HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Canada formally invokes 1...

Mon Oct 4, 2021, 03:56 PM

Canada formally invokes 1977 pipeline treaty with U.S. over Line 5 dispute

Source: Reuters

CALGARY, Alberta, Oct 4 (Reuters) - Canada on Monday formally invoked a 1977 treaty with the United States to request bilateral negotiations over Enbridge Inc's (ENB.TO) Line 5, escalating a long-running dispute over one of Canada's major oil export pipelines.

Line 5 ships 540,000 barrels per day of crude and refined products from Superior, Wisconsin, to Sarnia, Ontario, but the state of Michigan ordered Enbridge to shut it down due to worries a leak could develop in a four-mile section running beneath the Straits of Mackinac in the Great Lakes.

Enbridge ignored Michigan's order and the sides are embroiled in a legal battle. The government of Canada has been pushing counterparts in the United States to intervene, and Monday's move marks a step up in Ottawa's efforts to help safeguard the pipeline.

In a letter to the federal judge presiding over the case, Gordon Giffin, legal counsel for the Canadian government, said Canada had formally invoked Article Six of the 1977 Transit Pipelines Treaty.

Read more: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/canada-formally-invokes-1977-pipeline-treaty-with-us-over-line-5-dispute-2021-10-04/



Gov. Witmer is trying to protect our waters. Ottawa should pound (tar) sand on this one.

10 replies, 1506 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 10 replies Author Time Post
Reply Canada formally invokes 1977 pipeline treaty with U.S. over Line 5 dispute (Original post)
OneCrazyDiamond Oct 4 OP
MichMan Oct 4 #1
jimfields33 Oct 4 #2
MichMan Oct 4 #3
OneCrazyDiamond Oct 4 #4
Champp Oct 4 #5
abqtommy Oct 4 #6
rpannier Oct 4 #7
ShepKat Oct 5 #8
The Jungle 1 Oct 5 #9
The Jungle 1 Oct 5 #10

Response to OneCrazyDiamond (Original post)

Mon Oct 4, 2021, 04:46 PM

1. Treaties are made to be broken

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichMan (Reply #1)

Mon Oct 4, 2021, 04:53 PM

2. They are? Goodness. We should throw them all out then.

I never heard that said before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimfields33 (Reply #2)

Mon Oct 4, 2021, 05:04 PM

3. That was the opinion of the OP

"Gov. Witmer is trying to protect our waters. Ottawa should pound (tar) sand on this one."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichMan (Reply #3)

Mon Oct 4, 2021, 05:27 PM

4. Not all treaties.

This one can go. Risking the Great Lakes shouldn't be an option.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneCrazyDiamond (Reply #4)

Mon Oct 4, 2021, 05:30 PM

5. Pipeline #3 is shoving its way across MN treaty land

The indigenous folk are actively opposing. MN government, and US gov, are looking the other way and whistling, pretending they haven't noticed the gross TREATY VIOLATIONS.

Read all about it: https://www.honorearth.org/sandpiper_line_3_corridor

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneCrazyDiamond (Original post)

Mon Oct 4, 2021, 06:56 PM

6. I guess next The Canadian Government will tell their Indigenous Population

that they were only kidding when the word "Sovereignty" was written into their
treaties. Who woulda thunk?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneCrazyDiamond (Original post)

Mon Oct 4, 2021, 07:35 PM

7. The treaty dispute is actually more interesting to me when I read the text of the treaty

Givens:
The Treaty was signed between the US Government and Canadian Government
Under the treaty, she lacks the authority to do what she is doing (Article 2 and 5).
It might have been possible to use Article IV to support her position, were she the federal government.
As the Treaty was signed between the US-Canada, at the request of and with the support of Congress (Senate provided consent by a 92-1 vote), it rests solely at the federal level (Article II.1) and must be negotiated between the two national governments, or thru a 3rd party (Article IX)

What I find unclear is in Article X. Though, I must admit, the text is probably more clear to smarter people and/or people involved in treaty related law
Article X Section 3:
This Agreement shall remain in force for an initial period of thirty-five years. It may be terminated at the end of the initial thirty-five year period by either Party giving written notice to the other Party, not less than ten years prior to the end of such initial period, of its intention to terminate this Agreement. If neither Party has given such notice of termination, this Agreement will thereafter continue in force automatically until ten years after either Party has given written notice to the other Party of its intention to terminate the Agreement.

Me: So, I am trying to understand if the treaty ends after 35 years, but is self-reissuing and requires 10 year notice meaning if the US or Canada said it was not reissuing it would not go into effect until 2030.

Analysis from Van de Biezenbos

The US promised that no American “public authority” would “institute any measures” that “would have the effect of, impeding, diverting, redirecting or interfering with in any way the transmission of hydrocarbon in transit” unless there was a “natural disaster, an operating emergency, or other demonstrable need temporarily to reduce or stop for safety or technical reasons the normal operation of a pipeline.” Enbridge’s Line 5 carries oil from Western Canada to Ontario so the treaty would seem to apply.

The State of Michigan may make several arguments to avoid operation of the treaty, including the argument that it is shutting the pipeline down in response to one of the explicit grounds for halting the operation of a pipeline under the treaty. The difficulty is that Michigan has also opposed efforts to replace the existing pipeline, making it harder to claim the shutdown would only be temporary.

Relying on recent US Supreme Court decisions, Michigan could also claim that the Pipeline Transit Treaty is not self-executing – meaning Congress would need to pass specific legislation to implement it – and was not intended to preempt state law.

At the end of the day, I think she is likely going to lose this fight in the courts.

copy of the text of the treaty
https://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/text-texte.aspx?id=101884

Pres Jimmy Carter's message on the Pipeline
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/united-states-canada-transit-pipeline-agreement-message-the-senate-transmitting-the

cdhowe.org analysis
https://www.cdhowe.org/intelligence-memos/van-de-biezenbos-coleman-%E2%80%93-40-year-old-treaty-could-save-line-5

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneCrazyDiamond (Original post)

Tue Oct 5, 2021, 07:37 AM

8. I cannot over emphasize

the seething disgust I have for enbridge

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneCrazyDiamond (Original post)

Tue Oct 5, 2021, 08:03 AM

9. But but but pipelines are safe!

Just ask California.
The pipe line was built in 1953 and this dumb redneck thinks it may need some maintenance. Rip it out and replace it with state of the art equipment and steel. News flash there has been a lot of improvement in steel in the last 68 years. That pipe has been underwater for 68 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneCrazyDiamond (Original post)

Tue Oct 5, 2021, 08:25 AM

10. Line 5 has spilled 33 times and at least 1.1 million gallons along its length since 1968.

What is the big deal, what could go wrong? (sarcasm)
This pipe line sits exposed on the lake bottom and is in a busy shipping channel. Some supports that hold up the pipe are broken.
******** The Great Lakes are home to 21 percent of the world's fresh surface water. **********
This is a huge risk and the pipeline needs to be shut down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread