Since a Line 5 breach would contaminate Lake Huron, whose opposite shore from Michigan is Ontario, one wonders why the government of Canada is not up in arms about this environmental time bomb.
My watchwords: Michigan takes all the risk; Enbridge takes all the profit.
I recall back when the issue arose in the late 2010s, I found a copy of the original agreement, a typewritten contract remarkably casual in content and tone. It included a fee of some sort for what still feels like a piddling amount, maybe $2500. No annual percentage, no leasing fees, no sunset clause. (We were so innocent 73 years ago, weren't we? We let these same white guys work this out, guys who thought nothing of dumping chemical waste and mine tailings by public roadsides.) Anyway, my point is that an agreement made by the State of Michigan ought to be able to be concluded by the State of Michigan, regardless of whatever revisions or amendments were set up since then.
Brilliant breakdown of this legal quagmire. What's maddening is how Enbridge's playbook here is pretty textbook corporate delay tactics—tie up regulators in jurisdictional pingpong and watch the years tick by. I remember covering a similar pipeline dispute in Alberta few years back, and same thing: the company kept bouncing cases between courts until everyone got fatigued. The real kicker is that "tunnel solution" which as you point ot, hasn't even started yet.
A nice overview of how this situation has evolved and where we're at. We love the courts when they rule in our favor and less so when they don't. Putting it in the federal realm doesn't bode well for a quick resolution. Given the situation, I have to believe a tunnel is the best solution since it doesn't appear the state can force its complete removal. While the environmental community, which I have great appreciation of, sees a line of any kind as a concession that gas and oil are part of our future for the time being--going in the wrong direction if you will--better to protect the Straits as much as possible than forgoing this alternative compromise.
Since a Line 5 breach would contaminate Lake Huron, whose opposite shore from Michigan is Ontario, one wonders why the government of Canada is not up in arms about this environmental time bomb.
My watchwords: Michigan takes all the risk; Enbridge takes all the profit.
I recall back when the issue arose in the late 2010s, I found a copy of the original agreement, a typewritten contract remarkably casual in content and tone. It included a fee of some sort for what still feels like a piddling amount, maybe $2500. No annual percentage, no leasing fees, no sunset clause. (We were so innocent 73 years ago, weren't we? We let these same white guys work this out, guys who thought nothing of dumping chemical waste and mine tailings by public roadsides.) Anyway, my point is that an agreement made by the State of Michigan ought to be able to be concluded by the State of Michigan, regardless of whatever revisions or amendments were set up since then.
I agree. But as you must know, them that has the gold generally make the rules, especially now.
Once again our courts find a way to do what is not in the best in the best interest of the people
Brilliant breakdown of this legal quagmire. What's maddening is how Enbridge's playbook here is pretty textbook corporate delay tactics—tie up regulators in jurisdictional pingpong and watch the years tick by. I remember covering a similar pipeline dispute in Alberta few years back, and same thing: the company kept bouncing cases between courts until everyone got fatigued. The real kicker is that "tunnel solution" which as you point ot, hasn't even started yet.
A nice overview of how this situation has evolved and where we're at. We love the courts when they rule in our favor and less so when they don't. Putting it in the federal realm doesn't bode well for a quick resolution. Given the situation, I have to believe a tunnel is the best solution since it doesn't appear the state can force its complete removal. While the environmental community, which I have great appreciation of, sees a line of any kind as a concession that gas and oil are part of our future for the time being--going in the wrong direction if you will--better to protect the Straits as much as possible than forgoing this alternative compromise.
The tunnel is a smokescreen. I doubt it will ever be built.