by Jeffrey Insko | Jul 7, 2014 |
The ET Rover project is beginning to receive a fair amount of local press attention. The Clarkston News and the Brandon Citizen have run articles. We’re glad to see our old friend Susan Bromley on the case! Bromley spoke with another of our friends, Protect Our Land and Rights (POLAR) legal defense fund founder Jeff Axt. If you don’t know about Jeff and POLAR, please check them out. They’re likely to be an invaluable resource for landowners who don’t want ET Rover on their land. Please consider joining and supporting them.
Detroit Free Press reporter Keith Matheny also has an article this morning (reprinted in the Lansing State Journal). There’s not much new information coming from ET Rover on the project (more on that in a minute), but we were glad to read the remarks of two people we admire very much, Josh Mogerman and Beth Wallace:
But some don’t see the benefit for Michigan.
“It’s consistent with the growing trend nationally that puts more and more risk in people’s back yards for the movement of fossil fuels,” said Josh Mogerman, a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
“This project has very little benefit for Michigan,” added Beth Wallace, a board member with the nonprofit Pipeline Safety Trust.
In all of these articles, the ET Rover spokesperson quoted is Vicki Grenado. We don’t know much about her, other than that she appears not to be an ET employee, but a public relations professional hired by ET. That fact shows, as her remarks are virtually indistinguishable from the sort of stuff we’ve heard from Enbridge spokespersons for years. In one article, she even delivers this old chestnut: “We want to be a good neighbor and business partner in these communities.”
At any rate, we mention this because we happened to have our own encounter with Vicki Grenado over the weekend while trying to obtain some more information about this project. We are grateful to her for responding promptly (twice!), but the exchange was nevertheless, you might not be surprised to learn, a frustrating one– which does not bode well for landowners. Here’s how it went:
Like others of you, we’ve been trying to get some more precise information about the project and especially the proposed route. Because that information is not available on the ET Rover website, we wrote to the person listed at the site as the landowner contact. A couple of days later, we received an email from Ms. Grenado, telling us that she does not have the route information we requested and referring us to the ET Rover website for more information. That’s right: the landowner contact at ET referred us to a p.r. person who then referred us to the same website whose lack of information is what caused us to contact them in the first place.
So we replied, noting that some landowners had already been given more detailed maps of portions of the route (we posted one here just the other day). At which point, Ms Grenado simply said that maps would be available at the upcoming open houses. But of course, if we wanted to wait until the open houses to see the maps, we wouldn’t have written in the first place.
In fairness, Vicki Grenado (like all those Enbridge p.r. soldiers) is just doing her job, a job (as we’ve learned from Enbridge) that mainly consists of supplying people (landowners, local officials, the press) with as little information as possible while pretending to be helpful. However, Energy Transfer is going to need to understand that landowners in Michigan are weary of this sort of thing– and wise to it. If ET thinks they can come up here and blow a lot of smoke, provide vague or evasive answers, say a lot of pleasing-sounding things about being good neighbors, expect people to trust them and then think that landowners are just going to accept all of that without skepticism, without further questioning, without demands for more transparency, more honesty, and more openness, they’re going to have a very rough time indeed.
by Jeffrey Insko | Jul 1, 2014 |
Bits of information on the proposed ET Rover project have been trickling in, none of it verified with any absolute certainty. Here is what we have learned (or heard) since our last post:
- If you’re on Line 6B and you’re like us, it crossed your mind that this project might re-use the now-abandoned old Line 6B that is sitting idle in your back (or front yard). We never really thought that was very likely, but the fact that Enbridge has recently partnered with Energy Transfer to convert a gas line to crude made us a little nervous. So we wanted to Enbridge to go on record on this matter. Yesterday, Jason Manshum verified that “there are no plans to use the original Line 6B for this other project.” We’d have preferred that he put that a bit more directly, but it appears that we can (more or less) rule out the possibility of recommissioning the old Line 6B. That’s good news.
Unfortunately, Energy Transfer has not returned our two phone calls (no idea why), so the other information we have to share is coming from other landowners. Here’s what we’ve been told:
- The ET Rover route will NOT use the Line 6B corridor or easements, although it will loosely parallel the route, running north of Line 6B (how far north, we can’t say). Energy Transfer will be seeking NEW 60 foot easements from landowners and, presumably, municipalities. That’s not such good news. The image above shows a portion of the route running through a portion of Howell– and right through a subdivision! Line 6B is several hundred feet to the south of the blue ET Rover line in the image.
- According to the ET representative in one of our readers’ phone calls, the letter was sent to anyone in a 500 ft. radius of the line. If the proposed line runs through your property, it appears you would have received an additional letter and perhaps (even likely) a phone call asking for permission to survey your land. It is our understanding that many landowners are refusing that request. Please note that you DO NOT have to allow them to access your property to survey. You can just say no.
- This is the very beginning of a long process (please refer to the resources at the Pipeline Safety Trust website describing the FERC approval process). Energy Transfer has not yet fulfilled the requirements to file a permit application with FERC. The process can take a couple of years to run its course. That said, it’s best to inform yourself, make your wishes known, and organize with your neighbors and your local officials early.
- A reminder that the first of the ET Rover open houses is July 14 in Fenton. It is likely that company officials and/or land agents will conduct the open house informally, preferring to speak to landowners individually rather than collectively. This is NOT to your advantage. We strongly recommend that landowners gather together to make the open house a group affair. That way, everyone can hear everyone’s concerns and continuity of information will be assured. For reference, here is part of an account of how shrewd landowners in Wisconsin prevented Enbridge from controlling information in a similar fashion:
It was a combative format Enbridge was attempting to avoid when it originally organized the meeting to be an open-house format, with residents asking questions one-on-one with Enbridge representatives. However, some of the more than 75 attendees, including many political candidates who empathized with the crowd, were unhappy with the format and quickly began setting up chairs for a group presentation, succeeding in turning the session into two-hour group question-and-answer session. The group, closely monitored by two Jefferson police officers, then proceeded to drill the company representatives on everything from the company’s safety procedures to the pipeline welds, the content of the material flowing through the pipelines and their environmental record.
Lastly, if you are as concerned as we are not just about your own property and the treatment of your neighbors, but about pipeline safety in general, please take a moment to share (or even adapt) the open letter we wrote to Attorney General Schuette and DEQ Director Wyant regarding the newly proposed Michigan pipeline safety task force. The fact that the assembled task force does not include any landowners, property rights advocates, or conservationists is unconscionable. The only way to ensure that landowners do not continue to suffer at the hands of these energy expansion projects is to give them a prominent voice in the process. Regular citizens need to put pressure on their elected officials, at all levels, to make this happen. We’ll try to post more updates to our Facebook page as we receive them. Please stop by and give us a “like.”
by Jeffrey Insko | Jun 27, 2014 |
Now, here’s a coincidence: the very same week that Energy Transfer Partners announced a massive new pipeline construction project that will affect a large number of Michigan citizens– including, evidently, many Line 6B landowners– state officials announced the formation of a new pipeline safety task force.
You might think that’s good news– and at first glance, we thought so too. But then we saw who is on that task force, or rather, who is NOT on it. The task force is made up entirely of representative of the very agencies that have thus far failed to protect landowners, municipalities, and the environment. Frankly, it’s outrageous.
For that reason, just this morning, we sent the letter below to Attorney General Schuette and Michigan DEQ Director Dan Wyant. Please feel free to share.
—
Dear Mr. Wyant and Attorney General Schuette,
This week, the Texas-based pipeline company Energy Transfer announced plans to build a new network of pipelines to transport natural gas from the Marcellus and Utica shale formations in West Virginia and Pennsylvania across the country. Nearly two hundred miles of that pipeline network would traverse Michigan, much of it crossing through the property of Michigan citizens already reeling from the recent replacement of the Enbridge Line 6B pipeline. During the latter project (which is still not complete), landowners have been mistreated, lied to, misinformed and have watched helplessly while Enbridge uprooted their lives, destroyed their property, and abused its easement rights. Many local officials had similar experiences, as Enbridge evaded local ordinances and treated townships and municipalities with disregard (at best) or disrespect (at worst). To my knowledge, neither the Attorney General’s office nor other state officials or agencies have taken even the slightest interest in this series of events .
I mention these facts as important background and context for your announcement, also this week, of a new pipeline safety task force. Although it is a very late-arriving development, I welcome this news, especially considering the many oil and gas expansion projects planned or already in progress across the state.
Having said that, it is more than a little distressing to learn that the task force that has been assembled includes not a single landowner advocate, local official, or other member of the general public (much less a representative from an environmental or conservation group)– all people who have a profound stake in protecting public health and the environment. Landowners and local officials, in particular, are on the front lines of these pipeline projects. They are the people who assume virtually ALL of the risks of these expansions (yet earn none of the rewards). They are also the people most familiar with the conditions on the ground– private property and natural resources– where many of these pipelines will be placed. In addition, they are the same citizens, as you well know, whose interests your positions exist to protect. They deserve a seat at the table and a strong voice in these matters.
I realize that pipeline operators’ dealings with landowners and local governments may not be central to the task force’s mission. However, recent experience has shown clearly that the way pipeline companies treat these stakeholders reflects the way they operate their pipelines, which affects the safety of those pipelines. Given the terrible incident in 2010 in Marshall, I’m sure you can appreciate the many and varied concerns Michigan citizens have about further oil and gas development in our state. Those concerns include a widespread perception that state officials and regulatory agencies are working more on behalf of corporate interests than on behalf of ordinary citizens. Routing and permitting decisions, for instance, already in effect exclude the very people who are most directly affected by those decisions. Excluding these citizens from this task force will only further alienate them and do little to change perceptions that state agencies fail to understand the affects their decisions have on the daily lives of regular people.
It is worth noting that a great many Michigan citizens have been working toward the goals the task force has set for itself for quite a long time. In fact, there are currently three Michigan residents (including myself) on the Board of Trustees of the national Pipeline Safety Trust. In addition, the recent “replacement” of Enbridge’s Line 6B has created a large group of citizens with first-hand experience of pipeline planning, permitting, and construction. Their experience is an invaluable resource. In short, you should have no trouble finding any number of committed, knowledgeable, thoughtful, and collaborative-minded members of the public to participate on your task force. I implore you to seek them out.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Insko
by Jeffrey Insko | Jun 26, 2014 |
Thanks to the extraordinary staff at the Pipeline Safety Trust, we have a little more information about the proposed route for the ET Rover natural gas pipeline. That map (reproduced below)– it’s not very detailed– and some additional resources for landowners are available at the PS Trust website.
We’ll also link to that information and more on our Facebook page. If you are interested in this project or concerned about whether and how it will affect you (and you’re a social media user), please stop by and “like” us. We can post speedier updates on all of this there.
by Jeffrey Insko | Jun 26, 2014 |
Yesterday, we broke the news of a new natural gas pipeline project that will potentially affect Line 6B landowners (how many? we don’t know). The project will transport natural gas tracked from the Marcellus and Utica shale formations in West Virginia and Ohio to points around the country and Canada.
At present, very little detailed information is available, although we’re hearing from lots of landowners. We’re working hard to find out as much as we can as fast as we can. We do have a little more information in the form of a news article from the Wall Street Journal’s MarketWatch. Apparently, Energy Transfer has made the official announcement of the project. Here is the part that will directly affect Michiganders:
Additionally, ETP expects to construct an approximately 195-mile segment from the Defiance area through Michigan and ultimately to the Union Gas Dawn Hub (Dawn) near Sarnia, Canada providing producers with access to diverse markets and end-users in Michigan and Canada with access to Marcellus and Utica supplies.
We can’t say for sure, but given the fact that Line 6B landowners in Howell and Fenton have been contacted and the line will run to Sarnia, it sounds to us like they want to use the Line 6B corridor. However, we’ve yet to verify that. If we can find that out soon, you can bet we’ll let you know.
The other bit of information we have (from the letter sent to landowners) is that three open houses will be held in Michigan. The are as follows:
Monday, July 14 at the Fenton Township Hall in Fenton, 5:30-7:30 pm
Tuesday, July 15 at the Village Conference Center of the Comfort Inn in Chelsea, 5:30-7:30 pm
Tuesday, July 15 at the Lois Wagner Memorial Library in Richmond, 5:30-7:30 pm
A brief footnote about obtaining further details about all of this: we’ve called the contact numbers that Energy Transfer has listed for more information. Conveniently, the individuals listed are “not in the office” today. Imagine that.
by Jeffrey Insko | Jun 25, 2014 |
We’ve just gotten some terrible news. Some already battered Line 6B landowners have received letters this week from a company called ET Rover Pipeline (a division of Energy Transfer) announcing a natural gas pipeline project that, if the company has its way, will traverse some Line 6B properties– snuggled up cozily, evidently, right alongside the shiny new Line 6B (and, in some cases, other pipelines already in place).
It’s a deeply disturbing letter, not least because of its triumphant tone, which describes the project as if it is already a done deal– even though it’s at the very beginning of the process. One can only assume this is a deliberate strategy to make landowners feel helpless; it has almost certainly further demoralized them.
And make no mistake about it, this pipeline project is the result of one thing: fracking. Here’s how the letter describes it:
Please join ET Rover Pipeline LLC (ET Rover) for an informational Open House regarding the construction and operation of the Rover Pipeline Project. The Rover Pipeline Project will be a new interstate natural gas pipeline that receives gas from the Marcellus and Utica shale gas formations in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio and traverses through Ohio and Michigan, and terminates at the Union Gas Dawn Hub in Ontario, Canada (Rover Pipeline).
The Rover Pipeline will consist of approximately 200 miles of pipeline laterals from the tailgate of natural gas processing plants and approximately 365 miles of mainline pipe in Ohio and Michigan, and 15 miles of mainline pipe across the border to the Union Gas Dawn Hub in Ontario, Canada. ET Rover will also need to build compression and metering stations along its route. Because of significant increases in the domestic natural gas supply due to shale gas production, the U.S. is no longer dependent on foreign sources. The construction of the Rover Pipeline will provide new natural gas pipeline infrastructure for your area.
Natural gas pipelines are regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which requires companies to hold these open houses prior to filing their applications for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. So despite the letter’s attempt to pretend that this project is inevitable, it’s really only at the very beginning of the process. What that means, however, is that it’s time to speak up and speak out before already abused and demoralized Michigan landowners have to endure a replay of the Enbridge nightmare from which, if they’re lucky, they have only just now awoken.
At this point, information is quite scarce. But we’re working on it. Rest assured we will keep you informed as more details become available. We’re preparing for action.
by Jeffrey Insko | Apr 18, 2014 |
We’re continuing our tardy news roundup, which we started yesterday. There, we called your attention to some recent news articles form Macomb County describing some residents’ concerns about Enbridge’s work on Phase Two, which is about to kick into high gear in the eastern part of the state.
This morning, another local article appeared, describing a recent open house hosted by Enbridge in Washington Township. We will say this much: it’s good to see that Enbridge is reaching out to residents to some degree. They certainly did no such thing in our part of the state prior to construction on Phase One. So this sounds like an improvement.
Having said that, we suspect that the Enbridge officials there didn’t spend much time explaining to landowners the realities of how the work will proceed: the poor communications they’ll likely get from Enbridge land agents, the noise and the mess and the mistakes they’ll have to endure, the need to remain vigilant so that construction agreement violations don’t go unnoticed and unrectified, and much more. Instead, Enbridge surely painted a very rosy picture, one that doesn’t bear much resemblance to actuality.
What makes us say this? Well, not just experience– though that experience speaks volumes, we think. Also, it’s because of a couple of the remarks of Enbridge spokesperson Jennifer Smith. First, Smith digs up this old chestnut:
“Overwhelmingly a good majority of landowners are understanding and we have good relationships with them,” she said. “But there is always going to be concern.”
Regular readers of this blog may recall the time that Jason Manshum said the same thing (you’ve got to hand this much to Enbridge, they are disciplined about staying “on message”). And when he did, we wrote to him asking for some actual evidence to back up that claim– but that was back when he was not replying to our emails. Another time, we ourselves actually tried to generate some data on this question, but concluded that it’s almost impossible to really know. The point here is that (a) Jennifer Smith, no more than Jason Manshum or Tom Hodge, really doesn’t know whether “a good majority of landowners are understanding.” This is just a pleasing story Enbridge likes to tell itself and the public; and (b) this odd talking point makes it seem as if, like a political candidate running for office, Enbridge only cares about winning over a simple majority. Evidently, when it comes to landowner satisfaction, they like to set the bar extremely low.
The other troubling remark from Jennifer Smith– well, not so much troubling as rather astonishing in its complete disregard for facts– is this:
Smith said safety is the main concern for those in and around the project, and for workers on the project itself. She said Enbridge has been sensitive to ordinances and regulations every step along the way.
We won’t quarrel with the point about safety (although we could). But the second point, about Enbridge’s sensitivity to local ordinances and regulations? Well, that is simply a clear, plain, demonstrable untruth. In fact, it’s so untrue, that Matthew Fahr, the reporter on the story, or his editor ought to issue a correction. We’ve spent the better part of two years discussing Enbridge’s disregard for and evasions of local ordinances, laws, and regulations. In fact, in our post just yesterday, Brandon Township Supervisor Kathy Thurman herself provided a very clear example of how Enbridge was absolutely NOT “sensitive” to one of Brandon’s ordinances:
“There have been a lot of concerns,” she said. “There have been some issues. We ended up shutting them down at one point, because they were in violation of a woodlands agreement.”
We think that most people will agree that “in violation of” is very different from, perhaps even the opposite of, “sensitive to.” So either Jennifer Smith simply has no idea what happened in, say, Brandon and Howell Townships or– and we hope this isn’t the case, because it would be much, much worse– she DOES know and is therefore willfully and deliberately misleading people in a shameless attempt to pacify them. In either case, we are sad to say that the good people of Washington Township were clearly not always accurately informed. So while it’s good that Enbridge is holding these open houses, they still appear to have plenty of work to do to ensure that those open houses are genuinely and honestly informative– and not just spin sessions.
by Jeffrey Insko | Apr 17, 2014 |
We are currently working on a very important post about a deeply troubling matter that might affect a number of Line 6B landowners. Please stay tuned for it in the next couple of days. As we await some more information– as you know, we strive to be accurate– we thought we’d begin our long overdue and ever-growing news roundup. It’s going to take a few posts.
Now that spring is here (knock on wood!) and the ground has begun to harden a little, Enbridge is getting back to work to our east, putting in the remaining section of pipeline that will run from Ortonville to Marysville, Michigan. Unsurprisingly, that means unhappy landowners. We’ve found some of the local news coverage so far quite interesting:
Over at the Macomb Daily, reporter Lara Mossa quotes our hero Brandon Township Kathy Thurman in an article about Enbridge’s return to work in that area. In her typically restrained way, Thurman recalls some of Brandon’s troubles last year (see our archives) and even talks a little tough:
“There have been a lot of concerns,” she said. “There have been some issues. We ended up shutting them down at one point, because they were in violation of a woodlands agreement.”
Oxford Township Supervisor Bill Dunn, on the other hand, neither reports nor foresees any problems. But his remarks about Enbridge are hardly a ringing endorsement:
“I know they have had problems in other townships, but, for the most part, they are going through very large parcels of land,” he said, adding that much of it is old gravel mines. “It’s not like they’re going through subdivisions. I have not had any complaints. Enbridge has been somewhat cooperative.”
In Bruce Township, according to another Macomb Daily article, residents are (understandably) unhappy with Enbridge’s planned destruction of a number of very tall trees near the Ford test track. Weirdly, Macomb County Road Commissioner Bob Hoepfner thinks that Enbridge’s offer to replant twice as many crappy little trees as the mature ones they’re cutting down is “generous”:
Hoepfner said Enbridge was more than within its rights to do the work on that designated portion of land and offered the county a “two for one” deal to replace all trees that would be removed immediately rather than do their work and see the trees die later.
“They showed us what needed to be done and we agreed with them,” said Hoepfner. “It was a generous offer. Cutting the roots would kill them and the right thing to do is to have them removed.”
But residents and Township Supervisor Richard Cory (no, not that Richard Cory!) think otherwise and say not-so-fast:
“None of us will ever live long enough to ever see those trees provide enough shade over the road like it has now,” said one resident of the proposal to replace the mature trees with new ones after completion of the project.
Cory later asked if residents wanted to fight to have the trees remain intact; the overwhelming response in unison was “we want the trees to stay.”
What the township will base its fight on is a letter Cory read aloud at the meeting from attorney Benjamin Aloia to Enbridge representative Mike Ashton.
Cory said the letter, dated March 10, 2014, was apparently in response to a proposal from Enbridge to remove the trees.
“The Road Commission did not approve or authorize any work whatsoever within the Road Commission’s 36 Mile Road statutory 66-foot full-width right-of-way under this permit,” Cory read to the residents. “The removal of trees was not expressly permitted by the Road Commission with the three-mile stretch of 36 Mile Road in question.”
Finally, from Marysville, the Times Herald reports on some landowners feeling abused by Enbridge. Despite a rather insulting headline– “People Gripe About Enbridge”– the article gives a fair hearing to the concerns of some landowners who appear to have received the same sort of treatment we’ve documented here exhaustively.
What’s the takeaway here? We imagine Enbridge and/or Enbridge apologists would dismiss all of this by saying that any large project is going to run up against some complainers (a notion that, unfortunately, the last story’s headline seems to enforce). But those so-called “gripers”– Brian St. Clair, Thomas Leen, and Judy Robertson, not to mention all those concerned Bruce Township residents– have an awful lot of company. What this says to us is that Enbridge still, after all this time, hasn’t learned anything or is simply incapable of changing its ways.
by Jeffrey Insko | Apr 13, 2014 |
When T.S. Eliot wrote that “April is the cruellest month,” he was not speaking metaphorically. It’s been plenty cruel in Michigan generally and certainly here at our place (we won’t bore you with details), which is much of what accounts for the lack of output here at the blog. We’ve got a major news roundup coming your way soon, among other things.
The big Line 6B story, however, is that Enbridge has announced that they’re going to fire up the new Line 6B– that is, the sections of it that have been installed– on May 1. We’re sure they’re quite giddy about this, since it means they get to double the capacity of what the line carries and rake in lots and lots of dough. The great David Hasemyer of Inside Climate News has the story, which focuses mainly (and appropriately) on safety concerns, about which our old friend Larry Springer is on hand with some predictable assurances. Our favorite part is when he says this:
“Enbridge is part of an energy pipeline industry that is committed to the highest safety standards in the construction and operation of our facilities,” Springer said in an email…
Of course, such hollow cant from a corporate flak surely doesn’t reassure anybody. But we do have to give Springer some credit here: generating a bunch of words without actually saying anything really is an art. Perhaps not a very useful or honorable one, but an art nonetheless.
Far better than Springer’s are the remarks of our friend Beth Wallace, who as always is right on point. Beth directs her criticism toward PHMSA for giving Enbridge such a free pass:
“There has been very little progress made toward strengthening rules and regulations since the spill four years ago,” Wallace said. “So allowing them [Enbridge] to nearly double the size of their pipeline before critical rulemaking comes out of PHMSA is putting the cart before the horse.”
One final point. As much as we admire the great work of Hasemyer and Inside Climate News– and this article is no exception–there is one serious omission in this story that we’d like to point out. While Enbridge is firing up the line so that they can start reaping enormous financial rewards from this expansion, hundreds of landowners, including us, are in limbo, waiting and wondering when and how and whether their devastated properties are going to be restored. The priority here is clear: it’s profits, not people.
In a rational universe– that is, one in which a decent respect for the lives and rights of landowners, the people who have no choice but to take on ALL of the risks of this pipeline project, are more important than the financial bottom line of a multinational corporation– in that sort of universe, Enbridge simply would not be allowed to start up the new line until every single property owner along the route is completely satisfied with the restoration of their property. If, for instance, the MPSC were really interested in serving the public interest, this would have been a condition of their approval. After all, it’s not as if the world would run out of fossil fuel in the meantime. And it’s not as if Enbridge would be hurt by such a stipulation; they just wouldn’t gain by it.
Instead, here we are, staring out at our denuded waste land of a property, digging out the dead plants from our garden (killed by Enbridge’s careless work), looking over the bare patches of earth left by the half-assed seeding job of Enbridge’s restoration crews, wondering if and when we’ll ever get those trees Enbridge has promised, waiting for a phone call or email from whatever new Enbridge land agent is currently in charge of matters on our parcel.
We wonder if anyone from Enbridge will think of that– or of all the other landowners who have it just as bad, and in many cases much worse– on the evening of May 1st when they clap and cheer and toast the startup of the new Line 6B, pumping all that diluted bitumen through our blighted backyards.
by Jeffrey Insko | Mar 28, 2014 |
Greetings! We’re sorry we’ve been neglectful around here the past few weeks. It’s been an eventful end-of-winter to say the least– we won’t bore you with any details. We do have a fair amount of new to update you on and we suspect that Enbridge is thinking about dusting off the bulldozers and getting back to work. For those of you at the beginning of the process: brace yourselves.
But for now, just a quick post with two items: you may have heard about the oil spill at the BP refinery in Whiting, Indiana, where some sort of “malfunction” caused a not insignificant amount of oil to spill into Lake Michigan. The exact number of gallons isn’t certain yet– but it’s rising. Nor is it clear whether the spill was dilbit (though the Whiting refinery is served by our very own Line 6B). You can read more on the story here and here and here.
While this incident is obviously troublesome, it’s also just in time for a forum that we’ll be participating in next week at Notre Dame University’s Reilly Center for Science, Technology, and Values. We’ll be giving a presentation, as will our friends Beth Wallace, Steve Hamilton of Michigan State, and fellow landowner and Notre Dame professor Patricia Maurice. We’re especially grateful to Patricia for setting this event up. If you’re in the area, we hope you’ll try to make it. We’d love to meet some of our readers in person. The event is Tuesday, April 1. Full details are available here.
