<html><head></head><body><div style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:16px;"><div style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:16px;"><span><div style="font-size: 16px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">Hello everyone</div><div style="font-size: 16px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><br></div><div style="font-size: 16px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">Enbridge is selling Line 10 pipeline and the NEB is bypassing a hearing on the CPCN Certificate but allowing for written comment so here is the link to what I submitted on the NEB website with attachments on the NEB website.</div><div style="font-size: 16px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><br></div><div style="font-size: 16px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">This document is now officially on the public record. Enbridge had a period of time to respond to my letter of comment, and after that the NEB may give a chance for final response or it may move the issue to a full hearing instead. I don't know which path they'll chose. </div><div style="font-size: 16px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><br></div><div style="font-size: 16px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">This process is to facilitate the sale of Line 10 from Enbridge Pipeline Inc. to Westover Express in BC which is a wholly owned subsidiary of United Refining Pipeline in the US. Here are my notes. <br></div><div style="font-size: 16px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><br></div><div style="font-size: 16px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><a href="https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/Filing/A93434" style="color: rgb(25, 106, 212); text-decoration-line: underline;" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/Filing/A93434</a><br></div><div style="font-size: 16px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><br></div><div style="font-size: 16px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><br></div><div style="font-size: 16px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">This is an unusual window here. </div><div style="font-size: 16px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><br></div><div style="font-size: 16px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">There is a court case called Transamerica Life Insurance Co of Canada v. Canada Life Assurance Co. that can "pierce the veil". That is the term used. I have no honestly clue what it means. Perhaps securing a corporate audit or review at a higher level. It may lead to words like NO. Who knows? </div><div style="font-size: 16px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><br></div><div style="font-size: 16px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">It requires three things to implement. </div><div style="font-size: 16px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><br></div><div style="font-size: 16px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">1) A court case or an issuance of certificate. </div><div style="font-size: 16px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">2) proof of a shell company or fraud</div><div style="font-size: 16px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">3) proof of guilt on the part of the company. </div><div style="font-size: 16px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><br></div><div style="font-size: 16px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">The reason the folks from Ecuador failed with this argument is when they sued Chevron in Canada, they could not in good faith blame the Canadian company for the wrongs of its parent company. It was Chevron Canada they were suing. </div><div style="font-size: 16px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><br></div><div style="font-size: 16px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">The upside here is that this case fits the issues I'm observing like a glove. I have all three criteria and I am so certain of the illegality of it, I've successfully launched a formal investigation on it. That is ongoing. The illegality of it is supported by a recent court case with the US FERC. That ruling applied to Enbridge because they ran a shell to move money in and out of Canada and the US. There was a company that had a board and no staff members and were claiming service fees and tax brakes on MLP projects. Enbridge Energy Partners, Enbridge Pipeline Inc. and Enbridge Income Fund Holdings and Enbridge Inc. are all impacted by this. </div><div style="font-size: 16px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><br></div><div style="font-size: 16px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">So from this seemingly simply process of them seeking a permit I can exposing an issue I've been working on for 7 years. it gives me the chance to facilitate dialogue and secure responses to the concerns. Should be interesting.</div><div style="font-size: 16px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><br></div><div style="font-size: 16px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">Lulu </div><div style="font-size: 16px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><br></div></span></div></div></body></html>