Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Dividend investing for retirement -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Spekulatius who wrote (31513)	6/16/2019 1:34:22 PM
From: JimisJim	2 Recommendations Recommended By alanballow Fuzzy Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34328

And there’s the problem. If you read the “agreement” between ENB and the state, all ENB agreed to do was consider a utility tunnel for Line 5 and other stuff. They semi committed to share costs of design — their position. The state says that ENB will pay for everything even if they have to turn ownership over to the Bridge Authority. I smell protracted litigation over what the agreement actually says. The current state govt is trying to get everything signed before the next election. ENB would do so in a heartbeat if they don’t have to pay for more than design and state taxpayers pay all construction costs, and they say they won’t be responsible for upkeep and repair, etc. The two candidates for governor are split on most of the deal, but current governor Snyder wants it bad and would like to see commitments before Jan., 2021, and ramp up the project to begin and be operational in the 2025-2028 time frame. So does ENB, but waffling now on how much the state will make them pay. Initial money to get going: ENB says $300,000 max is all they’d have to pay (this is prior to a single physical hole is even started. Snyder wants this bad before he leaves office, and says ENB would pay at least $500,000 of the upfront costs prior to construction. Snyder says ENB pays construction and ENB says taxpayers will pay. A bit of a three way disagreement at this stage likely means lots of delays and litigation. You might imagine the taxpayers have said they support the tunnel idea, but won’t pay for it and the only other option in taxpayers/voters’ minds is to shut Line 5. It’s complicated and people should avoid making it sound simple — at this pt my WAG is it will take too long to even start, and won’t happen at all until who pays what is in stone, otherwise the taxpayers/voters would try to pass a referendum to just shut it down and remove it.