This was not the only line 5 news this week
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/bakx-northern-shield-ontario-alberta-oil-9.7259820 build the pipe and make taxpayers pay for it.
This was not the only line 5 news this week
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/bakx-northern-shield-ontario-alberta-oil-9.7259820 build the pipe and make taxpayers pay for it.
Say a prayer for Sarnia, this really begs the question, should taxpayers be paying for a pipeline that benefits producers, refiners and retailers that are more often than not the same company. Esso and Mobile never merged their retail divisions, like the cellphone companies it's one way they try to fool you about competition.
luckily neither of these US court cases change the status quo, in fact it shows that in two of the big three legal cases, not much will change for some time. As long as the Enbridge pipeline network is available, there's no industry interest on the Canadian side for paying for a pipeline. The US federal appeals court just affirmed that giving Enbridge three years to move off the part of native land that was trespassing was not sufficient time. So hopefully even if Enbridge looses the other big Michigan case to revoke permits and Line 5 is ordered to shut down, that (different) court would give us some to get out act together and develop alternatives.
there is literally nothing that could go wrong with a pipeline under the great lakes
the title is a bit misleading. the project is/was to replace the existing part of the pipeline that currently goes underwater across the straight with a new 6km section parallel to it that would be in a concrete tunnel to (hopefully) prevent an anchor or deliberate damage to the existing pipe that exposed under the lakes. This lawsuit was for the environmental assessment which had been approved already. the court said several factors we not considered correctly so the environmental review process to build the tunnel has to start over. so the tunnel is on hold indefinitely. There's at least two other court cases - one where the state of Michagin is trying to shut it down by revoking it's permits and permissions, and a second one from a native tribe on the US side that won a trespassing case for the pipeline crossing their land. That case gave Enbridge 3 yrs to move the pipeline from their land (that time just ran out). A different appeals court just affirmed the trespass but gave them more time to relocate that part of the pipeline. What's interesting in that case is the judge mentioned our argument about the 1970s CAN/US pipeline treaty prohibits cutting us off, so it's nice someone listened to us down there for once.