Pipeline safety advocates enjoying beignets and coffee in New Orleans during the Pipeline Safety Trust conference.
Whew! Sorry for our little hiatus these past few weeks. We’ve had more than a few matters (mainly professional ones) that have required our attention. And then last week was the 2014 Pipeline Safety Trust conference— which was a great experience, as always. Rest assured that we have not abandoned you.
The trouble now, however, is that we’ve got a lot of catching up to do. Fortunately, for some of it we’re going to get a little help from our friends. Among the things we’ll be bringing you over the next week or so:
- The latest on ET Rover— now just the “Rover Pipeline,” according to Energy Transfer– along with information and commentary about the first of the FERC scoping meetings.
- A run-down of some of our experiences at the PS Trust conference– as always, we learned a great deal– including our account of the genuine face time and conversation we had with you-won’t-believe-who; seriously, we have photographic evidence and everything!
- The latest entry in our ongoing “Landowner Stories” series, one that expands the series well beyond Line 6B. It turns out, landowners in Michigan aren’t the only ones Enbridge treats poorly. We’re taking the series south.
- Lastly, we’re going to embark upon our first-ever crowdsourcing project. We’ll need your help on this one! It’s a little something we cooked up with our awesome friend Lynda Farrell, Executive Director of the Pipeline Safety Coalition in Pennsylvania. Stay tuned for that one!
Thanks as always for your hard work and unflinching honesty, Jeff. After reading the Chelsea Standard article in which professor Gary Wolfram talks about the economic benefits of pipeline construction, I sent him an email suggesting that he invite me to come give a talk at his institution so that he can be better informed of the potential drawbacks of pipeline construction, including major safety issues that are simply not addressed in the current regulatory framework. It will be interesting to see if he ever gets back to me. I just hate it when faculty voice opinions on matters such as this without being properly and fully informed.
Best regards as always and Happy Thanksgiving!
P.S. I have more speaking engagements in the works. People need to be informed!
Thanks, Patricia!
PM-!perhaps the great faculty is a paid speaker for you-know-who…
Hello Jeff. Thanks for making this blog possible. This appears to be the best line of communication open to discuss this subject, in Holly Township, the E. T. Rover Pipeline. People need to be aware of the deadline for submitting concerns and feedback regarding the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) environmental impact statement (EIS) process.
For those unaware, communications regarding this entire process have been VERY untimely and give the impression that this is being sped along to gain quick approval without getting adequate citizen input. Holly Township officials have Had to seek out clarification and information on numerous occasions. We received the notice of intent for an EIS statement at our November board meeting (Nov. 19, 2014). The scoping period (time to gain comments and public participation ends December 18th. There will be another public forum Dec. 10, 2014 at 6:00 PM EST at the Holiday Inn Gateway Center in Flint. Please be advised that the FERC docket number for this project is PF14-14-000. Public comments can be submitted in written or verbal form. Check the public participation page for more info. http://www.ferc.gov
You can also contact the Holly Township office for more information.
Please have your voices heard. Democracy works when the people participate.
Hello. Has anyone got any sense on what to expect tomorrow might up in Flint at the FERC pipeline meeting? I read the info from the Chelsea meeting.
I contacted our Oakland County Planning Office and have obtained very good maps of Holly Township and Groveland that show natural features, parcels, and roads. We will have to draw in the proposed pipeline. I have these maps in electronic format as well.
We are very pleased with the assistance we received from Jim Keglovitz and Leigh Young for providing us with the docs. They do a great job.
See you tomorrow.
We are organizing in Ohio against the Rover. We have a sign-on letter to go to FERC we would like to share with you and others opposing the Rover. Deadline for comments to FERC is 12/18, so we would like sign-on by 12/16. Is there an email address we can use to send it to you for review? Thanks for all your efforts in Michigan to oppose yet another assault on our civil and property rights!
Hello Lea,
I had Ellis Boal as a guest last night here in Holly and he is willing to meet with folks today before the meeting tonight. I know it is short notice but if there is interest please call my cell at 248-895-2888. I can connect you with him. I have to run down to the county offices to pick up some maps for tonight. Ellis will be at the E.T. Rover hearing tonight as will a number of us from Holly Township.
BTW. Ellis has been behind the movement for Ban Michigan Fracking and is an attorney from Charlevoix.
Hello Lea,
We have prepared such a letter for sign on from our Holly Township board. We have to approve it by vote at our board meeting on the 17th and it will be sent that night after the meeting. It is very comprehensive and specific to Holly Township concerns. I would welcome review of your letter for ideas and comment. I can be reached through my email sustainablesaltingsolutions@gmail.com or via mobile phone see my email
Good morning,
The E.T. Rover pipeline/Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) hearing took place last night in Flint and I would like to share a couple of personal observations.
Holly Township contacted our Oakland County Planning office to see if they could prepare some good quality informational maps to have on display at the meeting last night. The Oakland County Planning office did an excellent job preparing those maps (Holly and Groveland) showing both aerial and natural features inventory with parcel line overlays and roads. We did NOT have the actual pipeline route on the map. It was clearly marked Oakland County and I presented it as an official from Holly Township. We were denied access to display it while E.T. Rover ( a Texas based private for profit company) had a large informational table. Frankly I was livid in that a lot of time and energy was spent preparing and obtaining that map.
Secondly, the FERC folks did not require those whom addressed the panel with comments to state their names and addresses. Many did however but others did not and one was left wondering where they actually were from. Local folks or from somewhere else?
While there are MANY things that bother me about this pipeline, the thing that bothers me the most is the fact that I have served 13 + years as a Planning Commissioner in Holly Township. The primary responsibility of any public official is to protect the health, safety, and well being of its citizens. We have laws of the state and federal government that we are required to uphold and require our local citizens to comply so that we can maintain the goal of creating a good community. What is exceedingly troublesome is, what seems apparent, total disregard of local, state and federal rules and regulations (wetlands) by a private for profit concern out of Texas with what has been a secretive, manipulative, coercive effort to fast track this project down our throats with what appears to be a biased position on the part of FERC.
That cabal from Texas will fly home to their gated communities in Texas and sip their cocktails by the pool while they laugh about those poor schmucks up in Michigan who just had their property ripped up for their pipeline…and oh did I forget to mention the huge bonus’ and pats on the back for getting the job done?
Jeff, et al, am excited to be joining with you all in our crowdsourcing project! The time is ripe.
In the meantime, am wondering if the FERC meeting you referenced, Mark, was a scoping meeting or one of those lovely API 1162’s. PSC held a public meeting with Columbia/FERC & a hosting twp manager several years ago based on the fact that the 1162 meetings are a false. We got good changes to the project in prefiling [we knew we couldn’t stop it]. Trying same out here in PA/NJ with 87% of the PennEast Project looking to cross the Delaware River Basin as well as predominantly greenfield/ag pres & conservation eased lands…FERC seems to be turning their backs, but perhaps this could be a continuing project with PSC poking our way out westerly ways. Hey national strategizing can’t hurt….
Jeff, we should be in touch to jump start this….BTW, thanks for such kind words!
Lynda
Lynda,
It was a scoping meeting. Our citizens have until Dec. 18th to submit their comments to FERC. The docket number for this project is PF14-14
We here in Holly Township are embarking on a process to advance energy use best practices and explore and implement alternative strategies. I am a firm believer in supply and demand. If we can minimize demand there is less need for supply. When I refer to less, I mean, the old dinosaur stuff….fossil fuel.
Like my 2 decades long effort with reducing salt for deicing I do not expect to quit using it altogether as it is the most cost effective tool we have right now but like salt, if we could maintain our standard of living through improved best practices and efficiency, would we not be better off?
While some might disagree that salt is implicated in premature depreciation of infrastructure investment or environmental damage (particularly to water resources), like the threat looming for climate change, doesn’t it just make sense to take a conservative position and make it our top priority to use less?
I am against the NIMBY mentality and instead in favor of finding alternative solutions. There is MUCH that can be done.
THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT!!!
I spoke to Virginia Laszewski, the Regional 5 EPA rep yesterday and she made 2 very strong recommendations for landowners.
1) That we be prepared to make further comments and concerns when FERC releases the EIS draft.
2) When making statements to FERC it is imperative that we supply data to substantiate them. It is very important to include specific data or our statements will not be taken seriously. And when submitting pictures of wildlife make sure they are date stamped and can be identified as being in the area directly impacted by the proposed pipeline.
No matter how articulate and passionate, emotional pleas and personal preferrences are not going to stop Rover from putting the pipeline through our properties! While all that might mean something to us, they base their decisions on numbers and data. Yes, this might mean some extra homework for us when submitting further comments to FERC, but this is the way it works.
Meanwhile, keep watching the news papers and writing articles to the editor and in Sound Off.
Ms. Laszewksi also suggested that we keep after our state and local officials to help us out on this matter. Whether they are for pipelines providing domestic energy or not they need to stop Rover from steamrolling and taking advantage of landowners.
Just to clarify, this does not mean general data they already have on the dangers of pipelines, but facts and data on how it will impact the environment in our particular area or property,
Also rumors are not facts and only serve to discount and discredit your comments.
I recently saw an immature bald eagle on my property but that fact carries little or no weight with FERC without substantial documentation.
Dee, as you might have heard, Dane County Ws Zoning and Land commission will be voting soon on whether to impose additional insurance requirements on Enbridge’s Line 61. Enbridge has threatened to sue, but townships may indeed have the right to impose insurance requirements on pipeline companies. Since insurance is not safety per se, it is not subject to the Pipeline Safety Act (which would prevent a township from imposing additional safety regulations). I can provide additional detailed information (Jeff Insko has my contact information). Why does this matter? Because imposing insurance can add a large additional cost on pipeline companies that can make them no longer financially appetizing. Also, insurance helps to protect the landowners and townships in case of a spill or other accident. Townships along the pipeline route would presumably need to act fast, so please let me know asap if you would like additional detailed information and contact information for entities that can perhaps provide help.
Of course, insurance companies have a strong incentive to ensure that large scale projects such as pipelines are safe to decrease risk of financial exposure. So, requiring insurance may also lead to a safer pipeline with greater oversight (by the insurance company).
Have any of the homeowners contacted this group? If not, I think it’s worth a shot but would need to be done as soon as possible. There are ways of fighting this and I think Rover would garner their interest. http://www.celdf.org/about-us
The online Democracy School videos 1-8 are well worth the time. http://www.celdf.org/democracy-school-on-line Only takes about the three hours and the information presented is unlike anything else available anywhere.
States and (if the state does not preempt them) local communities may adopt their own setbacks between pipelines and homes. http://smartpig.pstrust.org/
This is interesting. See also my comment about townships requiring pipeline companies to purchase extra insurance. While it’s my understanding that local communities cannot add safety requirements (communities that have tried this have been successfully sued by pipeline companies), insurance is not considered ‘safety’ and communities therefore have the ability to set extra insurance requirements. This (1) makes the cost more expensive which can deter pipeline construction and (2) may ensure more oversight and safety as insurance companies are looking to limit liability or risk. Townships that have tried to set additional safety standards such as required fencing around construction zones have been sued successfully by pipeline companies. I don’t know of cases involving a township setting a distance. Do you have specific examples of court cases?
http://pstrust.org/trust-initiatives-programs/planning-near-pipelines/planning-ordinances
Thank you. I will do more study/investigations of different state statues and also whether the ordinances listed in this url were challenged. Thanks again.
I would like to suggest that the landowners along the proposed Rover use the following strategy. According to the Michigan State constitution, “Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people.” There have been many well documented cases of pipeline accidents, including explosions of gas pipelines that have led to damage to property, injury, and even death. At the current time, Michigan law does not address what a ‘safe’ distance is for a gas pipeline to be from a house, school, or other structure (or even road over which people travel). Until detailed studies are done to establish safe distances and distances are codified into law controlling pipeline construction, the state’s constitution is not being followed. If the government is instituted for protection, security, and benefit of the people yet the government grants a permit for a gas pipeline without carefully determining and codifying safe distances, then this is in contradiction to the constitution. And, that is the case whether any permitting is done by the state or federal government.
My guess is that the celdf would help with making an argument such as this; if not, they are likely to have even better ideas. As a professor in Civil and Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences, I would be willing to write a letter outlining some of the past accidents and the problems with the current lack of appropriate regulations. But, I’d need to know when and where to send it.