by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 14, 2013 |
If you haven’t heard, lately we’ve been keeping our trap shut and letting some other people have a chance to say some things for a change. Specifically, we’ve been bringing you some reflections of Phase 1 landowners, in their own words, on their experiences with Enbridge on the Line 6B project. Some of the landowners who responded to our solicitation are people we’ve met before and some not. If you are a Line 6B landowner and would like to say a few words about your experience, please let us know.
In the meantime, here are a couple more, including one from Ellie Vance of Fenton to whom we owe a great deal of thanks. She helped organize one of the first informational meetings about the Line 6B project that we ever attended, an especially important meeting given the fact that Enbridge itself did not organize a single one on this side of the state to help inform and prepare landowners for the project.
I am afraid our feelings about Enbridge have not changed. Both my husband and I remain disappointed in their lack of concern and response. I wrote to Enbridge in June asking someone to come out and take a look at the new damage done to our home. There was never a response at all until Tuesday last. A man that works for Mr. Lopez, the Structural Engineer (biased and paid for by Enbridge) came to our home in 2011 to assess damages then to our foundation, wants to come out and assess the damage this time. I did not refuse him, but since Lopez claimed Enbridge was not responsible for all the cracks that suddenly appeared in our foundation and ceilings and walls , we expect to be accused again of lying to get Enbridge to remodel our home, for the second time, all the while knowing they are the liars, because they and their lawyers are fully aware of what they have done to us all. The list goes on, just as I suspect it does with many of you. Enbridge cleared a path here wide enough to open a two lane runway to land their planes on. No courtesy call on when they will be coming through to replace what they needlessly took, including the markers they pulled up on a parcel that had nothing to do with them. A bill that cost us over $1300.00. Worse than that, people got hurt and several autos damaged, because they could not construct a safe passage for us to cross in our driveway. And these are the sainted ones we should trust to build a safe pipeline. The one very pleasant surprise to us, was Mr. Marshall Bowman and his hard-working crew of men and women. They did a real nice job cleaning us up. Excellent to talk to and get answers from. Respectful and cared about the job being done.We are glad to know him. If Enbridge ever wakes from their drunken, arrogant, lying sleep, they should take lessons from Mr. Bowman and his crew.
We are glad Enbridge is moving on, very glad, but a feeling that down the road a bit , the other of their heavy, stinking, reeking, filthy shoes will definitely drop lingers.
I don’t know why, but the word ‘sleazy’ seems stuck in my mind.
—Connie Watson, Howell
Well, the completion of our “Enbridge Experience” is still out there ….a verbal “promise”. We are awaiting promised additional topsoil, grading of huge ruts off the sides of our gravel driveway, grading of our field and driveway to its original topography (shape, drainage), gravel/spreading on used part of our driveway, and reimbursement for moved trees.
The entire experience with Enbridge has been a nightmare– being unable to escape a contract forged with those who owned our land back in the late 60’s. It has been a nightmare for me comparable to the plight of Princess Leah finding herself chained to Jabba the Hutt.With that analogy in mind, the most positive moments during this extended horrific experience occurred in our interactions with the workers (who were contracted to carry out Enbridge’s plans to completely devastate our peaceful country landscape–trees, ponds, wildflower-filled fields and our personal peace/freedom to pursue our daily activities in order to implant an additional, “new and better” metallic pipeline beneath the soil, under our ponds. Oops! Just venting) On the whole, when approached, any worker would stop, actively listen, and either address my concern or find someone who could. When our driveway was an impassable ditch, the assigned worker was on call 24-7 to provide transportation via an ATV (not fun in March, but only way to reach our car parked on South side of gaping hole and scattered equipment).
—Ellie Vance, Fenton
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 11, 2013 |
A few interesting news items this week have got our gears turning a little– not the least of which is this chilling story about PHMSA in Inside Climate News today (you’ll recall that we’ve had some things to say about PHMSA in the recent past). If we can find the time, we hope to ruminate on them a little. In the meantime, we’re continuing our series of “Landowner Stories” in their own words. Today, a handful of short takes:
As one of the unfortunate landowners along the 6B pipeline who had to deal with the repair portion of the project, we have been dealing with Enbridge since early 2011. They didn’t do a good job then and they have not yet finished restoration on our property.
Our biggest complaint is that they approached us badly from the start. The first message we got from them was “do this our way or we will take you to court”. When we think about replacement of a pipeline we think “remove the old one and put in a new one.” But of course their plan was “give us more land that we can ruin and let the landowner pay the property taxes forever while we make billions.”
Finally, we have not been properly represented by our local, county, state or federal governments. We ask “how can a foreign entity come into Michigan and demand the use of property through eminent domain”? It seems terribly wrong.
—Ron Kardos and Marjorie Brigham-Kardos, Oceola Township
The past year has been hell!! We are far from a settlement on restoration and damages, as they relate to the condemnation of our farm. Nothing has been done. We live with weeds up to my waist, dust when it’s dry, mud when it rains. We TRIED to come to an agreement in six separate meetings. Enbridge lied, bullied, attempted coercion, telling me they didn’t need to cut down 25 feet of my forest and would go around part of my wetlands, if only I would sign without my husband present and no legal counsel review of the contract. Would I sign the Enbridge contract if I had to do over? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!
I hope to have the opportunity to tell our story to a jury. I want Enbridge to have to explain their behavior in Court. I want Enbridge’s dirty dealings to be a matter of public record.
—Carol Brimhall, Stockbridge
Even though I am no youngster (in my sixties) you would think I would know better; but I was surprised to witness the absolute worst of human nature this last year. From the first contact with the greedy, dishonest land agent to the unbelievably arrogant workers I saw extremes of every bad trait in human nature. Probably one of the worst parts of the experience this last year was the rude awakening that our government, from local township, to State Representative, Senator, and Governor, Public Service Commission, all do not care ONE SINGLE BIT what happens to the homeowners on the pipeline. It was a case of “if it isn’t adversely affecting me personally, then I don’t care”. It would take forever to list every terrible event, but the worst days may have been seeing Enbridge Oil violate the temporary work space and trespass on our property (again and again). Most days last winter required us to be outside in snowstorms, all day long sometimes to protect our personal property from being damaged by their equipment and snarky employees.
I think I can sum it up by saying, I believe Enbridge Oil gives potential hires an ethics test. But, if they pass it, then they don’t hire them!
—Anon., Groveland Twp.
The finishing touches were a little slow, but so far all promises have been kept. Fingers crossed!
—Robert Flynn, Howell
No restoration has begun on our property except for the septic field replacement that was compromised by Enbridge in the first place. No phone calls are being returned. No answers are being received. My husband Dave is so upset over this that he had a stroke last Saturday. We need more than empty promises. Our backyard is disgusting. Enbridge is a corporate bully who terrorizes their landowners. This has been a nightmare for the past 3 years of our lives. We want our fences back and the promised restoration completed without anymore lies.
—Judy Tanciar, Fenton
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 10, 2013 |
If you missed it, we kicked off our new series on “Landowner Stories” yesterday. (We posted a general introduction to the series the day before that.) Marty and Patti Burke’s story is a moving one. Today, we bring you a second installment. And while we don’t plan to spend all of our time prefacing these stories with “I told you sos,” the truth is that we told ’em so. Today’s entry, from Allison Bader of Howell illustrates a couple of points we have made over and over and over again: first, that unhappy landowners are not just people who “oppose” the project. Allison makes quite clear that she was very much in favor of it. And second, that the land agent system is severely broken and is the source of much of Enbridge’s problem on this project. Too many people don’t know what to do once trust with their agent has been broken (and it is all too frequently broken!). Unless one is resourceful and persistent and able to track down someone other than one’s land agent to help, one is left helpless and lost.
By Allison Bader
Our land contractor was sweet as pie, always checking in on us if we had any questions, always aware of what was going on. We felt rushed to get the contract signed “now, now” because the project was getting started. Enbridge “needed” to take out 100 of my grandfather’s 30ft pine trees in order to save our pond. Only 2 were allowed to be saved and transplanted, but we had to Rush to move them WHILE the demolitions crew came through. Then the site was left for over a month before construction actually began.
I had problems getting ahold of the contractor when ground was being broken and our pond was not protected as it was supposed to be according to our contract. When I did finally get to talk to him, he suddenly had no idea what was going on, did not know who to ask for help, and did not know what to do about fixing it. I found the Environmental Specialist of the project myself and he had a whole team working on silt fences and other pond protecting measures that very day. I was very thankful to the crew for that. This summer one single worker took down the straw bales and straw roles around the pond just in time for it to rain and storm for the next week allowing dirt to run through the remaining silt fence and into our pond. Again our land contractor could not help us. I finally found a worker who got a team to put up a second silt fence to prevent further damage.
We did not expect 2 summers to be ruined by this project and feel that we were not compensated accordingly. We have since discovered that both neighbors on either side, who have equal land space taken over, received twice as much in compensation without 100 trees taken out or a ruined pond. We never even got a land-bridge to the back of our property, which had been in our contract.
Overall, I thought this was a necessary project that could have been completed in a timely fashion while benefiting the community with jobs for the construction crew and with business to our locals from the construction crew. I now think that the process was drawn out unnecessarily and that those higher up in the company did not find the landowners very important as their Update Letters seem to suggest.
A few side notes:
-My neighbor is still waiting for his drain tile to be fixed. The crew fixed our drain tile instead.
-I do hope my land restoration is complete and with grass grown by my wedding date next June.
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 9, 2013 |
Today, we are proud to launch our new series: “Landowner Stories,” which will bring you the reflections of Line 6B landowners along Phase One– in their own words! Our first installment comes from Marty and Patti Burke, who live in Oceola Township. Their house is among those in closest proximity to the new pipeline.
The three barrels on the right mark the location of the pipe next to the Burkes’ home.
By Marty Burke
When I try to express verbally or in writing what the last two years has done to us both as a family and or community I become mentally/emotionally paralyzed a bit.
Lets take a look at the negative impact. For me unfortunately there still is not a single positive impact I can see here.
What has Enbridge taken from me?
1) My family’s sense of well being
That intangible feeling you have in your home that this is your place – your save haven – your central command of well being if you will. The place where you have to think, but just feel that it’s your place and because you have pride in it and work hard to pay for it no one can take it from you.
2) My trust in all levels of government from my township to the federal government.
I still struggle to understand every single day how my government, the exact people that are there, paid by me to protect my rights, to protect me from a foreign invader like Enbridge, could have abandoned me in my hour of need. That they could completely turn their backs on me and allow Enbridge without check to take my land/condemn my home and steal part of what I’ve worked for, paid for the last 20 years. I’ve canvassed all levels of governing bodies and found out that not one including our State/county/city/TWP regulators have a requirement for minimum distance a dwelling can be from a high pressure oil pipeline. How can that be when even our lowest level of regulation (TWP) can tell you how far your pole barn has to be from your garage or how far a shed can be from a property line but they have no requirement as to how far your home must be from an oil pipeline? Well, it’s pretty simple if they are involved in setting precedent that could cost Enbridge money (i.e., buying homes that violate the req.) they will be sued by Enbridge and they will lose. So … you and I pay the price for it. . . sounds reasonable, right?
3) My trust in law enforcement and the court system.
When I heard on our local Livingston county radio station that Our Sheriff was allowing Livingston county Sheriff’s deputies to work during their off time as contract security for Enbridge while wearing county uniforms/carrying weapons/driving county vehicles all paid for by the residents of Livinston county I just couldn’t believe it. How was this ever even considered by our Sheriff’s Dept.? How could they possibly have thought this would be in the best interest of our community?
How could it be that when I called 911 to report criminal trespass (by Enbridge) on our private road (Sue Dr.) the Sheriff’s Dept showed up and called the prosecutor’s office? The Livingston County prosecutor’s response was we won’t press charges on behalf of the residents of Sue. Dr.; it’s a civil matter, and I quote “the same as someone on Sue Dr. ordering a pizza and a pizza boy driving down the road.” Yet this same prosecutor was willing to press charges against me for not allowing Enbridge on my property because the site plan they had approved in court did not match what they laid out on my property (which included temporary workspace that was 3 feet from the foundation of my home). The Sheriff’s dept came to my home three times in this time frame to convince me to comply. The last time they brought a 400 lb process server to let me know it was my last chance before I go to jail – he also reminded me that my wife could be arrested too. I complied …. props to Enbridge ..they never lose, do they? Enbridge’s response to my situation would be this – it’s a shame Mr. Burke didn’t comply with us – none of this would have occurred.
4) My Privacy
A year before Enbridge ever broke ground on the line 6B project it was a beautiful sunny afternoon when my daughter came in from our pool and said dad a couple of guys came out of the woods and are in our back yard (remember I live on ten acres – this is not a normal occurrence). I was obviously not happy with this situation and went out to confront them.
They told me they were a contractor to Enbridge hired to do 3D mapping of my property. They were two football fields north of the Enbridge easement. They were in my backyard; the line is in my front yard. This was just the beginning of an endless cycle of unannounced visits by Enbridge and their agents/contractors often times in areas of my property that they no have right to be in.
Fast forward to construction phase – after a lengthy standoff the construction on my property commenced. Enbridge with all their prestigious Engineering savvy came to the conclusion at the last minute that they couldn’t dig the trench as close at it was planned to be to my house so they counterbored underground parallel to the front of my house under my driveway. Now at this point if I sit in my living room to chat with family/watch TV/read/work I’m looking at Enbridge workers walking back and forth in front of my home maybe 10 feet from my windows. They can look in (and they do) and see myself and my family – heck they can see what we’re watching on TV.
Construction vehicles and workers just a few feet from the Burkes’ home.
When I leave for work in the morning they are coming up my driveway – when I come home they are still there working – I can hear their voices from my kitchen while my wife and I are making dinner or talking. The sound of their equipment running constantly is maddening then slowly becomes numbing over time. There is a constant resonance/vibration in my home now and I can’t stop wondering is this hurting the structure of my home?
When I go out in my garage to work on a project there are Enbridge workers outside my windows and multiple Enbridge trucks parked 5 feet from my garage.
When I try to hunt on my property Enbridge workers call the Sheriff’s Dept. and tell them I’m shooting at them. And the Sheriff’s Dept. pays me a visit once again.
When I look out any window of my home I no longer see the beautiful views that I’ve grown used to. I now see workers, equipment, trucks, construction debris, mounds of dirt, and large holes and hazard orange ….hazard orange everywhere.
5) My Sense of well being.
One of the most insidious and difficult things to explain to someone not directly living this nightmare is the toll it takes on your general sense of well being. Not feeling like you’re coming home to your place of solace, instead dreading on a daily basis seeing the state of disarray your home is in. Not knowing how all of this will affect you this month, next month, or next year. Knowing you’re helpless to stop it. Knowing it will have a negative impact on the value of your home in already trying economic times. While these things may seem small to some on a point by point basis it has a cumulative effect on a person. In general you don’t feel hopeful about the outcome. This gut feeling spreads to other areas of your life like work for instance or social scenarios or family issues or health issues. You don’t always feel it but it’s there nonetheless.
Even connections we have with our neighbors are different, some are settling with Enbridge – others are not. Other ancillary issues arise that need consensus from all in the neighborhood, but now this is hard to come by as the “Enridge Effect” has polarized some and alienated others altogether, so coming together as a community just seems to be fractured.
I think this one has to be in the Enbridge handbook on disorientate, alienate, conquer, and divide. Props again to Enbridge.
6) Last but not least ….
The value of my property. Think about this …When Enbridge first approached us to get us to sign off on the “Plan” they had for our property their good faith offer was $6,000.00 . They had lots of charts and monkey math to show why this was more than fair. Keep in mind we would be closer to the proposed pipeline than any other home in our area.
Within a month we started hearing that some neighbors were settling with them with zero impact to their properties other than losing trees for ten times what they offered us.
Good Faith???? Enbridge’s approach to justifying what they do or don’t pay you for loss of value to your property due to their taking and their deplorable reputation is what the industry refers to as the Utility taking of your home.
They actually told me the utility they were taking was relevant due to the fact that there was already a pipeline there. Of course, they own the pipeline that was already there and we were never compensated for taking if you will. What a strange and self convenient logic …kind of like saying I shouldn’t pay for smashing your car because, it was already smashed -never mind the fact that I’m the guy who smashed it in the first place and never fixed it.
Bottom line is I’ve watched my homes value plummet while all others in my area are back on the rise. I have a nice, well maintained home on a beautiful piece of property only one issue – the new Enbridge easement now encompasses the front of my home. My home literally interrupts the north side of the easement.
For Enbridge this becomes a kind of self-fulfilling cost-save prophecy. The longer they wait to settle the less my house is worth (because of them). So the less the value of the taking they eventually pay for. The courts already allowed them to postpone my hearing date from June of this year to Sept of this year. I fully expect the court to allow them to postpone it again. It’s sheer ludicrousy. How can it be legal? How can it be happening?
How can our legal system allow a company with annual sales in the tens of billions to systematically rob individuals of just compensation? Never mind the dehumanizing effect Enbridge has on thousands upon thousand of individuals and families. They even get to offset their costs of doing business on the backs of real people, families, communities.
It truly is numbing and it truly is a nightmare. How can it happen in America? Who would let such a thing happen to us?
Who would put themselves in our shoes?
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 8, 2013 |
This week, we’re going to relinquish a little bit of content-control of this blog in order to bring you a new, lengthy series: real stories from real Line 6B landowners. We’re going to let landowners tell you their own stories about their experience with Enbridge in their own words, with as little editorial intrusion from us as possible. But first, we’d like to say a few words in advance just by way of introduction to the series.
One of Enbride’s favorite strategies in the face of criticism has been to pretend that those who have been outspoken are really just a handful of disgruntled, hard-to-please complainers. Either that or all the ruckus is just the predictable rumblings of some easily dismissed “special interest groups.” Over the past year, we’ve seen various iterations of this specious point– from Patrick Daniel, from Larry Springer, from Tom Hodge, and, especially, from Jason Manshum. Not long ago, for instance, Manshum stated that, “the vast majority of landowners we’ve worked with are pleased with negotiations.” Like most things that Manshum says, that statement is almost completely unverifiable, unless Enbridge is sitting on some comprehensive survey of landowner satisfaction that they aren’t sharing, a survey that we and every landowner we know was not invited to participate in (in which case it wouldn’t be comprehensive). Larry Springer’s similarly disingenuous version of the same line a few months before was his statement that “In a minority of cases, Enbridge made several attempts to negotiate in good faith but was forced to resort to the court process.” (Seriously, has Springer spent 10 minutes in Michigan the past year? Does he really have the slightest clue as to what any individual negotiations were really like? Has he ever spoken to a single landowner on the Line 6B route, even when he had the chance? Does he have even the faintest idea as to whether the things he says about landowner relations are actually true?). Anyway, for a long time we’ve thought about how useful it would be to have some actual empirical data on this question of landowner (dis)satisfaction. After all, it is theoretically possible that it would actually prove Enbridge’s point and make us look like precisely the aberrant, tiny minority of complainers Enbridge would prefer to make us out to be. On the other hand, perhaps it would demonstrate just the opposite.
We’ve taken up this discussion before. In fact, you might recall that we even wrote to Manshum himself to ask whether he had any actual data to support his claims of overwhelming landowner satisfaction. But he never replied. You see, despite his misleading title of “senior adviser of community relations,” Manshum is not really in the business of forging relations with the community. His job is really just to toss out pleasing-sounding phrases for the press. Confronted with a real member of the community seeking to have a real discussion about real, substantive matters, Manshum (like the rest of Enbridge’s pre-programmed PR soldiers) ducks and dodges and hides.
Unfortunately, we have neither the time, the expertise, nor the resources to conduct the sort of careful study, controlling for all sorts of variables– what constitutes a “vast” as opposed to a simple majority? what counts as “pleased”? what happens if you exclude landowners who live on large farms or don’t occupy their property at all? what percentage of unhappy landowners is acceptable to Enbridge? — that could be empirically useful here. What we have instead are stories, lots and lots of stories. What’s interesting about them, though, is just how similar they are. We’re willing to accept– and forgive– the occasional “honest mistake,” which is how Enbridge reps like to describe certain incidents (we’ve heard this on multiple occasions). But when the same mistake happens not just a handful of times, but repeatedly, dozens of times… well, then we think you’re no longer dealing with mistakes; you’re dealing with patterns of behavior, standard practices, systemic problems.
So here’s what we did (in, we admit, a totally unscientific manner): we contacted as many landowners along Phase One as we possibly could and we asked them to reflect a little on the past year working with Enbridge. We asked them to be honest and to tell us what they thought and how they felt about their experience, bad, good, or otherwise. We asked them to pass along our call for contributions to their neighbors and others along the route whom we might not know.
Now, you could say– and we imagine Enbridge will say– that the responses we received and will share with you come from a self-selecting group. A bunch of complainers who are drawn to a complaining blog. Maybe that’s true. But we can say with certainty that our sample is far less selective (and much larger!), not to mention far less curated and orchestrated than what you get from the Enbridge marketing department when, say, they trot out “Dr. Michael Milan,” gussy him up in some fancy camo hunting gear, and have him pose for print ad photographs. So, while admittedly, it’s hard to say just how representative the stories we’re bringing you really are, there are enough of them to suggest that this is more than an aberration. And we can say with absolute certainty that you’ll be hearing from real landowners, ordinary people, your neighbors (to use a phrase Enbridge is fond of using)– not just a bunch of people who “are never going to be happy,” not “special interest groups,” not “professional opposition,” not even people who “oppose the pipeline,” and definitely not “revolutionaries.”
Our hope is that by gathering together a collection of these stories as a critical mass, Enbridge will, for once, set aside the defensiveness and the posturing, the denial and the carefully-honed messaging and do what it has thus far been either unwilling or unable to do: take a cold, hard, sober, honest look at itself, at the conduct of its land agents and representatives and its treatment of the fine people of the great state of Michigan, then decide for itself whether they have lived up to its own professed values.
Finally, if you are a landowner and haven’t heard from us or haven’t yet contributed, but would like to. Please send your thoughts and reflections here-– as long or as short as you like; a couple of sentences or a handful of paragraphy. We will happily maintain your anonymity if you prefer; just let us know whether you’d like your name to appear. Either way, we only ask that you specify your location (city, town, or township). We’re glad to respond to any questions as well.
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 6, 2013 |
We apologize for the silence around here the past week or so. We took a much needed vacation over to the paradise that is Northern Michigan, spending lots of time at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. As always, it was energizing and a reminder of Michigan’s magnificent natural resources– all the more reason to continue doing whatever small part we can to protect them.
Now that we’re back, we’ve got a plea to make on behalf of our friends at the Pipeline Safety Trust. It’s time for the liquid pipelines industry to put up or shut up.
As you may recall, the Pipeline Safety Trust hosts an annual conference that brings together members of industry, regulators, and ordinary citizens to engage in productive dialogue about pipeline safety. We were privileged to attend and speak at the conference last year. It’s an invigorating and important event. The work that the PS Trust does is quiet, but vital. Ordinary citizens are a crucial part of that work. But here’s the problem:
The PS Trust isn’t exactly rich and the conference isn’t exactly cheap. It’s not easy or affordable for a lot of ordinary citizens to get to New Orleans to participate. In the past, the Trust has been able to subsidize much of that travel by securing external grants. Unfortunately, funding sources have dried up. And that means that a lot of citizens– think, for instance, of those people affected by the terrible spill in Mayflower, Arkansas– will likely not be able to attend.
To solve this problem, the Trust has embarked upon a fundraising effort. They’ve estimated that they’ll need to raise about $15,000- 20,000. We think this this sort of crowdfunding is great and we hope you will consider donating something small. It’s worth a few dollars, we promise. But having said that, here’s the thing:
It should be obvious to everyone where the money for this travel should come from. It’s not the PS Trust or the regulatory agencies or ordinary people who have the resources to fund this sort of thing. It’s industry. We’re talking here about corporations that make hundreds of millions of dollars in profit a year. There’s probably $20k in loose change between the cushions of the couches in the lobby at the corporate headquarters.
But the fact that industry can easily generate the sum the PS Trust needs is the least of the reasons why they should pick up this tab. The more important reason is because it’s in their interest to do so. Regular citizens, particularly landowners with pipelines running through their properties, are crucial players in pipeline safety. Everyone agrees on this. We are the first first-responders. We are supposed to be partners, collaborators in pipeline safety.
In fact, that’s exactly what the industry says. The pipeline companies profess to be committed to cultivating productive partnerships and engaging in open dialogue with citizen stakeholders. For instance:
- PG&E says that “Engaging with our stakeholders is an essential part of our approach to sustainability—and an area of continued emphasis for PG&E. Doing so enables us to learn from, inform and problem-solve with our diverse stakeholders.”
- Exxon Mobil insists that “Continued dialogue is critical to the long-term relationship between our employees and our neighbors. That’s why we invite community members to discuss their concerns with us.”
- TransCanada says that “Everything we do depends on the strength of our relationship with local residents.”
- Williams Pipelines “takes great pride in the relationship of trust and harmony we’ve developed with the many landowners and communities with whom we co-exist.”
- Spectra Energy asserts that “community stewardship means listening to and being responsible members of the communities we serve. We engage local stakeholders affected by our projects and ongoing operations early and often…”
- And Enbridge says that “developing and maintaining good relationships with our stakeholders – the landowners, tenants and neighbours along our pipeline system – is important to us.” And one of the ways they do this is by “consulting with the individuals who live along our pipelines, and with those who may become our neighbours as our pipeline network grows.”
Other companies make similar claims. And we want to believe them. We really do. So here is a chance for them to make good on all of those assertions, to actually go out of their way to ensure that landowners are in attendance at a gathering specifically designed to foster the kinds of engagements, consultations, and relationships of trust and harmony they claim (publicly) to value. Here is a perfect opportunity for those corporations to put their money where their collective corporate mouth is. In fact, it would be a PR coup for them. They could announce their donations on their websites, tout them in their next annual corporate responsibility reports, make them a talking point for their Jason Manshums and Shawn Howards. Heck, we would even praise them right here in this blog for making good on their stated commitments, for taking action commensurate with their words!
And it would hardly cost them a thing. What is, say, $5000 to a billion dollar corporation? Any one of the companies I’ve listed above could cut the Pipeline Safety Trust a check for the full $20k and not even miss it. Just a quarter of that from each of the six I’ve listed above and the PS Trust’s goal would be exceeded by a third.
Or, to put this another way, just consider: in 2011, the total compensation of Stephen Wuori of Enbridge exceeded six million dollars. According to the same source, Russell Girling of TransCanada made about the same. And Christopher Johns of PG&E made more than five million. Do you think that between the three of them they could come up with a mere $15,000 dollars to demonstrate their commitment to pipeline safety? Or better yet, why don’t they show some real vision and leadership by establishing a permanent fund specifically designated for citizen travel to the conference every year and distributed by the Trust, thereby permanently sparing Carl Weimer, who has much better things to do, from ever again having to go around panhandling?
So we’ll see what happens. If the funding for citizen travel does not materialize– or if it only comes from committed and generous people who are NOT from the industry– then we’ll know for sure whether all the industry talk about engaging and consulting landowners and neighbors is a reality or just pleasant-sounding rhetoric.
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 23, 2013 |
As we mentioned earlier today– and discussed earlier this week— Enbridge has suddenly, inexplicably, decided to woo the press with a bit of pipeline construction stagecraft now that phase two of the Line 6B “replacement” is in full swing. Tom Hodge has been cast in the role of charming leading man– not a bad move, we have to admit. We’ve always found Hodge quite personable and certainly much more credible, straightforward, and responsive than Enbridge’s brood of PR hustlers– though we have also seen, to our disappointment, that Hodge is prone to the occasional Manshumism (that’s our new term for disingenuous or misleading statements; what do you think?).
Anyway, it’s not hard to see why Enbridge puts on these little media shows: they appear to work. Just take a look at two of the reports filed following yesterday’s mid-day matinée: one from Lisa Satayut at MLive (why didn’t they send Ursula Zerilli?) and another from Scott Davis at the Lansing State Journal. As far as we know, neither Davis nor Satayut has written about the Enbridge project before– and it shows. In fact, in order to try and be generous and fair, we’re going to assume that this fact accounts for both articles’ deficiencies. In our view, we think it’s best if reporters know as much as possible about whatever subject it is they’re writing about; we think readers are much better served that way– as we pointed out in our discussion of Tom Hillen’s disastrous TV spot this week. But we also know (though we’re not in the business) that that isn’t how things always work in practice. Satayut and Davis are given assignments and tight deadlines and not enough time to do the sort of homework that’s going to produce genuinely informative journalism. Because of this, the only thing they can do is type up an account of what happens right in front of their eyes. The results are unfortunate.
Davis’s piece reads just like an Enbridge press release. With the exception of very brief mentions of “the July 2010 pipeline spill that polluted the Kalamazoo River near Marshall” and recent protests (“In recent weeks,” Davis writes, the project “has been hampered by environmental protesters who have linked arms or climbed trees to temporarily block the work”), there is almost no context for the story whatsoever, not even an acknowledgment that this is the second phase of a project that has been going on for well over a year, rife with controversy and contention. Instead, Davis just seems sort of hypnotized by the impressiveness of the operation, waxing a bit lyrical, and then more than happy to step aside and let Jason Manshum pretend like everything has been going just swell, like this:
In most cases, the company purchased additional easements from the 2,500 landowners between Stockbridge and Griffith, Ind., offered reimbursements for crop losses and pledged to restore damaged property once the work is done, said Jason Manshum, spokesman for Enbridge.
“We try to listen to the neighbors and their concerns,” Hodge said. “We try to accommodate them.”
Sigh.
While Davis’s article isn’t much different than one of Enbridge’s notorious full page ads (perhaps this one in particular), at least Satayut recognizes, however simplistically, that there’s more to the story than just a bunch of guys with big equipment and a long stretch of steel pipe. She devotes six paragraphs (well, very short paragraphs) to controversy over the project and provides a full paragraph on Marshall. And there are hyperlinks to related articles.
Unfortunately, the article suffers from the same deficiencies we pointed out with regard to Ursula Zerilli’s piece a couple of days ago. What Satayut innocuously calls “differing opinions on the project” are once again reduced to a crude, ill-informed, and simplistic binary that pits safety-minded Enbridge against some felonious protestors climbing into or chaining themselves to the pipe. That’s it. Nothing about the fact that Enbridge has used the power of eminent domain to take dozens and dozens of landowners to court. Nothing about the fact that numerous Michigan citizens intervened in the MPSC’s approval proceedings for the project, a process that was prolonged, contentious, and raised an array of serious concerns that were not mere “opposition” to the project. Nothing about the fact that a grassroots citizen-group made up primarily of landowners along the pipeline route sued Enbridge in county, then federal court. Nothing about the long, complicated, fascinating standoff between Enbridge and Brandon Township, which illustrated vividly Enbridge’s contemptuous attitude toward and treatment of local authority and local ordinances. Nothing about similar skirmishes (though shorter and quieter) with a number of other townships along the route. Nothing about the silence and apathy of Michigan’s state and federal legislators who have turned a blind eye to Enbridge’s ongoing activities in this state, despite what we know about Marshall. Nothing about the NTSB report on the 2010 spill, which is where we learned so much of what we know about what happened in Marshall (and it ain’t pretty). And, perhaps worst of all, nothing whatsoever about the many, many, many landowners who have never opposed the project, but who have nevertheless felt abused, mistreated, bullied, disrespected, misinformed, under-compensated, beaten down and worn out by Enbridge and its land agents.
Now, we understand that a single article can’t do everything and certainly can’t take on all of that. We recognize that there’s only so much a reporter can do with a limited word count, a limited amount of space. We don’t expect Scott Davis and Lisa Satayut to know about or write about everything we just mentioned in one short article. However, it doesn’t seem to us too much to expect that they could have some dim awareness of all of this and write an article that in some way reflects that awareness, an article that is not either just an Enbridge press release masquerading as a news article (the Davis piece) or a news article that (once again) reduces a set of very important and very complicated and long-running set of concerns to a single woman climbing up into a tree one day (the Satayut piece).
In fact, if you don’t think that can be done, let us direct your attention to the report filed today by Mark Brush of Michigan Radio. Their team– including Rebecca Williams and Lindsey Smith– has been outstanding in their coverage for more than a year. And Mark’s report manages to accomplish– in fewer words!– what Davis and Satayut each fail to do: providing readers with some of the complex, varied, and serious issues that Enbridge’s little performance tried to hide backstage. And it’s not just that Brush went to Dave Gallagher’s house (though that’s no small thing). Mark also manages to mention the NTSB report. He points out (shrewdly) that technology isn’t everything when it comes to pipeline safety. And he mentions legitimate, reasonable landowner concerns that are not just a matter of “opposition.” Obviously, there’s a lot more meat that could still be put on those bones. But what Brush accomplishes in such a short piece is excellent.
It’s what you get when you give a story to a reporter who knows a thing or two about the story he’s covering.
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 23, 2013 |
While Enbridge works hard this week to woo the press (much more on this coming up later), they’re also taking some lumps. Comstock Township, like the EPA last week, has considered Enbridge’s request and then told them “no.” Late last night the Township Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny Enbridge special zoning for a dredge pad as they continue to clean up the Kalamazoo River. Lindsey Smith at Michigan Public Radio has the story. Evidently, residents and Bell’s Brewery owner Larry Bell were mighty pleased with the outcome.
Because we don’t know enough about the issue, we never really took a strong position on the dredge pad matter, except to say that in general we think it’s good policy to defer to local authority and community desires on such matters. We’re pretty big fans of local autonomy when it comes to the protection of landowners and natural resources. In fact, Enbridge’s callous disregard of local authority and concerns has been one of the major themes of this blog for more than a year. With that in mind, we’ll indulge in one little observation:
It now appears that Enbridge is going to have real trouble meeting the EPA mandated deadline for this latest round of clean up. And they probably think it’s all Larry Bell’s fault. But they have no one to blame but themselves. This dredge pad situation is a nearly identical replay of what happened on phase one of their project. They tried (despite their stated values) to take the easy way out and circumvent local ordinances. And what happened? Just like in Comstock Township, some brave local officials and concerned citizens cried foul, causing Enbridge to slow down, then scramble to make nice so they could resume their work after some long and painful (to Enbridge) delays. The result? The whole thing took far more time and created far more acrimony and bad feelings than it would (or should) have if Enbridge had simply gone about it thoughtfully, respectfully, and cooperatively in the first place.
In this context, the Comstock Township just demonstrates yet again that Enbridge appears incapable of learning from its mistakes.
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 22, 2013 |
If you’ve been paying attention, you’ve probably noticed that there has been a flurry of Enbridge Line 6B coverage this week. A great deal of it centers upon the harrowing situation at the house of our friend Dave Gallagher in Ceresco (and more and more). And the rest has been instigated by Enbridge itself, which has decided to launch a charm offensive with the press lately (see this and this). We can’t help but think these things are related; Enbridge seems to enjoy few things as much as a pr battle.
Anyway, we think Dave’s story is worth paying attention to. But not only because of the dramatic pictures and videos–and they certainly are dramatic. It’s also important because it illustrates vividly how and why Enbridge has bulldozed its way (literally and figuratively) through the state. In fact, we think that Dave’s situation represents a teachable moment. After all, plenty of other people on this route have experienced what Dave is going through– have you seen the pictures from Beth Duman’s house? Or Amy Nash’s? There are properties right in my neighborhood where the pipe runs within 10 or 15 feet of dwellings, just as it does Dave’s. Dave’s situation, and he’ll be the first to tell you this, is awful, but it’s far from singular.
Unfortunately, much of the press is unlikely to avail itself of the teachability of this moment. This is particularly true of television news. Witness, for instance, this rather awful report from Tom Hillen at WOOD-TV out of Grand Rapids. Go ahead and watch. We’ll continue after you’re done…
There are a number of serious problems here, not all of which are entirely Tim Hillen’s fault. Let’s review:
First and foremost, there are the remarks of the now-ubiquitous Jason Manshum, who unlike most of us has a job where he gets to say things all the time without ever being challenged or without worrying about whether what he says is at all verifiable. This time, he addresses Dave’s concerns that his property value will plummet. In response, Manshum says this:
“Studies have shown on our pipeline as well as other energy transportation companies that values — home values — do not decrease with pipelines. There is not a direct correlation that we have found,” Enbridge spokesman Jason Manshum said.
Those are certainly interesting claims and we would be very eager to verify whether thy are in fact true. For that reason, we’ve written to Manshum asking to see his data. Unfortunately, if history is any guide, he will ignore our query– because, as we said, Manshum lives in a dream-world where it doesn’t much matter whether his assertions are backed by any actual evidence. We’ll keep you posted.
The next problem with the report– and it is a MAJOR problem– is in fact Hillen’s fault. Here is what he says:
Enbridge is able to do the work because it has an easement on Gallagher’s property, which means it owns some of the land in his backyard.
Now, it’s not clear here whether this is something that Enbridge said to Hillen or whether Hillen generated this statement on his own. But one thing is clear: this is absolutely NOT TRUE. And the fact that it is not true is why this report is not only sloppy, but positively harmful. It does a tremendous disservice not only to Dave Gallagher, but to public discourse. It feeds a terrible misconception about property rights in general and Enbridge’s treatment of landowners in particular.
An easement does NOT mean that Enbridge “owns some of the land” on someone’s property. Dave Gallagher owns that land, period. An easement (or a right of way) simply means that Enbridge has the right to access and use that land for specific activities as specified in the easement agreement. They do NOT get to do whatever they want with it whenever they want to. They do not have total control over that property nor do they have total control over what Dave Gallagher does with that property. Even Enbridge would not dispute this. They can’t dispute it because it is a legal fact. And because easement rights are not ownership, it is entirely possible for easement holders (like Enbridge) to abuse or overstep their easement rights. (One might even argue that Enbridge has abused its easement rights). But just because Enbridge would not or cannot claim that they “own” the land for which they hold rights-of-way doesn’t mean that they’re not perfectly happy to have landowners and the public believe, mistakenly, that having an easement means owning that property. The more people believe that, the less likely Enbridge’s activities are to be challenged; the less likely know-nothings who post internet comments on stories like this one are to sympathize with situations like Dave’s. That’s just the way Enbridge likes it.
The last problem is the fault of Enbridge and Hillen both. On the subject of eminent domain, this is what Hillen says:
Enbridge says they didn’t have to pay Gallagher or other land owners, but they do because they want a good relationship with them. According to Manshum, Enbridge has eminent domain, which would give the company the right to lay the pipeline no matter what.
This is misleading at best. What does Manshum mean when he says Enbridge “didn’t have to pay… land owners”? That they don’t have to pay for exercising their easement right? That may be true, depending upon the easement agreement. But in most cases, that’s beside the point. Rather, the issue of payment frequently has more to do with (a) the acquisition of NEW easement rights– which is the case with Dave’s property. For that, they do have to pay; and (b) the use of “temporary workspace” and whatever damages that use causes. On our property, for instance, Enbridge took (temporarily) an additional 65 feet outside their existing easement. That’s where most of our trees and our garden were. Enbridge DID have to pay for that; they did not just pay us “because they want a good relationship with” us, as Manshum claims. They were legally obligated to compensate us for damages.
Perhaps even worse, though, is both Enbridge’s and Hillen’s glib treatment of eminent domain. Manshum trots it out, callously, like a sort of trump card and in doing so characterizes the whole situation so that it appears that every scrap and crumb Enbridge gives out is a sign of its tremendous generosity, when if they really wanted to they could just trample on us all like cockroaches. This is exactly what Enbridge VP Mark Sitek said to us after we went round and round for quite some time. One can only assume that this is what Enbridge really believes, despite all the good neighbor rhetoric: “you helpless, groveling peasants ought to be grateful we’re giving you anything at all!”
Hillen and his colleagues are all too happy to promulgate this view. Just watch their daft back and forth about it at the end of the report, shrugging their shoulders about eminent domain as if it’s just a fundamental law of the universe: “yeah, that’s just how it is with gravity. Nobody could stop that apple from falling from that tree.” The problem, however, is that eminent domain is NOT a natural law. Enbridge was granted that right by the Michigan Public Service Commission, through a process that, as we have written about exhaustively, was deeply flawed and failed to serve the interests of the citizens of this state. Hillen had a chance to explore that, to initiate a discussion about the use (and abuse) of eminent domain. But he did no such thing. Instead, he simply demonstrates that he doesn’t really understand eminent domain law any more than he understands easement rights.
As a result, a chance to actually inform the public, to explain to people why, aside from mere “inconvenience,” landowners might have some legitimate complaints, to use Dave Gallagher’s terrible story to help people understand easement rights or how and why foreign companies are granted the power of eminent domain, or to initiate some important discussions about matters like property rights and energy policy and our regulatory systems, things that ought to be of interest to every citizen, is missed. And because of that, even though Enbridge isn’t running bulldozers right outside all of our living rooms, we’re all still getting Gallaghered. Score another one for Enbridge.
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 19, 2013 |
Update, August 20, 2013: Well, it turns out that what looked like a very big Enbridge whopper (details below) is actually just a run-of-the-mill bit of Enbridge misinformation. Reporter Tina Casagrand has the clarification from Enbridge in a comment to this post. We are glad for spokesperson Katie Lange’s sake that she wasn’t actually saying that the Marshall spill was the result of “something that was stuck in the pipe.” Unfortunately, the clarification doesn’t actually bring all that much clarity to the matter. Here’s why:
Enbridge now says that “the incident” to which Lange’s refers in her statement is the discharge that resulted from a hydrotest of the new Line 6B earlier this summer. (You might remember that we wrote about it at the time.) We’ll take them at their word on this. The problem, however, is that the statement is STILL inaccurate and even, it seems, rather disingenuous. The inaccurate part is that the incident did not take place in Marshall. Ore Creek is in Tyrone Township, Livingston County, nowhere near Marshall. The disingenuous part is that Lange says Enbridge didn’t “purposefully” violate the permit, suggesting instead that the violations were the result of something getting stuck. However, if you look at the violations-– there are ELEVEN of them– it’s hard to see how any of them could have been the result of something getting stuck in the line. For instance, (just to name a few) the DEQ cites Enbridge for not having any on-site representatives during the discharge, for not taking any samples of the discharge on June 17 (three days before the discharge), for not conducting water inspections as required the week before the discharge, and for not inspecting their equipment as required. As far as we can tell, none of these things have anything at all to do with something getting stuck in the pipe. So the question that remains is whether Enbridge failed to perform these required actions “purposefully,” as Lange claims. Maybe that’s a difficult thing to determine, we guess. But if the violations aren’t the result of an accident (and the evidence suggests they weren’t), and they were not purposeful, that only leaves one alternative: incompetence. That is not very comforting.
_____________________
Two very interesting stories appeared in newspapers today written by talented young reporters. Over at the St. Louis Beacon, Tina Casagrand has an excellent piece about Enbridge’s Flanagan South project. As we’ve noted before, this is another one of Enbridge’s clever schemes to out-Keystone Keystone XL. This line will head south through the midwest and eventually make it all the way to the coast. And the most disturbing part? Even though it crosses an international border, Enbridge has once again found a way to skirt the presidential permitting problem and avoid public scrutiny. And also once again, the project is mostly flying under the radar while almost all eyes remain fixed on KXL. This is one reason Tina’s piece (and others that have appeared before it) is so very important.
But the most extraordinary thing of all in the article– and, honestly, we thought we’d heard it all by now– is what Enbridge spokesperson Katie Lange has to say about the Marshall spill. If you’re not sitting down, you might want to. At least be sure you’re holding on to something solid. This whopper is even worse than the infuriatingly dishonest story Enbridge VP of Operations Richard Adams told to the EPA a couple of weeks ago. Okay. Are you ready? Here’s Lange on Marshall:
“For the incident in Marshall, it wasn’t that Enbridge purposefully violated, it was something that was stuck in the pipe,” added Lange.
Something stuck in the pipe?! We have long been baffled and angered by the misleading, disingenuous, obfuscatory, and inaccurate things that Enbridge spokespersons– the Larry Springers and Jennifer Smiths and Jason Manshums say. But this one has to take the cake. One can only wonder where in the world poor Katie Lange got that patently false piece of information. Surely she or someone at Enbridge will call Tina to correct it. Right?
The other interesting story today is from Ursula Zerilli over at MLive, who is following up on her article from last week. For some strange reason, Enbridge decided to get chummy with some reporters as they kick off phase two of the project and so (evidently) reporters got to ride around in a van with Tom Hodge and some others. But unlike last week’s article, in this one Ursula speaks with some Enbridge critics, among them our friend Dave Gallagher, whose situation as an affected landowner is a real nightmare– just get a load of the picture that accompanies the article! The article also features some remarks from inspector Raymond Ashley, who appears to have a real penchant for forced, mawkish metaphors:
“We are trying to weld more than just this pipe together,” said Raymond Ashley, who was proudly wearing a photo of his granddaughter as a badge. “We’re welding more than just a pipeline. We need to bond together the environment, safety and the integrity of this pipeline. We have one day to build integrity and that’s today.”
Anyway, while we think the article is accurate and fair (she even emphasizes Enbridge’s slow response to Marshall), it also left us a little dissatisfied for reasons that might be worth explaining in a bit of detail. The reason we’re dissatisfied– and we don’t really blame Ursula for this– is that the article lacks nuance. It lacks subtlety and complexity. Again, this isn’t really Ursula’s fault. We live in a (news) culture that likes simple binary narratives– us vs. them, black vs. white, good guys vs. bad guys. That’s what (or so editors seem to think) appeals to people. Making this even worse is that Ursula was probably only given about 800 words in which to tell her story– hard to be nuanced in such a short space. Yet nuance is important. Here’s why:
One comes away from the article with a simple dichotomy: there are pipeline proponents (like Tom Hodge and Enbridge) and there are pipeline opponents (the protestors from MICATS). They are the article’s protagonists and antagonists (we’ll let you decide who’s who!). But the problem with this narrative– which pits people who don’t want pipelines against people building pipelines– is that it is precisely the way that Enbridge wants to have this story framed. It’s why former Enbridge CEO likes to talk about “revolutionaries” and why Enbridge spokesman Larry Springer talks about “special interest groups.” That kind of story serves Enbridge’s interests perfectly because it allows them to sound reasonable and pragmatic, while casting everyone else as a little bit crazy, on the fringes, out of the mainstream. So, for instance, Tom Hodge gets to say things like this:
“It’s hard to understand their logic,” he said of those protesting the pipeline replacement project. “It seems like they want us to turn the pipeline off or just not replace this pipeline, which already ruptured. There’s not a good alternative to what we are doing and we feel like it’s a good thing for the State of Michigan.”
And this:
“There would be riots in the streets if food wasn’t being delivered or if fuel wasn’t being delivered,” he said. “I’m all for having an alternate fuel, but until that becomes available, there’s no other option. You can use natural gas but that has to come by pipeline, too. If that ruptures, it’s not a polluting event like oil … It’s a fireball.”
See how that works? Hodge makes it sound like the alternatives are clear and stark: EITHER Enbridge gets to build whatever pipelines it wants to build however it wants to build them OR there will be riots in the streets because people are starving. I mean, what kind of person would be in favor of people starving?!
But here’s the thing: that is complete and total and utter nonsense. It is a ridiculously false choice. Those are quite plainly NOT the only alternatives. People are not going to starve and riot in the street if Enbridge does not get to pump 800,000 barrels of tar sands oil a day across Michigan through a shiny new Line 6B. No serious person believes any such thing. And yet Hodge gets to imply as much and, in doing so, also gets to come off as the person who is being rational and realistic.
And that’s not even the worst part. The other reason this simplistic (and largely false) narrative of people in favor of the pipeline vs. people opposed to the pipeline serves Enbridge so well is because it allows them to evade the real substance of most of the real criticism of the way they have conducted themselves in Michigan over the past three years (or more). As we have said over and over and over and over again (so often we don’t even have the energy to provide links anymore), the problem isn’t that they’re replacing Line 6B. The problem is how they’ve gone about it. Most of us do not oppose the “replacement” of the line– a new pipe is obviously better than an aging pipe. That has NEVER been the issue. What we object to is the way that Enbridge has cleverly skirted federal regulations, the way they have abused their easement rights and mistreated landowners and trampled property rights, the way they have misinformed people, the way they have flouted or ignored local authority and thrown their weight around, the way they have essentially re-written Michigan law to serve their own financial interests. All that plus the fact that we have a bunch of elected officials and a set of pathetically weak regulatory systems that allows all of this to continue.
Those are the real issues. And they are issues that affect and therefore ought to concern all the citizens of the state of Michigan. To pretend otherwise– to pretend that it’s a simple matter of energy production vs. a handful of environmental radicals– does nothing but allow Enbridge to avoid having to face any of the things I’ve described, to avoid ever being confronted with genuinely tough questions. So once again, as always, Enbridge gets exactly what it wants.
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 16, 2013 |
This just in: the EPA has denied Enbridge’s request for an extension to complete the latest round of dredging in the Kalamazoo River. We don’t know enough about dredge pads and Comstock Township to have a strong opinion on the dredge site matter, but as we explained at length last week (here and in a letter to the EPA), Enbridge was shockingly dishonest in their letter to the EPA asking for the request. One can only surmise that that fact– there’s no way EPA couldn’t have known the truth– had something to do with the denial. It would have been nice to see EPA call Enbridge out on their attempt to blame someone else for the delay with the Comstock permit. But it was satisfying to see EPA call Enbridge out on a similar matter: Enbridge’s attempt to pretend like the Michigan DEQ was slow in issuing permits. From the EPA letter (emphasis ours).
Enbridge also noted in its letter that MDEQ has not yet issued the dredge permit for Morrow Lake and the Delta. Although this is true, it is also true that Enbridge has not yet submitted certain information required by MDEQ for the permit application. Enbridge has had all required information from U.S. EPA for completion of the application since U.S. EPA approved the Dredge Completion Depth Plan on August 1, 2013. U.S. EPA again reminds Enbridge to submit this information to MDEQ immediately.
Snap!
Ursula Zerilli has more in a thorough article over at MLive. Michigan Radio’s Steve Carmody has also filed a report.
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 15, 2013 |
As we’ve said before, we can imagine that Enbridge, thin-skinned as they are, probably thinks that we are overly-critical, probably to the point of being unfair, that we nitpick, that we dwell on the negative. Maybe that’s true– although we think it’s a pretty big deal when, for example, they tell dishonest stories to the EPA. And anyway, we can’t help it that they keep giving us so many nits to pick. Perhaps they should stop that.
But in fairness, we do try to call ’em like we see ’em and that means when they do something right, we should say so– even though it seems a little silly to heap a lot of praise on them for doing the basic things they’re supposed to do. Still, with all that as preface, here’s a positive story:
After months and months of the right of way and workspace in our backyard sitting around empty and untended, to no one’s surprise weeds have taken over. Lots and lots of weeds. Just look:
When reclamation crews appeared late last week to start cleaning up, we were more than a little bothered to learn that their standard procedure is to just plow these weeds under– which really just guarantees that they’ll return. Now it may be that to most people, that’s no big deal. But to us, that’s a real problem; it’s been a source of concern for us from day one (as we explained a long time ago), not to mention an ongoing problem.
Unfortunately, we had to make about five different phone calls before we were able to convince anybody that this was a serious matter worth addressing. But once we got through to Enbridge, they did snap right into action. In fact, on Monday, we met with a whole bunch of them– our land agent, guys from the construction crew, the environmental inspector, and a couple of others: a whole cavalry! And together, we arrived at a perfectly satisfactory solution to the weed problem. We are grateful to all of them for taking the time to come out and address it; they were serious and helpful and genuinely seemed to want to work with us We especially thank the environmental inspector (he’s actually a non-Enbridge employee), who has always been helpful to us, and the construction foreman on the job, who seems to be a terrific guy, responsive and very professional. We have long said (without the least bit of surprise) that the construction workers on this job are a fine, courteous, and good bunch of people; we’ve enjoyed meeting lots of them, despite the circumstances.
Bottom line: once we finally got through to them (and frankly, it could and should have been easier), Enbridge was responsive to our desires on the weed matter. We appreciate it.
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 11, 2013 |
Evidently, Enbridge thinks the EPA is stupid– or doesn’t have access to the local news.
As MLive reported last week— along with numerous other news outlets— Enbridge has asked the EPA for an extension to complete the latest round of dredging ordered by the agency earlier this year. The reason for the extension request has to do (ostensibly) with the situation in Comstock Township, the Bell’s Brewery lawsuit, and permitting from the Michigan DEQ. In and of itself, the extension request isn’t terribly surprising. And since we don’t know very much about dredge pads and zoning in Comstock Township and haven’t carefully investigated those things, we’re not really in a position to offer any confident opinions about Enbridge’s plan–although if Comstock residents and business owners like Larry Bell have serious concerns, we certainly think they need to be heard.
So this post isn’t really about the site plan. Instead, it’s about the part of the story that no one else (as far as we know) has bothered to mention: the audacity– or, to call it what it is– the flagrant dishonesty of Enbridge’s letter to the EPA. Why the letter’s demonstrable falsehoods– and we don’t use this language lightly– have thus far been given a free pass we do not understand.
Before we explain, let’s put this in a little context. Over the past year, we have said– and shown— repeatedly that Enbridge fails to live up to its professed corporate values. This simple point was even the basis of our talk at the PSTrust conference last year, which a number of Enbridge representatives attended. So they know very well that plenty of us are measuring their actions against their words. Once again, let’s take a quick look at some of those values. The first ones on the list fall under the heading of “Integrity”:
Integrity
-
Maintain truth in all interactions
-
Do the right thing; do not take the easy way out
-
Take accountability for our actions, without passing blame to others
With these things in mind, let’s watch as Senior Vice President of Operations Richard L. Adams violates all three of them in the span of just a few sentences. Here’s what Adams says in his letter to the EPA requesting that extension. The offending portions are in boldface:
Enbridge’s preparation for dredging in the Delta and Morrow Lake area has been discontinued due to an unanticipated issue with securing a dredge pad site. Enbridge originally selected a site for the dredge pad that met all technical and practical requirements and promptly applied for the appropriate permit from the Township of Comstock. Unfortunately, some local residents and business owners have vigorously opposed granting the permit. As a result, the Township of Comstock has not yet issued the required permit to allow use of the specific site selected for the dredge pad.
1. “Maintain truth in all interactions.” Is Adams’s description of why Enbridge’s dredging plan has been delayed truthful? Well, no. Adams makes it sounds as if Enbridge was doing everything precisely as it should and would have made the EPA deadline just fine until some pesky obstructionist locals got in the way and mucked everything up. But that little narrative, flattering though it may be to Enbridge simply does not square with reality.
For one thing, it is quite plainly NOT true to say that Enbridge “promptly applied for the appropriate permit from the Township of Comstock.” Of course, the term “promptly” might seem to leave a little wriggle room (after all, who gets to decide what counts as prompt?). But let’s consider the facts: the EPA issued its dredging order on March 14 of this year. Enbridge only submitted a site plan to Comstock Township on July 9, nearly four months later (and even then, they submitted it to the wrong body, further delaying matters; more on this below). And they only did so after the Comstock Township Supervisor discovered they were about to begin work without the permit and asked them to stop. Would any reasonable person honestly believe that that qualifies as having “promptly applied”? In fact, does that even count as having applied at all? We tend to think not, but can’t say for sure.
But you don’t have to take our word for it. Just consider some of the key players in this matter who also do not think it was prompt. One of them is Enbridge’s own attorney Christopher Tracy. Here is what Tracy said at the Comstock Township Planning Commission on July 25 about that site plan:
I’d like also to apologize on behalf of Enbridge in terms of sort of the fast pace of this. All of you know we’re under an order from the EPA, where work needs to transpire between now and the end of the year.
We would love to have a situation where we weren’t sort of under that kind of clock. So we apologize if we sort of put you in that position and we apologize for not submitting the site plan to you earlier. It should have been done in a different manner, but it was not.
“We apologize for not submitting the site plan to you earlier.” Extraordinary, isn’t it? Not even Enbridge’s own lawyer thinks they applied for the Comstock permit “promptly.” He even apologizes for not having applied for it promptly and says that “it should have been done in a different manner.”
And Tracy is not the only one who doesn’t think Enbridge applied for the Comstock permit promptly. Have a look at what Comstock Township Supervisor Ann Nieuwenhuis says in a July 10 letter to the Michigan DEQ:
At the outset I must express disappointment that substantial work on both of those sites has occurred without Enbridge applying for and obtaining the necessary Township permits required under the Township’s ordinances and its Zoning Ordinance in particular. While representatives of Enbridge have recently expressed to the Township an intent to apply for and obtain the necessary Township zoning approval and otherwise comply with all applicable Township ordinance requirements, this has not yet occurred. Enbridge’s delay in approaching the Township in this regard has unnecessarily exacerbated the Township’s citizens’ concerns and will make it much more difficult to give those concerns as reflected in the Township Zoning Ordinance proper consideration within the abbreviated timeframe that Enbridge indicates is available to it.
So, neither Enbridge’s own attorney nor the Comstock Supervisor think that Enbridge applied for the Township permit “promptly.” In fact, both of them state quite clearly that a major problem here is that Enbridge FAILED to apply for the permit promptly. That failure is the primary cause of the delay, a delay that has in turn caused Enbridge to seek that extension from the EPA. Yet, in the face of this clear fact, as agreed to by both an Enbridge attorney speaking before the Comstock Planning Commission and the Comstock Township Supervisor, Richard Adams tells the EPA that Enbridge applied for the permit promptly.
2. “Do the right thing; do not take the easy way out.” Which leads us to the next “value” that Adams violates in his letter. The whole point of all of this for Ann Nieuwenhuis (or so it seems to us) is that Enbridge did NOT do the right thing from the start, which would have been to initiate discussions with the Township from the very beginning, to communicate their dredging plans with them, and to apply for the appropriate permits before starting work. But they did none of that. That’s what Nieuwenhuis objected to in the first place. Instead, Enbridge tried to “take the easy way out,” tried to just do things the way they wanted to, without consulting local authorities or inviting local input. (This is the same sort of thing they did with Brandon Township and Howell Township earlier this year.) And since then, Enbridge has continued to NOT do the right thing, like, for instance, submitting the site plan to the Planning Commission and not the Zoning Board as the process requires (thus further delaying matters!). Why did Enbridge do that? Well, here is what Supervisor Niewenhuis had to say about that:
The township had previously warned Enbridge when submitting its site applications that it should go through the ZBA first, but Nieuwenhuis said Enbridge tried to expedite the process by going straight to the Planning Commission with its north site application.
“They didn’t want to do that because (notice of the ZBA meeting) has to be posted in a newspaper 15 days in advance of the meeting,” Nieuwenhuis said. “They thought going directly to the planning commission would be the way to go.”
That’s right, Enbridge tried to “expedite the process”; they tried to take the easy way out. The same goes for Adams’s letter. In it, he isn’t doing the right thing. The “right” thing would be to own up to having screwed up and to accept the consequences of that screw up. But that’s not what he is doing in the letter. Instead, he is taking the easy way out.
3. “Take accountability for our actions, without passing blame to others.” Or, to put that last point another way, Adams is most certainly not taking accountability for Enbridge’s actions. Quite the contrary, he is clearly passing blame to others. His letter makes it look like Comstock, the DEQ, and Larry Bell (they can’t even bother to get the name of the brewery right, calling it “Bell Brewery”) are to blame for the delays. It’s everybody’s fault but Enbridge’s. Locals have “vigorously opposed granting the permit,” Adams says. And “as a result,” Enbridge’s plans have been delayed. But that is at best a half-truth. It certainly does not in any way acknowledge Enbridge’s role in delaying the granting of that permit. Such a brazen, deliberate mischaracterization of this situation– aside from egregiously flouting the values Adams is supposed to live by as an Enbridge employee (and not just any employee, but an executive!)– are precisely why Enbridge has lost so much trust with so many people. If they’re willing to look EPA in the eye and pass off clearly demonstrable falsehoods, how is anybody else ever to believe anything they say?
The thing that baffles us most is why Enbridge thinks it can get away with this sort of thing, why they think it’s okay to carefully and deliberately and demonstrably misrepresent the situation to the EPA. Do they think that they can just pull the wool over the eyes of Jeff Kimble, the EPA on-scene coordinator to whom the letter is written? Do they think that Kimble is that stupid? that gullible?
For our part, we think no such thing. We think there’s no possible way that Kimble doesn’t know the truth of the matter. If he really is on scene, he most certainly knows that Enbridge wasn’t just unexpectedly blindsided by a bunch of oppositional Comstock residents one day. He must know that Enbridge created this situation by attempting to proceed without engaging those same Comstock residents or following Comstock’s ordinances. He surely knows all of that. If we were Kimble, we’d be furious, insulted, affronted. And yet we doubt (though we don’t really know) that Kimble and the EPA will call Enbridge out on all of this any more than the press will. Enbridge will most likely get its extension and incur no penalties. Richard Adams’s counterfactual letter will accomplish precisely what it was designed to accomplish regardless of whether it accurately represents the situation.
Which leads us to a pretty frightening, disheartening, demoralizing conclusion– but also an explanation of why Enbridge thinks it can get away with this sort of thing. It’s because they can and do get away with this sort of thing. Over and over. And that’s because everybody just plays along, lets it slide, looks the other way, treats it as no big deal, as just the way things are. So what we have is a situation that looks something like this: Enbridge does not tell the truth to the EPA and knows it’s not telling the truth; the EPA, Comstock Township, and the press all also know that Enbridge isn’t telling the truth; and Enbridge knows that the EPA, Comstock, and the press all know that Enbridge isn’t telling the truth. But nobody says a word about it. Instead, everybody silently agrees to pretend like Enbridge is telling the truth. Everybody agrees to live in a sort of imaginary world where the untrue gets treated as true, rather than a world in which what is true really does matter. It’s the same way that everybody agrees to pretend that Talmadge Creek and the Kalamazoo River are still real creeks and rivers, rather than Enbridge-created ones.
It’s just easier that way.
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 8, 2013 |
Following up on our earlier link to Alexis Bonogofsky’s great, eerie blog post over at the NWF’s Wildlife Promise blog, we thought we might call your attention to a few other things there:
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 8, 2013 |
Stir and sniff tar sands in the Oil Sands Discovery Centre in Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada. Photo by Alexis Bonogofsky
One of the new friends we made on our trip to DC is the NWF’s Alexis Bonogofsky. Alexis recently took a trip to Alberta, Canada to see the tar sands– the place where this whole mess begins– first-hand. What she found at the Fort McMurray informational center is astonishing, hilarious– and deeply disturbing. Check out her great blog post here.
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 7, 2013 |
We’re working on the second installment on our trip to Washington DC last week to meet with legislators and regulators. If you missed part one– about the meeting we did not have— please check it out.
In the meantime, some interesting articles and stories have appeared in the press in the past week or so. Here we go:
We’ve mentioned before Enbridge’s “Albert Clipper” expansion, which is currently going through the presidential permitting process, just like Keystone XL. This was one of the topics we discussed with representatives of the State Department last week. We’ll have a lot more to say about it in the weeks to come and we’ll likely be encouraging you to speak up once the public comments part of the review begins. For now, we”d just point you to this excellent op-ed in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel by Eric Hansen. It’s excellent. Here’s a little taste:
Connect the dots on Enbridge’s efforts to quietly network thousands of miles of pipelines — a system that would lock in both Wisconsin and our region as a major transportation corridor to ship tar sands crude oil overseas to the world market for decades to come — and a reasonable citizen would be outraged.
Profit and jobs would go to Canada. Crude oil would go overseas. Toxic risk would stay here, sprinkled throughout our region in the crude oil spills, air quality and public health impacts that would certainly come.
And speaking of Keystone XL (we talked with officials about that, too, in DC), it appears that some legislators are none too happy with some recent remarks by the President (if you missed them, they are here). Which legislators are displeased, you ask? Well, none other than the House Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Fred Upton. Yes, that Fred Upton, the guy who represents Kalamazoo! Upton is among the most outspoken supporters of KXL– which, we suppose, gives him something to do since he certainly doesn’t spend any time whatsoever inquiring into what Enbridge is doing back in his home state and district. We’ve spent a fair amount of time here lamenting the appalling failure of leadership in this state when it comes to Enbridge– and we made that point repeatedly to the people we spoke with in Washington– but Upton, with the possible exception of Governor Snyder, might well be the worst offender. Given the district he represents, he should be leading the charge in looking out for the interests of Michigan landowners and the state’s natural resources. Instead, he’s leading the charge in hastening the transportation of more tar sands oil through the U.S.
Speaking even more of KXL and Enbridge, Pulitzer Prize winner Lisa Song has another excellent article over at Inside Climate News describing yet another Enbridge plan to out-Keystone TransCanada while almost nobody, as we’ve said many times, is watching. It’s more piecing things together, this time converting gas lines to transport tar sands oil. But it’s okay because you can rest assured that PHMSA will do almost nothing to ensure that the plan is safe and sound. The PSTRust’s Carl Weimer notes that “Operators don’t need permission from PHMSA to change the contents of a pipeline, and the conversion process doesn’t trigger environmental studies. Operators simply create a plan of operation that meets PHMSA’s pipeline safety regulations, he said.”
From Indiana, Jeff Harrell at the South Bend Tribune posted two articles this week about the Enbridge Line 6B project, placing them helpfully in larger contexts. It’s very solid work and we especially appreciate his focus on Native American concerns about the project. His first article begins, for instance, with representatives from the Pokagon Band of the Potawotami Tribe, who live on the Michigan-Indiana border.
Inevitably, Jason Manshum shows up in the article with more absurd, misleading remarks. He’s back to complaining about the “tar sands” term again: “Manshum calls the term “tar sands” “… a misnomer, a slang word associated with this type of crude by opponents.” But of course, this is total baloney. The industry itself used that term for decades until someone in Manshum’s line of work (spin doctoring) decided back in the 1960s that “oil sands” sounded friendlier.
Harrell’s second article, which unfortunately (we don’t hold him responsible for this) bears the very stupid headline, “Pipeline Has Support, Opposition” (they could have just said, “Humans Agree, Disagree”), considers Line 6B in relation to KXL, which we’ve been trying to convince reporters to do for a very long time. Manshum’s on board for this one, too, assuring us all that pipeline corrosion is not a problem with diluted bitumen:
Enbridge’s Manshum cites the U.S. Department of Transportation’s investigation into the spill to dispute the claim that the line broke from abrasive tar sands oil corroding the inside of the pipe.
“One thing they made crystal clear was that the rupture was not caused by internal corrosion, but on the outside, or the exterior of the line related to the coating,” Manshum says.
Strictly speaking, of course, what Manshum says is true. But it’s more than a little ironic that he’d cite the NTSB report, since what it also shows is that Enbridge ignored the pipe’s exterior defects and that their “culture of deviance” from safety protocols contributed tremendously to the Marshall disaster. Honestly, we sometimes wonder how Jason Manshum can sleep at night.
Lastly, Jennifer Bowman has a lengthy and interesting article in the Battle Creek Enquirer about Enbridge’s home buyout program in Marshall. It’s a piece that we imagine is quite pleasing to Enbridge, since Bowman talks with some people who had very positive experiences with Enbridge. She spoke also with some unhappy landowners, but they are more or less portrayed as greedy whiners. We find this entire situation quite fascinating and disturbing in many ways, though we confess we don’t know enough about it to make many confident pronouncements. We also think that Bowman’s article leaves a great many questions unasked; we’re going to think and learn more about this and discuss it more in a later post (hopefully). For now, just one little observation:
What is it with people that makes them so uncharitable toward others? Why the need to belittle those whose experiences differ from their own? We’ve seen this sort of tactic– from fellow landowners!–before. And we see it again from Wayne Groth, who gets lots of ink in Bowman’s article. Groth believes he got a good deal from Enbridge– and we’re very glad for that; we wish it were the case with everyone. But then he has to go and say this:
“The ones screaming the loudest are probably the greediest,” Groth said, “and they’re looking to cash in. They remind me of damn trial lawyers that want to sue for money and put the company out of business.”
In all seriousness: does Groth really know this? Does he even know who is “screaming” loudly, much less what those (imaginary) screamers are screaming about or for? We doubt it. This sort of talk just makes him seem like a guy with very little imagination, very little ability to adopt the perspective of someone else a person whose mindset is, “I got mine; screw the rest of you.” And that’s just downright unneighborly.
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 5, 2013 |
Today, we officially launch our new series on our trip to Washington D.C. last week. As we noted the other day, the trip was a lobbying “fly-in” hosted by the National Wildlife Federation. We are very grateful to them for the opportunity– and not just because we had the chance to tell the story of Line 6B landowners to congressional staffers and officials at the State Department. We also got to meet all sorts of interesting, committed people from across the country (some of whom we’ll talk about a little during the course of this series).
We begin our series not with an account of one of our meetings, but with an account of a meeting we did NOT have. On the right is a picture of the FERC building. FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, is the agencey that regulates “the transportation of oil by pipeline in interstate commerce” (among other things). Why a picture of FERC? Well, because we walked past it on our way from Union Station to the hotel. Also, we didn’t get a picture of the building that houses the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration (PHMSA), the agency responsible for regulating oil pipelines.
Why no picture of the PHMSA building? Well, because we didn’t get to see it. You see, the NWF requested a meeting with officials from PHMSA, but the agency declined to meet with any of us. Yes, you heard that right. PHMSA did not want to meet with an important national non-governmental organization, representatives from conservation groups from around the country, and ordinary citizens with a direct stake in pipeline safety. How’s that for responsive government?
This snub, positively Larry Springer-like, is all the more galling since action from PHMSA was one of the key “asks” of the fly-in (an “ask,” I learned, is lobbying jargon for the thing or things you are asking your government to do; hence, the purpose of your meeting with them). Back in May, the NWF, along with a coalition comprised of various other groups and individuals, submitted a petition to the EPA and PHMSA, asking for stricter regulations for tar sands pipelines to help ensure their safety. The measures called for in the petition are utterly reasonable; in fact, when you read them, your first reaction is that you can’t believe such standards and practices don’t already exist. For instance, the petition asks for “industry disclosure of products carried through pipelines and their conveyance schedules” (duh!); “stronger spill response plans” (of course!); “repair of pipelines as soon as defects are discovered” (obviously!); and “pipeline inspection and monitoring by independent entities unaffiliated with pipeline or energy companies” (wait, you mean they’re not independent now?!). These things all strike us utterly uncontroversial (except, perhaps, to to the most zealous of free-marketeering industry leave-us-aloners). You’d think that PHMSA, its reputation severely tarnished by the scathing NTSB report on Marshall, would jump at the chance to consider them. But you’d be wrong.
Which begs the question, why did PHMSA refuse this request for a meeting? Honestly, we have no idea. But we’re pretty sure it’s not because they’re so very busy working on other things related to tar sands pipeline safety. What leads us to such a conclusion? Well, let us tell you what PHMSA recently told Congress about its activities on this front:
First, the background. You might remember that in 2011, Congress passed the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, largely in response to the disaster in Marshall. It’s a pretty mealy-mouthed bill, in our view, but at least it was something. Mostly, it asks PHMSA– again, the federal regulatory agency responsible for pipeline safety– to take certain actions; well, to look into certain things. Among those things is this:
SEC. 16. STUDY OF TRANSPORTATION OF DILUTED BITUMEN.
Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall complete a comprehensive review of hazardous liquid pipeline facility regulations to determine whether the regulations are sufficient to regulate pipeline facilities used for the transportation of diluted bitumen. In conducting the review, the Secretary shall conduct an analysis of whether any increase in the risk of a release exists for pipeline facilities trans- porting diluted bitumen. The Secretary shall report the results of the review to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives.
The Act went into effect in January of 2012, which means that we are now past the 18 month point. Has PHMSA produced the “comprehensive review” Congress charged them with producing? No, they have not. They did commission the National Academy of Sciences to produce a review of existing studies of a very narrow topic, which was recently released (and touted by industry, but criticized by just about everyone else, including the Pipeline Safety Trust). But that’s it. A year and a half and PHMSA has failed to comply with what may be the most crucial component of the Act.
But that’s not the worst of it. If you really want to see PHMSA doing nothing, you have to take a look at the recent report they submitted to Congress in late June, which provides their response to a series of safety recommendations issued by the National Transportation Safety Board in 2012. (PHMSA is required to submit these reports annually.) The NTSB issued a number of recommendations, the bulk of them in direct response to their findings in the Marshall investigation. PHMSA’s response, as reported to Congress, is mind boggling. It has to be one of the most extraordinary examples of foot-dragging, excuse-making, stalling, evading, and ass-covering we have ever seen– and that includes nearly two decades of paper deadline extension requests from feckless college students!
We’ll spare you the bulk of the details– it’s pretty dull, bureaucratic stuff– and just provide you with some highlights. The long and the short of it is that PHMSA has done almost nothing in response to the recommendations; they seem incapable of performing even the simplest and least onerous of tasks, and evidently don’t realize, or just don’t care, just how insulting to Congress, the NTSB, and the public their document makes them appear to be. We can’t decide if the report bespeaks PHMSA’s incompetence or its contempt toward Congress. Maybe it’s both.
Of the 10 recommendations issued by the NTSB, PHMSA has completed action on only one of them. In every other case, PHMSA simply says the such-and-such “is under development” or “is currently under development” or “is addressing this recommendation” or “is reviewing” the matter. In fact, if you’re looking for the ideal specimen of tortured, convoluted, obfuscating, shirking, hedging, responsibility-dodging, agency double-speak you probably couldn’t do much better than PHMSA’s response to the recommendation that they “extend operator qualification requirements” for pipeline control center staff. What PHMSA says in response to that one– you should probably sit down for this– is that they are trying “to determine the best way to determine whether or not additional clarification is needed…”
No, we did not make that up.
But there’s more. For instance, the NTSB recommended that PHMSA issue an “advisory bulletin” to notify other pipeline operators “(1) of the circumstances of the Marshall, Michigan, pipeline accident, and (2) of the need to identify deficiencies in facility response plans,” updating them as necessary. Now, just so this is clear, keep in mind that an “advisory bulletin” is really just an informational document. It’s not rulemaking; it’s not fact-finding. It’s the equivalent of reminding your kids to wash their hands after they use the restroom. So has PHMSA issued this advisory bulletin– which really could consist of nothing more than a link to the NTSB report on Marshall along with a headnote that says, “DON’T DO THIS”? No, they have not. Instead, they say that the agency “anticipates publishing” such an advisory bulletin– a way of putting it that makes it seem like it’s out of their hands, like they’re farmers watching weather reports and expecting some much needed rain. A little later PHMSA says that the bulletin “is scheduled to be issued by August 2013.” Today is August 5, 2013. No bulletin has been issued.
The NTSB also recommended a second bulletin, one that describes the “deficiencies observed in Enbridge’s… integrity management program” so that other operators can eliminate similar deficiencies in their own operations. Again, this is a very simple task, the sort of thing that, say, Rebecca Craven of the PS Trust could probably type up during a coffee break on a busy day. In fact, almost anyone who has read the NTSB report could produce this bulletin. PHMSA has had a year to do it. But again, they only “anticipate” issuing a bulletin oft this sort– “by August 2013.” They’ve missed that deadline too.
So maybe all of this is why PHMSA didn’t want to meet with us last week. Maybe they’re ducking and hiding the way students who have not completed their assignments on time will sometimes avoid showing up for class because they know they’ll be called out. Maybe they know they’re asleep at the wheel and don’t want to face a bunch of people who also know it. Maybe they’re even a little ashamed and embarrassed.
Or maybe they’re just overworked and understaffed. In fact, we have no doubt that they’re understaffed. But if that’s the problem, why doesn’t their report reflect that serious problem? Why didn’t they just say to Congress, “You know, Congress, we recognize that this report makes us look hapless, but we are so understaffed and so poor in resources that we can’t even get a simple memo typed up when given a full year to do it, much less produce a comprehensive review of all of the implications of tar sands oil transport. These reports would be much more useful for everyone if you guys would appropriate some real resources to us”? But PHMSA says nothing of the sort. And the fact that it doesn’t say so leads us to believe that this isn’t exactly the problem.
So maybe it’s something else. Maybe they just don’t want to do these things. Maybe they’d prefer not to institute any new regulations or stricter requirements. Maybe they don’t want to rehearse the parade of horrors that was the Marshall spill because they don’t want to make Enbridge look bad all over again. Maybe they are so cozy with industry and so hostile to organizations like the NWF and people like us that they drag their feet on Congressional mandates and NTSB recommendations and they duck and hide from critics and the members of the public they are supposed to protect because that’s better for industry. Because that’s who they’re really working for.
Of course, we don’t really know whether any of that’s actually the case. This is all just speculation on our part. But we have no choice but to speculate because PHMSA, when offered the chance to sit down and talk with us in good faith to explain all of this for itself, just shut the door in our face, rather than face some hard questions and listen to some legitimate citizen concerns.
Around here, we’ve got a name for that sort of avoidance, for the strategy of avoiding, as much as you can, communications with your critics, evading tough questions, pretending like the unhappiness and dissatisfaction isn’t happening and maybe after a while it will all just go away: we call that an Enbridge Special.
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 1, 2013 |
Have you received your July 2013 “Construction Update” from Enbridge? Ours arrived just after our return from Washington D.C. Fortunately, it doesn’t contain any vital information that we could have shared with our legislators. Plus, we figure they’re all on the Enbridge mailing list anyway.
Still, it’s a pretty interesting edition of the monthly newsletter. For this one, it appears that Enbridge’s vast public relations brain trust huddled together in a conference room and generated a brand new strategy. You see, having learned (apparently) that nobody much trusts the things uttered by the people who run the company (or formerly ran it), or the disingenuous spinmeisters who represent the company (there are lots and lots of them), or the land agents (including the fictional ones) who are landowners’ primary interface with the company, they’ve decided to lean on the only group of people associated with this project left with any sort of credibility at all: the construction workers. It’s right there in the newsletter’s main headline:
The accompanying letter from Project Director (is this a promotion? he used to be Project Manager) Thomas Hodge is all about the construction crews, focusing heavily on how they’ll be “spending their paychecks locally for goods and services.” Enbridge has even provided some real-life testimonials, from honest-looking employees at various local businesses, about what swell people the construction workers are: “a phenomenal group,” according to somebody at the Cracker Barrel in Brighton; “nothing but respectful,” according to someone from the Outlet Marathon store in Howell; “good guys,” according to a person at a clothing store in Howell.
Of course, we don’t doubt any of this. As regular readers of this blog know, we’ve spent a great deal of time ourselves talking with these construction workers. Obviously, they’re “good guys” (and women, we would add!). Who said otherwise? Who ever would have assumed otherwise? Shouldn’t this go without saying? Did the people at the Outlet Marathon Store in Howell think they’d be difficult to work with? Disrespectful? A bunch of desperadoes and outlaws, like those roving bands of violent thugs and ruffians terrorizing people along secluded highways that always show up in post-apocalyptic movies? Or does Enbridge think that the bad reputation they’ve got derives not from the people actually running the company, but from the people at the very bottom of the pay scale, the workers in the trenches? If that’s the case, they are sorely mistaken. Frankly, we’ve seen lots of ill-conceived PR tactics from Enbridge over the past year. But mainly that’s because they tend to be so very misleading. This one, by contrast, is just bizarre.
Which is not to say that it isn’t also misleading. The other striking thing about the newsletter is that it is packed full of vague, unverifiable claims: construction crews “are comprised of about 60 percent specialized pipeline workers and 40 percent hired from local union halls”; local merchants “will see an economic boon estimated at $330,000 a week along the route”; “the contractor is anticipated to spend up to $665,000 a week on consumables related to the project.”
We hardly have the energy to interrogate this. Can we see the hiring rolls documenting that 60/40 split (it certainly does not jibe with our experience talking with workers)? Who has made that $330k estimate? And what if the reality falls short of that estimate? Will Enbridge make up the difference? Similarly, who anticipates the contractor spending all that money? Spending it where? On what “consumables”? (We heard one story earlier this summer of how a local farmer in our neighborhood had to throw a fit to get Enbridge to buy straw from him, rather than bringing it in from much farther away.) And what about that picture and caption of the Courtyard Marriott? How many pipeline workers are really staying there, we wonder?
We’ll wrap this up with just one more observation, something we have never said before on this blog. And the reason we’ve never said it is because, unlike Enbridge, we generally don’t like making unverifiable claims. It’s why, as we’ve said many times, we don’t tell even a fraction of the many terrible stories of terrible Enbridge behavior that we hear about– not because we don’t trust the people telling us these stories; generally we do. It’s just that we like to be careful– which is what respect for the truth demands. Nevertheless, we will share this, since it’s based not on hearsay, but on our own experience:
In our conversations with dozens of the “phenomenal,” “decent,” “respectful,” “good guys” (and women) working construction on this pipeline in our neighborhood, there have been two common refrains from these people, two things that always seem to come up in our conversations with them. The first thing is that they are ready to go home (to Oklahoma and Texas and Arkansas and Mississippi, rarely to somewhere here in Michigan). Most of them have been here for a very long time. They’re tired and they miss their families and friends. The second thing– and this is why Enbridge’s latest PR strategy is not only bizarre, but deeply, cruelly ironic– is that they have no love and very little respect whatsoever for Enbridge. Repeatedly, we have heard from them– completely unprompted by us– that while they may like their jobs and take pride in their work, they would not say the same about Enbridge.
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 1, 2013 |
As we mentioned yesterday, we spent a couple of days early this week in Washington D.C., speaking with Michigan legislators and State Department officials. That trip, hosted by the National Wildlife Federation, will be the subject of our newest series– stay tuned for detailed accounts of the conversations we had.
For now, we will note that when we met with representatives from the offices of Senators Stabenow and Levin and Representative Gary Peters, the subject of those piles of petroleum coke at that facility on the Detroit River inevitably came up– partly because the staffers wanted to use it as an opportunity to demonstrate what they’re doing to protect the citizens and the natural resources of Southeast Michigan. We’re glad for that– especially since, as you may have seen by now, the pet coke problem is far from solved. Just this week, a chilling video emerged of clouds of pet coke dust blowing across the Detroit River. Dave Bagatello blogging at the Windsor Star has more details on the story. But here’s the video. Eerily, it put us in mind of the “feathery plume,” the “black billowing cloud,” the “airborne toxic event” of Don DeLillo’s marvelous, disturbing novel White Noise:
Recently, we linked to reports that storage those piles o off pet coke would be suspended, temporarily, at least. We expressed a bit of skepticism about this at the time. And sure enough, reports this week seem to suggest that Detroit Bulk Storage would very much like to continue storing the stuff, which has become a major source of income for them– a source of income that only stands to increase once the “replacement” of Line 6B is completed, since the new line will significantly increase the amount of dilbit– the source of that pet coke– making its way to the Marathon refinery in Detroit.
So it’s good news, as we were told in our D.C. meetings and as the Detroit Free Press is reporting this morning that Senators Stabenow and Levin have introduced a companion bill in the Senate to the one Representative Peters introduced in the House earlier this month. The bill calls on the Department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency ” to conduct a study on the public health and environmental impacts of the production, transportation, storage, and use of petroleum coke, and for other purposes.” (The full text of the House bill is here.)
Now, we think that studies are very good things. We believe in actions grounded in facts and sound science. For those reasons, we strongly support the legislation and commend our Michigan officials for their efforts. But we also believe in caution and prudence when it comes to matters of public health and environmental impacts. And in this case, that means that we ought not to wait for indisputable evidence for public health risks and environmental damage before prohibiting enormous piles of nasty, black, powdery residue, the by-product of dirty tar sands oil. Rather, indisputable evidence that those piles pose no risks whatsoever– an extremely remote possibility, we suspect– ought to be an absolute condition for storing them. The legislation Congress will consider (hopefully, if the bills make it out of committee!) includes no such conditions. Nor are such conditions required, as we understand it, by the DEQ, from whom Detroit Bulk Storage is supposed to obtain permits. But of course, the DEQ, like most of our state and federal regulatory agencies, is weak and mostly gutless.
Oh, and speaking of requirements, if it were up to us, we would impose a simple requirement on anyone publicly discussing the matter of pet coke in Detroit (exempting, of course, those residents in Detroit and Windsor directly affected by the stuff): you don’t get to write about it without at least a sentence that states very clearly how that stuff gets here in the first place: It starts with the mining of tar sands oil up in Alberta, Canada, which entails the destruction of thousands of acres of carbon-absorbing, ecologically rich Boreal forest. It then makes its way through a network of pipelines owned and operated by Enbridge, running across the state of Michigan, through our backyard!, and down to the refinery in Detroit, where the tar sands oil is processed, leaving behind–as the filthy byproduct of already filthy fuel– petroleum coke. That’s the stuff that then gets sent to the bank of the Detroit river where it gets blown into the air, into the river, and onto people’s balconies.
In other words, without Line 6B, there would be no pet coke problem in Detroit. If you’re concerned about one, you should be concerned about the other.
by Jeffrey Insko | Jul 31, 2013 |
Well, we’ve had a pretty eventful couple of weeks– which sort of delayed our plans for a series of one year anniversary retrospective posts (we’ll still get to them). It’s not just all the time we spent playing golf on vacation. No sooner did we return home to Michigan than we hopped on a plane to join our friend Beth Wallace (hero) in Washington D.C. for a “fly-in” hosted by the awesome people at the National Wildlife Federation. (Don’t worry, we had no idea what a fly-in was either.) We met with staff members for Senators Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin, Representative Gary Peters, and a handful of officials from the State Department. Here is photographic evidence:
We’ll bring you a full report on all of this, which means (of course) a brand new series! Since we’ve never lobbied before, we learned an awful lot. For example: that our government seems to be run by a bunch of teenagers, that you can get both cash and a haircut in congressional office buildings, that some Michigan elected officials might actually be interested in the bad behavior of Enbridge (you’ll have to wait to find out who!), that it is possible to get yelled at by a security guard in the State Department building, that the disturbing similarities between PHMSA and Enbridge run even deeper than we thought, that there is (small, remote) reason for some hope, that English majors are everywhere, and that the Department of Homeland Security might possibly have undercover agents who are somehow able to defy the laws of ordinary locomotion.
Surely you don’t want to miss any of that. Please stay tuned.
by Jeffrey Insko | Jul 26, 2013 |
Yesterday, the three year anniversary of the spill in Marshall brought with it, as we pointed out, some excellent reports by some of our favorite reporters and writers– Dave Hasemyer, Lindsey Smith, Jacob Wheeler, and Josh Mogerman, to name a few.
By contrast, today, the day after the anniversary, has brought us some reports that are to, a greater or lesser extent. just plain maddening.
Take, for instance, the anniversary story released today by UPI, the people, you might recall, who think Beth Wallace is a “global warming advocate.” Unlike the group we mentioned above, the UPI typist couldn’t be bothered to do anything at all except quote back the hollow phrases served up to them by Jason Manshum. In fact, that’s the story’s lead:
There’s always a chance of failure when dealing with mechanical equipment and oil pipelines, Canadian pipeline company Enbridge said.
A couple of paragraphs later, the story offers up the same disingenuous load of hay about “mechanical equipment” from Jason Manshum that we discussed yesterday. Which really just raises one question: wasn’t UPI once a reputable news service?
Less maddening from a journalistic standpoint, but still a little maddening, is this item from a local paper covering Macomb County in Michigan, through which phase two of the Line 6B replacement runs. The headline of the story, oddly, is “NTSB report harshly criticizes Enbridge for oil spill in the Kalamazoo River.” This confused us a little at first, considering the fact that that report was released one year ago this month. But once we got our bearings, we realized that the story is a very good thing. The good citizens of Macomb and St. Clair counties need to know about that report, even if it’s a year old. So we commend The Voice and reporter Jim Bloch, who does a nice job of summarizing the report, for running the story. He even includes the really important stuff, like this:
The report condemned the “culture of deviance” that characterized Enbridge operators, pointing to “systemic flaws in operational decision-making.” The company’s operating culture was one “in which not adhering to approved procedures and protocols was normalized.”
Bloch also has a second story in The Voice, reporting on a meeting between some Enbridge reps and the Marysville, Michigan city council. It mainly consists of Enbridge saying, as they always do, “hey, none of this is any big deal; don’t you worry.” But at one point, Enbridge project manager Doug Reichley says this extraordinary thing:
“The original pipeline was built in the late ‘60s,” said Reichley. “We’ve had some repair issues and some maintenance issues, so we thought it best to replace the entire thing.”
That’s right. On the third anniversary of the most expensive inland oil spill in U.S. history, Reichley says they’ve “had some repair issues.”
The last two maddening items from today are of the déjà vu sort. The Minnesota Star-Tribune has a truly infuriating story about Enbridge violating the terms of some environmental permits:
Enbridge Energy said Friday it will pay a $425,000 fine to settle federal allegations that it made illegal discharges into wetlands and rivers while testing two Minnesota pipelines, including one being upgraded to carry more crude oil.
The violations pertain to the discharge of water during testing of the lines in 2009 and 2010. Sound familiar? It should. Because that’s exactly what happened in Michigan a few weeks ago when Enbridge discharged some rust-colored water into Ore Creek, violating ELEVEN conditions of its MDEQ permit. We believe this constitutes a pattern. The fact is, as our friend Beth Wallace pointed out, that Enbridge treats these matters simply as the cost of doing business. To which we would add that our regulations are so weak and the fines issued for these violations are so small that there is no disincentive for companies like Enbridge to violate these permits. So as much as we want to point out that Enbridge is a very bad actor, we also hasten to add that the systems we have in place compound the problem: they are too weak to force companies like Enbridge to behave.
We also did a double-take when we read that “Enbridge spokeswoman Terri Larson said the company didn’t admit to the violations, but decided to settle the case and avoid litigation.” It’s not just that we remember our own not-unpleasant encounter with Terri Larson at the PSTrust conference back in November (though we have a strong hunch that she was subsequently told to stop replying to our emails). It’s that this also seems to be a pattern with Enbridge. Long time readers might recall that when Enbridge finally reached a “consent agreement” with Brandon Township, they did not admit that they’d violated an ordinances or that they were required by law to seek consent. Enbridge is nothing if not recalcitrant.
Lastly, Michigan Radio’s Lindsey Smith, who’s doing great work, spent a long, late evening at the Comstock Township Planning Commission last night, as the commissioners considered whether to approve Enbridge’s dredging plan. Based on Lindsey’s fine report, it sounds like it was an interesting, if a little exhausting, meeting. But the déjà vu moment for us in the story was this:
Tracy presented the plans to the township’s planning commission after apologizing for not coming sooner. Enbridge set up a lot of equipment at the location near Morrow Lake in June, without getting township approval.
“There is a small slice of time here, that’s no excuse for not coming you to begin with,” Tracy said.
He also apologized to planning commissioners who said they were kicked off the proposed site when they attempted to see it.
This, too, is part of a pattern with Enbridge, something we have seen (and pointed out) on numerous occasions. Enbridge shoots first and aims later. They plow forward, doing whatever they want, and then later, pretending to be innocent and sincere, they issue apologies or offers to fix whatever problems they have caused. It’s a very convenient strategy– for Enbridge– and far too many regulatory and governing bodies have allowed them to get away with it for far too long. Here’s hoping Comstock Township does not do the same.
Lastly, here’s something really interesting for this anniversary. When the spill happened in Marshall 3 years ago, a lot of committed people took lots of different forms of action. This included a small local paper called the Michigan Messenger, which did a lot of vital reporting in real time and did a great job of trying to hold Enbridge’s feet to the fire. Through the magic of the internet, a great deal of that reporting lives on. So if you really want a look back upon that nightmarish summer, hop a ride on the internet wayback machine.
by Jeffrey Insko | Jul 25, 2013 |
As everyone reading this surely knows by now, today is the third anniversary of the spill in Marshall. To mark the occasion, lots of journalists and others have filed lots of fine work, looking back and assessing the current state of the Kalamazoo cleanup and Enbridge’s other ongoing operations in the state. We already posted to Pulitzer Prize winner Dave Hasemyer’s terrific piece over at Inside Climate News. If you haven’t already, be sure to checkout the accompanying slideshow.
Several other notable items have since appeared, including Lindsey Smith’s first-rate Environment Report. In fact, of everything we’ve seen so far, this is the one that has us worked up the most. That’s because Jason Manshum, apparently saved his best (by which we mean his worst) material for this special occasion. We’re used to his dissembling and his vacuities, but today, he’s outdone himself. Here’s what he told Lindsey Smith:
“You know, I would love to say that we have done the following ten items that will ensure there are no leaks again. I would love to tell you that. But I can’t. We’re dealing with mechanical equipment and any time you deal with mechanical equipment there’s a chance for some sort of failure,” says Manshum.
See what he’s doing here? He’s pretending like the Marshall spill was just a matter of some inevitable, albeit regrettable, failures of “mechanical equipment.” ‘Cuz let’s face it, sooner or later, your lawn mower is going to break down. That’s clever, we admit. But it’s also counter-factual– which is why it is so very important that everyone, every single citizen of the state of Michigan and beyond, should read the NTSB report. Because if and when they do, those citizens will learn that the spill in Marshall (how many times do we have to say this? seriously, how many?) was NOT a matter of mechanical problems, technological failures or whatever dishonest, evasive line Enbridge reps like Jason Manshum still to this day try to peddle to an under-informed public. No, the NTSB report makes it crystal clear that humans– humans working for and trained by Enbridge– failed, again and again. The fact that the Jason Manshums still try and pretend otherwise at this late date does nothing more that belie their rhetoric of taking full responsibility for what happened in Marshall on this day three years ago.
Another outstanding piece of journalism is now posted over at The Uptake. It’s a video report by Jacob Wheeler, another fellow of the IJNR Kalamazoo River Institute. Both the video and the written piece are very good, so be sure to read and watch. We’re also glad to see that it’s been picked up by a handful of outlets, as it merits a wide audience. The video features a number of our favorite people, including Beth Wallace, Susan Connolly, Deb Miller, Dave Gallagher, and Josh Mogerman. In fact, if you check out the version of the story over at the Glen Arbor Sun, there’s a downloadable picture of Josh in his adorable red cap. Oh, and if you stick around the video until about the 8:40 or so mark, you might see us saying a few words…
Speaking of Josh Mogerman, he’s got a wonderfully pithy blog post up over at the NRDC Switchboard, which includes a whole bunch of links worth clicking on.
Lastly, the Detroit News (almost always lagging behind, if we’re being honest) has a bit more on that interesting Bell’s Brewery lawsuit story.
Happy reading!
by Jeffrey Insko | Jul 25, 2013 |
In case you haven’t heard, this week marks one full year of existence for the Line 6B Citizens’ Blog. This has put us in a reflective mood. And to celebrate, after thanking some of the marvelous friends we’ve made in the past year, we’ve planned to re-visit what we think (a little self-indulgently; we hope we’ll be forgiven!) some of our greatest hits– which is really just a way of pointing out what we think are some of the more revealing episodes in the life of the Line 6B replacement project. But we’re on vacation this week and, to be honest, golf has sort of taken precedent over reviewing. Which just means that we’ll be dragging this anniversary out a bit longer than we thought we would.
But today marks another, far more important anniversary, the anniversary of the event without which the Line 6B “replacement” and, hence, this blog never would have existed in the first place. Yes, it was three years ago today that the Line 6B pipeline ruptured near Marshall, Michigan and began spilling what would eventually be more than a million gallons of oil into Talmadge Creek and the Kalamazoo River.
This is an anniversary that is not worth celebrating.
But it is a good day to read through the NTSB report on the incident, just to remind ourselves of who is responsible for that disaster; it wasn’t a matter of mere mistakes. Nor was it a failure of technology. It was the inevitable result of Enbridge’s “culture of deviance.” It’s all right there in the report.
To commemorate this day, various news outlets are looking Back. Most notably, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Dave Hasemyer of Inside Climate News (we’re so glad he’s back!) has an excellent, lengthy article this morning that everyone should (and will) be reading. We make a brief appearance, as do our friends Steve Hamilton, Deb Miller, and Dave Gallagher. But the money quote comes Robert LaForge, whose property next to Talmadge Creek was affected by the spill so badly that he had to sell it to Enbridge– for far less than a fair price, in his view.
LaForge’s message for Enbridge? “Go to hell.”
Over at Michigan Radio, there’s an informative interview with Lindsey Smith. As always, she’s knowledgeable and clear.
Up in Canada, Brenda Gouglas is also looking back on the past three years. Having observed Enbridge’s actions since the spill, she’s wary of their rhetoric meant to assure Canadians about the Northern Gateway Project. In her fine piece this morning in the Vancouver Observer, she asks, “Can Enbridge be trusted.” Guess what the evidence suggests.
One last item of note: the Comstock Township Planning Commission will consider Enbridge’s permit tonight. You can bet Larry Bell and plenty of others will be there to urge the commissioners to deny it. They’re expecting a full house. Wish we could attend!
(Not so) Happy Anniversary!
by Jeffrey Insko | Jul 24, 2013 |
There’s been some VERY interesting news this week and, we’re happy to report, some of it quite good or at least very intriguing. A couple of days ago, we linked to the many news reports telling of the bold action taken by the committed members of the Michigan Coalition Against Tar Sands (MI CATS).
Well, today, reports say that Enbridge plans to beef up its security in response. As always, Enbridge spokesman Jason Manshum is on the case, ready with more vapid, equivocal statements:
“We are looking at around the clock, 24/7 security,” he said. “When you think about it, you are talking about people’s safety on the site. You are also talking about the integrity of that pipeline.”
But much more interesting than Enbridge’s security measures is the news from Comstock Township. As we reported a couple of weeks ago, Larry Bell of Bell’s Brewery– makers of our favorite beers, Bell’s Two-Hearted Ale and Oberon Ale (the perfect summer beer)– is, like others in Comstock, mighty unhappy with Enbridge’s latest plans for their continued dredging of the Kalamazoo River. This week, Bell’s filed a lawsuit against Enbridge and a developer with whom Enbridge has a lease agreement. MiLive has the story here. According to the suit, Enbridge’s plan:
will “release pollution, hazardous substances, odor, dust and particulate” which could negatively impact brewery operations.
The complaint alleges Enbridge violated condominium covenants by failing to submit a site plan application before installing equipment. It also alleges that CCP, as developer of the commerce park, violated the Michigan Condominium Act by failing to disclose to the condominium association its intent to lease property to Enbridge.
We will of course be watching developments with regard to this suit very closely. In addition to protection of the beautiful Bell’s beer, a large part of what’s at stake here is once again local autonomy– something Enbridge has disregarded all across the state of Michigan for a very long time.
And in one final bit of excellent news, Keith Matheny at the Detroit Free Press is reporting that those nasty piles of petroleum coke along the Detroit River will be going away– at least for the time being. We’re hopeful about this, although the statements coming from Detroit Bulk Storage, the company that’s keeping the stuff– ““We are exploring all options at this time”– are positively Manshum-like in their haziness, which does not exactly inspire confidence.
by Jeffrey Insko | Jul 23, 2013 |
You have probably heard the news already (we’re allowed to be a little slow; we’re on vacation!): yesterday, a bunch of protestors from the energetic Michigan Coalition Against Tar Sands (MI CATS) locked themselves to some of Enbridge’s construction equipment over in Stockbridge. Authorities had to cut them free and have arrested 12 people. The story is all over the news. Here is the MiLive version of the story. But there’s more here and here and here and here.
A couple of things struck us with particular force:
First, according to protestor Christopher Corrigan, he is taking action because “Governmental authorities have failed them by the lack of regulation and the ‘endless permitting of these projects,’ he said.” Corrigan is dead right about this. Our state and federal authorities and regulatory agencies have failed us. We’ve said this ourselves over and over.
Secondly, in a statement released to the press in response to this action, Enbridge said (among other things), “The company works hard to encourage dialogue with communities and residents in areas where it has operations.” We’ve discussed that matter so much over the past year, we don’t even have the energy to provide you a link. You can practically choose a post here at random and it will show how Enbridge does not work hard at all to encourage dialogue with communities and residents. If they did, this blog wouldn’t exist. So, unlike Christopher Corrigan, Enbridge in its statement is dead wrong.
Just sayin’.
