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 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 12, 2012 |
Recently, we ventured the thesis that the reason Enbridge alienates stakeholders and creates distrust and opposition is because of its leadership– decades of leadership that that fails to adhere to its own stated values. With the retirement of CEO Patrick Daniel, we thought there might be some hope for a change in Enbridge’s corporate “culture of deviance,” as the NTSB labeled it. Unfortunately, recent indications point to more of the same under new CEO Al Monaco.
(more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 5, 2012 |
In a post a couple of weeks ago, we tried to state our objections to the Line 6B project in one succinct sentence, which is 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.
We’ve had a lot to say about the first part of that sentence: Enbridge running roughshod. Here, we’d like to say a few words about the second part: our state elected officials allowing it to happen. (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 26, 2012 |
A while back we linked to the disturbing story explaining how dilbit is exempt from the federal tax that helps fund the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund– the fund used to cover cleanup costs of oil spills like the one in Marshall in 2010. What that means is that Enbridge did not pay taxes on all that bitumen they dumped into Talmadge Creek. Yet they nevertheless drew money–more than $40 million– from the Trust Fund to help pay for the cleanup (they are supposed to pay it back).
But just this week came news of proposed legislation that would close the dilbit exemption (and more). The Tar Sands Tax Loophole Elimination Act, introduced by three Democrats, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, and Bill Pascrell Jr. of New Jersey, would ensure that tar sands is taxed just like other forms of “crude oil.”
This is potentially good news, of course. But we can’t help notice one little thing: none of the sponsors of this bill are from Michigan. Why, for instance, couldn’t Rep. Fred Upton, who represents the Kalamazoo area, have proposed this kind of legislation? For that matter, why hasn’t Fred Upton proposed any sort of legislation following Marshall and the NTSB findings about Marshall? We also can’t help but wonder whether our own Congressman, Rep. Mike Rogers, will support this proposed legislation. What about your U.S. reps? We recommend that you let them know, forcefully, that support of this bill is the very least they can do. Heaven knows they haven’t done much of anything up to this point.
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…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 13, 2012 |
It only took about two months and four attempts, but yesterday I finally received a reply from U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers. It is the identical reply that my wife received about a week ago– un-proofread prose and all (“I share your concerns with the impact of this devastating spill has had on Michigan’s environment.”)– so we have a nice matching set. (more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 12, 2012 |
The Straw Man Tactic
We’ve grown accustomed to hollow phrases, evasions, and clever mystifications from Enbridge spokesmen. But, as we have already noted, what Larry Springer offers up in his statement to David Hasemyer is a series of untruths. Once again, here is Springer:
“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.”
Let me first put this in some context. (more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 12, 2012 |
There are plenty of things in David Hasemyer’s excellent article this morning in Inside Climate News that have got our motor running. So much that we’ll likely be writing about it for some time. But of everything Hasemyer reports, what turned our low simmer to a rolling boil are the remarks of Enbridge spokesman Larry Springer. In fact, they are so egregious, it’s going to take us more than one post to deal with just one statement. Here we’ll provide a summary of our objections, which we’ll follow-up with a number of posts that elaborate on each point.
So here is the statement:
“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.”
Let us count the ways Larry Springer is demonstrably wrong: (more…)
