If, like us, your easement agreement with Enbridge is one that goes back to the late 1960s, you might dust it off and read it over. There you will likely find the language that was at issue in yesterday’s Oakland County Circuit Court ruling against Enbridge. Our easement, signed in 1968, grants to Enbridge– for the princely sum of $25.00!:

a right-of-way and perpetual easement to construct, operate, maintain… one or pipelines… for the transportation of oil, other liquid hydrocarbons, and any product or by-product thereof, or any material or substance which can be conveyed through a pipeline…

See for yourself:

A question that occurred to us yesterday is why Enbridge would overreach the way they did with the Smiths? For one thing, we wondered whether the clause allowing them to transport any old substance whatsoever through that pipe might have something to do with the possibility of reactivating the old pipeline and transporting who-knows-what. That seems not so likely to me now. Rather, our easement would seem to suggest that this is just standard practice; it’s the way Enbridge (and Lakehead before them) has always done business. It’s just that no one has ever called them on it before.

But it does have us wondering a couple of new things: first, does yesterday’s ruling mean anything at all for those of us whose old easements contain that language? And second, if Enbridge were, in fact, to ship some “material or substance” other than crude oil or petroleum or liquid gas through their pipe, what agency– if any– would have oversight over such shipments? If not the MPSC (and it would appear no), then who? Anybody? Those question marks are not comforting.

And whatever the case, we urge everybody– whether your easement is new or old– to get it out and read it again. Go ahead; do it right now.