That one business law class I took in college was a long time ago, but I believe that in order to get a contract declared void, you have to be able to show the other party engaged in an intentional misrepresentation of a material fact that you relied upon when agreeing to the contract.
It was public knowledge that the pipeline would be used for the tar sands, and there is no material difference between the tar sands oil and "natural crude": case closed.
I agree with you, what gets me is a judge is so biased in the case he allowed for the injunction in the first place.
Texas has thousands of pipelines and very few have been able to stop any pipeline. Before these companies spend millions on ROW and construction you can bet many “pipeline experienced” lawyers have screened every syllable in every contract.
Back when working in pipeline construction, now and then there would be some small landowner who to do nutty things to try and stop the line. Sometimes the pipeline was just PI’d around the tract, but most often a bit more dollars was what the offended property owner needed to not be so offended.
While not suggesting this guy has a legitimate claim, there is a very definite material difference in the production from the Canadian Oil Sands from Crude Oil.
The oil companies do not even call it oil. It is bitumen. It cannot be sent through the pipelines without diluting it with something like Naptha or just Natural Gas Condensate. Then it is called Dilbit.
Sometimes it is sent through an Upgrader to create a synthetic crude oil and diesel fuel.
Nope.... Trans Canada earned $1.4 billion in 2011. Birkshire Hathaway $10.4 Billion in 2011 Trans Canada loses