Example 1: Spills and Leaks of Line 9
Research by CTV W5 has uncovered that Enbridge’s Line 9 pipeline has almost had a spill a year over the course of its history, some small but some as large as thousands of litres. (source) There are a number of incidents that were not reported to municipalities or the NEB.
CTV’s W5 provides an infograph specific to Line 9 leaks. The total of oil spilled so far from Line 9 according to their findings, is 3,065,359 L (equal to 19,280.53 US Barrels of Oil). (source)
Line 9 phase 1 from Sarnia to Westover Ontario has been flowing with oil since January 2014.
Concerns for leaks and spills along Line 9 is an ongoing issue. (source)
The NEB states on June 18, 2015 the following: Ongoing condition monitoring was imposed because the updated engineering assessment indicated that some leak dependent features were observed in the field. (source)
Example 2: The Humber River Spills Response
A Hazmat 2 Spill was reported in proximity to the Line 9 pipeline along the Humber River by Albion Road on May 30, 2014. (source) Early media coverage stated it was from a high pressure pipeline and documents secured by FOI shows the solvent was identified as oil.
This incident occurred in the area where Line 9 and three other pipelines cross the Humber River in Toronto. To this day the source of the spill remains unidentified. Evidence gathered suggests there were actions by someone who’s intent it was to silence the flow of critical information. Their conduct may have violated law.
Documents confirm vac trucks and booms were used but the booms were not wide enough to cross the river to stop the flow of the oil.
Information gathered suggests there were actions taken that may have violated law. These issues were raised with the NEB, the Ontario Spills Action Centre, the Transportation Safety Board as well as other Provincial and Federal agencies.
Photo of Humber Spill by Louisette Lanteigne
Example 3: Enbridge’s secrecy of their Emergency Procedures Manual
The National Energy Board’s Chairman Peter Watson sent Enbridge a letter stamped February 5, 2015 (source) where they raise concern about the fact that some municipalities are being asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) before they receive a copy of Enbridge’s Emergency Procedures Manual.
Mr. Watson wrote “I am concerned that Enbridge’s practice of requesting NDA’s is not consistent with the principals of regulatory transparency that guides the Boards regulatory approach. Additionally, in the circumstances where municipalities are unwilling to sign NDAs, I would appreciate knowing what steps Enbridge will be taking to assure the requirement of section 34 of the OPA are met.”