by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 13, 2014 |
We left off yesterday’s post about ET Rover’s recent meetings with local officials by expressing some concern about whether some of those officials are equipped– for whatever reasons– to adequately inform and assist landowners. So far, we’ve been very impressed with the willingness of several township officials to speak out forcefully against Rover and the company’s shabby treatment of pretty much everyone. But now that Rover has launched a charm offensive and is (presumably) doing some behind-the-scenes glad-handing, backslapping, and smoke-blowing, we’re a little nervous. We’ve seen before what that sort of thing can do.
Recent news reports have provided little comfort. In fact, judging from what we’ve read, the meetings have served only to confuse matters. It’s starting to look like our public officials are neither receiving nor providing citizens with reliable, accurate information. That’s why we’re also nervous about this week’s Town Hall meeting (Oct. 15 at Holly High School from 6:30 to 7:30 p.m). We have serious fears about the potential spread of bad information.
Here’s a run-down, with examples drawn from two recent news articles about last week’s meetings, of the kinds of imprecise or just plain wrong information that has us so very worried:
Is there anything local governments can do? Yes!
According to Susan Bromley at the Brandon Citizen, Groveland Township Supervisor Bob DePalma doesn’t think “any thing of worthwhile consequence was discussed.” (No surprise there.) But DePalma also told Susan Bromley of the Brandon Citizen that “They [ET Rover] fully realize the federal government has regulations on them, what we say or do has little benefit.” No doubt this is what ET Rover said. It’s the same line Enbridge used when they rolled into town: “pipelines are regulated at the federal level.” As we recall, DePalma accepted that line then just as he appears to accept it now.
In fairness, it’s not entirely clear what DePalma’s point is here, though we do fear it’s the same old shoulder-shrugging, helpless attitude we’ve seen from him before. Whatever the case, it is clearly NOT true that what township officials “say or do has little benefit.” Yes, FERC has ultimate approval of the pipeline project. But there are plenty of things township supervisors, state representatives, and citizens can do. One of them is registering their objections and concerns about this project publicly and with FERC. Another is working hard to provide accurate, reliable information about the project, the process, and the things landowners can do to protect themselves. That could benefit landowners tremendously if this project is approved.
Why did Rover re-route? Nobody really knows (except Rover, and they won’t tell it straight)
Unfortunately, we’re not sure whether DePalma can distinguish between accurate information and pipeline company spin. For example, DePalma also reports that ET Rover shifted their original route north “because it affected 53-54 homes that were going to have to be taken.” We don’t doubt that this is what Rover told him. The question is whether it’s true. In fact, we’re not sure what “53-54 homes were going to have to be taken” even means. It’s vague to the point of meaningless (more on this below). Nor is there any way to verify it.
ET Rover reps apparently repeated this story in their meeting with Lapeer County Commissioners, according to Maria Brown at the Tri-City Times:
Company officials told Lapeer County leaders on Tuesday that the route had been moved north from Oakland County where more than 50 homes would have had to be condemned since they had been built on an existing natural gas line easement.
As we said above, it’s not at all clear what this means, especially with the use of the word “condemn” here– which could suggest the legal process of condemnation (using eminent domain) but here seems to mean something more like destroy. Nor is it clear what “existing natural gas line easement” they’re talking about. The Vector pipeline? Are we to believe that homes have been built on top of the Vector (or some other) pipeline easement? And that somehow, originally, Rover thought they would build their pipeline in the same place? Both of those things seem impossible. So maybe the reporter got something mixed up here? Whatever the case, none of this makes much sense, which makes us awfully skeptical. Even worse, none of this, whatever the source of such poor information, is even remotely helpful to concerned landowners.
We’re even more skeptical of this comment from Lapeer Commissioner Dave Eady about the re-route: “It had nothing to do with politics or resolutions in opposition to the project,” Eady said. We have no doubt this is what ET Rover told Eady and the other commissioners. But surely Eady isn’t naive and gullible enough to believe it. Anyone can readily understand that ET Rover would never ever admit to moving the pipeline route because of landowner opposition; that would only invite landowner opposition elsewhere. So why in the world would he repeat that claim as if it were true? That’s frightening.
We feel a little better about the comment of Commissioner Lenny Schneider who notes, simply, “It’s not our job to take their word for it.” Hopefully, he has repeated that to his colleague Dave Eady.
How much gas will benefit Michiganders? Again, no one knows (and Rover won’t tell)
Even worse than the above are the (hollow) assurances ET Rover gave about where the gas they’ll transport is going. DePalma reports that contrary to initial reports, the natural gas is not mainly for Canadian export and “a good amount” of the natural gas transported by ET Rover will stay in Michigan. This statement only raises more questions:
What’s “a good amount”? Who decides what a good amount is? Is this what Rover reps said or is that DePalma’s characterization? Was DePalma able to verify that claim? Did Rover say exactly what percentage of the gas will stay in Michigan versus the amount that will be exported to Canada? We’re pretty sure that answer to those last three questions is “no.” Those are questions that are virtually impossible to answer. Answers to them may– if we’re lucky– be included in Rover’s application to FERC, which they plan to file in January. But since FERC doesn’t require that kind of information and because Rover doesn’t really want anybody to know (they’ll likely claim that it’s proprietary), chances are it won’t even be included there. We can’t say for sure, but it sounds like DePalma believes Rover when they say such things. But he shouldn’t. That’s what scares us.
Is Rover prohibited or even discouraged from routing their pipeline along a highway? No.
Here’s one reason DePalma shouldn’t believe the things ET Rover reps tell him. Evidently they told him this:
Rover representatives also explained that the reason the pipeline can’t follow a suggested route along the I-69 corridor is because close proximity to highways is discouraged for safety reasons.
Note here the passive construction “is discouraged” We have little doubt that this is exactly how ET Rover phrased it. It’s the sort of verbal construction we discourage our students from using, because unlike our sentence (where we say “we discourage”), the passive version omits the agent of the action. It begs the question of who, exactly, discourages routing pipelines along highways for safety reasons. The implication is that it’s some federal agency. But there are no federal guidelines on this matter. In fact, highway corridors are not even considered “high consequence areas.” Of course, this is not to say that it’s necessarily a good idea to build a pipeline along a highway. But doing so is no worse than building a pipeline in close proximity, say, to a school or suburban subdivision, yet that happens routinely. The point here is that companies like Rover are NOT “discouraged” for safety reasons from building pipelines along highways. They’re just saying that as a convenient excuse to stick with their preferred route.
Is there a deadline for public comments to FERC? No.
This one comes from Lapeer County Commissioner Lenny Schneider:
Schneider said the company can’t provide all the answers county officials want until land surveys are complete and considering this task might not be done by year’s end, which is also the public comment deadline; the county board seeks to go on the record with their concerns.
The first part of this is probably more or less true: some questions will be unanswerable until surveying is complete and the route is finalized with a bit more precision (although we suspect this is also another convenient way for Rover to evade questions). But the second part is absolutely NOT true. There is no year-end “deadline” for public comments. After Rover officially files its application with FERC, citizens have much more time and opportunity to comment— and they should do so. We don’t know where Schneider got the idea that public comment will be prohibited after the first of the year. But this is another example of how unreliable information gets disseminated.
Can FERC approve this project without giving Rover the power of eminent domain? No.
And one final bit of information to correct, this one also from the Lapeer Commissioners:
Commissioners are also urging the public and affected landowners to file their own concerns and complaints with the federal agency by year’s end, asking that the commission either halt the project or approve it without granting eminent domain. Without eminent domain, Energy Transfer would be required to negotiate with individual landowners for easement payments.
Now, we very much appreciate this sentiment. And we wish this were a realistic option (and in other cases, we’ve made a similar argument). But in this case, urging citizens to request approval without eminent domain demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of the FERC process. That’s because eminent domain is precisely what “approval” means. ET Rover is going to apply for a “Certificate of Public Necessity and Convenience.” According to the law, that means the authority to condemn. So ET Rover isn’t just asking for permission to build a pipeline. They’re asking for permission to build the pipeline with or without the approval of property owners in the pipeline’s route. In this context “approv[ing] it without granting eminent domain” simply does not make sense. By law, FERC cannot grant a certificate without eminent domain.
Obviously, these are not simple matters. And there is no reason to expect township supervisors and county commissioners to be experts on them. But it’s NOT too much to expect them to be deeply skeptical of what ET Rover tells them and to be careful about reporting what Rover says as fact. We’re going to do everything we can to make it to Wednesday’s Town Hall in the hopes of preventing (or correcting) the spread of inaccurate information. Stay tuned.
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 22, 2014 |
When the ET Rover project first came to light back in July, we immediately called and wrote to several ET Rover representatives to try and obtain some basic information. Those efforts largely failed. After some effort, we were finally able to communicate with a couple of people, though we never really received the information we were seeking. But we did take the opportunity to try and give the Rover project team some friendly advice. What we said was that, after a long and exhausting experience with Enbridge, people in Michigan are quite weary of (and wise to) the way pipeline companies communicate with landowners. We said that vague information, evasive answers, inaccuracies, and conflicting accounts of the kind we’ve grown accustomed to from Enbridge were not going to fly. We said that people simply weren’t going to tolerate it and that if ET Rover didn’t do better, they were going to have a very rough ride up here.
Well, those warnings have clearly gone unheeded. Over the past few weeks, we’ve heard all sorts of stories about the strange, inaccurate, and untrue things that Rover’s agents are telling landowners. And we’ve heard all kinds of rumor and speculation about alterations to the Rover route. But none of it– nothing– can really be verified. Rover just isn’t saying. Getting clear and straightforward information from them has been like pulling teeth.
And you don’t have to take our word for it. Just read the latest from the always-excellent Susan Bromley in the Brandon Citizen. She tried (as we did) to get to the bottom of the current rumor that the proposed Rover route has changed significantly. Here’s her account of how that went:
Vicki Granado, a public relations spokeswoman for ET Rover, would not confirm that the pipeline route had changed. On Wednesday, under repeated questioning, she maintained that the route is “a work in progress” and there will be no final route until all surveys are in.
Groveland Township Supervisor Bob DePalma is even more blunt about the way ET Rover has been communicating with people and municipalities along the route (and this is the same Bob DePalma mind you, who seemed to have a very high tolerance for Enbridge’s p.r. flimflammery):
“I can’t get good answers from Rover, they’ve just done a deplorable job,” said DePalma. “Now they’ve hired PR people that are going to come out. I’ve been in marketing for more than 30 years and this is the worst managed project I’ve ever seen… Facts have been extremely difficult to get from Rover.”
These comments echo the many, many accounts we’ve been hearing from landowners about the unclear or misinformation they’ve been receiving. This is no way to make new friends and partners, that’s for sure. The result is a whole lot of frustration and mounting opposition to the ET Rover project. Just this week, another township supervisor, Bruce Township’s Richard Cory, said “We now have a unified force in how we feel about the pipeline. We don’t want this in Bruce Township.”
Having said all of that, unlike Bromley, we have been told by Rover that they’ve made some changes to the route (though they’re not saying what those changes are) and that they might be reaching out to additional townships and landowners. If that’s true, those landowners and townships are going to have to make their preferences known, to say no to survey requests, hold meetings, and pass resolutions opposing this project.
To that end, the next informational meeting for landowners and the public featuring the indefatigable Jeff Axt will take place in Oceola Township on Thursday, August 28 at 7 pm at the Oceola Township Hall.
by Jeffrey Insko | Jul 27, 2014 |
If you’ve spent much time here at this blog, you know we’re pretty big fans of Brandon Township Supervisor Kathy Thurman. Soft-spoken, unassuming, very smart and very tough, Thurman has been a thoughtful, responsive, and brave leader when it comes to protecting her township, its citizens, and its natural resources from Enbridge’s attempts to steamroll through them.
If only we could say the same about all township supervisors in Michigan. The ET Rover situation has provided two good (by which we mean disturbing) examples in the past month, one from our very own Supervisor, Bob DePalma of Groveland Township, the other from Bruce Pearson in Addison Township. Both strike us as rather blustery fellows, self certain and pretty free with their opinions. At the same time, they seem strangely eager to capitulate when pipeline companies come knocking.
Two years ago, we tried to enlist DePalma in efforts to address citizen concerns about Line 6B. At that time, we thought his attitude was pretty dismissive of landowners’ concerns. He seemed to think he knew in advance what those concerns were and therefore didn’t really both listening to them very carefully. But he did listen to Enbridge’s p.r. man at the time, Joe Martucci– and appeared to swallow whole every thing Martucci told him.
It turns out, though, that DePalma isn’t just dismissive of reasonable landowner concerns– the concerns of his own neighbors and constituents. He also, evidently, thinks rather contemptuously of them. Here, for instance, is what he told Brandon Citizen reporter Susan Bromley in her article about ET Rover:
“This is still America,” said DePalma. “They can’t come through your property if there isn’t an easement. If they have an easement, the jurisdiction is probably identical to Enbridge. Half the people who had the Enbridge pipeline running through their yards didn’t even know they had it (prior to Enbridge returning and saying they were putting a new pipeline in).”
We’re not really sure what he’s talking about with the “this is America” or the “jurisdiction” stuff, which strikes us as oddly nonsensical–and a little uninformed. Sure, pipeline companies can’t come through your property without an easement. But the whole point is that in America, those same companies are routinely granted the power of eminent domain, which means they can acquire an easement on your property whether you want them to or not.
DePalma’s last sentence is even worse– because it is mean-spirited and insulting. We have no idea what makes him think that half of landowners didn’t know about their easements; nor do we believe that it’s even remotely true. What DePalma possibly has to gain by disparaging landowners– again, many of them his very own neighbors and constituents– by implying that they’re a bunch of ignoramuses is completely beyond us. Perhaps we’re misconstruing his point here or maybe we’ve got his tone wrong. However, as we said above, he never seems to have bothered to try and understand why some landowners might be unhappy about either pipeline project.
While DePalma appears to think landowners are ignorant, Bruce Pearson thinks they’re just greedy. Here’s what Pearson told CJ Carnacchio of the Clarkston News at the ET Rover open house in Richmond:
“When Enbridge came through here, not everybody was happy until the checkbooks opened up,” Pearson said. “Then all of a sudden about 80 percent of the people, you never heard from them again.”
Honestly, we don’t know what Pearson is talking about here either. What’s strange is that Pearson himself is a landowner along Line 6B and along the proposed ET Rover route. Yet he seems to lack the imagination to understand that money might not be the only consideration for landowners. He also seems, like DePalma was with Enbridge, eager to believe whatever pleasing story Energy Transfer tells him:
In the end, Pearson believes construction of the Rover Pipeline is inevitable.
“It’s going to come through no matter what, I know that,” he said. “I don’t think (residents are) going to stop it from coming through. I don’t think there’s going to be a point where you’re going to stop the whole project.
“I think they’re just going to have to move it around and accommodate people.”
In the meantime, Pearson advised property owners who are along the proposed pipeline route to be good negotiators with ET Rover/ETP when it comes time to talk compensation.
He said the amount a person receives depends on “how tough you are.”
“They’re inconveniencing you,” Pearson said. “You take what will make you happy. Don’t worry about them. They’re billionaires. You’re not hurting them one iota.”
Things like crop damage, tree damage and loss of hunting privileges can all be factored into the compensation, according to Pearson.
“Make yourself happy because when they’re gone, they’re gone,” he said.
Pearson may or may not be right that ET Rover is inevitable; the deck is certainly stacked in favor of the pipeline company. But it’s far from a certainty. The truth is that Pearson’s position is the easy one, the complacent and compliant one, even the cynical one: just shrug your shoulders and try to get paid. Whether it’s the position of a thoughtful public steward and a courageous leader, one who cares about things other than money– things like the public interest, private property rights, and the environment– is another question altogether.
by Jeffrey Insko | Jul 18, 2014 |
Evidently, Enbridge still isn’t finished thumbing its nose at Brandon Township. According to the latest from ace reporter Susan Bromley at the Clarkston News, Enbridge has been disregarding a township ordinance limiting hours of construction operation. Enbridge, true to form, says that the ordinance doesn’t apply to them– a tune they’ve been playing for a very long time.
Of course, in the scheme of things– that is, compared, say, to a spill– starting up noisy construction vehicles might not seem to be a big deal. But this little incident illustrates a number of points we’ve made around here ad infinitum:
Like it would kill them to just wait until 7 am to start up their trucks. Sigh.
by Jeffrey Insko | Jul 7, 2014 |
The ET Rover project is beginning to receive a fair amount of local press attention. The Clarkston News and the Brandon Citizen have run articles. We’re glad to see our old friend Susan Bromley on the case! Bromley spoke with another of our friends, Protect Our Land and Rights (POLAR) legal defense fund founder Jeff Axt. If you don’t know about Jeff and POLAR, please check them out. They’re likely to be an invaluable resource for landowners who don’t want ET Rover on their land. Please consider joining and supporting them.
Detroit Free Press reporter Keith Matheny also has an article this morning (reprinted in the Lansing State Journal). There’s not much new information coming from ET Rover on the project (more on that in a minute), but we were glad to read the remarks of two people we admire very much, Josh Mogerman and Beth Wallace:
But some don’t see the benefit for Michigan.
“It’s consistent with the growing trend nationally that puts more and more risk in people’s back yards for the movement of fossil fuels,” said Josh Mogerman, a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
“This project has very little benefit for Michigan,” added Beth Wallace, a board member with the nonprofit Pipeline Safety Trust.
In all of these articles, the ET Rover spokesperson quoted is Vicki Grenado. We don’t know much about her, other than that she appears not to be an ET employee, but a public relations professional hired by ET. That fact shows, as her remarks are virtually indistinguishable from the sort of stuff we’ve heard from Enbridge spokespersons for years. In one article, she even delivers this old chestnut: “We want to be a good neighbor and business partner in these communities.”
At any rate, we mention this because we happened to have our own encounter with Vicki Grenado over the weekend while trying to obtain some more information about this project. We are grateful to her for responding promptly (twice!), but the exchange was nevertheless, you might not be surprised to learn, a frustrating one– which does not bode well for landowners. Here’s how it went:
Like others of you, we’ve been trying to get some more precise information about the project and especially the proposed route. Because that information is not available on the ET Rover website, we wrote to the person listed at the site as the landowner contact. A couple of days later, we received an email from Ms. Grenado, telling us that she does not have the route information we requested and referring us to the ET Rover website for more information. That’s right: the landowner contact at ET referred us to a p.r. person who then referred us to the same website whose lack of information is what caused us to contact them in the first place.
So we replied, noting that some landowners had already been given more detailed maps of portions of the route (we posted one here just the other day). At which point, Ms Grenado simply said that maps would be available at the upcoming open houses. But of course, if we wanted to wait until the open houses to see the maps, we wouldn’t have written in the first place.
In fairness, Vicki Grenado (like all those Enbridge p.r. soldiers) is just doing her job, a job (as we’ve learned from Enbridge) that mainly consists of supplying people (landowners, local officials, the press) with as little information as possible while pretending to be helpful. However, Energy Transfer is going to need to understand that landowners in Michigan are weary of this sort of thing– and wise to it. If ET thinks they can come up here and blow a lot of smoke, provide vague or evasive answers, say a lot of pleasing-sounding things about being good neighbors, expect people to trust them and then think that landowners are just going to accept all of that without skepticism, without further questioning, without demands for more transparency, more honesty, and more openness, they’re going to have a very rough time indeed.
by Jeffrey Insko | Dec 30, 2013 |
Happy Holidays everyone!
We hope you’ve all enjoyed some time with friends and family and traveled safely (if you traveled) over the past week or so. And we especially hope that those of you in Michigan who had to suffer through the untimely power-outages found a way to keep warm. Miraculously, we were unaffected, although most of our neighbors had to wait until Christmas day for power to be restored. On the bright side, at least the ice storm wasn’t an inconvenience caused by Enbridge…
Speaking of Enbridge, we don’t know about you, but we haven’t received any holiday gifts this year (last year it was yummy cherry-related things). Evidently, they think they’re through with us, which of course is not at all the case, given the quality and timing of so-called “restoration” work this fall.
But we’re not looking forward right now. The end of the year is a time for reflection. So in lieu of something more original, we thought we’d try our hand at the traditional end-of-the-year Top Ten list. We’ve sifted through our archives for what we think are the most important and/or best posts of 2013. Here they are, ranked and everything:
10. Line 6B Earns Pulitzer Prize. One of the most exciting stories of the year– and it only ranks #10 because it’s not material original to this blog– was the announcement that scrappy online news outlet Inside Climate News won the Pulitzer Prize for national reporting. The prize was awarded to Elizabeth McGowan, Lisa Song, and David Hasemyer for their series of reports on the rupture and aftermath of Line 6B. If you’ve never read “The Dilbit Disaster,” please leave this blog now and devour every last riveting word (then come back). In addition to the quality of the reporting, we have been particularly impressed and appreciative with the way that the crack ICN team of reporters have stayed on the story, bringing some much-needed attention to the tribulations of landowners. We are especially grateful that this humble blog has appeared in some of their award-winning reports, as well as others in their continuing coverage. We take every chance we get to congratulate them and thank them for their outstanding journalism.
9. Pet Coke. You might recall those awful-looking piles of black powder that appeared on the banks of the Detroit River last spring, blowing dust onto people’s balconies and everywhere else. We certainly didn’t break the story; that honor goes to some Canadian reporters. But we followed it closely. Eventually, it made national news— although much of the concern in the national press had to do with the fact that the stuff was owned by the Koch Brothers, those bête noires of liberal groups. We were less interested in the partisan political side of the story, though, than with the fact that the petroleum coke is a byproduct of the tar sands refining process. And here in Michigan, we all know how the stuff that Marathon refines down to that nasty black soot got here in the first place: straight through Enbridge’s Line 6B. This story had a marginally happy ending; the piles were moved elsewhere. Unfortunately, the real problem is far from resolved. The stuff just went to foul up somebody else’s backyard.
8. Red Herrings. Perhaps the biggest, or at least the most important, story of the year (for reasons we’ll describe in a later entry) was the Michigan Public Service Commission’s approval of phase two of the Line 6B replacement way back in January. At that time, the Detroit Free Press’s Eric Lawrence wrote a couple of articles, one of which featured– to our surprise– a couple of very Enbridge-friendly landowners. Of course, as we’ve said for a long time, we don’t begrudge any landowners good experiences with Enbridge. In fact, we wish every landowner had a good experience with them; that’s why we started this blog in the first place. But what bothered us about these two particular landowners (one of whom Enbridge adopted for a while as a sort of mascot) were their terribly ill-informed and misleading remarks about the possible fruits of the project and about their fellow landowners. We took these misleading remarks– very similar to the comments of plenty of other know-nothings about the project– as an occasion to point set the record straight.
7. How Not to Write About Line 6B. Among the things that have most gotten under our skin over the past year and a half has been either the lack of press coverage of all things pertaining to the Line 6B “replacement” or the poor quality of it. Of course, this isn’t to say there hasn’t been some good coverage as well (see #10 above): at the local level, Susan Bromley of the tiny Brandon Citizen and Jennifer Bowman of the Battle Creek Enquirer, for example, have done some excellent work (I could name others as well). On the other hand, there has been some truly hapless coverage and/or opinion offered as well: witness this woeful op-ed from Indiana, for instance. Late this summer and this fall, we saw some more subtle examples of how not to write about the project– not examples of people stating opinions about things they know very little about, but well-intentioned reporters covering the story simplistically, without adequate knowledge or context– coverage that, in our view, does a terrible disservice to the public and to people directly affected by the project.
6. IJNR Kalamazoo River Institute. Speaking of journalists, in May, we had the wonderful opportunity to join a large group of them as part of a program hosted by the extraordinary Institute for Journalism & Natural Resources. Among other things, we had the opportunity to take a canoe trip down the Kalamazoo River. It was our first trip to the river and the sites affected by the spill, like Talmadge Creek; it was our first eyewitness view of the cleanup. The IJNR experience was fantastic, but the experience of the river– which, at first glance, seem impressively clean, was rather eerie. In this installment of the series, we explain why.
So there’s your bottom five. We’ll save the top five for a second installment– coming very soon.
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 22, 2013 |
This news roundup is a little dusty, we’re sorry to say, but still relevant. Here’s a barrelful of recent items of note:
Enbridge President of U.S. Operations Stephen Wuori– yes, that Stephen Wuori— was in Michigan last week. No, he wasn’t here to talk to landowners and to apologize for the shabby treatment they’ve received at the hands of Enbridge and its pack of flighty, itinerant land agents; evidently, he is unwilling to face that unpleasant truth. Instead, he was here for a nice photo-op. Enbridge has turned over three parks that they created along the Kalamazoo River to the Calhoun Conservation Club. Obviously, we think this is a very good thing. And there’s no getting around the fact that the parks are very nice–even though, as we’ve said before, they’ve also scrubbed the area clean of the history that lead to the creation of those parks. Perhaps the Calhoun Conservation Club will put up some signs that tell the truth about those parks’ creation. They certainly should. The Battle Creek Enquirer’s Jennifer Bowman has the story.
In fact, Jennifer was quite busy last week. She also covered an interesting talk— we’re sorry we weren’t there– by our friend Steven Hamilton, the scientist from MSU who probably knows more about cleaning up diluted bitumen from waterways than any other human on the planet. If you want to know how things are really going on the Kalamazoo River, you don’t look to Steven Wuori or Jason Manshum, you look to Hamilton. Here’s a little taste of what he had to say:
“Sheen is really important to the story because it actually doesn’t take a lot of oil to make sheen,” Hamilton said. “But, we see it so you have a visible sign that there’s oil in the river when sheen is produced.”
Recent reports say the sheen doesn’t present long-term harm to river users. But Hamilton said whether it’s ecologically harmful is up for debate. And tar sands continues to be a controversial energy source.
And:
Hamilton also pointed to last year’s report from the National Transportation Safety Board, in which it said organizational failures and weak federal regulations were to blame for the 2010 spill.
“To me, that says it was preventable,” Hamilton said. “If we put enough effort and money into it, it might increase the cost of oil down to the consumer level but we can make pipelines safer if we take the right measures.”
Completely unrelated: we happened to be watching an episode of the Canadian program “Dragon’s Den” the other night, when, go figure, Enbridge’s name came up. In fact, the mention of Enbridge had everything to do with matters we were ruminating upon right here on this blog not very long ago: trees. It seems that for their “Tree for a Tree” program, Enbridge works with an outfit called Carbon Farmer. We took this as an opportunity to seek a little clarification about how, precisely, that Enbridge program works. So we wrote to Carbon Farmer with a few questions. But wouldn’t you know it? They have yet to reply. Evidently, everything Enbridge touches turns un-communicative…
Closer to home, apparently there is a bit of wariness and concern on the part of residents along phase two of Line 6B about the necessary pumping station upgrades. According to (an older) news report from one of our all-time favorite local reporters Susan Bromley, Brandon Township has approved a site plan, although some conditions of that approval have yet to be met. More recently, neighbors close to the pumping station in St. Clair township have expressed their displeasure with Enbridge’s plans. The Times Herald has that story.
Beyond Michigan, you may have heard by now about the large oil spill out in North Dakota. Obviously, this should be of concern to everybody in its own right. Even more troublesome, however, is that more recent reports seem to indicate that the company responsible for that spill, Tesoro Corp., may have known about problems with that line well before the spill? Sound familiar? If not, you haven’t read the NTSB report on the Marshall spill. And the takeaway here? Don’t feel comforted when companies like Enbridge tell you about all the fancy technology they’ve got to prevent pipeline spills. Technology, as we’ve said here many times, isn’t really the problem. Humans– that is, humans shaped by specific corporate cultures– are the real problem.
And speaking of problems we’ve experienced in Michigan that are being replicated elsewhere, you might also have heard about the gigantic piles of pet coke that are piling up along the Calumet River. Like the residents of Detroit, Chicagoans are none too happy about it. Henry Henderson has more over at the NRDC’s Switchboard blog.
Finally, a little levity from all of this unhappiness, courtesy some clever people up in Canada watching closely Enbridge’s Northern Gateway PR campaign:
by Jeffrey Insko | Jul 18, 2013 |
During this birthday/anniversary week, we’re reflecting a bit. And when we reflect on this past year, we don’t just think of all the mess, stress, destruction, and inconvenience– because this experience, strangely, has not been without compensation. We’re not talking about money (frankly, there hasn’t been nearly enough of that!). No, we’re talking about some of the fascinating things we’ve learned and done, though we’ve done some pretty fascinating things. We’re talking about all of the fantastic people we’ve met, in person and cybernetically; all of the friends we’ve made.
Now, this is a dangerous thing to do, since we run the risk of leaving someone out. But we’d like to give some heartfelt shout-outs. If we forget you, we apologize in advance. Nevertheless, we want to say that we are genuinely, truly, deeply grateful that we’ve gotten the chance to meet and know:
Carl Weimer, the Big Cheese
Rebecca Craven, brainiac
Beth Wallace, hero
Kim Savage, trench warrior
Jeff Axt, Brandon brawler
Josh Mogerman, water (and beer) watchdog
Ben Gotschall & Jane Kleeb, role models
Nate Pavlovic, prodigy
Anthony Swift & Sara Gosman, legal masterminds
Susan Connolly, Deb Miller, & Michelle Barlond Smith, K-zoo pugilists
Steve Hamilton, river baron
Kathy Thurman, model public steward
Mike Holmstrom, pipeline guru
Rosemary Ahtuangaruak, whale hunter
Mike O’Leary, wild lifer
Chris Wilson, Texas tornado
Sonia Grant, scholar
Lance Enderle, winner
Gary Field, intervenor
Jake McGraw, eco-activist
Dave Hasemyer & Lisa Song & Susan Bromley & Elana Schor & Dave Spratt & Rebecca Williams & Jack Lessenberry & Adam Hinterthuer & Morgan Sherburne & Lindsey Smith & Tiffany Stecker & Tina Casagrand, journos who give us hope (seriously, having spoken with those last four, all smart and at the very start of their careers, one actually does not despair for the future of American journalism)
And most of all, all our fellow landowners, the outspoken and the silent, who have put up with far more than they ever should have: Beth D & Donna T & Dave G & Carol B & Shannon & Linda K & Patricia & Amy N and all the others too numerous to mention who stop by and occasionally comment here & all those many others whom we’ve never even met.
In all sincerity: thank you.
by Jeffrey Insko | Apr 24, 2013 |
This morning we’ve fought our way to the surface from beneath a mountain of end-of-term student papers to bring you a brief tour of local news reports. Line 6B construction activity has been pretty quiet recently owing first to frost-law restrictions and, more recently, to rain, rain, rain. (We hope you’re staying dry!) But other things are happening, among them negotiations with landowners along phase two (about which we hope to bring you more very soon). In the meantime, we’ll just call your attention to some recent local news reports, some of them rather revealing (and not in a good way):
First, up, some unfortunate news out of Howell Township. The Livingston Daily Press & Argus reported yesterday that Enbridge apparently breached water and sewer lines at the intersection of Burhkart Road and Grand River Avenue:
[Township Treasurer Jonathan] Hohenstein said the lines were likely breached sometime in March while Enbridge was boring underground to make room for new pipeline.
For now, the damaged portion of the sewer line has been abandoned and sewage is being hauled from a pump station to the treatment plant. The damaged portion of the water line has been plugged to halt leaking.
The article contains no statement from Enbridge on the damage, but it will be interesting to see how satisfactorily this situation is resolved. Generally, we don’t like to indulge in “I-told-you-sos,” but surely someone on the Howell Township Board of Trustees is wishing they would have enforced their pipeline ordinance months ago– an ordinance that, despite Enbridge’s and the Howell Township attorney’s claims, appears to be entirely enforceable and not pre-empted by federal law, at least according to a recent federal Circuit Court decision.
Moving westward, last week a group of demonstrators gathered outside the Enbride offices in Calhoun County to protest against tar sands oil– the stuff that spilled into the Kalamazoo River, the stuff that spilled into a suburban neighborhood in Arkansas earlier this month, the stuff that the proposed Keystone XL pipeline would transport. The stuff that will be flowing through our backyards. In response to the protests, Enbridge spokesman Jason Manshum offered this extraordinarily disingenuous comment:
“The term tar sands is a misnomer. That is a slang term. There is no tar, there’s never been tar in it,” Manshum said, “It is a normal crude oil it’s just a different type. so no it is not more environmentally damaging.”
It is true that “tar sands” is a colloquial term and it is true that there is no tar in diluted bitumen. But those facts are apropos of nothing. Nobody (that we’re aware of) is claiming, or has ever claimed, that the problem with dilbit is that there is tar in it. So Manshum appears to be responding to a phantom of his very own making. It’s part of a name game that Enbridge has been playing for a long time– as our friend Josh Mogerman at the NRDC explained about three years ago.
Even farther west, late last month the good people at The Hermitage retreat center in Three Rivers held their service of lament and hope. We couldn’t make it, but about 50 people attended. As people who know a thing or two about grieving lost trees, we were struck by one ritual in particular that the participants engaged in:
To embody their prayers of lament, the group moved meditatively toward the woods, pausing to pray at several locations. They tied strips of fabric to trees tagged for cutting. The strips came from a sliced painted mural portraying a young man grieving the loss of a cut tree. The group gathered in a circle to dance and sing their prayers of hope.
Headed back to the eastern part of the state, Bruce Township last week received a $38,000 dollar check from Enbridge as payment for 5 acres of new easement in the township. And evidently Supervisor Richard Cory– no, not that Richard Cory!— has learned from other township supervisors how to (misguidedly) shrug his shoulders in resignation:
Cory said a big company like Enbridge gained approval at the state level for the pipeline so the township can’t do much about it. However, he said Enbridge has given its word to work with landowners.
“When a pipeline cuts through residential streets and people’s septics and wells, it’s huge, it’s a big concern for those people,” he said.
Even further east, according to this morning’s Detroit Free Press, Enbridge made a presentation to the Macomb County Commissioners on the Line 6B project earlier this week. The Freep article is devoid of any detail whatsoever; it doesn’t say who was there from Enbridge. Nor does it say whether the Commissioners bothered to ask any questions. It does note, however, that “Some residents in the state and environmental groups have criticized Enbridge for its plans to leave the old pipeline.”
Somewhat more entertaining is the comically hapless version of the story produced by UPI (the same people who not long ago described the NWF’s Beth Wallace as a “global warming advocate”). Almost every single sentence in the short article is wrong or imprecise, contains some typographical error or otherwise demonstrates an embarrassing lack of even the most rudimentary understanding of the Line 6B project, the Marshall spill, and dilbit. Here are just three:
-Part of a pipeline in Michigan will be filled with inert gas to make way for the construction of a new section of the line that leaked in 2010, Enbridge said.
-The company will fill the old section with inert place and leave it in place as per federal safety regulations, the Detroit Free Press reports.
-Line 6B was carrying Canadian crude oil, a type that sinks in water and is more difficult to clean than conventional crude oil.
Thankfully, the UPI article makes the one published earlier this month in a local Macomb County paper seem almost less bad by comparison. And while we think it’s perfectly appropriate to take a national, 100-year old news outlet to task for shoddy work, it gives us no pleasure to pick on little guys like reporter Matthew Fahr. But, as the Brandon Citizen’s Susan Bromley has amply demonstrated, there is no reason why a local reporter can’t be clear, thorough, and effective. Unfortunately, Matthew Fahr also doesn’t seem to have a strong understanding of the basics of the project, which he reports ” is currently going through the regulatory approval process in Oakland, Macomb and St. Clair counties.” We confess that we’re not really sure what that means. Even worse, though, is this:
Enbridge will be replacing 285 miles of natural gas pipeline, referred to by the company as Line 6B, that spans from Griffith, Ind., to Port Huron. The pipe delivers natural gas across the state to cross the border for use in Ontario, Canada.
And not to nitpick, but in addition to correcting such basic factual errors, the teacher in us would also like to help Fahr correct some of his awkward verb constructions: the project, he writes, “will be affecting counties.” Enbridge, he says, “will be replacing” pipeline. And then there’s our favorite, which gave us a chuckle not for its use of the passive voice, but for its unique rendering of the name of a familiar Enbridge spokesman: “Jason Mansion, from the Enbridge Public Affairs group, explained all aspects of how the company will be handling the project both locally and statewide.”
Happy Earth Day week everybody!
by Jeffrey Insko | Dec 27, 2012 |
Apparently, “fuming” Line 6B landowners made for the fifth biggest story of the year over at the Livingston County Daily Press & Argus. We will say this much: Christopher Behnan stayed on the story like few other local reporters (Susan Bromley and Eric Lawrence excepted). And the story made hardly any impression at all over at The Oakland Press, which is one of the great mysteries (and travesties) of the year in local journalism as far as we’re concerned.
But the Daily Press headline does have us wondering one thing: have we been fuming? Do we fume here at the Citizens’ blog? (Privately, it’s another matter altogether…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Dec 18, 2012 |
Over the past several days, we fought and clawed and wriggled our way out from under a mountain of student papers. It wasn’t easy and at times a little painful, but we got through it and we’re finally breathing fresh air again. You will be happy, or perhaps completely indifferent, to know that some students actually seemed to learn a thing or two.
At any rate, our burden has been lifted and we’re feeling free.
There is a little bit of news to catch up on. There’s been a lot of construction activity on our property the past week or so (and absolutely none in a lot of places). And we’ve got lots of pictures and video to share with you, hopefully today. In the meantime, here are a few items of note:
We hope all of our wonderful readers are enjoying these balmy pre-holiday days!
by Jeffrey Insko | Dec 11, 2012 |
We begin this installment with a correction. You see, unlike Enbridge we do not like saying things that are not strictly true. And it appears we’ve been slightly wrong about one thing:
On numerous occasions during the month of November, we mentioned that Enbridge had still not answered any of the questions they promised to answer at the Brandon “workshop” back in September. However, we learned last week that Enbridge did, in fact, provide some answers to the Board at the very end of October or early November. So while we said that it had been more than two months without any answers, it appears that Enbridge provided answers after about six weeks. We regret that we said otherwise.
Of course, we’ve since seen those answers and we can tell you that they’re not terribly thorough. Nor did they answer all of the outstanding questions from the workshop. And the “answers” did come, curiously, right before Brandon filed their intervention in federal court. And also, Brandon did have to ask Enbridge for them more than once. So the general point we’ve been making about this matter for a long time– that it simply illustrates the lack of respect and candor Enbridge has displayed in its dealings with Brandon (and other stakeholders)– still stands. But we were evidently wrong on some of the details.
Which brings us to the subject of this post. This little matter– these minor things gnaw at us because we think the truth is vitally important– got us thinking: why didn’t someone from Enbridge point out our error? After all, we know they read the blog (at least occasionally); they’ve told us they do. So here was a chance for them to prove us wrong; they could have made the case that we’ve been criticizing them unfairly. And we would have had no choice but to concede the point (on this little matter). Or at the very least, they just could have let us know what the truth is, thereby demonstrating that it means as much to them as it does to us. We’d have given them credit for correcting us. But they didn’t.
You may be wondering what this has to do with the Brandon-Enbridge agreement. Well, as we noted in our previous installments, we had a little encounter with the three Enbridge representative at the meeting on Monday. It took place during the Brandon Trustees’ arduously long closed session. There wasn’t much to do while we waited– and there were only about six of us there. Mostly, we just sat around gabbing. But not with the Enbridge contingent. Mark Curwin, Thomas Hodge, and Michael Ashton spent that long break outside.
It may be that they just wanted to enjoy the cool air; it was an awfully nice December evening. Or maybe they thought it would be a little awkward to stay in the same room with myself, Jeff Axt, and reporter Susan Bromley. Whatever the case, we figured that the separation– “us” in there and “them” out there– was equally awkward, or at least weirdly conspicuous. It seemed to us an opportunity to have an actual conversation (Hodge and Curwin had no trouble talking with Tony Amico at the meeting). And anyway, we’re all just human beings; surely we can have a civil chat. So we went outside to try.
Now it may have just been our own impression, but we thought the reception we got from the Enbridge reps seemed a little chilly. At any rate, we mentioned the blog and they said that they knew who we were and knew about the blog. We also mentioned to Hodge our interest in (what we’ve been calling) his recent Road Show and how lots of us landowners have been wondering why Hodge and Wuori were talking to the press, rather than to us. Then we asked Hodge if he’d be interested in doing a Q&A for this blog. And this is where things got a little weird.
First, Mark Curwin stepped in immediately and said (a little paternalistically) that he didn’t think that would be appropriate. But when we asked why he didn’t think it was appropriate for Hodge to talk to landowners, he said he didn’t think it was the right time or place. Evidently, he thought we were asking Hodge to do a Q&A right then and there– which we certainly, obviously, were not.
Once we got past that odd moment, however, Hodge did not accept our offer. Instead, he and Curwin talked about how they’re trying to find the “right person” to talk with us. Their explanation for this was that rather than having us go from one person to another, receiving various answers to various questions, they thought it might be best to have just one person who could answer all of our questions. But they also said they hadn’t quite figured out who that person is yet. Now, in fairness, Tom Hodge did give us his card and he and Curwin said we should feel free to send along some questions and they would get them to this yet-to-be-discovered person who could get us some answers. So we guess that’s at least something. But it’s not much.
But let’s consider some of the myriad problems with this response to our simple request for a Q&A with Tom Hodge:
As we said in an earlier installment, if we have questions that we’d like to ask Tom Hodge, then the “right person” for us to talk with is quite plainly Tom Hodge. In the same way, when we have questions for, say, Doug Aller, then we think the right person for us to talk with is Doug Aller. Or, when we want clarification from, say, Jennifer Smith about something that Jennifer Smith said, then it seems to us that the right person for us to contact for such clarification is Jennifer Smith herself. This seems like a rather simple and uncomplicated principle of ordinary communication to us.
But Enbridge appears not to operate according to ordinary principles of communication. Rather, what Curwin and Hodge were really saying to us, we think, is that we somehow need to be managed, handled carefully, dealt with through some kind of controlled message-coordinating apparatus.
Of course, as we’ve been saying for months, this is the whole problem with the way that Enbridge communicates with stakeholders. They seem to think that everything has to be managed and controlled, PR-style. They simply CAN’T– evidently as a matter of either company policy or longstanding practice–just communicate openly, honestly, and straightforwardly. That’s all I was trying to do: I walked outside, looked Tom Hodge in the eye, offered my hand, and asked him a simple, straightforward question. I gave him an opportunity to be open and honest with me. What I got in return was a needlessly complicated, un-straightforward, committee-generated reply. As a result, instead of typing up how much I appreciate Tom Hodge’s candor and his willingness to walk the walk and have a frank, respectful, productive exchange with a landowner– a critical landowner, no less– I’m typing this.
What’s so strange about this is that Enbridge’s approach in this regard isn’t even good PR. After all, if they want people like me to go away or shut up or stop criticizing them, then this is a very poor way to accomplish any of those things. In fact, it only makes matters worse. If they want people like me to tell others that Enbridge really does mean it when they say they are committed to open and honest dialogue, or that they really do take seriously stakeholder feedback, then not engaging in open and honest dialogue and not taking stakeholder feedback seriously is a very poor way to accomplish that as well. It seems absurd to have to say this, but if what you want is for people to trust you and to believe that you are honest, transparent, and straightforward, then the best thing you can do is be honest and transparent and straightforward. Otherwise, people might not trust you.
In other words, for some reason we still cannot fathom, Enbridge simply can’t see that the best kind of PR would be sitting down with homeowners, hearing them out, agreeing to fix problems and make things right, then fixing them and making them right. This would effectively solve most of their PR troubles.
Or to put this yet another way: Enbridge still hasn’t figured out that they are largely in control of what we write here at the Line 6B Citizens’ Blog. We would have no choice but to shut up if they didn’t continue to provide us with so much material.
by Jeffrey Insko | Dec 7, 2012 |
Over at the Brandon Citizen, Susan Bromley, who has covered this story like no one else, has an account of Monday’s Brandon meeting and a bit more detail on the agreement. Much of it covers the items we mentioned in the second installment of this series. But we did learn from Bromley that Enbridge is footing the bill for the legal costs Brandon incurred during this process– and that’s excellent news.
The article also includes plenty of hollow statements from Enbridge spokesperson Jason Manshum, the same sort of boilerplate remarks we’ve heard from him for months. (We’ll grant him this much: the guy stays on message.) Honestly, after all that has happened these past few months, after all we’ve learned, all we’ve documented here on this blog, and all we have experienced, we fail to see how once again saying, “”We value our relationships with all those who live and work along our pipeline right-of-way and will be working hard to minimize the impacts on the community and the affected landowners,” is even remotely helpful to anyone. As we’ve said before, just repeating something over and over and over doesn’t make it true.
Anyway, Bromley’s article also captures nicely some of the drama of the meeting, drama which took place mainly at the very end. We’ll quote a bit of that in just a moment, but we’d also like to provide just a tiny bit of setup:
It became clear by the end of Monday’s meeting that Enbridge wasn’t going to leave without an agreement. Why? Well, our theory is this: t once federal district court Judge Cleland sent the case back to state court, Enbridge felt a renewed sense of urgency. Originally, they thought dragging the POLAR lawsuit into federal court would sink it. When that didn’t happen, they needed to scramble to ensure that Brandon did not intervene again– because a state court would be far more likely to take interest in the statutory and constitutional argument put forth by both Brandon and POLAR (and the MTA). In order to prevent further delays (not to mention to risk losing!), Enbridge needed to reach an agreement with Brandon– which explains why they were so much more agreeable last Monday than they were back in, say, August.
That’s mainly speculation on our part, though we suspect it’s reasonably accurate. Whatever the case, it was obvious that Enbridge thought matters were pretty urgent at the Brandon meeting on Monday. And that induced in us a bit of déjà vu. After all, this is pretty much how our private negotiations with Enbridge went. For months, Enbridge dragged their feet. Weeks would pass by without any word from our ROW agent. But then all of a sudden, six months in, Enbridge decided that matters were urgent. They were suddenly in a big hurry and needed to reach an agreement immediately. So they snapped into action, pressured and threatened. They were determined to get their agreement. And they did.
And this is what it was like at the Brandon meeting. Here’s Bromley’s account, which picks up after the board returned from their closed session and discussed amendments to the agreement:
When Trustee Ron Lapp said he wanted to see the finished document before he approved it, Rumball, Trustee Dana DePalma and Clerk Candee Allen all agreed. But near the end of the meeting, after Cooney spoke in support of the agreement, the board had an apparent change of heart.
“I have complete confidence in Stuart (Cooney),” said Lapp, who then addressed Curwin, Enbridge Project Manager Tom Hodge, and the Enbridge attorney, asking: “Is it going to give you heartburn to wait seven more days?”
In unison, the Enbridge representatives answered “yes,” and Axt expressed disbelief that the board was expediting the process on behalf of Enbridge rather than the township residents.
The board then unanimously approved settlement, clearing the way for phase one of the project in the township to proceed.
This was a pretty dramatic moment, to which we’ll add just one little detail. When it appeared that the board members were going to ask to see a final document before approving it, Enbridge attorney Mike Ashton jumped up, approached Stuart Cooney (who was sitting right next to us), and asked if they could finalize the language of the agreement “right now.” He and Cooney then walked out. It was after this little tête-à-tête that Cooney spoke to the board.
Now, we should be clear: we’re not suggesting something nefarious went on here, just that Enbridge put on the full court press– and it worked. Yet just like in our own negotiations, the delays that caused Enbridge to become so impatient and so desperate to reach an agreement with Brandon were always of their very own making.
There’s just one last story to tell in this series until we see the final agreement: our conversation that same night with Hodge, Curwin, and Ashton. That’s coming soon…
by Jeffrey Insko | Nov 5, 2012 |
We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: no local reporter has done such excellent work on the Line 6B story as Susan Bromley of the local paper the Brandon Citizen (why The Oakland Press, for instance, has completely ignored Brandon Township we will never understand). Bromley’s latest covers the exciting development of Brandon Township’s decision to take legal action to require Enbridge to comply with the state Constitution. Township Supervisor Kathy Thurman:
“We will be requiring that Enbridge obtain consent to cross our roads,” said Supervisor Kathy Thurman. “Article 7, section 29 of the Michigan state constitution says a utility needs to obtain local consent. They are running a pipeline, so in that regard, they are a utility… We also want them to abide by ordinances.”
And on the Brandon Township woodlands ordinance:
The woodlands ordinance states that no person of any nature, for whatever reason shall develop any parcel in the township without providing a survey of woodlands on such parcel. Enbridge has not complied with the ordinance.
And finally, something we’ve said here repeatedly:
“We definitely want to see the pipeline replaced, but we are concerned that it be done in the proper manner,” said Thurman. “Enbridge does not appear to be sincere in what they have communicated to the township. They have made statements that they will get information we have requested, but they have not produced it for us.”
One more thing we’ve said repeatedly: the courage and leadership of Thurman and the other Brandon board members is an inspiration.
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 24, 2012 |
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. (more…)
