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 | Oct 4, 2014 |
There’s been a lot of news about ET Rover this week, owing to an unfortunate incident in which their survey crews entered or tried to enter the properties of some landowners without permission, in one case sparking a potentially dangerous confrontation. It’s unfortunate that it’s come to this, though it was also probably inevitable. ET Rover’s ham-handed dealings with landowners have done nothing but fuel the understandable frustration and anger of landowners. We hate to say “we told you so,” but several months ago, we told ET Rover that the industry’s thoughtless routine ways of communicating with landowners were not going to go over well here in southeast Michigan. They clearly did not listen to us.
At the center of this week’s story, however, is a legal question that we’ve addressed, though only briefly, before. ET Rover is claiming that they have the right under Michigan Law to enter private property to conduct surveys without landowner permission. Here is spokesperson Vicki Granado just this week:
“We do have, under Michigan Compiled Law, the right to enter, knock on the door and, if the landowner isn’t home and we’re following specs, we do have the right to enter,” ET Rover spokeswoman Vicki Granado said. “Again, if the landowner tells us that they don’t want us surveying (we won’t survey).”
And here is Granado in a different article this week:
“We have consulted with many attorneys and many sided with Rover in this particular process,” said Granado. “We have the right to conduct surveys and have given proper notification to landowners we are needing to survey. We would much rather do it in cooperation, that is our goal, but we do have permission from the state. They are not trespassing.”
Setting aside the legal question for a moment, Granado’s comments strike us as a bit contradictory. In the first one, she indicates that Rover won’t survey if the landowner does not give permission– even though this week’s incidents prove that statement not to be true. In the second remark, Granado seems to suggest the opposite: that ET Rover is going to conduct surveys even if landowners do not cooperate. Regardless of the legalities, we have to say that we think that is very bad policy. That sort of aggression and disrespect for property rights is only going to inflame landowners. In fact, even the natural gas industry’s main trade organization agrees with us on this point. The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) recommends avoiding trespass without landowner authority: “Trespassing by pipeline or contractor personnel should be avoided; approval by the landowner or duly authorized state agency of court is required for access to the right-of-way.” (See page 13 of this document)
So ET Rover appears to be violating their own industry standards. But are they violating the law?
In letters to landowners and comments to the press, ET Rover cites Michigan Compiled Law 213.54(3) as granting the company the right to survey without landowner permission. The law they point to is the state’s Uniform Condemnation Procedures Act (UCPA), passed in 1890, which stipulates “procedures for the condemnation, acquisition, or exercise of eminent domain of real or personal property by public agencies or private agencies; to provide for an agency’s entry upon land for certain purposes; to provide for damages; to prescribe remedies; and to repeal certain acts and parts of acts.”
The section of the law that Rover cites might, at first glance, appear to support ET Rover’s position. Here’s part of what 213.54(3) says (this is the part ET Rover thinks applies to them):
(3) An agency or an agent or employee of an agency may enter upon property before filing an action for the purpose of making surveys, measurements, examinations, tests, soundings, and borings; taking photographs or samplings; appraising the property; conducting an environmental inspection; conducting archaeological studies pursuant to section 106 of title I of the national historic preservation act, Public Law 89-665, 16 U.S.C. 470f; or determining whether the property is suitable to take for public purposes. The entry may be made upon reasonable notice to the owner and at reasonable hours.
There’s a serious problem with Rover’s citation of this section of the UCPA. As Atlas Township attorney David Lattie points out, ET Rover is ignoring another part of the law, 213.54(4), which says this:
(4) If reasonable efforts to enter under subsection (3) have been obstructed or denied, the agency may commence a civil action in the circuit court in the county in which the property or any part of the property is located for an order permitting entry. The complaint shall state the facts making the entry necessary, the date on which entry is sought, and the duration and the method proposed for protecting the defendant against damage.
So it would appear that the best case scenario here, for ET Rover, is that if they’re right and Michigan law does give them permission to survey, they can ONLY do so after first obtaining a court order. ET Rover has NOT received any court orders.
However, theres’ an even bigger problem here, one that even Atlas Township attorney David Lattie overlooks. Both Lattie and ET Rover seem to take for granted the idea that ET Rover qualifies as the sort of “agency” described in the statute above. However, they do not, which means that the very law ET Rover cites does not apply to their activities at all. Here’s why:
The first section of the Act (213.51), provides a list of “definitions” of the key terms used in the Act. One of them, of course, is “agency”– since it is an “agency” to which the part of the law ET Rover cites applies. The definition of an “agency” according to the Act is as follows:
(c) “Agency” means a public agency or private agency.
Because that definition isn’t terribly helpful, the terms “public agency” and “private agency” are also defined. And since ET Rover is obviously not a public agency, we’ll just give you the definition of a private one:
(h) “Private agency” means a person, partnership, association, corporation, or entity, other than a public agency, authorized by law to condemn property.
The important part here is “authorized by law to condemn property.” That means having the legal right of eminent domain (condemnation is the legal term for exercising eminent domain). ET Rover– this is an unassailable fact– does NOT have the legal right of eminent domain. They have NOT been “authorized by law to condemn property.” That authorization is what the FERC application process is for. If FERC approves ET Rover’s application– an application that Rover has not even filed yet— then and only then will ET Rover be “authorized by law to condemn property.”
What that means, then, is that ET Rover clearly– according to the plain language of the very statute they cite– does not meet the definition of a “private” agency (and hence an “agency.”) So while it is true that a private agency can get a court order to survey your property without your permission, ET Rover cannot do so because– again– they are NOT a private agency according to the law.
So ET Rover is either just plain wrong or they are willfully distorting the law for their own purposes. Of course, we can understand why they might think they qualify as a “private agency,” since in their mind receiving approval from FERC (and hence being granted the power of eminent domain) is a foregone conclusion. That’s how oil and gas companies think–and with good reason, given our industry-friendly regulatory agencies. It’s why Enbridge ran around invoking the power of eminent domain in front of Line 6B landowners– they did so with us– before they were even given that power by the MPSC. Here, ET Rover seems to be doing the same thing.
Of course, we’re not attorneys (though we sometimes play one on this blog). Sooner or later, some smart lawyer (we know who we’d like that person to be!) is going to have to make some version of the argument we’ve made above in front of a judge somewhere in order to bring some kind of clarity to this legal matter. Perhaps a township attorney like David Lattie will do it. But if he does, we hope he does not concede the crucial point– not about whether the UCPA gives ET Rover the right to survey that they claim, but whether the UCPA applies to ET Rover in the first place. We think it’s plain that it does not.
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 1, 2014 |
Today in the comments section of one of our posts, a reader reports that ET Rover is or will soon begin making cash offers to landowners to acquire easements from them. We cannot verify this. But it’s not at all hard to believe. Pipeline companies acquire easement rights well before projects are approved all the time. In fact, it serves the pipeline companies quite well because– among other things– it lets them say to regulatory agencies that landowners approve of the project. Just look at how many easements we’ve already acquired!
It’s also a way for pipeline companies to take advantage of landowners, who may not really know what they are getting into. And let’s be honest, when someone says pleasing-sounding things to you and waves a check in front of your face, it’s awfully tempting. But this is why it is so very important that landowners inform themselves. To help with that education process, we recently posted some “basics” that landowners need to know about ET Rover along with some links to valuable resources. Please visit that post and those links. In it, we also provided some advice, based on experience, that we’re going to reproduce below.
We’ll just preface this advice by saying that land agents can sound persuasive. They can even be likable. You will want to believe them. But you really shouldn’t. The truth is that you simply cannot trust them. Their job is just to get you to sign an easement. Despite what they will tell you, they don’t really care very much about you or your property or your concerns– none of that is what gets them paid. Therefore, you should be very skeptical of everything they tell you, especially as it relates to time. There is NO rush for anyone to sign any agreements. ET Rover has not even filed an application with FERC yet. Approval, if the project is approved, is probably two years away. Even if you believe the project will ultimately be approved, it is important to understand that there is NO advantage to signing early. In fact, the opposite might very well be the case. Do NOT be pressured into entering into an easement agreement until you have a full command of the facts and implications of that agreement and are completely and totally certain that you are not being taken advantage of in any way. We beg you!
That said, here is the substance of our advice from the earlier post:
- 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. There 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.
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.
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 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 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 11, 2014 |
On Friday night we attended a meeting at Groveland Township Hall led by our friend Jeff Axt. Supervisor Bob DePalma invited Jeff to reprise the presentation he’s given in Brandon and Rose Townships– to large crowds we’re told. There weren’t a lot of people in attendance last night (owing to a combination of short notice and a nice Friday evening), but those who were there– including, it appears, Supervisor DePalma had serious misgivings about the project and seemed energized by Jeff’s excellent presentation to let their opposition be known to FERC. That’s good news.
Jeff Axt, the “Brandon Brawler”
Even better news, DePalma appeared to indicate that the Groveland Board of Trustees will join Brandon and Rose in passing a formal resolution opposing ET Rover’s proposed route. This is, in our view, a major step: that means three townships– that’s nearly half the Oakland County route–will have expressed official opposition to Rover. And we expect more will follow. The will, the preferences, and the positions of the citizens of Oakland County is becoming loud and clear: ET Rover is not needed, the proposed route is wrong and poses too much danger to sensitive natural resources, and we won’t sit by and allow yet another company to take private property for their own gain with very little if any benefit to Michigan and its citizens. We’re very pleased to see township supervisors stepping up and showing leadership on this matter.
Next up, Jeff will give this presentation to Oxford Township on August 27 at 6:30p at the Oxford Veterans Memorial Civic Center: 28 North Washington Street in Oxford. Mark your calendars!
It would be even better to have more townships on board. For that reason, we urge you to contact your own township supervisor and urge them to take similar action. Invite them to this blog. Encourage them to invite Jeff to give his presentation. Demand that they respond to the concerns of their constituents.
In the meantime, it is very important that, in addition to the statements made by townships, that a large number of individual citizens write to FERC and make their opposition to the ET Rover project and route known. We urge you to submit a comment, explaining that this pipeline is NOT a public necessity and that it poses too many dangers to Oakland County’s residents and natural resources. Below are instructions on how to do file a comment on ET Rover with FERC. Please take some time to do so:
Go to the FERC eComment website.
Click on the eComment button, which takes you to an authorization page.
Enter your name and email address, and type in the “authorization” letters / numbers that appear.
Click on authorize.
FERC will send you an email. Click on the link in the email.
You should be taken to a page on the FERC website with your name and email filled in.
In the field for “Enter Docket Number” type PF14-14 (no spaces)
Click on the Search button.
Click on the blue cross in the far right column under the heading labelled “Select”
Enter up to 6000 characters in the box for editing a comment.
You’re probably better off to have written your comment before hand. Then, you can just copy and paste it into this box.
Click on Send Comment
You can also subscribe to the docket, which allows you to get notices of other people’s comments, which you can read. Or, if you’d just like to read the comments (you can get an idea of what to include in your own comment), just click here. Then enter in the Docket Number PF14-14 and hit “submit.” You should get a list of all the comments that have been submitted.
