by Jeffrey Insko | Jun 26, 2014 |
Yesterday, we broke the news of a new natural gas pipeline project that will potentially affect Line 6B landowners (how many? we don’t know). The project will transport natural gas tracked from the Marcellus and Utica shale formations in West Virginia and Ohio to points around the country and Canada.
At present, very little detailed information is available, although we’re hearing from lots of landowners. We’re working hard to find out as much as we can as fast as we can. We do have a little more information in the form of a news article from the Wall Street Journal’s MarketWatch. Apparently, Energy Transfer has made the official announcement of the project. Here is the part that will directly affect Michiganders:
Additionally, ETP expects to construct an approximately 195-mile segment from the Defiance area through Michigan and ultimately to the Union Gas Dawn Hub (Dawn) near Sarnia, Canada providing producers with access to diverse markets and end-users in Michigan and Canada with access to Marcellus and Utica supplies.
We can’t say for sure, but given the fact that Line 6B landowners in Howell and Fenton have been contacted and the line will run to Sarnia, it sounds to us like they want to use the Line 6B corridor. However, we’ve yet to verify that. If we can find that out soon, you can bet we’ll let you know.
The other bit of information we have (from the letter sent to landowners) is that three open houses will be held in Michigan. The are as follows:
Monday, July 14 at the Fenton Township Hall in Fenton, 5:30-7:30 pm
Tuesday, July 15 at the Village Conference Center of the Comfort Inn in Chelsea, 5:30-7:30 pm
Tuesday, July 15 at the Lois Wagner Memorial Library in Richmond, 5:30-7:30 pm
A brief footnote about obtaining further details about all of this: we’ve called the contact numbers that Energy Transfer has listed for more information. Conveniently, the individuals listed are “not in the office” today. Imagine that.
by Jeffrey Insko | Jun 25, 2014 |
We’ve just gotten some terrible news. Some already battered Line 6B landowners have received letters this week from a company called ET Rover Pipeline (a division of Energy Transfer) announcing a natural gas pipeline project that, if the company has its way, will traverse some Line 6B properties– snuggled up cozily, evidently, right alongside the shiny new Line 6B (and, in some cases, other pipelines already in place).
It’s a deeply disturbing letter, not least because of its triumphant tone, which describes the project as if it is already a done deal– even though it’s at the very beginning of the process. One can only assume this is a deliberate strategy to make landowners feel helpless; it has almost certainly further demoralized them.
And make no mistake about it, this pipeline project is the result of one thing: fracking. Here’s how the letter describes it:
Please join ET Rover Pipeline LLC (ET Rover) for an informational Open House regarding the construction and operation of the Rover Pipeline Project. The Rover Pipeline Project will be a new interstate natural gas pipeline that receives gas from the Marcellus and Utica shale gas formations in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio and traverses through Ohio and Michigan, and terminates at the Union Gas Dawn Hub in Ontario, Canada (Rover Pipeline).
The Rover Pipeline will consist of approximately 200 miles of pipeline laterals from the tailgate of natural gas processing plants and approximately 365 miles of mainline pipe in Ohio and Michigan, and 15 miles of mainline pipe across the border to the Union Gas Dawn Hub in Ontario, Canada. ET Rover will also need to build compression and metering stations along its route. Because of significant increases in the domestic natural gas supply due to shale gas production, the U.S. is no longer dependent on foreign sources. The construction of the Rover Pipeline will provide new natural gas pipeline infrastructure for your area.
Natural gas pipelines are regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which requires companies to hold these open houses prior to filing their applications for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. So despite the letter’s attempt to pretend that this project is inevitable, it’s really only at the very beginning of the process. What that means, however, is that it’s time to speak up and speak out before already abused and demoralized Michigan landowners have to endure a replay of the Enbridge nightmare from which, if they’re lucky, they have only just now awoken.
At this point, information is quite scarce. But we’re working on it. Rest assured we will keep you informed as more details become available. We’re preparing for action.
by Jeffrey Insko | Jun 10, 2014 |
Whatcom Creek, Bellingham, Washington
Today marks a terrible anniversary. 15 years ago on this day, the negligence of a pipeline operator caused the deaths of three young people, changing their families’ lives forever. In the wake of that tragedy, the Pipeline Safety Trust was created to help prevent other families from having to endure the same horrible loss. The staff at the Trust works tirelessly and thanklessly to advance that cause. We’re humbled and proud to be associated with such a remarkable, committed group of people.
Fittingly, the Trust’s Executive Director Carl Weimer reflects on that awful event today in today’s inaugural post for the Trust’s brand new blog, “Smart Pig.” Please read it and share it with your friends. Everyone should know the story of Bellingham.
Read it here.
by Jeffrey Insko | Jun 9, 2014 |
Recently, we told you about the Enbridge blog. No, not this Enbridge blog. We mean the official blog started by Enbridge and “written,” so they say, by various Enbridge muckety-mucks. It’s great fun– if you enjoy watching corporate public relations gears churning desperately and rather transparently.
The latest post to catch our eye, posted late last week, comes from big shot– and Michigan native!– Steve Wuori, who now holds the title of “Strategic Advisor, Office of the President and CEO,” whatever that means. You might remember Wuori from a while back, when he traveled back here to Michigan to sit down with some newspaper editorial boards, telling them all sorts of ridiculous things. Wuori’s blog post is titled “The big picture: Canada’s crude-oil landscape at a glance.” On the whole, the post says very little of substance, in keeping, apparently, with the Enbridge blog’s general editorial policy. In fact, it leads with this bit of vacuousness: “there are forces at work that I believe will keep energy in the forefront of public and policymaker thinking.” When has energy ever not been in the forefront of public and policymaker thinking?
At any rate, the interesting thing about the post is what Wuori says at the end, when he boldly addresses the “opposition.” His comments reveal that, while he might be a very effective “strategic advisor” and a perfectly good company man, he doesn’t know very much (or pretends not to) about his critics and the history of his own industry. Here’s what he writes in his blog’s penultimate paragraph:
All this is occurring against an intricate societal backdrop of opposition to oil transportation infrastructure development, which operates on the thesis that it is easier to oppose transportation (and pipelines in particular) than to oppose oil production directly. The Canadian oil sands have been inaccurately labeled “tar sands” (which has a nasty ring) by opponents, who seek to forestall further development of this vast resource.
Long time readers will recognize this sort of thing: it’s the old straw man tactic Enbridge likes to employ. Typically, this maneuver is deployed knowingly and strategically in a dishonest effort to make their critics look bad. Here, we’re not so sure. We suspect that, with all of its contradictory logic, this is what Wuori really thinks– which just goes to show how much he exists inside an industry bubble. Let’s break it down a little:
It’s not really clear where Wuori gets this “thesis” about opposing transportation rather than oil production. There is certainly plenty of oil production opposition taking place in North American and all around the world- like this and this. In fact, anyone who is even moderately informed about these matters understands that one of the reasons to oppose new transportation infrastructure projects is precisely to put a halt to production. After all, if all of that oil from, say, Alberta can’t be shipped, there’s not much point in digging it up in the first place (and there may be evidence to support this theory). And in fact, Wuori contradicts himself in the very next sentence, when he says that “opponents… seek to forestall further development” of tar sands oil. Wuori’s narrow, simplistic, glib thesis reduces a complex and varied set of interests and approaches to nothing more than an assault on his own company.
Wuori’s version of the opposition is also perversely self-serving in that it allows him to portray himself and his fellow pipeline operators as embattled and mistreated. The same is true when Wuori trots out the tired, untrue industry line about the term “tar sands,” repeating the industry mantra that it is “inaccurate” and somehow cooked up by fiendish radicals who just want to make a pretty thing sound “nasty.” One hears this sort of thing from the industry all the time– even though it is plainly and demonstrably untrue. For one thing, the accuracy claim is dubious at best. Sure, bitumen is used like oil, not tar. On the other hand, it bears far more resemblance, in terms of texture and look, to tar than it does to oil. See for yourself:
If you were to show this stuff to 100 people and ask them whether it is oil or tar, what do you imagine the vast majority of those 100 people would say? Despite what the industry wants to pretend, “tar” is a very accurate term for the stuff.
In addition to the claim of inaccuracy, Wuori would have you believe that the term “tar sands” was invented by opponents to tarnish (if you’ll forgive the pun) the reputation of bitumen. In this instance, we honestly don’t know whether Wuori actually believes this or if he’s simply ignorant of the history of his own industry. Most likely it’s both. But whatever the case, here’s a little history lesson:
The term “tar sands” is not some ugly-sounding label invented by petroleum opponents in an attempt to besmirch the industry as Wuori (and his colleagues) suggests. In fact, tar sands has been used to describe the resource in Alberta for the entire twentieth century. Earlier, in fact, according to about 15 minutes of our own research. In 1897, for example, the journal Science reported on a geological survey of Canada completed in 1894. The article describes a trial boring 1000 feet in depth, seeking petroleum. The explorers found that “the tar sands proved to be somewhat thicker than was expected.” In 1900, the American Journal of Science reported on another geological survey of Canada, this one from 1899: “The borings in Northern Alberta, in attempts to reach the petroleum-bearing strata at the base of the Cretaceous, have still failed to reach the ‘tar sands,’ which it is estimated lie at a depth of about 2000 feet in the Victoria Region.” A 1921 article in another journal notes that “Canada has enormous tracts of tar sands and shales.” One could easily go on, demonstrating that the term “tar sands” has been common usage for well over 100 years. “Oil sands,” by contrast, appears not to have been widely used until about the 1940s, although it occurs earlier as well.
And it’s not as if the industry doesn’t know this. They do. For example, an entry at the Suncor Energy blog (devoted to “constructive dialogue about the tar sands”), there’s an entry titled “Oil sands history: ‘tar sands’ term coined long before it was adopted by critics” that explores some of this same history. Even the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers concedes that “the term ‘Tar Sands’ has been used by the oil industry for decades.” It wasn’t until the 1960s that the Albertan government decided that it preferred “oil sands.” And it wasn’t until the 1990s, when the Alberta Chamber of Resources convened a National Oil Sands Task force to promote tar sands development, that the industry launched a concerted public relations campaign in favor of “oil sands.” So it’s the industry that decided that “tar sands” sounds nastier and started playing this silly name game. Which is itself pretty humorous, since there’s actual research that suggests that the public thinks “oil sands” is the nastier term. Whether tar sands opponents use the term because they think it sounds worse than “oil” is a dubious claim at best. More likely, they’re just adopting common usage– a usage that goes back more than a century. Or perhaps they just don’t think they should be told how to speak or what language to use by the paid public relations euphemizers of large corporations. We can certainly understand that resistance. We’re sure as heck not going to say “oil sands” just because Steve Wuori and his industry’s army of spinmeisters think it’s a more pleasing term.
So Steve Wuori is either completely, bafflingly ignorant of this history– a history that is perfectly well known, even by his own industry colleagues– or he is willfully misleading readers of the Enbridge blog. Of course, all of this might seem like it’s of no real consequence. Why do we even bother pointing out at such length all the untruths and misinformation that comes from Enbridge? Isn’t that just standard, every day corporate behavior? That’s a vital question, we think. In a follow-up post in the next day or two we’ll take it up and try to provide an answer as to why we think it’s worth the time.
by Jeffrey Insko | Jun 6, 2014 |
Honestly, it gives us no particular pleasure to spend our time pointing out the untruths that tumble from the mouths of Enbridge p.r. hirelings. Quite the contrary. All we really want is for them– for Enbridge– to tell the truth, to be honest and forthright and transparent in the way that they say they are, in the way that their corporate values state they will be. Unfortunately, this seems to be very difficult for them.
So, to repeat, it gives us no pleasure to have to once again point out that the things Enbridge spokesperson Jennifer Smith says cannot be trusted (and more). At the same time, it’s not our fault that she continues to deal so very disingenuously with the public. The latest example of this comes from a new report in the Times of Northwest Indiana about yet another Enbridge pipeline project that will cut across a portion of northern Indiana (and Illinois), as part of Enbridge’s ever expanding tangled network of Great Lakes region pipeline projects.
According to the article, Enbridge is preparing to clear some land– some of it publicly and other parts privately owned– in Lake County to make room for their new Line 78 pipeline. This clearing will evidently include taking down quite a number of very large trees, some of them more than a hundred years old. This is understandably troubling to many of the locals and troubling to us as well (long time readers of this blog know that we are especially sensitive when it comes to the removal of trees; Enbridge, by contrast, just doesn’t care).
But even more disturbing is Jennifer Smith’s rationale for the removal of the trees. Her explanation is– to be frank– just plain b.s. From the article:
This fall, crews will start clearing a path for the new pipeline, which will run for about five miles in western Lake County. Enbridge also plans to soon start clearing land around its existing Line 62 pipeline in Dyer and Schererville, spokeswoman Jennifer Smith said. The company will remove mostly large trees, but also any brush, sheds or pools that encroach on the utility right of way because of federal regulations that require the land to be left open for maintenance and emergency response. [italics added]
And later:
Enbridge regrets trees have to come down, but is clearing the land for safety reasons and to comply with federal regulations and industry best practices, Smith said. The company is required to fly a helicopter over the pipeline 26 times a year to make sure there are no encroachments that could slow down response times in the event of an emergency.
Smith makes it sound as if Enbridge has no choice but to remove all those trees, as if Enbridge is doing it in order to comply with federal regulations. She also seems to suggest that federal regulations require Enbridge to fly a helicopter over the line 26 times a year. However, neither one of those things is true. Let’s be clear about this: there are NO federal regulations that stipulate trees cannot be in the right of way and there are NO federal regulations that require operators to fly over the right of way 26 times a year.
For clarity, we checked with one of the people who knows these regulations better than anyone: Rebecca Craven at the Pipeline Safety Trust. Rebecca pointed us to federal law 49 CFR 195.412(a):
Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but at least 26 times each calendar year, inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent to each pipeline right of way. Methods of inspection include walking, driving, flying, or other appropriate means of traversing the right of way.
You see: operators DON’T have to inspect surface conditions by flying over; there are plenty of other ways to traverse the right of way, like walking or driving. You will also notice that there is not a word about trees in the right of way. In most cases, that is a matter addressed in easement agreements, many of which, we are quite certain, do NOT prohibit trees and other vegetation in the right of way. Ours didn’t, for example, even though we were told on numerous occasions that trees are not allowed in the right of way.
Of course, if we’re being generous, it is possible the reporter of the story somehow got Jennifer Smith’s remarks wrong– though we doubt it. It’s also possible that Jennifer Smith meant to say that these are not actually matters of federal regulation, but matters of “industry best practices.” But even in that case, “best” really only means “best for the industry,” not for landowners and communities. Further, what “best” actually means in matters like this– flyovers and trees– is “easiest” for the operator (that is, for Enbridge). It’s easier for Enbridge to work in a right of way that’s been decimated and cleared of trees. It’s easier for Enbridge to fly over a right of way in a helicopter than it is to inspect it on foot. Whether those things are “best” is another question altogether. Whether they are “required,” by contrast, is not in question at all. They are absolutely not required.
The bottom line: once again Jennifer Smith and Enbridge are not telling the good citizens of Indiana the truth.
by Jeffrey Insko | May 30, 2014 |
Earlier this month Enbridge announced that they were ready to begin restoration work on the segment of line 6B between Griffith, Indiana, and Stockbridge, Michigan. That’s (semi) good news for all those landowners on Phase Two. But there’s just one problem: Enbridge hasn’t completed restoration work on Phase One. We’ve been hearing from some of our fellow landowners who are wondering what’s going on. We’ve been wondering the same thing ourselves, since this is currently what our property looks like. Trust us, that black silt fence is not of our own design and making.
Of course, nobody from Enbridge has taken any steps whatsoever to inform us or our fellow landowners of when, if ever, anyone from Enbridge will return to complete the job. Tired of waiting– and, frankly, increasingly concerned about all the troubles that barren swath of land is causing, from weeds to water runoff– we called our land agent yesterday to see if we could get some answers. Here’s how that phone call went (note: not an exact transcript, but very close):
Us: What can you tell us about when crews will be back to restore our property.
Agent: Well, I heard they were going to start restoration in June, but I don’t know where they’ll start or when they’ll get to you.
Us: What do you mean, “you heard”? Don’t you know?
Agent: Well, it’s what I heard.
Us: Heard from whom?
Agent: Well, that’s what Enbridge says.
Us: Who at Enbridge said that?
Agent: Well, I don’t know. The higher ups. I heard it from talking to construction crews.
Us: Construction crews? Wait. You’re telling me that Enbridge doesn’t communicate with you, the people who are supposed to communicate with landowners?
Agent: Well, I just heard they were going to start restoration in June, but I don’t know where they’ll start or when they’ll get to you.
So, after a 10 minute conversation, we knew no more than we did before we called. And that’s because Enbridge’s land agents, the people whose job it is to keep landowners informed, don’t seem to know anything and therefore cannot keep landowners informed. And that appears to be because Enbridge, bafflingly, doesn’t tell them anything. It is the most perverse system imaginable. We can only assume that Enbridge supervisors in charge of land agents are either utterly incompetent or simply hostile to landowners, the people with whom their office is supposed to cultivate productive relations. Beyond those possibilities, we have no idea what is to account for these persistent problems and, honestly, we’re tired of speculating. What we do know, however, is that those of us on Phase One have been dealing with this kind of poor communication and indifference from Enbridge for more than two full years now. And there appears to be no real end in sight.
by Jeffrey Insko | May 7, 2014 |
We’re running a contest! Everyone is eligible. For details, please read on:
For a while now, we’ve been meaning to tell you that Enbridge has started its very own blog! Trust us when we tell you that it is every bit as good as you might imagine. In fact– no offense to all the marvelous sites we visit regularly— it’s pretty quickly becoming our favorite blog ever. It’s so good, in fact, that if we had the time, we’d write about it almost every day. Why? Well, many reasons. For example, there’s the incomprehensible corporate claptrap:
“This means we have a unique opportunity to collaborate with the various components of our value chain,” she adds, “on the role that CSR practices and market-based innovation can play in reducing carbon emissions and improving other aspects of environmental performance.”
There’s the fact that it appears to be written for an audience comprised of junior high school kids:
Energy is as essential to sustaining life today as water. Energy cooks our food, grows our crops, and provides the sustenance we need to lead active lives.
There’s the lineup of authors, which is supposed to make us believe that these Enbridge executives are typing up these blog entries themselves, as opposed to the Enbridge marketing team, which must mean that all Enbridge executives are taught to write in the same bland voice, full of corporatized, hollow slogans:
Our strength is in our people.
As North Americans, we owe our economic and social progress to fossil fuels.
We believe we need to be part of the solution to issues like climate change and we’re working hard to make a difference.
Working together, we will achieve our target of top industry performance.
There’s even the shameless attempt to exploit adorable dogs to persuade people to their point of view (seriously, who would do that?).
But by far, the best post yet comes from (is attributed to?) Leon Zupan, Enbridge’s Chief Operating Officer, Liquids Pipelines, who recently tried his hand at an extended metaphor. According to Zupan, pipelines are a lot like people and many of Enbridge’s employees are a lot like doctors. It goes like this:
First off, let me say that I am conflicted, as most of our pipelines, other than the original four lines, are older than me. I know that the regimen we follow to keep our lines in top shape definitely exceeds my personal regimen of exercise and diet.
Pipelines have some similarities to us:
- They have to have a health check;
- They may need some preventive work and the occasional professional treatment, and;
- If properly looked after, they can last a very long time, maybe an active working life longer than many of us.
We have some of the best pipeline “physicians” in the world working for Enbridge, and coupled with a team of external consultants and repair specialists, we do an industry-leading job of ensuring all of our lines are healthy and fit for purpose.
It goes on in this vein for a few more paragraphs before concluding on a sort of wistfully humanizing note, as Zupan says that he should “aspire to be as fit as the pipelines I look after.”
Now, it just so happens that we love a belabored metaphor. And we love it even more when the metaphor is terribly ill-conceived, as this one is. In fact, it got us thinking about some of the other ways that pipelines are just like people. So much so, that we thought it might be fun to make it a contest. So what do you think? How are pipelines like people?
We asked the crack Line 6B blog staff and they came up with these:
- Sometimes pipelines are mistreated and neglected by the people who say they’re taking care of them.
- Pipelines, like people, often do not fit the perfect ‘mold’ – they are not able to be inspected by the latest ILI devices, having a few too many curves or dips or divets.
- Pipelines are like people: stuff’s supposed to go in one end and out the other end. It’s bad if it comes out in the middle.
- Or, if Enbridge wants to be serious about the health care metaphor, consider this: the U.S. still does not have universal health care for all of its citizens. 14 percent of Americans remain uninsured. But that’s still a better situation than for hazardous liquid pipelines, where only about 42% of them are subject to rules that require periodic “health check” inspections. As for other 58% of them, operators aren’t required to take them in for check ups or “occasional professional treatments” ever. EVER. Until they fail, and then they have to fix them – much like the uninsured going to the ER. One would think that both ought to get some preventive care, no?
So there’s your challenge: how are pipelines like people? pipeline operators like doctors? (surely someone can cook up a good malpractice joke!). We’ll conduct the contest over at the Line 6B blog Facebook page. The winner, determined by the number of “likes” will receive bragging rights and admiration!
Submit your entry over on our Facebook page.
by Jeffrey Insko | May 2, 2014 |
If recent reports are accurate– and we have no reason to doubt that they are– the brand new Line 6B is up and running between Griffith, Indiana and Ortonville, Michigan, pumping ever-greater volumes of diluted bitumen across the region. This is great news for Enbridge and their customers; more profits for everybody!
Landowners on the other hand? Well, news is not so good for them. As we pointed out a few weeks ago, they are rather low on Enbridge’s list of priorities. We, for example, have been trying to get some basic information about perfectly legitimate matters regarding restoration and equitability— but we’ve been put off. Other landowners are in a similar holding pattern, wondering when they can expect to see their properties restored and their other concerns addressed. But landowners don’t know whom to call and Enbridge isn’t making any effort whatsoever to communicate with us. Clearly, Enbridge has more “important” matters to attend to.
Here’s just one illustration of Enbridge’s careless, neglectful attitude toward landowners. Just as it is through ours, oil is now flowing through our friend Dave Gallagher’s property. Enbridge was in a mighty rush last fall to make sure that happened. But the result of that haste, evidently, is a deeply insulting disregard for Dave’s property. Here’s how Enbridge has left it: not just unrestored, but littered with trash and refuse. We know Dave’s property is not the only one that’s been left in such disarray. If you’ve got pictures of your own that you’d like to share, please contact us. We’d be happy to document your discontent as well.
Not exactly our idea of neighborly.
by Jeffrey Insko | Apr 21, 2014 |
Remember how Enbridge says they treat landowners fairly and consistently? Well, we’ve got a story for you.
This is a very important post, one we’ve had in our back pockets for a while as we’ve tried, with no success and no small amount of frustration, to gather some reliable information about the matter. As many of you know, a longstanding concern for landowners on Line 6B has been the widely disparate treatment– from land agent responsiveness to compensation– landowners have received from Enbridge, despite their claims to the contrary. The subject of this post is a perfect illustration of this inconsistent treatment.
The whole thing is hazy and complicated. But the bottom line here is this: if you are a Line 6B landowner, especially along Phase One, Enbridge might owe you some money. As with most things Enbridge-related, it’s all a little convoluted, so we’ll provide both a short version and a long version. At the end, we also have some contact information in case you’d like to contact Enbridge to inquire about this matter– which we encourage you to do.
Short Version
If you are on Phase One and were NOT taken to court in condemnation proceedings, you probably settled with Enbridge in 2012. However, there is a good chance that Enbridge should have come back to you at some point to make an additional payment based on a recalculation of the values you were originally paid. How do you know? Well, you’ll have to ask Enbridge. But one indication is this: did a land agent come back to you in 2013 and write you a check and give you a receipt? Did you receive a 1099 tax form from Enbridge this year for filing your 2013 tax forms? If not, you might be owed some money.
Long Version
Now here’s the more detailed explanation of all of this. Please bear with us while we try to explain it, also bearing in mind that we are neither accountants nor attorneys. We’ll try to be as accurate as we can and hope that we don’t make any major mistakes. Again, it is our understanding that all of this pertains primarily, perhaps only, to Phase One landowners.
When you settled with Enbridge– again, assuming you did not go to court–you most likely received compensation, in the form of a check from Enbridge, for three things: (1) use of the existing easement (what was probably called an “Additional Pipeline Receipt”), (2) for the use of Temporary Work Space and/or Additional Temporary Work Space (TWS and ATWS), and (3) compensation for damages, including the value of trees (or timber) that were removed from your property. The amounts you were paid for the first two of those items were based on fixed values determined by Enbridge. Compensation for damages was determined by your negotiations with a land agent.
Now, the way in which those fixed values (for the easement and TWS) were determined by Enbridge has been in quite a bit of flux from the beginning of this whole project. For instance, when we were first approached, the per acre value that Enbridge was using to calculate the additional pipeline receipt was $6500 per acre. Some time later, we were told that that value had been increased (as if by magic) to $30,000 per acre. Then we learned that our neighbors were receiving even more per acre than we were for virtually identical properties. We’ve heard stories along the line of different values as well, some higher, some lower (what were you paid per acre, we wonder?). These various values have always seemed to us almost completely arbitrary– and certainly not consistent. In fact, during condemnation hearings in Livingston County, Enbridge all but admitted that they had no real basis for determining those values; it’s as if they were pulling numbers out of thin air.
As for the TWS, Enbridge calculated those payments according to the same values, but paid landowners 30% of that value. So, for instance, if they used 1 acre of TWS, valued at $35k/per acre, they would have paid you $10,500 (that’s 30 percent of 35K).
Finally, Enbridge may have paid you for trees. Trees are even more complicated and arbitrary. In some cases, Enbridge simply paid “timber value” for trees. But in many other cases, the value paid for trees was a matter of negotiation– somewhere between “worthless” (to Enbridge) and “invaluable” (to the landowner).
Now, as near as we can piece this together, here is what happened next (again, we’re being as scrupulously accurate as we can be based on information provided to us by various sources): at some point during the condemnation hearings, Enbridge agreed to pay landowners more than the amounts as described above. Specifically, they agreed to pay 125% of the valuation for the additional pipeline receipt, 50% (not 30%) of the per acre value for TWS, and 150% of the timber valuation. It is our understanding that, at the point, Enbridge decided that all landowners would be similarly compensated– both those who had not yet settled and those who had already been paid.
So here’s what all of this would look like. To make things simple, we’ll use the simplest values possible. (Please note that these numbers are purely fictional and unusually high; there is probably no one with a full acre of easement or TWS.) Let’s say Enbridge had 1 acre of easement on Joe and Jane Jenkins’ property, used 1 acre of TWS, and paid them $1000 for trees (timber). Here’s what the Jenkinses would have received– say, in the summer or fall of 2012) based on those original values:
$35,000 (for additional pipeline) + $10,500 (for TWS) + $1000 (for timber)= $46,500
However, after those condemnation hearings, Enbridge should have come back to the Jenkinses to pay them for the increases stated above. That would look like this:
125% of additional pipeline= $43,750
50% of TWS= $17,500
150% of timber= $1500
Total= $62,750
Now, subtract from that the $46,500 you were already paid and the Jenkinses should have received a check from Enbridge– probably by surprise some time last year– for $19,250.
Again, based on what we were told by our land agent, ALL landowners were to be compensated according to these rates. If you are on Phase Two, these adjusted/increased rates should have been built into your original payments. Check your receipt: were you paid 50% of the per acre value for TWS? By contrast, many Phase One landowners– those who were paid BEFORE these increases– should have received a surprise visit from a land agent to pay out the difference.
However, we know for certain this has not taken place. We know that some people in our neighborhood (we’re on Phase One) have been paid this difference and some have not. Why? We have no clue whatsoever. Partly, it may be because Enbridge has been flying by the seat of its pants since the beginning of this project. More likely, it’s because Enbridge’s land agents are, by turns, overworked, uncaring, hapless, or just not very well trained or informed by Enbridge’s not-terribly-efficient-or-effective land agent supervisors.
This is a matter of basic fairness and decency. We encourage you to contact your land agent– if, that is, you have any idea who your land agent currently is– to find out whether you are due this additional compensation. If we are able to learn anything more about this– though, honestly, we don’t know who is in charge or who might be willing to respond to our inquiries– we will certainly let you know. In the meantime, if you don’t know who your land agent is currently, you can try this number listed on Enbridge’s website for Line 6B landowners:
866-410-4356
Or, if you prefer email, you can try this address:
Line6BPhase2@enbridge.com
by Jeffrey Insko | Apr 18, 2014 |
We’re continuing our tardy news roundup, which we started yesterday. There, we called your attention to some recent news articles form Macomb County describing some residents’ concerns about Enbridge’s work on Phase Two, which is about to kick into high gear in the eastern part of the state.
This morning, another local article appeared, describing a recent open house hosted by Enbridge in Washington Township. We will say this much: it’s good to see that Enbridge is reaching out to residents to some degree. They certainly did no such thing in our part of the state prior to construction on Phase One. So this sounds like an improvement.
Having said that, we suspect that the Enbridge officials there didn’t spend much time explaining to landowners the realities of how the work will proceed: the poor communications they’ll likely get from Enbridge land agents, the noise and the mess and the mistakes they’ll have to endure, the need to remain vigilant so that construction agreement violations don’t go unnoticed and unrectified, and much more. Instead, Enbridge surely painted a very rosy picture, one that doesn’t bear much resemblance to actuality.
What makes us say this? Well, not just experience– though that experience speaks volumes, we think. Also, it’s because of a couple of the remarks of Enbridge spokesperson Jennifer Smith. First, Smith digs up this old chestnut:
“Overwhelmingly a good majority of landowners are understanding and we have good relationships with them,” she said. “But there is always going to be concern.”
Regular readers of this blog may recall the time that Jason Manshum said the same thing (you’ve got to hand this much to Enbridge, they are disciplined about staying “on message”). And when he did, we wrote to him asking for some actual evidence to back up that claim– but that was back when he was not replying to our emails. Another time, we ourselves actually tried to generate some data on this question, but concluded that it’s almost impossible to really know. The point here is that (a) Jennifer Smith, no more than Jason Manshum or Tom Hodge, really doesn’t know whether “a good majority of landowners are understanding.” This is just a pleasing story Enbridge likes to tell itself and the public; and (b) this odd talking point makes it seem as if, like a political candidate running for office, Enbridge only cares about winning over a simple majority. Evidently, when it comes to landowner satisfaction, they like to set the bar extremely low.
The other troubling remark from Jennifer Smith– well, not so much troubling as rather astonishing in its complete disregard for facts– is this:
Smith said safety is the main concern for those in and around the project, and for workers on the project itself. She said Enbridge has been sensitive to ordinances and regulations every step along the way.
We won’t quarrel with the point about safety (although we could). But the second point, about Enbridge’s sensitivity to local ordinances and regulations? Well, that is simply a clear, plain, demonstrable untruth. In fact, it’s so untrue, that Matthew Fahr, the reporter on the story, or his editor ought to issue a correction. We’ve spent the better part of two years discussing Enbridge’s disregard for and evasions of local ordinances, laws, and regulations. In fact, in our post just yesterday, Brandon Township Supervisor Kathy Thurman herself provided a very clear example of how Enbridge was absolutely NOT “sensitive” to one of Brandon’s ordinances:
“There have been a lot of concerns,” she said. “There have been some issues. We ended up shutting them down at one point, because they were in violation of a woodlands agreement.”
We think that most people will agree that “in violation of” is very different from, perhaps even the opposite of, “sensitive to.” So either Jennifer Smith simply has no idea what happened in, say, Brandon and Howell Townships or– and we hope this isn’t the case, because it would be much, much worse– she DOES know and is therefore willfully and deliberately misleading people in a shameless attempt to pacify them. In either case, we are sad to say that the good people of Washington Township were clearly not always accurately informed. So while it’s good that Enbridge is holding these open houses, they still appear to have plenty of work to do to ensure that those open houses are genuinely and honestly informative– and not just spin sessions.
by Jeffrey Insko | Apr 17, 2014 |
We are currently working on a very important post about a deeply troubling matter that might affect a number of Line 6B landowners. Please stay tuned for it in the next couple of days. As we await some more information– as you know, we strive to be accurate– we thought we’d begin our long overdue and ever-growing news roundup. It’s going to take a few posts.
Now that spring is here (knock on wood!) and the ground has begun to harden a little, Enbridge is getting back to work to our east, putting in the remaining section of pipeline that will run from Ortonville to Marysville, Michigan. Unsurprisingly, that means unhappy landowners. We’ve found some of the local news coverage so far quite interesting:
Over at the Macomb Daily, reporter Lara Mossa quotes our hero Brandon Township Kathy Thurman in an article about Enbridge’s return to work in that area. In her typically restrained way, Thurman recalls some of Brandon’s troubles last year (see our archives) and even talks a little tough:
“There have been a lot of concerns,” she said. “There have been some issues. We ended up shutting them down at one point, because they were in violation of a woodlands agreement.”
Oxford Township Supervisor Bill Dunn, on the other hand, neither reports nor foresees any problems. But his remarks about Enbridge are hardly a ringing endorsement:
“I know they have had problems in other townships, but, for the most part, they are going through very large parcels of land,” he said, adding that much of it is old gravel mines. “It’s not like they’re going through subdivisions. I have not had any complaints. Enbridge has been somewhat cooperative.”
In Bruce Township, according to another Macomb Daily article, residents are (understandably) unhappy with Enbridge’s planned destruction of a number of very tall trees near the Ford test track. Weirdly, Macomb County Road Commissioner Bob Hoepfner thinks that Enbridge’s offer to replant twice as many crappy little trees as the mature ones they’re cutting down is “generous”:
Hoepfner said Enbridge was more than within its rights to do the work on that designated portion of land and offered the county a “two for one” deal to replace all trees that would be removed immediately rather than do their work and see the trees die later.
“They showed us what needed to be done and we agreed with them,” said Hoepfner. “It was a generous offer. Cutting the roots would kill them and the right thing to do is to have them removed.”
But residents and Township Supervisor Richard Cory (no, not that Richard Cory!) think otherwise and say not-so-fast:
“None of us will ever live long enough to ever see those trees provide enough shade over the road like it has now,” said one resident of the proposal to replace the mature trees with new ones after completion of the project.
Cory later asked if residents wanted to fight to have the trees remain intact; the overwhelming response in unison was “we want the trees to stay.”
What the township will base its fight on is a letter Cory read aloud at the meeting from attorney Benjamin Aloia to Enbridge representative Mike Ashton.
Cory said the letter, dated March 10, 2014, was apparently in response to a proposal from Enbridge to remove the trees.
“The Road Commission did not approve or authorize any work whatsoever within the Road Commission’s 36 Mile Road statutory 66-foot full-width right-of-way under this permit,” Cory read to the residents. “The removal of trees was not expressly permitted by the Road Commission with the three-mile stretch of 36 Mile Road in question.”
Finally, from Marysville, the Times Herald reports on some landowners feeling abused by Enbridge. Despite a rather insulting headline– “People Gripe About Enbridge”– the article gives a fair hearing to the concerns of some landowners who appear to have received the same sort of treatment we’ve documented here exhaustively.
What’s the takeaway here? We imagine Enbridge and/or Enbridge apologists would dismiss all of this by saying that any large project is going to run up against some complainers (a notion that, unfortunately, the last story’s headline seems to enforce). But those so-called “gripers”– Brian St. Clair, Thomas Leen, and Judy Robertson, not to mention all those concerned Bruce Township residents– have an awful lot of company. What this says to us is that Enbridge still, after all this time, hasn’t learned anything or is simply incapable of changing its ways.
by Jeffrey Insko | Apr 14, 2014 |
As some of you know, we were fortunate enough to participate in a forum about tar sands oil development in the Great Lakes Region a couple of weeks ago. Organized by our friend, fellow Line 6B landowner, and Notre Dame University professor Patricia Maurice and hosted by the John J. Reilly Center for Science, Technology, and Values.
Patricia and I were joined by MSU’s Steve Hamilton, who has been a consultant on the Kalamazoo River cleanup, and Beth Wallace, who you surely know by now. Each of us presented for 15 or so minutes and then we took questions from a wonderful and wonderfully-engaged audience.
We thought the event was a smashing success. The room was full and the audience interested, each of my fellow panelists was smart, passionate, and informative. We were even able to meet some people face to face whom we’ve only interacted with through the magic of the internet. It was wonderful to put some faces to some names. Our only regret (but not a surprise), no one from Enbridge attended. Still, the forum went so well that we are hoping to reprise it elsewhere in the months to come. Stay tuned.
In the meantime, you can watch the whole thing online, thanks to Prof. Greg Madey for filming and to Notre Dame’s engineering pubs/graphics crew for getting it posted online:
Thanks, finally, as well to all who attended and, especially, for Patricia for her warm hospitality and her hard work bringing everything together.
by Jeffrey Insko | Apr 13, 2014 |
When T.S. Eliot wrote that “April is the cruellest month,” he was not speaking metaphorically. It’s been plenty cruel in Michigan generally and certainly here at our place (we won’t bore you with details), which is much of what accounts for the lack of output here at the blog. We’ve got a major news roundup coming your way soon, among other things.
The big Line 6B story, however, is that Enbridge has announced that they’re going to fire up the new Line 6B– that is, the sections of it that have been installed– on May 1. We’re sure they’re quite giddy about this, since it means they get to double the capacity of what the line carries and rake in lots and lots of dough. The great David Hasemyer of Inside Climate News has the story, which focuses mainly (and appropriately) on safety concerns, about which our old friend Larry Springer is on hand with some predictable assurances. Our favorite part is when he says this:
“Enbridge is part of an energy pipeline industry that is committed to the highest safety standards in the construction and operation of our facilities,” Springer said in an email…
Of course, such hollow cant from a corporate flak surely doesn’t reassure anybody. But we do have to give Springer some credit here: generating a bunch of words without actually saying anything really is an art. Perhaps not a very useful or honorable one, but an art nonetheless.
Far better than Springer’s are the remarks of our friend Beth Wallace, who as always is right on point. Beth directs her criticism toward PHMSA for giving Enbridge such a free pass:
“There has been very little progress made toward strengthening rules and regulations since the spill four years ago,” Wallace said. “So allowing them [Enbridge] to nearly double the size of their pipeline before critical rulemaking comes out of PHMSA is putting the cart before the horse.”
One final point. As much as we admire the great work of Hasemyer and Inside Climate News– and this article is no exception–there is one serious omission in this story that we’d like to point out. While Enbridge is firing up the line so that they can start reaping enormous financial rewards from this expansion, hundreds of landowners, including us, are in limbo, waiting and wondering when and how and whether their devastated properties are going to be restored. The priority here is clear: it’s profits, not people.
In a rational universe– that is, one in which a decent respect for the lives and rights of landowners, the people who have no choice but to take on ALL of the risks of this pipeline project, are more important than the financial bottom line of a multinational corporation– in that sort of universe, Enbridge simply would not be allowed to start up the new line until every single property owner along the route is completely satisfied with the restoration of their property. If, for instance, the MPSC were really interested in serving the public interest, this would have been a condition of their approval. After all, it’s not as if the world would run out of fossil fuel in the meantime. And it’s not as if Enbridge would be hurt by such a stipulation; they just wouldn’t gain by it.
Instead, here we are, staring out at our denuded waste land of a property, digging out the dead plants from our garden (killed by Enbridge’s careless work), looking over the bare patches of earth left by the half-assed seeding job of Enbridge’s restoration crews, wondering if and when we’ll ever get those trees Enbridge has promised, waiting for a phone call or email from whatever new Enbridge land agent is currently in charge of matters on our parcel.
We wonder if anyone from Enbridge will think of that– or of all the other landowners who have it just as bad, and in many cases much worse– on the evening of May 1st when they clap and cheer and toast the startup of the new Line 6B, pumping all that diluted bitumen through our blighted backyards.
by Jeffrey Insko | Mar 28, 2014 |
Greetings! We’re sorry we’ve been neglectful around here the past few weeks. It’s been an eventful end-of-winter to say the least– we won’t bore you with any details. We do have a fair amount of new to update you on and we suspect that Enbridge is thinking about dusting off the bulldozers and getting back to work. For those of you at the beginning of the process: brace yourselves.
But for now, just a quick post with two items: you may have heard about the oil spill at the BP refinery in Whiting, Indiana, where some sort of “malfunction” caused a not insignificant amount of oil to spill into Lake Michigan. The exact number of gallons isn’t certain yet– but it’s rising. Nor is it clear whether the spill was dilbit (though the Whiting refinery is served by our very own Line 6B). You can read more on the story here and here and here.
While this incident is obviously troublesome, it’s also just in time for a forum that we’ll be participating in next week at Notre Dame University’s Reilly Center for Science, Technology, and Values. We’ll be giving a presentation, as will our friends Beth Wallace, Steve Hamilton of Michigan State, and fellow landowner and Notre Dame professor Patricia Maurice. We’re especially grateful to Patricia for setting this event up. If you’re in the area, we hope you’ll try to make it. We’d love to meet some of our readers in person. The event is Tuesday, April 1. Full details are available here.
by Jeffrey Insko | Mar 6, 2014 |
As we mentioned earlier today, Enbridge just announced an enormous new project: the “replacement” of over 1,000 miles of new pipeline all the way from Alberta, Canada to Superior, Wisconsin in the U.S. The project is yet another part of Enbridge’s strategy to out-Keystone Keystone XL, mainly by finding ways to transport tar sands oil across North America while also doing whatever they can to skirt regulatory processes. That’s what they did with Line 6B; it’s what they’re doing with Flanagan South; and it’s what they thought they could do with the Alberta Clipper.
Evidently, Enbridge president Al Monaco thinks there’s no question about this one. Here’s what he said on Tuesday during the announcement:
“It does not require a [new] presidential permit,” Mr. Monaco said on Tuesday. “Of course, Line 3 already operates under an existing presidential permit, so what we’re doing here is restoring Line 3 to its original condition.”
That statement may be more wishful thinking than fact; certainly it was an attempt to reassure investors. But the case might not actually be so clear as Monaco would like– or so we hope. That remains to be seen. We’ve also got our doubts that the project is simply a matter of “restoring Line 3 to its original condition.” That’s surely just a classic bit of Enbridge flimflammery: installing a brand new pipe is not, by any stretch of language or logic, restoration. It’s new infrastructure, which will most likely operate at much higher pressures and transport far greater volumes of product– presumably, mostly diluted bitumen– than the existing Line 3. If the current presidential permit is adequate for such a change in operations, there are even bigger problems with the permitting process than we thought.
In addition to those matters– about which there’s a great deal more to be said– what we’ve been thinking about since the announcement are all of the landowners along the Line 3 route. They’ll need to brace themselves. If recent Michigan history is any guide, they are in for a very unpleasant experience.
One bit of good news for all of those who will be affected by the Line 3 project, however, is that another group of landowners has recently lived through– is STILL living through– an Enbridge replacement project. And not only that, those landowners have spent a good amount of time documenting in as much comprehensive detail as possible exactly how Enbridge conducts itself on these projects: the way it (mis)treats and (mis)informs landowners, the way it (mis)communicates with the public, the way it (dis)regards local authority, the way it tries to evade state and local regulations, and more.
All of it–the whole Enbridge “replacement project” playbook– is documented right here on the Line 6B Citizens’ Blog. For that reason (forgive us for saying so), we don’t think the Line 6B blog has ever been more relevant.
We hope, we think, that Line 3 landowners can learn from our experience. Had we and our fellow landowners known going in all that we know now, we would have been much better prepared in every way for the long, painful nightmare that the “replacement” of Line 6B has been. For that reason, we want to do everything we can to reach out to Line 3 landowners, communities, and public officials in both Canada and the U.S. with the hope that they’ll spend some time here, using our experiences as a resource to protect themselves.
If you can– that is, if you know any landowners or groups in Canada or the Great Lakes region likely to be affected by this project– please let them know about us.
by Jeffrey Insko | Mar 6, 2014 |
Today is a big day up in Canada. As we noted earlier this morning, the National Energy Board will announce its decision on the Line 9 reversal project this afternoon. To mark this occasion, we are pleased to bring you these reflections form our friend Emily Ferguson, keeper of the marvelous Line 9 Communities blog and resource, where this is cross-posted.
Reflections on Line 9
by Emily Ferguson
In anticipation of the Line 9 decision to be released March 6th, 2014, I can’t help but reflect about the year that has passed. It would have been about this time last year that my journey began.
The night I requested a Line 9 info package from Enbridge representatives at a public meeting – and was denied – was the night that started this incredible journey. As a student of environmental politics at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, I was interested to understand where the pipeline was located and what the local issues were. I finished class, jumped on a bus, and grabbed a $40 cab to the remote meeting location – remember, I was a student.
The meeting consisted of a brief presentation by Enbridge and then questions from Conservation Halton Board members. After the meeting, I approached the five or so company representatives in the lobby. Although attempting to be outgoing, I was still a very much soft-spoken introvert. My hands were trembling as I approached Enbridge and requested a copy of the extra info packages they held in their hands – which had just been provided to Conservation Halton Board members.
After a very brief discussion where I was interrogated about my name, address, and “who I was working for”, I walked away empty handed. FYI – I got the info package anyways the next day from a contact on the Conservation Board. Hardly an “abrupt and confrontational approach” as described by Graham White of Enbridge in the January 2014 Toronto Star special report (who by the way I have never met and who was not present at that meeting).
After that exchange, I instantly felt a need to know more and the responsibility to ensure others had the information as well. If I was going to discuss the info with affected communities, I needed to know who those affected communities were! So I went home and started mapping the pipeline …
To be honest, I could not be more grateful for the individuals at Enbridge – you know who you are – for denying a young, timid student access to public information. You gave me the motivation to dig for the answers and to connect with communities through the sharing of information. It was at this point I found the strength to continue the journey. I was ready for the challenge.
I quickly discovered that Line 9 travelled straight through the small community I grew up in – Glenburnie, Ontario. I was shocked! Having lived in that community for over 17 years, my family and friends had no idea there was an oil pipeline running next to my beloved country public school. I started a website with the intention to educate the Glenburnie community. You can actually still see my original website at www.line9glenburnie.wordpress.com.
However, within 5 minutes of its creation, I was already thinking much bigger. If my community didn’t know about the pipeline, how many other communities were in the dark? Line 9 Glenburnie rapidly developed into Line 9 Communities. The success of www.line9communities.com has been overwhelming! I poured my heart into writing factual articles about the project application and entire history of Line 9, but the main attraction was – and continues to be – the pipeline maps.
Line 9 Communities was launched March 17th, 2013. By that time, it became very apparent that my Grandma was beginning to lose her courageous battle with cancer. She keenly followed my journey with enthusiasm, and supported my ambition to learn and teach others. By April 18th, she was hospitalized. She asked me what I was going to do about the pipeline. She didn’t agree with the secrecy and the lack of information around the Line 9 project. She pushed me to do more. On April 19th, I sat by her bed side and applied to be an Intervenor in the Canadian National Energy Board hearing on the project. Once the application was submitted, she said “Good! You’re going to get in!” At sunrise on April 22nd– Earth Day – she was gone.
People say things happen for a reason. I firmly believe that. As she peacefully took her last breath, she held my hand and repeated my name over and over. The following week, we held a small memorial at her final resting place – less than 600m from the pipeline. My participation in the NEB Line 9 hearing became so much more. I was now working in her memory.
In the January 2014 Toronto Star report, Mr. White (Enbridge) labelled me as a “stringent opponent of the project and an activist”. Although I do not label myself as an “activist”, I do believe in having your voice heard about a social cause. And if by “stringent” Mr. White means “not allowing for any exceptions or loosening of standards” as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, then I whole heartedly agree. Why would Mr. White expect anything less than communities along the line to demand Enbridge meet existing standards of operating a pipeline in Canada?
Through the summer of 2013, I was immersed in reading regulatory documents, submitting information requests to Enbridge, keeping up with media coverage and building the Line 9 Communities website. In October 2013, final oral arguments were given in Toronto, Ontario. As I wore my Grandma’s gold angel pin, I delivered what will always be one of the most powerful speeches of my life.
The final hearings were incredibly inspiring. There were so many groups standing united and highlighting the poor consultation and questionable safety of the project. First Nations, Métis, neighbourhood organizations, government and individual citizens brought their concerns to the NEB.
After the NEB process was complete, I continued to network with all the incredible people I had met along the way. One word could describe the whole journey – community. Enbridge Line 9 has re-connected me with my childhood community and the pipeline route has provided me a path to connect with other communities and hear their stories.
Reflecting on my journey, I have realized how much I have grown as a person in the last year. I am no longer timid in approaching large players and asking the tough questions. I have a strong interest in encouraging active engagement in social and environmental causes. Through the support of others along the ride, I now personally understand what it means to be empowered. Moving forward, my goal is to take the valuable lessons learned over the past year and use my experience to help encourage others to find their voice and make a difference.
Regardless of the NEB decision to be released March 6th, 2014, www.line9communities.com will continue to unite and be a forum for communities to raise awareness and promote discussion.
Some things really matter, and Line 9 is definitely one of them!
by Jeffrey Insko | Mar 6, 2014 |
Good news from Ingham County, the three Michigan CATS who have been in jail, remanded needlessly and gratuitously by a chest-thumpin judge, have been released. At their sentencing yesterday, they were given probation for a year. We’re glad that these committed individuals can finally return home to their family and friends and continue their good work.
In other news this week, the AP’s John Flesher has an excellent story about Line 5 under the straits of Mackinac. The story has been getting lots of national play, attention that is much deserved (and, we should add, a credit to our friend Beth Wallace, who has done so much to get this story in the public eye).
In other Enbridge news, the company just announced plans to embark upon yet another “replacement” project. This one would “replace”– by which Enbridge means installing new pipe– Line 3, which runs for more than 1.,000 miles between Alberta and Superior, Wisconsin. It’s not entirely clear whether this project will trigger the presidential permit process, since it crosses an international border. Enbridge, we’re sure, will call it an “integrity driven” project in hopes of avoiding that– just as they did with Line 6b. We’ll post more about this later today. In the meantime, you can read more at DeSmog Canada and SURF Great Lakes.
One other notable Enbridge item: the National Energy Board in Canada will announce its decision today on the Line 9 reversal. In anticipation of this decision, we’ve got something special coming today from our Canadian friend Emily Ferguson. Stay tuned later this morning for that!
Lastly, the New York Times this week ran a deeply disturbing cautionary tale about the failures of our regulatory systems. Although the story is about the handling of coal ash in North Carolina, we see in it so much of the short-sighted, weak-willed, corporate-driven mindset that typifies pipeline safety regulations and regulators, betraying the public interest. If you want to know why we’ve spent so much of our time writing and thinking about seemingly dull regulatory matters– like the MPSC and PHMSA– this story is why.
Finally, the Line 6B Citizens’ Blog now has its very own Facebook page. Please head over there and “like” us!
by Jeffrey Insko | Feb 25, 2014 |
On Saturday, a Canadian television report on Enbridge’s proposed Line 9 reversal in Canada got us thinking (yet again!) about Enbridge’s habit of alienating landowners and municipalities by failing to do what one would think is the easiest thing in the world: just being honest, straightforward, and forthright. But for some reason, that is something that is extremely difficult for them.
We were also reminded of that fact a couple of weeks ago, when we read the latest on Enbridge’s quest to secure a dredge pad site for their work on Morrow Lake. On Monday, the Comstock Township Planning Commission finally gave Enbridge approval, with conditions, for a new site. We don’t know the first thing about the new location and are therefore in no position to comment on its suitability. We are inclined, however, to give the Planning Commission and Comstock Township Supervisor Ann Nieuwenhuis the benefit of the doubt on this one.
In order to secure the site, however, Enbridge evidently decided they needed to bring in the big guns, so they sent Vice President of Operations Rich Adams to speak with some Comstock Township residents the week before the Planning Commission meeting. The circumstances of that meeting (as reported by MLive), and Adams’s comments to the press, struck us as absolutely emblematic of the way Enbridge “communicates” with the public. Let’s see how Adams operates according to the Enbridge communications playbook:
1. Carefully control and manage the setting. One of the first things we ever learned about Enbridge was just how reluctant they are to engage the public when they can’t dictate the precise terms and conditions under which that engagement takes place. VP Mark Sitek more or less conceded as much when he told us they worry about being “ambushed” at public meetings. That fear is also why Enbridge reps once told us they were trying to find “the right person” for us to talk to. And it’s surely why Enbridge spokesperson Graham White fabricated a story about Emily Ferguson as some kind of “combative” “activist” raising cain at a public meeting– because like an elephant cowering before a mouse, Enbridge, despite its overwhelming wealth, power, and influence, seems to live in fear of anyone who might confront them with even the mildest word of criticism.
This need to control the setting in which communication takes place is also surely why, as MLive reports, the “informational session” at Comstock Township was “invite-only.” We suspect that that the invitation only idea was Enbridge’s and that, going into the meeting, they were very careful to make sure that they created a situation that would protect Rich Adams as much as possible from any of those scary angry citizens.
2. Never listen; always condescend and dismiss. We also learned quite early on that Enbridge’s style of communication consists almost entirely of attempts to explain itself, not to listen or solicit feedback or cultivate dialogue or consider other points of view than their own and certainly not to engage in any kind of honest self-reflection. We’ve seen this over and over, both in our conversations with Enbridge reps and in their dealings with various municipalities, particularly with Brandon Township. This tendency is part and parcel with Enbridge’s generally dismissive attitude toward anyone who criticizes them.
Adams applies this principle when he explains what went wrong the last time Enbridge tried (and failed) to secure a dredge pad site. He says, “I think that’s what happened the first time around — in terms of us not getting approval — I don’t think we provided the education.” This is a rather extraordinary account of what happened last time. According to Adams, it’s not that Larry Bell and other Comstock residents had legitimate and reasonable concerns about the other dredge pad site; it’s not that Enbridge tried to circumvent the approval process; it’s not that Enbridge failed to consult with Comstock Township authorities. Adams dismisses (by failing to acknowledge) all of those concerns. By his account, the problem “the first time around” was all because Enbridge just didn’t provide the proper education– which is really just his condescending way of saying that all of those people– Larry Bell, Comstock residents, Township officials– just didn’t (or don’t) understand. We can’t help but wonder: does he really believe that? Which leads us to one final principle of Enbridge communication with the public:
3. When in doubt, dissemble. This one is generally the province of Enbridge’s spokespersons and its marketing team; we’ve noted numerous examples over the past couple of years. But even those at the very top at Enbridge are prone to unfair or distorted characterizations of people and situations. Adams himself tried to peddle a pretty distorted account of the dredge pad situation to the EPA late last year.
So what is Adams saying now? Well, this is what he said at the recent Comstock informational meeting: “We were in a real tight timeline and were trying to push it through a little fast and this time we were kind of afforded the opportunity to do it right and kind of present that information.” That is one way to put it, we suppose, if you don’t want to face the realities of the situation or take responsibility for what brought you to this point. We’re especially fond of the part where he says that Enbridge was “kind of afforded the opportunity to do it right”– as if circumstances, rather than their own actions and decisions, prevented them from doing it right the first time; as if an already broken EPA deadline and an order to keep working is just “an opportunity,” as opposed to a responsibility or an obligation; and as if they’ll only do things right when given the opportunity, not as a matter of routine or regular practice.
by Jeffrey Insko | Feb 23, 2014 |
On more than one occasion over the past couple of years, Enbridge officials have told us that the Line 6B situation in Michigan is anomalous– presumably meaning that the contention, the poor communication, the acrimony, and the miscues (on their part) are out of the ordinary. Elsewhere and in the past, they would have us believe, Enbridge does not and has not conducted itself the way it has conducted itself here.
Unfortunately, too much evidence suggests otherwise. The latest glaring example of this has to do with Line 9 in Canada. Line 9, you will recall, runs across Ontario to Sarnia (where Line 6B terminates). Enbridge is currently seeking to reverse the flow of that pipeline, raising serious concerns on the part of residents all along that route.
Just this week, a Canadian television program, CTV’s W5, ran a major story on the project, uncovering some troubling facts about the integrity of Line 9, which is 38 years old. (The video is currently unavailable in the U.S., but we’ll link to it once it is viewable); they even came to Michigan to speak with residents here, like our friend David Gallagher. Among other things, the report discovered far more incidents on the line, including at Enbridge facilities, than previously reported publicly.
Most striking to us about the report– and in a follow-up story at the Toronto Star— is the reaction to this news by local officials. Their refrain is one that we and many others all across Michigan have been singing for a very long time: Enbridge does not, despite all of their claims to the contrary, communicate openly, honestly, and straightforwardly. For instance:
Landowners like Walker living along Enbridge’s Line 9 pipeline say that when problems arise on the pipelines running through their land they struggle with getting answers and help from the company.
“I didn’t believe that a pipeline or anybody would kind of leave you holding the bag the way that they’ve left me holding the bag on this one,” says Walker.
And this:
W5 called the municipalities where these spills occurred and the majority of them were not notified. The Mayor of Sarnia, Mike Bradley, where thousands of litres of product released at an Enbridge terminal, said he wasn’t informed of the nine incidents there since 2006 and believed that regardless of the fact that they were on Enbridge property, he thought the city should be informed.
“If you want to have a good relationship with your community, and you want to get rid of the distrust that is out there for the pipeline industry you disclose everything,” said Bradley.
And in the Toronto Star:
“It’s quite alarming,” said Brian McHattie, a city councillor in Hamilton, where seven leaks over the years have released nearly 3,000 litres of crude oil at company facilities northwest of the city. “This is new information for me.”
McHattie said the information raises concern about what is shared with municipalities. Hamilton staff met regularly with Enbridge officials since the company submitted its application, but none, to McHattie’s knowledge, were ever informed of the spills.
“They just haven’t been very forthcoming with us,” said McHattie. “It just makes you less confident in their integrity as a company and their willingness to share information and be above-board.”
And this:
Cramahe Mayor Marc Coombs said he first learned of five spills that together leached 1,824 litres of oil when he was contacted by a W5 reporter.
“We were not notified of any of them,” said Coombs. “It does (raise concerns), from the point of view of transparency.”
And this:
Sarnia Mayor Mike Bradley said the city isn’t usually notified when spills are contained within facilities and don’t require municipal staff to be involved in containment or cleanup. He said the city hadn’t heard about the nine spills linked with Line 9 facilities in the past decade — but it should.
“It’s just a good practice to notify, and then we can make our own judgment whether we need to do anything further,” said Bradley. “Just tell us. That’s all we want — to know.”
In both reports, Enbridge spokesperson Graham White– he’s the guy who not long ago out-Springered Larry Springer by fabricating a story about one citizen seeking more information about Line 9–is on hand with all of the standard excuses and platitudes. In fact, it appears that he and his team of spin doctors even tried a preemptive strike, sending out a letter to local officials criticizing the report before it had even aired.
Of course, to those of us in Michigan, there’s nothing new about any of this. Enbridge’s failure to communicate honestly with landowners, municipalities, and the public and its desperate attempt to try and solve all of its problems via its vast (and inept) public relations apparatus has been the predominant theme of this blog for a very long time; just see, for example, this and this and this and this. Perhaps Canadians will have more success convincing elected officials and regulators to step up and protect the public than we have in Michigan.
—-
Speaking of the remarkable similarities between the experiences of people along Line 9 and along Line 6B, the latest entry by our Canadian friend Emily Ferguson over at the Line 9 Communities blog is well worth your time. It tells the story of a landowner frustrated by an Enbridge integrity dig. His experience, unfortunately, mirrors the kinds of maddening experiences we have documented here so extensively. Check it out.
by Jeffrey Insko | Feb 20, 2014 |
This week, we received a corrected– and accurate– 1099 tax form from Enbridge, along with an accompanying letter that says they issued SIX THOUSAND incorrect forms (frankly, we’re shocked that they would admit such a thing). So it appears Line 6B landowners aren’t the only ones affected this latest Enbridge gaffe, though it also appears that they’ve straightened it out. We’re assuming you have also received a corrected form; if not, please let us know. More importantly, you should let Enbridge know.
While we’ve got you, here are a few other quick news items worth noting:
by Jeffrey Insko | Feb 16, 2014 |
We have some good news to report on the Michigan legislative front– of a minor sort. You might recall that at the end of last month, we had ourselves pretty worked up about some seemingly minor changes proposed by state lawmakers to the Crude Oil and Petroleum Act. The bill that had us most concerned was a companion to another bill that will reduce the oil and gas severance tax in the state. HB 5254, as it was originally introduced, would have changed the word “landowner” to “owner of agricultural property,” thereby eroding the already scant protections afforded to property owners affected by eminent domain. Needless to say, this is for us a rather sensitive topic.
So we wrote to our House Representative Joseph Graves as well as the House Energy and Technology Committee, multiple times to express our concerns. Promisingly, we then saw those concerns expressed in the Committee’s deliberations on the bill. Yet we weren’t certain as to whether those discussions bore any sort of fruit. Then last week we spoke on the phone with Representative Graves, who reported to us the good news that the Committee removed the offending change from HB 5254, leaving its original language intact (here is the bill as passed by the House).
Score one for landowners!
Admittedly, this is an exceedingly small victory, but at the very least it shows that Michigan legislators do recognize the need to protect property owners and are capable of listening to their constituents. We are grateful to Rep. Graves and other members of the committee, Marilyn Lane in particular, for their responsiveness on this question. We also spoke with Rep. Graves about pursuing further discussions regarding the treatment of landowners by Enbridge. If something comes of that– and we plan to follow up– we will of course let you know.
by Jeffrey Insko | Feb 11, 2014 |
We’re assuming that by now, all Line 6B landowners have received their completely incorrect 1099 tax forms. Since we first mentioned this extraordinary error— strong and disturbing evidence for theory #3 as an explanation for why Enbridge can’t do better— we have heard from a number of you confirming completely mistaken forms. We have also received confirmation from some who were able to contact land agents that Enbridge does plan to re-issue them. Unfortunately, that means we should probably all hold off on filing our taxes. Yep, apparently Enbridge now gets to dictate that part of your life too.
Worst of all? As far as we know, Enbridge has taken NO proactive steps whatsoever to notify landowners of this mistake. How’s that for “doing the right thing,” “taking accountability,” “following through on commitments,” and “treating everyone with unfailing dignity”?
Whatcom Creek, Bellingham, Washington
In better news, we just returned from a trip to Bellingham, Washington, where we attended our first-ever Board of Directors meeting for the Pipeline Safety Trust. We were just recently appointed to the Board and our humbled to get to work with such good and remarkable people. You’ve heard us talk about the PS Trust a lot around here in the past. Our debt to them is truly enormous and we are eager for the opportunity to get to pay that back in some small way by working for and with them and with so many other wonderful people, like our friends in the New Voices project. Michiganders will be especially pleased to know that there are now three of us on the Board: the brilliant environmental law professor Sara Gosman and Michigan’s own hero Beth Wallace are the other two. We’re lucky to be in their company. We will of course keep you updated here on much of the Trust’s important work on behalf of the public interest.
Lastly, as we mentioned a week or so ago, the Michigan CATS activists were convicted and remanded to jail pending sentencing (the remand was completely unnecessary and, in our view, another example of this Judge’s disproportionately churlish and mean-spirited treatment of these three by a Judge oddly prone to chest-thumping displays of his power). At any rate, we want to once again state our support for these three committed individuals and we hope you’ll do the same. They’re receiving support of all kinds from all over the country. To find out what you can do for them, please head over to their website.
by Jeffrey Insko | Feb 5, 2014 |
As we’ve said many times before, Enbridge just can’t seem to get even the simplest things right. Yesterday, we received our 1099 tax from from Enbridge– a form that was supposed to have been issued by Jan. 31st– only to find that the number reported on the form was wrong. Completely wrong. In fact, the number entered on the form appears to be completely random. We are receiving reports that other landowners also received incorrect forms.
Needless to say, this is a ridiculous situation. Enbridge’s handling of tax reporting is already a problem, since the way they report landowner payments does not distinguish between the portion that is taxable (the pipeline receipt and payment for temporary workspace) from the non-taxable portion (compensation for damages). Landowners are left to sort all of this out for themselves. And now, to make matters worse, Enbridge appears to have problems figuring out what they paid to whom. We’d like to know how this sort of mistake happens– bad land agent bookkeeping?
Whatever the case, please pay careful attention to the forms you receive. Enbridge is aware of the problem, but it looks like they’re not going to proactively contact landowners to alert them (big surprise!). We have been told that Enbridge will reissue inaccurate 1099 forms, but we can’t say for sure. If and when we learn more, we’ll let you know. In the meantime, please share this post with your neighbors. And if you want more information, call the number listed on your 1099.
Yet again, Enbridge appears to go out of its way to make things as difficult as possible for Line 6B landowners. It never ends.
by Jeffrey Insko | Feb 1, 2014 |
We live in polarized times. You hear all the time how sharply divided the country is, a fact that seems to be borne out by new evidence and new controversies nearly every week. The fissures run deep, splitting families, ending friendships, causing all sorts of bad behavior– dinner table fights, Facebook flareups, Twitter wars. Often this behavior, while generally the result of misdirected passion, is rather unbecoming. Yet there appears to be no cure in sight. Matters are likely to continue as they are for the foreseeable future.
Despite all of this, as long-time readers of this blog know, we try very hard to remain as nonpartisan as possible. It’s not that we don’t have strong opinions, strong leanings, or strong convictions. We most certainly do. And maybe it’s not all that hard to see where our loyalties generally lie. But we think most of what we discuss here at the Line 6B blog defies easy pigeon-holing, doesn’t fit neatly into most conventional, predictable ways of thinking about this side or that side. Frankly, we don’t see how anybody, regardless of affiliation, could condone the sort of corporate behavior we document here.
In addition to that, the unfortunate truth is that, in these divided times, the minute you announce your allegiance, you automatically risk alienating half the people you hope to persuade. We don’t want to do that, not least because we know that the landowners living along Line 6B– and along other pipelines all across North America– are generally good and decent people, despite the fact that the positions they hold or affiliations they claim might not be perfectly in line with our own. Just because you don’t agree with us on something doesn’t mean that you deserve to be exploited, abused, or taken advantage of by those with tremendous power and influence. The truth is, we wouldn’t wish the treatment so many people have received at the hands of Enbridge on our worst enemies (that is, if we had any enemies…).
However, having said all of that, there comes a time when you can no longer try to ride down the center of the road. There comes a time when trying to get along with everybody simply isn’t possible. There comes a time when compromise, crossing the aisle, bipartisanship, comity, working together, getting along, and cooperation are no longer a sign of fair-mindedness, but are a sign of cowardice, of weakness. There comes a time when you just have to stand up and pick a side, regardless of whether doing so will alienate people, create rivals, or even anger some of your friends. There just comes a time when making nice won’t do, when it’s time to put up or shut up and face that fact that what you really want is the complete destruction, the utter annihilation, the total humiliation, of your opponents.
That time has come.
So today we proclaim, clearly, forcefully, and uncompromisingly in no uncertain terms, which side we are on. And if you don’t like it, well, that’s just tough; you’ll have to find a way to deal with it. Here goes:
We stand proudly with Peyton Manning and the Denver Broncos.
So there.
by Jeffrey Insko | Jan 31, 2014 |
We just received word that the Michigan Cats protestors have been convicted on all counts. We are angered and saddened by the news. More coming soon.
