Way back at the beginning of October, we submitted an op-ed piece to Doug Ross at the Northwest Times of Indiana. The editorial board obviously decided against running it. And, evidently, they didn’t bother to read a word of what we’ve been documenting on this blog all these months. What leads us to that conclusion? Why, this simplistic, credulous, ill-informed op-ed by that same Doug Ross.
You can bet we’ll have some things to say about it (when time allows).
There’s an important article this morning in Inside Climate News on the state of Line 6B affairs in Indiana. David Hasmeyer and Lisa Song, not surprisingly, continue to do outstanding work– as they have for months (and months). You might be flummoxed, for example, to learn that there Indiana has no regulatory body to oversee oil pipelines in their state (and we thought Michigan, with the weak and hapless Public Service Commission, was bad!). You will also get to read the remarks of our old friend Larry Springer (yes, that’s the guy who snubbed us!), who talks about how Line 6B will exceed certain federal regulations (a reminder that we still need to revisit that matter in detail; we will!). And, as always, our friend Nate Pavlovic of Save the Dunes brings it.
And finally, you might be as shocked– shocked!– as we were at the remarks of some local emergency manners down there in Indiana, who appear to trust Enbridge implicitly. We can’t decide whether they’re naive, ignorant, overconfident or all of the above. What we can tell you is that they don’t inspire much confidence. And we can all but guarantee they haven’t read the NTSB report on Marshall. Get a load of this:
Emergency managers in three of the Indiana counties the pipeline will cross told InsideClimate News they are satisfied with the company’s emergency response plans for the current 6B and believe the new pipeline will be safe. Although they haven’t been provided response plans tailored specifically for the unique conditions a dilbit spill would create, they said they have universal procedures that can cover a multitude of scenarios.
“You have to ask yourself the question: ‘Is it [a spill] going to happen?'” said Russell Shirley, director of the Department of Emergency Management in Porter County. “Anything is possible, but it is probable?
“I don’t think it’s probable.”
The emergency managers said they get most of their information from an annual meeting held by about two-dozen pipeline companies, including Enbridge. The meeting satisfies a federal requirement that pipeline operators make representatives available to local officials.
Shirley said he hasn’t seen Enbridge’s response plan, hasn’t met with an Enbridge representative and has never engaged in any drills with Enbridge. But he said his 20-member hazmat team could quickly confront a spill and that he could call 40 additional hazmat responders from adjoining counties.
Jeff Hamilton, director of LaPorte County’s hazmat department, said that outside of the annual meeting, he has only sporadic contact with Enbridge, although a company liaison is always available for calls.
The Northwest Times of Indiana reports this morning that Enbridge won’t break ground on phase two of the project until this summer, pending IDEM approval. The reason for the delay? Citizens advocacy and the fantastic work of our friends at Save the Dunes and other organizations. At least that’s what Tom Hodge says:
Hodge said he believes the project would have remained on schedule for a year-end completion “if there hadn’t been any voices of public opposition raised,” pushing the IDEM public hearing process.
Just one little note for Tom Hodge (we hope he’s reading): we really wish that you and your Enbridge colleagues would stop referring to the raising of legitimate concerns, the reasonable calls for caution, and the asking of questions as “opposition.” As the article puts it,
a coalition of environmental groups issued a joint statement of concern about the project, urging the state to take extra steps to ensure Lake Michigan and its tributaries will not be compromised by the project or a breach of the pipeline.
A “statement” of concern asking for reasonable safeguards and safety measures is not “opposition.”
Anyway, it appears (or so we hope) that IDEM is taking citizen concerns seriously and plans to deliberate carefully before issuing permits. We applaud them for their prudence.
Okay, well, we aren’t quite as back as we thought we were. Turns out, there were a few more end-of-the-semester duties to deal with this week and then a bit of holiday travels. We’re back in the the land of our childhood and can steal some time to do a bit of catching up. There are all the pictures and videos of the past week’s construction activities to share and there’s a semi-positive tale to tell. In addition to that, we (perhaps like you) received Enbridge’s latest construction newsletter and were amused to see our old pal “Dr. Michael Milan” smiling up at us from the glossy page; as you can imagine, we’ve got some things to say about that.
In the meantime, there are some interesting news articles to share if you haven’t seem them yet. Down in Indiana, the Department of Environmental Management held a hearing last week on the Line 6B project. The hearing was requested by our friends at Save the Dunes, along with the Hoosier Environmental Council, and the Porter County Chapter of the Izaak Walton League. From what we’ve heard (we were unable to attend, shackled to a desk by student writing!), the meeting went well and the speakers, nearly a dozen of them, raised a number of important questions eloquently. Best of all, the meeting has gotten an excellent amount of newspaper coverage. (and more and more). The groups put together a joint statement that smartly describes a number of reasonable measures that can be taken on the project to ensure safety and environmental protection. We will, of course, be following this story very closely.
Also last week, Enbridge reps were down in Indiana making nice with the good people of Hobart. Somehow, they managed to garner this astonishingly favorable coverage. Don’t get us wrong, we’re very happy that Jack Schwerin was able to get Thomas Hodge out to our property and that Hobart Mayor Brian Snedecor is so confident than Enbridge really does “care about the community.” But we hope they don’t become complacent. They may yet have cause to revise their assessment of Enbridge’s behavior (though we hope not).
In national news, we were struck by a referendum recently called for by the forward-looking citizens of Burlington, Vermont. They’re not too keen on the idea of Enbridge shipping more dilbit through their backyard, so they decided– not unlike the brave leaders in Brandon Township– to take action. We love it when local municipalities step up, though unfortunately, as we’ve learned here in Michigan, they’re being forced to do so by torpid, unimaginative state and national officials. At any rate, the Burlington action could be a model for others (including us here in Michigan!).
Down in Texas, the fight over Keystone XL rages on, led in part by our tenacious friend Chris Wilson. For months, we’ve been telling anybody who will listen that what’s happening here with Line 6B in Michigan is totally related to Keystone (and a few members of the press have gotten it). And that’s exactly what the awesome, irrepressible Michelle Barlond-Smith told the House Energy Resource Committee this week. The Texas Observer reports.
Lastly, the New York Times has a VERY important story on the failures of pipeline companies’ leak detection systems. It reports that
A forthcoming federal report on pipeline safety has found that members of the general public are more likely to identify oil and gas spills than the pipeline companies’ own leak detection systems.
Of course, those of us familiar with Marshall already understand this. As we’ve said here on the blog countless times, technology was never the problem; human error was the problem. And of course, Enbridge has been running around for months telling everyone about all of the great technology that’s going into the new Line 6B– as if that alone is supposed to quell any concerns. The new report– that, and the experience of Marshall– remind us yet again that we should not be seduced by the pipeline companies’ claims. We’ll give our friend (and hero!) Carl Weimer the last word. From the article:
“It has been clear for years that these computerized leak-detection systems don’t work,” said Carl Weimer, executive director of the Pipeline Safety Trust and a member of the pipeline agency’s hazardous liquid technical advisory committee, which has reviewed the draft report. “The question for me is why have regulators continued to allow the pipeline industry to keep selling the public on leak detection systems that don’t work as advertised?”
You think regulatory oversight– owing to indifferent public officials and a toothless Public Service Commission– in Michigan is lax? Well, you should hear about how the Enbridge project is being handled in Indiana. In fact (teaser!), this is a story we’ll be bringing you very soon as part of a whole new series. For now, we’ll just note that Enbridge doesn’t even have to seek approval from the Indiana Utilities Regulatory Commission. The only state agency with any oversight at all that Enbridge has to face is the Department of Environmental Management, which issues permits pertaining to wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas. This is exactly why our friend Nate Pavlovic and the other good people at Save the Dunes have been working so hard.
A public hearing on Enbridge’s application to IDEM has just been scheduled. It will be held on Dec. 18, from 1-4 pm at the LaPorte County Public Library. Nate notes that this meeting represents:
one of the key opportunities to achieve improvements to Enbridge’s plans to construct their new pipeline, including implementation of Independent Environmental Monitors, alternative routing to avoid wetlands and other areas of concern, and ensuring it does not impact endangered species.
If you are able to attend, please do. Raise questions. Express concerns. Meet your fellow citizens and affected landowners. More information about Enbridge’s application is available at the IDEM website.
Oh boy. There’s so much happening right now, so much to write about, that we’re feeling a little overwhelmed. We’re not even halfway through our series on our conversation with VP Mark Sitek. And we need to measure Jennifer Smith’s account of what happened in Marshall against the facts presented by the NTSB. And there’s the mystery of wall pipeline thicknesses in Lake County, Indiana to be investigated. And we still want to say some more about the MTA amicus filing in the POLAR lawsuit. And we took a quick peek at Enbridge’s 2012 Corporate Social Responsibility Report, parts of which made our eyes bug out and steam blast from our ears. And we’ve got more construction pictures and videos to post. And there are other small and large matters to address swirling around in our heads.
Most immediately, there’s our personal tale of today’s disheartening, anger-inducing construction line list violations by Enbridge– a simple, easily avoidable offense we saw coming months ago and tried to address during our negotiations. At that time, Enbridge wouldn’t take those concerns seriously; they just brushed them off and dismissed them and flat-out refused us our request. And now exactly what we were afraid of (though it may seem a small thing to some) has come to pass, just as we thought it would.
We’ll bring you that story as soon as we’re able. In the meantime, if you can: be vigilant about what construction crews are doing on your property. Watch them if you can. Take pictures. Remind your ROW agent about what Enbridge has agreed to. We’re hearing that violations similar to what happened on our property today are happening all over.
Last week, we noted a curious situation with regard to some seemingly conflicting remarks from Lake County, Indiana officials and Enbridge spokespersons about pipeline wall thicknesses in Lake County. The questions that remain ambiguous are: (1) whether Enbridge is increasing wall thicknesses as a result of discussions with local officials (something they rejected as absurd up here in Michigan) and (2) what, precisely, that thickness will be.
The comments of Enbridge spokesperson Jennifer Smith in a new article in the Times of Northwest Indiana only further deepen the mystery: (more…)
There’s a VERY interesting story today out of the News Dispatch in Michigan City, Indiana. Among other things, we’re wondering why Enbridge didn’t think the securing of permits prior to construction was as important in Michigan as it apparently is Indiana (although we’re certainly glad they now think it’s important).
Also, our friend Nathan Pavlovic of Save the Dunes tells it like it is in the article, while Enbridge’s Jennifer Smith– who is quickly establishing herself as one of the least reliable sources of information we’ve encountered yet– tells it like it is not. Evidently she has yet to read the NTSB report on Marshall. Frankly, we’re shocked by her characterization of what happened there. When we have more time, we will explain– in clear, specific detail– why.
You would think at this point we would cease to be surprised at Enbridge’s baffling public communications. Yet they continue to astound us. That is certainly the case with the latest ad they’ve published in the Detroit Free Press. They appear to be utterly incapable of presenting even the most basic information without misleading or dissembling. But we’ll say this much: at least they’re consistent.
This one is a bit of a head scratcher and we’d like to get to the bottom of it:
The Gary, Indiana Post-Tribune reported this week that, apparently, Enbridge
has agreed to increase the thickness of the pipe throughout [Lake County, Indiana] instead of just at the drains it must run under, according to Surveyor George Van Til. “We are very pleased about that,” Van Til said. (more…)