by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 17, 2012 |
Last week, we posted our account of the “workshop” meeting between Enbridge representatives and the Brandon Township Board of Trustees. Much of what we touched upon in the post deserves further scrutiny and elaboration and we hope to devote more time and space to those things in the coming days– starting right now. But first, let me just reiterate what may be the most important fact we took away from that meeting:
With its Northern Gateway project in Canada, Enbridge has solicited local input prior to construction and they have responded to public concern by, among other things, pledging to exceed Canadian federal regulatory safety and design standards. With its Line 6B project in Michigan– the home of Marshall!– Enbridge has not done the same. (more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 15, 2012 |
The Brandon paper The Citizen continues to follow the story. What would we do without them? The money quote is from Katy Bodenmiller, talking about our state elected officials:
“They just don’t want to talk about it. But in the light of the Marshall spill, [U.S. Congressman Mike] Rogers and other lawmakers should be asking tough questions of Enbridge. The silence of the people that should represent me and my neighbors is an endorsement of the way Enbridge does business in Michigan,” she said.
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 14, 2012 |
A very important note to landowners: all of us should have agreed to a “line list” of items regarding construction on our property (including such things as how to stack or dispose of timber, the installation of temporary fencing, easement access, work hours, and any number of other conditions). We are getting word (these are reliable reports!) that Enbridge construction crews are disregarding these lists. Please be aware and be vigilant. Contact your ROW agent and insist that he or she convey your line list information to all construction crews– repeatedly. If crews violate any of the requirements on your list, let someone know– your ROW agent, us, the press, a lawyer (or all of the above).
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 14, 2012 |
My favorite moment at last night’s Brandon Township workshop with Enbridge: Beth Duman’s impassioned speech about how Enbridge is solely responsible for sparking citizen resistance. If they’d treated landowners decently and respectfully from the start– and used their financial resources for fair compensation rather than lawyer’s fees– a lot of us wouldn’t be spending way too much of our free time worrying and speaking out. Thanks, Beth!
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 14, 2012 |
We’re still not done with Larry Springer’s astonishing statement in Wednesday’s Inside Climate News article. We hope to return to that series later today. We’re taking a break from it to report on last night’s very interesting meeting between Enbridge representatives and the Brandon Township Board of Trustees. It was a fascinating and illuminating three hours. There’s an awful lot to get through here. Hang on to your hats; this one’s a doozy. (more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 14, 2012 |
A good article about Enbridge’s use of eminent domain in this morning’s Battle Creek Enquirer. Landowner Barbara Atkin speaks for many others:
“Whatever they say goes. I understand we need oil. But we could have been treated better. If they just would have looked us in the eye and said, ‘We know this must be devastating for you, but we we really need to do this and this what we’re going to do for you.’ Instead, we just got threats of, ‘Well, I guess we’ll see in you in court.’”
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 13, 2012 |
While reading David Hasemyer’s excellent report in Inside Climate News yesterday, we were flummoxed by the remarks of MPSC Bureau Administrator Gary Kitts. Asked by Hasemyer about the MPSC’s notification to landowners of the Line 6B project, a notice that landowners insist was severely defective, Kitts
said the agency’s lawyers drafted the notice and followed language used in hundreds of other notices.
“It met the statutory requirements of the state for notification,” he said.
Why does Kitts sound like he works for Enbridge? To our ear, “It met the statutory requirements of the state for notification” rings quite similarly to “meets or exceeds all applicable standards and regulatory guidelines.”
And then there’s this:
Kitts said he couldn’t comment on the landowners’ complaints because he hadn’t read the notice. He declined InsideClimate News’ request that he review the two-page document. He said he was unaware of the court challenge and had no knowledge that landowners were outraged over Enbridge’s right-of-way demands.
“I am certainly not going to go back and reassess a notice based on what may or may not be going on in the courts,” Kitts said.
The fact that Kitts refused to read the letter when asked to do so is bizarre beyond belief. If you’d like to send him your thoughts on his performance, you can reach him at kittsg@michigan.gov
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 13, 2012 |
It only took about two months and four attempts, but yesterday I finally received a reply from U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers. It is the identical reply that my wife received about a week ago– un-proofread prose and all (“I share your concerns with the impact of this devastating spill has had on Michigan’s environment.”)– so we have a nice matching set. (more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 12, 2012 |
Coming tomorrow: Our U.S. Congressman Representative Mike Rogers finally replies to us (sort of), a few words for the Executive Director of the Michigan Public Service Commission, and much more on Enbridge’s openness and honesty in their dealings with stakeholders.
Please stop by again.
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 12, 2012 |
The Straw Man Tactic
We’ve grown accustomed to hollow phrases, evasions, and clever mystifications from Enbridge spokesmen. But, as we have already noted, what Larry Springer offers up in his statement to David Hasemyer is a series of untruths. Once again, here is Springer:
“While there has been recent publicity and activity by special interest groups, most who live and work along the pipeline are not opposed to Enbridge’s plans to replace Line 6B,” he said. “While the media may choose to focus on controversial situations, Enbridge’s actions show that we deal openly and honestly with all stakeholders, including landowners and local governments.”
Let me first put this in some context. (more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 12, 2012 |
There are plenty of things in David Hasemyer’s excellent article this morning in Inside Climate News that have got our motor running. So much that we’ll likely be writing about it for some time. But of everything Hasemyer reports, what turned our low simmer to a rolling boil are the remarks of Enbridge spokesman Larry Springer. In fact, they are so egregious, it’s going to take us more than one post to deal with just one statement. Here we’ll provide a summary of our objections, which we’ll follow-up with a number of posts that elaborate on each point.
So here is the statement:
“While there has been recent publicity and activity by special interest groups, most who live and work along the pipeline are not opposed to Enbridge’s plans to replace Line 6B,” he said. “While the media may choose to focus on controversial situations, Enbridge’s actions show that we deal openly and honestly with all stakeholders, including landowners and local governments.”
Let us count the ways Larry Springer is demonstrably wrong: (more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 12, 2012 |
As we noted last week, the Enbridge matter was back on the agenda of the Groveland Township Board of Trustees meeting on Monday night. We attended in the hopes that Groveland would follow the lead of Brandon Township and add its municipal voice to the chorus of those asking tough but reasonable questions of Enbridge. Unfortunately, we left the meeting deeply disappointed. (more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 12, 2012 |
It appears that things are heating up in Brandon Township. Enbridge has begun construction activity in what looks to us like a deliberate attempt to thumb its nose at the Brandon resolution. In response, Brandon has asked Enbridge to cease those activities.
The Brandon board has scheduled a workshop-style meeting with Enbridge’s Project Manager. The meeting is tomorrow, Thursday (Sept. 13), at 6:30 pm at the Brandon Townshp offices. The public is welcome to attend.
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 12, 2012 |
There is an important and very good article on citizen resistance to 6B by Dave Hasemyer in Inside Climate News this morning. This blog even gets a bit of attention. The most outrageous moment of the article? This little gem from an Enbridge spokesman:
“While there has been recent publicity and activity by special interest groups, most who live and work along the pipeline are not opposed to Enbridge’s plans to replace Line 6B,” he said. “While the media may choose to focus on controversial situations, Enbridge’s actions show that we deal openly and honestly with all stakeholders, including landowners and local governments.”
We’ll have much more to say about the piece later today. Stay tuned.
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 10, 2012 |
Just a reminder about tonight’s Groveland Township Board of Trustees meeting. We expect the Groveland board to introduce a resolution along the lines of Brandon Township’s. This is a very important action and they need our support, especially since Enbridge appears to be willfully disregarding Brandon and the Michigan constitution. Please attend the meeting if you are able. 7 pm, Groveland Township Office, 4695 Grange Hall Rd.
We hope to see you there!
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 7, 2012 |
A couple of weeks ago, we reported on an MPSC hearing in which Administrative Law Judge Theresa Sheets denied intervenors’ motion for order compelling discovery– a ruling that essentially said Enbridge didn’t have to answer the questions they didn’t want to answer.
Among those questions was whether Enbridge had sought consent from local municipalities in which they’ll be working– a requirement, we think, pretty clearly described in the state constitution and statutory law. (I know, I know, we’ve written about this many times before, most recently here). Well, there’s some interesting, potentially very good, news to report. (more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 7, 2012 |
At their Monday, September 10th meeting, the Groveland Township Board of Trustees will once again be discussing the Enbridge matter. We don’t have any details, but Supervisor Bob DePalma has given indications in the local press (and also here) that Groveland will advance its own resolution. This is a VERY important action and it deserves the same show of support given to Brandon. Please plan to attend this meeting to make your voice heard and show support and gratitude for another local municipality demonstrating courage and leadership in the face of Enbridge’s might and state-level political apathy.
The meeting is this Monday at 7 pm at the Groveland Township Office, 4695 Grange Hall Rd.
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 7, 2012 |
We apologize for our silence the past few days. It’s not for a lack of things to discuss, however. It’s just that we’re on an academic calendar and have been caught up with sundry back-to-school tasks and responsibilities. That said, we’re doing a little catching up today. Let’s start with a news roundup: (more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 3, 2012 |
Over the past several days, we’ve been commenting upon Christopher Behnan’s Daily Press & Argus story, an article (in our opinion) that advances Enbridge’s claims that they are exempt from seeking local consent. This morning, a similar story by Eric Lawrence appears in the Detroit Free Press. Lawrence, who has done some very fine reporting on the Line 6B project, is (appropriately) somewhat more skeptical toward Enbridge’s position than Behnan. Just note the difference between the two headlines. Here’s Behnan’s, which states Enbridge’s position as if it is established fact:
Enbridge line exempt from local ordinance
Now here is Lawrence’s, which recognizes that Enbridge’s position is not a fact, but an arguable claim:
Townships set out demands for pipeline, but Enbridge says it doesn’t need consent
We touched on this problem with Behnan’s article in our first post on this topic. We also discussed Enbridge’s argument that the language of the Howell ordinance itself contains exceptions which apply to Enbridge and, perhaps, exempt its project from the ordinance. Today, we return to that topic. (more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 3, 2012 |
If, like so many of our state elected officials, you have yet to read the NTSB report on the Marshall spill, we urge you once more to do so. But if you are understandably disinclined (or just don’t have the time) to pore over more than 100 pages of federal fact-finding, you can get a taste by reading our series on tales and lessons from the report.
Or, slightly more exhaustively, you can take a look at the excellent series the wonderful Canadian online magazine The Tyee is currently running
