We’re still applauding and thinking about the resolution passed this week by the Brandon Township Board of Trustees. And we’ll likely be writing about it a lot in the coming days and weeks. Yesterday, we provided a brief outline of its conditions. Today, we’d like to consider just one of those conditions in a bit more detail; specifically, item 6 on their list of requirements, which insists upon:
A guarantee that once the original pipeline is deactivated it will not be used for any kind of petroleum, natural gas, propane or environmentally hazardous product in the future thereby doubling the amount of hazardous material running through Brandon Township
For some of our readers, this may require some explaining. Please bear with us, because to fully understand it, you first have to understand the way that Enbridge uses words– which is sometimes a little unorthodox. You see, the work that Enbridge is planning to do on Line 6B in Michigan (and beyond), the work they’ve already begun in Livingston County, and the work they’re planning to do in my backyard is part of what they’re calling their “maintenance and rehabilitation” program. Now, for a forty year old pipe that ruptured two years ago, spilling more than a million gallons of oil in the Tallmadge Creek in Marshall (because of Enbridge’s neglect and inaction), some maintenance and some rehabilitation seem like very good things. After all, if you want to keep your car in good working order so that you can drive safely, you need to perform a little maintenance on it. Similarly, if you fall off a ladder and break you arm, you might well need to go to a physical therapist for some rehabilitation– so that your arm can work properly in the future.
Except that Enbridge won’t be doing any more maintenance or rehabilitation on the pipe that is already in the ground (they did that a year or so ago). Instead, they will be putting a brand new pipe in the ground.
“But wait,” you might be thinking, “why would they describe putting in a new pipe as maintenance and rehabilitation? I mean, if I go out and buy a new car because my old one is falling part, I don’t consider myself to be doing maintenance. I don’t say that I’m rehabilitating my car.” And that’s a very good point. The reason Enbridge uses that language is to make it seem like what they are doing is just fixing something that needs fixing. That’s why you will hear them say, over and over and over, that this project is “integrity-driven.” They repeat that phrase because it conveys the idea that they’re just taking good care of Line 6B–ensuring its integrity.
Why do they want to convey this idea? Well, because “integrity-driven” projects are not subject to the same kinds of federal oversight as new pipelines (such as the presidential permit process; just ask the Canadian company behind the controversial Keystone XL project). An “integrity-driven” project travels a much smoother regulatory path than does the installation of a new line.
So Enbridge says that they will “replace” segments of the existing line (see? that’s just maintenance!). Except that the word “replace” gives rise to a whole new set of problems. After all, if you have to replace the brakes on your car, you don’t put a new set of brakes beside the old ones; you take the old ones out and put the new ones in their place. But that’s not what Enbridge is doing with Line 6B. They are not going to take the old pipe out and put the new one in its place. They’re going to put the new one right next to the old one.
And that is what gave the smart board members in Brandon Township pause. They wanted an answer to a very simple question: what’s going to happen to the old pipeline that they’re leaving in the ground?
Officially, Enbridge says they’re going to “deactivate” it. They’re going to fill it with inert gas (according to federal regulations) and monitor it for safety. They say they have no plans to use the pipe in the future. However, they refuse to state unequivocally or put in writing that they will not use or sell the pipeline in the future. To the contrary, at a Brandon Township meeting in July, an Enbridge representative (perhaps in a moment of unwitting candor) said that the old pipe is “an asset.” And when asked directly for assurances that the pipe would never be used in the future, an Enbridge spokesman said, “Never say never.”
So this is what item 6 of Brandon’s resolution is about: can we really trust Enbridge to let a valuable asset languish in the ground? And if not, how many landowners on Line 6B want TWO pipes transporting who-knows-what running across their property? How many want twice the danger? Twice the environmental risk?
Trackbacks/Pingbacks