Dear sir,

Re: “Harris’ numbers indicate the potential for 2 million litre spill” (Sentinel, October 21) as ever, I am pleased to respond to Mr. Minchin’s questions.

First though, I would like to address his suggestion that mayor and council should support the idea of an independent public inquiry in an attempt to better protect our water supply and marine environment.

Although he characterizes his proposal as an “aside”, it raises a critical issue (in this case, protecting Kitimat’s water supply) that is at the heart of why the project should be put through the existing regulatory review process, rather than a public inquiry.

The regulatory review process undertaken by the National Energy Board (NEB) and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) is designed to evaluate project benefits, assess possible risks and ultimately determine whether the project is in the public interest

The amount of information made available under a full regulatory review would be greater and would provide more in depth findings than those drawn from a non-binding public inquiry.

The reason for this is simple – the information generated during the regulatory review process is tested through rigorous cross-examination conducted during public hearings that are held in communities along the pipeline route.

In my view, the citizens of Kitimat would be better served by having the opportunity to consider the different information and opinions concerning the project that will be presented through the review.

In keeping with our commitment to ensure that local communities are best equipped to make a decision regarding the pipeline, we would like to invite a group, including representatives from the Kitimat council, local First Nations, and community members (in particular, Mr. Minchin) to tour the Edmonton Control Centre to understand how our pipelines are monitored and maintained.

This would be an opportunity for people to see firsthand how investments in technology and pipeline integrity management programs have made our pipelines among the safest in the world.

I think Mr. Minchin would also be interested to know that in a recent report released by the Pembina Institute, they quoted a report from the National Energy Board which stated that “no ruptures were recorded on pipelines which had operated for less than twelve years.” (Pipeline and Salmon in Northern British Columbia, p. 24)

This speaks to a significant improvement in overall pipeline safety.

By using modern techniques and materials and involving the public in assisting in the design, construction and operation, we are able to confidently build safe pipelines.

Drawing on old statistics from projects that used outdated technology both in construction and operation to predict future events just isn’t accurate.

Many of Mr. Minchin’s questions will be addressed in the regulatory filing documents, which will be publicly available online following the filing.

And now, on to Mr. Minchin’s other questions.

Mr. Harris stated that a maximum spill of 2,000,000 litres from the pipeline was possible. Was this the best news scenario they could offer?

As a responsible company, it is our obligation to be truthful in the information we provide and we are committed to that standard.

In fact, we are the only group who has constantly been attempting to engage people in an honest discussion around this project.

In a recent mail out to every house in his Skeena riding, MP Nathan Cullen circulated misleading information about tanker traffic stating that over 64,000 supertankers would pass through the Douglas Channel over the lifetime of the project.

First, Mr. Cullen does not distinguish that half of the tankers will be empty as they arrive to pick up oil or leave after unloading condensate. Second, the project would need to operate for over 280 years to have that volume of tanker traffic carrying product.

Mr. Cullen’s comment was meant to inflame an emotional response rather than inform people. It certainly puts in question the other information his “fact-finding team” is using. Maybe becoming involved with more than just one side of a project, whatever that project may be, would allow for an honest evaluation of the facts.

To Mr. Minchin’s question, considerable effort is made to assess local hazards and potential local impact at each sensitive watercourse crossing.

State-of-the-art route selection processes, engineering design of materials and construction practices are applied to reduce or eliminate the potential hazards and local impacts. The objective of these efforts is to have zero spills.

Accepting that unforeseen events can occur, Enbridge also plans for immediate response containment and cleanup in the event of a spill.

In the highly unlikely event of a system leak, the volume of oil spilled would be expected to be much less than the 2,000 cubic meters cited by Mr. Minchin.

As part of our emergency response planning, control points for all sensitive watercourse crossings will be established prior to starting operations.

Response equipment will be strategically located along the system to ensure fast and effective response. This equipment will be regularly tested and replaced or upgraded as improved technology becomes available.

M: Is it possible to maintain constant pressure in the pipeline? Does the pressure effect why it takes two hours to trigger the alarm in the event of a leak?

Our pipelines are monitored 24/7 by the Control Centre to detect any anomaly such as changes in pressure or flow rate.

Enbridge’s operators are trained to immediately respond to variances in the continuous feedback of information that is received from each pump station and remotely controlled isolation valves. The pipeline is designed so that the oil moves at the same speed throughout the system, approximately four kilometers per hour. This allows the Control Centre to constantly understand the condition of the pipeline at all locations.

Pressure changes occur naturally with elevation changes and the distance the oil has traveled from the last pump station. However, the pipeline has been developed so the ‘column’ of oil in the Northern Gateway pipeline will always remain intact.

Any breach of the pipeline resulting in a significant leak will be detected almost immediately, acted upon within two minutes, and the line completely shut down within five minutes.

M: If a leak of 325,000 litres every two hours (well under the 348,000 litres needed to sound the alarm) began at dusk on a sixteen hour long winter night, could 2.6 million litres of oil spill without the control centre even knowing there was a problem? If there was thick ice and deep snow on the river, how long after dawn would it take for anybody to notice and call Enbridge to shut the pipeline down? Could the volume spilled rise to 3 million litres?

The scenario described by Mr. Minchin is highly improbable. From experience, a spill as he describes would most probably be related to an equipment failure. This is virtually impossible in a water crossing as there wouldn’t be any equipment in the crossing and the pipeline will be carefully designed, quality controlled, constructed, installed with added depth of cover, tested and operationally monitored to ensure its safety.

In the unlikely event of a spill associated with the likes of rockslides or washouts, the potential spill would likely be medium to large and would be detected within minutes. The spill would be detected by the Control Centre Operator through the state-of-the-art control systems.

Enbridge is evaluating the latest technology associated with advanced leak detection systems to further improve the sensitivity of the leak detection capability. This technology will likely be applied to future projects such as Northern Gateway.

M: Wouldn’t it be in Enbridge’s interest to invest at least $30 million in developing more precise pipeline leak detection technology?

In 2008, we shipped close to 800 million barrels (127.2 billion litres) of oil through a network of pipelines stretching over 13,000 kilometres. We spilled 2,668 barrels (424,000 litres) of that 800 million barrels or 3 ten-thousands of one percent.

Of that, most was recovered and re-injected into the pipeline system. None of the spilled oil entered any water systems as the vast majority of the spills occurred within our contained facilities.

Over the last 60 years Enbridge has invested far more than $30 million to design, build and operate its pipeline system and to be a leading company in the development of state-of-the-art control systems.

Sincerely,

Roger Harris,

Vice President, Aboriginal &

Community Partners,

Northern Gateway.

v2