by Jeffrey Insko | Dec 9, 2013 |
It’s the end of the semester for us, which is why we’ve been a little quiet this past week. There are all sort of final tasks to attend to this time of year, not least of which are piles of student papers to grade. Wish us luck that they are all brilliant and trenchant!
But there is a bit of pipeline news to share, including a personal item we’ll tell you about soon.
The latest Enbridge news, unfortunately, isn’t so good. Ace reporter Jennifer Bowman over at the Battle Creek Enquirer reported this week that Enbridge is suing the owner of a farm along the Line 6B route to gain access to his property for activities related to the spill cleanup. In its suit, Enbridge claims that the landowners have been recalcitrant and unwilling to reach an agreement. Knowing how Enbridge negotiates with and treats landowners, we’re more than a little skeptical about Enbridge’s claims in this matter, although the full details of the situation aren’t entirely clear. At the very least, dragging yet another landowner into court doesn’t seem like a very good p.r. move, given Enbridge’s already damaged reputation in this state.
We’ve also gotten word that construction activity has begun to heat up on our friend David Gallagher’s property. And evidently, it’s off to a rocky start. Dave tells us that crews tried to begin work before installing some agreed-to seismic monitoring equipment. We fear that this is only the first of a long stretch of headaches Dave, like so many others have endured, is going to have to attend to in the weeks and months to come.
Another landowner, our friend Patricia, has also contacted us with some terrible, ongoing noise and mess over in her neighborhood– again, just one in a long litany of difficulties she’s had to put up with. That story will be the next installment of our ongoing series of landowner stories. Expect it very soon.
Lastly, we’re still working on the first of our series of posts about last month’s PS Trust conference. If you haven’t seen them already, the video presentations are available for viewing. If nothing else, we strongly recommend, where you can hear from the above-mentioned Dave Gallagher, along with two other remarkable pipeline-company-created activists.
by Jeffrey Insko | Dec 3, 2013 |
November wasn’t really Enbridge’s month. And no, we’re not just talking about another poor showing at the Pipeline Safety Trust conference (we’re working on bringing you much more on that!). We’re talking about the news this week that both the MDEQ (go figure!) and the U.S. E.P.A. both gave Enbridge a little business this week.
Following–at long last– that discharge incident from earlier this year– you remember, the one where Enbridge violated 11 different conditions of its permit— the MDEQ is requiring that Enbridge improve its environmental practices (duh!). We can’t say we’re especially impressed with the MDEQ, but at least this is something. Pulitzer-Prize winning reporter Dave Hasemyer, whose work is always first-rate, has the full story over at Inside Climate News. The money quote comes– of course!– from the indefatigable Beth Wallace:
“You shouldn’t have to have someone with a video camera out there discovering these violations in the first place,” Wallace said. “It could have been avoided.”
Wallace said that even with the agreement her group still isn’t confident that Enbridge will carefully monitor its work.
“The company has burned this region and will continue to burn this region,” she said. “The DEQ needs to be more proactive instead of reacting to things when they happen.”
The other bit of bad news for Enbridge is that the E.P.A. has denied its request to extend the December 31st deadline for dredging on the Kalamazoo River. And it’s not just that E.P.A. denied the request: they also called “b.s.” on Enbridge’s reasons for asking. The excellent Lindsey Smith at Michigan Radio has more. And you can read the E.P.A.’s letter here. Here’s the best part:
In particular, U.S. EPA believes that Enbridge has continuously failed to prepare adequate contingency plans for a project of this nature. For example, U.S. EPA acknowledges that failure to obtain a site plan approval for use of the CCP property for a dredge pad was a setback in the timely completion of the work in the Delta. However, Enbridge failed to prepare any contingency plans recognizing the possibility of such an occurrence. Enbridge has known since at least the middle of July 2013 that there was serious opposition to its proposed use of the CCP property. When it became clear in August 2013 that opposition to the site use might delay the project, U.S. EPA directed Enbridge to “conduct a more detailed review of your options in short order.” Although your letter claims that Enbridge “has considered such alternatives,” your logs indicate that Enbridge did not hold initial discussions with the majority of these property owners until long after the final decision to abandon plans for use of the CCP property.
Ouch!
Finally– though this one (unlike the others) really is just an accident– the Free Press is reporting this week that Enbridge crews dropped a tree on a power line over in the Marysville area last Wednesday– evidently ruining more than a few people’s Thanksgiving dinners– although evidently they picked up the tab for about 50 at a restaurant. They’ll also pay for damages.
by Jeffrey Insko | Nov 25, 2013 |
We’re already working on our series of posts following last week’s PS Trust conference (we think we’ll start by discussing everybody’s favorite federal regulatory agency!). But there’s a holiday coming up, so we’re not sure how soon we’ll get to the first one. Meanwhile, some more papers have picked up the story of the construction delays on phase two of the Line 6B replacement, including the suspension over to our east that we mentioned last week. There’s this one and this one, for example.
And then there’s this one. If we had the energy, Joseph S. Pete’s article in the Times of Northwest Indiana (whatever happened to Lauri Harvey Keagle, who was doing such good work?) could easily be the basis of another of our “How Not to Write About Line 6B” posts. But to be honest, we haven’t got the energy; sometimes, it just feels too much like howling into the dark and empty wilderness. Suffice it to say that Pete did little more than type up a friendly Enbridge press release. Sigh.
Setting that aside, we just have one little question: aren’t any local reporters even remotely interested in asking the blatantly obvious question here about these delays? What environmental permits, specifically, has Enbridge not yet obtained and why have they not obtained them? Wouldn’t anybody covering this story think to ask that?
We’re trying to find out ourselves and will let you know if and when we learn anything.
by Jeffrey Insko | Nov 20, 2013 |
Is it possible that we’ve turned a corner?
Today, the nearly unspeakable happened. We had to pinch ourselves at first just to make sure we weren’t dreaming. You see, for the first time in several emails over a period of months, we received a reply from Jason Manshum. Yes, you heard that right– an actual reply! And not just one reply: he also responded to a follow-up.
We are grateful that he took the time. After all, we understand that replying to us can be a little tricky and seemingly risky. We have not hesitated to criticize when criticism is warranted. At the same time, however, we don’t withhold praise and gratitude when that is warranted. Bafflingly, this is the thing Enbridge never seems to have understood, despite available evidence. And we don’t play games. We’re not looking to bait or trick or ambush or play gotcha or anything else. All we have EVER wanted is honest, direct, straightforward, good faith communication. We’ll also add that however much we may be critical here– we’re just calling ’em like we see ’em– we also strive to be fair and unfailingly polite in our communications with Enbridge representatives; in fact, we have never been anything but.
In other words, none of this is very complicated.
Anyway, we asked Jason about the segmenting and capping matter that we mentioned the other day. At first blush, the information seemed rather odd and unclear (though the lack of clarity may have been partly the reporter’s fault) and it was certainly not something we’d ever heard before. Manshum’s explanation is as follows (we’re paraphrasing):
The way the deactivation works, the old pipe is not just capped at either end of the long 200-plus mile stretch (one end in Griffith, Indiana and the other in Marysville, Michigan). Rather, as portions of the replacement line are complete, the old sections are deactivated, capped, and the new segments put into operation. In many cases, this capping takes place at pumping stations (which makes sense to us), but not always. So currently, portions of the replacement line are already in operation, such as the 5 miles stretch outside the Marshall pumping station.
Obviously, we are no experts. But none of this strikes us as particularly troublesome or irregular. It is a little strange that this wasn’t explained to us clearly from the start and it doesn’t ease any of the original, longstanding concerns so many of us have had from the beginning of all of this. On the other hand, we also don’t think it’s cause for any additional concerns– unless someone explains to us otherwise.
So thank you once again to Jason for clearing this matter up. See how easy that was? Perhaps this little exchange will open the door to a new phase of ongoing, cordial, transparent communication. It would certainly be appropriate, given that we’re on our way to a conference devoted to fostering just that kind of communication.
by Jeffrey Insko | Nov 18, 2013 |
Here’s one we’ve been trying to steal some time to write about for a couple of months now: if you haven’t heard, Enbridge is planning to build a new 600 mile pipeline from North Dakota to Superior, Wisconsin– what they’re calling the “Sandpiper Project.” Not surprisingly, this proposed project has had some landowners worried and concerned, especially a smart and well-organized group of farmers and others in Minnesota calling themselves the Carlton County Land Stewards.
Thanks to their efforts, Enbridge announced last week that it would alter its originally proposed route through Minnesota to minimize disturbances to critical forests and farming operations. Enbridge’s announcement came on the heels of a unanimous vote by the Carlton County Board backing the revised route for the pipeline.
Now, this decision by Enbridge is certainly to be commended. As we’ve said almost from the day we launched this blog, responsiveness to the concerns of landowners and local authorities is absolutely critical for establishing and maintaining good relations between pipeline operators and the public; it’s good for property rights, good for the environment, and good for pipeline safety. The trouble, of course, is that down here in Michigan, Enbridge has too often NOT been responsive or receptive to the concerns of landowners and local citizens. That’s mainly what we’ve spent so much of our time documenting for well over a year now. And that’s why we are calling the news out of Minnesota “good” with a question mark to indicate our wariness, a wariness we’re pretty sure is shared by the Carlton County Land Stewards.
Here’s a bit of context:
A tour through our archives will provide you with plenty of examples of how Enbridge has repeatedly proven itself unresponsive: from failing to hold public informational meetings on this side of the state to declining to attend township meetings, or meeting with municipalities reluctantly, flouting local ordinances, dragging its feet on agreements and actions, failing to return emails and phone calls from landowners, and on and on. We have spent far too much of our time trying to wrap our heads around this pattern of behavior, trying to figure out why it seems to be so hard for Enbridge to act according to its stated values. And we’ve been told more than once by Enbridge representatives that our experience here in Michigan is not ordinary, that it’s an “anomaly,” that for various reasons not clearly explained, the Line 6B project has been unusual. (Of course, in saying this to us, those Enbridge representatives have not taken any real responsibility for the very serious problems they have caused here; they’re just trying, once again, to explain themselves.)
We’ve always found this pill– that matters in Michigan are unique and not the norm for Enbridge– rather hard to swallow. We’ve heard too many stories from elsewhere, like in Canada, that suggest otherwise. Consider, for instance, this profile of Enbridge executive Janet Holder published in a Canadian paper a couple of months back. The article focuses on Holder’s attempts to repair the companies strained relations with the people of British Columbia, whose support is desperately needed by the company in order to get its embattled Northern Gateway project approved. What’s most striking about the article, however, is just how familiar the story it tells is. Initially, Enbridge tried to have its way, to run roughshod through B.C. Only later, after pushback from First Nations and others, did Enbridge launch a PR-style campaign to try and repair the relations it damaged. This is likewise– minus much effort at repairing relations– the story of the Line 6B “replacement.”
Just how endemic to the company is this lack of consideration toward communities and landowners? The most extraordinary part of the article is when it quotes a former Enbridge executive:
LOUSY ENGAGEMENT
But even a former Enbridge executive said the company has done a lousy job of community engagement.
Roger Harris, a former Liberal MLA and Enbridge vice-president, said he quit the company in 2010 after it developed a “grid system” for deciding which public meetings to attend.
He said the grid assigned demerit points for meetings based on the size of the audience, the likelihood of negative questions and whether the media would be present.
Meetings that accumulated too many demerit points on the grid — indicating the company might get a rough ride in front of a large audience with reporters watching — were skipped, Harris said.
“They were afraid to attend meetings other than small, private gatherings of their supporters when they should have been embracing the outrage and trying to win over critics,” Harris said.
“They had to go into rooms of people who didn’t support them, but they refused and it just bred more suspicion.”
Janet Holder is dismissive of these remarks. But for anyone who has attempted to communicate with Enbridge, Harris’s account seems utterly plausible. It’s an explanation for the bizarre pattern of evasive engagement and poor communication we’ve encountered in numerous situations. In fact, what Harris says here is essentially what Enbridge V.P. Mark Sitek told us when he mentioned that Enbridge is reluctant to hold public meetings because it often feels “ambushed.”
So what does this have to do with Minnesota? Well, the very same week that the Holder profile appeared, one of the Carlton County Land Stewards, a farmer named Janaki Fisher-Merritt published an editorial in a local Minnesota paper. In the excellent piece, Fisher-Merritt carefully describes the reasonable concerns of Minnesota citizens about the Sandpiper project (read more on those concerns here and here). But perhaps the most striking things he says is this:
Unfortunately, there seems to be no avenue for public comment on the project at this stage. My neighbors and I have requested to meet with Enbridge to make our concerns clear. Unfortunately, the company’s officials will not meet with groups of landowners or discuss our concerns comprehensively. They instead seem to prefer to single us out and only discuss our small pieces of land, not the route as a whole.
Once again, we have the same story: a reluctance (if not outright refusal) by Enbridge to meet with communities and groups of landowners and a reliance instead on the deeply flawed and alienating land agent system.
The situation in Minnesota parallels our in Michigan in other ways as well. In another article just a few weeks ago, landowners express their frustration at Enbridge’s abuse of easement rights. It seems that Enbridge’s surveying crews were staking on properties without the property owners’ permissions. Evidently, just as they did in Michigan, Enbridge has been exerting eminent domain rights before being granted those rights by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. The article also documents some familiar instances of the kind of non-communication so many of us have experienced from Enbridge: evasions, non-explanations, failures to follow up.
Based on this evidence, it’s hard to accept the notion that things in Michigan have somehow been different, that some unique set of circumstances beyond Enbridge’s control have caused all the trouble here. Quite the contrary: it appears that we are simply experiencing some version of the shabby treatment the people of British Columbia experienced. And now the people of Minnesota (and elsewhere) are experiencing the same. This is why we are cautious and chary about how “good” the news is from Minnesota. It appears to be a positive first step. We are very glad Enbridge has taken it. But, as the Carlton County group understands, it’s only a first step. There is much more work to be done. We will continue to watch the story and support our Minnesota friends in whatever ways we can.
If you are in Minnesota and want to learn more or add your voice to the chorus of concerned citizens, there is a public forum planned for later this week. Details are available here.
by Jeffrey Insko | Nov 15, 2013 |
This week, Enbridge notified some townships on phase two that they will stop work for the winter. CJ Carnacchio over at the Oxford Leader has the story. This is a very strange turn of events and the article raises far more questions than it answers. It also contains more of the same old Manshumisms we’ve heard before. Let’s take a look:
According to Carnacchio, a letter to Oxford and Addison Townships, Manshum announced that:
. . . construction on Segment 8 (of Line 6B) is being adjusted due to timing of receipt of final environmental approvals and seasonal constraints,” Manshum wrote.
We will resume the work as soon as weather permits in 2014, and anticipate completing Segment 8 construction by mid-2014.
In the letter, Manshum treats this as if it’s good news, the result of Enbridge thoughtfulness and consideration toward landowners:
By conducting the majority of construction activities, such as excavation, installation and restoration next spring, it will allow us to minimize disruptions to landowners and impacts to the environment because work can be completed in one season.
But let’s think about this for a minute. The bit about “seasonal constraints” is surely complete hogwash. Although the letter mentions “construction challenges and potential damages associated with freezing weather, including road frost bans and slippery road conditions”– challenges that are certainly real– those things in no way prevented Enbridge from working all through the winter last year. In fact, they didn’t even begin construction on our property until November. And work continued all through December, January, and February. So clearly, Enbridge has no trouble real trouble working through the winter months. Also, it’s not clear– the article doesn’t say– whether this cessation of work applies to the parts of phase two on the west side of the state (we suspect not, but we’ll try to find out).
Winter construction work, January 2013.
What this suggests is that the real reason they’re stopping construction has to do with “the timing of receipt of final environmental approvals.” Now that’s a typically wriggly and awkward Manshum phrase, just unclear enough to leave some doubt as to what it’s actually saying. But what we suspect it is saying– although Manshum would never say anything so clear and unequivocal as this– is that Enbridge for some reason failed to obtain some necessary permits and, as a result, they have no choice but to stop work. (Again, we’re not sure about this but are trying to find out.) In other words, we strongly suspect this has nothing at all to do with “seasonal constraints” or a desire to “minimize disruptions to landowners.” That’s just Manshum disingenuously trying to dress this situation up to make Enbridge look good when in fact, they failed to do what they are required to do (secure appropriate environmental approvals and permits).
But then the article gets even stranger. Specifically, things get strange when Carnacchio explains what will happen with the old, deactivated Line 6B. It’s not entirely clear in the article, but it appears that Manshum told Carnacchio this:
The old underground pipeline will not be removed to make way for the new one. It will be left in place where it will run parallel and adjacent to the new line using the same right-of-way.
Once the new line is tied in and activated, the old line will be deactivated.
Deactivation involves purging all the oil from the old line and cleaning it thoroughly to remove any remaining crude. The old line is then taken apart, divided into small segments and capped.
It’s the last sentence here that has us scratching our heads: “The old line is then to be taken apart, divided into small segments and capped.”
Say what?!
This is news to us. In nearly two years of talking, thinking, and asking about the deactivated pipe we have never heard any such thing before. Surely this can’t be true. For one thing, it just doesn’t make sense. Enbridge has said from day one that the main reason for leaving the old line in place is because taking it out would cause further disruptions to landowners. In fact, Manshum says it again at the end of this article:
Coming back and removing the old pipeline once the new one is activated would be inconvenient and disruptive for landowners who would have their properties dug up and disturbed a second time, according to Manshum.
But if they’re going to divide the old line into segments and cap them, how exactly would they do this without digging up disturbing landowners’ properties a second time? This segmenting and capping business needs some further clarification and explanation to say the least. We’re looking into this, too.
Lastly, we can’t help but say one more thing about this matter of inconvenience and disruption to landowners, which Enbridge’s stableful of Manshums has been repeating for so long. That line is supposed to make it look like they just care so much about us. But frankly, it’s insulting. It is not up to Jason Manshum to decide what is too much inconvenience and disruption; no one from Enbridge has ever asked us or any other landowner whether we think the disruption it would cause would be worth the permanent removal of the old Line 6B. Until they do, we would appreciate it if they would stop speaking for us.
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 28, 2013 |
Since this post will cover some ground that we’ve covered before, we’ll try to be brief. We’re risking repeating ourselves because this really gets our goat:
Yesterday, we read an interesting column by Jerry Davich in the Post-Tribune up in Northwest Indiana. The column isn’t bad. In fact, in many ways, it’s quite good– better than most, we’d say. It’s well written, thoughtful, fair-minded, and even, from our point of view, appropriately skeptical of Enbridge rhetoric. Even better, it gives plenty of air time to Nicole Barker of Save the Dunes, an organization we very much admire. Nicole and her team have been doing excellent and important work down in Indiana. The whole state owes them tremendous gratitude.
So what’s the problem? Well, once again, it’s the frame. The implied narrative of the story as Davich tells it is that the Line 6B project just pits groups like Save the Dunes against Enbridge. It’s a story of environmentalists versus energy– a simple, clear, compelling, dualistic narrative.
And what’s Davich’s position? Well, he seems to have some sympathy with the enviros like Nicole Barker, but then he (cleverly) allows Barker and Robert Thompson, executive director of the Porter County Plan Commission, to state what he describes as his own “contrarian opinion on this slippery issue”:
“It’s been quite a ride dealing with this for the past two years, and seeing the pipeline come through my area in LaPorte County is still shocking each time I drive by,” [Barker] told me.
This is where Barker unknowingly hints at my contrarian opinion on this slippery issue after I repeatedly hear similar concerns or complaints from many residents.
“Then again,” Barker noted, “I am driving by and it’s my car and my usage of fuel that is contributing to this.”
“So while it’s easy to point fingers, it’s a reminder that Northwest Indiana needs to do a better job of designing communities around people rather than vehicles.”
Thompson echoed this pragmatic, look-in-the-mirror reality check.
“As long as people are going to use their autos and we demand or want lower gas and oil prices, we are going to have companies trying to service that demand,” said Thompson, who rides his bicycle to work to avoid paying for gas.
“This is my choice. But if people are going to have the demand for oil and gas, we are going to see projects such as Enbridge in the area.”
Now, it’s hard to see just what’s “contrarian” about the position stated by Thompson here and endorsed by Davich. Spend 30 seconds in the comments section of any internet article about oil or gas production and that position will invariably be one of the first ones you encounter. Far from being contrarian, it’s just about the most obvious opinion available.
Just how obvious, how un-contrarian is it? Well, it’s the very first thing that Enbridge says, all the time. We’ve heard it over and over and over, from Joe Martucci (remember him?), from Patrick Daniel, from Tom Hodge. In fact, there is almost nothing Enbridge loves more than this version of the Line 6B story because they know it’s a way of framing the story that works to their advantage. Every time. Just look: even environmentalists like Nicole Barker and Robert Thompson concede the point! Enbridge wins!
The problem is, as we’ve said before, that it’s a false choice and a lousy frame. For one thing, it’s a false choice because the idea that we would suddenly run out of fuel for our cars if Enbridge didn’t get to build its new pipeline is ludicrous. But let’s set that one aside. It’s a lousy frame because it obscures a whole host of other very serious problems with the Line 6B project, many of which (unlike our dependence on fossil fuels) could actually be solved rather quickly: the weakness of federal and state regulatory oversight, the granting of eminent domain to foreign corporations and the erosion of individual property rights, the disregard for local authority and ordinances, the terrible mistreatment of landowners by a rich and powerful multinational corporation.
Just to be clear: we are as concerned about the environmental threats posed by tar sands oil production as anyone. But these are the other issues at stake in the Enbridge project and they can’t easily be fit into the simplistic enviro vs. energy narrative. In fact, you can be the most die-hard drill-baby-drill petroleum-guzzling Hummer-driving energy advocate in the world and still think that the company building the pipeline should have to behave itself and respect the states, municipalities, and private properties through which it passes. That is, you can be in favor of the pipeline project but critical of how Enbridge is going about completing it.
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 22, 2013 |
This news roundup is a little dusty, we’re sorry to say, but still relevant. Here’s a barrelful of recent items of note:
Enbridge President of U.S. Operations Stephen Wuori– yes, that Stephen Wuori— was in Michigan last week. No, he wasn’t here to talk to landowners and to apologize for the shabby treatment they’ve received at the hands of Enbridge and its pack of flighty, itinerant land agents; evidently, he is unwilling to face that unpleasant truth. Instead, he was here for a nice photo-op. Enbridge has turned over three parks that they created along the Kalamazoo River to the Calhoun Conservation Club. Obviously, we think this is a very good thing. And there’s no getting around the fact that the parks are very nice–even though, as we’ve said before, they’ve also scrubbed the area clean of the history that lead to the creation of those parks. Perhaps the Calhoun Conservation Club will put up some signs that tell the truth about those parks’ creation. They certainly should. The Battle Creek Enquirer’s Jennifer Bowman has the story.
In fact, Jennifer was quite busy last week. She also covered an interesting talk— we’re sorry we weren’t there– by our friend Steven Hamilton, the scientist from MSU who probably knows more about cleaning up diluted bitumen from waterways than any other human on the planet. If you want to know how things are really going on the Kalamazoo River, you don’t look to Steven Wuori or Jason Manshum, you look to Hamilton. Here’s a little taste of what he had to say:
“Sheen is really important to the story because it actually doesn’t take a lot of oil to make sheen,” Hamilton said. “But, we see it so you have a visible sign that there’s oil in the river when sheen is produced.”
Recent reports say the sheen doesn’t present long-term harm to river users. But Hamilton said whether it’s ecologically harmful is up for debate. And tar sands continues to be a controversial energy source.
And:
Hamilton also pointed to last year’s report from the National Transportation Safety Board, in which it said organizational failures and weak federal regulations were to blame for the 2010 spill.
“To me, that says it was preventable,” Hamilton said. “If we put enough effort and money into it, it might increase the cost of oil down to the consumer level but we can make pipelines safer if we take the right measures.”
Completely unrelated: we happened to be watching an episode of the Canadian program “Dragon’s Den” the other night, when, go figure, Enbridge’s name came up. In fact, the mention of Enbridge had everything to do with matters we were ruminating upon right here on this blog not very long ago: trees. It seems that for their “Tree for a Tree” program, Enbridge works with an outfit called Carbon Farmer. We took this as an opportunity to seek a little clarification about how, precisely, that Enbridge program works. So we wrote to Carbon Farmer with a few questions. But wouldn’t you know it? They have yet to reply. Evidently, everything Enbridge touches turns un-communicative…
Closer to home, apparently there is a bit of wariness and concern on the part of residents along phase two of Line 6B about the necessary pumping station upgrades. According to (an older) news report from one of our all-time favorite local reporters Susan Bromley, Brandon Township has approved a site plan, although some conditions of that approval have yet to be met. More recently, neighbors close to the pumping station in St. Clair township have expressed their displeasure with Enbridge’s plans. The Times Herald has that story.
Beyond Michigan, you may have heard by now about the large oil spill out in North Dakota. Obviously, this should be of concern to everybody in its own right. Even more troublesome, however, is that more recent reports seem to indicate that the company responsible for that spill, Tesoro Corp., may have known about problems with that line well before the spill? Sound familiar? If not, you haven’t read the NTSB report on the Marshall spill. And the takeaway here? Don’t feel comforted when companies like Enbridge tell you about all the fancy technology they’ve got to prevent pipeline spills. Technology, as we’ve said here many times, isn’t really the problem. Humans– that is, humans shaped by specific corporate cultures– are the real problem.
And speaking of problems we’ve experienced in Michigan that are being replicated elsewhere, you might also have heard about the gigantic piles of pet coke that are piling up along the Calumet River. Like the residents of Detroit, Chicagoans are none too happy about it. Henry Henderson has more over at the NRDC’s Switchboard blog.
Finally, a little levity from all of this unhappiness, courtesy some clever people up in Canada watching closely Enbridge’s Northern Gateway PR campaign:
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 21, 2013 |
We have always said that we’ll give credit to Enbridge if and when it’s due. It’s not our fault there’s more bad to report around here than good. But this morning, we’ve got something good to report.
Yesterday, we went for a walk at one of our favorite places nearby: the Shiawasee Basin Preserve in Davisburg. A couple of weeks ago, we noticed that they were installing some nice new limestone paths. That work appears to be complete now. And these signs have appeared:
You remember the Environmental Stewardship Program. Enbridge announced it almost a year ago during their settlement agreement with Brandon Township. It’s a very good program, offering $10-15,000 dollar grants to all townships and municipalities all along the Line 6B route for “green” projects. The go-getters in Springfield Township have already put (at least a portion of) that grant money to good use. The path looks great.
So thank you, Enbridge.
Of course, we should also thank Brandon Township Supervisor Kathy Thurman because without the stand Brandon took last year, we don’t think there would be an environmental stewardship program.
Anyway, your own local officials should know about this. In fact, please contact them and ask if they’ve got any plans for that money– and then let us know. (We’re writing our own Township Supervisor this morning.) It’s our understanding that residents are eligible to apply for it as well, as long as the use benefits everyone and is related to a green project. In fact, we would very much like to make this a new series: how municipalities are utilizing these funds. Heaven knows we could all stand to see some good things come out of all of this.
That would be a series even Enbridge would like!
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 15, 2013 |
Odd that people who like to think of themselves as such good neighbors can be such awful neighbors. Honestly, what kind of neighbor comes to your place and somehow manages to intrude upon all of the things you hold most dear? First, they messed with our natural resources (and they may well be messing with them even more), then they trampled on our properties, then they went messing with our beer.
And now they’re sticking their noses in our hunting season.
Yep, that’s right. Michigan sportsmen and sportswomen can’t just go out and enjoy hunting season as they’ve always done without being reminded (by our very own DNR) of Enbridge’s path of destruction. And what a shame, since the inside of one of those stretches of pipe would probably make an excellent deer blind. Just check out this press release which fell upon our desk today.
We wonder what’s next on Enbridge’s list? An interruption of the Tigers’ World Series bid?
We’ve also gotten word that construction activity has begun to heat up on our friend David Gallagher’s property. And evidently, it’s off to a rocky start. Dave tells us that crews tried to begin work before installing some agreed-to seismic monitoring equipment. We fear that this is only the first of a long stretch of headaches Dave, like so many others have endured, is going to have to attend to in the weeks and months to come.
