlife after a potential spill?” Hard to offer to clean up something that hasn’t happened yet.

The product flowing through Line 5 has significant value for the supplier. It is in their best interest (and that of their investors) to safeguard the profit it possesses. Letting it escape uncontrolled costs not only the value of the product, but also the greater value of public perception and clean-up.

I interviewed a representative from Enbridge for a radio show a few years ago regarding Line 5 and the safety measures in place. I was surprised and impressed at the length to which they went to give warning to passing ships (in both directions), the valves and backup valves monitored continuously for pressure and flow and the spill response teams and efforts should a leak occur. Multiple valves on either side of the break would prevent further flow and any product in place would seep, not flow under pressure minimizing the damage. Mitigation efforts would then commence.

Enbridge has offered to construct at their expense, a tunnel below the straights (at one point over 200 feet below the lake bed) to protect and facilitate maintenance of the line. An exceedingly safe alternative to laying pipe on the lake bed (Line 5 as it lays here would be decommissioned). Response to this interview was most positive and favored the tunnel.

Due to obstruction from the federal government as well as our Governor and her Attorney General, the tunnel has not been started, so the potential for an accident continues. Lansing, in fact, seems to be vehemently opposed to the tunnel apparently due to pressure from woke environmentalists. Their opposition seems to be completely contradictory to their stated aims for clean water. Go figure!

The UP is highly dependent upon the products flowing through Line 5. Placing it safely under the straights and maintaining high safety practices seems to be the most logical option, and yet, its opposition borders on the extreme, occasionally as hyperbolic as Ms. Peach’s letter predicts. Failure to support a rational solution to this situation seems hypocritical.

Left wing pressure prevented the completion of the wall on our southern border and look what has happened, let’s not make the same mistake with not constructing a tunnel for Line 5. And Ms. Peach, the waters from lakes Michigan and Superior flow into Lake Huron, not back toward Green Bay.

Michael A. Glass

Nahma