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):
[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.
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.”
-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’sSusan 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.”
How’s this for some great news: the ace reporters over at Inside Climate News— David Hasemyer, Lisa Song, and Elizabeth McGowan– have just been awarded the Pulitzer Prize for national reporting
If those names sound familiar, and they should, it’s because they’ve featured us (and by “us,” we mean landowners along Line 6B) in a number of their reports. They were recognized not just for the brilliant series “The Dilbit Disaster,” about the Marshall spill and its aftermath, but also for the follow-up stories they did on the difficulties faced by landowners like ourselves (like this one and this one and this one and this one). Here is the list of stories the Pulitzer committee cited specifically. We’ve been praising and promoting their work for months and we are so pleased that they’ve received this prestigious national honor. Hooray!
We sincerely hope that all of our readers who have dealt with Enbridge were able to figure out how to report to the IRS. Enbridge– as one might expect– did not make it easy by reporting payments on the wrong form (or so tax experts told me). But to bring a little levity to a day that’s typically not much fun for anyone, we thought we’d share this brilliantly hilarious parody. Enjoy!
It’s been a while– about four months– since we last provided an update on the lawsuit filed by POLAR (the non-profit legal defense fund Protect Our Land and Rights started by our friend Jeff Axt) in Oakland County Court. If you’ll recall, the suit sought an injunction against Enbridge, seeking Enbridge’s compliance with the “local consent” provision of the Michigan State Constitution, the state Highway Act, and the securing of all requisite environmental permits. If all of this is new to you or you’ve simply forgotten, our archives will provide you with a primer and some extended discussions of these matters.)
Eventually, Enbridge sought to remove the case to federal court, where they expected to get a friendly hearing and have the case dismissed. The federal judge did not dismiss the case, though he did rule that POLAR lacked standing in federal court. As a result, he remanded the case back to Oakland County. This seemed, at the time, potentially good news for POLAR (or so we thought), since the county court, we hoped, would have much more interest in addressing the substantive state Constitutional matters at stake– waters into which we never thought the federal judge would want to wade. We were even more hopeful given the history of the Oakland County Judge assigned to the case, Phyllis McMillen, who ruled favorably toward landowners in some of Enbridge’s condemnation suits.
Well, two weeks ago, Judge McMillen dismissed the POLAR case, finally ending the suit. The grounds of her dismissal? Not surprisingly, it was the old issue of standing. The ruling states, “At issue in the present case is whether POLAR has alleged damages of a special character distinct and different from the injury suffered by the public generally.” Then, after rehearsing POLAR’s claims about damages to its members, McMillen says,
To the extent that these paragraphs allege damages to the community as a whole, they would not qualify as special damages. As it relates to allegations of damage to POLAR’s members’ property, the alleged harm does not result from Enbridge’s alleged violation of the laws cited, i.e., failure to obtain consents and permits. Even if the proper consents and permits are acquired, Enbridg’e activities will have the same impact on the members’ proerty, and same will be perfectly lawful. Without a showing that the potential harm is “resulting from” the failure to obtain the consents and permits, POLAR has failed to allege special damages. Because POLAR has failed to allege special damages, it lacks standing to pursue the claims.
On the bright side, what this means is that Judge McMillen– not unlike the federal judge– did not rule on the substantive questions in the suit (ie, whether Enbridge is required to seek “local consent,” whether Enbridge is a “common carrier,” etc.). What’s more, Enbridge asked to have the suit dismissed “with prejudice,” which essentially would have meant that POLAR could not refile the suit. But McMillen chose to dismiss “without prejudice,” which means that her ruling was confined strictly to the procedural matter of standing. So the substantive questions live and could be raised again in a new filing.
So POLAR’s not finished yet. They are pursuing other legal avenues as well, including appeals of the MPSC rulings in both Phases 1 and 2, appeals that are still pending. We will do our best to keep you updated.
As the rain rains and the poor, nervous dog shakes and cowers from the thunder outside, we’re playing some catch-up here on the blog. Frankly, we’re a little swamped with posts-that-need-to-be-posted and not quite sure which ones to type up first. Earlier today, we brought you news of a promising legal development in Indiana, and we’ve got bad legal news from Michigan to share as well. We’ve also been bookmarking links to articles about the dreadful spill in Arkansas and plan to do a roundup post about that incident and its relation to Line 6B. And there are restoration matters to discuss and describe– specifically, an overdue tree post–as well. We’re not sure if we can get to all of it today, but we’ll get to some of it.
But this post is about none of those things. Instead, it’s an update on the frustrating dirt story we brought you last week. If you recall, construction crews mindlessly piled a mountain of subsoil right on top of our top soil– something that is not just bad practice, but in clear violation of their own stated procedures and our line list agreement. Needless to say, we contacted our right of way agent to try and resolve the matter.
As we’ve said before, during the construction phase of this project, our ROW agent has been quite responsive (more so, as we understand it, than many other agents, unfortunately). So last week, he came out along with the project’s environmental inspector. The inspector confirmed that we had, as he put it, a “legitimate gripe” and agreed that all of our top soil was compromised. To rectify the matter, our agent agreed to add to our line list a couple of important revisions: significant decompaction of our subsoil– our property has taken a real beating with heavy equipment, as it has more or less been the primary staging area for the immediate neighborhood– and, equally important, bringing in new top soil to replace the stuff ruined by mixing last week.
In terms of (hopefully) restoring our property to some remote semblance of what it was before– a green-wall of beautiful trees and a lush perennial garden, this is very important and give us a glimmer of hope that plants will grow and flourish back there again.
One of the things we have said repeatedly here at the blog is that Enbridge is largely in control of what we write about them. They have no one but themselves to blame that most of what we’ve written here has been critical. But here’s a post that illustrates the former point: on this matter of our dirt, Enbridge worked with us promptly, efficiently, and cooperatively to correct their mistake. We’re grateful for that.
There is some interesting– and promising– news out of northern Indiana this week. As you may recall, the hardworking folks at Save the Dunes have been trying to ensure that the Line 6B replacement does not harm sensitive wetlands. In that effort, they have been talking with local officials in LaPorte County. Now the LaPorte Herald-Argus reports that LaPorte County officials plan to “require a review of the project because it appears to fall within the regulations of its joint zoning ordinance.”
The wind in LaPorte County’s sails comes from a recent federal court decision. On March 25, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court issued a ruling in Maryland stating that federal law does not preempt the enforcement of local zoning laws. (Super legal nerds can read the ruling here.) Specifically, the Court upheld an earlier court ruling dismissing a complaint from Washington Gas Light Company declaring that the National Gas Pipeline Safety Act (PSA), the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and state law preempt Prince George County zoning plans. Washington Gas therefore sought an injunction preventing the county from enforcing its zoning laws.
But the Court rejected Washington Gas’s complaint, noting that the federal laws apply to matters of safety, not to siting and routing. The Court ruled:
the PSA does not preempt the County Zoning Plans because the PSA only preempts safety regulations and the County Zoning Plans are not safety regu- lations; and (3) the NGA does not preempt the County Zoning Plans because the NGA only preempts state and local laws governing interstate natural gas operations and, per the NGA, Washington Gas is a local distribution company.
In our view– and, evidently, in the view of the LaPorte County attorney– this ruling bodes very well for the efforts of local municipalities to have some input into the Line 6B project. Our regular readers might recall that, just like Washington Gas, Enbridge’s response to local governments has always been “pipelines are regulated at the federal level”– a misleading claim at best, as we’ve discussed before on more than one occasion. And had the 4th Circuit Court’s ruling been handed down some months ago, it might well have helped Brandon Township and Howell Township enforce their ordinances, which like the Zoning Ordinances of Prince George County do not attempt to regulate pipeline safety. Looking ahead to Phase Two of the Line 6B project, this ruling might yet be of some use not just to LaPorte County in Indiana, but some Michigan townships as well– if you’re on Phase Two, you might mention this to your township supervisor. The ruling might also be of some help to POLAR in its ongoing cases (about which we hope to post in detail later today).
We will keep you updated on matters in Indiana. For now, we’d just like to commend folks down there, especially Nate Pavlovic and Michael Hollcraft, and County Attorney Shaw Friedman, for their dedication to the protection of valuable ecosystems.
While not directly about Line 6B matters, we’ve encountered a number of tangentially-related material the past couple of days deserving of your attention, not least of which are some follow-ups to the awful spill in Arkansas, a terrible, vivid reminder of why all of us should be deeply concerned and continue to speak up and help foster public discussion of pipeline safety.
Some of our favorite journalists are on the case. Over at her “Riding the Pipelines” blog, Elana Schor provides some interesting— and disturbingly familiar to those who have read the NTSB report on Marshall–background on Exxon’s safety record with regard to the Pegasus line that just burst.
And Lisa Song, who has evidently been extraordinarily busy the past few days, has a terrific article at Inside Climate News linking the Arkansas spill to the recent petition to the EPA and PHMSA filed by the National Wildlife Federation and others for stricter regulations of tar sands oil transport. What caught our eye in particular was this:
The section of the pipeline involved in Friday’s spill in Arkansas was originally built in the 1940s, according to an Exxon spokesperson. The full length of the pipline was used to transport crude oil from Nederland, Texas north to Patoka, Illinois. After lying mostly idle for four years, the pipeline’s flow was reversed in 2006 to carry Canadian dilbit to Gulf Coast refineries. Exxon said the reversal was an industry first, and that it required 240,000 man-hours of work to accomplish.
That’s right: Exxon reactivated a 66 year-old, 20-inch pipe so that they could pump diluted bitumen through it, which must be sort of like sucking peanut butter through a paper straw. And of course, considering that there’s a soon-to-be-idle line in our backyard right now, these examples of pipeline reactivation make us very, very nervous.
Closer to Michigan, the Detroit Free Press has just run two very interesting articles: one about the state of gas pipelines in Michigan and the costs (and difficulties) in repairing them and the second about the dreadful regulatory situation regarding those same lines. The Freep had the good sense to call up our friends at the Pipeline Safety Trust. In the first article, Executive Director Carl Weimer points out the primary difficulty when it comes to repairing these lines (and ensuring public safety!): “What it comes down to in most every state we’ve looked into is, who is going to pay for that replacement?” he said. “It often gets passed along to ratepayers, and public service commissions hate to do that because they catch a lot of grief.” And speaking of the public service commission (which certainly wouldn’t want to catch any grief!) in the second article, the PS Trust’s Rebecca Craven (another of our heroes) notes that the commission’s general haplessness (that’s our characterization, not Rebecca’s) is compounded by the same woeful lack of staffing and resources that plagues PHMSA and agencies in other states:
“They [PHMSA] simply don’t have the number of inspectors they need to adequately oversee the amount of pipeline in the system, and states are in the same boat,” said Rebecca Craven, program director of the Bellingham, Wash.-based Pipeline Safety Trust, a nonprofit organization that advocates for improved energy transportation safety.
Up in Canada, there’s a great article in the Tyee about pipeline safety and landowner advocate Dave Core, who is the founder of the Canadian Association of Energy and Pipeline Landowner Associations (and yet another of our heroes!). Dave recently gave a presentation to a Canadian senate committee. What he had to say will surely resonate with most readers of this blog. Here’s a little taste:
“My goal this morning is to bring perspective to the issues of landowners when confronted by pipeline companies. That is, the issues when private property owners, like yourselves, come up against government supported and subsidized corporations that are allowed to come packing with government regulations to take our lands, our rights and leave us with annual risks, liabilities, a duty of care that we do not want, costs and the pipeline junk which includes the resulting safety and liability issues of historical contamination and pipeline collapse when the companies pack up and leave.
“Before I proceed I would like you to pretend you are sitting around a kitchen table with your family and a ‘land agent’ has just left you with a brown envelope with a Section 87 Notice, an NEB Regulatory Notice, stating that a pipeline company is going to put a pipeline in your backyard and the easement agreement and the compensation offer are included.
“The stress has only just begun. Next come teams of land agents, the men trained in profiling and in telling every tale they can to get the deal signed while they sit at your kitchen table drinking your coffee. He/she might even be your neighbour’s son or daughter. It is like you have stepped into a spaghetti western with cowboys coming to your door, not packing a gun, but a big smile, lots of lies and packing government regulations that allow them to threaten you if you question them.”
Also from Canada comes this interesting op-ed in the New York Times, providing a counterpoint to tar sands development boosterism.
And finally, one closer to home. The Livingston Daily Press & Argusran an article a couple of weeks ago that slipped past our radar (thanks for sending it, Beth Duman!). It’s about the dissatisfaction of some landowners– those good people the Nashes and the Watsons– as construction nears completion. The bad news, however, is that even though the construction phase is coming to a close, a whole new round of likely headaches and difficulties is on the horizon: the restoration phase. You can bet we’ll be on the case.
Speaking of Lisa Song, she also has an excellent report on the recent EPA order to Enbridge requiring more cleanup of the Marshall spill. Enbridge has agreed to comply with the order (there was some doubt about whether they would). It’s not clear whether this means they’re rethinking their claims about how the river is “cleaner than ever.”
Press for Tar Sands Petition
And speaking of concerns about dilbit, the tar sands regulation petition spearheaded by the National Wildlife Federation has received plenty of press of national attention (we participated in a telepresser on the matter just last week)– in New England, in Nebraska, in Minnesota, and in Indiana, where the Northwest Indiana Times has a report by one of our favorite reporters Lauri Harvey Keagle (and no, that’s not just because of the quote at the end of the article!).
More Weak Michigan Regulatory Oversight
A few weeks back, we linked to some potentially disturbing stories about piles of petroleum coke, a byproduct of diluted bitumen, piled up along the banks of the Detroit River. Since that time, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality has apparently looked into the matter. But don’t worry, they didn’t look too hard. And they responded, true to state regulatory form, with little more than a shrug of the shoulders. Consequently, we recommend against consuming any walleye that comes out of that river.
More Michigan Townships Prepare for the Enbridge Experience
As for Line 6B matters, landowners and townships are preparing for their own encounters with Enbridge as work on phase two nears its commencement. If anyone knows anyone along the route, we hope you’ll share this blog with them; our mission has always been to help inform and protect landowners. For our part, we plan to send a note to Bruce Township Supervisor Richard Cory, who recently expressed some (reasonable, appropriate) concerns about how the project will affect residents. Those concerns were addressed by an Enbridge rep we’ve never heard of:
Supervisor Richard Cory said he was worried about some residents east of Van Dyke since the line will run close to septic fields and property.
Doug Reichley, Enbridge project manager, said Enbridge will work with consultants to have a permanent fix if something needs to be altered, even if it’s engineering a new septic field.
“Our whole point is to take care of these folks and make sure when we leave it’s as good or better than when we first got there,” Reichley said.
With that in mind, Trustee Paul Okoniewski asked if the company would cap 36 Mile Road with limestone from Dequindre to Van Dyke after running its equipment on it.
“It will impact the road with the construction and trucks,” he said.
Reichley said he and other representatives would bring it to the project director’s attention. Similarly, he said Enbridge will replace any torn up grass, trees or fencing caused by construction.
We’ve heard these sorts of assurances before– and we all know how that has gone. Incidentally, we’re most struck here by Doug Reichley’s remarks about replacing trees. We’ve looked into that matter and are working on an extended tree post. Stay tuned for that one in the coming days!
And while pipeline opponents seem to have targeted firms like Enbridge, Daniel insists its green efforts “have not been forgotten by the people that matter.
“When we were in Michigan in 2010 (at the oil pipeline rupture site) one of the first things people who live there told us they did was Google Enbridge because they had no idea of who we were. And they got a very favourable impression when they saw the extent of our renewable and sustainable development.”
Daniel said the pipeline rupture “is less of an issue the closer you get to Kalamazoo and Marshall” because of Enbridge’s cleanup efforts.
That’s right. If you believe Pat Daniel, Marshall might seem like a big deal up in Canada, but down in Marshall, it’s all good. Just ask the people there: Beth Wallace, Susan Connolly, Deb Miller, Michelle Barlond-Smith (and lots of others) will surely tell you what a non-issue that spill is; they’ll eagerly tell you just how favorable their impressions of Enbridge really are.
Beyond Marshall, Daniel says “he can’t understand how opponents can delay pipelines, which mean congestion and much lower prices for Canadian crude”– a statement that once again just confirms everything we’ve said about him in the past. Of course he “can’t understand.” He can’t understand because he lives in a bubble, surrounded by yes-men, showered in praise and awards, completely and utterly isolated from ordinary landowners whose everyday lives are affected by Enbridge’s projects and practices. From all available evidence, Pat Daniel has never— despite what the corporate values developed under his leadership state– bothered to “take the time to understand the perspective of others.”
Long time readers of this blog know (we hope) that we have always tried very hard not to dwell on our personal situation, even though we do occasionally report on what’s happening around our property. But when we do, we generally do it to illustrate more general principles about the way Enbridge often carelessly and thoughtlessly (or callously) conducts its business. So it is with the story we have to tell today.
First, just a little context. In the temporary workspace that Enbridge required on our property was a stand of over 100 trees (some of them were also within Enbridge’s existing easement) and our precious perennial garden, which we planned, dug, planted, and tended ourselves over a period of years. This is what it looked like the spring before Enbridge arrived:
Enbridge leveled all of it. And because there was nothing we could to to prevent them from doing so, we instead gave a great deal of thought and concern to restoration. We’re obviously not a farm, but in order to replant some version of our green wall and our garden, we need productive, fertile soil. From the start, this has always been our primary concern.
Our attempts to have some assurances about care and handling and restoration of our soil inserted into our agreement with Enbridge during negotiations were summarily rejected. Instead, they just referred us to their general remediation practices (we could show you the emails from our ROW agent) and said, essentially, “trust us.” They directed us to the “Environmental Impact Report” on file with the Michigan Public Service Commission for a description of those practices. So let’s take a quick look at a bit of that document.
Under “Clearing and Site Preparation” the report says that “All brush and other materials cleared from upland areas within the construction corridor will be placed as a windrow along the construction corridor and disposed of as agreed to with the landowner.” In our case, what Enbridge agreed to is this (from our construction line list): “Trees with with pink ribbons are to be cut and saved for landowner at NE corner of property. Trees without ribbons are to be cut and hauled away.”
Here is what that looked like after construction crews did their clearing:
Two things to note here. First, that pile of timber on the left side of the image? Those are the trees we asked to have saved. But that’s not, as the agreement states, the NE corner of the property. And second, see the piles all along the orange fence in the middle and right of the image? That’s the shredded remains of the rest of the trees. Those piles should have been hauled away– that’s what we wanted to happen; that’s what we were told would happen– according to our agreement. But as you can see, they weren’t. In fact, they’re still there now (as you’ll see in a moment).
Now, we never complained about either of these things. The timber placement isn’t really a big deal and while we feared the shredded material might eventually become a problem, we trusted that they’d keep it segregated and haul it away after the pipe is placed in the ground. And since we don’t really like to complain constantly, we let these things go.
Much more important than those matters is what the Enbridge Environmental Impact Report and our agreement have to say about the handling of soil (much of which, in our case, isn’t ordinarily topsoil as we brought in loads of rich garden soil when we created our perennial bed). And we’ll just reiterate that we invested a lot of love and sweat into that soil, which is why, as some of you may recall, we were so upset the day a bulldozer started pushing the neighbor’s weed-filled dirt onto our property.
Anyway, here’s what it says in the Impact Report:
Topsoil generally has physical and chemical properties that are conducive to good plant growth. To prevent the mixing of topsoil with less productive subsoil during construction, topsoil will be segregated in selected areas where soil productivity is an important consideration. A minimum one foot of separation must be maintained between the topsoil and subsoil piles to prevent mixing. Where the one foot separation cannot be maintained, a physical barrier, such as a thick layer of straw mulch, may be used between the spoil and topsoil piles to prevent mixing. Use of the physical barrier must be reviewed and approved by Enbridge on a site-specific basis.
So far more than the handling of cleared timber, we’ve always been concerned about this practice, especially the segregation of subsoil and topsoil. That’s why we had this listed also, very clearly, in our line list agreement, which says: “Separate topsoil from subsoil, upon completion restore topsoil to surface and properly de-compact the work area.”
It’s hard to see the pile of stripped topsoil in the picture above, but it’s on the far side of the piles of shredded material. Here are a couple of up-close pictures, the second from a different angle, of the pile of topsoil (in the foreground):
And here is just one more, looking along the temporary workspace line. Behind the orange fence, you can see the shredded material and the pile of topsoil to the left of that. Now, we can tell you that plenty of excavated subsoil was placed in close proximity to this topsoil, certainly closer than the one foot separation listed in the Report.
So where is this headed? Well, yesterday construction crews were hard at work on our property, finally putting the pipe in the ground. That means some serious excavation– the removal of lots and lots of subsoil. And in one place, where they will tie in to the pipe they bored underground several weeks ago, they had to install a big blue steel box because the slope of the trench walls are very steep. Here’s a look:
By now, we’re sure you know where this is going. All of that dirt (clay, really) they excavated to lay the pipe and install that big blue box had to be piled somewhere. Here they are piling it:
See where they put all that excavated subsoil? Yep, right on top of our topsoil and even spilling into and onto the shredded material. So much for segregation. Here is a shot from the same angle as the one of the topsoil above:
And here is a closeup of the new mixture:
As we said at the start of this post, we don’t like to dwell on our personal situation. Mostly that’s because we know very well that compared to many others affected by this project– like our friends Beth Duman and Amy Nash, not to mention plenty of other people we’ve heard from or heard about– we don’t have it so bad, even though the state of soil on our property does mean a great deal to us. Many good people along Line 6B are in far, far worse situations than we are. We are very sensitive to that fact.
But that doesn’t excuse these violations. In fact, the sort of thing we’re describing here has happened and is happening all up and down the line. Enbridge would have you believe that these are just mistakes, aberrations. That’s what we’ve been told in the past by Enbridge executives. Mark Sitek told us, “we’re not perfect.” Mark Curwin told us “mistakes happen.” And those things are probably true. We get that. We even let little mistakes (like the placement of those felled trees) pass.
But when these things happen repeatedly (we’ve documented how many just on our property?). when a large percentage (a third? half?) of landowners have each witnessed two, three, four, or more “mistakes” on their own properties, when the same sort of “mistake” is made over and over again, well, then it ceases to be a mistake and has to be called a pattern of behavior, evidence of shoddy practices. And it’s a pattern of behavior and a set of practices that are totally at odds with the way Enbridge presents itself to the public and with the way that Enbridge presented itself to the MPSC. In fact, as our citations from the Environmental Impact Report (submitted as evidence to the MPSC) show, Enbridge, one can only conclude, simply misrepresented to that agency the way that it conduct its business. (Not that the MPSC much cares.)
Now, we’re not without some slight measure of confidence– though we’re extremely wary– that Enbridge will try to take steps to make this situation with our soil right. But it’s going to take a fair amount of effort and convincing on our part, adding more frustrating experiences to our already rich store of them. And the fact is, as we have said dozens of times, it didn’t have to be this way. It doesn’t have to be this way. If only they just do as they say.
Yesterday, we took part in a telephone press conference (a “tele presser”) to announce a petition to PHMSA and the EPA spearheaded by the National Wildlife Federation and supported by a coalition of citizens and citizen groups. The petition seeks greater scrutiny, oversight, and safety standards for tar sands oil pipelines. We are happy to support the petition– and grateful to our friend Beth Wallace for the invitation to join the presser and for her work on the petition. Here is the press release, with a link to the petition:
Coalition Petitions EPA, DOT to Protect Water, Wildlife & Communities from Tar Sands Spills
ANN ARBOR, MICH. (March 27, 2013) – A coalition of landowners, former and current government officials, environmental, renewable energy and sportsmen’s groups filed a petition today with the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asking the agencies to develop stronger safety standards for tar sands oil pipelines.
“Three years after the largest inland oil spill in U.S. history, little has been done to improve pipeline safety,” said Beth Wallace with the Great Lakes Regional Center. “This disaster should have been a wake-up call to industry, regulators and public officials. Instead industry is being allowed to expand pipelines across the region and even under the Great Lakes themselves, which will continue to put communities, wildlife and our economy at risk.”
The petition effort is spearheaded by the National Wildlife Federation and includes 29 national, state and local organizations as well as 36 landowners from states across the country impacted by existing and proposed tar sands pipelines. It requests a halt to new or expanded tar sands pipelines until adequate rules are in place.
“This petition is an exercise of citizens’ rights to request that government live up to its charge to follow the law, and protect us from the harms and risk of a tar sands pipeline spill,” said Jim Murphy, Senior Council at the National Wildlife Federation. “Until the right standards are put into place, we shouldn’t be exposing more communities and resources to tar sands risks. We expect the government to answer our request and live up to its charge to properly address the unique risks of tar sands transportation.”
Current pipeline regulations were issued long before tar sands oil production ramped up and do not cover the unique aspects of tar sands. Tar sands oil poses more acute risks than conventional fuels shipped through pipelines because the oil is a volatile mix of raw bitumen – an asphalt-like substance – diluted with gas condensates. Diluted bitumen is a toxic, viscous, corrosive substance with the consistency of gritty peanut butter that must be moved at much higher pressures and temperatures than conventional oil. Strong evidence indicates tar sands oil threatens pipeline integrity.
“Even after what happened in Marshall, pipeline companies have continued to run roughshod over the state of Michigan while regulatory agencies and elected officials have stood by idly and allowed it to happen,” said Jeff Inkso, writer of the Line 6B citizen blog and landowner impacted by the Enbridge expansion project.
Between 2007 and 2010, pipelines in North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan — the main states with a history of tar sands oil pipelines — spilled almost three times more crude oil per mile of pipeline when compared to the U.S. national average. In a scathing report on the Kalamazoo River spill near Marshall, MI, the National Transportation Safety Board pointed blame at current regulations, calling them “weak” and “inadequate.”
“Minnesota has experienced 11 oil pipeline leaks since 2002 according to PHMSA,“ said Gary Botzek, executive director of the Minnesota Conservation Federation, “We need to do a much better job of protecting our human populations and our wildlife populations that live next to these big pipelines.“
The petition requests new standards tightening several aspects of oil transport and pipeline safety:
Stronger safety requirements than those for conventional crude oil;
Industry disclosure of products carried through pipelines and their conveyance schedules;
Stronger industry spill response plans;
Shut-down requirements upon the first indication of a leak or other pipeline failure;
Repair of pipelines as soon as defects are discovered;
Transparent pipeline inspection reporting; and
Pipeline inspection and monitoring by independent entities unaffiliated with pipeline or energy companies;
A moratorium on building new or expanded tar sands pipelines until new regulations are final.
Supporters of the petition will be seeking cosigners over the next few months. Under the U.S. Constitution and the federal Administrative Procedure Act, citizens can file a formal petition requesting that a federal agency take specific actions required by law or change existing regulations. This petition requests a change in existing regulations. Federal agencies are required to respond.
National Wildlife Federation is America’s largest conservation organization, inspiring Americans to protect wildlife for our children’s future.
We are sorry for our recent silence. But rest assured we are still on the case. In fact, just today we’ve been taking pictures of the pipe that has actually made its way into the ground– a spring miracle! Oh, and we took those pictures after the telepresser this morning called by our friends at the National Wildlife Federation.
More on these things and other matters coming in the next couple of days. Please come back!
Well, this one’s hard to resist: the debate up in Canada over Enbridge’s Northern Gateway project– basically, Canada’s version of Keystone XL– continues. And just last week, in testimony before the Canadian Joint Review Panel, an industry “consultant” named John Thompson offered some pretty novel testimony. You see, it turns out that oil spills have a way of kind of correcting themselves because they are actually economically beneficial.
Seriously. Citing the famous 1989 Exxon Valdez spill, Thompson goes on:
Although a spill could have a big impact on the fishery, Thompson said compensation and other opportunities – such as working on clean up crews – will ensure people don’t lose any income. He said the compensation packages would not just go to those catching the fish but also people working in processing industries.
“The net result of these whole compensation schemes is the idea that at the end of the day, nobody is any worse off than they were beforehand,” he said. “So what you would see is that the income levels would remain the same, the source of the income would differ. Instead of getting it directly from sales of product, it would be through the income compensation.”
I assume this sort of thing applies to Marshall, Michigan as well. Nobody there is “any worse off than they were before.” Right?
While we were toiling away all last week at our regular job, a number of interesting Enbridge-related news items appeared. The most important of which, of course, is the new EPA order telling Enbridge they need to do more dredging to remove oil from the Kalamazoo River. Enbridge has 15 days to respond to the order, although indications are– judging from what’s coming out of Jason Manshum’s mouth– that they’ll be looking for ways to resist the order:
Enbridge spokesman Jason Manshum released a statement touting the progress of the cleanup to date and suggesting that “dredging and active recovery may cause incremental damage as determined by the U.S. EPA’s own Net Environmental Benefit Assessment.”
“The weathered and degraded oil remaining in the river is in extremely small concentrations found in the bottom sediments (and) is nonhazardous upon incidental contact according to the results of a study conducted by the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH).
Our favorite part of this is when Manshum then adds, by way of a complete non sequitur, “Furthermore, the drinking water from private wells near the river has been and continues to (be) safe for consumption, as verified by the MDCH”– something that is evidently true, but has nothing whatsoever to do with the EPA’s order for more dredging.
But of course, as we have pointed out before, Enbridge’s style of communication does not always adhere to the ordinary rules of rational discourse. For instance, Manshum’s statement about the EPA order also says that Enbridge is “focused on cooperation with the EPA and other authorities in doing what is best for the river and the environment based on analysis and sound science.” Yet Enbridge appears to have some slightly different ideas about what constitutes “sound science” than the rest of us. Case in point, a recent study commissioned by Enbridge that claims that dilbit floats in water– a rather startling claim given the fact the dilbit they spilled into the Kalamazoo River did NOT float. It sank. Which is why the EPA wants them to do more dredging.
Samples from a county drain are being tested after a sheen was detected on the water’s surface over the weekend near the Enbridge Inc. facility in southeastern Ingham County
As of Tuesday night, no petroleum had been detected, but testing was continuing, Deputy Ingham County Drain Commissioner Carla Clos said Tuesday afternoon.
“At this point, we don’t really know what it is,” Clos said. “(The tests) are not showing anything to be worried about.”
For our part, we have our doubts that there’s anything much to this. At the same time, we also have our doubts about what’s coming out of the mouth of our old pal Larry Springer, who, by way of offering reassurances, tells us it might just be… um, decaying leaves:
Many things other than petroleum can cause a sheen on water, including decaying leaves, and there was no indication of an oil or gas leak, [Larry] Springer said.
But in both cases, we admit, we don’t really know. We hope that local and state officials continue to monitor the matter closely.
Moving north, there are a couple of interesting items out of Wisconsin. A state Court of Appeals has ruled that a family can pursue a trespass claim against Enbridge for allegedly exceeding the easement rights they have on the family’s land. The ruling means that the family could force Enbridge to remove pipelines they’ve installed on the family’s property.
Even farther north, up in Canada (unless we’re accused of being unfair!) comes this heartwarming article about what great neighbors Enbridge has been while working on Line 9.
By way of counterpoint, closer to home residents over in Rose Township, just to our west, haven’t had quite the same pleasant experience. The Tri County Times this week has the story of some construction trouble in that area. Resident Ellie Vance has some positive words to say about Enbridge’s contractor, but not so much for Enbridge and its ROW agents:
One supervisor with Precision Pipeline has picked her up personally from her door with a golf cart to take her out to her car, which is marooned on the other side of the construction. She has enjoyed dealing with the Precision Pipeline, the group carrying out the work on the pipeline that Enbridge owns. She does not, however, like working with Enbridge. She has been through two land agents, and said the recent land agent has been very brisk.
Ordinarily, we try not to take pleasure in the misfortune of others. But we have to admit to kind of enjoying it when this construction truck got stuck in the mud on our property this morning. It was sunk so deep they had to use the gigantic backhoe to drag it out.
In fact, we figure it’s some kind of cosmic payback for yesterday’s construction line list violation. You see, as we were trying to enjoy a quiet Sunday breakfast, construction crews gathered, fired up equipment, and started doing we’re-not-sure-what in our backyard. Here they are:
But our agreement clearly states that no work will take place on our property on Sundays. Our ROW agent promptly looked into the matter, which mostly took care of the problem– although our property was still a thruway for equipment for most of the day.
Here’s a distrubing story. You see, apparently pipeline spills are not the only way that the diluted bitumen Enbridge transports can foul Michigan rivers. Let us tell you about “petcoke.”
A byproduct of the refining process, petroleum coke is a fine powder that can be burned like coal and used in other processes, like making asphalt. The Marathon refinery in Detroit– you will recall that they recently completed a multi-million dollar expansion so that they could refine more of the dilbit Enbridge pipes to them– produces enormous piles of the stuff, which they then sell.
Apparently, the Michigan DEQ is now on the case. We wait anxiously to see what sort of action will be taken– but given the record of Michigan politicians and state regulations on these sorts of matters, we’re not all that confident.
You might recall that a week or so ago we mentioned that we are so very sick of looking at the strings of green steel pipe in our backyard. Well, we’re still sick of it. And we asked our ROW agent and Project Manager Tom Hodge when we might expect that pipe to be placed in the ground and restoration to begin. Here is what we learned:
Because on a couple of properties just a few hundred feet from ours the pipe runs very close those property owners’ homes (we’re talking maybe 20 feet!), they are boring, rather than digging. This apparently takes a bit more time. But once they’ve done that, they can tie the pipe in our yard into that bore. If all goes well, they anticipate all of that to be completed in the next two weeks. Hooray!
Beyond that, Tom Hodge says that they hope to have everything in the ground– there are apparently still some spots over in the Stockbridge area and elsewhere to the east where crews are still tying in– by the end of April. Restoration will then begin as soon as the ground is dry enough for crews to work on it without leaving ruts and so forth.
As for the details of restoration, well, we’ve got some more inquiries in regarding some of those matters and will report to you what we learn if and when we learn some things.
We’re trying to find the time to provide you with a detailed account of our (surprisingly pleasant) experience speaking to the Michigan chapter of the International Right of Way Association. In the meantime, we’ll offer another teaser.
Our readers know (we hope) that we pride ourselves here at the Line 6B blog on telling the truth and calling ’em like we see ’em. Here are a couple things that, as we see them, are true:
Beth Wallace of the National Wildlife Federation is really smart and doing important work. That’s her below speaking to the IRWA on Thursday. Attorney Kim Savage (that’s the back of her head in the other photo– sorry for such horrible pictures!) is also exceedingly smart–and she gives lawyers a GOOD name. We’re proud to know them both.
Here’s something we never ever would have imagined we would say: if you ever get a chance to go and speak to the Michigan chapter of the International Right of Way Association, take it. Those people are great.
It’s an appalling state of affairs, in our view. And while we realize the regulatory matters aren’t the sexiest topic in the world, we think this is a tremendously important story. It’s regrettable that it’s not the sort of story anyone in the media is likely to write about. Boring as it is, this is exactly how important matters (do not) get done.
Which brings us to the latest out of the MPSC (which we learned about thanks to our friend Kim Savage). Turns out, it’s not just Enbridge that gets to disregard the public. The MPSC is happy to grant Consumer’s Energy the same privilege. You see, Consumer’s has applied to the MPSC for their own certificate of public necessity. They want to install some 25 miles of new natural gas pipeline over on the western part of the state.
Now, in compliance with MPSC procedures, Consumer’s is required to send out a Notice of Hearing to solicit filings for public appearances regarding their application– you may recall that this was something of a sticking point with Enbridge’s application. We wrote about it here and here. Anyway, here is the interesting– that is to say, disturbing part: Consumer’s Notice was not sent to even one single individual resident. That’s right, not one. And this despite the fact that as Consumer’s notes in their application, “The Project will cross approximately 4 acres of residential land. Based on a review of aerial photography 11 homesteads were identified as being within 200 feet of the proposed route.” That’s excluding farmland.
How is this possible? How is that Consumer’s can get away with not sending a Notice to those who are likely to be affected by this construction, whether directly or indirectly? Well, it turns out that the requirement for these Notices of Hearings is only that the applicant notify those who IT deems it has not obtained sufficient property rights. The fact that those 11 homesteads in close proximity to the project are going to be affected one way or another– wouldn’t you want to know about a major infrastructure project 200 feet away from your home?– evidently isn’t all that important to the MPSC, and certainly not to Consumer’s Energy. This is how the MPSC serves the public interest.
Note that we’re not talking about any onerous regulations on industry here. We’re talking about what ought to be the very bare minimum: making sure that the general public, and especially those landowners who will be impacted directly, are informed. Is that too much to ask?
The pipeline company responsible for the 2010 tar sands oil spill that fouled almost 40 miles of the Kalamazoo River is refusing to pay $800,000 to complete two new studies to assess the spill’s damage.
Trustees of the National Resource Damage Assessment, an effort to assess the damage caused by oil spills and other hazards, wants Enbridge to participate in the studies, which involve vegetation and recreational use in the area affected by the spill.
The group comprises state and federal agencies, such as the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as two tribal governments.
But Enbridge notified trustees in June and October that it was “declining to cooperate” because adequate data had already been collected.
Here we have yet another example of something we have discussed repeatedly over the past eight months: Enbridge’s unwillingness to take full and complete responsibility for the Marshall spill. Instead, they only pretend to take responsibility. Mostly, they want to pretend that the Marshall debacle is over and done with; they want desperately just to move on. We’ve covered numerous examples of this:
The point in all of those cases (and others) has always been the same: Enbridge seems not to understand what it means to truly take responsibility. They seem to think that somehow they get to decide when things have been made right. But truly taking responsibility means leaving that determination up to those whom you have wronged, or those in a position to decide when the situation you created has been rectified, when the mess you have made has been cleaned up.
What’s even worse is that in the face of that disaster and Enbridge’s refusal to fully take responsibility for it, the good people of the state of Michigan have STILL allowed Enbridge to build a new pipe that will increase the capacity of oil they can transport and thereby increase their profits– by millions and millions of dollars.
When it comes to Enbridge lately, mostly we sit around waiting for the stretches of green steel pipe that dominate our backyard vista to somehow burrow their way into the ground– so that we can finally stop looking at them. Well, that’s not totally true. We’ve been trying to get some answers as to when construction might wrap up, so we can begin devising a tree-replanting plan. But we have been waiting to hear back from Tom Hodge with an update.
We’ve also been trying to get some more information regarding the Environmental Stewardship program that we’ve been told has finally been rolled out to all townships along the route. As soon as we have that information, you can bet we’ll tell you all about– so that you can begin thinking of ways to benefit your local areas. We’ve made some inquiries on related matters, too, but again are waiting–patiently, but a bit anxiously, at this point–for some responses. Why anxiously? Well, when days (or weeks) begin to pass without any replies, we start to remember the other times we’ve been brushed off by Enbridge folks (and the other other times).
But while we wait for those things, we thought we’d point you in the direction of some other interesting, and totally unrelated (to one another) matters:
We are completely fascinated by (and filled with admiration for) the actions of the Red Lake Nation up in Northern Minnesota. They’re staging a blockade against a 60-year old Enbridge pipeline– a pipeline that was built on sovereign lands without permission. You can learn about the story here.
Closer to home, we are very interested in a request from Bruce Township (over to our east) for some help from Enbridge treating their battered roads with limestone. Enbridge, apparently, has said they would take the request “into consideration.” We hope they will. As we have said from day one– we said it to to our own Township trustees (who dismissed us out of hand)– every township should be making these sorts of requests. Not only is it a chance for Enbridge to live up to their “good neighbor” rhetoric; it’s also completely reasonable that host communities should want to gain some benefit from being good faith partners with Enbridge– because Enbridge will most certainly benefit from it, in the form of millions of dollars.
Lastly, if you missed it in our comments section, the good people over at The Hermitage retreat in Three Rivers are hosting a fascinating event later this month: “A Service of Lament and Hope along the Enbridge Pipeline” on Saturday, March 30, 2013 2-4 pm. The Hermitage is located at 11321 Dutch Settlement Road, Three Rivers, MI. They describe the event this way:
You are invited to express your sorrow, regret or disappointment over the new pipeline being laid by Enbridge. The public lament. . .will include a public confession of our complicity in the demand for oil, a prayer walk to the pipeline, public acts of mourning and despair, and conclude with a dance of hope.
Unfortunately, the drive to Three Rivers is probably a bit out of our range– but we’ll try and find some time that day ourselves for a bit of lamentation.
About a week ago, we launched a playful new series of strange items we’ve encountered recently. We kicked things off with a picture of the convenient wipes that are now available along the Kalamazoo River for cleaning the oil off of your skin and boat– such a thoughtful amenity!
Today’s item is weird in a totally different way. Since we began writing this blog and reaching out to landowners about eight months ago, we’ve met lots of wonderful, fascinating people and have experienced and done all sorts of things we never really imagined ourselves doing– some of them not that strange, like attending and speaking up at local township meetings; and some of them rather surreal, like eating midnight beignets at Cafe du Monde in New Orleans with oil pipeline executives (and various other eccentrics, like this guy).
But even that doesn’t compare to what we’ll be doing this week, along with two of our very favorite people we’ve met through all of this, Beth Wallace and Kim Savage. On Thursday, the three of us will be speaking at a meeting of the Michigan chapter of the International Right of Way Association. It’s true! No joke! Just look:
What will we say? We haven’t totally decided yet, but it won’t just be a repeat of our last presentation at the Pipeline Safety Trust conference. And in fact, we’re likely to say some things we’ve never even posted here. A long time ago, we made a conscious decision not to spend our time and energy on this blog beating up on ROW agents– even though we have heard plenty of stories of their bad behavior, stories that would curl your hair. And we have ourselves experienced a fair amount of unprofessional conduct and heard plenty of misinformation from them. Yet (as memory serves), we have never once called out a ROW agent by name (or even deed) here on this blog.
Partly, that’s because we do not get personal. But also it’s because Enbridge is ultimately responsible for the conduct and behavior of its ROW agents. Indeed, as far as landowners are concerned, the ROW agents that come to our houses ARE Enbridge; they are the company’s direct interface with landowners. So if and when they lie, intimidate, disrespect, misinform, misbehave, or otherwise fail to deal openly and honestly and cooperatively and protectively with and toward landowners– well, that’s Enbridge doing it– because Enbridge lets them do it.
So, it’s likely on Thursday that we’ll tell all of the ROW agents– primarily a bunch of good, honest, hardworking, professional people, we are sure– that some among them do lie, intimidate, disrespect, misinform, misbehave, or otherwise fail to deal openly and honestly and cooperatively with and toward landowners. And when they do, it reflects poorly on ROW agents in general. So perhaps their peers can help keep the bad actors in line in a way that Enbridge either can’t or won’t.
We will, of course, provide you with a full report of the proceedings.
