by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 3, 2012 |
Over the past several days, we’ve been commenting upon Christopher Behnan’s Daily Press & Argus story, an article (in our opinion) that advances Enbridge’s claims that they are exempt from seeking local consent. This morning, a similar story by Eric Lawrence appears in the Detroit Free Press. Lawrence, who has done some very fine reporting on the Line 6B project, is (appropriately) somewhat more skeptical toward Enbridge’s position than Behnan. Just note the difference between the two headlines. Here’s Behnan’s, which states Enbridge’s position as if it is established fact:
Enbridge line exempt from local ordinance
Now here is Lawrence’s, which recognizes that Enbridge’s position is not a fact, but an arguable claim:
Townships set out demands for pipeline, but Enbridge says it doesn’t need consent
We touched on this problem with Behnan’s article in our first post on this topic. We also discussed Enbridge’s argument that the language of the Howell ordinance itself contains exceptions which apply to Enbridge and, perhaps, exempt its project from the ordinance. Today, we return to that topic. (more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 31, 2012 |
We mentioned this morning that we have quite a lot to say about Christopher Behnan’s Daily Press & Argus story this morning. If you missed part 1, discussing whether Enbridge is, in fact, “exempt” from the Howell Township ordinance, it’s here. On that question, we thought portions of the article seemed to present Enbridge’s point of view as fact, rather than as arguable claims.
Nevertheless, the article does contain some very interesting new information, perhaps even a couple of minor bombshells. One of them is the topic of our second post: (more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 31, 2012 |
If you haven’t seen it yet, the Livingston County Daily Press & Argus has (finally, at long last!) published an article about the Howell Township ordinance, which we’ve been mentioning for weeks. We have so much to say about it, we’re going to address it in multiple posts.
We’ll start with the headline, which, unfortunately, appears to have been written by Enbridge lawyers: (more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 27, 2012 |
Today, we return to our series on tales and lessons from the NTSB report on the Marshall spill (read Part 1 and Part 2). Those of you who have been with us for a while know that we’ve been reading it so you don’t have to. But we encourage everyone to read it. Frankly, we think it should be required reading, if not for all Michigan citizens, then at least for every public official in the state–and we know from conversations with them that more than a few of our elected officials have not read it. In fact, the report should probably be required reading for all Michigan schoolchildren. Perhaps we’ll start writing to the MDE…
Anyway, we’re thinking more today about the requirements listed in the Brandon Township resolution. Several of these items involve technical improvements in the pipeline, enhancements drawn from Enbridge’s statements about the standards they’ll use for their Canadian Northern Gateway project. These enhancements are undoubtedly a very good thing and we once again applaud the Brandon trustees for asking for similar standards here in the U.S. That being said, however, what the NTSB report teaches us is that when it comes to Enbridge, technology isn’t really the problem; humans are. Which leads us to the topic of this part of our series:
Part 3: Technology is not enough (more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 5, 2012 |
One of our readers recently asked an important question about the availability of a detailed map showing the route of Line 6B. As far as I know, no such map is readily available to the public; Enbridge posts only a general map of the pipeline’s route across Michigan online. But that map doesn’t do you much good if, say, you live near the Talmadge Creek in Marshall and you suddenly begin to smell a foul odor, but aren’t sure where it’s coming from. It’s not very likely that your first guess is going to be that the source is a Canadian corporation’s 30-inch diameter underground pipe transporting diluted bitumen. (more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 5, 2012 |
From the Livingston Daily.
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 4, 2012 |
If you haven’t seen it yet, the NTSB Pipeline Accident Report on the 2010 Enbridge spill in Marshall, Michigan is a riveting– and revealing– document. Still, we understand that 100-plus pages of fact-finding released by a federal regulatory agency isn’t exactly everyone’s idea of fun summer reading. So for that reason, we’re launching a new series, in which we’ll tell you some stories drawn from the NTSB report and try to draw some lessons relevant to the Line 6B project. Here’s our first installment:
Part 1: Does Enbridge Learn from its Mistakes? (more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 3, 2012 |
In the first two installments of our three-part series on core issues for landowners and residents affected by the Enbridge Line 6B project (and that’s pretty much all of us!) we discussed individual landowner negotiations and local consent. In our discussion of the latter, we emphasized the importance for local municipalities to try and assert their autonomy and authority (granted by the state constitution) by insisting that Enbridge follow the law and seek consent before beginning construction. We ended that post with the key question: what good it will do for local municipalities to demand that Enbridge seek their consent? That is, what is to be gained?
The key answer to that question (in our view) can be summed up in a single word: safety.
Core issue #3: Safety (more…)
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…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 1, 2012 |
Among the most disheartening elements of our experience as landowners dealing with Enbridge has been an apparent lack of knowledge or even interest in the Line 6B “replacement” on the part of our elected officials (at the federal, state, and local levels) and the press. The disturbing lack of public discussion and awareness on this issue– and it appears that Enbridge likes it that way– is one of the reasons we started this blog.
In a three-part post, I’d like to mention some core issues that ought to be of widespread public concern, with a word or two about what individuals can do to help raise awareness of them:
Core Issue #1: Individual landowner negotiations. (more…)
