by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 24, 2012 |
Earlier this afternoon, we had a long telephone conversation with Mark Sitek–yes, that Mark Sitek, Enbridge’s Vice President of Major Projects Execution. We spoke for about an hour. On the whole we thought the exchange was amicable and productively candid on both sides. Perhaps this will set the tone for the upcoming encounters with Enbridge folks we’re bound to have at the Public Safety Trust conference in a couple of weeks.
We’re working up an account of our conversation and will post it as soon as we can. In the meantime, we’ll just say that we hope that our conversation will bear some fruit. Until we learn otherwise, we’re giving Mr. Sitek the benefit of the doubt and assuming that he didn’t call just to appease us, but to gather information that will lead to action, some genuine and positive measures that will help improve or repair Enbridge’s relations with landowners.
We are grateful to Mr. Sitek for his time. (Unfortunately, we must also report that we have still not heard from Lands and Right-of-Way Project Manager Doug Aller. Nor have we received any replies form spokespersons Jennifer Smith and Lorraine Little, whom we contacted about some troubling Enbridge remarks in an Indiana newspaper last week.)
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 22, 2012 |
Last Sunday, Enbridge launched a new ad campaign in newspapers across Michigan and Indiana. We devoted considerable attention to that first ad, which appeared in the form of a letter by Vice President for Major Projects Execution Mark Sitek. In the letter, Sitek promised:
. . . over the next four weeks we will use space in this newspaper to share project updates and to address some of these questions. We will expand on the purpose of the projects and what community members can expect from us. We will present our process for reaching right-of-way agreements with landowners. We will also provide insight into the regulatory process and requirements guiding the projects’ development.
We eagerly awaited the next installment, ready to assess the quality of the information Sitek would provide. Well, a new ad did in fact appear this Sunday, only it didn’t at all provide any of the information Sitek promised.
(more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 20, 2012 |
We spent this morning re-reading the printed interview between reporters from the Times of Northwest Indiana and Enbridge spokesperson Jennifer Smith. (What a great service the Times did by publishing this!). The more we read, the more worked up we got. So we’ve decided we’re going to have to devote some serious time and attention to that intriguing, maddening document. So stay tuned for a new series. In the meantime, you might want to read it for yourself.
We’re also looking forward to the next installment of Enbridge’s ad— they’ve promised four more! You can bet that we’ll be ready to point out any and all misinformation, dissembling, and rheotrical sleights-of-hand. We’ve also decided we’re going to write directly to Mark Sitek (whose name appears on the “letter”). We’ll post that here as well once we’ve sent it.
From Canada this week came this intriguing opinion piece on Enbridge’s corporate character. It pretty much hits the nail on the head– in fact, it pretty much arrives at the same conclusion and advances the same thesis we offered some weeks back.
Lastly this morning: keep in mind that the POLAR lawsuit hearing in federal court is tomorrow. Please consider attending to show your support for the effort to make Enbridge do things right.
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 19, 2012 |
One thing we failed to mention in our earlier post about the excellent story at nwi.com this week: the article includes some “related documents,” including Enbridge responses to the reporters’ questions (including the shocking response we’ve already discussed). It’s a document worth taking a look at, not just because the questions from Lauri Harvey Keagle and Bowdeya Tweh are quite excellent, but also because Enbridge’s other answers are also revealing. One response, for instance, includes verbatim the offensive, disingenuous talking point about “special interest groups” that we’ve written about in the past.
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 19, 2012 |
It’s been an extremely hectic week for us (we do have jobs, you know) and the weekend isn’t going to provide any relief, as we’re running in the Detroit Marathon on Sunday. And the POLAR lawsuit hearing in federal court is on Monday and it can’t be long after that that Enbridge’s clearing crews will be here taking down our beautiful trees…
But we’re not complaining. It’s just that all of this has prevented us from returning to some things we’ve been wanting to revisit, like our promised discussion of the importance of the MTA amicus brief filing. But then other things keep happening, like Enbridge’s “letter” printed as a paid advertisement in the Detroit Free Press on Sunday. We’ve also heard reports that the ad is running in other places– Kalamazoo, Battle Creek, Lansing, even the Wall Street Journal (why? I have no idea). The ad is also running in some northern Indiana papers, though we’re told that Enbridge couldn’t be bothered to change “Michigan” to “Indiana” when running it down there. Anyway, we’ve had plenty to say about the ad this week. And we’re very much looking forward to responding to their subsequent ads.
Speaking of Indiana, that’s what has us brooding a little today.
(more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 14, 2012 |
Thanks to the smart and hardworking folks at Save the Dunes, there appears to be much more early public discussion of the Line 6B project in Indiana than there ever was up here in Michigan. That’s excellent news. But this report on those discussions has us thinking about a couple of things, which we’ll state (modestly) in terms of advice for our Indiana friends:
- Re-frame the discussion! The opening paragraph of the article is this: “Officials in three counties and an environmental conservation organization support the plan to replace Enbridge Energy Partners LP’s aging Line 6B oil pipeline with a new state-of-the-art system.” That’s fine, but to frame the discussion in such simple terms– whether or not one supports the replacement plan– serves no one’s interest but Enbridge’s. Almost no one up here ever opposed the replacement of Line 6B. Yet Enbridge has repeatedly tried to dismiss questions and skepticism by talking about how necessary the pipe is– implying that those who are speaking out DO oppose the pipeline (and are thus unrealistic and unreasonable). As we’ve said many times before, the real point is not whether they replace the pipe, but HOW they go about it.
- Be skeptical! According to one public official in Indiana, “the discussions between his office and Enbridge representatives,” are going well. Enbridge has been “very receptive and very concerned.” Yes, Enbridge spokespersons are very good at appearing receptive and concerned. However, there is ample reason to be skeptical about just how genuine that concern really is. We’re not suggesting that officials take an adversarial position, but it is crucially important that they NOT take Enbridge statements at face value, that they take the time to try and verify what Enbridge says, and that they seek alternative sources of information. May I humbly suggest as one such source this blog, where we have amply documented (and again and again and again, just to cite a few) Enbridge’s lack of candor.
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 7, 2012 |
We apologize for our silence the past few days. It’s not for a lack of things to discuss, however. It’s just that we’re on an academic calendar and have been caught up with sundry back-to-school tasks and responsibilities. That said, we’re doing a little catching up today. Let’s start with a news roundup: (more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 24, 2012 |
We’re pleased to report that our friends in Indiana, led by Nicole Barker and the other hardworking folks at Save the Dunes, are making their voices heard as well and getting some press (and more).
We hope that some of the information here will be useful to them and we support their efforts in demanding transparency and forthrightness from Enbridge.
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 9, 2012 |
Some good news from our friends in Indiana, courtesy of Nicole Barker, Executive Director of Save the Dunes. It illustrates the fact that with enough public awareness and pressure, Enbridge will respond.
I am pleased to share that I just received word that Enbridge has agreed to present their proposed 6B pipeline project work (Phases I & II) at the upcoming Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission’s (NIRPC) Environmental Management and Policy Committee (EMPC) meeting on Thursday, September 6th. The meeting is at NIPRC offices, 6100 Southport Road, Portage, IN. The meeting normally runs from 9am to 10:30am but often goes a bit longer.
Save the Dunes and many other agencies, nonprofits, businesses and other organizations are part of EMPC, so this is an exciting and quite balanced forum in which to hear about the work.
I have respectfully requested all agencies tasked with review/approval of the project to attend. The invite list included US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Army Corps of Engineers, Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, and several others.
Thanks to everyone who has signed our petition and demonstrated interest in this important project. Please pass on to others who may be interested as well.
Also, we signed a separate petition to have DNR hold a hearing related to their stream crossings. They did schedule a hearing, but it is solely limited to construction in a floodway. It is on Thursday, August 23rd at 4pm Central Time at the Valparaiso Public Library, meeting room B, 103 Jefferson Street, Valparaiso, IN. See attached flier for more information about that meeting.
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 2, 2012 |
Core issue #2: Local consent
When a right of way agent from Enbridge knocked on our door carrying a map showing the route of Line 6B, a copy of Michigan’s eminent domain laws, and the bad news that we were going to see the stand of very large trees and the perennial garden in our backyard totally razed, we didn’t quite know what hit us. We’d seen Enbridge in the neighborhood two years earlier doing “integrity digs” and we had received notice that they had plans to “replace” the pipe that runs across our property. But that’s about it. It was months into our negotiations before we got word of any public forums at which the project would be discussed, news stories about the project were pretty much non-existent, and our local municipality appeared to have very little interest (at least formally) in the project.
It was as if Enbridge’s sudden appearance in our township was just a change in the weather: a natural occurrence like rain or fog, something hardly worth mentioning, much less something anyone could do anything to change. (more…)
