Q & A with Enbridge in The Citizen
This week in the Brandon Citizen, Susan Bromley (our favorite small-town reporter) has a q & a with Enbridge’s Jason Manshum. The interview focuses primarily on the status of construction in Brandon Township, which has evidently ceased for the time being as the parties attempt to resolve the question of Enbridge’s compliance with Brandon’s Woodlands ordinance.
Manshum’s responses are mainly boilerplate, which makes for a fairly dull interview, but there are a few of revealing moments. For instance, when Bromley asks whether Enbridge has obtained all requisite permits and met all ordinances, Manshum replies:
We fully understand that local governments and communities have questions about these activities, and Enbridge is prepared to meet with any community that desires to address their questions.
Manshum here portrays Enbridge as a willing partner in dialogue. But Enbridge seems to have a funny idea about what it means to “address… questions.” After all, it is our understanding that Enbridge has STILL– some six week later– STILL not responded to the outstanding questions from the Brandon workshop, even though they pledged to the board that they would provide answers to those questions. We would have asked Manshum about this directly.
Equally interesting is Manshum’s evasion of Bromley’s questions about the Woodlands ordinance. We would have asked Manshum why Enbridge didn’t know about it and take compliance measures months ago. Bromley simply asks why work has stopped in Brandon Township. In his reply, Manshum treats the matter as if it’s just a question about planting some trees:
Enbridge made several offers to replant manageably sized, high quality trees in the temporary construction work space that the township has not yet accepted. Enbridge is attempting to amicably resolve the difference before resuming work.
“Attempting to amicably resolve the difference”? That language implies that there is some kind of disagreement between the two parties. But the fact is that Brandon has an ordinance with which Enbridge is legally required to comply. If I were to ignore a local ordinance and got caught doing so, I wouldn’t then attempt to “amicably resolve the difference,” I would have to either comply with the law or be appropriately punished for not doing so.
Finally, Bromley asks Manshum about the possible effects of construction delays, to which Manshum responds:
. . . any delays would defeat the purpose of the MI-PSC-approved projects, which is to reduce the frequency of future integrity repairs in the affected pipeline segments.
But then when Bromley asks if there are any concerns about the integrity of the existing pipe, Manshum says
No. The pipeline is operated under Enbridge’s ongoing integrity (maintenance) management program in accordance with all applicable federal regulations.
So, according to Jason Manshum, delays may result in the need for integrity repairs on a pipe that is not in need of integrity repairs.