by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 29, 2014 |
If you read this blog diligently (we know there are precious few of you who do!), you may have noticed recently a fascinating and very troubling conversation in the comments section of our story about the re-route of Rover. There, one of our readers tells of some outrageous strong arm tactics coming from Rover in order to do surveys on landowner properties.
What do me mean by strong arm tactics? Well, threats of legal actions, armed guards (we’re not joking!), and some rather unfortunate support from a county sheriff. Here’s the story:
Initially the request to survey was denied by several property owners. On the August 22th a certified letter were received by several property owners stating if the enclosed survey consent letter was not returned within 30 days. Legal action would be taken to acquire a court order to proceed with the survey.
On August 25th the survey crews unexpectedly (without any notice) entered the properties to survey. Along with the survey crew were 6 – 8 security guards (some armed) as well as 20-30 individuals to walk the potential easement right of way area looking for artifacts. When informed they were trespassing and to leave the property at once they refused and offered to call the County Sheriff. When the County Sheriff arrived he informed the property owners the survey crew were within the law and could not be stopped from entering the property.
It was the ET Rover Landsman who then brought forward MCL 213.54(3) as being the legal grounds for the survey crews to enter the properties, although the property owners were only given two days over the weekend to respond to the certified mailing. Also there was no consideration given to the property owner by ET Rover before entering the properties to survey with exercising their rights under MCL 213.54 (3).
Specifically with the following provision:
MCL 213.54(3): The entry may be made upon reasonable notice to the owner and at reasonable hours. An entry made pursuant to this subsection shall not be construed as a taking. The owner or his or her representative shall be given a reasonable opportunity to accompany the agency’s agent or employee during the entry upon the property.
We’ve done some follow up with the poster and we have no reason whatsoever to doubt this story’s veracity. 
A local newspaper even took a photograph of the caravan along with a brief article, unfortunately incomplete in detail, on the matter. Information on all of this is still forthcoming, but we’d like to make a few brief observations in the meantime
First, we think Rover is just plain wrong on the law. They do not meet the definition of a “private agency” as set forth in the statute they cite (MCL 213.51(h): “a person, partnership, association, corporation, or entity, other than a public agency, authorized by law to condemn property.” ET Rover does NOT have the authority to condemn property and will not have it until (that is, if) FERC approves their application. If we’re right, then ET Rover is both mischaracterizing and breaking the law.
Secondly, we have no idea what that county sheriff was thinking or why he was doing ET Rover’s bidding. It appears he simply believed Rover’s (mistaken) account of the law. And since we are pretty sure that sheriffs are neither lawyers nor judges, and since we are equally sure that that sheriff is paid to protect the citizens of his county and not out of state corporations, the sheriff’s actions appear to be shameful. We’ve seen these sorts of cozy relationships between pipeline companies and local law enforcement before. It is a troubling and appalling practice.
Finally, even if ET Rover were right about the law (which we believe they are not), this incident plainly violates both their own rhetoric and their industry standards. Showing up to someone’s property with armed guards is not acting as “a good neighbor.” Nor is it any sort of way, as the industry’s “Commitment to Landowners” states, to build “positive, lasting relationships” based “on mutual respect and trust.”
We’ll continue to report more on this as we learn further details. Based on continually emerging stories about ET Rover’s treatment of landowners, it’s become all but impossible for us to maintain the dime hope we had at the beginning of this process: that ET Rover would not be just like Enbridge.
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 25, 2014 |
There’s been a lot of speculation, rumor, and uncertainty about the currently proposed ET Rover route. In Rover’s latest filing with FERC they have published maps of their proposed route and alternatives. You can find this filing by searching the docket at FERC; it’s a long document, several in fact. But for most readers of this blog, the map of the alternative route is below. The “alternative route” is the one in blue. The new route is the one in yellow.
And here is what Rover says about the two routes:
Landowners in Oakland County, Michigan identified multiple concerns with the Oakland Alternative with respect to land disturbance associated with construction and operation of the pipeline. The main concern was the addition of another pipeline within developed residential areas that have grown up around existing utility corridors. Some commenters expressed concern about further disruption to their property following recent construction activities associated with the Line 6B pipeline replacement activities.
ET Rover identified several congested residential areas where it would be difficult to route the pipeline without some significant disruption to residents. Therefore, while the Oakland Alternative is shorter by 16.4 miles than the corresponding segment of the proposed route, the proposed route avoids construction through developed residential areas without transferring similar impacts to other areas, and will have reduced impacts on streams, wetlands, and public lands. Therefore, it was eliminated.
In keeping with Rover’s truly appalling communication style, this paragraph not terribly clear. Specifically, it’s not at all clear what “was eliminated.” (If this were written by one of our students, that last sentence would be circled in red with an “unclear pronoun reference” comment in the margin.) But based on the filings, it’s the Oakland Alternative that they’re eliminating.
So, it looks like Rover’s new proposed route avoids Oakland County, now running north from Livingston through Genesee and Lapeer counties. That’s certainly excellent news for Oakland County residents, but in our view the fight shouldn’t be over yet. Livingston, Genesee, and Lapeer residents now need to step up and take action. Otherwise, Roveer is STILL coming to Michigan.
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 21, 2014 |
For quite a while now, we (like others) have been talking about the way Enbridge opportunistically took advantage of the climate of worry following the Marshall spill to hastily get approval to replace Line 6B in three segments and thereby circumvent regulatory processes, particularly the Presidential Permitting process that has kept Keystone XL in such limbo. We have also taken note of Enbridge’s various other schemes to out-Keystone Keystone. One has to admit: they are awfully crafty.
Just how crafty? Well, David Shaffer, who does outstanding work for the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, has a great story this week about a very clever, very troubling bait-and-switch Enbridge is planning (in collusion, it appears, with the Department of State) to get more oil into the U.S. Essentially, Enbridge is going to ship oil from Canada to the U.S. border through one pipe, switch it to another to get it across the border, then switch it back to ship it to refineries. It’s a little bit like smuggling (but right out in the open).
Why the pipe-switching gymnastics? Well, this will allow Enbridge to evade the requirements of the Presidential Permits on their Alberta Clipper and Line 3 pipelines, which place restrictions on the amount of oil that can be shipped through them. It would also allow Enbridge to avoid the important public and environmental scrutiny– that is to say, the democratic process– that exists (ostensibly) to bring a little sanity and concern for the public interest to bear upon operations like Enbridge’s. The fact that our elected officials and regulatory agencies turn a blind eye to these kinds of shenanigans is a breach of the public trust, allowing foreign companies like Enbridge to trample upon landowners and the environment so that they can reap huge profits transporting tar sands oil destined mainly for export. In our view, it’s outrageous. and if not flatly illegal, then certainly “a clear misinterpretation of both the letter and the spirit of the law.”
First Rover, Now NEXUS
Oh, but there’s more. Also this week, just as the efforts of Michigan citizens to prevent an unnecessary natural gas pipeline project from tearing its way across half the state, another nearly identical project was announced. NEXUS Gas Transmission would move the same gas from and to the same places as ET Rover and take a very similar path. The main difference is that it appears that NEXUS will mainly use existing infrastructure and not require new construction. That’s okay news for landowners, but it’s not necessarily great news in general, as once again, we’re talking here mainly about gas from fracking operations in West Virginia and Pennsylvania destined for import to Canada.
But here’s the interesting part: whose existing infrastructure do you think is going to be used for NEXUS? You guessed it: Enbridge’s. Apparently, the gas would travel through the Vector pipeline system (many Line 6B landowners also have the Vector pipeline on their properties).
You might be asking yourself, at this point, “is Enbridge in bed with everybody?” The answer appears to be yes. Their fingerprints are everywhere. And now, after partnering with Energy Transfer to abandon a gas pipeline that they (and FERC) agreed was unnecessary so that Enbridge could use it to ship crude oil– after that, Enbridge is now going to compete with Energy Transfer to ship gas to the very same markets that they said a year ago didn’t need it. (Yes, our head is spinning to.) Even worse, it may well be that it is in Enbridge’s best interests to see the ET Rover project thwarted (although we fail to see how Enbridge and its NEXUS partners DTE and Spectra Energy can make the necessity argument against ET Rover, as that would only undermine their own application to FERC). At the very least, Enbridge surely will think that it is in its best interest for everyone to run around arguing that their scheme to transport natural gas across Michigan is more desirable than ET Rover’s scheme. Even more perversely, they may be sort of right on that point.
Which is all the more reason that Michiganders need to tell FERC that these projects– ET Rover and NEXUS alike– are not just about re-routing. Neither one is necessary. Neither one is in the public interest of Michigan. Neither one is a “public necessity.” Otherwise, the only real outcome is that Enbridge wins. Again.
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 18, 2014 |
If you’ve been paying attention to Enbridge in the news, you might have heard about the protests up in Canada a couple weeks ago, where some concerned activists put up a blockade halting work on Enbridge’s Line 9 reversal project. In response to that action, Enbridge generated a shockingly disingenuous blog post under the headline– we’re not making this up– “Pipelines and protests: A meaningful discussion starts with the facts.” In it, Enbridge presents six “facts” about Line 9, as if to present themselves as the truth-tellers in contrast to those dishonest, un-factual protestors.
We’re not going to spend time here pointing out just how very arguable most of their six so-called “facts” really are. (Like the claim that “Line 9 has an excellent safety record,” which surely depends upon how one defines “excellent.”) Instead, we just need to point out how preposterous– preposterous to the point of being offensive– it is for Enbridge to try to take the high road and pretend to be genuinely devoted to “facts” and the truth.
Let’s just quickly review, for instance, some of Enbridge’s greatest hits of the last 12 months. Mind you, we’re not talking here about garden-variety public relations spin or the routine misinformation spread by land agents. We’re talking about clear, demonstrable falsehoods served up by prominent Enbridge employees, including some of their most senior executives. Here are just five examples of such falsehoods from the past year, demonstrating vividly how Enbridge engages in “meaningful discussion” starting with “facts”:
- In Indiana, Enbridge spokesperson Jennifer Smith told the public that federal regulations require them to remove all trees from the pipeline right of way.
- In Canada, Enbridge spokesman Graham White fabricated a disparaging story, out of whole cloth, about a single concerned citizen.
- In Minnesota, Senior Land Manager John McKay said that Enbridge pipeline projects begin with landowners deciding to do business with Enbridge.
- Here in Michigan, Vice President Rich Adams looked the United States EPA straight in they eye and told them an untrue story about obtaining a dredge pad permit.
- And most recently in Michigan, Vice President Brad Shamla pretended in front of the whole world that the pipeline rupture in Marshall happened a day later than it actually did.
Unfortunately, such brazen, undisguised untruths generally go unnoticed or are met with little more than a shrug of the shoulders. It may be that the public simply expects so little in the way of honesty from companies like Enbridge that we’ve all but given up on being outraged by instances of dishonesty. For example, no one in the press (or anywhere else), as far as we know, has taken any interest at all in Enbridge’s revisionist history about the date of the Marshall spill. We find this baffling and deeply disturbing. Wouldn’t you think that some dogged reporter somewhere would just want to call Brad Shamla on the phone and ask the simple question: “How can you say, on the one hand, that you don’t want to erase Marshall from your memory while, on the other hand, you deliberately pretend the day the rupture occurred was the day after it occurred?”
Worse than apathy or cynicism, however, is the fact that there are still a lot of people– local officials, journalists, newspaper editorial boards, ordinary landowners– who actually do believe things that Enbridge tells them. That’s bad and has severe consequences. It’s bad because it can leave landowners unprotected (because, say, they didn’t think they needed to hire an attorney). Bad because newspapers might type up whatever Enbridge says (and thereby misinform the public). Bad because elected officials and regulatory agencies will accept Enbridge’s word on important matters (and leave the public interest unprotected).
But the evidence (above and all throughout our archives) shows that you can’t believe the things Enbridge says, that you can’t take them at their word. And that’s why we think it is very important–imperative– to demonstrate as clearly and factually as possible when and how and why Enbridge can NOT be trusted. It’s why we continue to be outraged by false and misleading statements. Because those statements are not inconsequential; they have very real effects out in the world, your world. Our (perhaps futile) hope is that if we keep pointing them out, maybe eventually people– landowners, journalists, politicians, regulators– will be a little less trusting in the future.
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 5, 2014 |
We’re working on a positive post (believe it or not!) that we’ve been meaning to get to for a while. But things just keep getting in the way. First, the Rover news broke, then we went on vacation in Minnesota, where we spoke to the Friends of the Headwaters), then Enbridge once again flouted a local ordinance, then they went around trying to erase and rewrite history, and then peddled some more untruths. Enbridge has been giving us so many negative things to write about that we haven’t had time to mention a positive one. But stay tuned for that very soon.
In the meantime, we thought we’d call your attention to a couple of national news items that ought to be of some interest, since what is happening around the country– to the west and to the east– is also happening (or, in other cases, should happen) here in Michigan. So let’s connect a few dots:
- If you haven’t seen the latest from Inside Climate News regarding the ongoing scandal surrounding the California Public Utilities Commission and its (mis)handling of matters related to the terrible San Bruno explosion, you’ll want to take a look at Elizabeth Douglas’s latest piece. As always, it’s excellent journalism, although the appalling story Douglas tells of the cozy relations between regulators and industry is sure to raise your blood pressure. What’s happened in California is especially egregious and maybe extreme. But we think it’s also emblematic of the kinds of close ties between regulators and the companies they’re supposed to regulate all over the country. We caught plenty of glimpses of this industry-friendliness during the MPSC proceedings to approve the Line 6B replacement. As our series showed, Enbridge pretty much owned that process.
- Which is all the more reason for citizens to speak up and speak out and take action. That’s what’s happening in Massachusetts currently, as residents there make it clear that they want no part of a newly proposed natural gas pipeline. Their actions should be an inspiration to landowners along the proposed ET Rover pipeline. Their first act of resistance: refusing the pipeline company permission to survey– something we’ve recommended here and that many of you, or so we’ve heard, are already doing. It also looks like there’s a good chance some townships will do the same and also voice their opposition to Rover publicly and formally.
It’s the wild west for oil and gas expansions all across the country right now, a reckless gold rush. Despite what the energy and pipeline companies will tell you, these infrastructure projects are not taking place with the best interests of local communities, landowners, and the environment uppermost in mind. And unfortunately, the agencies charged to protect those interests only seem to serve the interests of industry. That just leaves, well, us.
by Jeffrey Insko | Jul 29, 2014 |
If you “like” us over on Facebook, you might know that on our annual vacation to Minnesota this year– yes, the one that takes us past the Enbridge offices in Superior, Wisconsin— we were lucky enough to speak to an extraordinary group of citizens embroiled in their own battle with Enbridge. The Friends of the Headwaters up in Park Rapids are concerned (and rightfully so) with the route Enbridge has proposed for its “Sandpiper” pipeline, which would transport crude from the Bakken region of North Dakota all the way to Superior. Along the way, it would pass through some of the most pristine, untrammeled, and beautiful areas in Minnesota– no, in the country– including the headwaters of the Mississippi River. Frankly, unless you’re an oil pipeline executive whose only concern is moving product as quickly and cheaply as possible, the route is totally bonkers.
We’ll have much more to say about Sandpiper and its companion project, the Line 3 “replacement” (both of which we’ve mentioned before), in the weeks and months to come; they’re both a part of the current North American crude and tar sands arms race. At present, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (the equivalent of our MPSC) is reviewing Enbridge’s approval request for Sandpiper. And the Friends of the Headwaters, because they are both rational and devoted to Minnesota’s stunning natural resources, are trying to persuade the PUC to reject Enbridge’s route and to protect the magnificent headwaters. The vast majority of informed Minnesotans appear to agree with them. As landowners who have lived through the “Enbridge experience” and as frequent visitors and admirers of Minnesota’s wonderful and fragile waterways, we fully support the work of the Friends.
For that reason, we were particularly thrilled to be invited to speak with them about our own experience. An impressive, curious, and thoughtful crowd of about 75 people showed up to the talk. They were full of energy and commitment, much of that we are sure owing to the example of Friends of the Headwaters President Richard Smith, who is one smart, cool dude (here he is all brilliant and sensible on MSNBC’s “The Ed Show.”) Richard is collaborating with a whole bunch of awesome people, including Deanna Johnson and Barry Babcock, who were kind enough to take us on a fun, informative, gorgeous tour of the headwaters at Itasca State Park on a sweltering day. The company and the scenery were so good that the heat didn’t bother us a bit.
Our talk seemed to be well received; we tried not to go on too long. But the best part was the warm hospitality, the great generosity, and the commitment and enthusiasm of the Friends of the Headwaters. 
As observers of Enbridge expansion projects in the region, we’ve long admired the work the Friends are doing. Getting to know them in person only deepened that admiration, adding to it real fondness. We can’t thank them enough– for the invitation and for their efforts to protect and preserve Minnesota’s natural resources.
Best of all, their cause appears to be gaining steam, so much so that the PUC actually seems to be listening (at least a little) and Enbridge is doing what it does: lots of misleading p.r.
by Jeffrey Insko | Jul 17, 2014 |
Like many of you, we attended one of ET Rover’s Open Houses this week. The Fenton Township Hall was packed to bursting with concerned citizens. And what did we learn? Practically nothing. Instead of handing out helpful, specific, and detailed information, ET Rover provided landowners with t-shirts and tote bags– some of which were cleverly repurposed.
We spent some of our time, along with our friends Beth Wallace and Robert Whitesides, passing out copies of the Pipeline Safety Trust’s Landowner’s Guide, in hopes that property owners will take an active role in informing themselves of their rights and of the process for approving (or not) a natural gas pipeline project. From what we could tell, the vast majority of landowners were deeply skeptical, if not outright hostile, toward the idea of another pipeline tearing across southeastern Michigan. Of course, there was the one guy (he is inevitable) who asked us how we were going to heat our home. But since we don’t own a home in Canada, we didn’t quite understand his point.
At the meeting and since, we’ve had some conversations with some energized landowners and their neighbors about what can be done to prevent this project from happening and protect their property and the environment. We hope to collaborate with those people– that’s YOU– in the months to come. But for now, here’s a quick list of action items to consider:
Talk to your neighbors. Make new friends, get others involved. In order to influence the process, a large number of voices need to be heard. Information needs to be shared. Reach out to others, enlist them, inform them. Citizens communicating with other citizens is powerful and vital. Some of that communication is already happening here and over on our FB page. Keep it going. Share links to both.
Talk to your local officials. It’s one thing for individual landowners to protest; it’s quite another for townships, municipalities, and counties to do the same. We could have used much more of that– a half dozen or more Brandon Townships— during the Line 6B replacement. Resolutions from local governments can be very powerful.
Fire up your pens and your computers. Write letters to your local elected officials, your state and federal representatives, the governor’s office. Letters to the editor of your local newspaper can help inform your fellow citizens. Emails and phone calls to local reporters can do the same. And everyone will need to write to FERC (more on that below).
Just say no. If you are a landowner along the proposed route and are opposed to this pipeline, tell ET Rover no when they seek your permission to survey your land. That is your right. You do NOT have to allow them to conduct their survey on your property and they can’t legally do so without your permission. Refusing them access to your property will send them a clear and unequivocal message– and make it difficult for them to solidify their plans.
Contact FERC. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is the agency that oversees natural gas pipelines. ET Rover will have to file an application with FERC for this project. If approved, FERC will issue a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, which will give ET the power of eminent domain. As part of that process, FERC collects comments from citizens. At that point, it will be crucial for as many people as possible to let the agency know their views. And in our view, the most important point to make to FERC is that, by Energy Transfer’s own admission, there is no need for this pipeline.
In addition to the above, you can inform yourself by taking advantage of the resources available from FERC and the Pipeline Safety Trust. Their Citizen Guide and Landowner’s Guide, respectively, are important resources. Even more information is available at their websites: FERC and the Pipeline Safety Trust.
by Jeffrey Insko | Jul 9, 2014 |
Energy Transfer just can’t seem to make up its mind.
Less than a year ago, ET was telling everyone, including federal regulators, that they had more pipeline capacity than they needed to serve Michigan– so much capacity, in fact, that they sought permission from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to abandon one of their natural gas pipelines. Now, not even a year later, they are preparing to ask FERC for the power of eminent domain so that they can install an even bigger pipeline into and through Michigan– and perhaps right through your property. Does that make sense to you?
Let us explain. Back in 2012, Energy Transfer applied to FERC for permission to abandon a 770-mile stretch of their Trunkline pipeline, a 30-in gas line that ran from the Gulf of Mexico to Michigan so that it could be converted to carry crude oil. This application did not please energy companies in Michigan, especially Consumers Energy. So those companies protested, as did Michigan’s elected officials, including Senators Stabenow and Levin. Even Governor Snyder and the Michigan Public Service Commission cried foul. Consumers and others worried that abandoning Trunkline– which delivered as much as 60 percent of the gas used by Consumers– would negatively affect the reliability of the state’s natural gas supply and perhaps drive up costs.
Energy Transfer adamantly (and sort of snidely) dismissed all of those concerns, including– get this– “environmental concerns… about having to build another pipeline in the future if this one is abandoned.” In fact, Energy Transfer even went so far as to cast Consumers and Michigan state officials as a bunch of hysterical Chicken Littles. That’s not a joke: they actually told FERC, in response to these protests, that “the sky is not falling.” They said a lot of over things to FERC as well, all to reassure them that abandoning Trunkline would have no effect on natural gas supplies in Michigan. For instance, they said:
• Trunkline’s natural gas delivery capacity into the state of Michigan will remain the same both before and after the proposed abandonment;
• Sufficient capacity will remain post-abandonment for Trunkline to meet all of its firm contracted-for capacity, thus ensuring continuity of service;
• No shippers will experience any change in service or harm in terms of quality of service;
In addition, Energy Transfer specifically rejected (several times) claims that “Trunkline should be required to hold unneeded capacity in the unlikely event that it may be needed at some speculative and undefined future date.”
Unsurprisingly, ET got its way in this matter. FERC approved their application to abandon Trunkline, making possible its conversion from shipping natural gas to shipping crude oil. And here’s the punch line: which oil transportation company do you suppose took over Trunkline to ship that crude oil. We’ll give you one guess….
Yep, you’re right: Enbridge. So ET gets to abandon a natural gas pipeline, making it possible for Enbridge to use the same pipeline to ship more crude (and make more money), at which point ET turns around and proposes to build a NEW, BIGGER natural gas pipeline so that they can ship more fracked natural gas through Michigan to foreign markets (and also make more money). How’s that for salt in your wound?
But the important point here is this: if ET Rover has its way, FERC will approve this new project (FERC always approves these applications) and grant them a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. That Certificate would give ET Rover the power of eminent domain, which will mean that landowners in Michigan (and elsewhere) will not have any choice in whether or not ET Rover crosses their property. However, those same landowners will be entirely justified in wondering how FERC could possibly think that this project serves the “public necessity” not even a year after agreeing with Energy Transfer that there is no public necessity for increased natural gas capacity into Michigan.
Of course, ET is going to say that this project is just a matter of responding to their customer’s demands– and that may be true. But FERC’s charge is not to give in to every demand of natural gas developers; its charge is to determine “public necessity.” They need to be reminded of that crucial distinction. (We should also mention, because ET certainly will, that Rover is not a direct replacement of Trunkline; the routes are different. However, they serve precisely the same markets.)
So here’s what is important to take away from this:
First, this pipeline is NOT, according to ET’s own admission, a “public necessity.” It is nothing more than a land grab to allow natural gas fracked from Pennsylvania and West Virginia to pass through your property while offering you and your fellow Michigan citizens very little, if any, benefit. That gas is destined primarily for Canada. We’re just a freeway. That’s bad enough. But more importantly, the fact that FERC (and ET) already concede that that there is no need for this project should, on its own (and self-evidently; its weird that we even have to say it), preclude any approval saying there is a public need.
Secondly, Michigan elected officials, including Governor Snyder, need to be reminded of the position they took on Trunkline a year ago. That is, they should still be concerned about the environmental concerns of building a new pipeline– and they should join landowners, vocally, and publicly, in opposing ET Rover, which again, is not a project designed or projected to benefit Michigan and its citizens.
Finally, as much as landowners should make their concerns about and objections to this pipeline known to ET Rover and its representatives– at their open houses and elsewhere– the real pressure here needs to be put on FERC. Like so many other regulatory agencies, they appear to be little more than an arm of industry. However, the people need to remind them– loudly, persistently, forcefully, and repeatedly– that they work for us, the public, not for private interests.
by Jeffrey Insko | Jul 7, 2014 |
The ET Rover project is beginning to receive a fair amount of local press attention. The Clarkston News and the Brandon Citizen have run articles. We’re glad to see our old friend Susan Bromley on the case! Bromley spoke with another of our friends, Protect Our Land and Rights (POLAR) legal defense fund founder Jeff Axt. If you don’t know about Jeff and POLAR, please check them out. They’re likely to be an invaluable resource for landowners who don’t want ET Rover on their land. Please consider joining and supporting them.
Detroit Free Press reporter Keith Matheny also has an article this morning (reprinted in the Lansing State Journal). There’s not much new information coming from ET Rover on the project (more on that in a minute), but we were glad to read the remarks of two people we admire very much, Josh Mogerman and Beth Wallace:
But some don’t see the benefit for Michigan.
“It’s consistent with the growing trend nationally that puts more and more risk in people’s back yards for the movement of fossil fuels,” said Josh Mogerman, a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
“This project has very little benefit for Michigan,” added Beth Wallace, a board member with the nonprofit Pipeline Safety Trust.
In all of these articles, the ET Rover spokesperson quoted is Vicki Grenado. We don’t know much about her, other than that she appears not to be an ET employee, but a public relations professional hired by ET. That fact shows, as her remarks are virtually indistinguishable from the sort of stuff we’ve heard from Enbridge spokespersons for years. In one article, she even delivers this old chestnut: “We want to be a good neighbor and business partner in these communities.”
At any rate, we mention this because we happened to have our own encounter with Vicki Grenado over the weekend while trying to obtain some more information about this project. We are grateful to her for responding promptly (twice!), but the exchange was nevertheless, you might not be surprised to learn, a frustrating one– which does not bode well for landowners. Here’s how it went:
Like others of you, we’ve been trying to get some more precise information about the project and especially the proposed route. Because that information is not available on the ET Rover website, we wrote to the person listed at the site as the landowner contact. A couple of days later, we received an email from Ms. Grenado, telling us that she does not have the route information we requested and referring us to the ET Rover website for more information. That’s right: the landowner contact at ET referred us to a p.r. person who then referred us to the same website whose lack of information is what caused us to contact them in the first place.
So we replied, noting that some landowners had already been given more detailed maps of portions of the route (we posted one here just the other day). At which point, Ms Grenado simply said that maps would be available at the upcoming open houses. But of course, if we wanted to wait until the open houses to see the maps, we wouldn’t have written in the first place.
In fairness, Vicki Grenado (like all those Enbridge p.r. soldiers) is just doing her job, a job (as we’ve learned from Enbridge) that mainly consists of supplying people (landowners, local officials, the press) with as little information as possible while pretending to be helpful. However, Energy Transfer is going to need to understand that landowners in Michigan are weary of this sort of thing– and wise to it. If ET thinks they can come up here and blow a lot of smoke, provide vague or evasive answers, say a lot of pleasing-sounding things about being good neighbors, expect people to trust them and then think that landowners are just going to accept all of that without skepticism, without further questioning, without demands for more transparency, more honesty, and more openness, they’re going to have a very rough time indeed.
by Jeffrey Insko | Jul 3, 2014 |
The original letter sent to landowners by ET Rover contained a web link for more information. That link did not work. Up and running now, however, is a splashy new ET Rover web page. It’s not terribly helpful. The information it provides, including a map and a “citizens guide” is quite general and lacks detail (the Pipeline Safety Trust’s Landowner’s Guide is much more helpful, as is FERC’s citizen guide.)
But there are two interesting things to note about the ET Rover website:
First, in the list of open houses, the July 14 meeting in Fenton (according to the letter they sent) is not listed. We don’t know if this is an oversight or a change in plan. We’ll seek clarification; you should too.
Secondly, check out the “Open House Boards” at the bottom of the page. This gives some indication of how the open house will be run (or so it appears): as a series of manned stations. As we described in our post yesterday, thanks to some clever Wisconsin citizens, this is not the sort of forum that will be most advantageous to landowners. We urge our fellow landowner to ban together.
A local newspaper even took a photograph of the caravan along with a brief article, unfortunately incomplete in detail, on the matter. Information on all of this is still forthcoming, but we’d like to make a few brief observations in the meantime
