by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 3, 2014 |
As the ET Rover route has (apparently) shifted to the north, we’ve noticed lots of new traffic at the blog, likely seeking more information– since ET Rover doesn’t appear to be providing much. We are happy to try and offer whatever little bit of assistance we can for those seeking to learn more. So here are a few links and bullet points that might helpful by way of some basics about the project:
We’ll start by laying our cards on the table: we here at the Line 6B Citizens’ Blog oppose the ET Rover project. We don’t just oppose the proposed (or formerly proposed) route. We oppose the whole project. If it is approved, it will mean the taking of private land for corporate profit. It will bring very little benefit to Michiganders because most of the gas it will transport is destined for Canada (and elsewhere). Finally, it is not a “public necessity,” as Energy Transfer and FERC themselves both agreed just last year.
Secondly, it’s important to understand how the approval process for a project like this works. That information is available at the agency responsible for regulating interstate natural gas pipelines, the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission (FERC). Right now is what’s called the “pre-filing” stage. ET Rover won’t officially file their application with FERC until January. Review of that application will take time: probably about two years. So this pipeline isn’t going to be built tomorrow.
Thirdly, in addition to understanding the process, landowners need to know their rights in case the project is approved. FERC provides a citizen’s guide with some basic information. An even better resource for landowners is available from the Pipeline Safety Trust.
Finally, citizens have a voice in these proceedings. If you are opposed to this project (for whatever reason) or if you are in favor of it, for that matter, you can file a comment with FERC. Instructions on how to do so are here. You can also read the comments of others.
In addition to those resources, we would also offer (humbly) a few quick words of advice based on our own experience as landowners with a pipeline on our property:
- Don’t trust land agents. We’re sure some of them are honest and professional. And many of them are perfectly pleasant people. But their interests are NOT your interests. Their job is to tell you pleasing things. But those pleasing things often do not correspond to reality. Be skeptical. Protect yourself.
- Understand eminent domain. They can’t (and don’t want to) take your house or your whole property. They only want to access a portion of it. If they do get that easement, they do not own that part of your property. You do. Their are restrictions on what they (and you) can do with that portion of your property.
- Money isn’t everything. A certain monetary offer for easement rights might sound appealing. But keep in mind that there are many, many more things that come with the installation of a pipeline on your property. The stress, strain, disruption, destruction of your property, and potential accidents might well make whatever dollar amount you are eventually offered seem not so great in retrospect.
- Lastly, if it does come down to negotiating an easement (though again, this is probably two years away), consult an attorney with experience in this area. There are dozens of things that the ordinary landowner would never think of that could be a potential problem. Just ramble through our archives (like these posts) and you’ll see what we mean.
Oh, and one additional thing: we will keep up with events as best we can and post information here. But sometimes it’s easier and faster to post updates on our Facebook page. Please join us there if you are on social media.
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 29, 2014 |
If you read this blog diligently (we know there are precious few of you who do!), you may have noticed recently a fascinating and very troubling conversation in the comments section of our story about the re-route of Rover. There, one of our readers tells of some outrageous strong arm tactics coming from Rover in order to do surveys on landowner properties.
What do me mean by strong arm tactics? Well, threats of legal actions, armed guards (we’re not joking!), and some rather unfortunate support from a county sheriff. Here’s the story:
Initially the request to survey was denied by several property owners. On the August 22th a certified letter were received by several property owners stating if the enclosed survey consent letter was not returned within 30 days. Legal action would be taken to acquire a court order to proceed with the survey.
On August 25th the survey crews unexpectedly (without any notice) entered the properties to survey. Along with the survey crew were 6 – 8 security guards (some armed) as well as 20-30 individuals to walk the potential easement right of way area looking for artifacts. When informed they were trespassing and to leave the property at once they refused and offered to call the County Sheriff. When the County Sheriff arrived he informed the property owners the survey crew were within the law and could not be stopped from entering the property.
It was the ET Rover Landsman who then brought forward MCL 213.54(3) as being the legal grounds for the survey crews to enter the properties, although the property owners were only given two days over the weekend to respond to the certified mailing. Also there was no consideration given to the property owner by ET Rover before entering the properties to survey with exercising their rights under MCL 213.54 (3).
Specifically with the following provision:
MCL 213.54(3): The entry may be made upon reasonable notice to the owner and at reasonable hours. An entry made pursuant to this subsection shall not be construed as a taking. The owner or his or her representative shall be given a reasonable opportunity to accompany the agency’s agent or employee during the entry upon the property.
We’ve done some follow up with the poster and we have no reason whatsoever to doubt this story’s veracity. 
A local newspaper even took a photograph of the caravan along with a brief article, unfortunately incomplete in detail, on the matter. Information on all of this is still forthcoming, but we’d like to make a few brief observations in the meantime
First, we think Rover is just plain wrong on the law. They do not meet the definition of a “private agency” as set forth in the statute they cite (MCL 213.51(h): “a person, partnership, association, corporation, or entity, other than a public agency, authorized by law to condemn property.” ET Rover does NOT have the authority to condemn property and will not have it until (that is, if) FERC approves their application. If we’re right, then ET Rover is both mischaracterizing and breaking the law.
Secondly, we have no idea what that county sheriff was thinking or why he was doing ET Rover’s bidding. It appears he simply believed Rover’s (mistaken) account of the law. And since we are pretty sure that sheriffs are neither lawyers nor judges, and since we are equally sure that that sheriff is paid to protect the citizens of his county and not out of state corporations, the sheriff’s actions appear to be shameful. We’ve seen these sorts of cozy relationships between pipeline companies and local law enforcement before. It is a troubling and appalling practice.
Finally, even if ET Rover were right about the law (which we believe they are not), this incident plainly violates both their own rhetoric and their industry standards. Showing up to someone’s property with armed guards is not acting as “a good neighbor.” Nor is it any sort of way, as the industry’s “Commitment to Landowners” states, to build “positive, lasting relationships” based “on mutual respect and trust.”
We’ll continue to report more on this as we learn further details. Based on continually emerging stories about ET Rover’s treatment of landowners, it’s become all but impossible for us to maintain the dime hope we had at the beginning of this process: that ET Rover would not be just like Enbridge.
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 25, 2014 |
There’s been a lot of speculation, rumor, and uncertainty about the currently proposed ET Rover route. In Rover’s latest filing with FERC they have published maps of their proposed route and alternatives. You can find this filing by searching the docket at FERC; it’s a long document, several in fact. But for most readers of this blog, the map of the alternative route is below. The “alternative route” is the one in blue. The new route is the one in yellow.
And here is what Rover says about the two routes:
Landowners in Oakland County, Michigan identified multiple concerns with the Oakland Alternative with respect to land disturbance associated with construction and operation of the pipeline. The main concern was the addition of another pipeline within developed residential areas that have grown up around existing utility corridors. Some commenters expressed concern about further disruption to their property following recent construction activities associated with the Line 6B pipeline replacement activities.
ET Rover identified several congested residential areas where it would be difficult to route the pipeline without some significant disruption to residents. Therefore, while the Oakland Alternative is shorter by 16.4 miles than the corresponding segment of the proposed route, the proposed route avoids construction through developed residential areas without transferring similar impacts to other areas, and will have reduced impacts on streams, wetlands, and public lands. Therefore, it was eliminated.
In keeping with Rover’s truly appalling communication style, this paragraph not terribly clear. Specifically, it’s not at all clear what “was eliminated.” (If this were written by one of our students, that last sentence would be circled in red with an “unclear pronoun reference” comment in the margin.) But based on the filings, it’s the Oakland Alternative that they’re eliminating.
So, it looks like Rover’s new proposed route avoids Oakland County, now running north from Livingston through Genesee and Lapeer counties. That’s certainly excellent news for Oakland County residents, but in our view the fight shouldn’t be over yet. Livingston, Genesee, and Lapeer residents now need to step up and take action. Otherwise, Roveer is STILL coming to Michigan.
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 | Aug 21, 2014 |
For quite a while now, we (like others) have been talking about the way Enbridge opportunistically took advantage of the climate of worry following the Marshall spill to hastily get approval to replace Line 6B in three segments and thereby circumvent regulatory processes, particularly the Presidential Permitting process that has kept Keystone XL in such limbo. We have also taken note of Enbridge’s various other schemes to out-Keystone Keystone. One has to admit: they are awfully crafty.
Just how crafty? Well, David Shaffer, who does outstanding work for the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, has a great story this week about a very clever, very troubling bait-and-switch Enbridge is planning (in collusion, it appears, with the Department of State) to get more oil into the U.S. Essentially, Enbridge is going to ship oil from Canada to the U.S. border through one pipe, switch it to another to get it across the border, then switch it back to ship it to refineries. It’s a little bit like smuggling (but right out in the open).
Why the pipe-switching gymnastics? Well, this will allow Enbridge to evade the requirements of the Presidential Permits on their Alberta Clipper and Line 3 pipelines, which place restrictions on the amount of oil that can be shipped through them. It would also allow Enbridge to avoid the important public and environmental scrutiny– that is to say, the democratic process– that exists (ostensibly) to bring a little sanity and concern for the public interest to bear upon operations like Enbridge’s. The fact that our elected officials and regulatory agencies turn a blind eye to these kinds of shenanigans is a breach of the public trust, allowing foreign companies like Enbridge to trample upon landowners and the environment so that they can reap huge profits transporting tar sands oil destined mainly for export. In our view, it’s outrageous. and if not flatly illegal, then certainly “a clear misinterpretation of both the letter and the spirit of the law.”
First Rover, Now NEXUS
Oh, but there’s more. Also this week, just as the efforts of Michigan citizens to prevent an unnecessary natural gas pipeline project from tearing its way across half the state, another nearly identical project was announced. NEXUS Gas Transmission would move the same gas from and to the same places as ET Rover and take a very similar path. The main difference is that it appears that NEXUS will mainly use existing infrastructure and not require new construction. That’s okay news for landowners, but it’s not necessarily great news in general, as once again, we’re talking here mainly about gas from fracking operations in West Virginia and Pennsylvania destined for import to Canada.
But here’s the interesting part: whose existing infrastructure do you think is going to be used for NEXUS? You guessed it: Enbridge’s. Apparently, the gas would travel through the Vector pipeline system (many Line 6B landowners also have the Vector pipeline on their properties).
You might be asking yourself, at this point, “is Enbridge in bed with everybody?” The answer appears to be yes. Their fingerprints are everywhere. And now, after partnering with Energy Transfer to abandon a gas pipeline that they (and FERC) agreed was unnecessary so that Enbridge could use it to ship crude oil– after that, Enbridge is now going to compete with Energy Transfer to ship gas to the very same markets that they said a year ago didn’t need it. (Yes, our head is spinning to.) Even worse, it may well be that it is in Enbridge’s best interests to see the ET Rover project thwarted (although we fail to see how Enbridge and its NEXUS partners DTE and Spectra Energy can make the necessity argument against ET Rover, as that would only undermine their own application to FERC). At the very least, Enbridge surely will think that it is in its best interest for everyone to run around arguing that their scheme to transport natural gas across Michigan is more desirable than ET Rover’s scheme. Even more perversely, they may be sort of right on that point.
Which is all the more reason that Michiganders need to tell FERC that these projects– ET Rover and NEXUS alike– are not just about re-routing. Neither one is necessary. Neither one is in the public interest of Michigan. Neither one is a “public necessity.” Otherwise, the only real outcome is that Enbridge wins. Again.
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 18, 2014 |
If you’ve been paying attention to Enbridge in the news, you might have heard about the protests up in Canada a couple weeks ago, where some concerned activists put up a blockade halting work on Enbridge’s Line 9 reversal project. In response to that action, Enbridge generated a shockingly disingenuous blog post under the headline– we’re not making this up– “Pipelines and protests: A meaningful discussion starts with the facts.” In it, Enbridge presents six “facts” about Line 9, as if to present themselves as the truth-tellers in contrast to those dishonest, un-factual protestors.
We’re not going to spend time here pointing out just how very arguable most of their six so-called “facts” really are. (Like the claim that “Line 9 has an excellent safety record,” which surely depends upon how one defines “excellent.”) Instead, we just need to point out how preposterous– preposterous to the point of being offensive– it is for Enbridge to try to take the high road and pretend to be genuinely devoted to “facts” and the truth.
Let’s just quickly review, for instance, some of Enbridge’s greatest hits of the last 12 months. Mind you, we’re not talking here about garden-variety public relations spin or the routine misinformation spread by land agents. We’re talking about clear, demonstrable falsehoods served up by prominent Enbridge employees, including some of their most senior executives. Here are just five examples of such falsehoods from the past year, demonstrating vividly how Enbridge engages in “meaningful discussion” starting with “facts”:
- In Indiana, Enbridge spokesperson Jennifer Smith told the public that federal regulations require them to remove all trees from the pipeline right of way.
- In Canada, Enbridge spokesman Graham White fabricated a disparaging story, out of whole cloth, about a single concerned citizen.
- In Minnesota, Senior Land Manager John McKay said that Enbridge pipeline projects begin with landowners deciding to do business with Enbridge.
- Here in Michigan, Vice President Rich Adams looked the United States EPA straight in they eye and told them an untrue story about obtaining a dredge pad permit.
- And most recently in Michigan, Vice President Brad Shamla pretended in front of the whole world that the pipeline rupture in Marshall happened a day later than it actually did.
Unfortunately, such brazen, undisguised untruths generally go unnoticed or are met with little more than a shrug of the shoulders. It may be that the public simply expects so little in the way of honesty from companies like Enbridge that we’ve all but given up on being outraged by instances of dishonesty. For example, no one in the press (or anywhere else), as far as we know, has taken any interest at all in Enbridge’s revisionist history about the date of the Marshall spill. We find this baffling and deeply disturbing. Wouldn’t you think that some dogged reporter somewhere would just want to call Brad Shamla on the phone and ask the simple question: “How can you say, on the one hand, that you don’t want to erase Marshall from your memory while, on the other hand, you deliberately pretend the day the rupture occurred was the day after it occurred?”
Worse than apathy or cynicism, however, is the fact that there are still a lot of people– local officials, journalists, newspaper editorial boards, ordinary landowners– who actually do believe things that Enbridge tells them. That’s bad and has severe consequences. It’s bad because it can leave landowners unprotected (because, say, they didn’t think they needed to hire an attorney). Bad because newspapers might type up whatever Enbridge says (and thereby misinform the public). Bad because elected officials and regulatory agencies will accept Enbridge’s word on important matters (and leave the public interest unprotected).
But the evidence (above and all throughout our archives) shows that you can’t believe the things Enbridge says, that you can’t take them at their word. And that’s why we think it is very important–imperative– to demonstrate as clearly and factually as possible when and how and why Enbridge can NOT be trusted. It’s why we continue to be outraged by false and misleading statements. Because those statements are not inconsequential; they have very real effects out in the world, your world. Our (perhaps futile) hope is that if we keep pointing them out, maybe eventually people– landowners, journalists, politicians, regulators– will be a little less trusting in the future.
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 11, 2014 |
On Friday night we attended a meeting at Groveland Township Hall led by our friend Jeff Axt. Supervisor Bob DePalma invited Jeff to reprise the presentation he’s given in Brandon and Rose Townships– to large crowds we’re told. There weren’t a lot of people in attendance last night (owing to a combination of short notice and a nice Friday evening), but those who were there– including, it appears, Supervisor DePalma had serious misgivings about the project and seemed energized by Jeff’s excellent presentation to let their opposition be known to FERC. That’s good news.
Jeff Axt, the “Brandon Brawler”
Even better news, DePalma appeared to indicate that the Groveland Board of Trustees will join Brandon and Rose in passing a formal resolution opposing ET Rover’s proposed route. This is, in our view, a major step: that means three townships– that’s nearly half the Oakland County route–will have expressed official opposition to Rover. And we expect more will follow. The will, the preferences, and the positions of the citizens of Oakland County is becoming loud and clear: ET Rover is not needed, the proposed route is wrong and poses too much danger to sensitive natural resources, and we won’t sit by and allow yet another company to take private property for their own gain with very little if any benefit to Michigan and its citizens. We’re very pleased to see township supervisors stepping up and showing leadership on this matter.
Next up, Jeff will give this presentation to Oxford Township on August 27 at 6:30p at the Oxford Veterans Memorial Civic Center: 28 North Washington Street in Oxford. Mark your calendars!
It would be even better to have more townships on board. For that reason, we urge you to contact your own township supervisor and urge them to take similar action. Invite them to this blog. Encourage them to invite Jeff to give his presentation. Demand that they respond to the concerns of their constituents.
In the meantime, it is very important that, in addition to the statements made by townships, that a large number of individual citizens write to FERC and make their opposition to the ET Rover project and route known. We urge you to submit a comment, explaining that this pipeline is NOT a public necessity and that it poses too many dangers to Oakland County’s residents and natural resources. Below are instructions on how to do file a comment on ET Rover with FERC. Please take some time to do so:
Go to the FERC eComment website.
Click on the eComment button, which takes you to an authorization page.
Enter your name and email address, and type in the “authorization” letters / numbers that appear.
Click on authorize.
FERC will send you an email. Click on the link in the email.
You should be taken to a page on the FERC website with your name and email filled in.
In the field for “Enter Docket Number” type PF14-14 (no spaces)
Click on the Search button.
Click on the blue cross in the far right column under the heading labelled “Select”
Enter up to 6000 characters in the box for editing a comment.
You’re probably better off to have written your comment before hand. Then, you can just copy and paste it into this box.
Click on Send Comment
You can also subscribe to the docket, which allows you to get notices of other people’s comments, which you can read. Or, if you’d just like to read the comments (you can get an idea of what to include in your own comment), just click here. Then enter in the Docket Number PF14-14 and hit “submit.” You should get a list of all the comments that have been submitted.
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 5, 2014 |
Please share and attend: there will be two informational meetings this week, organized and led by landowners and citizens (NOT by ET Rover) for those concerned about the proposed ET Rover natural gas pipeline project and why it is wrong for Michigan and bad for landowners. Our friend Jeff Axt will present information about the project, its potential dangers, its likely devastating effects on private property owners– and what you can do about it.
Both projects are hosted by affected townships, which is (potentially) very promising news. We are hopeful that other townships will follow the lead of Brandon Township in passing formal resolutions of opposition to the proposed route. If municipalities add their voices to those of individual property owners both ET Rover and FERC will have no choice but to listen. Information for the meetings is below, please let your neighbors know and try to make it to one of them yourself. Let’s urge our township boards to standup and then support and thank them for their leadership.
Rose Township says there will be NO representatives from ET Rover at the meeting. We assume the same is true in Groveland.
Thursday, August 7, 7 pm
Rose Township Hall
9080 Mason St.
Holly, MI 48442
Friday, August 8, 7 pm
Groveland Township Hall
4695 Grangehall Road
Holly, MI 48442
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 5, 2014 |
We’re working on a positive post (believe it or not!) that we’ve been meaning to get to for a while. But things just keep getting in the way. First, the Rover news broke, then we went on vacation in Minnesota, where we spoke to the Friends of the Headwaters), then Enbridge once again flouted a local ordinance, then they went around trying to erase and rewrite history, and then peddled some more untruths. Enbridge has been giving us so many negative things to write about that we haven’t had time to mention a positive one. But stay tuned for that very soon.
In the meantime, we thought we’d call your attention to a couple of national news items that ought to be of some interest, since what is happening around the country– to the west and to the east– is also happening (or, in other cases, should happen) here in Michigan. So let’s connect a few dots:
- If you haven’t seen the latest from Inside Climate News regarding the ongoing scandal surrounding the California Public Utilities Commission and its (mis)handling of matters related to the terrible San Bruno explosion, you’ll want to take a look at Elizabeth Douglas’s latest piece. As always, it’s excellent journalism, although the appalling story Douglas tells of the cozy relations between regulators and industry is sure to raise your blood pressure. What’s happened in California is especially egregious and maybe extreme. But we think it’s also emblematic of the kinds of close ties between regulators and the companies they’re supposed to regulate all over the country. We caught plenty of glimpses of this industry-friendliness during the MPSC proceedings to approve the Line 6B replacement. As our series showed, Enbridge pretty much owned that process.
- Which is all the more reason for citizens to speak up and speak out and take action. That’s what’s happening in Massachusetts currently, as residents there make it clear that they want no part of a newly proposed natural gas pipeline. Their actions should be an inspiration to landowners along the proposed ET Rover pipeline. Their first act of resistance: refusing the pipeline company permission to survey– something we’ve recommended here and that many of you, or so we’ve heard, are already doing. It also looks like there’s a good chance some townships will do the same and also voice their opposition to Rover publicly and formally.
It’s the wild west for oil and gas expansions all across the country right now, a reckless gold rush. Despite what the energy and pipeline companies will tell you, these infrastructure projects are not taking place with the best interests of local communities, landowners, and the environment uppermost in mind. And unfortunately, the agencies charged to protect those interests only seem to serve the interests of industry. That just leaves, well, us.
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 4, 2014 |
Last week, we told you a bit about our visit to Minnesota and our presentation to the marvelous Friends of the Headwaters— a group of people we admire tremendously. You might not be surprised to learn that, as the Friends work hard to explain to their fellow Minnesotans the threats Enbridge’s proposed Sandpiper project poses to their beautiful headwaters, Enbridge has fired up its public relations machinery. Their efforts have been as slick and misleading as we’ve come to expect.
Coincidentally (or not?), the morning after our talk to the Friends, a letter to the editor from an Enbridge executive appeared in the local Park Rapids, Minnesota paper. The main point of the letter: the warm and fuzzy relationships Enbridge forges with landowners along its pipelines. No, seriously. That’s really what the letter is about. Of course, readers of this blog know better. So for that reason, we wrote our own letter in response and sent it off to the paper– mainly to provide a counterpoint to Enbridge’s rosy account and to correct one rather massive whopper.
Below, we’ve reprinted the exchange. Unfortunately, our letter is not on the web yet, which seems a little odd (but to the right is a copy of it as it appeared).
Enbridge Letter:
At Enbridge, we deliver energy – safely and reliably – to millions of homes and businesses every day. Our pipelines transport crude oil, natural gas, propane and other products, but that’s not all that our pipelines do.
Along the pipe, Enbridge employs over 10,000 workers, contributes millions of dollars annually to the communities where we operate and pays tens of millions in local, state and federal taxes. You probably expect these things from any responsible company.
What you might not expect is that Enbridge has built relationships with thousands of landowners during our 65-year history. From ranchers and farmers to suburban homeowners and urban dwellers; from tribal lands to those owned by towns and villages – our landowner relationships take all shapes and sizes.
Our pipeline projects begin with a landowner’s decision to do business with us – not the other way around. Oftentimes, it’s over a cup of coffee at a kitchen table where a new project or maintenance work is discussed, leading to more conversations.
Listening to and acting upon landowners concerns is important. Why? Because we value these long-term relationships. We learn from each other and, in the process, build trust that can last generations. Are we perfect? No, but we try hard to meet the expectations of our landowners.
Yes, the Sandpiper Pipeline Project will safely and reliably transport crude oil that will, in turn, produce fuel for our homes, our vehicles and our economy. Likewise, Sandpiper will also create hundreds of jobs, support more local charities and pay millions in new tax revenues to Minnesota and its communities.
Enbridge is committed to creating and furthering cooperative, productive and trustworthy relationships with our landowners – and has for more than 65 years.
John McKay
Senior Manager, Land Services
Enbridge
Our reply:
The timing of the letter in your paper by John McKay, Senior Manager of Land Services for Enbridge, couldn’t be better. Just the night before, I gave a presentation to the Friends of the Headwaters about my own experience over the past three years dealing with Enbridge land agents. Mr. McKay’s remarks perfectly illustrate one of the central points of my talk: you probably shouldn’t believe anything Enbridge land agents say.
For example, Mr. McKay states that “Our pipeline projects begin with a landowner’s decision to do business with us—not the other way around.” That statement is clearly, demonstrably, false. For virtually all of Enbridge’s transmission pipeline projects, a state or federal agency grants the company the power of eminent domain. That power means that landowners do not get to decide whether a pipeline crosses their property; they have no choice in the matter. If the Sandpiper project is approved, landowners won’t make a “decision” to do business with Enbridge; they will be forced to do so.
Mr. McKay also tries to convince readers that land agents want to create “long-term relationships” with landowners. Our first land agent told us much the same thing. So did our second one. And our third. Each of them assured us they would be with us from the beginning of the project to the end, when our property was restored. The truth, however, is that land agents come and land agents go. Generally, they are contractors, not Enbridge employees. That means that even land agents’ relationships with Enbridge are not “long-term.” A common experience among landowners along Enbridge’s pipelines in Michigan is a revolving door of land agents. Some landowners have had to deal with more than half a dozen in just two years.
As one who lives along the Enbridge Line 6B pipeline in Michigan, I have spoken with dozens of my fellow landowners. By far, the most common source of dissatisfaction among us is land agents who are unresponsive, unprofessional, untruthful, untrustworthy, prone to misinformation, and sometimes even bullying. If there is anything even worse than Enbridge’s safety protocols and record, it is its land agent system.
I don’t mean to say that Enbridge land agents themselves are bad people. I have generally liked my land agents personally. But I don’t trust them. They are part of a system, created and operated by Enbridge, that does not encourage them to deal openly and honestly with landowners. The irony of Mr. McKay’s letter is that the behavior of Enbridge’s land agents– behavior that angers, frustrates, and alienates landowners–is either permitted or encouraged by the actual Enbridge employees who train and supervise these agents: people like Mr. McKay himself.
If you’d like to read more about the real experiences of landowners along an Enbridge pipeline rather than the fictions presented by Mr. McKay, I invite you to visit the Line 6B Citizens’ Blog.
Jeffrey Insko
Groveland Township, Michigan
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 1, 2014 |
One thing we’ve learned over the past couple of years is that the spokespersons of pipeline companies like tossing estimates around. For a very long time, for instance, Enbridge has been running around Michigan saying that the “vast majority” or “most” of Line 6B landowners have been perfectly happy. But of course, there’s no sound basis for those claims whatsoever.
We mention this because it must be something they teach in p.r. school. Just a couple weeks ago, ET Rover spokeswoman Vicki Grenado said the same thing to the Clarkston News about landowner responses to that project:
“We have certainly heard people on both sides (for and against the pipeline),” said ETP Spokesperson Vicki Granado. “I would say (that) definitely more than 50 percent, more than 75 percent of people, have responded positively . . . It’s definitely more on the positive (side) than the negative, but we certainly have people that still have some questions.”
Needless to say, we’re more than a little skeptical of those numbers– though we have no more reliable scientific data on the question than Grenado. But here’s something pretty telling: at a recent meeting for concerned residents held in Ortonville, out of more than 100 attendees, “nearly all,” according to a show of hands, opposed the project. Was that a representative sample? We can’t say for sure. But Vicki Grenado would have to produce a whole lot of supporters to make her math work. We’re not sure where she’d find them.
At the meeting in question, our tireless friend Jeff Axt, the Brandon Brawler, gave a presentation outlining the very serious concerns about this project shared by many of us. “The current route as proposed is insane,” Jeff told the attendees.
Even better than the vocal citizen opposition to Rover is the action of the Brandon Township Board of Trustees, once again showing the kind of leadership that ought to be emulated all across the state. At a special meeting of the Board, they agreed to draft a formal resolution opposing the project and urging FERC to reject it as currently proposed. Here’s what Trustee Ron Lapp had to say:
“I don’t want to put up with another Enbridge,” said Trustee Ron Lapp. “It’s been a nightmare. We are not their servants, that’s not how government works. I think we need to dig our heels in and say, ‘Not here, we’re going to fight you.'”
A formal resolution by a municipality is, in our view, a major step. If others follow suit, FERC will have no choice but to listen, we think. We hope that Brandon’s example will embolden other townships. There are signs this will happen: Axt will be bringing his presentation to Rose Township next week (details here). Please consider attending and making your views about this unnecessary project known. This pipeline will bring very little benefit to Michigan; it’s headed to Canada. We should resist the taking of private property for corporate gain.
We applaud Jeff Axt for his leadership in this matter!
by Jeffrey Insko | Jul 31, 2014 |
Just how many landowners along Line 6B are displeased? There’s no way to know, despite Enbridge’s dissembling. A better question is how many unhappy landowners does Enbridge think is acceptable? We’ve talked to dozens. A number of them have told their stories here. How many others have chosen to simply suffer and stew silently (and perhaps helplessly)?
We raise these questions (again) because we happened to have occasion to speak with a Phase One landowner this afternoon that we don’t really know. We listened to him speak for a good 15 minutes about the awful experience he’s had with Enbridge, an experience that is still not over. (For the record, we did not bring the subject up.) At present, like so many others, he’s waiting and wondering to hear from Enbridge about any number of unsettled matters on his property. The takeaway from his 3-plus year experience with Enbridge: “These guys have treated us terrible,” he said.
As we’ve said before, for every unhappy landowner we know about who is frustrated with and angry at Enbridge, there are surely 5 more whom we have never met, who have never spoken a word publicly. This makes it awfully hard to believe Enbridge when they say they value landowner relationships.
by Jeffrey Insko | Jul 29, 2014 |
A History Lesson for Brad Shamla
Looks like Enbridge needs another history lesson. To mark last week’s anniversary of the Marshall spill, Enbridge VP Brad Shamla penned an editorial that was published in the Battle Creek Enquirer and the Detroit News. A version of the op-ed also appeared as a “letter” (that is, a paid advertisement) in the Detroit Free Press (and probably elsewhere, we’re not sure).
It’s a fine-sounding letter, carefully crafted, we’re sure, by a whole committee of people in the vast Enbridge public relations department. The trouble is, it’s also disingenuous, starting with its very first sentence. See if you can spot the problem:
July 26, 2010, is a day that no one at Enbridge will ever forget.
Yep, that’s right: in an article whose central point is memory and commemoration, the importance of always remembering what happened in Marshall, Shamla gets the date of the spill wrong. July 26, 2010 is NOT the day the “Line 6B pipeline failed near Marshall.” As everybody knows, the failure occurred on July 25.
So what gives? Is it possible Shamla doesn’t know this? Is it merely a typographical mistake? Or might it be, once again, a willful distortion of the facts on the part of Enbridge? You won’t be surprised to learn that we think it’s the latter. Shamla (and Enbridge) date the spill on July 26, presumably, because it allows them to forget what happened the day before, when Enbridge ignored evidence of a problem with the line, ignored its own safety protocols, turned up the pressure on the line, and gushed oil out of the ruptured seam in Line 6B for 17 hours. Here’s the National Transportation Safety Board’s account of what happened:
On Sunday, July 25, 2010, at 5:58 p.m., eastern daylight time, a segment of a 30-inch-diameter pipeline (Line 6B), owned and operated by Enbridge Incorporated (Enbridge) ruptured in a wetland in Marshall, Michigan. The rupture occurred during the last stages of a planned shutdown and was not discovered or addressed for over 17 hours. During the time lapse, Enbridge twice pumped additional oil (81 percent of the total release) into Line 6B during two startups; the total release was estimated to be 843,444 gallons of crude oil. The oil saturated the surrounding wetlands and flowed into the Talmadge Creek and the Kalamazoo River. Local residents self-evacuated from their houses, and the environment was negatively affected.
So far from remembering the Marshall spill, Shamla and Enbridge are actually re-writing history in order to conveniently erase some key facts from the historical record– facts that point directly to the real causes of the spill and its severity.
This revisionism is part and parcel with all of the new measures Shamla touts as Enbridge’s response to the lessons they learned from the spill. Mainly, those measures consist of throwing a lot of money around. Don’t get us wrong, some of the measures Shamla describes seem like good things. But not one of them gets at the core of the problem. Not one of them addresses or acknowledges the principle reason (according to the NTSB) the Marshall spill was so very bad: Enbridge’s “culture of deviance” from following its own safety protocols. Prior to the Marshall spill, Enbridge had all the tools it needed to prevent the spill: detection equipment that found anomalies, control center rules that could have shut down the pipe right away. But Enbridge disregarded or ignored those things. Spending money on new equipment, putting in place new rules and protocols isn’t going to matter one little bit if Enbridge doesn’t change its culture. The former is easy; the latter is very difficult– even more difficult if you’re unwilling even to acknowledge the problem.
“We will not forget the Marshall incident,” Shamla tells Michiganders, which may be true. Unfortunately, the incident Enbridge has “memorialized,” the incident Enbridge vows not to forget appears to be a fictionalized version of the incident, only loosely based on actual events.
by Jeffrey Insko | Jul 29, 2014 |
If you “like” us over on Facebook, you might know that on our annual vacation to Minnesota this year– yes, the one that takes us past the Enbridge offices in Superior, Wisconsin— we were lucky enough to speak to an extraordinary group of citizens embroiled in their own battle with Enbridge. The Friends of the Headwaters up in Park Rapids are concerned (and rightfully so) with the route Enbridge has proposed for its “Sandpiper” pipeline, which would transport crude from the Bakken region of North Dakota all the way to Superior. Along the way, it would pass through some of the most pristine, untrammeled, and beautiful areas in Minnesota– no, in the country– including the headwaters of the Mississippi River. Frankly, unless you’re an oil pipeline executive whose only concern is moving product as quickly and cheaply as possible, the route is totally bonkers.
We’ll have much more to say about Sandpiper and its companion project, the Line 3 “replacement” (both of which we’ve mentioned before), in the weeks and months to come; they’re both a part of the current North American crude and tar sands arms race. At present, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (the equivalent of our MPSC) is reviewing Enbridge’s approval request for Sandpiper. And the Friends of the Headwaters, because they are both rational and devoted to Minnesota’s stunning natural resources, are trying to persuade the PUC to reject Enbridge’s route and to protect the magnificent headwaters. The vast majority of informed Minnesotans appear to agree with them. As landowners who have lived through the “Enbridge experience” and as frequent visitors and admirers of Minnesota’s wonderful and fragile waterways, we fully support the work of the Friends.
For that reason, we were particularly thrilled to be invited to speak with them about our own experience. An impressive, curious, and thoughtful crowd of about 75 people showed up to the talk. They were full of energy and commitment, much of that we are sure owing to the example of Friends of the Headwaters President Richard Smith, who is one smart, cool dude (here he is all brilliant and sensible on MSNBC’s “The Ed Show.”) Richard is collaborating with a whole bunch of awesome people, including Deanna Johnson and Barry Babcock, who were kind enough to take us on a fun, informative, gorgeous tour of the headwaters at Itasca State Park on a sweltering day. The company and the scenery were so good that the heat didn’t bother us a bit.
Our talk seemed to be well received; we tried not to go on too long. But the best part was the warm hospitality, the great generosity, and the commitment and enthusiasm of the Friends of the Headwaters. 
As observers of Enbridge expansion projects in the region, we’ve long admired the work the Friends are doing. Getting to know them in person only deepened that admiration, adding to it real fondness. We can’t thank them enough– for the invitation and for their efforts to protect and preserve Minnesota’s natural resources.
Best of all, their cause appears to be gaining steam, so much so that the PUC actually seems to be listening (at least a little) and Enbridge is doing what it does: lots of misleading p.r.
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 25, 2014 |
As most readers of this blog know, today marks a terrible day. On July 25, 2010, Enbridge’s Line 6B ruptured, spilling over a million gallons of tar sands oil into Talmadge Creek, a tributary of the Kalamazoo River. The spill was not an “accident”; it was the result of neglect, mistakes, poor choices, negligence by Enbridge employees, and a “culture of deviance” from safety protocols at the company as a whole. There’s nothing to celebrate about this day. A better way to mark this occasion is to re-visit and re-read the NTSB report on that spill. It is a parade of horrors. Or, if that’s too much for you to take, you can get a taste of it by looking back at the three part series we did on that report a couple of years ago. There you’ll get the highlights (by which we mean the low lights, of course).
Or even better, head on over to the Pipeline Safety Trust’s “Smart Pig” blog, where they do a brilliant job putting the spill into the appropriate perspective. For our part, we’re on vacation and trying (not very successfully) to not think about such things for a while.
by Jeffrey Insko | Jul 23, 2014 |
Two quick items for landowners and citizens who do not want to see the ET Rover project ripping through our state and who do not want to see yet more private property taken for corporate profits:
First, Keith Matheny this week ran an excellent and very important story in the Detroit Free Press on ET’s argument to FERC just two years ago that additional natural gas supply in this region is not needed. It’s a version of the story we ran here a couple weeks ago. ET Rover appears to have no real answer to this obvious contradiction and appears to be pretending like it doesn’t exist. In our view, Matheny’s story isn’t getting nearly the kind of attention it deserves. After all, FERC is going to be persuaded to deny this application, ET Rover’s about face is in all likelihood going to be a crucial part of the argument, perhaps the most crucial part. Please share the Free Press story widely. Tell everyone about it.
Secondly, our friends over in Brandon Township are holding a citizens’ meeting for people concerned about ET Rover. This is not a company-sponsored event; it’s organized by concerned citizens and landowners. If you’re worried, please consider attending. And bring copies of the Detroit Free Press and the blog story we just mentioned. Everyone needs to know about it! The meeting is July 24 at 7 pm at the library, 304 South Street, Ortonville.
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 17, 2014 |
Like many of you, we attended one of ET Rover’s Open Houses this week. The Fenton Township Hall was packed to bursting with concerned citizens. And what did we learn? Practically nothing. Instead of handing out helpful, specific, and detailed information, ET Rover provided landowners with t-shirts and tote bags– some of which were cleverly repurposed.
We spent some of our time, along with our friends Beth Wallace and Robert Whitesides, passing out copies of the Pipeline Safety Trust’s Landowner’s Guide, in hopes that property owners will take an active role in informing themselves of their rights and of the process for approving (or not) a natural gas pipeline project. From what we could tell, the vast majority of landowners were deeply skeptical, if not outright hostile, toward the idea of another pipeline tearing across southeastern Michigan. Of course, there was the one guy (he is inevitable) who asked us how we were going to heat our home. But since we don’t own a home in Canada, we didn’t quite understand his point.
At the meeting and since, we’ve had some conversations with some energized landowners and their neighbors about what can be done to prevent this project from happening and protect their property and the environment. We hope to collaborate with those people– that’s YOU– in the months to come. But for now, here’s a quick list of action items to consider:
Talk to your neighbors. Make new friends, get others involved. In order to influence the process, a large number of voices need to be heard. Information needs to be shared. Reach out to others, enlist them, inform them. Citizens communicating with other citizens is powerful and vital. Some of that communication is already happening here and over on our FB page. Keep it going. Share links to both.
Talk to your local officials. It’s one thing for individual landowners to protest; it’s quite another for townships, municipalities, and counties to do the same. We could have used much more of that– a half dozen or more Brandon Townships— during the Line 6B replacement. Resolutions from local governments can be very powerful.
Fire up your pens and your computers. Write letters to your local elected officials, your state and federal representatives, the governor’s office. Letters to the editor of your local newspaper can help inform your fellow citizens. Emails and phone calls to local reporters can do the same. And everyone will need to write to FERC (more on that below).
Just say no. If you are a landowner along the proposed route and are opposed to this pipeline, tell ET Rover no when they seek your permission to survey your land. That is your right. You do NOT have to allow them to conduct their survey on your property and they can’t legally do so without your permission. Refusing them access to your property will send them a clear and unequivocal message– and make it difficult for them to solidify their plans.
Contact FERC. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is the agency that oversees natural gas pipelines. ET Rover will have to file an application with FERC for this project. If approved, FERC will issue a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, which will give ET the power of eminent domain. As part of that process, FERC collects comments from citizens. At that point, it will be crucial for as many people as possible to let the agency know their views. And in our view, the most important point to make to FERC is that, by Energy Transfer’s own admission, there is no need for this pipeline.
In addition to the above, you can inform yourself by taking advantage of the resources available from FERC and the Pipeline Safety Trust. Their Citizen Guide and Landowner’s Guide, respectively, are important resources. Even more information is available at their websites: FERC and the Pipeline Safety Trust.
by Jeffrey Insko | Jul 9, 2014 |
Energy Transfer just can’t seem to make up its mind.
Less than a year ago, ET was telling everyone, including federal regulators, that they had more pipeline capacity than they needed to serve Michigan– so much capacity, in fact, that they sought permission from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to abandon one of their natural gas pipelines. Now, not even a year later, they are preparing to ask FERC for the power of eminent domain so that they can install an even bigger pipeline into and through Michigan– and perhaps right through your property. Does that make sense to you?
Let us explain. Back in 2012, Energy Transfer applied to FERC for permission to abandon a 770-mile stretch of their Trunkline pipeline, a 30-in gas line that ran from the Gulf of Mexico to Michigan so that it could be converted to carry crude oil. This application did not please energy companies in Michigan, especially Consumers Energy. So those companies protested, as did Michigan’s elected officials, including Senators Stabenow and Levin. Even Governor Snyder and the Michigan Public Service Commission cried foul. Consumers and others worried that abandoning Trunkline– which delivered as much as 60 percent of the gas used by Consumers– would negatively affect the reliability of the state’s natural gas supply and perhaps drive up costs.
Energy Transfer adamantly (and sort of snidely) dismissed all of those concerns, including– get this– “environmental concerns… about having to build another pipeline in the future if this one is abandoned.” In fact, Energy Transfer even went so far as to cast Consumers and Michigan state officials as a bunch of hysterical Chicken Littles. That’s not a joke: they actually told FERC, in response to these protests, that “the sky is not falling.” They said a lot of over things to FERC as well, all to reassure them that abandoning Trunkline would have no effect on natural gas supplies in Michigan. For instance, they said:
• Trunkline’s natural gas delivery capacity into the state of Michigan will remain the same both before and after the proposed abandonment;
• Sufficient capacity will remain post-abandonment for Trunkline to meet all of its firm contracted-for capacity, thus ensuring continuity of service;
• No shippers will experience any change in service or harm in terms of quality of service;
In addition, Energy Transfer specifically rejected (several times) claims that “Trunkline should be required to hold unneeded capacity in the unlikely event that it may be needed at some speculative and undefined future date.”
Unsurprisingly, ET got its way in this matter. FERC approved their application to abandon Trunkline, making possible its conversion from shipping natural gas to shipping crude oil. And here’s the punch line: which oil transportation company do you suppose took over Trunkline to ship that crude oil. We’ll give you one guess….
Yep, you’re right: Enbridge. So ET gets to abandon a natural gas pipeline, making it possible for Enbridge to use the same pipeline to ship more crude (and make more money), at which point ET turns around and proposes to build a NEW, BIGGER natural gas pipeline so that they can ship more fracked natural gas through Michigan to foreign markets (and also make more money). How’s that for salt in your wound?
But the important point here is this: if ET Rover has its way, FERC will approve this new project (FERC always approves these applications) and grant them a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. That Certificate would give ET Rover the power of eminent domain, which will mean that landowners in Michigan (and elsewhere) will not have any choice in whether or not ET Rover crosses their property. However, those same landowners will be entirely justified in wondering how FERC could possibly think that this project serves the “public necessity” not even a year after agreeing with Energy Transfer that there is no public necessity for increased natural gas capacity into Michigan.
Of course, ET is going to say that this project is just a matter of responding to their customer’s demands– and that may be true. But FERC’s charge is not to give in to every demand of natural gas developers; its charge is to determine “public necessity.” They need to be reminded of that crucial distinction. (We should also mention, because ET certainly will, that Rover is not a direct replacement of Trunkline; the routes are different. However, they serve precisely the same markets.)
So here’s what is important to take away from this:
First, this pipeline is NOT, according to ET’s own admission, a “public necessity.” It is nothing more than a land grab to allow natural gas fracked from Pennsylvania and West Virginia to pass through your property while offering you and your fellow Michigan citizens very little, if any, benefit. That gas is destined primarily for Canada. We’re just a freeway. That’s bad enough. But more importantly, the fact that FERC (and ET) already concede that that there is no need for this project should, on its own (and self-evidently; its weird that we even have to say it), preclude any approval saying there is a public need.
Secondly, Michigan elected officials, including Governor Snyder, need to be reminded of the position they took on Trunkline a year ago. That is, they should still be concerned about the environmental concerns of building a new pipeline– and they should join landowners, vocally, and publicly, in opposing ET Rover, which again, is not a project designed or projected to benefit Michigan and its citizens.
Finally, as much as landowners should make their concerns about and objections to this pipeline known to ET Rover and its representatives– at their open houses and elsewhere– the real pressure here needs to be put on FERC. Like so many other regulatory agencies, they appear to be little more than an arm of industry. However, the people need to remind them– loudly, persistently, forcefully, and repeatedly– that they work for us, the public, not for private interests.
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 | Jul 3, 2014 |
The original letter sent to landowners by ET Rover contained a web link for more information. That link did not work. Up and running now, however, is a splashy new ET Rover web page. It’s not terribly helpful. The information it provides, including a map and a “citizens guide” is quite general and lacks detail (the Pipeline Safety Trust’s Landowner’s Guide is much more helpful, as is FERC’s citizen guide.)
But there are two interesting things to note about the ET Rover website:
First, in the list of open houses, the July 14 meeting in Fenton (according to the letter they sent) is not listed. We don’t know if this is an oversight or a change in plan. We’ll seek clarification; you should too.
Secondly, check out the “Open House Boards” at the bottom of the page. This gives some indication of how the open house will be run (or so it appears): as a series of manned stations. As we described in our post yesterday, thanks to some clever Wisconsin citizens, this is not the sort of forum that will be most advantageous to landowners. We urge our fellow landowner to ban together.
by Jeffrey Insko | Jul 1, 2014 |
Bits of information on the proposed ET Rover project have been trickling in, none of it verified with any absolute certainty. Here is what we have learned (or heard) since our last post:
- If you’re on Line 6B and you’re like us, it crossed your mind that this project might re-use the now-abandoned old Line 6B that is sitting idle in your back (or front yard). We never really thought that was very likely, but the fact that Enbridge has recently partnered with Energy Transfer to convert a gas line to crude made us a little nervous. So we wanted to Enbridge to go on record on this matter. Yesterday, Jason Manshum verified that “there are no plans to use the original Line 6B for this other project.” We’d have preferred that he put that a bit more directly, but it appears that we can (more or less) rule out the possibility of recommissioning the old Line 6B. That’s good news.
Unfortunately, Energy Transfer has not returned our two phone calls (no idea why), so the other information we have to share is coming from other landowners. Here’s what we’ve been told:
- The ET Rover route will NOT use the Line 6B corridor or easements, although it will loosely parallel the route, running north of Line 6B (how far north, we can’t say). Energy Transfer will be seeking NEW 60 foot easements from landowners and, presumably, municipalities. That’s not such good news. The image above shows a portion of the route running through a portion of Howell– and right through a subdivision! Line 6B is several hundred feet to the south of the blue ET Rover line in the image.
- According to the ET representative in one of our readers’ phone calls, the letter was sent to anyone in a 500 ft. radius of the line. If the proposed line runs through your property, it appears you would have received an additional letter and perhaps (even likely) a phone call asking for permission to survey your land. It is our understanding that many landowners are refusing that request. Please note that you DO NOT have to allow them to access your property to survey. You can just say no.
- This is the very beginning of a long process (please refer to the resources at the Pipeline Safety Trust website describing the FERC approval process). Energy Transfer has not yet fulfilled the requirements to file a permit application with FERC. The process can take a couple of years to run its course. That said, it’s best to inform yourself, make your wishes known, and organize with your neighbors and your local officials early.
- A reminder that the first of the ET Rover open houses is July 14 in Fenton. It is likely that company officials and/or land agents will conduct the open house informally, preferring to speak to landowners individually rather than collectively. This is NOT to your advantage. We strongly recommend that landowners gather together to make the open house a group affair. That way, everyone can hear everyone’s concerns and continuity of information will be assured. For reference, here is part of an account of how shrewd landowners in Wisconsin prevented Enbridge from controlling information in a similar fashion:
It was a combative format Enbridge was attempting to avoid when it originally organized the meeting to be an open-house format, with residents asking questions one-on-one with Enbridge representatives. However, some of the more than 75 attendees, including many political candidates who empathized with the crowd, were unhappy with the format and quickly began setting up chairs for a group presentation, succeeding in turning the session into two-hour group question-and-answer session. The group, closely monitored by two Jefferson police officers, then proceeded to drill the company representatives on everything from the company’s safety procedures to the pipeline welds, the content of the material flowing through the pipelines and their environmental record.
Lastly, if you are as concerned as we are not just about your own property and the treatment of your neighbors, but about pipeline safety in general, please take a moment to share (or even adapt) the open letter we wrote to Attorney General Schuette and DEQ Director Wyant regarding the newly proposed Michigan pipeline safety task force. The fact that the assembled task force does not include any landowners, property rights advocates, or conservationists is unconscionable. The only way to ensure that landowners do not continue to suffer at the hands of these energy expansion projects is to give them a prominent voice in the process. Regular citizens need to put pressure on their elected officials, at all levels, to make this happen. We’ll try to post more updates to our Facebook page as we receive them. Please stop by and give us a “like.”
by Jeffrey Insko | Jun 27, 2014 |
Now, here’s a coincidence: the very same week that Energy Transfer Partners announced a massive new pipeline construction project that will affect a large number of Michigan citizens– including, evidently, many Line 6B landowners– state officials announced the formation of a new pipeline safety task force.
You might think that’s good news– and at first glance, we thought so too. But then we saw who is on that task force, or rather, who is NOT on it. The task force is made up entirely of representative of the very agencies that have thus far failed to protect landowners, municipalities, and the environment. Frankly, it’s outrageous.
For that reason, just this morning, we sent the letter below to Attorney General Schuette and Michigan DEQ Director Dan Wyant. Please feel free to share.
—
Dear Mr. Wyant and Attorney General Schuette,
This week, the Texas-based pipeline company Energy Transfer announced plans to build a new network of pipelines to transport natural gas from the Marcellus and Utica shale formations in West Virginia and Pennsylvania across the country. Nearly two hundred miles of that pipeline network would traverse Michigan, much of it crossing through the property of Michigan citizens already reeling from the recent replacement of the Enbridge Line 6B pipeline. During the latter project (which is still not complete), landowners have been mistreated, lied to, misinformed and have watched helplessly while Enbridge uprooted their lives, destroyed their property, and abused its easement rights. Many local officials had similar experiences, as Enbridge evaded local ordinances and treated townships and municipalities with disregard (at best) or disrespect (at worst). To my knowledge, neither the Attorney General’s office nor other state officials or agencies have taken even the slightest interest in this series of events .
I mention these facts as important background and context for your announcement, also this week, of a new pipeline safety task force. Although it is a very late-arriving development, I welcome this news, especially considering the many oil and gas expansion projects planned or already in progress across the state.
Having said that, it is more than a little distressing to learn that the task force that has been assembled includes not a single landowner advocate, local official, or other member of the general public (much less a representative from an environmental or conservation group)– all people who have a profound stake in protecting public health and the environment. Landowners and local officials, in particular, are on the front lines of these pipeline projects. They are the people who assume virtually ALL of the risks of these expansions (yet earn none of the rewards). They are also the people most familiar with the conditions on the ground– private property and natural resources– where many of these pipelines will be placed. In addition, they are the same citizens, as you well know, whose interests your positions exist to protect. They deserve a seat at the table and a strong voice in these matters.
I realize that pipeline operators’ dealings with landowners and local governments may not be central to the task force’s mission. However, recent experience has shown clearly that the way pipeline companies treat these stakeholders reflects the way they operate their pipelines, which affects the safety of those pipelines. Given the terrible incident in 2010 in Marshall, I’m sure you can appreciate the many and varied concerns Michigan citizens have about further oil and gas development in our state. Those concerns include a widespread perception that state officials and regulatory agencies are working more on behalf of corporate interests than on behalf of ordinary citizens. Routing and permitting decisions, for instance, already in effect exclude the very people who are most directly affected by those decisions. Excluding these citizens from this task force will only further alienate them and do little to change perceptions that state agencies fail to understand the affects their decisions have on the daily lives of regular people.
It is worth noting that a great many Michigan citizens have been working toward the goals the task force has set for itself for quite a long time. In fact, there are currently three Michigan residents (including myself) on the Board of Trustees of the national Pipeline Safety Trust. In addition, the recent “replacement” of Enbridge’s Line 6B has created a large group of citizens with first-hand experience of pipeline planning, permitting, and construction. Their experience is an invaluable resource. In short, you should have no trouble finding any number of committed, knowledgeable, thoughtful, and collaborative-minded members of the public to participate on your task force. I implore you to seek them out.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Insko
by Jeffrey Insko | Jun 26, 2014 |
Thanks to the extraordinary staff at the Pipeline Safety Trust, we have a little more information about the proposed route for the ET Rover natural gas pipeline. That map (reproduced below)– it’s not very detailed– and some additional resources for landowners are available at the PS Trust website.
We’ll also link to that information and more on our Facebook page. If you are interested in this project or concerned about whether and how it will affect you (and you’re a social media user), please stop by and “like” us. We can post speedier updates on all of this there.
