Thanks to the smart and hardworking folks at Save the Dunes, there appears to be much more early public discussion of the Line 6B project in Indiana than there ever was up here in Michigan. That’s excellent news. But this report on those discussions has us thinking about a couple of things, which we’ll state (modestly) in terms of advice for our Indiana friends:
- Re-frame the discussion! The opening paragraph of the article is this: “Officials in three counties and an environmental conservation organization support the plan to replace Enbridge Energy Partners LP’s aging Line 6B oil pipeline with a new state-of-the-art system.” That’s fine, but to frame the discussion in such simple terms– whether or not one supports the replacement plan– serves no one’s interest but Enbridge’s. Almost no one up here ever opposed the replacement of Line 6B. Yet Enbridge has repeatedly tried to dismiss questions and skepticism by talking about how necessary the pipe is– implying that those who are speaking out DO oppose the pipeline (and are thus unrealistic and unreasonable). As we’ve said many times before, the real point is not whether they replace the pipe, but HOW they go about it.
- Be skeptical! According to one public official in Indiana, “the discussions between his office and Enbridge representatives,” are going well. Enbridge has been “very receptive and very concerned.” Yes, Enbridge spokespersons are very good at appearing receptive and concerned. However, there is ample reason to be skeptical about just how genuine that concern really is. We’re not suggesting that officials take an adversarial position, but it is crucially important that they NOT take Enbridge statements at face value, that they take the time to try and verify what Enbridge says, and that they seek alternative sources of information. May I humbly suggest as one such source this blog, where we have amply documented (and again and again and again, just to cite a few) Enbridge’s lack of candor.