As we reported late yesterday, Enbridge has filed a “Notice of Removal” to have POLAR’s recent lawsuit heard in federal rather than state court. We spent last night reviewing the relevant documents and can now provide some details. First, a brief explanation of the why and the how of this action: (more…)
Wow, it’s been a busy week! Here is the latest: Enbridge yesterday filed a “Notice of Removal” requesting that a suit filed by POLAR be taken to federal court. Because Enbridge is an out-of-state corporation, they have the right to request the forum in which the suit takes place–in this case, federal court.
This is an interesting move, the implications of which we’re only beginning to work through. One thing is for sure: this raises the profile and perhaps even the stakes of the case a bit.
We have all of the relevant documents, including POLAR’s original complaint and Enbridge’s Notice of Removal filing. Once we’ve had a chance to peruse them, we’ll provide more detail– hopefully soon. Again: stay tuned.
If, like us, your easement agreement with Enbridge is one that goes back to the late 1960s, you might dust it off and read it over. There you will likely find the language that was at issue in yesterday’s Oakland County Circuit Court ruling against Enbridge. Our easement, signed in 1968, grants to Enbridge– for the princely sum of $25.00!:
a right-of-way and perpetual easement to construct, operate, maintain… one or pipelines… for the transportation of oil, other liquid hydrocarbons, and any product or by-product thereof, or any material or substance which can be conveyed through a pipeline…
See for yourself:
A question that occurred to us yesterday is why Enbridge would overreach the way they did with the Smiths? For one thing, we wondered whether the clause allowing them to transport any old substance whatsoever through that pipe might have something to do with the possibility of reactivating the old pipeline and transporting who-knows-what. That seems not so likely to me now. Rather, our easement would seem to suggest that this is just standard practice; it’s the way Enbridge (and Lakehead before them) has always done business. It’s just that no one has ever called them on it before.
But it does have us wondering a couple of new things: first, does yesterday’s ruling mean anything at all for those of us whose old easements contain that language? And second, if Enbridge were, in fact, to ship some “material or substance” other than crude oil or petroleum or liquid gas through their pipe, what agency– if any– would have oversight over such shipments? If not the MPSC (and it would appear no), then who? Anybody? Those question marks are not comforting.
And whatever the case, we urge everybody– whether your easement is new or old– to get it out and read it again. Go ahead; do it right now.
We’ve had a chance to review the Judge’s ruling in the case we reported on this morning. So we’re now in a position to offer some details. But in order for it all to make sense, you need to know a little bit about “condemnation”– or “eminent domain” (we’ll use those terms interchangeably)– and how it works. We’ll try to keep that explanation brief: (more…)
Our interrogation of Enbridge spokesman Larry Springer’s astonishing statement to journalist David Hasemyer last week keeps getting interrupted: first by the recent Brandon Township “workshop” with Enbridge and then today by some good news from the Oakland County Circuit Court. If you missed the first two parts of our discussion of Hasemyer’s excellent article and Springer’s statement, you can read them here (and here). This morning, we return to that series.
First, let’s revisit what Springer actually said about people like us (and perhaps you), ordinary citizens who have reasonable and perfectly understandable concerns about the Line 6B project:
“While there has been recent publicity and activity by special interest groups, most who live and work along the pipeline are not opposed to Enbridge’s plans to replace Line 6B,” he said. “While the media may choose to focus on controversial situations, Enbridge’s actions show that we deal openly and honestly with all stakeholders, including landowners and local governments.”
I have to confess: part of me still can’t believe he said this. But he did. Today, we will explore the last part of his statement. And we’ll do it simply. We’ll just gather together some actual examples of actual Enbridge actions and see whether those actions do, in fact, show that Enbridge “deal[s] openly and honestly with all stakeholders.” (more…)
This morning, we were in the midst of revisiting our series on the outrageous recent statements in Inside Climate News by Enbridge spokesman Larry Springer— and then we were planning to take the dog out for a run (we do have a life beyond Enbridge, you know!)– when we received word that an Oakland County Circuit Court judge has dismissed an Enbridge condemnation suit, finding that the language in Enbridge’s proposed easement agreement was over-broad.
Of course, we’re not surprised to know that the case involved another example of Enbridge over-reaching. But it is nice to see that once in a while, their attempts can be thwarted. We’re also pleased to be able to congratulate attorney Kim Savage (who received some assistance from the crackerjacks at Ackerman, Ackerman and Dynkowski) on this one, as we’ve long admired her dedication and intelligence.
This ruling also has some important potential implications that extend well beyond the specific property owners involved. Once we’ve had a chance to read through the case and the judge’s ruling, we’ll have more commentary and analysis.
Some good news from Oakland county circuit court this morning. We’ll have details and analysis soon. Stay tuned.
Does anyone know of any Enbridge construction activities currently taking place in Oakland County? If so, could you please drop a comment and let us know? Thank you.
Much more tomorrow!
We interrupt our ordinary programming for one brief expression of gratitude:
While we understand all too well that most of the time (way too much time), brainpower, researching, hand-wringing, worrying, hair-tearing, phone-calling, letter-writing, and psychic and emotional energy we’ve spent on all of this will bear very little fruit (in the short term), we have gained a great deal of compensation from all of the wonderful, decent, generous people we have met (and you mostly know who you are): neighbors we didn’t know before; fellow landowners– rich ones and not-so-rich ones, young and energetic ones and older-but-just-as-energetic ones; farmers, attorneys, activists, environmentalists, engineers, journalists, civic leaders, and people who would prefer just to be left alone. We may feel slightly impoverished by our dealings with Enbridge, but we’ve been enriched by our dealings with our fellow citizens.
Last week, we posted our account of the “workshop” meeting between Enbridge representatives and the Brandon Township Board of Trustees. Much of what we touched upon in the post deserves further scrutiny and elaboration and we hope to devote more time and space to those things in the coming days– starting right now. But first, let me just reiterate what may be the most important fact we took away from that meeting:
With its Northern Gateway project in Canada, Enbridge has solicited local input prior to construction and they have responded to public concern by, among other things, pledging to exceed Canadian federal regulatory safety and design standards. With its Line 6B project in Michigan– the home of Marshall!– Enbridge has not done the same. (more…)
The Brandon paper The Citizen continues to follow the story. What would we do without them? The money quote is from Katy Bodenmiller, talking about our state elected officials:
“They just don’t want to talk about it. But in the light of the Marshall spill, [U.S. Congressman Mike] Rogers and other lawmakers should be asking tough questions of Enbridge. The silence of the people that should represent me and my neighbors is an endorsement of the way Enbridge does business in Michigan,” she said.
A very important note to landowners: all of us should have agreed to a “line list” of items regarding construction on our property (including such things as how to stack or dispose of timber, the installation of temporary fencing, easement access, work hours, and any number of other conditions). We are getting word (these are reliable reports!) that Enbridge construction crews are disregarding these lists. Please be aware and be vigilant. Contact your ROW agent and insist that he or she convey your line list information to all construction crews– repeatedly. If crews violate any of the requirements on your list, let someone know– your ROW agent, us, the press, a lawyer (or all of the above).
My favorite moment at last night’s Brandon Township workshop with Enbridge: Beth Duman’s impassioned speech about how Enbridge is solely responsible for sparking citizen resistance. If they’d treated landowners decently and respectfully from the start– and used their financial resources for fair compensation rather than lawyer’s fees– a lot of us wouldn’t be spending way too much of our free time worrying and speaking out. Thanks, Beth!
We’re still not done with Larry Springer’s astonishing statement in Wednesday’s Inside Climate News article. We hope to return to that series later today. We’re taking a break from it to report on last night’s very interesting meeting between Enbridge representatives and the Brandon Township Board of Trustees. It was a fascinating and illuminating three hours. There’s an awful lot to get through here. Hang on to your hats; this one’s a doozy. (more…)
A good article about Enbridge’s use of eminent domain in this morning’s Battle Creek Enquirer. Landowner Barbara Atkin speaks for many others:
“Whatever they say goes. I understand we need oil. But we could have been treated better. If they just would have looked us in the eye and said, ‘We know this must be devastating for you, but we we really need to do this and this what we’re going to do for you.’ Instead, we just got threats of, ‘Well, I guess we’ll see in you in court.’”
While reading David Hasemyer’s excellent report in Inside Climate News yesterday, we were flummoxed by the remarks of MPSC Bureau Administrator Gary Kitts. Asked by Hasemyer about the MPSC’s notification to landowners of the Line 6B project, a notice that landowners insist was severely defective, Kitts
said the agency’s lawyers drafted the notice and followed language used in hundreds of other notices.
“It met the statutory requirements of the state for notification,” he said.
Why does Kitts sound like he works for Enbridge? To our ear, “It met the statutory requirements of the state for notification” rings quite similarly to “meets or exceeds all applicable standards and regulatory guidelines.”
And then there’s this:
Kitts said he couldn’t comment on the landowners’ complaints because he hadn’t read the notice. He declined InsideClimate News’ request that he review the two-page document. He said he was unaware of the court challenge and had no knowledge that landowners were outraged over Enbridge’s right-of-way demands.
“I am certainly not going to go back and reassess a notice based on what may or may not be going on in the courts,” Kitts said.
The fact that Kitts refused to read the letter when asked to do so is bizarre beyond belief. If you’d like to send him your thoughts on his performance, you can reach him at kittsg@michigan.gov
It only took about two months and four attempts, but yesterday I finally received a reply from U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers. It is the identical reply that my wife received about a week ago– un-proofread prose and all (“I share your concerns with the impact of this devastating spill has had on Michigan’s environment.”)– so we have a nice matching set. (more…)
Coming tomorrow: Our U.S. Congressman Representative Mike Rogers finally replies to us (sort of), a few words for the Executive Director of the Michigan Public Service Commission, and much more on Enbridge’s openness and honesty in their dealings with stakeholders.
Please stop by again.
The Straw Man Tactic
We’ve grown accustomed to hollow phrases, evasions, and clever mystifications from Enbridge spokesmen. But, as we have already noted, what Larry Springer offers up in his statement to David Hasemyer is a series of untruths. Once again, here is Springer:
“While there has been recent publicity and activity by special interest groups, most who live and work along the pipeline are not opposed to Enbridge’s plans to replace Line 6B,” he said. “While the media may choose to focus on controversial situations, Enbridge’s actions show that we deal openly and honestly with all stakeholders, including landowners and local governments.”
Let me first put this in some context. (more…)
There are plenty of things in David Hasemyer’s excellent article this morning in Inside Climate News that have got our motor running. So much that we’ll likely be writing about it for some time. But of everything Hasemyer reports, what turned our low simmer to a rolling boil are the remarks of Enbridge spokesman Larry Springer. In fact, they are so egregious, it’s going to take us more than one post to deal with just one statement. Here we’ll provide a summary of our objections, which we’ll follow-up with a number of posts that elaborate on each point.
So here is the statement:
“While there has been recent publicity and activity by special interest groups, most who live and work along the pipeline are not opposed to Enbridge’s plans to replace Line 6B,” he said. “While the media may choose to focus on controversial situations, Enbridge’s actions show that we deal openly and honestly with all stakeholders, including landowners and local governments.”
Let us count the ways Larry Springer is demonstrably wrong: (more…)
As we noted last week, the Enbridge matter was back on the agenda of the Groveland Township Board of Trustees meeting on Monday night. We attended in the hopes that Groveland would follow the lead of Brandon Township and add its municipal voice to the chorus of those asking tough but reasonable questions of Enbridge. Unfortunately, we left the meeting deeply disappointed. (more…)
It appears that things are heating up in Brandon Township. Enbridge has begun construction activity in what looks to us like a deliberate attempt to thumb its nose at the Brandon resolution. In response, Brandon has asked Enbridge to cease those activities.
The Brandon board has scheduled a workshop-style meeting with Enbridge’s Project Manager. The meeting is tomorrow, Thursday (Sept. 13), at 6:30 pm at the Brandon Townshp offices. The public is welcome to attend.
There is an important and very good article on citizen resistance to 6B by Dave Hasemyer in Inside Climate News this morning. This blog even gets a bit of attention. The most outrageous moment of the article? This little gem from an Enbridge spokesman:
“While there has been recent publicity and activity by special interest groups, most who live and work along the pipeline are not opposed to Enbridge’s plans to replace Line 6B,” he said. “While the media may choose to focus on controversial situations, Enbridge’s actions show that we deal openly and honestly with all stakeholders, including landowners and local governments.”
We’ll have much more to say about the piece later today. Stay tuned.
Just a reminder about tonight’s Groveland Township Board of Trustees meeting. We expect the Groveland board to introduce a resolution along the lines of Brandon Township’s. This is a very important action and they need our support, especially since Enbridge appears to be willfully disregarding Brandon and the Michigan constitution. Please attend the meeting if you are able. 7 pm, Groveland Township Office, 4695 Grange Hall Rd.
We hope to see you there!
A couple of weeks ago, we reported on an MPSC hearing in which Administrative Law Judge Theresa Sheets denied intervenors’ motion for order compelling discovery– a ruling that essentially said Enbridge didn’t have to answer the questions they didn’t want to answer.
Among those questions was whether Enbridge had sought consent from local municipalities in which they’ll be working– a requirement, we think, pretty clearly described in the state constitution and statutory law. (I know, I know, we’ve written about this many times before, most recently here). Well, there’s some interesting, potentially very good, news to report. (more…)