by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 15, 2012 |
Today, we’ve been dissecting the letter Enbridge published– well, the ad they paid for– in yesterday’s Detroit Free Press. In our last post, we focused on just one sentence, the (perhaps purposefully) opaque one where Vice President for Major Projects Execution Mark Sitek says, “There has been much discussion involving information from various sources that are not necessarily familiar with the pipeline industry or our projects, so over the next four weeks we will use space in this newspaper to share project updates and to address some of these questions.”
Now let’s finish that paragraph. Here it is in full: (more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 15, 2012 |
We haven’t finished with our review and commentary of the Michigan Townships Association amicus filing in the federal lawsuit initiated by POLAR. We’ll return to that soon. But we’re taking time away from that to remark upon the extraordinary ad, in the form of a letter to “neighbors,” published by Enbridge in yesterday’s Free Press. In our first post, we noted how it’s more than a little strange that Enbridge has chose to open up lines of communication more than a year after they first filed for MPSC approval of the project.
This, our second installment on the letter signed by Vice President for Major Projects Execution Mark Sitek, will focus on just one sentence. It’s our favorite one in the whole letter. Sitek says:
(more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 15, 2012 |
All of a sudden, Enbridge wants to share information.
A full page ad appeared in yesterday’s Detroit Free Press featuring a letter by Enbridge Vice President Mark Sitek. And it’s a doozy. In fact, the letter is so artfully constructed, so disingenuous, so maddening, that it’s going to take us multiple posts to contend with it. We’re going to go paragraph by paragraph, so hang on. (more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 9, 2012 |
One of the favored stock utterances of Enbridge representatives, one we’ve heard countless times over the past few months, is “we want to be a good neighbor.” Project Manager Tom Hodge said this repeatedly to the Brandon Township trustees at their “workshop” last month–as his fellow Enbridge reps, including three spokespersons and attorney Michael Ashton, all nodded their heads in agreement. And while on the whole, we found Hodge more credible than most of the Enbridge representatives we’ve encountered, we were skeptical of that hollow phrase. Indeed, given the chance to comment at the end of the meeting, we said as much, pointing out that Enbridge didn’t come to that meeting in a spirit of cooperation; they only agreed to the meeting reluctantly and were there only to placate, not to comply or even compromise. That doesn’t strike us as all that neighborly. (more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 3, 2012 |
In a post this morning we linked to another fine report by David Hasemyer at Inside Climate News. The crack team of journalists over there has been doing terrific– and invaluable– work on Enbridge and related matters for months. At the end of our post, we repeated something we’ve said often here and that we’ve heard plenty of others say as well: it didn’t have to be this way. Had Enbridge treated landowners fairly and respectfully, truthfully and consistently, with honesty and dignity they would not be facing the sort of opposition they’re facing now, a level of citizen resistance that Carl Weimer, Executive Director of the Pipeline Safety Trust, calls “extraordinary.” Speaking personally, had Enbridge dealt honestly, fairly, and respectfully with us, there would be no Line 6B Citizens’ Blog nor any of the activity that has gone along with it. If, in fact, we’ve become “activists,” we are activists of Enbridge’s own making.
All of which raises a question that continually gnaws at us: why? Why does Enbridge repeatedly act in ways that alienate stakeholders? Why behave so antagonistically? So disingenuously? So litigiously? Why try to cut corners and try to get away with things? After all, everybody knows that Enbridge is ultimately going to get their replacement pipeline; that’s never been in question. But why not just do it right and save everybody the grief, the aggravation, and (in Ken Weathers’ phrase) “the personal anxiety they have been causing people”? (more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 28, 2012 |
Here at the Line 6B Citizens’ Blog, we pride ourselves on being calm, rational, and reasonable– even though this is a very emotional issue. We’re talking about disruptions to people’s homes and lives here, after all. But every once in a while, something gets us hopping mad. This morning, that something is Christopher Behnan’s latest story in the Livingston County Daily Press & Argus.
What’s got us worked up and fuming? Well, it’s not just that we empathize with the Nash family (although we certainly do; the clock is ticking on many of our beloved trees as well). And it’s not Behnam’s reporting, which we’ve quibbled with a bit in the past (in fact, despite those quibbles, we’re quite grateful that he has stayed on the story– unlike, say, the hapless Oakland Press). No. We’re all on fire about the remarks of Enbridge spokesman Jason Manshum.
(more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 27, 2012 |
We thought we were done with our series on Enbridge spokesman Larry Springer’s outrageous statement a couple of weeks back. You remember: Springer insisted that Enbridge’s actions show that they deal openly and honestly with stakeholders, despite what those pesky “special interest groups” and their compatriots in the media who just want to stir up controversy would have you believe.
We took exception with that statement (again and again). We think we made our point quite clearly (and factually). We were prepared to give it a rest for a while.
But then examples of not-so-open and not-so-honest dealings by Enbridge just keep coming. Here’s a recent one: (more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 24, 2012 |
Regular readers of this blog know that our concerns about the way Enbridge conducts its business are many and varied. But if we had to state our objections to the Line 6B project in just one sentence, it would be this:
Enbridge has run roughshod over the citizens of the state of Michigan and our state elected officials have stood by idly and allowed it to happen.
Obviously, there’s much to elaborate upon here– and that’s what we’ve been trying to do for the past three months or so. But that sentence, we think, more or less sums it all up. What makes it all worse, of course, is that Enbridge has behaved this way and our elected officials have let them behave this way in the wake of Marshall. We continue to find it truly astonishing after such a terrible betrayal of the public trust as the Marshall spill– which, we repeat yet again, the NTSB has shown was NOT just an accident–that Enbridge would not do everything possible to earn back that trust and that our elected officials would not be firm and vigilant in making sure that Enbridge act responsibly. Yet Enbridge has had its way. Enbridge has been allowed to have its way.
Which brings us to our most recent example: Brandon Township’s Woodlands Preservation ordinance. (more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 21, 2012 |
An important blog entry from the always razor-sharp Anthony Swift at the National Resources Defense Council. Swift calls our attention to more essential investigative work at Inside Climate News, this time by Lisa Song (whose work we’ve praised before). From Swift:
Enbridge’s Kalamazoo tar sands spill presents another case undercutting industry’s claims about pipeline safety and leak detection. As the InsideClimate piece notes, “Just 10 days before the accident, Enbridge Inc., which operates the Michigan pipeline, told federal regulators it could remotely detect and shut down a rupture in eight minutes. But when the line burst open, it took Enbridge 17 hours to confirm the spill.”
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 19, 2012 |
Our interrogation of Enbridge spokesman Larry Springer’s astonishing statement to journalist David Hasemyer last week keeps getting interrupted: first by the recent Brandon Township “workshop” with Enbridge and then today by some good news from the Oakland County Circuit Court. If you missed the first two parts of our discussion of Hasemyer’s excellent article and Springer’s statement, you can read them here (and here). This morning, we return to that series.
First, let’s revisit what Springer actually said about people like us (and perhaps you), ordinary citizens who have reasonable and perfectly understandable concerns about the Line 6B project:
“While there has been recent publicity and activity by special interest groups, most who live and work along the pipeline are not opposed to Enbridge’s plans to replace Line 6B,” he said. “While the media may choose to focus on controversial situations, Enbridge’s actions show that we deal openly and honestly with all stakeholders, including landowners and local governments.”
I have to confess: part of me still can’t believe he said this. But he did. Today, we will explore the last part of his statement. And we’ll do it simply. We’ll just gather together some actual examples of actual Enbridge actions and see whether those actions do, in fact, show that Enbridge “deal[s] openly and honestly with all stakeholders.” (more…)
