by Jeffrey Insko | Feb 3, 2015 |
Don’t uncork the champagne just yet.
By now, you’ve probably heard the news that ET Rover’s plans have dramatically changed. The Free Press, the Clarkston News, and MLive have more on the story. Rover has struck a deal with Vector Pipelines which will eliminate the need to build about 110 miles of pipe in some of the northern counties along the original route. But they still want to build about 100 miles through Michigan’s Lenawee, Washtenaw, and Livingston counties. That’s still a very serious concern.
And the news might be even worse. Another news outlet that follows the natural gas industry reports this morning that Vector is preparing for this expanded capacity. Here’s the sentence that has us worried:
With enough binding support, Vector could add a 42-inch diameter loop and additional compression, pending contract renewals and depending upon interest of new shippers.
A “loop” is a pipeline that runs parallel to an existing pipeline. So in this instance, what that means– possibly? potentially?– is that Vector is considering installing a second line next to the one already in place. Admittedly, that’s not very clear at this point and if that is the plan they would most likely have to go to FERC for a certificate. Nevertheless, this would mean construction and disruption on the properties of lots and lots of Michigan landowners, many of whom also have Line 6B on their land, construction and disruption of precisely the sort that those of us along Line 6B endured. So instead of ET Rover beating up on a bunch of new Michigan landowners, this could mean Enbridge once again beating up on many of the same landowners they’ve already beat up on, along with some others.
To be clear: at this point, none of this is certain yet; the details are hazy at best. We just don’t have enough information right now. However, it does appear that yesterday’s news might not be quite as good as it at first seemed. If and when we learn more, we will let you know. In the meantime, property owners along the Vector route might want to check their original easement agreements to see if they allow for additional pipelines or just one. Please let us know what you find out.
by Jeffrey Insko | Nov 25, 2014 |
Pipeline safety advocates enjoying beignets and coffee in New Orleans during the Pipeline Safety Trust conference.
Whew! Sorry for our little hiatus these past few weeks. We’ve had more than a few matters (mainly professional ones) that have required our attention. And then last week was the 2014 Pipeline Safety Trust conference— which was a great experience, as always. Rest assured that we have not abandoned you.
The trouble now, however, is that we’ve got a lot of catching up to do. Fortunately, for some of it we’re going to get a little help from our friends. Among the things we’ll be bringing you over the next week or so:
- The latest on ET Rover— now just the “Rover Pipeline,” according to Energy Transfer– along with information and commentary about the first of the FERC scoping meetings.
- A run-down of some of our experiences at the PS Trust conference– as always, we learned a great deal– including our account of the genuine face time and conversation we had with you-won’t-believe-who; seriously, we have photographic evidence and everything!
- The latest entry in our ongoing “Landowner Stories” series, one that expands the series well beyond Line 6B. It turns out, landowners in Michigan aren’t the only ones Enbridge treats poorly. We’re taking the series south.
- Lastly, we’re going to embark upon our first-ever crowdsourcing project. We’ll need your help on this one! It’s a little something we cooked up with our awesome friend Lynda Farrell, Executive Director of the Pipeline Safety Coalition in Pennsylvania. Stay tuned for that one!
by Jeffrey Insko | Nov 3, 2014 |
Corporate executives say the darnedest things! This week, Enbridge CEO Al Monaco got to have a little sit-down to talk with the Duluth News Tribune–reminding us of the time Enbridge President Steve Wuori got to have a sit down with the Ed. Board at the Lansing State Journal— and causing us to wonder anew why these executives get a special audience with these papers. Why doesn’t the Duluth News Tribune invite, say, Richard Smith from the Friends of the Headwaters in for some of that friendly shoulder-rubbing? In the interview, Monaco says some pretty hilarious things (the paper calls them “insights”), none more hilarious than his comments about environmentalists:
Misperception we’re “fighting environmentalists”
“I think maybe there’s a perception that we’re fighting environmentalists. My approach to this has always been, ‘Let us work with you. Let us figure out how we can improve the project.’ So if there are some ideas — whether (from) a community member, whether it’s a government agency, or whether it’s an environmentalist — we’d like to hear those ideas, and if it makes the project better we’ll look at it. I’m trying to make a point here that it’s not necessarily them and us. It’s what’s best for the project (and) what’s best for the communities so we protect the environment. That’s what our goal is.
“We do sit down with environmental groups, and our approach is to try and engage them, to try and understand their point of view, and hopefully they can try and understand our point of view. … Our first focus is to do what’s best for the environment and to make sure were operating safely.”
Obviously, we have no way of knowing whether Monaco actually believes this, is making some sort of joke, or just thinks it’s good p.r. to say such absurd things, knowing that the newspaper Ed. Board will just dutifully type it up and print it in their paper. What we do know, however, is that Monaco’s comments are funny enough to earn him a regular gig on one of the late night talk shows, or maybe his own HBO special.
Unfortunately, reality is slightly less amusing. Let’s just recall a quick example of how Enbridge really deals with each of these groups: environmentalists, “community member[s],” and “government agencies”:
Here is Monaco’s predecessor Patrick Daniel explaining how environmentalists are “revolutionaries” out to upend society as we know it.
Here is Enbride spokesperson Graham White making up a demonstrably false and disparaging story about a concerned community member (and a follow-up).
And here is Enbridge Vice President Richard Adams looking a major government agency– the EPA– straight in the eye and telling them something other than the truth.
It seems to us that the only groups Enbridge really cares to “sit down” with to share their point of view are friendly, credulous newspaper editorial pages willing to grant them “exclusive” interviews.
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 16, 2014 |
Well, we were able to attend last night’s after all– though we’re not sure it was worth our time. Surprisingly, ET Rover representatives did show up– almost a whole six-pack of them! And they wound up doing most, nearly all, of the talking, though not very satisfactorily. What they said was boilerplate, nothing much new and certainly nothing that couldn’t be learned from other sources, including their website. Honestly, we thought their appearance was mainly perfunctory, evidenced most glaringly by the fact that they couldn’t be bothered to stay one single second past 7:30. Maybe they had a plane to catch or something. But one would think that if they were really serious about honest and open dialogue as they claim to be, that they would be willing to take as much time as necessary to address the questions and concerns of all the people who came to looking for answers.
ET Rover representatives
The press was there as well and a few news stories have been posted (and here and here). But the best account of the meeting we’ve seen comes from a friend of ours, attorney Kim Savage, whose impressions of the meeting are devastatingly accurate. Kim graciously agreed to let us post her comments here. So we’ll just shut up and turn it over to her:
by Kimberly Savage, Savage Law PLC
My thoughts on Rep. Graves’ Town Hall with Energy Transfer Partners, in a nutshell: It could have been a really good thing – a real opportunity to engage and connect with landowners – but it just plain wasn’t. Instead, it was frustrating to sit through, and part of me regrets that I made the drive.
Notwithstanding, I commend Rep. Graves and his staff for this attempt, and I’m glad they were able to bring the ET Rover folks to the table, truly I am. But, I am extremely disappointed that bringing ET Rover to the table seems to have come at a such a price. The bottom line: I think Rep. Graves, intentionally or not, sold out his constituents in order to get ET Rover to attend this meeting. In so doing, he underestimated the intelligence of his constituents – who know by now that the sort of “we will work with you” responses they received tonight are nothing more that pure BS, designed to lull landowners into signing easements. After all, as a state, we’ve lived through the Enbridge disaster and the subsequent “replacement” project, and we’ve heard the exact same things before, more times than we can count.
Here’s my take on the whole thing tonight: ET Rover was given all the time it wanted to sugar-coat the plain and simple fact that it is seeking to permanently take private land for a song and for purely corporate profit, and it was given a stage to try to put a different spin on that and to convince all of us that this project does in fact benefit us as Michiganians.
On the contrary, the ET Rover guy seemed to admit that our distribution utilities are not currently considered “customers” of the proposed project. If I heard him right, even though approximately 18% of the production of the Utica and Marcellus shale might flow through Michigan on its way to Canada, no Michigan utility has indicated a desire to purchase that gas. Instead, I think he admitted that it’s all going to Canada, after Defiance, OH. In fact, I think I heard him advise us to urge our local utilities to contact them, implying that they had not yet done that.
To me, it seemed that Rep. Graves’ office likely promised (in order to get the ET Rover people to come) that the “town hall” would not “degenerate” into a real public forum, where hard questions would be asked and the pipeline company’s answers considered. Rep. Graves’ staff person, whoever that guy was, protected the ET Rover spokesperson throughout the way-too-short meeting. He shut down every landowner attempt to ask the questions that so obviously mattered to landowners, and then, as moderator, he picked through the submitted questions, and only lofted the softballs. In short, he didn’t select a single question that addressed landowners’ rights, and I left feeling like I was misled by the announcement that “Rep. Graves is holding a public forum to explain landowners’ rights.”
I am undoubtedly biased, but it seemed to me that landowners were much more interested in learning about their rights as landowners, to either oppose this project altogether, or to have a real voice as to where it is sited, or to negotiate more favorable easement terms or compensation. It seemed to me (based on the shouted, but unanswered questions) that landowners were substantially concerned about the fact that Energy Transfer Partners will likely be granted the right to condemn their land for, let’s be honest here, private corporate profit. But as it was, “Mr. Staff Person” did not ask a single question about condemnation, at least as I recall. I am also admittedly cynical, but this does not seem coincidental. In fact, I submitted several questions personally on this topic, and none of my questions were selected to pose to the ET Rover spokesperson.
Regarding missed opportunities, ET Rover staff could have elected to stay and engage with impacted landowners. Imagine what it would have been like to have your concerns heard and noted. Had ET Rover stayed longer (and responded to all questions, not just the softballs), chances are they would have found a way through these landowners’ lands.
But, as with all early-on meetings with Enbridge, I was left with the sinking feeling that landowners (a characteristically non-litigious bunch) are truly are on their own when confronted with these projects. The MPSC admitted outright tonight that it really plays no role in projects like the ET Rover project. You should read that as, “we won’t be there when all the rosy promises fall flat”– for example, “we will restore your land to the same or better condition as existed prior to construction.” Heck, the MPSC wasn’t even there for landowners on Enbridge’s (supposedly) intrastate Line 6B project, when a long list of promises were ultimately broken. Nor will FERC be there when the time comes, I suspect. They didn’t even bother to show up tonight.
Once again, if they have any hope for relief, landowners will be forced into the ridiculously uncomfortable position of having to file lawsuits to receive only what they’re entitled to under the law, against a proverbial Goliath. To be crude, if experience holds, most landowners will simply bend over rather than file suit against such an intimidating enemy. The current system is not fair, nor does it do much at all to make landowners whole.
As my client and friend Carol said tonight, we need to change the laws. REPEAT, WE NEED TO CHANGE THE LAWS. In the meantime, we need to challenge this private corporation, and not be lulled into complacency, as our regulators and legislatures seem to have been.
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 14, 2014 |
A quick post to alert you to two noteworthy news items:
Photo courtesy of kctv5.com
First, a natural gas pipeline ruptured in Missouri yesterday. Fortunately, no one was hurt, but the fireball, as you can see, is dramatic and frightening. The company that owns that pipeline (in part)? Our very own Energy Transfer. But as a friend of ours put it, you don’t have to worry; they are diverting supply so shipping will continue as normal…
The other news item is that Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Hasemyer of Inside Climate News has written an article about the grassroots efforts opposing ET Rover. As always, it’s excellent, and features a cast of some of our favorite characters, including our hero Kathy Thurman and our friend Jeff Axt, the Brandon Brawler. The money quote is from Thurman. Recalling the protracted Enbridge nightmare, Thurman said, “”We weren’t going to let this happen again.”
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 13, 2014 |
We left off yesterday’s post about ET Rover’s recent meetings with local officials by expressing some concern about whether some of those officials are equipped– for whatever reasons– to adequately inform and assist landowners. So far, we’ve been very impressed with the willingness of several township officials to speak out forcefully against Rover and the company’s shabby treatment of pretty much everyone. But now that Rover has launched a charm offensive and is (presumably) doing some behind-the-scenes glad-handing, backslapping, and smoke-blowing, we’re a little nervous. We’ve seen before what that sort of thing can do.
Recent news reports have provided little comfort. In fact, judging from what we’ve read, the meetings have served only to confuse matters. It’s starting to look like our public officials are neither receiving nor providing citizens with reliable, accurate information. That’s why we’re also nervous about this week’s Town Hall meeting (Oct. 15 at Holly High School from 6:30 to 7:30 p.m). We have serious fears about the potential spread of bad information.
Here’s a run-down, with examples drawn from two recent news articles about last week’s meetings, of the kinds of imprecise or just plain wrong information that has us so very worried:
Is there anything local governments can do? Yes!
According to Susan Bromley at the Brandon Citizen, Groveland Township Supervisor Bob DePalma doesn’t think “any thing of worthwhile consequence was discussed.” (No surprise there.) But DePalma also told Susan Bromley of the Brandon Citizen that “They [ET Rover] fully realize the federal government has regulations on them, what we say or do has little benefit.” No doubt this is what ET Rover said. It’s the same line Enbridge used when they rolled into town: “pipelines are regulated at the federal level.” As we recall, DePalma accepted that line then just as he appears to accept it now.
In fairness, it’s not entirely clear what DePalma’s point is here, though we do fear it’s the same old shoulder-shrugging, helpless attitude we’ve seen from him before. Whatever the case, it is clearly NOT true that what township officials “say or do has little benefit.” Yes, FERC has ultimate approval of the pipeline project. But there are plenty of things township supervisors, state representatives, and citizens can do. One of them is registering their objections and concerns about this project publicly and with FERC. Another is working hard to provide accurate, reliable information about the project, the process, and the things landowners can do to protect themselves. That could benefit landowners tremendously if this project is approved.
Why did Rover re-route? Nobody really knows (except Rover, and they won’t tell it straight)
Unfortunately, we’re not sure whether DePalma can distinguish between accurate information and pipeline company spin. For example, DePalma also reports that ET Rover shifted their original route north “because it affected 53-54 homes that were going to have to be taken.” We don’t doubt that this is what Rover told him. The question is whether it’s true. In fact, we’re not sure what “53-54 homes were going to have to be taken” even means. It’s vague to the point of meaningless (more on this below). Nor is there any way to verify it.
ET Rover reps apparently repeated this story in their meeting with Lapeer County Commissioners, according to Maria Brown at the Tri-City Times:
Company officials told Lapeer County leaders on Tuesday that the route had been moved north from Oakland County where more than 50 homes would have had to be condemned since they had been built on an existing natural gas line easement.
As we said above, it’s not at all clear what this means, especially with the use of the word “condemn” here– which could suggest the legal process of condemnation (using eminent domain) but here seems to mean something more like destroy. Nor is it clear what “existing natural gas line easement” they’re talking about. The Vector pipeline? Are we to believe that homes have been built on top of the Vector (or some other) pipeline easement? And that somehow, originally, Rover thought they would build their pipeline in the same place? Both of those things seem impossible. So maybe the reporter got something mixed up here? Whatever the case, none of this makes much sense, which makes us awfully skeptical. Even worse, none of this, whatever the source of such poor information, is even remotely helpful to concerned landowners.
We’re even more skeptical of this comment from Lapeer Commissioner Dave Eady about the re-route: “It had nothing to do with politics or resolutions in opposition to the project,” Eady said. We have no doubt this is what ET Rover told Eady and the other commissioners. But surely Eady isn’t naive and gullible enough to believe it. Anyone can readily understand that ET Rover would never ever admit to moving the pipeline route because of landowner opposition; that would only invite landowner opposition elsewhere. So why in the world would he repeat that claim as if it were true? That’s frightening.
We feel a little better about the comment of Commissioner Lenny Schneider who notes, simply, “It’s not our job to take their word for it.” Hopefully, he has repeated that to his colleague Dave Eady.
How much gas will benefit Michiganders? Again, no one knows (and Rover won’t tell)
Even worse than the above are the (hollow) assurances ET Rover gave about where the gas they’ll transport is going. DePalma reports that contrary to initial reports, the natural gas is not mainly for Canadian export and “a good amount” of the natural gas transported by ET Rover will stay in Michigan. This statement only raises more questions:
What’s “a good amount”? Who decides what a good amount is? Is this what Rover reps said or is that DePalma’s characterization? Was DePalma able to verify that claim? Did Rover say exactly what percentage of the gas will stay in Michigan versus the amount that will be exported to Canada? We’re pretty sure that answer to those last three questions is “no.” Those are questions that are virtually impossible to answer. Answers to them may– if we’re lucky– be included in Rover’s application to FERC, which they plan to file in January. But since FERC doesn’t require that kind of information and because Rover doesn’t really want anybody to know (they’ll likely claim that it’s proprietary), chances are it won’t even be included there. We can’t say for sure, but it sounds like DePalma believes Rover when they say such things. But he shouldn’t. That’s what scares us.
Is Rover prohibited or even discouraged from routing their pipeline along a highway? No.
Here’s one reason DePalma shouldn’t believe the things ET Rover reps tell him. Evidently they told him this:
Rover representatives also explained that the reason the pipeline can’t follow a suggested route along the I-69 corridor is because close proximity to highways is discouraged for safety reasons.
Note here the passive construction “is discouraged” We have little doubt that this is exactly how ET Rover phrased it. It’s the sort of verbal construction we discourage our students from using, because unlike our sentence (where we say “we discourage”), the passive version omits the agent of the action. It begs the question of who, exactly, discourages routing pipelines along highways for safety reasons. The implication is that it’s some federal agency. But there are no federal guidelines on this matter. In fact, highway corridors are not even considered “high consequence areas.” Of course, this is not to say that it’s necessarily a good idea to build a pipeline along a highway. But doing so is no worse than building a pipeline in close proximity, say, to a school or suburban subdivision, yet that happens routinely. The point here is that companies like Rover are NOT “discouraged” for safety reasons from building pipelines along highways. They’re just saying that as a convenient excuse to stick with their preferred route.
Is there a deadline for public comments to FERC? No.
This one comes from Lapeer County Commissioner Lenny Schneider:
Schneider said the company can’t provide all the answers county officials want until land surveys are complete and considering this task might not be done by year’s end, which is also the public comment deadline; the county board seeks to go on the record with their concerns.
The first part of this is probably more or less true: some questions will be unanswerable until surveying is complete and the route is finalized with a bit more precision (although we suspect this is also another convenient way for Rover to evade questions). But the second part is absolutely NOT true. There is no year-end “deadline” for public comments. After Rover officially files its application with FERC, citizens have much more time and opportunity to comment— and they should do so. We don’t know where Schneider got the idea that public comment will be prohibited after the first of the year. But this is another example of how unreliable information gets disseminated.
Can FERC approve this project without giving Rover the power of eminent domain? No.
And one final bit of information to correct, this one also from the Lapeer Commissioners:
Commissioners are also urging the public and affected landowners to file their own concerns and complaints with the federal agency by year’s end, asking that the commission either halt the project or approve it without granting eminent domain. Without eminent domain, Energy Transfer would be required to negotiate with individual landowners for easement payments.
Now, we very much appreciate this sentiment. And we wish this were a realistic option (and in other cases, we’ve made a similar argument). But in this case, urging citizens to request approval without eminent domain demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of the FERC process. That’s because eminent domain is precisely what “approval” means. ET Rover is going to apply for a “Certificate of Public Necessity and Convenience.” According to the law, that means the authority to condemn. So ET Rover isn’t just asking for permission to build a pipeline. They’re asking for permission to build the pipeline with or without the approval of property owners in the pipeline’s route. In this context “approv[ing] it without granting eminent domain” simply does not make sense. By law, FERC cannot grant a certificate without eminent domain.
Obviously, these are not simple matters. And there is no reason to expect township supervisors and county commissioners to be experts on them. But it’s NOT too much to expect them to be deeply skeptical of what ET Rover tells them and to be careful about reporting what Rover says as fact. We’re going to do everything we can to make it to Wednesday’s Town Hall in the hopes of preventing (or correcting) the spread of inaccurate information. Stay tuned.
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 9, 2014 |
If you’ve been paying attention, you might know that up in Canada Enbridge has been all in a flurry to get their Line 9 pipeline reversal online and running. They’ve gone about it in their typically ham-fisted way, despite the legitimate concerns of lots of Canadians, like our friend Emily Ferguson. (And how did Enbridge respond to those concerns? Why, by making up fictional stories about Emily. Seriously!)
Well, last week Enbridge thought they were finally going to get their way– that is until the National Energy Board pointed out that they have failed to meet a basic condition of the project’s approval: installing shut-off valves on both sides of all major water crossings. Just how badly did Enbridge bungle their compliance with this requirement? We’ll let the NEB tell you about it:
As noted above, CSA Z662-11 states that valves shall be installed on both sides of MWCs. The valves do not appear to be placed on both sides of many of the MWCs. Although in its response to Information Request No. 1 for Condition 16, Enbridge added 85 MWCs to its original list of MWCs, Enbridge did not adjust the number of valves to the Project, for example by increasing the number of valves, or explain why the number remained unchanged. As a result, the Board notes that only 6 of the 104 MWCs identified by Enbridge to date appear to have valves installed within 1 km on both sides of the water crossing, while the majority appear to have valves installed more than 10 km from the water crossing on at least one side.
That’s right. Not only did Enbridge fail to accurately identify all major water crossings (the NEB elsewhere says Enbridge needs to revisit their mode of determining MWCs). For the ones they did identify, Enbridge failed to comply with the shut-off valve condition for NINETY-FIVE PERCENT of them.
Just think about this: at a moment when they are under more scrutiny than ever before, when the whole world is looking for their next mistake, when they are desperately trying to convince regulators all over North America to trust them, when changing public perceptions about them has become one of the company’s top priorities– at a moment like that, they fail, abjectly, to abide by a simple regulatory requirement. It almost defies belief.
Is it incompetence or arrogance? We still don’t know which.
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 8, 2014 |
Over the past few years, we’ve grown accustomed to Michigan public officials’ willingness to allow pipeline companies to have their way with Michigan citizens. We can’t for the life of us understand why so many of our politicians and regulators seem so much more interested in protecting out-of-state corporations rather than the citizens they have been elected (or appointed) to serve. But we fear that the pattern is continuing with ET Rover. Have ANY officials other than township supervisors stepped up to support and assist the landowners in their districts?
The latest instance of this failure of leadership in Michigan comes from Lapeer County Prosecutor Tim Turkelson who has apparently decided to weigh in on the thorny survey question that has been the source of controversy over the past couple of weeks. According to the Lapeer County Press (see the image at right), Turkelson this week issued a memo to county law enforcement supporting ET Rover’s right to survey without landowner permission. Why? Well, Turkelson apparently assigned his assistant prosecutor Mike Hodges the task of looking into the matter and Hodges went and generated what we believe is a serious misreading of the law, which Turkelson appears to accept.
Interestingly, Hodges did not turn to the UCPA that ET Rover has cited in its letters to landowners. Rather, Hodges cited a different Michigan statute, one that may or may not be applicable to the matter at hand; we’re not sure. We’re also not sure whether ET Rover has altered its legal strategy or whether Hodges and Turkelson have taken it upon themselves to apply a different statute to the matter. We’re still investigating these questions with the help of our crack team of brilliant legal minds. Stay tuned for our full analysis.
In the meantime, here is one example of how Hodges is mistaken that we’re pretty confident about: At one point, Turkelson’s memo warns property owners about disturbing the survey stakes that ET Rover is sure to place on their properties: “Property owners need to be aware that removing survey markers is a 180 day misdemeanor,” the memo says. This is a very serious warning; Hodges is telling landowners that they can be arrested (and possibly jailed!) for removing the survey markers ET Rover places on their property.
However, this appears to be a very basic misreading of the law– either that or a fundamental misunderstanding of what the ET Rover survey crews will do. We don’t know which.
Here is the part of the law Hodges refers to, section 54:210(d):
(1) A person who defaces, destroys, alters, or removes a corner monument or reference monument is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or imprisonment for not more than 180 days, or both, and shall be responsible for the costs of reestablishment and replacement of the monument and filing of the corner record by a surveyor.
However, section 54.202 very clearly defines the terms “corner,” “monument” and “reference monument.” Here’s what the statute says:
(d) “Corner”, unless otherwise qualified, means a property corner, a property controlling corner, a public land survey corner, or any combination of these.
(f) “Monument” means a marker that occupies the position of a corner and that possesses or is made to possess a magnetic field.
(g) “Reference monument” means a special monument that does not occupy the same geographical position as the corner itself but whose spatial relationship to the corner is recorded and that serves to witness the corner.
In other words, corner monuments and reference monuments are stakes or other markers that are meant to establish the boundaries lines of a property. But that’s not what ET Rover’s survey crews are seeking to establish. Frankly, they don’t care much where one property ends and another begins (although they’ll need to know that). At this point, they just need to know where they can put their pipe– and that’s what their survey crews will mark. They will establish what the boundaries of their easements and temporary workspaces might be as well as where the pipeline might be placed. They need to know what kinds of things they might need to go around or under and so forth. So the stakes they put in the ground– the “monuments” are unlikely to be at corners. They’re going to be in all sorts of other places.
Obviously, we are not encouraging people to mess with survey stakes. Rather, our point here is simply that the law that Hodges and Turkelson are citing is completely inapplicable to the case at hand. Which just goes to show that they really don’t understand the situation. As a result, their hasty attempt to inform themselves and render some sort of guidance to law enforcement is inaccurate at best– and inaccurate in ways that could negatively affect landowners, not ET Rover.
Three quick conclusions about this:
First, if Turkelson and Hodges get something as basic as this matter of “reference monuments” wrong, there is plenty of reason to doubt their other claims about the law.
Secondly, this is a terribly unfortunate situation. If citizens can’t get any helpful clarity about the law from the public guardians of the law, where in the world are they supposed to turn?
Thirdly, one can’t help but wonder what motivates such sloppy legal research on the part of these public officials, It appears– and we would like to believe that this is not the truth– that their legal conclusions are based upon a predisposition to do what is in the best interests of a big corporation like ET Rover rather than the interests of the residents of their very own county.
Stay tuned for more as this story develops.
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 20, 2014 |
A “debacle,” a “one-sided show and tell,” a “well-orchestrated disaster“– this is how attendees at the latest round of ET Rover open houses have described the events, which have provided landowners and concerned citizens with very little helpful information and served only to stoke suspicion and create even more frustration and resistance. Energy Transfer is proving to be even more hapless in cultivating good relations with Michiganders than Enbridge. That’s an extraordinary feat.
The recent round of meetings has garnered a fair amount of press attention this week, which we’re glad to see. Unfortunately, those news reports mainly just note how unhelpful Rover’s informational meetings have been. They don’t really do much to correct the information deficit. Partly that’s because journalists, like local officials and landowners, appear not to really know where to turn for reliable information.
For example, Eric Dresden over at MLive turned to the Michigan Public Service Commission (you remember them, right?), an agency that has no authority or oversight whatsoever over this project. But of course, that didn’t stop MPSC spokesperson Judy Palnau from offering up this pointless, vapid, wrongheaded, industry-minded bit of claptrap: “The market does what the market does,” she said. “Generally speaking, it will increase supply and usually an increased supply means a better price.”
Reading the press coverage of ET Rover, we’ve encountered all sorts of other inaccuracies, large and small. According to another MLive article, for instance, ET spokesperson evidently told reporter Ben Freed that the FERC pre-filing process, which includes these open houses, is “optional.” That, too, is false.
So where to turn for accurate information? State representatives don’t appear to know much, although it is heartening to see them attending these meetings and (possibly) taking some action in facilitating public forums. The same goes for township supervisors, who also want to organize public forums that might be more productive that Rover’s pointless open houses. However, they’re also not sure where to turn. Atlas Township Supervisor Shirley Kautman-Jones (who is showing excellent Kathy Thurman-like leadership) is thinking of bringing in reps from the Michigan DEQ, for example. But as we learned recently, that’s a terrible idea. Just this week, a DEQ rep demonstrated that he has no idea what he’s talking about when it comes to these matters: he told one of our readers that “It is unlikely that eminent domain would be invoked for this commercial purpose”– a statement that is outrageously and absurdly false (see the comments section).
Even those who are trying to help landowners are full of misinformation. Down in Ohio, for example, a couple of attorneys have been holding open forums encouraging landowners to know their rights and act accordingly. We think that’s very important and also recommend hiring an attorney (when that time comes). But it’s also disturbing to see these attorneys running around telling landowners that ET Rover already has the power of eminent domain (which they do NOT), among other minor inaccuracies. It’s bad enough that ET Rover’s information can’t be trusted. Those on the side of landowners ought not to compound the spread of misinformation.
Similarly, another otherwise helpful resource for landowners, Curtis Talley at the Michigan State Extension recently responded to a reporter’s question about how Rover might affect property values by saying, “It probably won’t affect land values, but it possibly could, based on someone’s location,” he said. But that is far from clear. There’s good evidence to suggest that natural gas pipelines DO negative effect property values. Here, for instance, is a right of way attorney making that case (of course, that was before Enbridge hired him and paid him to start saying just the opposite; but that’s another story). The truth of the matter is, the question of pipelines and property values is murky and unclear. Nobody knows for certain– a fact that should not bring comfort to landowners.
All of this is why we are here. We work hard to provide clear, factual, accurate information. If you’re new to the site, start with this post, which has important links that explain the process. And we will continue to try, both here and over on our Facebook pagem to correct false or misleading information wherever we encounter it.
Lastly, we’d just like to say that it’s been inspiring to watch residents in townships north of Oakland County– those along the “new” ET Rover route– step up their efforts to inform themselves and one another. Many of those residents are commenting here and we applaud and admire their efforts, which are yielding results: already, two new townships, Hadley and Atlas, have passed formal resolution opposing the project. Atlas Township has also filed its resolution with FERC. It appears (or so we hope!) that others townships are going to follow suit. Please contact your local officials!
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 3, 2014 |
As the ET Rover route has (apparently) shifted to the north, we’ve noticed lots of new traffic at the blog, likely seeking more information– since ET Rover doesn’t appear to be providing much. We are happy to try and offer whatever little bit of assistance we can for those seeking to learn more. So here are a few links and bullet points that might helpful by way of some basics about the project:
We’ll start by laying our cards on the table: we here at the Line 6B Citizens’ Blog oppose the ET Rover project. We don’t just oppose the proposed (or formerly proposed) route. We oppose the whole project. If it is approved, it will mean the taking of private land for corporate profit. It will bring very little benefit to Michiganders because most of the gas it will transport is destined for Canada (and elsewhere). Finally, it is not a “public necessity,” as Energy Transfer and FERC themselves both agreed just last year.
Secondly, it’s important to understand how the approval process for a project like this works. That information is available at the agency responsible for regulating interstate natural gas pipelines, the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission (FERC). Right now is what’s called the “pre-filing” stage. ET Rover won’t officially file their application with FERC until January. Review of that application will take time: probably about two years. So this pipeline isn’t going to be built tomorrow.
Thirdly, in addition to understanding the process, landowners need to know their rights in case the project is approved. FERC provides a citizen’s guide with some basic information. An even better resource for landowners is available from the Pipeline Safety Trust.
Finally, citizens have a voice in these proceedings. If you are opposed to this project (for whatever reason) or if you are in favor of it, for that matter, you can file a comment with FERC. Instructions on how to do so are here. You can also read the comments of others.
In addition to those resources, we would also offer (humbly) a few quick words of advice based on our own experience as landowners with a pipeline on our property:
- Don’t trust land agents. We’re sure some of them are honest and professional. And many of them are perfectly pleasant people. But their interests are NOT your interests. Their job is to tell you pleasing things. But those pleasing things often do not correspond to reality. Be skeptical. Protect yourself.
- Understand eminent domain. They can’t (and don’t want to) take your house or your whole property. They only want to access a portion of it. If they do get that easement, they do not own that part of your property. You do. Their are restrictions on what they (and you) can do with that portion of your property.
- Money isn’t everything. A certain monetary offer for easement rights might sound appealing. But keep in mind that there are many, many more things that come with the installation of a pipeline on your property. The stress, strain, disruption, destruction of your property, and potential accidents might well make whatever dollar amount you are eventually offered seem not so great in retrospect.
- Lastly, if it does come down to negotiating an easement (though again, this is probably two years away), consult an attorney with experience in this area. There are dozens of things that the ordinary landowner would never think of that could be a potential problem. Just ramble through our archives (like these posts) and you’ll see what we mean.
Oh, and one additional thing: we will keep up with events as best we can and post information here. But sometimes it’s easier and faster to post updates on our Facebook page. Please join us there if you are on social media.
