<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><div class="" style="">Hi folks</div><div style="background-color: transparent;" class=""><span class="" style="">I contacted the National Energy Board today to file a formal report of the spill that I witnessed at the Humber River. It'</span><span style="background-color: transparent;" class="">s under their jurisdictional power to investigate. </span><span style="background-color: transparent;" class="">Professional Engineers Ontario who enforce the Planning Act have no jurisdictional powers over oil and gas issues and the MOE can investigate chemical releases and pollution issues but it's not their jurisdiction to investigate pipeline integrity issues. Although I have provided info to the MOE investigations, this was the first report I made directly to the NEB about this
issue. </span></div><div style="background-color: transparent;" class=""><span style="background-color: transparent;" class=""><br clear="none" style=""></span></div><div style="background-color: transparent;" class=""><span style="background-color: transparent;" class="">I provided them with the videos and the information I shared with the MOE as well as data from an unnamed Engineer who I have been working with and he outlined concerns specific to Line 9 and mentioned a point of weakness in the pipe's thickness located by the West Humber River that was identified in the</span><span style="font-size: 10pt; background-color: transparent;"> Line 9 detailed mapping as provided by Enbridge during the NEB process. The Engineer states </span><span style="font-size: 10pt; background-color: transparent;">"Often the 0.5 wall sections that should be under the river/ creek etc. are shifted by 300 to 500 m. </span><span style="font-size: 10pt;
background-color: transparent;">At one point the kilometer posts are reversed."</span></div><div style="background-color: transparent;" class=""><div class="" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', 'Segoe UI', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif;"><div class="" style=""><div class="" style=""><div class="" role="main" aria-label="Message body" style="padding: 0px;"><div id="yiv5705849466" class="" style=""><div class="" style=""><div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;" class=""><div class="" style=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; background-color: transparent;"><br></span></div><div class="" style=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; background-color: transparent;">Below I provide his comments regarding the Line 9</span><span style="font-size: 10pt; background-color: transparent;"> pipeline's route/thickness. </span><br></div><div class=""
style=""><br></div><div class="" style="">Lulu </div><div class="" style=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; background-color: transparent;"><br></span></div><div class="" style=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; background-color: transparent;">_____________________________________________________________________</span></div><div class="" style=""><br class="" style=""></div><div class="" style="">Approximate kilometer points (kp) are given in square brackets. </div><div class="" style=""><br class="" style=""></div><div class="" style="">Pages are given as indicated in the upper right corner of the map. E.g. page 20 is “Page 20 of 175”, but shows as page 21 in the document, due to the front page.</div><div class="" style=""><br class="" style=""></div><div class="" style="">Pumping station locations:</div><div class="" style="">North Westover [2997.5], map p. 1</div><div class="" style="">Hilton [3214.5], map p. 60</div><div class=""
style="">Cardinal [3430.3], map. p. 159</div><div class="" style="">Terrebonne [3617.4], map p. 170</div><div class="" style="">Montreal [3637], map. p. 174 or 175</div><div class="" style="">Pipeline at each pumping station shows stronger pipe going east, weaker pipe going west, clearly designed for west → east flow (pressure is highest at the pumping station, dropping towards the next pumping station, with local variations due to elevation. Specifically:</div><div class="" style="">Looking at Hilton station, the pipeline to the east is 0.312” wall, but to the west it is mainly 0.25” with few 0.281” sections. Clearly, the east side is accommodated for high pressure leaving the station, the west side is not.</div><div class="" style="">At Cardinal station, the east side is consistently 0.281” wall, west side is 0.25” wall. Same as above, with the remark that 0.281” is less increase than 0.312”, by 11%.</div><div class="" style="">At
Terrebonne station, same as Cardinal, east side is 0.281”, west side is 0.25”.</div><div class="" style="">Since the pipeline was originally designated for west-east transport, this is appropriate. However, during the period of “reverse” flow direction, obviously the pipe size was wrong right after the pumping stations. Perhaps this is why it never operated near the maximum allowed pressure, and why NEB commented that lowering the pressure is not proper remedy for pipeline deficiencies. The fact that NEB allowed such a reversal in 1999 is probably based on the pressure tests.</div><div class="" style="">The features on the map have large discrepancies with the official section designations, copied from the 1997 pressure test data. The discrepancies for the 0.5” sections alone between the actual waterway position and the documented thick pipe section are often 0.3 to 0.5 km, but many are bang on, which indicates that this is not simply a case
of constant shift. Some examples are given below. Shift is given in km.</div><div class="" style="">[3108.03003108.102] +0.2</div><div class="" style="">[3109.06903109.130] +0.3</div><div class="" style="">[3115.780-3115.817] +0.4</div><div class="" style="">[3117.130-3117.169] +0.4</div><div class="" style="">[3128.211-3128.333] +0.4</div><div class="" style="">[3136.084-3136.122] +0.3</div><div class="" style="">[3137.307-3137.345] +0.4</div><div class="" style="">etc.</div><div class="" style="">Generally, the pipe under the wetlands is 0.312” thick, while under waterways is sometimes 0.344” and sometimes 0.5”.</div><div class="" style="">Waterways where the pipe is less than 0.344” thick (not counting where the thicker section is shifted due to inaccuracies – as listed above):</div><div class="" style="">[2998.0] 0.312”</div><div class="" style="">[3001.95] 0.312”</div><div class="" style="">[3018.05] 0.281”</div><div class=""
style="">[3032.6] 0.312”</div><div class="" style="">[3046.1] 0.312”</div><div class="" style="">[3064.8] 0.312” (West Humber River)</div><div class="" style="">[3070.6] 0.281” (Black Creek)</div><div class="" style="">[3087.8] 0.281” (West Highland Creek)</div><div class="" style="">[3098.2] 0.281” (Little Rouge Creek)</div><div class="" style="">[3112.4] 0.281”</div><div class="" style="">[3114.1] 0.281”</div><div class="" style="">[3117.8] 0.281”</div><div class="" style="">[3122-3127] five waterway crossings with 0.25” pipe</div><div class="" style="">[3129-3136] seven waterway crossings with 0.281” or 0.25” pipe</div><div class="" style="">[3138-3154] nine waterways crossings with 0.281” or 0.25” pipe</div><div class="" style="">[3163.5] 0.281” (Graham Creek)</div><div class="" style="">[3214.0] 0.25”</div><div class="" style="">[3302.0] 0.281” (Spring Creek)</div><div class="" style="">[3340-3355] sixteen
waterways crossings with 0.25” pipe</div><div class="" style="">Many more.</div><div class="" style="">On page 18, the kilometre points 3059 and 3058 are swapped around!</div><div class="" style=""><br class="" style=""></div><div class="" style=""><br></div></div></div></div></div><div class="" style=""></div></div><div class="" style=""><div class="" style=""></div></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>