What a brilliant election strategy. This pipeline apparently supplies large portions of the oil, liquefied natural gas and propane used in these three states. Just imagine the effect of energy shortages on voters. It also supports thousands of jobs in those states and Wisconsin. I am leaving Canada economic activity out of it.
So shut it down, raise fuel prices dramatically in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania and kill jobs in those states and Wisconsin. How will independent voters react to lost jobs, fuel shortages and increased costs?
It appears the line was run under the Mackinac Bridge and I’d have to agree with you. When considering risk/reward, the pipeline IMO should be removed from the great lakes.
Yet the Line 5 dual pipeline has never had a leak since it was installed. The pipelines are thoroughly inspected periodically.
Line 5 will be another cave in by J’Biden to the leftist environmentalists using the US Army Corps of Engineers like the OSHA mandates to shut down the fuel supply. The end game? Who the ■■■■knows!
And all that BS about re-routing the line on “tribal land”? It’s about getting paid that is all.
I understand but now consider the effects to the great lakes, the environment and all of nature surrounding this if it did? This area of the US is pristine and unlike no other area in the world. IMO…the risk far outweighs the reward rec’d by this pipeline.
I’d build it above the water and constantly inspect it. I also may not shut down the present pipeline until the next one is complete and ready to have the oil currently running under the water, rerouted in the new one.
A sensible alternative to be sure. But J’Biden’s intentions are to shut it down, satisfy the enviro-terrorists and ■■■■the Upper Midwest. It’s madness and clearly they could care less about the consequences to both Americans and the electoral debacle it will cause.
Frightening when you think about it.
Nothing stirs up a hornets nest like reports of old folks and little kids dying of hypothermia because the either the heat didn’t work for lack of fuel/power or because families couldn’t afford the cost to run it.
I believe I’d go the other way for the replacement? I want it constantly inspected and that would be hard to do 100 feet below the lake bed. The risk is not worth the reward IMO.
…not to mention, how high would it have to be for the freighters that are constantly traveling through those straights…to clear it? I wonder if somehow it could run just below the cars on the Mackinaw Bridge? That would also help solve what you’re suggesting? They’d have to get around those employees on both sides of the bridge that are there 24 hours a day just to get on the bridge, then climb below it…all without being detected, while cars and trucks are constantly traveling across it.
From what I have read, the White House is not considering closing down Line 5 but is considering replacing it with something safer, they are studying the matter now.
