Democrats can be Trumpists too?

[grumbler]

the way I understand it, this pipeline is critical for a part of Canada, and the governor acted arbitrarily.  Even if you say "oh this has been going for a while", that "a while" is 6-8 months.  That's not nearly enough time to build another pipeline or find another way to bring the oil.

But I guess Quebec and Ontario should not complain, no one here wanted another pipeline from the West to the East coast on Canadian soil.

It's easy to posture about the environment when it's not her state that depends on this existing pipeline.  And refusing to build a new pipeline is entirely different than ordering a quick shutdown of an existing one with no alternatives in place.
If the situation was reversed and Ontario ordered the closure of a pipeline bringing oil to the US, critical to Michigan State, gov Withmer and American medias would be screaming about how unfair the Canadian governments are.

The dispute is years/decades old, and is between the State of Michigan and an American pipeline operating company.  Canada is not involved, except as a sufferer of collateral damage.

The basic dispute is over whether the pipeline company,  Enbridge, hasn't done the maintenance required for the pipeline as it passes through the Straits of Mackinac, where it is exposed to strong currents (which sweep away the supporting sediment) and is occasionally damaged by the anchors ships have dropped to prevent themselves from being driven by the currents into shallow water.  There have been a series of previous agreements between the state and Enbridge to compel Enbridge to conduct the maintenance and build a tunnel to carry the pipeline completely below the bottom of the straits. 

Governor Whitmer apparently campaigned on the promise that she would shut down the pipeline.  Nothing indicates to me that this is some conspiracy against "oil and gaz." It seems more a populist attack on a big corporation that has been shirking its responsibilities.  I find the main source of the revocation, that the original 1953 easement was itself illegal, to be highly dubious.

I suspect that this is political grandstanding, a time-honored tradition in both the US and Canada.  Whitmer can to "keep her promise" while knowing that she cannot really succeed in shutting down a pipeline that has been approved by successive Michigan administrations (with some reservations) for almost seventy years.  She'll be able to blame the courts for foiling her well-considered scheme (also a tradition in politics).

[Berkut]

Did any Americans know about this before CC's thread?  It's not like this is making the front page of the NYtimes.  Is this a big issue in Canada?

I had to search for an article after CC refused to link his source.

Once I found an article, it became clear why he refused to link a source.

Here's where I posted about this in February, by the way.

I think CC is being a little over-the-top in his rhetoric, but I categorically reject the "this is nothing to worry about" argument.

http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,4648.msg1293677.html#msg1293677

I don't think it is a nothing to worry about argument, it just isn't a "OMG TEH US CANNOT BE TRUSTED AND THIS WILL LEAD TO WAR!" argument.

[The Minsky Moment]

I find the main source of the revocation, that the original 1953 easement was itself illegal, to be highly dubious.

The newer complaint the state filed included the claim that the company had violated the easement conditions.  That would be legally stronger if the facts could be proven.  The allegations seem rather ticky-tacky though: for example, they don't allege the pipeline is structural unsound, they allege the company hasn't facilitated testing of its soundness.

[Barrister]

The dispute is years/decades old, and is between the State of Michigan and an American pipeline operating company.  Canada is not involved, except as a sufferer of collateral damage.

Enbridge is a multi-billion dollar multinational corporation, but it was founded in Canada and it's headquarters are in Calgary, Alberta.

The pipeline in question, Line 5, takes oil from Western Canada and transports it through the US (and Michigan) to Ontario.  Canada is highly involved.  So much so that the Canadian government has filed a brief in the ongoing litigation.  https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-amicus-brief-line-5-1.6022141

[The Brain]

I find the main source of the revocation, that the original 1953 easement was itself illegal, to be highly dubious.

The newer complaint the state filed included the claim that the company had violated the easement conditions.  That would be legally stronger if the facts could be proven.  The allegations seem rather ticky-tacky though: for example, they don't allege the pipeline is structural unsound, they allege the company hasn't facilitated testing of its soundness.

In fairness (which may well be too generous in this case) it's a bit late to wait until it actually is structurally unsound.

[grumbler]

Enbridge is a multi-billion dollar multinational corporation, but it was founded in Canada and it's headquarters are in Calgary, Alberta.

The pipeline in question, Line 5, takes oil from Western Canada and transports it through the US (and Michigan) to Ontario.  Canada is highly involved.  So much so that the Canadian government has filed a brief in the ongoing litigation.  https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-amicus-brief-line-5-1.6022141

Enbridge (a web of interconnecting legal entities) is incorporated in Delaware.  And of course Canada is going to take a position in the lawsuit.  I would not, however, classify filing an amicus brief as being "highly involved."  Greatly concerned, yes.

[Barrister]

Enbridge is a multi-billion dollar multinational corporation, but it was founded in Canada and it's headquarters are in Calgary, Alberta.

The pipeline in question, Line 5, takes oil from Western Canada and transports it through the US (and Michigan) to Ontario.  Canada is highly involved.  So much so that the Canadian government has filed a brief in the ongoing litigation.  https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-amicus-brief-line-5-1.6022141

Enbridge (a web of interconnecting legal entities) is incorporated in Delaware.  And of course Canada is going to take a position in the lawsuit.  I would not, however, classify filing an amicus brief as being "highly involved."  Greatly concerned, yes.

You're so full of shit grumbler - don't ever change.

Enbridge of course does have a series of interconnected companies.  And no doubt some of them are incorporated in the US - maybe even Delaware.

But the top company, Enbridge Inc., is incorporated in Canada under the Canada Business Corporations Act.

I can't link directly to it because of some "prove you're human" captchas, but go to sedar.com, search for Enbridge Inc., go to their annual report filed March 21, 2021, go to page 6 which is the start of their Form 10-K.  One of the first entries is "Canada - State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization".

Hell you can also go right to Enbridge's website and see copies of their original certificate of incorporation (under the CBCA.  https://www.enbridge.com/~/media/Enb/Documents/Governance/CG_EI_Articles_and_amendments.pdf?la=en
(now this is 600+ pages of documents that I haven't gone through all of them which is why I went to SEDAR and the Annual Report, but the first 60 pages are all consistent with it being a CBCA corporation)

And for all of which I'm not trying to say that Enbridge is a Canadian company - but when you said "The dispute is years/decades old, and is between the State of Michigan and an American pipeline operating company.  Canada is not involved, except as a sufferer of collateral damage." you were just flatly wrong.

[Eddie Teach]

Good luck getting an admission of THAT.

[The Minsky Moment]

Enbridge Inc. is a Canadian registered company with its HQ in Calgary.

However, the entities that own and control the pipeline do appear to be Delaware registered companies, at least according to the the State of Michigan's complaint (see paras 7-10):
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/ag/CC_-_Summons_And_Complaint__COMPLAINT_FILED-WITH_FEE_-_20-000646-CE-C30_-___707721_7.pdf

[The Minsky Moment]

FWIW the pipeline operations appear to run out of an office building in Texas, which is listed as the address for the Enbridge entities at issue.

To see it put: 5400 WESTHEIMER CT HOUSTON, TX 77056 USA into google maps or whatever.

[The Minsky Moment]

Thinking it through - Michigan seems to be proposing to revoke the easement that gives the pipeline the right of way.  Not really my area of knowledge, but I believe the next step would be Michigan would have to take the initiative to get a court order to get the company to vacate; I don't think Michigan could "self-help" on this and start tearing up pipeline.  If that's correct, then Enbridge's strategy of ignoring Whitmer's bluster is probably sound and this is really about Whitmer playing to the gallery and establishing a marker in the negotiation with the company.   And if all that is true, then I really don't see the broader concern about US foreign policy.

Whitmer is threatening to seek disgorgement of profits if her order is ignored - https://apnews.com/article/canada-environment-and-nature-business-5c5a2b17c51f1700aa6d29c970d078f2 - so I will take that as confirming my supposition above.

The pipeline operation is not at risk; there is no prospect of a shutdown and the consequent parade of horribles.  Just a typical commercial squabble.  Tempest in teapot.

[grumbler]

Enbridge is a multi-billion dollar multinational corporation, but it was founded in Canada and it's headquarters are in Calgary, Alberta.

The pipeline in question, Line 5, takes oil from Western Canada and transports it through the US (and Michigan) to Ontario.  Canada is highly involved.  So much so that the Canadian government has filed a brief in the ongoing litigation.  https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-amicus-brief-line-5-1.6022141

Enbridge (a web of interconnecting legal entities) is incorporated in Delaware.  And of course Canada is going to take a position in the lawsuit.  I would not, however, classify filing an amicus brief as being "highly involved."  Greatly concerned, yes.

You're so full of shit grumbler - don't ever change.

Enbridge of course does have a series of interconnected companies.  And no doubt some of them are incorporated in the US - maybe even Delaware.

But the top company, Enbridge Inc., is incorporated in Canada under the Canada Business Corporations Act.

I can't link directly to it because of some "prove you're human" captchas, but go to sedar.com, search for Enbridge Inc., go to their annual report filed March 21, 2021, go to page 6 which is the start of their Form 10-K.  One of the first entries is "Canada - State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization".

Hell you can also go right to Enbridge's website and see copies of their original certificate of incorporation (under the CBCA.  https://www.enbridge.com/~/media/Enb/Documents/Governance/CG_EI_Articles_and_amendments.pdf?la=en
(now this is 600+ pages of documents that I haven't gone through all of them which is why I went to SEDAR and the Annual Report, but the first 60 pages are all consistent with it being a CBCA corporation)

And for all of which I'm not trying to say that Enbridge is a Canadian company - but when you said "The dispute is years/decades old, and is between the State of Michigan and an American pipeline operating company.  Canada is not involved, except as a sufferer of collateral damage." you were just flatly wrong.

I'll bet you never even read the actual filing by Michigan, did you?  You just jumped to the conclusions you desired and went straight into ad hom mode.  Don't ever change, BB.     Just consult a legal expert every once in a while when posting about this kind of stuff.

From that filing:

ENBRIDGE ENERGY LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, ENBRIDGE ENERGY
COMPANY, INC., and ENBRIDGE ENERGY
PARTNERS, L.P.,
Defendants.

See any mention of your precious Enbridge Inc there?  No?  Then how can they be relevant to the case?

7. Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership is a Delaware limited partnership conducting business in Michigan. Upon information and belief, it is the successor in interest to the Grantee of the 1953 Easement, Lakehead Pipe Line Company, Inc.

8. Enbridge Energy Company, Inc. is a Delaware corporation conducting business in Michigan.

9. Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership conducting business in Michigan.

10. Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership, Enbridge Energy Company, Inc., and Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P., (collectively "Enbridge") control and operate the Enbridge Line 5 pipeline that extends from Superior, Wisconsin, across the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, crosses the Straits of Mackinac through the Straits Pipelines portion of Line 5, and continues through the Lower Peninsula to Marysville, Michigan and then crosses beneath the St. Clair River to Sarnia, Ontario, Canada.

Enbridge, Inc is not mentioned as one of the parties, either.

So, whose argument is "full of shit," here?

[Barrister]

Enbridge Inc. is a Canadian registered company with its HQ in Calgary.

However, the entities that own and control the pipeline do appear to be Delaware registered companies, at least according to the the State of Michigan's complaint (see paras 7-10):
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/ag/CC_-_Summons_And_Complaint__COMPLAINT_FILED-WITH_FEE_-_20-000646-CE-C30_-___707721_7.pdf

Sure.  I have neither the time or inclination to parse out the finer details of Enbridge's overall corporate governance structure.  I acknowledged that Enbridge almost certainly had some US subsidiaries that might well be incorporated in Delaware - which turns out to be correct.

But the overall structure / governance of "Enbridge" has a very large Canadian component.  Like I said my buddy, based here in Edmonton, works primarily or even entirely on Line 5.  Trying to write this off as some internal american squabble that doesn't involve Canada (except as a sufferer of collateral damage) is not accurate.

[Valmy]

FWIW the pipeline operations appear to run out of an office building in Texas, which is listed as the address for the Enbridge entities at issue.

To see it put: 5400 WESTHEIMER CT HOUSTON, TX 77056 USA into google maps or whatever.

The Texas-Alberta axis to dominate the world's energy supply is well known.

[Barrister]

See any mention of your precious Enbridge Inc there?  No?  Then how can they be relevant to the case?

Enbridge Inc. is the mother company.  It owns all these different subsidiaries, no doubt done to maximize tax savings or some other corporate governance reason.

Here's (right from Enbridge Inc.'s website) is a nice map showing you the pipelines that Enbridge Inc. owns.  The astute amongst you will note that it includes Line 5.

https://www.enbridge.com/Map.aspx#map:infrastructure,crudeInfrastructure

Oh and here's a direct link to Enbridge Inc's 2020 Annual report (the one I mentioned earlier but gave complicated directions to find). 

https://www.enbridge.com/investment-center/reports-and-sec-filings/~/media/Enb/Documents/Investor%20Relations/2021/ENB_2020_Annual_Report.pdf

IF you search for "Line 5" you'll find of course it gets extensively discussed as an ongoing legal risk.