by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 19, 2012 |
On Monday, Oct. 22nd, Eastern District Circuit Court Judge Robert Cleland will conduct a hearing on POLAR’s lawsuit against Enbridge. If you would like to show your support for insisting that Enbridge obtain all requisite permits and permissions before beginning construction (even though they’ve already begun!), please consider attending the hearing.
The hearing will take place at 2 pm, this Monday, October 22nd. The address for the Eastern District Court is: 231 West Lafayette Boulevard Detroit, MI 48226
See you there!
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 19, 2012 |
One thing we failed to mention in our earlier post about the excellent story at nwi.com this week: the article includes some “related documents,” including Enbridge responses to the reporters’ questions (including the shocking response we’ve already discussed). It’s a document worth taking a look at, not just because the questions from Lauri Harvey Keagle and Bowdeya Tweh are quite excellent, but also because Enbridge’s other answers are also revealing. One response, for instance, includes verbatim the offensive, disingenuous talking point about “special interest groups” that we’ve written about in the past.
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 19, 2012 |
It’s been an extremely hectic week for us (we do have jobs, you know) and the weekend isn’t going to provide any relief, as we’re running in the Detroit Marathon on Sunday. And the POLAR lawsuit hearing in federal court is on Monday and it can’t be long after that that Enbridge’s clearing crews will be here taking down our beautiful trees…
But we’re not complaining. It’s just that all of this has prevented us from returning to some things we’ve been wanting to revisit, like our promised discussion of the importance of the MTA amicus brief filing. But then other things keep happening, like Enbridge’s “letter” printed as a paid advertisement in the Detroit Free Press on Sunday. We’ve also heard reports that the ad is running in other places– Kalamazoo, Battle Creek, Lansing, even the Wall Street Journal (why? I have no idea). The ad is also running in some northern Indiana papers, though we’re told that Enbridge couldn’t be bothered to change “Michigan” to “Indiana” when running it down there. Anyway, we’ve had plenty to say about the ad this week. And we’re very much looking forward to responding to their subsequent ads.
Speaking of Indiana, that’s what has us brooding a little today.
(more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 19, 2012 |
We’re very pleased to see that the report released by the National Wildlife Federation on the potential dangers of Enbridge’s aging Line 5, which passes through the Straits of Mackinac, is getting so much play in the media. The Detroit Free Press has reported on the story, as has Michigan Radio. Even the New York Times has a piece on it this morning.
And over at the Wildlife Promise blog, our friend Beth Wallace writes more about it, and links to the full report. Check it out. It’s important stuff.
One little observation about all of this: the NY Times spoke with the now-infamous (to us) Enbridge spokesman Larry Springer, who has this to say:
“I think it’s interesting that they’ve gone to this extent, but they have not gotten their facts straight,” Mr. Springer said.
We find it interesting that Mr. Springer couldn’t be bothered to say which facts, exactly, NWF did not get straight.
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 18, 2012 |
If you haven’t seen it yet, Inside Climate News has published another fine piece by David Hasemyer. This one focuses on what we in the article call the “shocking and shameful” silence of Michigan elected officials on Enbridge. Check it out. Share it. Write your representatives!
A few other items of note have appeared in the past couple of days:
Despite the protests of some county residents, the Livingston County commissioners approved an Enbridge easement across its airport. Despite this, we were impressed by the remarks of Jeannette DiFlorio in pushing back against the plan:
“Many homeowners along the route of the pipeline feel no one in government is standing up for them, and they are left to fight by themselves for fair treatment from a wealthy corporation,” DiFlorio stated. “That’s not right.”
In Canada, Enbridge has just received approval to reverse the direction of Line 9, which runs from the Sarnia terminal to Hamilton (in Canada). Sarnia just happens to be where our own Line 6B terminates. We’re not sure what, if anything, this could mean. But it gives us some pause.
Finally, the National Wildlife Federation is set to release a report about Enbridge’s Line 5 expansion, which crosses water near the Mackinac Bridge. NWF’s Beth Wallace says,
“We’re concerned about the state of the pipeline and whether adding horsepower to its pumping stations will put it at risk of a similar leak.”
We’re looking forward to the full report, which we plan to discuss more once we’ve read it in full.
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 17, 2012 |
Three cheers for the irrepressible Beth Duman and Katy Bodenmiller! The latest from David Hasemyer at Inside Climate News asks where Michigan’s elected officials have been. A few choice bits:
Bodenmiller on state elected officials:
“I think it’s their duty to have a keen interest in this pipeline.”
On the recent MTA amicus filing:
Brandon Township Supervisor Kathy Thurman says the collective voice of the association adds authority to the grassroots belief that even a giant corporation like Enbridge must obey the rules.
And from Damon Hill, a spokesman for the federal agency responsible for pipeline regulations:
“PHMSA has pipeline safety regulations that cover design and construction of pipelines,” Hill said. “PHMSA does not have siting and permitting oversight. That lies with the state and local agencies.”
Please
share and spread this article far and wide. Let’s see if we can’t wake up some of our politicians. Surely somebody wants to actually lead!
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 16, 2012 |
Yesterday was a record-breaking day, in terms of traffic, on the Line 6B Citizens’ Blog. We don’t know if that is attributable to Enbridge’s letter in the Detroit Free Press— though if it is, we’d like to thank them for the little boost! Whatever the case, we are grateful to everyone who stops by, we hope you’ll return, and we’ll continue to try and make it worth your while.
In this post, we’ll wrap up our extended discussion of the Enbridge letter/ad. If you missed the earlier installments, please take a look at parts 1 and 2 and 3. (more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 15, 2012 |
Today, we’ve been dissecting the letter Enbridge published– well, the ad they paid for– in yesterday’s Detroit Free Press. In our last post, we focused on just one sentence, the (perhaps purposefully) opaque one where Vice President for Major Projects Execution Mark Sitek says, “There has been much discussion involving information from various sources that are not necessarily familiar with the pipeline industry or our projects, so over the next four weeks we will use space in this newspaper to share project updates and to address some of these questions.”
Now let’s finish that paragraph. Here it is in full: (more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 15, 2012 |
We haven’t finished with our review and commentary of the Michigan Townships Association amicus filing in the federal lawsuit initiated by POLAR. We’ll return to that soon. But we’re taking time away from that to remark upon the extraordinary ad, in the form of a letter to “neighbors,” published by Enbridge in yesterday’s Free Press. In our first post, we noted how it’s more than a little strange that Enbridge has chose to open up lines of communication more than a year after they first filed for MPSC approval of the project.
This, our second installment on the letter signed by Vice President for Major Projects Execution Mark Sitek, will focus on just one sentence. It’s our favorite one in the whole letter. Sitek says:
(more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 15, 2012 |
All of a sudden, Enbridge wants to share information.
A full page ad appeared in yesterday’s Detroit Free Press featuring a letter by Enbridge Vice President Mark Sitek. And it’s a doozy. In fact, the letter is so artfully constructed, so disingenuous, so maddening, that it’s going to take us multiple posts to contend with it. We’re going to go paragraph by paragraph, so hang on. (more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 14, 2012 |
The latest update from our ROW agent tells us that the survey team is well ahead of the construction crew, headed east. They have reached Hensel road. The clearing crew has crossed Buckhorn Lake road and pipe has been placed on top of the ground from highway 23 to Denton hill road. A long stretch of pipe, starting at highway 23 going east, has been welded. (more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 14, 2012 |
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.
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 13, 2012 |
As we reported late yesterday, the Michigan Townships Association has filed an amicus curiae brief in the POLAR lawsuit now being heard in federal court. Regardless of whether it alters the outcome of the case, we think this is very good news indeed. And now that we’ve spent the morning reading over the brief, we’re in a position to explain why and to discuss some of the implications of this action. First, the brief: (more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 12, 2012 |
And it’s very good news indeed! We’ve just learned of a new filing in the POLAR lawsuit that is now in federal district court. Just yesterday, the Michigan Townships Association filed an amicus curiae brief in support of POLAR’s complaint, arguing that in the MTA’s view Enbridge is legally required to seek local consent prior to construction.
In our view, this is major; it is in many ways precisely the statement for which we’ve been waiting a very long time. Among other things, this means that Brandon Township is no longer alone– they’re now supported by dozens of townships all across the state.
We’ve obtained the filing from the court records and have begun looking it over. Stay tuned for more commentary and discussion once we’ve completed our review.
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 12, 2012 |
Recently, we ventured the thesis that the reason Enbridge alienates stakeholders and creates distrust and opposition is because of its leadership– decades of leadership that that fails to adhere to its own stated values. With the retirement of CEO Patrick Daniel, we thought there might be some hope for a change in Enbridge’s corporate “culture of deviance,” as the NTSB labeled it. Unfortunately, recent indications point to more of the same under new CEO Al Monaco.
(more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 11, 2012 |
Over at Inside Climate News, David Hasemyer continues to deliver the goods. And we have to say, it’s not just that the reporting is so very good; it’s that the smart folks at ICN understand the importance of staying on a story.
Oh, and Enbridge? Well, they pretty much just shrug their shoulders:
Enbridge did not respond to requests for comment for this story. But in an Aug. 24 letter to the EPA, the company said it did not believe that more dredging—especially in the area near the Ceresco Dam—was necessary.
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 10, 2012 |
This just in: our friend Robert Whitesides was right. Remember the activity over in Capac that Enbridge spokesman Jason Manshum said was for integrity work on Line 5? Well, now that same Jason Manshum says that it’s actually a staging area for the Line 6B replacement project, just as Whitesides said (and as we wondered). Of course, it’s a staging for a project for which Enbridge still does not have approval, but still…
Which has us once again scratching our heads and wondering why it is that Enbridge can’t just be forthright from the beginning. Why can’t they just be “open and honest,” as they claim to be? There’s so little to be gained by dissembling to Maria Brown of the Tri-City Times (and kudos to her for staying on the story!) and so much to be lost– namely, their credibility and the trust of their stakeholders. It really defies logic.
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 10, 2012 |
As some of you may know, among the most valuable and important resource for those of us interested in pipeline safety is the Pipeline Safety Trust, a non-profit public charity promoting fuel transportation safety through education and advocacy. (The story of their creation is inspiring: read it here.) They’ve been indispensable (and tremendously generous) to us from the day we began to educate ourselves about all this stuff.
So we are grateful to report that they’ve invited us to speak as part of a landowners’ panel at their annual conference. This year’s theme is “Pipeline Safety– Trust But Verify.” We’re very excited for the opportunity to talk with and learn from landowners, advocates, public officials, regulators, and even industry representatives from all over the country. And perhaps best of all, we get to meet face to face a bunch of smart, tireless, accomplished people—- a bunch of them from Michigan!– we’ve only encountered so far through the magic of the internet.
The conference is in New Orleans on November 8-9. We will, of course, be blogging about our experience and most of the conference sessions will be webcast live (ours is on Thursday afternoon), so anyone who’s interested might actually be able to watch us speak. We promise to try our best not to stammer and stumble too much and to do our Line 6B friends and neighbors proud.
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 9, 2012 |
One of the favored stock utterances of Enbridge representatives, one we’ve heard countless times over the past few months, is “we want to be a good neighbor.” Project Manager Tom Hodge said this repeatedly to the Brandon Township trustees at their “workshop” last month–as his fellow Enbridge reps, including three spokespersons and attorney Michael Ashton, all nodded their heads in agreement. And while on the whole, we found Hodge more credible than most of the Enbridge representatives we’ve encountered, we were skeptical of that hollow phrase. Indeed, given the chance to comment at the end of the meeting, we said as much, pointing out that Enbridge didn’t come to that meeting in a spirit of cooperation; they only agreed to the meeting reluctantly and were there only to placate, not to comply or even compromise. That doesn’t strike us as all that neighborly. (more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 8, 2012 |
We don’t know about others along the pipeline, but we are receiving periodic construction updates from our ROW agent (we’re grateful for these). Here is the latest:
Clearing crews have finished work on land east of US 23 to Taylor Road. Pipe has been dropped off on property for a few miles east of 23. No welding has begun.
Survey crews, ahead of the clearing crews, are making their way east a few miles in advance and will apparently be picking up the pace. Surveyors could be in Groveland Township as early as next week, as they were on Milford Road today. According to best estimates, the clearing crew will be at Milford Road by the end of this week.
We will continue to update everybody on any updates we receive.
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 6, 2012 |
Regular readers of this blog know that we don’t very often talk about our own situation. That’s by design, as we never wanted any of this to be about us personally. Plus, we know that there are many homeowners along the path of Line 6B whose situations make ours look lucky by comparison, people whose lives have been and will be disrupted and damaged in ways far worse than ours.
Still, there’s a lot about all of this that stings. And today, as we were digging up and moving plants out of the path of imminent Enbridge destruction– rescuing them, you might say– we were feeling a little bitter about two things:
First, Enbridge won’t be compensating us for the terrible anxiety their construction on our property is going to cause our very cool, very good, but very timid, dog Sam. Nor will they be compensating us for the doggie daycare he’ll have to attend to avoid all the loud, scary sounds that will totally freak him out. (Oh, and yes, every one of those trees you see in the background, and more, will be taken down to make room for that shiny new pipe.)
Secondly, Enbridge also isn’t compensating us for this big, beautiful oak tree. What’s worse, they also won’t be compensating us for the displacement of the wonderful green herons that nest in it (I wonder if anyone at Enbridge cares about green herons?). The herons won’t be compensated either. One of them was up in the tree today calling to us again and again while we were digging up our perennials. I’m not an ornithologist, so I can’t say with any certainty, but I’m pretty sure it was saying, “This sucks!”
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 6, 2012 |
No sooner had we posted our political roll call describing our disappointing encounters with our elected officials than, checking our mailbox, we discovered the promised letter from our state representative, Brad Jacobsen. And we have to say, in fairness, that it is a much more satisfying response than we’ve received from any other legislator at the state or federal level to date (though we hasten to note that the bar is remarkably low).
Two things Rep. Jacobsen says have us prepared to offer him some (qualified) praise. (more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 5, 2012 |
In a post a couple of weeks ago, we tried to state our objections to the Line 6B project in one succinct sentence, which is this:
Enbridge has run roughshod over the citizens of the state of Michigan and our state elected officials have stood by idly and allowed it to happen.
We’ve had a lot to say about the first part of that sentence: Enbridge running roughshod. Here, we’d like to say a few words about the second part: our state elected officials allowing it to happen. (more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 5, 2012 |
On Wednesday, we linked to an article in the Tri-City Times in which Enbridge spokesman Jason Manshum explains the activity in Capac as preparation for integrity digs on Line 5– not, as we wondered after an earlier article in the same paper, preparation for work on phase two of the Line 6B project, for which Enbridge does not yet have MPSC approval. It would surely be presumptuous of Enbridge to be staging construction of a project that has not been approved.
However, there may be reason to be somewhat skeptical about what Manshum has told reporter Maria Brown. Some of our friends, who know far more about pipeline engineering and construction than we do, have pointed out to us that it’s very unlikely the amount of pipe currently sitting in the Capac staging area (see the photo that accompanies the story) is for integrity digs. Those digs rarely require more than a few feet of pipe and typically involve clamping and welding steel sleeves around weak sections of pipe.
There is also reason to wonder about Manshum’s statement that “the company is not required to seek permits for this kind of work.” Construction or maintenance work that could affect wetlands and water resources does require permits from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and perhaps other agencies. We don’t know whether this would apply to the area around Line 5– but still we wonder. Manshum does say that “Enbridge did submit a plan to the state for one particular dig”: perhaps locating this plan would be a way to verify Manshum’s statements. We’re looking into it.
In the absence of any clear evidence on the matter, we have little choice but to take Manshum at his word. But we do so with caution. In the meantime, it might be worth paying careful attention to what happens to that big stack of pipe in Capac. We trust that reporter Maria Brown will be paying attention.
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 4, 2012 |
If you’ll recall, a couple of weeks ago, Enbridge filed a Notice of Removal to have a POLAR lawsuit heard in federal court. The case is now before U.S. District Judge Robert H. Cleland. The suit filed by POLAR sought both a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order asking the court to halt construction work by Enbridge.
Late last week, Judge Cleland issued two orders in the case. First, he “terminated without prejudice as moot” POLAR’s motion for a temporary restraining order. What that means is that he did not rule one way or the other on the merits of the motion; rather, he ruled that the motion is a non-issue because the other motion– for a preliminary injunction– “supersedes” it. In other words, there’s no need for the court to consider both a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order. The court will consider just the former.
Why is this good news? Well, because it means that the the motion for a preliminary injunction WILL go forward; POLAR will have its hearing. So Judge Cleland’s second order set a date for that hearing– October 22– and gave a number of very pointed instructions for both sides on how to gather and present facts and evidence in advance of the hearing. (And I’ll tell you, having read lots of orders, filings, and hearing transcripts from county and state courts, it’s clear that these federal judges do NOT mess around; Cleland runs a very tight ship).
So mark your calendars: October 22nd will be a very important date for landowners along Line 6B.
