by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 22, 2014 |
When the ET Rover project first came to light back in July, we immediately called and wrote to several ET Rover representatives to try and obtain some basic information. Those efforts largely failed. After some effort, we were finally able to communicate with a couple of people, though we never really received the information we were seeking. But we did take the opportunity to try and give the Rover project team some friendly advice. What we said was that, after a long and exhausting experience with Enbridge, people in Michigan are quite weary of (and wise to) the way pipeline companies communicate with landowners. We said that vague information, evasive answers, inaccuracies, and conflicting accounts of the kind we’ve grown accustomed to from Enbridge were not going to fly. We said that people simply weren’t going to tolerate it and that if ET Rover didn’t do better, they were going to have a very rough ride up here.
Well, those warnings have clearly gone unheeded. Over the past few weeks, we’ve heard all sorts of stories about the strange, inaccurate, and untrue things that Rover’s agents are telling landowners. And we’ve heard all kinds of rumor and speculation about alterations to the Rover route. But none of it– nothing– can really be verified. Rover just isn’t saying. Getting clear and straightforward information from them has been like pulling teeth.
And you don’t have to take our word for it. Just read the latest from the always-excellent Susan Bromley in the Brandon Citizen. She tried (as we did) to get to the bottom of the current rumor that the proposed Rover route has changed significantly. Here’s her account of how that went:
Vicki Granado, a public relations spokeswoman for ET Rover, would not confirm that the pipeline route had changed. On Wednesday, under repeated questioning, she maintained that the route is “a work in progress” and there will be no final route until all surveys are in.
Groveland Township Supervisor Bob DePalma is even more blunt about the way ET Rover has been communicating with people and municipalities along the route (and this is the same Bob DePalma mind you, who seemed to have a very high tolerance for Enbridge’s p.r. flimflammery):
“I can’t get good answers from Rover, they’ve just done a deplorable job,” said DePalma. “Now they’ve hired PR people that are going to come out. I’ve been in marketing for more than 30 years and this is the worst managed project I’ve ever seen… Facts have been extremely difficult to get from Rover.”
These comments echo the many, many accounts we’ve been hearing from landowners about the unclear or misinformation they’ve been receiving. This is no way to make new friends and partners, that’s for sure. The result is a whole lot of frustration and mounting opposition to the ET Rover project. Just this week, another township supervisor, Bruce Township’s Richard Cory, said “We now have a unified force in how we feel about the pipeline. We don’t want this in Bruce Township.”
Having said all of that, unlike Bromley, we have been told by Rover that they’ve made some changes to the route (though they’re not saying what those changes are) and that they might be reaching out to additional townships and landowners. If that’s true, those landowners and townships are going to have to make their preferences known, to say no to survey requests, hold meetings, and pass resolutions opposing this project.
To that end, the next informational meeting for landowners and the public featuring the indefatigable Jeff Axt will take place in Oceola Township on Thursday, August 28 at 7 pm at the Oceola Township Hall.
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 4, 2014 |
Last week, we told you a bit about our visit to Minnesota and our presentation to the marvelous Friends of the Headwaters— a group of people we admire tremendously. You might not be surprised to learn that, as the Friends work hard to explain to their fellow Minnesotans the threats Enbridge’s proposed Sandpiper project poses to their beautiful headwaters, Enbridge has fired up its public relations machinery. Their efforts have been as slick and misleading as we’ve come to expect.
Coincidentally (or not?), the morning after our talk to the Friends, a letter to the editor from an Enbridge executive appeared in the local Park Rapids, Minnesota paper. The main point of the letter: the warm and fuzzy relationships Enbridge forges with landowners along its pipelines. No, seriously. That’s really what the letter is about. Of course, readers of this blog know better. So for that reason, we wrote our own letter in response and sent it off to the paper– mainly to provide a counterpoint to Enbridge’s rosy account and to correct one rather massive whopper.
Below, we’ve reprinted the exchange. Unfortunately, our letter is not on the web yet, which seems a little odd (but to the right is a copy of it as it appeared).
Enbridge Letter:
At Enbridge, we deliver energy – safely and reliably – to millions of homes and businesses every day. Our pipelines transport crude oil, natural gas, propane and other products, but that’s not all that our pipelines do.
Along the pipe, Enbridge employs over 10,000 workers, contributes millions of dollars annually to the communities where we operate and pays tens of millions in local, state and federal taxes. You probably expect these things from any responsible company.
What you might not expect is that Enbridge has built relationships with thousands of landowners during our 65-year history. From ranchers and farmers to suburban homeowners and urban dwellers; from tribal lands to those owned by towns and villages – our landowner relationships take all shapes and sizes.
Our pipeline projects begin with a landowner’s decision to do business with us – not the other way around. Oftentimes, it’s over a cup of coffee at a kitchen table where a new project or maintenance work is discussed, leading to more conversations.
Listening to and acting upon landowners concerns is important. Why? Because we value these long-term relationships. We learn from each other and, in the process, build trust that can last generations. Are we perfect? No, but we try hard to meet the expectations of our landowners.
Yes, the Sandpiper Pipeline Project will safely and reliably transport crude oil that will, in turn, produce fuel for our homes, our vehicles and our economy. Likewise, Sandpiper will also create hundreds of jobs, support more local charities and pay millions in new tax revenues to Minnesota and its communities.
Enbridge is committed to creating and furthering cooperative, productive and trustworthy relationships with our landowners – and has for more than 65 years.
John McKay
Senior Manager, Land Services
Enbridge
Our reply:
The timing of the letter in your paper by John McKay, Senior Manager of Land Services for Enbridge, couldn’t be better. Just the night before, I gave a presentation to the Friends of the Headwaters about my own experience over the past three years dealing with Enbridge land agents. Mr. McKay’s remarks perfectly illustrate one of the central points of my talk: you probably shouldn’t believe anything Enbridge land agents say.
For example, Mr. McKay states that “Our pipeline projects begin with a landowner’s decision to do business with us—not the other way around.” That statement is clearly, demonstrably, false. For virtually all of Enbridge’s transmission pipeline projects, a state or federal agency grants the company the power of eminent domain. That power means that landowners do not get to decide whether a pipeline crosses their property; they have no choice in the matter. If the Sandpiper project is approved, landowners won’t make a “decision” to do business with Enbridge; they will be forced to do so.
Mr. McKay also tries to convince readers that land agents want to create “long-term relationships” with landowners. Our first land agent told us much the same thing. So did our second one. And our third. Each of them assured us they would be with us from the beginning of the project to the end, when our property was restored. The truth, however, is that land agents come and land agents go. Generally, they are contractors, not Enbridge employees. That means that even land agents’ relationships with Enbridge are not “long-term.” A common experience among landowners along Enbridge’s pipelines in Michigan is a revolving door of land agents. Some landowners have had to deal with more than half a dozen in just two years.
As one who lives along the Enbridge Line 6B pipeline in Michigan, I have spoken with dozens of my fellow landowners. By far, the most common source of dissatisfaction among us is land agents who are unresponsive, unprofessional, untruthful, untrustworthy, prone to misinformation, and sometimes even bullying. If there is anything even worse than Enbridge’s safety protocols and record, it is its land agent system.
I don’t mean to say that Enbridge land agents themselves are bad people. I have generally liked my land agents personally. But I don’t trust them. They are part of a system, created and operated by Enbridge, that does not encourage them to deal openly and honestly with landowners. The irony of Mr. McKay’s letter is that the behavior of Enbridge’s land agents– behavior that angers, frustrates, and alienates landowners–is either permitted or encouraged by the actual Enbridge employees who train and supervise these agents: people like Mr. McKay himself.
If you’d like to read more about the real experiences of landowners along an Enbridge pipeline rather than the fictions presented by Mr. McKay, I invite you to visit the Line 6B Citizens’ Blog.
Jeffrey Insko
Groveland Township, Michigan
by Jeffrey Insko | Jul 29, 2014 |
A History Lesson for Brad Shamla
Looks like Enbridge needs another history lesson. To mark last week’s anniversary of the Marshall spill, Enbridge VP Brad Shamla penned an editorial that was published in the Battle Creek Enquirer and the Detroit News. A version of the op-ed also appeared as a “letter” (that is, a paid advertisement) in the Detroit Free Press (and probably elsewhere, we’re not sure).
It’s a fine-sounding letter, carefully crafted, we’re sure, by a whole committee of people in the vast Enbridge public relations department. The trouble is, it’s also disingenuous, starting with its very first sentence. See if you can spot the problem:
July 26, 2010, is a day that no one at Enbridge will ever forget.
Yep, that’s right: in an article whose central point is memory and commemoration, the importance of always remembering what happened in Marshall, Shamla gets the date of the spill wrong. July 26, 2010 is NOT the day the “Line 6B pipeline failed near Marshall.” As everybody knows, the failure occurred on July 25.
So what gives? Is it possible Shamla doesn’t know this? Is it merely a typographical mistake? Or might it be, once again, a willful distortion of the facts on the part of Enbridge? You won’t be surprised to learn that we think it’s the latter. Shamla (and Enbridge) date the spill on July 26, presumably, because it allows them to forget what happened the day before, when Enbridge ignored evidence of a problem with the line, ignored its own safety protocols, turned up the pressure on the line, and gushed oil out of the ruptured seam in Line 6B for 17 hours. Here’s the National Transportation Safety Board’s account of what happened:
On Sunday, July 25, 2010, at 5:58 p.m., eastern daylight time, a segment of a 30-inch-diameter pipeline (Line 6B), owned and operated by Enbridge Incorporated (Enbridge) ruptured in a wetland in Marshall, Michigan. The rupture occurred during the last stages of a planned shutdown and was not discovered or addressed for over 17 hours. During the time lapse, Enbridge twice pumped additional oil (81 percent of the total release) into Line 6B during two startups; the total release was estimated to be 843,444 gallons of crude oil. The oil saturated the surrounding wetlands and flowed into the Talmadge Creek and the Kalamazoo River. Local residents self-evacuated from their houses, and the environment was negatively affected.
So far from remembering the Marshall spill, Shamla and Enbridge are actually re-writing history in order to conveniently erase some key facts from the historical record– facts that point directly to the real causes of the spill and its severity.
This revisionism is part and parcel with all of the new measures Shamla touts as Enbridge’s response to the lessons they learned from the spill. Mainly, those measures consist of throwing a lot of money around. Don’t get us wrong, some of the measures Shamla describes seem like good things. But not one of them gets at the core of the problem. Not one of them addresses or acknowledges the principle reason (according to the NTSB) the Marshall spill was so very bad: Enbridge’s “culture of deviance” from following its own safety protocols. Prior to the Marshall spill, Enbridge had all the tools it needed to prevent the spill: detection equipment that found anomalies, control center rules that could have shut down the pipe right away. But Enbridge disregarded or ignored those things. Spending money on new equipment, putting in place new rules and protocols isn’t going to matter one little bit if Enbridge doesn’t change its culture. The former is easy; the latter is very difficult– even more difficult if you’re unwilling even to acknowledge the problem.
“We will not forget the Marshall incident,” Shamla tells Michiganders, which may be true. Unfortunately, the incident Enbridge has “memorialized,” the incident Enbridge vows not to forget appears to be a fictionalized version of the incident, only loosely based on actual events.
by Jeffrey Insko | Jul 18, 2014 |
Evidently, Enbridge still isn’t finished thumbing its nose at Brandon Township. According to the latest from ace reporter Susan Bromley at the Clarkston News, Enbridge has been disregarding a township ordinance limiting hours of construction operation. Enbridge, true to form, says that the ordinance doesn’t apply to them– a tune they’ve been playing for a very long time.
Of course, in the scheme of things– that is, compared, say, to a spill– starting up noisy construction vehicles might not seem to be a big deal. But this little incident illustrates a number of points we’ve made around here ad infinitum:
Like it would kill them to just wait until 7 am to start up their trucks. Sigh.
by Jeffrey Insko | Jun 9, 2014 |
Recently, we told you about the Enbridge blog. No, not this Enbridge blog. We mean the official blog started by Enbridge and “written,” so they say, by various Enbridge muckety-mucks. It’s great fun– if you enjoy watching corporate public relations gears churning desperately and rather transparently.
The latest post to catch our eye, posted late last week, comes from big shot– and Michigan native!– Steve Wuori, who now holds the title of “Strategic Advisor, Office of the President and CEO,” whatever that means. You might remember Wuori from a while back, when he traveled back here to Michigan to sit down with some newspaper editorial boards, telling them all sorts of ridiculous things. Wuori’s blog post is titled “The big picture: Canada’s crude-oil landscape at a glance.” On the whole, the post says very little of substance, in keeping, apparently, with the Enbridge blog’s general editorial policy. In fact, it leads with this bit of vacuousness: “there are forces at work that I believe will keep energy in the forefront of public and policymaker thinking.” When has energy ever not been in the forefront of public and policymaker thinking?
At any rate, the interesting thing about the post is what Wuori says at the end, when he boldly addresses the “opposition.” His comments reveal that, while he might be a very effective “strategic advisor” and a perfectly good company man, he doesn’t know very much (or pretends not to) about his critics and the history of his own industry. Here’s what he writes in his blog’s penultimate paragraph:
All this is occurring against an intricate societal backdrop of opposition to oil transportation infrastructure development, which operates on the thesis that it is easier to oppose transportation (and pipelines in particular) than to oppose oil production directly. The Canadian oil sands have been inaccurately labeled “tar sands” (which has a nasty ring) by opponents, who seek to forestall further development of this vast resource.
Long time readers will recognize this sort of thing: it’s the old straw man tactic Enbridge likes to employ. Typically, this maneuver is deployed knowingly and strategically in a dishonest effort to make their critics look bad. Here, we’re not so sure. We suspect that, with all of its contradictory logic, this is what Wuori really thinks– which just goes to show how much he exists inside an industry bubble. Let’s break it down a little:
It’s not really clear where Wuori gets this “thesis” about opposing transportation rather than oil production. There is certainly plenty of oil production opposition taking place in North American and all around the world- like this and this. In fact, anyone who is even moderately informed about these matters understands that one of the reasons to oppose new transportation infrastructure projects is precisely to put a halt to production. After all, if all of that oil from, say, Alberta can’t be shipped, there’s not much point in digging it up in the first place (and there may be evidence to support this theory). And in fact, Wuori contradicts himself in the very next sentence, when he says that “opponents… seek to forestall further development” of tar sands oil. Wuori’s narrow, simplistic, glib thesis reduces a complex and varied set of interests and approaches to nothing more than an assault on his own company.
Wuori’s version of the opposition is also perversely self-serving in that it allows him to portray himself and his fellow pipeline operators as embattled and mistreated. The same is true when Wuori trots out the tired, untrue industry line about the term “tar sands,” repeating the industry mantra that it is “inaccurate” and somehow cooked up by fiendish radicals who just want to make a pretty thing sound “nasty.” One hears this sort of thing from the industry all the time– even though it is plainly and demonstrably untrue. For one thing, the accuracy claim is dubious at best. Sure, bitumen is used like oil, not tar. On the other hand, it bears far more resemblance, in terms of texture and look, to tar than it does to oil. See for yourself:
If you were to show this stuff to 100 people and ask them whether it is oil or tar, what do you imagine the vast majority of those 100 people would say? Despite what the industry wants to pretend, “tar” is a very accurate term for the stuff.
In addition to the claim of inaccuracy, Wuori would have you believe that the term “tar sands” was invented by opponents to tarnish (if you’ll forgive the pun) the reputation of bitumen. In this instance, we honestly don’t know whether Wuori actually believes this or if he’s simply ignorant of the history of his own industry. Most likely it’s both. But whatever the case, here’s a little history lesson:
The term “tar sands” is not some ugly-sounding label invented by petroleum opponents in an attempt to besmirch the industry as Wuori (and his colleagues) suggests. In fact, tar sands has been used to describe the resource in Alberta for the entire twentieth century. Earlier, in fact, according to about 15 minutes of our own research. In 1897, for example, the journal Science reported on a geological survey of Canada completed in 1894. The article describes a trial boring 1000 feet in depth, seeking petroleum. The explorers found that “the tar sands proved to be somewhat thicker than was expected.” In 1900, the American Journal of Science reported on another geological survey of Canada, this one from 1899: “The borings in Northern Alberta, in attempts to reach the petroleum-bearing strata at the base of the Cretaceous, have still failed to reach the ‘tar sands,’ which it is estimated lie at a depth of about 2000 feet in the Victoria Region.” A 1921 article in another journal notes that “Canada has enormous tracts of tar sands and shales.” One could easily go on, demonstrating that the term “tar sands” has been common usage for well over 100 years. “Oil sands,” by contrast, appears not to have been widely used until about the 1940s, although it occurs earlier as well.
And it’s not as if the industry doesn’t know this. They do. For example, an entry at the Suncor Energy blog (devoted to “constructive dialogue about the tar sands”), there’s an entry titled “Oil sands history: ‘tar sands’ term coined long before it was adopted by critics” that explores some of this same history. Even the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers concedes that “the term ‘Tar Sands’ has been used by the oil industry for decades.” It wasn’t until the 1960s that the Albertan government decided that it preferred “oil sands.” And it wasn’t until the 1990s, when the Alberta Chamber of Resources convened a National Oil Sands Task force to promote tar sands development, that the industry launched a concerted public relations campaign in favor of “oil sands.” So it’s the industry that decided that “tar sands” sounds nastier and started playing this silly name game. Which is itself pretty humorous, since there’s actual research that suggests that the public thinks “oil sands” is the nastier term. Whether tar sands opponents use the term because they think it sounds worse than “oil” is a dubious claim at best. More likely, they’re just adopting common usage– a usage that goes back more than a century. Or perhaps they just don’t think they should be told how to speak or what language to use by the paid public relations euphemizers of large corporations. We can certainly understand that resistance. We’re sure as heck not going to say “oil sands” just because Steve Wuori and his industry’s army of spinmeisters think it’s a more pleasing term.
So Steve Wuori is either completely, bafflingly ignorant of this history– a history that is perfectly well known, even by his own industry colleagues– or he is willfully misleading readers of the Enbridge blog. Of course, all of this might seem like it’s of no real consequence. Why do we even bother pointing out at such length all the untruths and misinformation that comes from Enbridge? Isn’t that just standard, every day corporate behavior? That’s a vital question, we think. In a follow-up post in the next day or two we’ll take it up and try to provide an answer as to why we think it’s worth the time.
by Jeffrey Insko | Jun 6, 2014 |
Honestly, it gives us no particular pleasure to spend our time pointing out the untruths that tumble from the mouths of Enbridge p.r. hirelings. Quite the contrary. All we really want is for them– for Enbridge– to tell the truth, to be honest and forthright and transparent in the way that they say they are, in the way that their corporate values state they will be. Unfortunately, this seems to be very difficult for them.
So, to repeat, it gives us no pleasure to have to once again point out that the things Enbridge spokesperson Jennifer Smith says cannot be trusted (and more). At the same time, it’s not our fault that she continues to deal so very disingenuously with the public. The latest example of this comes from a new report in the Times of Northwest Indiana about yet another Enbridge pipeline project that will cut across a portion of northern Indiana (and Illinois), as part of Enbridge’s ever expanding tangled network of Great Lakes region pipeline projects.
According to the article, Enbridge is preparing to clear some land– some of it publicly and other parts privately owned– in Lake County to make room for their new Line 78 pipeline. This clearing will evidently include taking down quite a number of very large trees, some of them more than a hundred years old. This is understandably troubling to many of the locals and troubling to us as well (long time readers of this blog know that we are especially sensitive when it comes to the removal of trees; Enbridge, by contrast, just doesn’t care).
But even more disturbing is Jennifer Smith’s rationale for the removal of the trees. Her explanation is– to be frank– just plain b.s. From the article:
This fall, crews will start clearing a path for the new pipeline, which will run for about five miles in western Lake County. Enbridge also plans to soon start clearing land around its existing Line 62 pipeline in Dyer and Schererville, spokeswoman Jennifer Smith said. The company will remove mostly large trees, but also any brush, sheds or pools that encroach on the utility right of way because of federal regulations that require the land to be left open for maintenance and emergency response. [italics added]
And later:
Enbridge regrets trees have to come down, but is clearing the land for safety reasons and to comply with federal regulations and industry best practices, Smith said. The company is required to fly a helicopter over the pipeline 26 times a year to make sure there are no encroachments that could slow down response times in the event of an emergency.
Smith makes it sound as if Enbridge has no choice but to remove all those trees, as if Enbridge is doing it in order to comply with federal regulations. She also seems to suggest that federal regulations require Enbridge to fly a helicopter over the line 26 times a year. However, neither one of those things is true. Let’s be clear about this: there are NO federal regulations that stipulate trees cannot be in the right of way and there are NO federal regulations that require operators to fly over the right of way 26 times a year.
For clarity, we checked with one of the people who knows these regulations better than anyone: Rebecca Craven at the Pipeline Safety Trust. Rebecca pointed us to federal law 49 CFR 195.412(a):
Each operator shall, at intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but at least 26 times each calendar year, inspect the surface conditions on or adjacent to each pipeline right of way. Methods of inspection include walking, driving, flying, or other appropriate means of traversing the right of way.
You see: operators DON’T have to inspect surface conditions by flying over; there are plenty of other ways to traverse the right of way, like walking or driving. You will also notice that there is not a word about trees in the right of way. In most cases, that is a matter addressed in easement agreements, many of which, we are quite certain, do NOT prohibit trees and other vegetation in the right of way. Ours didn’t, for example, even though we were told on numerous occasions that trees are not allowed in the right of way.
Of course, if we’re being generous, it is possible the reporter of the story somehow got Jennifer Smith’s remarks wrong– though we doubt it. It’s also possible that Jennifer Smith meant to say that these are not actually matters of federal regulation, but matters of “industry best practices.” But even in that case, “best” really only means “best for the industry,” not for landowners and communities. Further, what “best” actually means in matters like this– flyovers and trees– is “easiest” for the operator (that is, for Enbridge). It’s easier for Enbridge to work in a right of way that’s been decimated and cleared of trees. It’s easier for Enbridge to fly over a right of way in a helicopter than it is to inspect it on foot. Whether those things are “best” is another question altogether. Whether they are “required,” by contrast, is not in question at all. They are absolutely not required.
The bottom line: once again Jennifer Smith and Enbridge are not telling the good citizens of Indiana the truth.
by Jeffrey Insko | May 30, 2014 |
Earlier this month Enbridge announced that they were ready to begin restoration work on the segment of line 6B between Griffith, Indiana, and Stockbridge, Michigan. That’s (semi) good news for all those landowners on Phase Two. But there’s just one problem: Enbridge hasn’t completed restoration work on Phase One. We’ve been hearing from some of our fellow landowners who are wondering what’s going on. We’ve been wondering the same thing ourselves, since this is currently what our property looks like. Trust us, that black silt fence is not of our own design and making.
Of course, nobody from Enbridge has taken any steps whatsoever to inform us or our fellow landowners of when, if ever, anyone from Enbridge will return to complete the job. Tired of waiting– and, frankly, increasingly concerned about all the troubles that barren swath of land is causing, from weeds to water runoff– we called our land agent yesterday to see if we could get some answers. Here’s how that phone call went (note: not an exact transcript, but very close):
Us: What can you tell us about when crews will be back to restore our property.
Agent: Well, I heard they were going to start restoration in June, but I don’t know where they’ll start or when they’ll get to you.
Us: What do you mean, “you heard”? Don’t you know?
Agent: Well, it’s what I heard.
Us: Heard from whom?
Agent: Well, that’s what Enbridge says.
Us: Who at Enbridge said that?
Agent: Well, I don’t know. The higher ups. I heard it from talking to construction crews.
Us: Construction crews? Wait. You’re telling me that Enbridge doesn’t communicate with you, the people who are supposed to communicate with landowners?
Agent: Well, I just heard they were going to start restoration in June, but I don’t know where they’ll start or when they’ll get to you.
So, after a 10 minute conversation, we knew no more than we did before we called. And that’s because Enbridge’s land agents, the people whose job it is to keep landowners informed, don’t seem to know anything and therefore cannot keep landowners informed. And that appears to be because Enbridge, bafflingly, doesn’t tell them anything. It is the most perverse system imaginable. We can only assume that Enbridge supervisors in charge of land agents are either utterly incompetent or simply hostile to landowners, the people with whom their office is supposed to cultivate productive relations. Beyond those possibilities, we have no idea what is to account for these persistent problems and, honestly, we’re tired of speculating. What we do know, however, is that those of us on Phase One have been dealing with this kind of poor communication and indifference from Enbridge for more than two full years now. And there appears to be no real end in sight.
by Jeffrey Insko | May 2, 2014 |
If recent reports are accurate– and we have no reason to doubt that they are– the brand new Line 6B is up and running between Griffith, Indiana and Ortonville, Michigan, pumping ever-greater volumes of diluted bitumen across the region. This is great news for Enbridge and their customers; more profits for everybody!
Landowners on the other hand? Well, news is not so good for them. As we pointed out a few weeks ago, they are rather low on Enbridge’s list of priorities. We, for example, have been trying to get some basic information about perfectly legitimate matters regarding restoration and equitability— but we’ve been put off. Other landowners are in a similar holding pattern, wondering when they can expect to see their properties restored and their other concerns addressed. But landowners don’t know whom to call and Enbridge isn’t making any effort whatsoever to communicate with us. Clearly, Enbridge has more “important” matters to attend to.
Here’s just one illustration of Enbridge’s careless, neglectful attitude toward landowners. Just as it is through ours, oil is now flowing through our friend Dave Gallagher’s property. Enbridge was in a mighty rush last fall to make sure that happened. But the result of that haste, evidently, is a deeply insulting disregard for Dave’s property. Here’s how Enbridge has left it: not just unrestored, but littered with trash and refuse. We know Dave’s property is not the only one that’s been left in such disarray. If you’ve got pictures of your own that you’d like to share, please contact us. We’d be happy to document your discontent as well.
Not exactly our idea of neighborly.
by Jeffrey Insko | Apr 21, 2014 |
Remember how Enbridge says they treat landowners fairly and consistently? Well, we’ve got a story for you.
This is a very important post, one we’ve had in our back pockets for a while as we’ve tried, with no success and no small amount of frustration, to gather some reliable information about the matter. As many of you know, a longstanding concern for landowners on Line 6B has been the widely disparate treatment– from land agent responsiveness to compensation– landowners have received from Enbridge, despite their claims to the contrary. The subject of this post is a perfect illustration of this inconsistent treatment.
The whole thing is hazy and complicated. But the bottom line here is this: if you are a Line 6B landowner, especially along Phase One, Enbridge might owe you some money. As with most things Enbridge-related, it’s all a little convoluted, so we’ll provide both a short version and a long version. At the end, we also have some contact information in case you’d like to contact Enbridge to inquire about this matter– which we encourage you to do.
Short Version
If you are on Phase One and were NOT taken to court in condemnation proceedings, you probably settled with Enbridge in 2012. However, there is a good chance that Enbridge should have come back to you at some point to make an additional payment based on a recalculation of the values you were originally paid. How do you know? Well, you’ll have to ask Enbridge. But one indication is this: did a land agent come back to you in 2013 and write you a check and give you a receipt? Did you receive a 1099 tax form from Enbridge this year for filing your 2013 tax forms? If not, you might be owed some money.
Long Version
Now here’s the more detailed explanation of all of this. Please bear with us while we try to explain it, also bearing in mind that we are neither accountants nor attorneys. We’ll try to be as accurate as we can and hope that we don’t make any major mistakes. Again, it is our understanding that all of this pertains primarily, perhaps only, to Phase One landowners.
When you settled with Enbridge– again, assuming you did not go to court–you most likely received compensation, in the form of a check from Enbridge, for three things: (1) use of the existing easement (what was probably called an “Additional Pipeline Receipt”), (2) for the use of Temporary Work Space and/or Additional Temporary Work Space (TWS and ATWS), and (3) compensation for damages, including the value of trees (or timber) that were removed from your property. The amounts you were paid for the first two of those items were based on fixed values determined by Enbridge. Compensation for damages was determined by your negotiations with a land agent.
Now, the way in which those fixed values (for the easement and TWS) were determined by Enbridge has been in quite a bit of flux from the beginning of this whole project. For instance, when we were first approached, the per acre value that Enbridge was using to calculate the additional pipeline receipt was $6500 per acre. Some time later, we were told that that value had been increased (as if by magic) to $30,000 per acre. Then we learned that our neighbors were receiving even more per acre than we were for virtually identical properties. We’ve heard stories along the line of different values as well, some higher, some lower (what were you paid per acre, we wonder?). These various values have always seemed to us almost completely arbitrary– and certainly not consistent. In fact, during condemnation hearings in Livingston County, Enbridge all but admitted that they had no real basis for determining those values; it’s as if they were pulling numbers out of thin air.
As for the TWS, Enbridge calculated those payments according to the same values, but paid landowners 30% of that value. So, for instance, if they used 1 acre of TWS, valued at $35k/per acre, they would have paid you $10,500 (that’s 30 percent of 35K).
Finally, Enbridge may have paid you for trees. Trees are even more complicated and arbitrary. In some cases, Enbridge simply paid “timber value” for trees. But in many other cases, the value paid for trees was a matter of negotiation– somewhere between “worthless” (to Enbridge) and “invaluable” (to the landowner).
Now, as near as we can piece this together, here is what happened next (again, we’re being as scrupulously accurate as we can be based on information provided to us by various sources): at some point during the condemnation hearings, Enbridge agreed to pay landowners more than the amounts as described above. Specifically, they agreed to pay 125% of the valuation for the additional pipeline receipt, 50% (not 30%) of the per acre value for TWS, and 150% of the timber valuation. It is our understanding that, at the point, Enbridge decided that all landowners would be similarly compensated– both those who had not yet settled and those who had already been paid.
So here’s what all of this would look like. To make things simple, we’ll use the simplest values possible. (Please note that these numbers are purely fictional and unusually high; there is probably no one with a full acre of easement or TWS.) Let’s say Enbridge had 1 acre of easement on Joe and Jane Jenkins’ property, used 1 acre of TWS, and paid them $1000 for trees (timber). Here’s what the Jenkinses would have received– say, in the summer or fall of 2012) based on those original values:
$35,000 (for additional pipeline) + $10,500 (for TWS) + $1000 (for timber)= $46,500
However, after those condemnation hearings, Enbridge should have come back to the Jenkinses to pay them for the increases stated above. That would look like this:
125% of additional pipeline= $43,750
50% of TWS= $17,500
150% of timber= $1500
Total= $62,750
Now, subtract from that the $46,500 you were already paid and the Jenkinses should have received a check from Enbridge– probably by surprise some time last year– for $19,250.
Again, based on what we were told by our land agent, ALL landowners were to be compensated according to these rates. If you are on Phase Two, these adjusted/increased rates should have been built into your original payments. Check your receipt: were you paid 50% of the per acre value for TWS? By contrast, many Phase One landowners– those who were paid BEFORE these increases– should have received a surprise visit from a land agent to pay out the difference.
However, we know for certain this has not taken place. We know that some people in our neighborhood (we’re on Phase One) have been paid this difference and some have not. Why? We have no clue whatsoever. Partly, it may be because Enbridge has been flying by the seat of its pants since the beginning of this project. More likely, it’s because Enbridge’s land agents are, by turns, overworked, uncaring, hapless, or just not very well trained or informed by Enbridge’s not-terribly-efficient-or-effective land agent supervisors.
This is a matter of basic fairness and decency. We encourage you to contact your land agent– if, that is, you have any idea who your land agent currently is– to find out whether you are due this additional compensation. If we are able to learn anything more about this– though, honestly, we don’t know who is in charge or who might be willing to respond to our inquiries– we will certainly let you know. In the meantime, if you don’t know who your land agent is currently, you can try this number listed on Enbridge’s website for Line 6B landowners:
866-410-4356
Or, if you prefer email, you can try this address:
Line6BPhase2@enbridge.com
by Jeffrey Insko | Apr 18, 2014 |
We’re continuing our tardy news roundup, which we started yesterday. There, we called your attention to some recent news articles form Macomb County describing some residents’ concerns about Enbridge’s work on Phase Two, which is about to kick into high gear in the eastern part of the state.
This morning, another local article appeared, describing a recent open house hosted by Enbridge in Washington Township. We will say this much: it’s good to see that Enbridge is reaching out to residents to some degree. They certainly did no such thing in our part of the state prior to construction on Phase One. So this sounds like an improvement.
Having said that, we suspect that the Enbridge officials there didn’t spend much time explaining to landowners the realities of how the work will proceed: the poor communications they’ll likely get from Enbridge land agents, the noise and the mess and the mistakes they’ll have to endure, the need to remain vigilant so that construction agreement violations don’t go unnoticed and unrectified, and much more. Instead, Enbridge surely painted a very rosy picture, one that doesn’t bear much resemblance to actuality.
What makes us say this? Well, not just experience– though that experience speaks volumes, we think. Also, it’s because of a couple of the remarks of Enbridge spokesperson Jennifer Smith. First, Smith digs up this old chestnut:
“Overwhelmingly a good majority of landowners are understanding and we have good relationships with them,” she said. “But there is always going to be concern.”
Regular readers of this blog may recall the time that Jason Manshum said the same thing (you’ve got to hand this much to Enbridge, they are disciplined about staying “on message”). And when he did, we wrote to him asking for some actual evidence to back up that claim– but that was back when he was not replying to our emails. Another time, we ourselves actually tried to generate some data on this question, but concluded that it’s almost impossible to really know. The point here is that (a) Jennifer Smith, no more than Jason Manshum or Tom Hodge, really doesn’t know whether “a good majority of landowners are understanding.” This is just a pleasing story Enbridge likes to tell itself and the public; and (b) this odd talking point makes it seem as if, like a political candidate running for office, Enbridge only cares about winning over a simple majority. Evidently, when it comes to landowner satisfaction, they like to set the bar extremely low.
The other troubling remark from Jennifer Smith– well, not so much troubling as rather astonishing in its complete disregard for facts– is this:
Smith said safety is the main concern for those in and around the project, and for workers on the project itself. She said Enbridge has been sensitive to ordinances and regulations every step along the way.
We won’t quarrel with the point about safety (although we could). But the second point, about Enbridge’s sensitivity to local ordinances and regulations? Well, that is simply a clear, plain, demonstrable untruth. In fact, it’s so untrue, that Matthew Fahr, the reporter on the story, or his editor ought to issue a correction. We’ve spent the better part of two years discussing Enbridge’s disregard for and evasions of local ordinances, laws, and regulations. In fact, in our post just yesterday, Brandon Township Supervisor Kathy Thurman herself provided a very clear example of how Enbridge was absolutely NOT “sensitive” to one of Brandon’s ordinances:
“There have been a lot of concerns,” she said. “There have been some issues. We ended up shutting them down at one point, because they were in violation of a woodlands agreement.”
We think that most people will agree that “in violation of” is very different from, perhaps even the opposite of, “sensitive to.” So either Jennifer Smith simply has no idea what happened in, say, Brandon and Howell Townships or– and we hope this isn’t the case, because it would be much, much worse– she DOES know and is therefore willfully and deliberately misleading people in a shameless attempt to pacify them. In either case, we are sad to say that the good people of Washington Township were clearly not always accurately informed. So while it’s good that Enbridge is holding these open houses, they still appear to have plenty of work to do to ensure that those open houses are genuinely and honestly informative– and not just spin sessions.
