joint review panel for the enbridge northern gateway project · joint review panel for the enbridge...

JOINT REVIEW PANEL FOR THE ENBRIDGE

NORTHERN GATEWAY PROJECT

COMMISSION D’EXAMEN CONJOINT DU PROJET

ENBRIDGE NORTHERN GATEWAY

Hearing Order OH-4-2011

Ordonnance d’audience OH-4-2011

Northern Gateway Pipelines Inc.

Enbridge Northern Gateway Project

Application of 27 May 2010

Demande de Northern Gateway Pipelines Inc.

du 27 mai 2010 relative au projet

Enbridge Northern Gateway

VOLUME 89

Hearing held at

Audience tenue à

Columbus Community Centre

7201 Domano Blvd.

Prince George, British Columbia

October 13, 2012

Le 13 octobre 2012

International Reporting Inc.

Ottawa, Ontario

(613) 748-6043

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada 2012

as represented by the Minister of the Environment

and the National Energy Board

© Sa Majesté du Chef du Canada 2012

représentée par le Ministre de l’Environnement et

l’Office national de l’énergie

This publication is the recorded verbatim transcript

and, as such, is taped and transcribed in either of the

official languages, depending on the languages

spoken by the participant at the public hearing.

Cette publication est un compte rendu textuel des

délibérations et, en tant que tel, est enregistrée et

transcrite dans l’une ou l’autre des deux langues

officielles, compte tenu de la langue utilisée par le

participant à l’audience publique.

Printed in Canada Imprimé au Canada

Transcript Hearing Order OH-4-2011

HEARING /AUDIENCE

OH-4-2011

IN THE MATTER OF an application filed by the Northern Gateway Pipelines

Limited Partnership for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity

pursuant to section 52 of the National Energy Board Act, for authorization

to construct and operate the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project.

HEARING LOCATION/LIEU DE L'AUDIENCE

Hearing held in Prince George (British Columbia), Saturday, October 13, 2012

Audience tenue à Prince George (Colombie-Britannique), samedi, le 13 octobre 2012

JOINT REVIEW PANEL/LA COMMISSION D’EXAMEN CONJOINT

S. Leggett Chairperson/Présidente

K. Bateman Member/Membre

H. Matthews Member/Membre


APPEARANCES/COMPARUTIONS (i)

APPLICANT/DEMANDEUR Northern Gateway Pipelines Inc. - Mr. Richard A. Neufeld, Q.C. - Mr. Ken MacDonald - Mr. Bernie Roth - Ms. Laura Estep - Ms. Kathleen Shannon - Mr. Dennis Langen - Mr. Douglas Crowther INTERVENORS/INTERVENANTS Alberta Federation of Labour - Ms. Leanne Chahley Alberta Lands Ltd. - Mr. Darryl Carter Alexander First Nation - Ms. Caroline O’Driscoll BC Nature and Nature Canada - Mr. Chris Tollefson - Mr. Mark Haddock Doug Beckett Province of British Columbia - Ms. Elizabeth Graff - Mr. Christopher R. Jones Nathan Cullen C.J. Peter Associates Engineering - Mr. Chris Peter Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) - Mr. Keith Bergner - Mr. Lewis L. Manning Cenovus Energy Inc., Nexen Inc., Suncor Energy Marketing Inc., Total E&P Canada Ltd. - Mr. Don Davies Coastal First Nations - Ms. Brenda Gaertner Council of the Haida Nation - Ms. G.L. Terri-Lynn Williams-Davidson


APPEARANCES/COMPARUTIONS (Continued/Suite)

(ii) INTERVENORS/INTERVENANTS Daiya-Mattess Keyoh - Mr. Kenny Sam Douglas Channel Watch - Mr. Murray Minchin - Ms. Cheryl Brown - Mr. Kelly Marsh - Mr. Manny Arruda Driftpile Cree Nation - Mr. Amyn F. Lalji Enoch Cree Nation, Ermineskin Cree Nation and Samson Cree Nation - Mr. G. Rangi Jeerakathil - Mr. Sean Fairhust - Mr. Brock Roe ForestEthics Advocacy, Living Oceans Society and Raincoast Conservation Foundation - “The Coalition” - Mr. Barry Robinson - Mr. Tim Leadem, Q.C. - Ms. Sasha Russell - Ms. Karen Campbell Fort St. James, District of - Mr. Kevin Crook Fort St. James Sustainability Group - Mr. Lawrence Shute - Ms. Brenda Gouglas - Ms. Candace Kerr Friends of Morice-Bulkley - Ms. Dawn Remington Gitxaala Nation - Ms. Rosanne M. Kyle - Mr. Robert Janes Government of Alberta - Mr. Ron Kruhlak Government of Canada - Mr. Kirk Lambrecht


APPEARANCES/COMPARUTIONS (Continued/Suite)

(iii) INTERVENORS/INTERVENANTS Haisla Nation - Ms. Jennifer Griffith - Ms. Hana Boye - Mr. Jesse McCormick - Mr. Allan Donovan Kelly Izzard Kitimat Valley Naturalists - Mr. Walter Thorne - Mr. Dennis Horwood - Ms. April MacLeod MEG Energy Corp. - Mr. Loyola Keough - Mr. David A. McGillivray Northwest Institute of Bioregional Research - Ms. Patricia Moss Office of the Wet'suwet'en - Mr. Mike Ridsdale Swan River First Nation - Mr. Jay Nelson - Ms. Dominique Nouvet United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union - Ms. Joy Thorkelson - Mr. Hugh Kerr Terry Vulcano Josette Wier National Energy Board/Office national de l’énergie - Mr. Andrew Hudson - Ms. Carol Hales - Ms. Rebecca Brown - Mr. Asad Chaudhary


ERRATA

(i)

Wednesday, October 10, 2012 - Volume 86

Paragraph No.: Should read:

6226:

“A four-hour…rate would be 200,000 metres “A four-hour…rate would be 200

…looking at about 800,000 metres…” metres…looking at about 800 metres…”

Friday, October 12, 2012 - Volume 88


8087:

"In this paragraph…total of the bored "In this paragraph…total of the bored

crossing was 19…” crossings was 19…”

8162:

“You know, the choice of having a remote “You know, the choice of having a remote

empowerment is independent of seismic impoundment is independent of seismic

activity.” activity.”

8164:

“So in this case, due to the site situation, “So in this case, due to the site situation,

remove empowerment system…” remove impoundment system…”

8167:

“…seismicity in this area if we look at peek “…seismicity in this area if we look at peak

ground acceleration as a…” ground acceleration as a…”

8168:

“…15 percent for hard ground at the rock.” “…15 percent for hard ground or soft rock.”

8169:

“…Mr. Malhotra’s questions that we were “…Mr. Malhotra’s questions. That we were

not going to consider. We were not going not going to consider --- We are not going to

to use…that we were going to follow the use…that we are going to generally follow

structural provisions of the Canadian Code…” the structural provisions of the Canadian

Code…”

8171:

“And just define g, we’ve used it a couple “And just to define g, we’ve used it a couple

of days now…” of days now…”


ERRATA

(ii)



8291:

“…previous testimony, how many of “…previous testimony, for many of these

these hazards…” hazards…”

8292:

“…where geohazards of various location “…where geohazards at various locations

-- of types exist.” and types exist.”

8293:

“…continuous hazard along the function is “…continuous hazard along the pipeline is

the hazard of seismic shaking.” the hazard of seismic shaking.”

8294:

“…liquefaction, failure of ground movement, “…liquefaction, failure due to ground

just the pipeline…” movement, just the pipeline…”

8335:

“…that’s our peak ground acceleration…” “…that’s a peak ground acceleration…”

8454:

“You have to de-aggregate the results.” “You have to deaggregate the results.”

8456:

“And so we can disaggregate to look at “And so we can deaggregate to look at what

what the probability…” the probability…”

8456:

“That’s called “de-aggregation of the seismic “That’s called “deaggregation of the seismic

data”…” data”…”

8457:

“…numbers that are used for design as per “…numbers that are used for design as per

the building code.” the Building Code.”

8458:

“…results of Ms. Atkinson’s study can be “…results of Ms. Atkinson’s study can be

de-aggregated, has the de-aggregation been deaggregated, has the deaggregation been

performed…” performed…”


ERRATA

(iii)



8560:

“Some manufacturers produced hydro “Some manufacturers produced hyper-

sensitized steels...” sensitized steels...”

8573:

“…to be what we call “jigs” or “holidays” “…to be what we call “jeeps” or holidays in

in coating.” coating.”

8597:

“…the number of remotely-operable blocked “…the number of remotely-operable block

valves.” valves.”

8710:

“I think we’ve acknowledged…seeing in our “I think we’ve acknowledged…seeing in our

Kitimat Valley design, construction, and Kitimat Valley Design, Construction, and

operations report that that is a possibility.” Operations Report that that is a possibility.”

8711:

“…focus of the Kitimat Valley Design, “…focus of the Kitimat Valley Design,

Construction, and Operations Point Report Construction, and Operations Report points

to try …” to try …”

8721:

“In terms or the sensitivity of the “In terms of the sensitivity of the

environment…” environment…”

8864:

“…covered really larger zones and we’ve “…covered really large zones and we’ve

taken those zones…” taken those zones…”

8894:

“…approximately 5 kilometres across the “…approximately 5 kilometres across the

water from Kitimat Village within…” water from Kitimaat Village within…”

8928:

“Features such as evulsion were more confined “Features such as avulsion were more

than what we were…” confined than what we were…”


ERRATA

(iv)



9057:

“…representation indicating the potential “representation indicating the potential

volume or releases…” volume of releases…”

9166:

“MR. RAY DOERING: ...” “MR. JIM MIHELL: ...”

9272:

“For NGTL to provide an updated version “For NGP to provide an updated version of a

of a map…” map…”

9296:

“There’s a very extensive provincial park “There’s a very extensive Provincial Park

running along the river valley farther south.” running along the river valley farther south.”


TABLE OF CONTENTS/TABLE DES MATIÈRES

(i)

Description Paragraph No./No. de paragraphe

Opening remarks by the Chairperson 9464

Preliminary matters brought forward by Ms. Shannon 9467

Enbridge Northern Gateway Panel 2

Mr. Ray Doering

Mr. Peter Acton

Mr. Barry Callele

Mr. Drummond Cavers

Mr. Tom Fiddler

Mr. Shane Kelly

Mr. Clive MacKay

Mr. James Mihell

Mr. Peter Wong

- Examination by Dr. Kerr 9482

- Examination by Mr. Beckett 9920

- Examination by Mr. Vulcano 10139

- Examination by Dr. Wier 10391


LIST OF EXHIBITS/LISTE DES PIÈCES

(i)

No. Description Paragraph No./No. de paragraphe

AQ26-A United Fishermen Allied Workers’ Union - CVN

schematics test results prepared by Mr. Hugh Kerr. 9590

AQ27-A Doug Beckett – Article – Stream network modeling

using LiDAR and photogrammetric digital elevation

models: a comparison and filed verification by

Paul N.C., Murphy, Jae Ogilvie, Fran-Rui Meng

and Paul Arp. 10132

B140 Enbridge Northern Gateway’s Response to

Undertaking U-32 10709


RULINGS/DÉCISIONS

(i)

Description Paragraph No./No. de paragraphe


UNDERTAKINGS/ENGAGEMENTS

No. Description Paragraph No./No. de paragraphe

Preliminary matters


--- Upon commencing at 8:28 a.m./L’audience débute à 8h28

9464. THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, everybody. Wasn’t it a

lovely sunrise this morning? We all got to see it, I think.

9465. Before we get under way with further questions of this panel, are there

any preliminary matters that parties would like to raise?

9466. Ms. Shannon?

9467. MS. SHANNON: Mr. Callele and Mr. Mihell have very brief

preliminary matters. Thank you.

RAY DOERING: Resumed

PETER ACTON: Resumed

BARRY CALLELE: Resumed

DRUMMOND CAVERS: Resumed

TOM FIDDLER: Resumed

SHANE KELLY: Resumed

CLIVE MacKAY: Resumed

JAMES MIHELL: Resumed

PETER WONG: Resumed

9468. MR. BARRY CALLELE: Good morning.

9469. Could I take you to yesterday's transcript, Volume 88, paragraph

8520? Thank you, Madam Clerk.

9470. We were being asked whether or not we're doing real time monitoring

of cathodic protection and I told them that I would -- the Haisla counsel that I'd

get back to them later in the day. It took us a little bit longer -- actually, we found

the IR itself.

9471. If we -- it was actually Exhibit B93-3, Adobe page 97. The answer to

the question is in letter C of it, so it'd be 126C, I guess.

9472. And the remaining questions regarding cathodic protection, we'll defer

to the integrity -- oh sorry, to the Operations Panel. But basically C states that

Enbridge does incorporate remote monitoring equipment on some of its pipeline

systems designed to capture induced DC or AC voltage fluctuations in real time

Preliminary matters


with immediate notification transmission of other range readings.

9473. Basically, what we're saying there is that we're ensuring that we're not

overcharging the systems and getting it to the state where the coding might

disbond.

9474. So I just wanted to bring that to everybody's attention. Thank you

very much.

9475. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Callele.

9476. MR. JAMES MIHELL: And good morning.

9477. I have one item as well. On paragraph 8283, the transcript reads:

“So typically, longer pipelines have greater failure events

during the course of a year than shorter events all other things

being equal.”

9478. And that doesn't make much sense. It should read:

“So typically, longer pipelines have greater failure events

during the course of a year than shorter pipelines, all other

things being equal.”

9479. Thank you.

9480. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Mihell.

9481. Seeing no other preliminary matters, Dr. Kerr, I think we left off with

you yesterday afternoon and you were going to begin your questions on behalf of

the Union of this panel.

--- EXAMINATION BY/INTERROGATOIRE PAR DR. KERR:

9482. DR. KERR: Thank you, Madam Chair.

9483. The first think I want to talk about is to get some perspective on the

size of a spill where there is spill. So I want first to go to Table 4.1.


Examination by Dr. Kerr


9484. So we see from this table that the oil pipeline capacity -- the

theoretical design capacity is 583,000 barrels per day. Is that right, Mr. Doering?

9485. MR. RAY DOERING: Yes, that would be the maximum design

capacity of the oil pipeline.

9486. DR. KERR: And that’s in Phase 1; right?

9487. MR. RAY DOERING: That is the facility that we've described here

in the application, the facility that we're seeking approval for.

9488. DR. KERR: So we don’t talk about Phase 4 here.

9489. MR. RAY DOERING: No, we're not seeking an application for any

capacity beyond the maximum design rate indicated here.

9490. DR. KERR: Okay. So if we look at that number, 583,000, that’s per

day. So per hour we divide that by 24; correct?

9491. MR. RAY DOERING: Yes, you could do that.

9492. DR. KERR: And per minute, we'd divide again by 60.

9493. MR. RAY DOERING: That would work.

9494. DR. KERR: And your response time is 13 minutes. Is that right?

9495. MR. RAY DOERING: We have described a maximum response

time to a full bore rupture event of 13 minutes. That is 10 minutes to identify and

determine the situation and three minutes then to isolate the system, so that’s the

three minutes. That’s a very conservative estimate of a response time under a full

bore rupture scenario.

9496. I think Mr. Callele could probably describe how a full bore rupture

scenario would result in a multiple of -- a multitude of signals from

instrumentation along the pipeline that would likely cause a shutdown much

sooner than 10 minutes.

9497. DR. KERR: So I can use 13 minutes as a basis for my calculation?




9498. MR. RAY DOERING: That’s what we've been using ---

9499. DR. KERR: Okay, thank you.

9500. MR. RAY DOERING: --- from a conservative perspective, yes.

9501. DR. KERR: So according to my calculation, when I do all of those

mathematical operations, I end up with 5,261 barrels being spilled in 13 minutes.

--- (A short pause/Courte pause)

9502. MR. RAY DOERING: We're just checking the math here for you.

9503. DR. KERR: Thank you. Professors make mistakes.

9504. MR. BARRY CALLELE: Sorry; what was your barrels per minute?

9505. DR. KERR: Barrels per minute, 404.86.

9506. MR. BARRY CALLELE: So -- oh, you're using maximum design

capacity.

9507. DR. KERR: That’s right; 583,000.

9508. MR. BARRY CALLELE: Oh, yeah, I was using 525. Sorry, I'll ---

9509. DR. KERR: Can someone confirm my number?

9510. MR. BARRY CALLELE: Five thousand two hundred and sixty-

three (5,263), is that what you got?

9511. DR. KERR: That’s -- yeah, close enough. Okay. Now, a barrel ---

9512. MR. RAY DOERING: I was just going to comment here ---

9513. DR. KERR: Sure.

9514. MR. RAY DOERING: --- Mr. Kerr.




9515. The -- when we do this calculation, the valve will be fully closed in

three minutes. But we use, actually, an average of that flow rate over that three-

minute period, so we're actually calculating a full -- assuming about a full flow

rate for about one and a half minutes of that three minutes because, actually, your

flow rate is dramatically reduced very quickly as you start to close the valve, so

it's not -- it's not a linear relationship, necessarily.

9516. So for our purposes, we typically assume that within one and a half

minutes, you're essentially getting to zero flow on an average basis.

9517. DR. KERR: So you're saying the 13 minutes doesn’t mean much;

that you want to use 1.5 minutes? Is that what you're saying?

9518. MR. RAY DOERING: Thirteen (13) minutes does mean a lot. I'm

just trying to indicate to you that our calculation would be slightly different than

the one you're using here.

9519. DR. KERR: So how different would it be?

9520. MR. RAY DOERING: It would be different by about one and a half

minutes.

9521. DR. KERR: In other words, I reduce it by 30 percent, approximately,

33 percent?

9522. MR. RAY DOERING: You would reduce the -- you would do the

calculation based on 11 and a half minutes versus 13 minutes.

9523. DR. KERR: Okay. So that’s about a 15 percent decrease, something

like that?

9524. MR. RAY DOERING: More or less.

9525. DR. KERR: Or 10 percent. All right.

9526. So anyway, a barrel is .159 metres cubed. Is that correct?

9527. MR. RAY DOERING: That sounds close.

9528. DR. KERR: Close enough.




9529. So using my 13 minutes, I calculate that the spill would be about 837

cubic metres. You with me? Is that right?

9530. MR. BARRY CALLELE: I think it's closer to 740, myself, from my

calculations.

9531. DR. KERR: You used 525 or 583?

9532. MR. BARRY CALLELE: Five eighty three (583) times 11 and a

half minutes gets you 740 ---

9533. DR. KERR: Okay.

9534. MR. BARRY CALLELE: --- .23.

9535. DR. KERR: Seven hundred and forty (740).

9536. MR. BARRY CALLELE: Yeah.

9537. DR. KERR: Okay, that’s fine.

9538. MR. BARRY CALLELE: Which works out to 4655 or 4656 barrels.

9539. DR. KERR: Now, Mr. Doering, have you ever seen salmon spawn?

9540. MR. RAY DOERING: Yes.

9541. DR. KERR: So you know that they swim up very small rivers, small

streams to spawn.

9542. MR. RAY DOERING: Yes, that’s certainly possible.

9543. DR. KERR: I'm a member of the Squamish Stream Keepers. I

moved to B.C. four years ago from Waterloo, and one of my jobs is to count the

fish that go up a certain creek. And in fact, they're starting about this time of

year. They also bring the eagles to Squamish and we have bears who

occasionally walk across my front yard.

9544. So I know that salmon can swim up a very small creek, but let's, for




simplicity, think about a stream that’s one metre wide and one metre deep. Okay,

you got that?

9545. So that cross-sectional area is one square metre.

9546. MR. RAY DOERING: Yeah, sure, I understand that.

9547. DR. KERR: So your spill is how long?

9548. MR. RAY DOERING: I responded to some similar comments

yesterday.

9549. It's fully dependent on where the spill occurs ---

9550. DR. KERR: Well, according to the calculations we've just made, how

long is it?

9551. THE CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me, Dr. Kerr, would you let the

witness please answer the question?

9552. DR. KERR: Okay, sorry.

9553. MR. RAY DOERING: I guess, yeah, just to continue, it's entirely

dependent on where that leak occurs relative to that watercourse.

9554. So it may not occur directly into the watercourse. It -- we've

developed scenarios that have identified the maximum full bore rupture potential

along each kilometre of the pipeline and that often does not correspond with --

directly with the watercourse. It could be elsewhere along the pipeline.

9555. And in that case, there would have to be some mechanism to allow that

product then to ultimately migrate to a watercourse so you're not necessarily

going to get the full quantity that you're describing here directly into that

watercourse, just so we understand that that's the -- could be the -- one of the

scenarios that we're -- have modeled.

9556. DR. KERR: But one of the scenarios could be that all of it goes into a

stream?

9557. MR. RAY DOERING: That could be a scenario.




9558. DR. KERR: And how long would that spill then be?

9559. MR. RAY DOERING: It depends on the stream velocity, entirely, to

determine, ultimately, how far that could potentially go downstream.

9560. There's also other characteristics of the stream that can slow the

movement of product if it were to get into a stream. Really, it depends on the

characteristics of each stream.

9561. DR. KERR: But would you agree that the minimum length that, if it

all went in the river -- forgetting for the moment the flow velocity, which would,

in fact, make it longer -- the minimum length would be, what, 740 metres?

9562. Is that right?

9563. MR. LANGEN: Madam Chair, I don't -- I'm struggling with the line

of cross.

9564. I understand Dr. Kerr is presenting a scenario, a hypothetical, to the

Panel. The difficulty, I think, with the hypothetical is he's delivering it to the

Panel and it involves more than few assumptions that haven't been provided to the

Panel, and they've already done the math on the fly here.

9565. And if he wants to outline the assumptions that he's built into his

hypothetical to help the Panel respond, that would be helpful.

9566. But, as Mr. Doering has already indicated, there are a number of

factors that will affect how far oil will travel on any channel and Dr. Kerr is

saying it's going to be a certain amount, but he hasn't outlined the assumptions

he's built into his calculation.

9567. THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Kerr, are you completed with this line of

questioning or did you ---

9568. DR. KERR: I'll just make a comment, or am I allowed to make a

comment?

9569. THE CHAIRPERSON: Hard to pre-judge what your comment is.




9570. Your opportunity here is to question this Panel to test the evidence,

and if you have any comments on the answers that you've received back, those

comments are saved for final argument.


9572. Well, were it all to go into the -- I agree that we could discuss that

length what the actual length of the spill would be in a stream like that but there's

a lot of oil into that spill under those -- under the scenario that we've discussed.

9573. It's many hundreds of metres long and, any salmon, would they be able

to swim through that; do you think?

9574. MR. RAY DOERING: Perhaps I'll respond to the first part.

9575. I think we've acknowledged from some of the spill trajectory mapping

that has been provided to the JRP, we've indicated that, yes, under these extreme

scenarios that have been described here -- these full bore rupture scenarios -- that

there -- the spill extent within these watercourses can be quite extensive; so

hundreds of metres, yes, that's entirely possible.

9576. In terms of this salmon habitat and their -- how they respond,

potentially, to a spill within those watercourses, that's probably best left to be

addressed through our Environment Panel who will have fisheries experts on that

panel with lots of experience that could describe the behaviour of fish in those

sorts of circumstances.

9577. DR KERR: Okay. Thank you.

9578. I'd like to turn to some of the discussion that Mr. Peter began a couple

of days ago on toughness of the pipe and he had an aid to questions, I think it's

number 24-C.

9579. Madam Clerk, if you could bring that up?

9580. Oh, sorry, it's the wrong one. AQ24-E.

9581. So just to remind us on a Saturday morning before 9 o'clock -- yeah,

stick with that one. That's good.




9582. Here, we have a schematic of the results of a Charpy V-notch series of

tests carried out over a range of temperatures schematically going from minus 50

to plus 50 -- you might not go as high as plus 50, you might only go to 25, room

temperature -- and I believe that Mr. Mihell agreed that this is typical of the sort

of result that one gets, that you have an upper shelf energy, you have a lower shelf

energy and you have a gradual curve over a transition region.

9583. Is that correct?

9584. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Yes, that's correct.

9585. DR. KERR: Now, I think you also agreed that the values of

toughness at the upper shelf level and the lower shelf energy -- lower shelf level

are both subject to many variables.


9587. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Yes, that's true.

9588. DR. KERR: So let's go -- I've prepared another slide as an aid to

questions.

9589. THE CHAIRPERSON: Just while we're going there, could we get a

number for the Union's aid to questioning, please?

9590. THE REGULATORY OFFICER: That will be AQ26.

--- AID TO CROSS-EXAMINATION NO./AIDE AU CONTRE-

INTERROGATOIRE No. AQ26:

United Fishermen Allied Workers’ Union - CVN schematics test results

prepared by Mr. Hugh Kerr.

9591. MR. LANGEN: Madam Chair, it's my understanding that this aid to

cross, the witnesses have not seen it. We certainly, at counsel table, haven't seen

it.

9592. So if we can give the witnesses some time to review it and then they

can confirm when they're ready to take a question?




9593. THE CHAIRPERSON: So is this correct that the witnesses have not

yet seen this aid to questioning?

9594. MR. JAMES MIHELL: That's correct. This is the first time I'm

seeing this right now.

9595. THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

9596. So then why don't we take a break and you tell us when you're ready to

resume?

9597. Dr. Kerr, it's not fair to the witnesses to put something in front of them

that they haven't had the opportunity to study so ---

9598. DR. KERR: Sorry. I'd given it to ---

9599. THE CHAIRPERSON: --- we'll need to take a break.

9600. DR. KERR: --- Madam Clerk, yesterday, but I didn't realize that's as

far as it went.

9601. THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

9602. So we'll take a break and we'll let the witness panel let us know when

they're ready to come back.

9603. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Madam Chair, it's a very straightforward

diagram. I think we can work through it in the interests of saving time.

9604. We'll try to accommodate the -- the proceeding forthwith on this.

9605. THE CHAIRPERSON: Let's proceed on that basis, then. Thank

you.

9606. DR. KERR: Thank you.

9607. So here we see that there could be test results, for example, at 25

degrees C, at normal room temperature, and at minus 5 degrees C.

9608. We don't know what the Enbridge specifications are for tests, but




they've asked that we consider the design temperature be minus 5 degrees.


9610. MR. JAMES MIHELL: I think, in actual fact, while there was some

discussion regarding the fact that the exact pipe specification and pipe purchase

requirements have yet to be fully landed at this point, we did point out that --

excuse me. I’m worried about that; I once spilled a cup of tea on my computer

and it made for a very bad day.

--- (Laughter/Rires)

9611. MR. JAMES MIHELL: So, nevertheless, where was I?

9612. DR. KERR: Talking about design temperature, I think.

9613. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Okay, no, actually, pipe purchase

specifications.

9614. I think Enbridge has given itself some latitude with the understanding

that there may be -- they made order Category 2 pipe for certain circumstances or

for the entire length of the pipe. However, CSAZ662 make provision for the use

of Category 1 pipe for oil pipelines.

9615. And so with that understanding, you know, it’s perfectly within code

to use Category 1 pipe in oil pipelines.

9616. And I think I was trying to describe the rationale for that in that

Category 2 pipe, under CSAZ662, is -- has notch-toughness and fracture

appearance properties specifically to guard against fracture propagation.

9617. And you would agree, I think, that fracture propagation in an oil

pipeline doesn’t present a realistic threat.

9618. DR. KERR: We could debate that one all day.

9619. We could also debate correlation between Charpy V-notch results and

fracture toughness. There’s a lot of stuff in the literature about that but I won’t

belabour that. It’s too complicated for this Panel and the audience I believe.




9620. But anyway, would you agree that if one took the results at 25 degrees

plus 25 and minus 5, only those results that -- and then extrapolated them, that

one would get the straight line that one sees here?

9621. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Just before I address that, I think in your

preamble you left the suggestion that fracture propagation events, long-distance

fracture propagation events in oil pipelines were, in fact, a real possibility and I

would like to take issue with that.

9622. DR. KERR: No, I’m sorry I wasn’t suggesting that. I wasn’t talking

about crack propagation.

9623. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Okay, then, if you -- if that’s the case, then,

perhaps you could restate the question then.

9624. DR. KERR: Would you agree that if you took the results at plus 25

and minus 5 and extrapolated them, you would get the straight line that’s shown

there as extrapolated?

9625. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Yes, that’s what you’ve done with that

straight line.

9626. DR. KERR: And is it possible that the actual Charpy V-notch results

are the curved line with the lower shelf energy as shown there?

9627. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Yes, that’s what your diagram shows.

9628. DR. KERR: And does that seem like a feasible scenario?

9629. MR. JAMES MIHELL: I think, if -- yeah, I think anybody can see

that if you extrapolate from those two points on that curve that the red line is

above the black line in the region of minus 25 to minus 50.

9630. DR. KERR: And do you agree that Category 1 pipe, which has

unproven toughness -- so we don’t worry about the lower shelf energy -- could in

fact have a Charpy V set of results that is similar to what’s shown here?

9631. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Well, I guess we’re debating a meaningless

debate if we aren’t actually taking Charpy tests on Category 1 -- and we’re not by

definition -- then, you know, you can make up whatever values you wish.




9632. DR. KERR: Are you disagreeing that it could be like this?


9633. MR. JAMES MIHELL: So I’ve just been advised that, in actual

practice, even with Category 1 pipe, when performing welding qualification tests

and performing the Charpy tests that are associated with that, what in actual

practice tends to happen is that we’re still well on the upper shelf at minus 25.

9634. Although, in your hypothetical, theoretical chart, I’m not disagreeing

that you’ve created a chart that has two lines and has a transition temperature

somewhere between minus 25 and minus oh -- perhaps, -25 and 0 and that if

under these circumstances in your hypothetical chart using hypothetical material,

that you would get this sort of behaviour.


9636. Now, this might be the Charpy results for the base metal, the pipe

material. The pipe gets welded; do you know what influence -- that, if you test

the weld metal, the welding process might have, for example, on the upper shelf

energy?

9637. MR. JAMES MIHELL: In fact, I think we know very well exactly

what sort of fracture toughness we have in the weld region because it is

Enbridge’s practice to use CTOD testing as part of the qualification of the

welding procedures.

9638. And rather than using a crude test that doesn’t do a good job of

measuring fracture initiation resistance such as the Charpy test, they use CTOD

tests which accurately reflect the quasi-static nature of fracture initiation events

whereas the Charpy test, which is a dynamic test -- let me back off here because

I’m using jargon and I don’t want to cause this point to be missed.

9639. So let me explain what a Charpy test is. First of all, it’s called a

“dynamic fracture test” where you take a piece of steel, typically 10 millimetres

by 10 millimetres in cross section, and you put a 2 millimetre notch in it and you

chill that piece of steel to a certain temperature and you whack it with a pendulum

and that pendulum is travelling at a high velocity when it hits the back of the

Charpy specimen and you break the specimen open.




9640. And you are, therefore, measuring a number of things. You’re

measuring, in part -- part of that energy that you’re measuring when you break the

specimen open is the energy required to initiate a fracture but you’re also

measuring some deformation energy sometimes because these steels tend to be so

tough that they don’t always break all the way through.

9641. You tend to measure the energy sometimes that’s required to drag the

specimen through the anvil because, again, complete fracture of a lot of these

specimens isn’t often achieved and you also measure the resistance to dynamic

fracture propagation.

9642. So dynamic fracture propagation occurs in fracture propagation events.

That’s one type of fracture event that, yes, you want to measure energy resistance

for, is the energy to guard against dynamic fracture propagation.

9643. That’s one type of fracture event. The thing that we want to get a

handle on to guard against fracture initiation is not a rapid fracture event like you

would test in a Charpy specimen because, in fracture initiation, fracture initiates

in what’s called “quasi-static mode”.

9644. It’s a situation where you have a defect which may be at one moment

just subcritical and then suddenly causes a fracture; and it might be a crack, it

might be a corrosion defect, it might be a variety of things but it isn’t a rapid

propagating fracture event, it is a quasi-static event.

9645. And I think using a Charpy specimen to measure resistance against

that type of event which is quasi-static in nature is perhaps using the wrong tool to

get a measure of the thing that you’re trying to get at.

9646. Instead of using a Charpy specimen to measure fracture toughness,

you would be much better to use other fracture mechanics tests such as what I’ve

indicated here earlier on CTOD tests, which are Crack Tip Opening Displacement

tests or J Integral tests which are another form of fracture mechanics based tests.

9647. Nevertheless, it is Enbridge’s practice to do CTOD tests in the weld

zone. It’s -- the CTOD specimen is oriented in a number of different orientations

such that the fatigued pre-cracked tip of the CTOD specimen is catching a variety

of local regions within the weld including the base metal, including the heat-

affected zone, including the weld metal centre line, including the hardest




microstructure that could be observed and a number of these CTOD tests are done

in the weld zone.

9648. That CTOD testing is a much better and more representative measure

of fracture initiation resistance than I think what is being advocated here using a

crude but cheap and simple and fast test such as the Charpy test. So in answer to

your question, yes, we have a very good idea of the fracture toughness in the heat-

affected zone and in the weld metal.

9649. DR. KERR: Thank you for your very complete answer.

9650. Is the Charpy V test in your specifications for the base metal?

9651. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Are you talking about pipe purchase

specifications?

9652. DR. KERR: Yes.

9653. MR. JAMES MIHELL: So it depends on what type of pipe one

would be ordering. When one was ordering Category 1 pipe, which I said is the

standard type of pipe which in Canada is -- is ordered for oil pipelines by virtue of

the performance characteristics of oil pipelines, then you probably would not

order any Charpy testing. It would be deemed not necessary. And that’s standard

practice.

9654. That’s what most oil transmission pipeline operators would adhere to.

It’s in complete compliance with the Code. If you were, however, ordering

Category 2 or Category 3 pipe, then you would be ordering weld metal -- sorry,

base metal tests.

9655. DR. KERR: I don’t know if Madam Clerk is ready for this because I

didn’t expect to have to do this, but can we go back to the Enbridge pipe

specification which Mr. Peter was talking about Thursday and we see some of the

redacted parts. Do you think you can bring that up?

9656. THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you have an exhibit number for her?

9657. DR. KERR: B49. Someone’s whispering in my ear; sorry. No, Mr.

Peter -- B49-9. You don’t have it? There is no B49-9. B42-9?




9658. THE CHAIRPERSON: It’s starting to sound like bingo.

--- (Laughter/Rires)

9659. DR. KERR: Yeah.

9660. Do you recall the redacted engineering -- Enbridge engineering

standard?

9661. MR. JAMES MIHELL: You can proceed. We’ll -- we’ll see where

we get.

9662. DR. KERR: Do you remember that there are headings that say

Charpy V?

9663. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Yeah, and I think we went there the other

day because of the nature of the -- of the specification. It again adopts CSA

Z245.1 as the base standard. And as I tried to explain to Mr. Peter because I think

there was some misunderstanding associated with -- with how the specification

works, the specification works by using the same clause numbering sequence that

is contained in Z245.1 and where the minimum requirements of Z245.1 are to be

adhered to without change.

9664. The -- the protocol in that standard is to either be silent on that clause

or to say something like "accepted". And if, in fact, more stringent requirements

are needed, then it -- the specification will have those more stringent requirements

associated with that clause.

9665. DR. KERR: So if I interpret your comments correctly. you’re saying

that if your standard says the Charpy V-notch tests are accepted that you will,

indeed, carry out such tests or you will replace them and not tell us that you’re

replacing them with CTOD tests. Is that what you’re saying?

9666. MR. JAMES MIHELL: No. I don’t know where to begin with that

one, but ---

9667. DR. KERR: Well, let me -- let me break it into two simple questions.

9668. Does your standard include C -- sorry, Charpy V tests? It says

"applicable", I believe.




9669. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Okay. As -- as I indicated before, the

Z245.1 code does not require Charpy V-notch testing for Category 1 pipe.

9670. DR. KERR: So the fact that it says "applicable", it doesn’t really

apply. Is that what I’m to take?

9671. MR. LANGEN: Madam Chair, perhaps we can find the exhibit. I

think that would be helpful.

9672. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. That would be very helpful to

the Panel.

9673. MR. LANGEN: Thank you.

9674. MR. JAMES MIHELL: And just to clarify, I think your question

was the fact that it says "applicable", it means that it doesn’t really apply. That, in

fact, is the exact opposite of what it means.

9675. Where it says "applicable", it means the requirements of Z245.1 do

apply. Only where the -- the clause has been embellished by further wording or

discussion or additional -- addition of requirements are more restrictive

requirements over and above those which are required by Z245.1 needed.

9676. DR. KERR: Okay. So I stand corrected.

9677. You’ve replaced the Charpy V testing, but you have argued that

Charpy Vs are not applicable anyway because they’re a dynamic type of test

rather than the slow strain type of test that one has in CTOD.

9678. MR. JAMES MIHELL: I don’t know if I’ve -- I’ve said that --

there’s a role for Charpy V testing and there’s a role for CTOD testing. You

would perform Charpy V testing in -- such that the fracture face is oriented in --

along the pipe access to address things such as fracture propagation events. You

would perform CTOD tests with the fatigue pre-notch oriented in a hoop direction

to address the potential for girth weld defects.

9679. DR. KERR: Would you agree that a seismic event can be quite

dynamic?




9680. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Yes.

9681. DR. KERR: And that, under those conditions, a Charpy V type

testing might be applicable?

9682. MR. JAMES MIHELL: No, I wouldn’t agree with that. I think we

discussed this yesterday. I personally can’t think of any occasion anywhere

where shaking due to a seismic event has precipitated a brittle fracture in a -- in a

piece of pipe absent sorts of steel cast iron pipes that were characteristic of the

'30s.

9683. The shaking is not the thing that might present a threat to a pipeline in

the event of a seismic event. The real threat, and perhaps Mr. Cavers can speak a

little bit further to that, in the event of a seismic event is if you happen to be

located on unstable ground, especially on grounds that are associated or prone to

soil liquefaction and might, therefore, cause large scale strain-based failures of --

of the pipe. But not the shaking per se. That’s not the threat.

9684. MR. DRUMMOND CAVERS: Yeah, we’ve -- we’ve discussed that

in previous evidence, including IRs. We were just looking for the reference here,

if it’s of interest.

9685. DR. KERR: During construction, does the pipe sit out in the open?

9686. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Yes.

9687. DR. KERR: And might it reach, say, minus 25 or minus 40?

9688. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Absolutely.

9689. DR. KERR: Has it ever been known that a piece of pipe is hit by a

backhoe?

9690. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Sure. There can be incidents like that. There

can be pipe dropped as it’s being lifted; those types of events.

9691. DR. KERR: Do any of the workers ever have a hammer in their

presence?





9693. DR. KERR: Is it possible that one of them could hit the pipe with a

hammer trying to get it aligned properly?

9694. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Absolutely, yes.


9696. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Yeah. If I could, please, I think there’s some

confusion and -- and more as a layperson practitioner, if you will, of pipeline

construction.

9697. I wanted to see if I can clarify something here. As much as we talked

extensively about pipe material specifications and the -- there being a -- not a

requirement for Charpy V testing as a protocol of manufacturer and qualifications

of Category 1 pipe, what my colleague was explaining is that, in fact, as we do

our welding procedure development, we do, in fact, undertake CTOD testing

which, inherent to that work, provides us toughness characteristics of the material,

the parent pipe, the heat-affected zone and the weld metal.

9698. MR. TOM FIDDLER: And, Dr. Kerr, just to inject a piece of reality

into this whole hypothetical situation of hitting pipes with hammers or back hoes,

you could have asked one more questions perhaps in that string of questions to

which we said “yes”.

9699. If you had asked: Has there ever been an occasion, where as a result

of any of these events, of a piece of pipe being struck by a backhoe or a hammer

sitting up on skids in cold weather has broken in a brittle fashion, like a piece of

glass? I would say the answer to that is “No”.


9701. MR. TOM FIDDLER: And If I could, I absolutely have to echo that

in the modern micro-alloyed high strength steels for pipeline construction have --

have no characteristics similar to some of the other older vintages of steel pipe or

cast iron as my colleague has elaborated on previously.

9702. DR. KERR: So if we turn our attention to CTOD, I didn’t intend to --

in fact, to ask about those but since you’ve opened up that discussion, I will.




9703. You do CTOD tests on base metal. You do them on gas metal arc

welds presumably using the sort of welding procedures that you would normally

use to make the automated welds that you make for most of the welds; is that

correct?

9704. MR. TOM FIDDLER: That’s correct.

9705. MR. KERR: When it comes to tie-in welds, joining long lengths of

pipe to already-welded pipelines, my understanding is that a lot of those are done

using manual arc welding, shielded metal arc welding; at least for the route passes

and also the subsequent passes.


9707. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Often they are, yes.

9708. DR. KERR: So how do you prepare the specimens for CTOD tests

done by manual arc welding?

9709. MR. JAMES MIHELL: So, Dr. Kerr, I guess that requires a certain

base understanding of pipeline practices and code requirements.

9710. However, the CTOD testing is done for the purposes of establishing

weld defect zone, defect acceptance criteria, based on fracture mechanics

approach for mechanized girth welds.

9711. And the code enables you to do that for mechanized girth welds but for

manual welds, because of the high variability in the geometry and in the welding

parameters that are associated with manual welds, we don’t do defect acceptance

through fracture mechanics based analysis on those welds.

9712. So we don’t -- although, obviously, the CTOD testing that’s performed

for the mechanized welds have notch orientations or fatigue pre-crack orientations

such that they catch portions of the base metal and, therefore, those results are

representative of anything that might be welded with a manual process.

9713. We don’t look at CTOD testing per se for manual welds. However, I

think Mr. Fiddler will add to what sort of testing is done to address manual welds.





9714. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Yes, as part of our standard process for

qualification of our detailed welding procedure specifications, we’ll complete

Charpys on those.

9715. DR. KERR: So you use Charpy tests, do you, for the manual welds?

9716. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Yes, we do.

9717. DR. KERR: Now, manual welds in the field are rather difficult.

9718. Would you agree that the tie-in welds are, in fact, the most critical

welds?

9719. MR. TOM FIDDLER: I don’t know that I would characterize them

that way.

9720. It really depends on many variables in terms of the circumstances.

They can be very challenging welds, I acknowledge that.

9721. DR. KERR: And you have, in a tie-in weld, new variables that you

don’t really have for the automated welds in terms of fit-up.


9723. MR. TOM FIDDLER: That is often the case.

9724. DR. KERR: So that, instead of the almost perfect fit-up that you have

for the gas metal arc welds, at the root, you can have gaps -- what sort of range of

gaps would you say might occur?

9725. Would it be up to an eighth of an inch? A quarter of an inch?

9726. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Are you referring to a maximum high-low

type of situation, like, differential in wall thickness, alignment ---

9727. DR. KERR: Well, maybe you -- maybe you should explain to all of

us what you mean by “maximum high-low”.

9728. MR. TOM FIDDLER: So a maximum in our specification -- and it’s




actually lesser than code -- for our situation, code would allow 2.4mm maximum

wall thickness and/or ovality difference, when you fit up with pipe joint.

9729. We apply 1.6 mm as a standard and we inspect to that.

9730. MR. KERR: And nobody ever hits those with a hammer, I guess,

when they’re trying to fit it into place?

9731. I’m joking. Relax.

9732. So you might have a variation of .16 mm and -- what would it be? It

would be just about zero, would it, for the gas metal arc welds?


9733. MR. TOM FIDDLER: That -- that very much would depend on the

exact welding procedures.

9734. We qualify the welding procedures when it comes to metal -- gas

metal arc welding procedures, based on the mechanized welding equipment

vendor and our work with them.

9735. And we do that work ourselves. We don’t rely on the contractors or

others. And we’ll develop and accept the welding procedures. Within that, we’ll

define critical variables in terms of fit-up.

9736. My colleague is just looking for an example of one of the more

prevalent mechanized welding service providers but if it may help, Dr. Kerr, we

filed a very significant response to a recent JRP IR 9 -- sorry, 11.5C was a filing

recently, with regards to our welding procedure specifications, our NDT

procedures and policies and so on.

9737. So if you want to get into that, we can certainly call that up or ---

9738. MR. KERR: Well I’m ---

9739. MR. TOM FIDDLER: --- and refer to that. And if you want to have

follow-on conversation in the future we’re certainly willing to do so.

9740. MR. KERR: I’m -- I’ve looked at that briefly but I’m most concerned




actually with the tie-in welds because they’re the most difficult.

9741. And you’ve already told me that you don’t do J integral -- or sorry you

don’t do CTOD tests on those. You rely essentially on the capabilities of the

individual manual welders to ---

9742. MR. TOM FIDDLER: But as far -- sorry. Go ahead.

9743. MR. KERR: --- to make up for the fact that the fit-up is not as good

for the gas metal arc welds.

9744. You’ve got four welders do you typically welding at the same time?

9745. MR. LANGEN: Madam Chair, I don’t mean to be difficult but I

think Dr. Kerr’s question is a little unfair.

9746. He’s built a bunch of presumptions into the question that I didn’t hear

the witnesses say and he’s attributed to the witnesses. I would ask that he be very

careful in what he’s saying. Unless I’ve missed something I don’t think that the

witnesses have said what he -- what he just said and he’s implied that they have.

9747. So I’d ask him to reframe his question.

9748. DR. KERR: How many welders normally are welding

simultaneously for the shielded metal arc welds?

9749. MR. TOM FIDDLER: It varies by pipe size and the complexity of

---

9750. DR. KERR: For the 36-inch pipes we're discussing here.

9751. MR. TOM FIDDLER: It definitely would be three and could be

four.

9752. DR. KERR: And so each of those has to make a very good weld.

They each have to be concerned about the start/stop situations where they start an

electrode and then they finish an electrode. Is that correct?

9753. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Yes, that's correct. They're very

interdependent.




9754. And not to jump ahead of you here, but acknowledging that -- as I did

earlier, that tie-ins can be some of the most challenging welds, we implement

additional layers of quality assurance and control on those tie-ins.

9755. So as an example, and going back to your conversation point around

alignment and fit-up, if the wall thickness differences in the design are greater

than 1.6 millimetre, then we will actually require a counterbore and taper to

equalize the wall thicknesses. And then more on the follow-on procedures, we'll

have delayed NDT. So we'll wait a minimum of 18 hours and follow on with

NDT inspection to assure that there's been no latent hydrogen-assisted cracking or

stress-related cracking on that weld.

9756. DR. KERR: Do you maintain a post-weld temperature during those

18 hours or you allow it to cool down to room temperature?

9757. MR. TOM FIDDLER: We have controlled cooling with the use of

insulated blankets at colder temperatures as a standard requirement, and we allow

the weld to cool before we do the NDT, the delayed NDT.

9758. DR. KERR: So do you have an estimate of how long it takes to cool?

9759. MR. TOM FIDDLER: We've done some work on heat decay rates in

welds, and it's very, very much dependent on ambient weather conditions

following removal of blanket. We have a minimum temperature when the blanket

can be removed from the weld.

9760. DR. KERR: Just for the sake of the audience here, the concern is that

with shielded metal arc welds, especially with the route passes, you use normally

an electrode -- and people from Enbridge can correct me if my assumptions are

not correct. Well, I'll just ask the question.

9761. In the route passes, do you normally use a high hydrogen electrode, a

cellulosic type electrode?


9763. DR. KERR: A 70:10, something like that?

9764. So you acknowledge that's got a relatively high hydrogen content.




9765. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Relative to low-hydrogen rod, yes.

9766. DR. KERR: Right. So the concern -- the reason for your post-weld

temperature is to try and get that hydrogen to diffuse away from the weld. Is that

correct?

9767. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Can you repeat the question, please?

9768. DR. KERR: Do you maintain a temperature after welding for a

certain length of time?

9769. MR. TOM FIDDLER: We control the cooling ---

9770. DR. KERR: Right. Okay.

9771. MR. TOM FIDDLER: --- and allow it not to be -- the heat decay rate

to be enhanced by weather conditions is what we're trying to mitigate.

9772. DR. KERR: And why are you worried about that cooling rate?

9773. MR. TOM FIDDLER: The -- a byproduct of the cellulosic welding

procedure as you've talked about is that there is -- and it is a very small potential

of latent hydrogen gas within the weld deposit itself and, therefore, you're

wanting that gas to diffuse through the weld metal. And it's atomic hydrogen.

9774. DR. KERR: And so you're dependent on the diffusion of the

hydrogen within the solid metal to get that hydrogen out of the region right

around the weld.

9775. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Well, understanding that the process

continues with your hot passes and your fill passes and the like so you're

continually applying heat until you're completing a weld.

9776. DR. KERR: So you have some welders that make the route pass and

then you have other welders that complete the weld, is what you're saying. Is that

correct?

9777. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Typically, there would be welders that do the

route pass and there'd be more than one on a 36-inch pipe joint. And similarly,




there'd be fill and hot pass welders and maybe -- and they'll cap out the weld.

9778. DR. KERR: Right. So the ---

9779. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Through the course of that welding

procedure, it's very important as part of the specification in the welding procedure

qualification, there's a minimum preheat and maintenance of temperature that has

to occur.

9780. DR. KERR: Right. And the intention is to allow the hydrogen to

diffuse away from the route passes so that the maximum amount of hydrogen

remaining is relative low. Is that correct?


9782. DR. KERR: I don't know whether to test your memory on terms of

how far things can diffuse in a certain time knowing the diffusion coefficient, but

there's a simple calculation.

9783. MR. TOM FIDDLER: As I indicated earlier, I'm more of a

practitioner and applicator ---

9784. DR. KERR: Right.

9785. MR. TOM FIDDLER: --- and my colleague here is certainly the

metallurgical engineer. But I've done enough work with very respected

metallurgical engineers including, as I mentioned, studies on heat decay rates of

welds and migration and diffusion of hydrogen that I understand the concept and

the principles.

9786. DR. KERR: But we rely on the people on the job to actually do it

correctly.

9787. You sign off -- who signs off on the weld procedure specifications?

9788. MR. TOM FIDDLER: We employ third-party metallurgical

consultants to assist us with the assessment and the implementation of the weld

and acceptance of the welding procedures, whether we develop them or they're

proposed to us by a contractor.




9789. DR. KERR: But doesn't someone within Enbridge take responsibility

for that, WPS?

9790. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Yes, ultimately -- ultimately, we have a team

of metallurgical engineers that do a final review.

9791. DR. KERR: And who, ultimately, decides that they're correct and

takes responsibility?

9792. MR. TOM FIDDLER: I'm not sure if you're looking for an

individual. Certainly that can vary, but it's a responsible metallurgical

professional.

9793. DR. KERR: But according to engineering standards, you're making

an engineering decision. There must be an engineer, a qualified engineer, who is

willing to sign off on that. Is that correct?

9794. MR. TOM FIDDLER: The detailed Welding Procedures

Specifications and the acceptance and assessment of them with our metallurgic

consultants, their work is all signed and stamped for us.

9795. DR. KERR: So in fact, the consultants make the final decision?

9796. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Ultimately, we have a team internally of

professional engineers that also do a further review and final acceptance before

we implement them.

9797. DR. KERR: So if there were a large spill which happened to be from

one of these tie-in welds, who would get sued; the consultant? Would the Stream

Keepers, for example, very angry at a stream being mucked up, would we just sue

Enbridge, would we sue individuals within Enbridge, would we sue the

consultants? Who should we sue?

9798. THE CHAIRPERSON: I believe Mr. Langen had something he

wanted to say.

9799. MR. LANGEN: I did. I let it run its course, but I now have

something to say.

9800. I'm questioning the relevance of -- I'm questioning the relevance of Dr.




Kerr's last question. He's -- again, I don't mean to be difficult, but I don't see any

value in asking this panel a hypothetical question as to who should be sued with

respect to a hypothetical failure.

9801. Firstly, it's all hypothetical. Secondly, it's not within the area of

expertise of these individuals. He's asking a legal question. It's an improper

question to this panel. In fact, it's an improper question, probably, to most of the

panels, and so I'd ask him to move along.

9802. THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Kerr, you are, from the Panel's

perspective, raising a legal question and this isn't the appropriate time or place to

be doing that. So perhaps you can move on to your next line of questioning.

9803. DR. KERR: Sorry. Are you aware that an engineer who was

working for TransCanada Pipeline has made a complaint to Professional

Engineers of Alberta about people not following Welding Procedures

Specifications?

9804. MR. TOM FIDDLER: I'm aware of what I've read in that regard.

I'm not certain of the facts.

9805. DR. KERR: No, I agree these are allegations, but it's certainly very

serious allegations and very sad situation as far as professional engineers. It's not

good at all for our reputation.

9806. Now, coming back to -- if we can see that funny-looking slide again,

the one with the curve on it.

9807. I believe I started to ask about factors which influence the upper shelf

energy, et cetera, and Mr. Mihell diverted us onto CTOD testing. Let me come

back to my question on upper shelf energy.

9808. This might be the curve for the base metal, then that base metal gets

welded. The composition of the filler metal is different, generally. Is that

correct?

9809. MR. JAMES MIHELL: That’s correct.

9810. DR. KERR: And so the redacted specifications, in fact, do not refer

to the filler metal compositions. Is that correct?




9811. MR. JAMES MIHELL: I’m sorry; could you please repeat your

question?

9812. DR. KERR: The redacted specifications on the pipe do not include

the filler metal composition specifications.

9813. MR. JAMES MIHELL: You're talking about for the seam weld of

the pipe rather than for the girth welds.

9814. DR. KERR: No, I'm talking about the girth welds.

9815. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Well, there never are any girth weld

specification requirements, ever, in pipe purchase specifications.

9816. DR. KERR: But you do use filler metal that you buy from a third

party, which does have specifications on it. Is that correct?

9817. MR. JAMES MIHELL: That’s correct. One of the things that I

didn’t make mention of is that every heat of filler metal has to be requalified with

the battery of CTOD tests that I described earlier.

9818. DR. KERR: Would you agree that the compositions are somewhat

different from the pipe material compositions?

9819. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Yes, they are.

9820. DR. KERR: And consequently they can be, for example, higher in

carbon content than the base metal?

9821. MR. JAMES MIHELL: They can -- I'll just say the compositions are

different from the base metal.

9822. DR. KERR: Consequently, the properties of the weld that -- can be

quite different from the properties of the base metal.

9823. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Yes, sir.

9824. DR. KERR: And would you say that the properties of the weld metal

typically have a higher upper shelf energy or lower? Do you know that?




9825. MR. JAMES MIHELL: You know, when people do these CTOD

tests, they do them at the minimum design temperature and they tend not to do

full transition curves on them. However, there is such a number of individual

tests that are required that any -- any scatter that might exist that might result from

being close to the transition would manifest itself and cause you to fail the -- fail

the test, I think.

9826. DR. KERR: But we've already heard that you don’t do CTOD tests

on shielded metal arc welds.

9827. MR. JAMES MIHELL: So -- yes. For -- just to reiterate, rather than

doing CTOD tests on the weld metal and the heat affected zone of manual test --

manual welds, Charpy tests are done.

9828. DR. KERR: So to reiterate my question, would the upper shelf

energy from those Charpy tests normally be the same as, higher than or lower

than? Can you give us an indication of what sort of comparison you might

expect?

9829. MR. JAMES MIHELL: I will give you that they are going to be

different, typically. I would hate to venture a guess as to what -- what you would

get, depending upon the welding process and so on.

9830. DR. KERR: The fracture mechanism of the upper shelf energy is

what fracture mechanism? Would you say it's brittle, ductile?

9831. MR. JAMES MIHELL: It's ductile.

9832. DR. KERR: So in ductile fracture, we have initiation of voids and

those then link? Is that correct?

9833. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Yes, you have plastic collapse precipitated

by microvoid coalescence. That’s right.


9834. DR. KERR: Ready for the next question?

9835. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Yes, you may proceed.




9836. DR. KERR: So if it's initiated by microvoids, what initiates those

microvoids, do you know, in general, in the weld metal?

9837. MR. JAMES MIHELL: It's typically very small -- I guess small

particles that lock -- dislocations, I believe. You're getting back several years for

me now since I last spent a whole time -- a whole lot of time looking at this.

9838. DR. KERR: Well, a weld metal generally -- specially shielded metal

arc welds contain a lot of inclusions; would you agree?


9840. DR. KERR: And those inclusions, in fact, can be rather larger than

the original hard particles that one has in base metal; would you agree?

9841. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Yes, okay. I'll go with that.

9842. DR. KERR: And depending on shielding metal composition, the gas

used, et cetera, there can be a large number of those inclusions, and consequently

-- and they can be relatively large compared to the base metal, which has

relatively few inclusions.

9843. That means that -- would you agree that that means that they might

initiate microvoids at relatively low strains?

9844. MR. JAMES MIHELL: So you're talking about shielded metal arc

welding here.


9846. MR. JAMES MIHELL: So therefore, we're talking about

mechanized welding systems which are, as I iterated earlier a couple of times, a

battery of ---

9847. DR. KERR: No, I'm sorry, we're not talking about automated. We're

talking about manual shielded metal arc welds.

9848. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Well, we don’t do that in this industry.




9849. DR. KERR: You do with tie-in welds. We just heard that.

9850. MR. JAMES MIHELL: We don’t use manual gas metal arc

welding.

9851. DR. KERR: I didn’t mean gas metal arc; I meant manual shielded

metal arc. I believe that’s what I said.

9852. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Okay, I took you to say that you were

talking about gas metal arc welding.

9853. So we're talking about shielded metal arc welding now.

9854. DR. KERR: And we have been for some time. We're talking about

tie-in welds.

9855. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Okay. I think you had a question. Perhaps

you could ask that question again, please.

9856. DR. KERR: The question was, would you agree that there's a

relatively high number of oxide particles in shielded metal arc welds compared to

the base metal?

9857. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Yes, I would agree.

9858. THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Kerr, we have to get you to move your

microphone a little bit further back or you ---

9859. DR. KERR: Back?

9860. THE CHAIRPERSON: --- further back. We can't ---

9861. DR. KERR: All right, okay.

9862. THE CHAIRPERSON: --- catch the words for the transcript.

9863. So perhaps you could repeat that question for us, please?

9864. DR. KERR: I asked whether Mr. Mihell would agree that there's a

relatively high number of oxide particles in the weld metal.




9865. MR. JAMES MIHELL: And I agreed.

9866. DR. KERR: And that they, in turn, during ductile fracture, initiate

microvoids.

9867. MR. JAMES MIHELL: And I'll agree to that, too.

9868. DR. KERR: And the larger ones will initiate microvoids at lower

strengths. That then implies what to you?

9869. Would you agree that the strain -- the failure strain is less in shielded

metal arc welds than it would be for the base metal?

9870. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Well, up until now we've been talking about

fracture tests and I guess now we're talking about failure strain. And so one of the

things that we haven’t talked about is the fact that there's tensile test requirements

across the base metal and through the weld metal as part of every welding

procedure ---

9871. DR. KERR: No, sorry, I'm still talking about Charpy tests and the

ductile region of the Charpy tests, which is what I started to talk about.

9872. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Right. However, if you're talking about

ductile microvoid coalescence and the potential for lower failure strains, then that

certainly -- it seems to me it would be well identified by a tensile test that goes

through the weld metal zone and one of the test requirements is that the failure

cannot occur in the weld metal zone when performing that test.

9873. DR. KERR: But if you do a Charpy of the weld metal then it does go

through the weld metal which is what I’m talking about; the Charpy V properties

of weld metal.

9874. MR. JAMES MIHELL: I’ll -- I’ll wait for your question.

9875. DR. KERR: Well, because the strain, what happens is that those

small inclusions nucleate, microvoids at low strain, therefore, the fracture strain is

less than it would be in the base metal.

9876. Therefore, since the energy is the fracture strain times the stress at




which it occurs, the energy is less in the weld metal, of shielded metal arc welds,

than it would be without the presence of all those inclusions. So that upper shelf

energy goes down.

9877. You don’t seem to know that but I’m telling you that’s what happens

since you can’t seem to ---

9878. THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Kerr, you’re here to test the evidence as

opposed to ---


9880. THE CHAIRPERSON: --- provide -- would you, please, frame a

question for the witnesses and allow them to answer it?

9881. DR. KERR: If the fracture strain in the weld metal is decreased,

would you agree that it might be less in the weld metal than in the base metal

because of the presence of inclusions?

9882. MR. JAMES MIHELL: So you’re asking if the -- the strain

tolerance of the weld metal is less than the base metal or that’s the premise of

your question; is that correct?


9884. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Okay, in a -- if that’s the case, we’re talking

about critical strain at failure.

9885. I can again indicate that, when we perform Tensile tests, we are able

therefore to identify the critical strain at failure through that test and one of the

criteria for the Tensile tests is that the failure must occur outside of the weld zone.

9886. DR. KERR: I’m sorry, I’m talking about Charpy tests of weld metal.

9887. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Perhaps, Dr. Kerr, if you ask a direct

question?

9888. You’re asking a number of leading questions.

9889. DR. KERR: I’m asking whether the fracture strain in a Charpy V test




of weld metal would be less than the fracture strain of the base metal.

9890. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Okay, so -- so let’s -- let’s acknowledge

that.

9891. DR. KERR: And would you then agree that the fracture energy in the

weld metal would be less than the fracture energy in the base metal?



9894. So therefore, the upper shelf energy in the weld metal is less than that

in the base metal.

9895. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Are you asking a question?

9896. DR. KERR: Would you agree?

9897. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Under those circumstances, yes.

9898. But, Dr. Kerr, we are doing Charpy tests in the weld metal.

9899. DR. KERR: Not for shielded metal arc welds, apparently.

9900. MR. JAMES MIHELL: No, I guess you misunderstood us.

9901. We said maybe about a half an hour ago that we do Charpy tests in the

weld metal of shielded metal arc welds.

9902. DR. KERR: Then I’m surprised that nobody could answer my

question about relative values that I -- it’s taken us this long because I basically

was asking whether or not the upper shelf energy in the weld metal was less than

that of the base metal and no one was willing to answer that question. So I had to

come back and ask it very slowly, sorry.

9903. So it’s important that one realizes that it doesn’t take much energy to,

in a Charpy-type situation and a dynamic-type situation, to break the weld.

9904. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Well, the whole purpose of performing




Charpy tests in the weld metal of a shielded metal arc weld is to ensure that it

does take sufficient energy to break the weld.

9905. DR. KERR: And the values of energy at which that occurs are less

than in the base metal.

9906. So it -- it becomes very important to control the filler metal

compositions and, at the same time, monitor the properties and it’s very

frustrating when things start to break because people don’t properly do that.

9907. In the case of X80, I guess you’re not going to use X80. We’ve

determined that already.


9909. MR. TOM FIDDLER: That's correct.

9910. DR. KERR: Okay, well I’ll hold on questions because I hear that

people have been trying to weld X80 with shielded metal arc and are having great

difficulty but I’ll hold off on those questions.

9911. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Dr. Kerr, just in -- in defence of the industry

as a whole, we’ve been, as an industry, welding X80 successfully for decades.


9913. MS. THORKELSON: That concludes our questions.

9914. THE CHAIRPERSON: Are those the questions of the Union?

9915. MS. THORKELSON: Yes.

9916. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much to both of you for

participating in this process.

9917. I’m going to call Mr. Beckett next.



Examination by Mr. Beckett


9918. THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, Mr. Beckett. Thank you for

being here.

9919. Please proceed with your questions of this witness panel when you’re

ready.

--- EXAMINATION BY/INTERROGATOIRE PAR MR. BECKETT:

9920. MR. BECKETT: Good morning, Madam Chair.

9921. I must say it felt great driving my Weiss Electric Truck into town this

morning. It’s wonderful to see a little bit of blue sky out there and thank you for

giving me this opportunity to pose some questions.

9922. I’m speaking or questioning as a member of the public. I’d like to be

clear with that.

9923. I would like to begin with questioning the Proponent’s expert with

respect to LiDAR and I was wondering if the proponent would please confirm

who that would be?

9924. MR. DRUMMOND CAVERS: Well, you can address the questions

to the Panel and the best person will -- will respond. You can probably start with

me but it’ll depend on the question.

9925. MR. BECKETT: Okay, I had understood it would be yourself, Mr.

Cavers. Thank you.

9926. So I would like to bring up Exhibit I believe it’s B90-18. It’s your CV

and the CV suggests that you’ve done a lot of work to assist companies with their

projects.


9928. MR. DRUMMOND CAVERS: Yes, I’m a consultant.

9929. MR. BECKETT: Electronic page 11 of the CV suggests you’ve

given seminars to companies and to government organizations.

9930. What proportion of your working time as outlined in the CV has been




devoted to government organizations clients?

9931. MR. DRUMMOND CAVERS: Well, in recent years, probably zero.

9932. MR. BECKETT: Your CV makes no mention of environmental non-

government organizations, NGOs.

9933. What proportion of your working time as outlined in the CV has been

devoted to NGO clients?

9934. MR. DRUMMOND CAVERS: I don’t -- I don’t recall any NGO

clients at -- at this point.

9935. MR. BECKETT: Thank you.

9936. Are any of the publications listed on electronic pages 11 and 12 of the

CV, are any of them peer-reviewed journal articles on the use of LiDAR in the

part of B.C. where this pipeline is proposed?

9937. MR. DRUMMOND CAVERS: No, they are not.

9938. MR. BECKETT: Thank you.

9939. I would now like to question the Proponent’s expert with respect to the

likelihood and risk of landslides. Would the Proponent please confirm who that

would be?

9940. MR. DRUMMOND CAVERS: Well, again, you can start with me

but we are a panel and we do work together.

9941. MR. BECKETT: And so, similar question, electronic pages 11 and

12 of the CV, the peer-reviewed journal articles.

9942. Are any of them on -- are any of those peer-reviewed journal articles

on methods of identifying landslides or assessing the likelihood and risk of

landslides in the part of B.C where this pipeline is proposed?

9943. MR. DRUMMOND CAVERS: No, they are not but you seem to be

questioning my qualifications to use LiDAR.




9944. I can assure you that I have been using LiDAR as a tool -- not writing

academic papers about it -- but as a tool for at least 10 years to look at landslides,

to look at geohazard issues and for other uses not only in the part of the province

that we’re talking about but throughout B.C, Alberta and across Canada as well as

in parts of the United States.

9945. So I think, from a practical point of view, that I have used LiDAR as --

probably as long as anybody in the industry has been using it.

9946. MR. BECKETT: Very good. Thank you.

9947. With that experience, have you personally identified landslides

utilizing LiDAR in areas where conventional assessment approaches have failed

to identify the landslide?

9948. MR. DRUMMONED CAVERS: Well, certainly, LiDAR is a very

useful tool.

9949. It lets us strip off the vegetation as it were; it lets us construct hill

shade images which can assist by varying the light source, assist greatly in finding

small features that we can’t otherwise detect.

9950. So, yes, LiDAR is a very useful tool for finding features that we may

not be able to find, depending on circumstances on, say, conventional air

photography and, indeed, sometimes we can find features that we have difficulty

seeing on the ground when they’re very small and the vegetation is heavy.

9951. One of the advantages, again, that we can strip off the vegetation as it

were and have a look at a bigger area. So LiDAR is a very useful tool in what we

do.

9952. MR. BECKETT: I agree.

9953. So have you personally identified landslides, using LiDAR, in areas

where traditional assessment approaches have failed to identify the landslide?

9954. MR. DRUMMOND CAVERS: Well, I’d have to qualify what you

mean by “traditional approaches”.

9955. Certainly, we’ve identified numerous slides in areas where air




photographs have not identified them.

9956. When we get right down on the ground and crawl along on our hands

and knees, I would say that the -- that it’s -- usually, we find the same features

that are in LiDAR.

9957. So the answer to your question with respect to, say, conventional air

photography, orthoimages, and so on would be “yes”.

9958. I would have to say that walking on the ground and really grinding

across the topography and we get right down on our hands and knees and look for

tiny little cracks in the soil and so on, if we do that then the -- then we’re probably

about one-to-one with the LiDAR.

9959. But one of the big advantages of LiDAR is it takes a long time to

cover an area on your hands and knees.

9960. MR. BECKETT: And I take that as a “qualified no”.

9961. Have you received guidance and training from landslide experts who

do have this experience and expertise then in this process for the terrain hazard

assessment and everything?

9962. MR. DRUMMOND CAVERS: I would consider myself to be an

expert.

9963. MR. BECKETT: So you haven’t gained that additional expertise

then?

9964. MR. DRUMMOND CAVERS: I have used LiDAR as long as

anybody has and I would consider myself to be an expert and capable of -- and I

do train others in its use in my company, with my clients. And so, no, I haven’t

taken any formal training courses but I would consider myself to be an expert.

9965. Somebody has to start at ground zero and I’m one of the guys who

started at ground zero with this stuff.

9966. MR. BECKETT: I believe there are others too.

9967. From the October 9th

transcript, line 4944 -- oh, October 9th

transcript,




line 4944. That was the number anyways on the left-hand side when I was

reading through them.

9968. And, I’m sorry, I didn’t give Madam Clerk much notice. I provided

her my list this morning not yesterday or earlier as I had been requested. I’m

sorry about that.

“In areas where we need …”

9969. It states:

“In areas where we need a wider width of LIDAR along the

route to pick up areas that may be subject to natural hazards

that could affect the pipeline route, we will widen the corridor

out and, in other areas, we will typically be looking at a 2-

kilometre minimum width.”

9970. Which I recognize was subsequently corrected to be a 1-kilometre

minimum width.

9971. Recognizing that on electronic page 2 of a 2011 paper titled “Pipeline

Routing in Landslide Prone Terrain” by Dr. Marten Geertsema -- it’s a published

paper that assesses landslides in the portion of B.C where this proposed pipeline is

being considered -- and this paper suggests landslides can travel 2, 3 and even 4

kilometres from the point of initiation.

9972. A referred 2009 paper by Dr. Marten Geertsema that is already on the

record also supports the observation that landslides can travel long distances.

9973. I’d like to know on what basis has a 1-kilometre minimum width -- a

width of 500 metres on each side of the proposed pipeline -- then derived?

9974. MR. DRUMMOND CAVERS: My colleague is pulling up some of

the references to past responses to information requests. I believe this area has

been discussed extensively in the past. We discussed it the other day as well.

9975. This 1-kilometre width is in areas -- as this testimony from the other

day says, is in areas where we don’t have this issue where slides may travel into

the right-of-way from long distances outside.




9976. As we’ve indicated, where there’s hazards that may affect the pipeline

back to the height of land or for longer distances, we do widen out the LiDAR

coverage.

9977. And secondly, in the testimony the other day, we did indicate that

these 2 to 4-kilometre long slides that are referenced, I believe, in Dr.

Geertsema’s paper, were -- including the rock avalanches along the PNG route in

the Limonite Creek and Copper River areas, these are slides I’ve worked on and

we don’t have that kind of terrain. We’ve discussed that in previous testimony.

9978. And if we could pull up B47-28, page 37?


9979. MR. DRUMMOND CAVERS: This -- while we’re waiting for

Madam Clerk to bring it up, this is an IR that discusses a response to exactly the

same issues which is on the record. The information request was from the

Province of British Columbia.

9980. So I believe that we’re well-covered in this issue where we do need a

wider coverage. We either have it or are going to get it. We have looked

extensively at the geology, extensively at the failure mechanisms. We do not --

we are simply not in areas where we're going to get a four-kilometre long rock

avalanche.

9981. The reference to the one-kilometre width is basically out in the

Prairies, very flat terrain. Those are the areas principally -- and areas of similar

terrain where there is really no chance of a hazard travelling, say, two, four

kilometres that we're going to go with minimum width.

9982. Where we have higher topography and where there is a chance for

such failures to come into the right-of-way, we are going to err on the cautious

side. We'll acquire the additional right-of-way -- additional LiDAR and -- so that

we have the opportunity to make those analyses.

9983. And in the province of British Columbia, B47-28, page 39, just -- I'd

like to read a paragraph into the -- into the record. We said that note -- the --

starting in the middle of the paragraph:

“The proposed strategies presented in the overview level [of




this paper] (Geertsema and Clague, 2011) publication to

reduce landslide risks to pipelines are consistent with the basic

outline of industry defined principles presented by (Rizkalla,

2008) and with the work carried out on the Project.”

9984. So we are consistent with the methodologies outlined here. I would

note:

“It must be noted, however, that (Rizkalla 2008) includes a

more comprehensive discussion of geohazards management

strategies and terrain analysis systems used in common

pipeline geohazards practice in Canada today and is noted to

have been prepared by [...] Canadian industry practice leaders

in the subject of geohazards assessment for [the] pipelines.”

9985. And as I'm sure you're aware, we've used the general methodology

outlined in that report as part of our SQRA.

9986. So I think that the methods that we are using here are very defensible.

They're methods that have been evolved over a period of tens of years of looking

at geohazard -- looking at geohazards, looking for geohazards and mitigating

those geohazards so that they do not pose undue hazard to the pipeline.

9987. So the simple -- the simple matter is that where we need more LiDAR,

we will get more LiDAR.

9988. MR. BECKETT: Once you're out of the flatter terrain at the Peace as

you're entering British Columbia from there through where you have the more

extreme terrain, more beautiful terrain in British Columbia from all of Canada,

what sort of minimum width are you looking at in that sort of terrain?

9989. MR. DRUMMOND CAVERS: Well, certainly the argument of

beauty is a judgment factor and there's probably people from the Peace country

who would also argue that that’s a very beautiful part of the world and a part of

the world that we want to take very good care of as well as the -- as well as all the

-- as all the geography along the pipeline right-of-way, which has its own beauty

and its own wonderful environment.

9990. In terms of what we're going to do as we come in to higher terrain --

and this would include, incidentally, the valleys and so on farther east in what we




might consider to be the Prairies where we have terrain where we need to look

wider for geohazards either in terms of the hazard reaching the pipeline or to

understand the geohazard, the LiDAR width will be widened out.

9991. MR. BECKETT: So I think you would agree that obtaining high

resolution LiDAR, wider swaths will benefit you by obtaining more information

on all the hazards that may impact the pipeline and there is more information to

obtain by getting the wider swaths of LiDAR.

9992. MR. DRUMMOND CAVERS: That’s entirely correct. My

colleagues joke about the size of my computer, the size of my hard drives and the

size of my power supply and it's because I like LiDAR data and I like having it all

with me so that I can work with it on an ongoing basis while we're looking at the

geohazards on the pipeline.

9993. I certainly view LiDAR as a very important advance that's given us a

wonderful tool, one of a number of tools that we use in assessment of geohazards.

And I'm a tremendous advocate for LiDAR. I agree 100 percent with you that

LiDAR is a very, very good tool, but one of a number of tools that we use for that

hazard assessment.

9994. MR. BECKETT: Yeah, I agree it has to be used as part of a package

on top of what we've done in the past. In that way, it's a wonderful advantage.

9995. Recognizing there are many reasons you may find it beneficial to

change the route being planned for the proposed pipeline, for example, to meet

community interests, wouldn’t an even wider corridor of quality information

provide greater clarity and certainty in the new route that the new route selected

will work and will not require further changes?

9996. So to provide just a little more comfort to the communities that what's

being discussed is fully informed and there's not constantly changes unnecessarily

because we don’t have good information.

9997. MR. DRUMMOND CAVERS: Well, you're certainly -- you're

certainly correct in that it's always nice to have more LiDAR and it's always -- it's

always an advantage to have that at hand. But sometimes our reroutes may be

quite considerable.

9998. We just looked at the Morice reroute, for example, here, which is




about seven or eight, I think, kilometres away from the original route in places.

9999. We have in the past rerouted tens of kilometres sideways from where

we are. And so it's really a -- it's really a bit of a trade-off between saying, well,

let's -- it would be really nice to say let's acquire a 100-kilometre wide swath right

across the whole project. But the cost and the -- and also the time to do that

because, especially in the west here, we run into flying problems and so on. And

so we might be sticking at one end trying to get a very wide swath when it would

be to our advantage to get through -- get as much data as we can.

10000. So there's trade-offs in this is, as there always is, and on occasion we

will -- or we may have to route outside where we have LiDAR. And in those

kinds of cases, ultimately we -- we typically go back and acquire additional

LiDAR in those areas. If it's a small swath and there's no snow on the ground, we

may be able to reroute a plane that’s already flying for another contract.

10001. So it's a -- these things are always trade-offs. There's always trade-offs

in life over these things. And I think -- I guess, ultimately, 20 or 30 years from

now when the younger engineers are sitting on this panel or a similar panel they

may have 20-centimetre LiDAR for the whole province at their fingertips just the

way we have air photographs now.

10002. Right now, we do have to -- we do have to compromise from the point

of view of practicality in terms of what we get, especially in areas where we don’t

know about a reroute right now. But we do try and be proactive as much as we

can. If we know we're going to look at an area, we'll widen out. We may have to

go back on occasion and acquire more in some areas, so it's one of life's trade-

offs, unfortunately.

10003. MR. BECKETT: So LiDAR not only improves the ability to assess

the likelihood and risk of landslides and mass wasting as we've been talking

about, but also improves the ability to locate small streams and ephemeral streams

as shown in a journal article that I provided this morning, "Stream Network

Modeling Using LiDAR and Photogrammetic Digital Elevation Models, A

Comparison In Field Verification".

10004. I understand there may be hard copies still at the back to -- for

anybody in the audience who would like to take a look at the article as well.

10005. Without going through the complete paper and looking at Table 1 on




the top of page 1751, would you agree, Mr. Cavers, that assessment methods that

include high resolution LiDAR will likely provide a better representation of small

streams and ephemeral streams than conventional methods without high-

resolution LiDAR?

10006. MR. DRUMMOND CAVERS: Yes, yes it will.

10007. This is just -- this is just another part of the whole advantage of

LiDAR which is -- one of them is to be able to look at subtle features.

10008. I would note that -- that, typically, these very small streams are not

fish-bearing but they are important to us from the point of view of assessing

erosion, assessing terrain conditions such as seepage.

10009. We often use LiDAR now even during clean-up when we’re setting

the locations of cross-berms, we’ll look at where the small drainages are because

one of the principles of water management -- of surface water management, from

my point of view which is to keep erosion to a minimum on the fresh right-of-

way, to keep water where we want water to be, is that we like to keep the water in

the streams, in the little water rills. We like to have the water come on one side of

the water -- right-of-way, flow across and go out and stay in the same stream it

was or in the same small drainage as it was.

10010. And so, yeah, you’re quite right, we use LiDAR now at the clean-up

stage often to assess where those little depressions are, the water was flowing in

before and we try to align our cross-berms at least in part with those. It depends

on the characteristics of the right-of-way and so on but we certainly use it as a

tool from that point of view as well to try and restore the terrain and to keep the

water where the water should be at the end of clean-up which is one of the

principles of reducing the sedimentation at the end of -- at the end of pipeline

construction, which we are very concerned about.

10011. MR. BECKETT: I would hope that you also use it to assess that, if

there is a leak from the pipeline or when there are leaks from the pipeline, assess

what downstream, down water channel risks values are at risk and incorporate

that into your Terrain Hazard Assessment that you have done.

10012. Have you done that?

10013. MR. DRUMMOND CAVERS: Well, that -- that’s more part of the




next panel.

10014. I believe it’s the next panel in terms of the spill response but, certainly,

LiDAR provides us the opportunity to look at those small features of terrain that

can be important in those circumstances.

10015. MR. BECKETT: Recognizing you already have some LiDAR

coverage for small portions of the area being looked at for this proposed pipeline,

have you done any comparisons of how assessments which incorporate high-

resolution LiDAR compared to conventional assessment methods do not

incorporate high-resolution LiDAR to see what extent the conventional method

are missing landslide risk areas and missing small and ephemeral streams?


10016. MR. DRUMMOND CAVERS: Yeah, that’s been -- that’s been

covered in a previous IR but we are practical people and you noted that I haven’t

got LiDAR in any of my papers. It’s because I’m too busy using it rather than

writing papers that some of my academic friends are more interested in writing.

10017. So it’s not -- we prefer not to do studies. We prefer to take all the

different inputs we can get, that includes air photographs, orthoimages,

topography, TRIM, LiDAR, visual observations in the field, ground observations

in the field, survey, input from local residents who may often see things that

happened in the past and valuable source of information. There’s a huge suite of

information that we want to access and use in our assessments. We don’t usually

spend the time looking at: “Well, this one’s more efficient than that.” We usually

try and take advantage of everything we can get.

10018. Just to correct my previous testimony, we discussed those differences

in previous testimony. There wasn’t a specific IR on it.

10019. MR. BECKETT: As a member of the public trying to understand

your proposal and the consequence to the values that I cherish and the values that

many other people cherish, I was looking for some information of that sort that

would help me understand, you know, are you missing 3 percent of those

landslides? Are you missing 90 percent of the landslides? Are you -- so what

quality of information are we getting at this point to review?

10020. I haven’t seen that. Is there some of that that I’ve missed?





10021. MR. DRUMMOND CAVERS: We -- as we’ve discussed

previously, we have a process here by which we’re moving forward continuously

and so our endeavour is not to miss anything significant.

10022. So doing a study to determine what we’ve missed, I’m not sure what

the point of it is. We want to find everything.

10023. MR. BECKETT: I think you’ve recognized that information

supported by high-resolution LiDAR has the potential of being more reflective of

what’s on the ground than information that doesn’t -- that’s not supported by

high-resolution LiDAR.

10024. A lot of the identification of values that’s been communicated to the

public has been based on information not supported by high-resolution LiDAR.

10025. We’d like to have a sense of the quality where we’re missing the high-

resolution LiDAR in relation to where you have it so that we know what type of

differences we might see down the road when you finally provide all the terrain

hazard information fully supported by high-definition LiDAR.

10026. MR. DRUMMOND CAVERS: We’re in a process going forward

with respect to the geohazards.

10027. I think it’s a process, as I said before, that we can be very proud of. It

certainly includes high-definition LiDAR and many of the areas -- in fact, most of

the areas where we have significant topographic issues, where we are expecting to

maybe see issues, we already have LiDAR in most of these areas.

10028. We will be acquiring more LiDAR, wider areas of LiDAR in some

areas, more extensive areas of LiDAR and continuous LiDAR coverage along the

entire pipeline route.

10029. This is all part of the process as we refine these geohazards and so I

don’t think you can say at one point in the process: “What are you missing?”

10030. We know that as we move forward and continue to refine our

geohazards inventory, to continue to refine our mitigation methods while there’s




little reroutes, changes in the pipeline, we have a process which is ongoing and we

don’t want to miss anything. And I think that we can be very proud of that

process but to say, in the middle of the process “You haven’t got everything”, we

know we don’t have everything. We are endeavouring to get everything and we

are confident that we will have everything significant as we finalize our design.

10031. MR. BECKETT: So, Mr. Cavers, I assume you would also agree

other attributes including the identification of active faults and unstable terrain

would be improved when high-resolution LiDAR is incorporated into the

assessment methods?

10032. MR. DRUMMOND CAVERS: We’ve talked about both of these in

the past, unstable terrain, yes, we’re not aware of any active faults in -- that cross

the right-of-way that are at the ground surface, but the answer to that is “yes” as

well.

10033. MR. BECKETT: Thank you very much.

10034. From the October 9th

transcript, line 5437, it states:

“We do recognize that, as we get more LiDAR, more detailed

LiDAR, as we look further at it -- as we get additional sources

of information, that we may well identify additional

geotechnical hazards. We expect to.”

10035. Without the benefit of high-resolution LiDAR for the entire proposed

pipeline route, how can the public be confident that the Joint Panel Review’s (sic)

decision is fully informed, to feel comfortable that all of the information they

should have is being provided, that all of the values placed at risk are being

identified and quantified and that the public and other stakeholders have had full

opportunity to review and comment on that material?

10036. MR. DRUMMOND CAVERS: I’m sorry; could you just repeat your

question?

10037. MR. BECKETT: Just the question portion, or do you want the

transcript portion as well?

10038. MR. DRUMMOND CAVERS: Well, just maybe give me the whole

thing again. I’m sorry; I was talking to my colleague here.




10039. MR. BECKETT: From the October 9th transcript, line 5437, it states:

“We do recognize that, as we get more LiDAR, more detailed

LiDAR, as we look further at it -- as we get additional sources

of information, that we may well identify additional

geotechnical hazards. We expect to.”

10040. “We expect to”, so that’s the statement.

10041. So my question, then, is without the benefit of high resolution LiDAR

for the entire proposed pipeline route, how can the public be confident that the

Joint Review Panel’s decision is fully informed, to feel comfortable that all the

information they should have is being provided, that all of the values being placed

at risk are being identified and quantified and that the public has had full

opportunity to review and comment and reflect on that information?

10042. MR. DRUMMOND CAVERS: I think -- first of all, I stand by my

testimony in line 5437 here. We have a process that we have talked about a lot

here. It includes the SQRA, which is -- has been filed. That’s a living document.

10043. That process is continuing to go forward. It’s continuing to go

forward as we speak in terms of engineers working in the field, looking at

geomorphic processes, looking at geohazards, looking at LiDAR, looking at all

the other sources of information that we have.

10044. It’s a process that’s going forward. It uses a huge amount of

information and it does incorporate, ultimately, high resolution LiDAR for the

complete route. And I think we can -- as I said before, I think we can be very

proud of what we’re doing.

10045. We are confident that we will identify everything that’s of material

importance relative to geohazards and these -- this information, as we go forward,

there will be, I’m sure -- and I can’t to speak to this in detail, but typically in these

processes there are ways for the public to interact with the design team.

10046. We are certainly interested in any interest the public has concerning

instability in their neck of the woods. I’ve said before this is something that we

view with interest because I’ve had situations, for example, not on this route, but

input from Native Elders to say that their grandfather had observed the slide at a




particular location. It was very useful because that location was now eroded by

the river, but it told us something about mechanisms of slides.

10047. So we are interested in all these sources of information. We are very

confident that we will identify the geohazards that are of -- important to the

design and safe operation of the pipeline.

10048. MR. BECKETT: And that will be prior to the Joint Review Panel’s

making of a decision?

10049. MR. RAY DOERING: Mr. Beckett, perhaps I can just help you a

little bit to understand that -- or to give you some assurances that Northern

Gateway is going to live up to the commitments we’re making here through this

testimony.

10050. There are a number of commitments that have been made in the

application during the hearings and all sorts of documentation that’s been now

filed as part of the regulatory process. These commitments that we’re making, we

track these.

10051. We manage a database that will measure to ensure that we are actually

delivering on these commitments that we’re making, so that’s something that we

do. And certainly the Joint Review Panel and the National Energy Board, they

have very detailed and comprehensive processes that they use to ensure that we

are complying with the commitments that we’ve made through processes just like

the ones you’ve heard here today.

10052. So when a certificate is issued for the project, it will certainly contain

conditions that will hold us to that to ensure that we are complying with

commitments and tracking those and reporting on those. And so I fully expect

that that will be a requirement of any certificate, that we live up to the things that

we’re saying here and that you’re hearing from Mr. Cavers today.

10053. MR. BECKETT: And excuse me if I’ve missed these details, but

what are the specifications you propose to use for this more detailed LiDAR in

comparison to the LiDAR that you currently possess? That’s again in reference to

the last October 9th

transcript, line 5437 statement.

10054. Were you committing to getting more LiDAR and more detailed

LiDAR?




10055. MR. DRUMMOND CAVERS: We will have complete LiDAR

coverage of the route which is suitable for our uses.

10056. MR. BECKETT: Can you give me a hint of sort of what resolution,

what specs you’re looking at there?

10057. MR. DRUMMOND CAVERS: Well, typically it’s sub one metre. It

depends a bit on where we are. We have had some problems getting really high

resolution out in a very few limited areas out west, but typically LiDAR these

days is sub one metre.

10058. MR. BECKETT: A little bit of change in questions here.

10059. Have you read papers where forest fires, logging or insect killed

forests, which often affect the hydrological cycle, have resulted in debris flows or

unstable terrain?

10060. MR. DRUMMOND CAVERS: Yes.

10061. MR. BECKETT: Have these potential causes of landslides been

factored into the terrain hazard assessment that you’ve completed so far?

10062. MR. DRUMMOND CAVERS: Our testimony, I think, is very clear

on this. What you’re referring to you are -- we would call triggers to landslides

and we look at whether the landslide can occur. If the landslide can occur, we

mitigate for it.

10063. MR. BECKETT: Do you believe climate change is occurring?

10064. MR. LANGEN: Madam Chair, I question the relevance of the

question. Whether the witnesses believe climate change is occurring is -- they

may have a personal view. I don’t think their professional view is relevant, nor is

their personal view, but I don’t think the question is relevant to this panel and I

don’t think it’s necessarily a fair question at the same time.

10065. THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Beckett, we’re here to hear your

questions to test the evidence of this panel with respect to the design aspects of

the proposed project and perhaps you want to continue your questions in that line

in order to be able to get the answers to questions that you are posing.




10066. MR. BECKETT: I think an answer to this question would put the

next question into better perspective, but I will continue to the next question if

you'd prefer.

10067. How have you modified your assessment of likelihood and risk of

landslides in light of changes brought on by climate change?


10068. MR. DRUMMOND CAVERS: We’re just -- we have responded to

similar questions in a previous IR from the province of B.C. We’re just trying to

find that IR.


10069. MR. DRUMMOND CAVERS: We replied to this question in

Exhibit B47-28, which was a response to the province of B.C. IR Number 2, and

we're on page 38 and it's point (a).

10070. So we -- what we say in there is that: “Ongoing management...”

“[...] geohazards assessment forms part of an overall integrity-

based risk management framework, [...] geohazards will be

actively managed throughout the life of the Project. Ongoing

management allows for updating predictive models based on

[...] long-term conditions, such as potential future climate

affects, [...] allow for ongoing adjustments to the defined

geohazard [...] areas, [and the] predicted occurrence, and

mitigation strategies, as required.”

10071. And further to that comment -- I think your question in part relates to

how we're assessing it right now. And we are -- we are cognizant that there -- that

certainly weather can be variable, climate can be variable and we are allowing for

this in our assessment . But we're not allowing for it on the triggering point of

view because, as I've said before, we assume that the landslides, if they can occur,

will be triggered and so we're mitigating them on that assumption. We're not --

we're not looking at the chance they might be triggered; we are assuming that they

will be triggered.




10072. MR. BECKETT: Thank you very much.

10073. What happens to the pipeline pipe and the welds when the landslide

characteristics exceed what the pipeline can handle?

10074. MR. DRUMMOND CAVERS: Well, this is -- this is conjecture and

I don’t think it's appropriate because our -- we are not proposing what's called a

“strain-based design” at this juncture. We are looking to mitigate -- either avoid

the landslides wherever we can or, where we cannot, to mitigate those slides so

that they don’t affect the pipe. And we've discussed those mitigation measures

previously.

10075. MR. BECKETT: But it's very likely that there's going to be

landslides along stretches that you did not predict would have landslides and the

pipe's going to be affected. It also assesses the -- it factors into which landslides

you consider a hazard versus the ones that don’t. I understand that you're digging

your pipe down deeper where you think landslides are going to be. That’s good.

The depth is relevant to the landslide. Your assessment of all that has to do with

the landslide.

10076. You surely must know what factors of a landslide you have to consider

are a threat to the pipeline.

10077. MR. LANGEN: Madam Chair, sorry, I just want to caution -- and all

due respect to Mr. Beckett. I realized he's not legally trained.

10078. A couple of his preambles -- they're -- more than a couple. They're

fairly lengthy and he includes assertions in them that I think if he wants to put

those assertions to the witnesses, it would be fair to do so in a single question.

10079. So in the last preamble that he just delivered, he said there are very

likely to be landslides along the pipeline route and then he went on in his

preamble quite -- quite a ways and then he ended with a question. And earlier, he

put another preamble to the witnesses where he said "you have a small amount of

LiDAR" and then he went on and asked the question.

10080. And I do mean no disrespect to you, sir, recognizing that this isn’t

what you do for a living, so I appreciate that. But I am concerned that there are

nested assertions in the preambles that may, at a later date, be taken for agreement

because the witnesses didn’t necessarily deal with them up front.




10081. So with that cautionary note, I would ask, Mr. Beckett, if you could try

to break your questions up if you have a long preamble. I think that would be

helpful, if that’s okay, Madam Chair.

10082. THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Beckett, you've obviously spent a great

deal of time preparing -- or at least that’s the impression you're leaving with me --

and it may be that you need to slow down just a little bit so that we can keep up

with you.

10083. It's -- I'm not sure how much longer you plan to be. We do like to take

a break in the morning at some point. So you know, within the next 10 minutes or

so maybe you could let us know when a good time to take a break is, recognizing,

again, that I've already interrupted you at this point.

10084. I don’t know if you want to continue on and perhaps break your series

of questions down that you just asked, get the answers to those and then maybe

take a break? I'll be in your hands as to what's most appropriate for you.

10085. MR. BECKETT: I take your advice and I'll try to heed forth from

now.

10086. I'm just at the top of page 7 of basically seven pages of questioning.

So I think it's easy enough to finish, but it's your call.

10087. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for letting us know. The Panel

thinks it would be a great idea if we just continued on and finished.

10088. So having said that, maybe we could roll back to the series of

questions that you posed and just put those to the panel in more bite-size chunks,

please.

10089. MR. BECKETT: Will do. So I'll start at the first question on the top

which had the long preamble; sorry.

10090. What happens to the pipeline pipe and the welds when the landslide

characteristics exceed what the pipeline can handle?

10091. MR. DRUMMOND CAVERS: That’s a hypothetical question and I

can't -- I can't answer it. I do repeat that our objective is not to have the pipeline




in landslides.

10092. MR. BECKETT: Hypothetical. So my -- would it be fair to say that

the pipeline would probably start leaking, would rupture if it was faced to that

hypothetical situation?

10093. MR. DRUMMOND CAVERS: Well, you've -- I think what you're --

I think what you're trying to say here is if the pipeline's in some hypothetical giant

landslide and it exceeds the strength of the pipeline that it would fail. And the

answer is yes to that hypothetical situation. That’s what we are spending

enormous time to avoid having -- having occur.

10094. MR. BECKETT: I appreciate that, especially considering what

happens to the pipeline contents when the pipeline ruptures. And that’s a

question.

10095. MR. DRUMMOND CAVERS: Sorry; I didn’t understand the

question.

10096. MR. BECKETT: What happens to the pipeline contents when the

pipeline ruptures?

10097. MR. RAY DOERING: There are a number of variables, I guess, that

would determine what would happen to the contents. The size of the rupture

certainly is -- would be an important determination. The time to detect that

rupture; the time to isolate the pipeline system; the time to respond to that location

in that situation.

10098. So there's a number of variables. It's -- it could be anything from a

very minor event immediately locally contained in the vicinity of the pipeline to

something -- to something bigger than that, so it's -- there's really an infinite

number of scenarios.

10099. We have described at great length how we go about determining not

only safe design practices and identification and mitigation for potential

geohazards, but as prevention methods -- of course, there's all sorts of other

ongoing prevention methods that can detect over time whether -- whether subtle

shifts in the land are occurring.

10100. My colleague will be able to describe that and maybe he should,




actually, just to -- so that you understand.

10101. But really, reducing the potential consequences of an event like that

are why we spend a lot of time determining where to most effectively place

isolation valves and where to most effectively locate response personnel and

equipment. These are all important considerations, so it's much more complex

than I could just give you a simple answer to.

10102. MR. BECKETT: So if you can honour me with the hypothetical

situations still, could you explain the characteristics that a landslide needs to have

to begin causing damage to a pipeline?

10103. I’m trying to get a sense of which landslides we worry about and

which ones we don’t.

10104. MR. DRUMMOND CAVERS: Perhaps -- perhaps you could

rephrase the question to get rid of the hypothetical landslide and just ask it more

directly.

10105. I’m not -- we could either build a textbook or maybe just get the

question tighter around where you’d like to go.

10106. MR. BECKETT: Could you explain the characteristics that a

landslide needs to have to begin causing damage to a pipeline?

10107. MR. DRUMMOND CAVERS: Well, I’ll take it that what you’re

asking is: What kind of landslides are we maybe concerned about relative to the

pipeline?

10108. And the -- of course, our -- what we’re ultimately concerned about

with respect to a landslide is soil pipeline interaction. The degree of soil pipeline

interaction that occurs in a slide.

10109. Our objective with mitigating the slides -- and you referred earlier to

digging under slides, we very seldom, actually, dig under a slide because we can’t

get deep enough but our -- what we endeavour to do is to have no soil interaction

with the pipe.

10110. But the degree of loading in a hypothetical landslide depends on the

soil interaction with the pipeline.




10111. MR. BECKETT: And trusting you have -- even though you haven’t

answered that part, you know it, so are these landslide characteristics that you’re

describing or referring to -- trust me, you know, we have -- specific -- so are the

landslide characteristics that you’ve described based on the specific pipeline

design and material qualities that will be used if this proposed pipeline is

constructed?

10112. MR. DRUMMOND CAVERS: No, let me make it clear, we are not

relying on the pipeline strength.

10113. We are not primarily relying on the pipeline’s strength to resist failure

in a landslide. We don’t want the pipeline to be in landslides that could damage

it. We are not relying on the material strength of the pipeline to resist failure in a

slide. Our design -- that is not the basis of our geotechnical design.


10114. MR. BECKETT: So I heard some earlier questioning that was

talking about the welds on a pipe and there’s the PHFS -- PHMSA, the Pipeline

Hazardous Material Safety Administration, and they have some standards for

notch toughness.

10115. Assuming CAT1 pipe and welding techniques, all of that irrelevant

and unnecessary with respect to pipeline landslide considerations then?

10116. MR. JAMES MIHELL: So, again, we’re in -- very deep into the

realm of the hypothetical here but, with respect to large-scale strain events such as

landslides, materials, should you expose them to large-scale strain events, don’t

fail in a manner that would be characterised best by the Charpy toughness test that

we’re talking about earlier. It’s basically simply what’s called “plastic collapse”.

10117. You’re -- you would -- in large-scale strain, material fails on the basis

of its overriding flow stress capability; its ability to sustain stress.

10118. You referenced welds there and it brought into question the welds,

whether or not they would form, perhaps, the weak link in the chain.

10119. In actual fact, the whole point of performing tensile strength -- sorry,

tensile tests on welds as part of the welding procedure qualification is to ensure




the weld isn’t the weak link in the chain, that the weld material is stronger than

the surrounding base metal.

10120. And I know there’s been some discussion about Enbridge’s pipe spec

but Enbridge’s pipe spec is written in such a way to ensure that that is the case.

10121. MR. BECKETT: And with those last answers, have your answers

assumed all welds are stress relieved?

10122. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Stress relief actually has no bearing on

material strength. It -- that’s not why some -- under some construction projects,

stress relief is performed.

10123. Stress relief isn’t undertaken on pipelines. It’s not something that is

characteristically done in the pipeline industry.

10124. MR. BECKETT: I’ll thank all of you for taking time to answer my

many questions.

10125. And thank you, Madam Chair, for guiding me through this process.

10126. And thank you, Madam Clerk, for presenting the referred materials,

especially on such short notice.

10127. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Beckett.

10128. You -- you know, you indicated that you’ve stepped forward as a

member of the public and, obviously, as I said before, you’ve spent a lot of time

being ready to ask your questions and I just want you to know that the Panel

really appreciates your participation and the questions that you’ve posed to be

able to understand the evidence of this witness panel better.

10129. So thank you very much for taking the time to be here.

10130. We also know that you’re not here during work hours as you brought

forward in your preliminary matter.

10131. So the only thing we need to do is just have Ms. Niro give us an AQ

number for the paper that you referenced during your questioning.




10132. MS. NIRO: That will be AQ27.

--- AID TO CROSS-EXAMINATION NO./AIDE AU CONTRE-

INTERROGATOIRE No. AQ27-A:

Doug Beckett – Article – Stream Network Modeling using LiDAR and

Photogrammetric Digital Elevation Models: A comparison and filed

verification by Paul N.C., Murphy, Jae Ogilvie, Fran-Rui Meng and Paul Arp

10133. THE CHAIRPERSON: So thank you, Mr. Beckett.

10134. We’ll take a 15 minute break now. We’ll come back at five after

eleven and the next person who will ask questions is Mr. Vulcano.

10135. Thank you very much.

--- Upon recessing at 10:46 a.m./L’audience est suspendue à 10h46

--- Upon resuming at 11:10 a.m./L'audience est reprise à 11h10

10136. THE CHAIRPERSON: I believe we’re ready to get underway again.

Thank you.

RAY DOERING: Resumed

PETER ACTON: Resumed

BARRY CALLELE: Resumed

DRUMMOND CAVERS: Resumed

TOM FIDDLER: Resumed

SHANE KELLY: Resumed

CLIVE MacKAY: Resumed

JAMES MIHELL: Resumed

PETER WONG: Resumed

10137. THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning Mr. Vulcano. Nice to see

you again.

10138. Would you please proceed with your questions of this witness panel?


Examination by Mr. Vulcano


--- EXAMINATION BY/INTERROGATOIRE PAR MR. VULCANO:

10139. MR. VULCANO: Good morning Madam Chair, Panel, NEB Staff,

Enbridge Personnel and other participants. I’d like to acknowledge being on the

traditional territory of the Lheidli T’enneh.

10140. My questions are going to mostly be about the spreads. So more of a

macro perspective than the micro on cracks and welds.

10141. If we could start with Exhibit B82, Adobe page 74. That’s from

Volume 6E, Section 4.4, page 4.4-60

10142. I was wondering if the Proponent could elaborate on the rationale for

the 12 spreads and in the order that they’re being done?

10143. I’ve asked for a map that could be put up, if that’ll help, 6.1 from

Volume 8 of 10.

10144. I’ve deduced that the spreads start from Bruderheim and then go west,

1 through 12; would that be correct?

10145. MR. RAY DOERING: Hello, Mr. Vulcano. I’ll start.

10146. First of all, no, it’s not quite correct that the spreads will go to -- from

Bruderheim to Kitimat. It is more complex than that.

10147. We start with trying to understand, basically, what a Mainline pipeline

construction contractor -- what kind of productivity they could get in any given

season and we look at, typically, two seasons of potential pipeline construction be

it the summer season, probably a four month period through the summer season

and there would be, similarly, a three or four month period through winter season

where a contractor can productively work.

10148. And in between there are -- for example, in the spring, there are a lot

of things that -- reasons why you wouldn’t be constructing through the spring, just

through the spring breakup and migratory bird sensitivities, things like that. So

there’s certain times of the year where you don’t want to be doing your Mainline

construction activities.

10149. Similarly in the fall, typically winter construction spreads are




undertaken where you might have wetter conditions, perhaps muskegs involved,

that sort of that where you actually want frozen ground conditions. So you need

that ground to actually freeze before the contractor would move into that area and

begin construction.

10150. So maybe I’ll try and use these figures that you have up. The one

that’s shown up -- projected now ---

10151. MR. VULCANO: Sorry, I just wanted clarification just on the spread

numbering, like the numbering, number 1 is closest to Edmonton and number 2

beside it and number 3 beside it?

10152. MR. RAY DOERING: No, it’s not that simple.

10153. MR. VULCANO: No. It’s -- okay so ---

10154. MR. RAY DOERING: It’s -- we have broken up the work, in this

case -- in this example that we’ve undertaken here for the assessment purposes --

into four different construction seasons. There are two winters and two summers.

So that’s identified by what we call “Summer 1” and “Summer 2”. We didn’t put

years on it because, you know, there’s some uncertainty in terms of what is the

actual start date going to be so we just sort of indicate it by season rather than by

year.

10155. But there will be -- as we’ve indicated I think in previous IR responses

and in information that’s been filed, we are anticipating potentially three pipeline

construction contractors -- Mainline pipeline construction contractors working

simultaneously in different areas along the route. So not just starting in the east

and working towards the west, they will be starting in different areas.

10156. And I think we have -- so those three construction contractors will

have three construction spreads in different locations in Summer 1, three

construction spreads that they’ll be doing in the first winter season and then,

similarly, in the second summer and the second winter. But they’re not

consecutive starting from east and going west. I think maybe that will help.

10157. But I just wanted to just to give you a little bit more context on this

before you move on maybe to your next question. Figure 6-2 in what you’re

showing up here, that area, basically from the Bruderheim area to around the

Whitecourt area, the first 200 km of the pipeline, this would be typically




cultivated farmland.

10158. This is the agricultural area. This is -- in Alberta, they call it “The

White Zone”. It’s been undergoing -- the land’s being used for agricultural

purposes for many years. In these areas where you have valuable topsoils, for

example, you want to do that work in the summer because you want to be able to

properly take care of that topsoil and remove it from the right-of-way, store it on

the edge of the right of way, undertake your work and then replace that topsoil

and that’s best done in summer conditions. You don’t want to have any sort of

topsoil, subsoil mixing concerns.

10159. So that area in the first 200 km would be typical what we call “summer

construction”. As you move west, beyond Whitecourt ---

10160. MR. VULCANO: Sorry, can you tell me what spread that would be

then if it’s not number 1?

10161. MR. RAY DOERING: Well, it’s not -- I can’t really -- unless, Tom,

you want to.

10162. We haven’t really defined here in this information which exactly is the

first summer spread. I don’t think that’s actually contained in the filing material,

unless I’m mistaken.

10163. MR. VULCANO: Could -- Ms. Niro, could you go back to the chart,

please?

10164. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Mr. Vulcano, maybe I can help and we

haven’t met along the way but I have certainly recognized your interest in the

logistics of pipeline construction and we’ve taken -- applied significant effort to

fielding some questions from not only yourself but others in associated

communities along the right-of-way who are legitimately interested in not just the

logistics but opportunities to be participants in the project.

10165. In some of the documentation -- and like this table here -- the

numerical numbering is literally the beginning of a logistical plan for how we can

identify an associated, specific segment of work, if you will.

10166. It doesn’t mean that that’s sequential in any way, as Mr. Doering

indicated and ---




10167. MR. VULCANO: Sorry, does it mean it’s not sequential?

10168. MR. TOM FIDDLER: It doesn’t mean that it’s sequentially, going

to be built step 1 through 12.

10169. MR. VULCANO: I understand that and that’s what this chart is.

10170. So you’re going to go, like, the first contractors intended will go

spread 3, spread 1, spread 2, spread 6?


10172. MR. VULCANO: That -- so that sequence is on,

10173. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Now, that was based on this schedule which

was 2014-15.

10174. We talked early in this hearing about completion of the work, now,

conceptually it would be in mid-summer or the end of the winter of 17-18 leading

up to in-service at the end of 18.

10175. MR. VULCANO: Sure.

10176. And I’m not so interested in the years as the scheduling and I’m trying

to get a sense of where these spreads are.

10177. If they’re not sequential, can you show -- is there a map, for instance,

that shows where spread 3 is, where spread 1 is, where spread 2 -- where all 12

spreads are?


10178. MR. TOM FIDDLER: So there is a table 10-3 in Volume 3, B1-5

table, Adobe page 92, thank you.

10179. MR. VULCANO: Louise is working her magic there.

10180. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Yes, I acknowledge she does a great job too.




10181. MR. VULCANO: Yes.

10182. MR. TOM FIDDLER: So, really, the delineation of spreads is by

kilometre posts and, going back to what Mr. Doering was talking about earlier,

that’s largely driven by some initial planning based on productivity expectations

within a certain window of time whether it be winter condition or summer

condition.

10183. We refer to it as “summer”, it often extends greatly into the fall given

restricted activity periods around migratory birds and the like but ---

10184. MR. VULCANO: Could we just refer to this for a moment?

10185. If I’m looking at those kilometre posts it looks like it’s pretty

straightforward. Spread 1 starts in the east and then spread 2 is right beside it,

spread 3 right, beside it, all the way to 12 before going to Kitimat.

10186. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Correct.

10187. But that’s a numerical sequencing just for logistical planning basics, if

you will. It’s not how the construction execution will ultimately happen.

10188. MR. VULCANO: Right and that’s why ---

10189. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Yeah.

10190. MR. VULCANO: --- I brought up the first table.

10191. MR. TOM FIDDLER: You bet.

10192. MR. VULCANO: So you’re going to go with spread 3 which is

Kilometre Posts 279 to 372; correct?


10194. MR. VULCANO: For construction group 1.

10195. And then, Ray -- if I may use your first name -- was saying that, you

know, there’s logistic reasons. I can appreciate that, that you want to be -- it’s

going to be the winter, so spread 3 and then you’re going to move to -- that




particular crew will move to spread 1 then spread 2.

10196. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Correct.

10197. MR. VULCANO: So for logistic reasons, you know, the farmland

thing, you want to be doing that farmland spread 1 in the summer.


10199. And I would add to that that an element of this is also the camps that

are forecast and that’s still a work in progress and, at some communities, we’ve

obviously got consultation to complete with them on existing accommodations,

competing businesses for space in community facilities so …

10200. And then, beyond that, we get into travel time for crews and the safety

of the public in terms of the transportation of work force and those types of

things.

10201. So there’s many factors that go into deciding where these spread

breaks are and the logistics that come into play around attracting contractors to

the work and then being efficient and doing the right things.

10202. MR. VULCANO: And as I’m trying to get behind some of the logic

---

10203. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Yup.

10204. MR. VULCANO: --- the -- so spread 3 is the start. So you’ll have a

crew that you’ll hire or the contractor will hire for that.

10205. Where will those personnel come from?

10206. MR. TOM FIDDLER: I’m not sure what you mean by the question.

10207. Certainly, the contractors will bring to bear in their proposals to us a

resource management plan and, within that, they’ll identify -- so let’s talk

specifically that -- and we have had preliminary discussions with the Pipeline

Contractors Association of Canada about this project given its magnitude. They

would propose to us and say: “Well, we expect that at that particular timing that

50 percent of our workforce will come from our union halls locally in Alberta”.




10208. We've got an additional expectation of our contractor community to

employ a minimum of 15 percent Aboriginal workforce in the construction.

10209. So we'll be defining to them, within their resource planning proposals,

the communities we expect them to consult with and have opportunity for

engagement. Then, they will identify potential gaps from local union halls and,

obviously, then it extends out and there's a protocol relative to that.

10210. MR. VULCANO: Now, spread 3 from the map, it kind of looks like

it would start around Whitecourt ?

10211. Ms. Niro, if you might go to the map there, around 6.3?

10212. Will it be starting and moving west or will it be starting on the west

part and coming east when you're working on Spread 3?

10213. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Direction of travel, as we refer to it when

we're building, is typically east to west on this project.

10214. Predominantly and our intention, other than there may be some

geotechnical-driven situations or the like, the intention is to construct the 36-inch

first in the right-of-way and the 20-inch adjacent to it.

10215. MR. VULCANO: And so when the contractor is finished Spread 3,

he's going to move to -- near Bruderheim and start Spread 1? That's ---

10216. MR. TOM FIDDLER: That's correct.

10217. MR. VULCANO: And is he likely to take most of his crew with him

then?

10218. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Yes, absolutely.

10219. MR. VULCANO: So the benefits for hiring, there's going to be

people near Whitecourt initially then?


10221. MR. VULCANO: Okay.




10222. And one of the advantages of having the same crews then they're

going to start doing a better job?

10223. MR. TOM FIDDLER: There's inherently efficiency and whether

you talk productivity or you talk quality, safety management, environmental

compliance and the like.

10224. Not that we don't have safeguards and practices that oversee those

aspects of the project; it becomes a far smoother operation to have continuity of

work and continuity of the workforce to the extent we can.

10225. MR. VULCANO: Good, that -- well, that makes sense to me.


10227. MR. VULCANO: Glad I’ve figured that out or came to that same

conclusion.

10228. So you're going to have camps for the crew in Spread 3 but, when they

go to Edmonton, they're expected to find their own housing in Edmonton?

10229. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Well, they aren't on their own as individuals,

whether they be PLCAC contractors -- so the Pipe Line Contractors Association

of Canada contractors -- or CLAC contractors -- Christian Labour Association of

Canada -- or a non-union contractor that may be pre-qualified, the contractors

management take a very paternalistic approach to accommodations and we work

with them on accommodations planning, given the potential issues with attraction

and retention of the workforce as well as the safety of their travel and

transportation.

10230. So it's not something where everybody is left on their own. There is,

in the pipeline industry, more circumstances in summer conditions where

individuals like to bring their family along and utilize campgrounds, to be honest

with you, or farmyards they may have been acquainted with and negotiate a

situation to pull their fifth-wheel trailer in or those types of things and we don't

interfere with that and, typically, the contractors don't either.





10232. Moving then -- okay, so after they've done Spread 1, Spread 2 just

follows logically. They it jumps to, according to the chart, Spread 6.

10233. So that goes into B.C. What is the logic for going to Spread 6?

10234. Ms. Niro, perhaps you'd like to go back to the chart?

10235. MR. TOM FIDDLER: I apologize, I do have a vision problem going

with a retina detachment that I'm recently recovering from. So I honestly -- I'm

struggling to see the screen.

10236. MR. VULCANO: Okay, yeah, you do want to get that retina

attached.

10237. MR. TOM FIDDLER: It's attached.


10239. MR. TOM FIDDLER: The vision is not that good.


10240. MR. RAY DOERING: So, Tom, if I can help.


10242. MR. RAY DOERING: Just move that back.

10243. Spread 6 was indicated as the second summer for that particular

contractor and, in the initial filing, we indicated that was around -- between

Kilometre Posts approximately 560 and 630, which would be in the Rocky

Mountain area.

10244. So over the height of land on either east and west side of the Rocky

Mountains.

10245. So this is sort of the next adjacent summer spread following from the

Alberta side as you go west. Summer construction through that area and that's

essentially to deal with the climatic conditions. So in the winter, you've got a lot

of snow in that area that can accumulate so you want to do that construction




through summer, through the summer months.

10246. So that would have been a description for Spread 6, if that helps.

10247. MR. VULCANO: I just wanted -- because you're going to have a

crew that's pretty versant in working in the Prairies and then they're going to jump

-- the contractor is going to be in the Mountains.

10248. MR. TOM FIDDLER: The contractor community have, although not

of recent, built mountain pipelines -- they certainly have especially across

Southern British Columbia -- ad one of the advantages we're going to realize as a

project is that there's a significant amount of large bore pipeline activity in British

Columbia and elsewhere in different terrain than more recently.

10249. So we feel that's going to be a significant benefit to some of the aspect

that we've talked about in terms of quality and compliance and safety and the like.

10250. MR. VULCANO: Let's move to Contract 2 there.

10251. I can see some logic, there's going to be similar terrain, minimal

logistics, Spreads 9 to 10, and then 8 to 7.

10252. Contract 3, you've got starting in Spread 4 going to Spread 11. That

seems to me that's going to be quite a jump for all the crews and the contractor

and moving the equipment.

10253. MR. TOM FIDDLER: I think that's a fair observation.

10254. I'm sorry, I don't understand what maybe the question is.

10255. MR. VULCANO: Well, what's your justification from going from 4

to 11?

10256. MR. TOM FIDDLER: The -- so we start off with a concept in this

plan of three contractors, each of them with a Winter 1 assignment, if you will,

scope of work. Then they -- you know, the Summer 1, Winter 2, Summer 2

assignment -- and, inherently, just mathematically with three spreads and 12 -- or

sorry, 12 spreads and three contractors, you end up having to leapfrog with at

least one of them.




10257. And with that -- you know, some previous comments, one of the things

we want to do is have sequential work, not -- and I don't mean sequential

necessarily in the same communities or the same geographic region but

continuous work to retain the workforce and the contractors and attract the best

skilled labour and the best contractors.

10258. MR. VULCANO: I think that's a great principle.


10260. MR. VULCANO: I support taking that approach both for the

steadiness and the consistency, going for the quality work.

10261. So a question I have is along that line: Because you're going to have

less and less impacts by having the same crews, why not just have one contractor

doing all 12 spreads and then you won't need the leapfrogging?

10262. You'll have the best of the skilled people to work with, minimize

impacts on the communities and the environment.

10263. MR. TOM FIDDLER: The consequences of that scenario -- and it's

not that it's not doable, if you will -- but the reality is we would need multiple

years.

10264. Again, if you consider each spread as taking half a year, including

breaks for things like road bends and break-up and so on, and then late in the year

you're waiting for freeze up for the winter work, you end up with -- it would

essentially take, depending on the contractor, 12 years to build -- or sorry, six

years to build.

10265. The reality is in Canada right now. There is only one large bore

contractor with two pipeline spreads capability and it ebbs and flows but currently

are -- and it is a critical aspect of the industry that we forecast and we spend effort

working with that side of the industry.

10266. There currently is an estimation of roughly 10 large bore pipeline

spreads in Canada and that’s not to preclude that others may invest and develop

pipeline contractor spreads but they are major capital investments in terms of the

size of equipment, both rolling stock and heavy equipment, that are involved in

getting into the business and it is a cyclical business, traditionally.




10267. MR. VULCANO: And there’s a question I have further down is

about the capital stock.

10268. Wouldn’t that be more efficient then if it was just one contractor

having to get one set of equipment rather than three contractors getting three sets

of equipment?

10269. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Well, the marketplace takes care of that itself

in that the contractors are in -- obviously in the business for a purpose and end

means of their business objectives and they invest in their equipment and survive

the test of time based on their objectives.

10270. In our case, as I mentioned, we don’t have a reasonable expectation or

could we tolerate a six-year construction window and I’m not sure that it would

be in the interest of the public at large either, in terms of completion of the

project.

10271. MR. VULCANO: Could you elaborate on that?

10272. Why wouldn’t it be in the interest of the public?

10273. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Well, the project would be -- progress very

slow in comparison.

10274. You -- the pipeline business is a competitive business on the contractor

side as well as in ours and there are -- there’s a particular type of person that is

willing to live basically on the road and work away from home for these

protracted periods of time.

10275. It’s not like an industrial site such as some of those we compete with

in Fort McMurray and elsewhere, where the workforce knows where they’re

going every day. It’s a defined environment, controlled environment in terms of a

workplace setting and you can basically set up home.

10276. A pipeline construction project is very much like a linear assembly

line and it’s very difficult as -- and very much an element of the industry that the

work force enjoys there two or three months break in between pipeline spreads to

regroup with their families and do other -- take care of their other social needs

versus working continually for, you know, in the hypothetical case, for six years




continuously on a travelling assembly line, as I describe it.

10277. MR. VULCANO: So, if I understand correctly, they’re willing to do

it for two years but not six years; is basically it?

10278. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Well, and with the breaks in between.

10279. The reality is in between those seasons. Then, there’s equipment

servicing, there’s many folks that continue to work. Others take a break and get

an opportunity but everybody ultimately gets an opportunity for a vacation, if you

will, in between.

10280. MR. VULCANO: But wouldn’t they have that whether it was a two-

year or a six-year term?

10281. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Just more difficult to retain the work force

for steady, continuous, six-year cycle and, again, on a single project competing in

the marketplace, we believe there would also be additional risks to that retention.

10282. We currently see a window of opportunity when Northern Gateway

goes to construction here in terms of competing market demands for the limited

number of pipeline spreads, as I elaborated on earlier.

10283. MR. VULCANO: Sorry, limited number of pipeline?

10284. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Spreads.

10285. MR. VULCANO: Spreads?


10287. So again, going back to there being 10 or thereabouts and that does

ebb and flow, there -- the period that we’re looking at construction here and how

we’re looking at getting out ahead in the marketplace gives us confidence that we

can secure the three pipeline contractors and their spreads that we are going to

need to execute the project.

10288. MR. VULCANO: Okay, I’m trying to appreciate that perspective.

10289. I would have thought the same as -- it’s better for consistency to have




a group moving from the first four spreads, that they’d be happier to work on all

12 spreads.

10290. There seems to be some line in there that you’re saying that two years

is better than three months but two years is also better than six years.

10291. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Mr. Doering’s indicating he wants to try and

help me with some of the rationale as well and has some additional comments to

layer on.

10292. MR. RAY DOERING: Yeah and really, a little bit more from a

commercial perspective and you may have heard from our first Panel in

Edmonton about some of these matters. But I mentioned here this week that our

in-service date is anticipated to be 2018 and I think Mr. Fiddler has mentioned

that again.

10293. And there are commercial drivers to achieve that date. There are

needs to deliver that incremental production that’s expected from the Western

Canadian Sedimentary Basin by that time frame and so we really can’t have a

project that will take six years to construct.

10294. That just won’t meet the needs, the commercial needs of the project as

well. So, that’s a very important consideration that I think that really is -- needs

to be considered as well.


10296. And I don’t want to belabour this aspect, so that brings me -- the point

I wanted to make was: You’re weighing against minimal impacts versus needs of

the project to have it done on time?

10297. MR. TOM FIDDLER: If I could, Mr. Vulcano, there’s also another

aspect to this that’s subtle but important. I mentioned it earlier but we’ve made

commitments to the Aboriginals as well as the local communities along the way.

10298. So part of the logistics creates also greater opportunity for local

businesses and local employment and for the First Nations along the route that we

want to assure some opportunity for participation.

10299. So, you know, using the concept of a single contractor going one end




to the other, that would certainly be problematic to some of those other

dimensions of our objectives.

10300. MR. VULCANO: In so much as they wouldn’t want to wait so long

or that because you made a commitment to one group then they may feel that they

can have that commitment when you move along; is that it?

10301. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Well, literally, what we would be doing is

compelling the contractor to change out a proportion of his work force as he went

down the line.

10302. And, alternatively, and albeit we’ve got some skips here that are going

to do that in the one leap frog scenario, it’s not effecting all 12 spreads where they

have to change out the workforce because of the geographic region that they’re

moving into.

10303. MR. VULCANO: Okay, thank you.

10304. I just want to check where I am on my questioning.


10305. MR. VULCANO: You’d mentioned the dates changed, will the

Enbridge plan to draw on LNG pipeline personnel?

10306. Does it hope that the lines will be completed so you’ll have that

expertise to make use of?

10307. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Current forecasts for some of the projects and

a number of them aren’t underway yet, so we can only take into consideration in

our detailed execution planning what we know is in the public domain or, you

know, promotional material and the like.

10308. There is opportunity, as I mentioned earlier, to benefit from other

projects not only of the industry but our own in Western Canada over the next few

years leading up to this construction.

10309. I think that relates to your question.

10310. MR. VULCANO: Okay, what proportion of females are expected to




be employed?

10311. You make mention that, you know, there’s opportunities for them.

10312. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Absolutely.

10313. I’m not aware of any percentage or any targets of that nature. We

work with the pipeline contractors and them with their -- if they do, in fact, have

represented labour or organized labour units such as the pipeline contractor

unions, there’s four of those.

10314. Christian Labour Association of Canada in each province have their

own association and organized labour objectives.

10315. At this stage we don’t interfere with their objectives or their methods

of recruitment and attraction. I know that -- I know, specifically, the pipeline

unions have an effort underway to attract Aboriginal and female gender workers

to the workforce.

10316. Other than that, I can't comment.

10317. MR. VULCANO: So you're leaving it up to the contractors?

10318. MR. TOM FIDDLER: In those regards, yes.

10319. MR. VULCANO: Are you aware that female equipment operators

are less hard on equipment?

10320. MR. TOM FIDDLER: I've heard that, I don’t know that that’s not

anything more than anecdotal but ---

10321. MR. VULCANO: Well, it would seem to me that that’s worth

pursuing; if you think it's only anecdotal, that you can talk to the companies that

---


10323. MR. VULCANO: --- hire them.

10324. I'm just thinking in terms of you want to minimize impacts and you




want to do a good job that maybe one of your strategies could be more female

operators. And I'm wondering if you've got anything in your plans that are sort of

showing there's some action behind your notion? You say: Yeah, we want to,

you know, benefit females.

10325. For instance, there's a group in Grande Prairie that specializes in

assisting women getting in the workforce and, you know, have you done anything

to support them?

10326. MR. TOM FIDDLER: I'm not aware of any initiatives with that

specific focus by Enbridge.

10327. As I mentioned, I know the contractors unions have that focus in terms

of recruitment into the trades.

10328. And I've got to comment that our objective is to define with -- and the

unions do it themselves -- in terms of defining journeymen and apprentices and

provide opportunities to all sectors of the workforce and are trying to grow the

industry, in particular, on the pipeline side as we speak; they're doing extensive

work on recruitment.

10329. And on the Northern Gateway team, we've got some folks that are

working on training and recruitment with the communities along the pipeline

corridor as well and I can't speak on their behalf, they'll be in another forum later

on; I believe in Prince Rupert but I'm not sure of the setting for them.

10330. MR. VULCANO: My line of questioning on the two aspects of

female equipment operators and having fewer contractors is just to go with your --

I'll use the term “buzz phrase” that “you're trying to minimize impacts”.

10331. And I'm wondering if that’s just not a word that you're using because

it's a nice word to include?

10332. MR. TOM FIDDLER: You'd have to give me some context that

you're referring to the buzz word “minimize impacts.”

10333. We talk about impacts in various ways. There's environmental and

other risk mitigation impacts. There's impacts if we're talking about

accommodations and the impacts on an adjacent community and their

infrastructure and their services.




10334. So I'm just missing a context and ---

10335. MR. VULCANO: It was, in my mind, more on the communities --

impact on the communities that you don’t have a lot going on at the same time.

10336. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Could you repeat the question again, please,

or was it a statement?

10337. MR. VULCANO: It's just minimize -- you were asking the context.


10339. MR. VULCANO: It was to minimize the impact on communities is

the thrust of my query.

10340. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Well, in minimizing -- in the case that you

might be referring to it suggests a negative.

10341. Many of the communities along the corridor are looking for

opportunity so they're looking at it positive, obviously.

10342. And we've had discussions with various communities about additional

industrial travel on the roadways, communications that we have to evolve with

first responders, whether it be the -- those of a medical nature or those of -- I

guess other first responder nature.

10343. But, ultimately, it's subjective whether, you know, you put a spin on it

whether it's negative or positive. We hope to work with the communities and

stakeholders -- and key stakeholders to minimize any -- and mitigate any negative

impacts and have positive experiences and impacts.

10344. MR. VULCANO: Well, I would think the benefits are going to be

there whether it's -- I'll use a six-year or a two-year construction -- it's just a

matter of when it arrives to the community.

10345. But the impacts, because there's so much going on at once, are going

to be more cumulative and I'm suggesting you could minimize those impacts but,

as you already mentioned, you're weighing it against the other factors by having

just one contractor.




10346. MR. TOM FIDDLER: That’s your assertion, yes.

10347. MR. VULCANO: Well, I think it's supported by what you've said

near the beginning, that there's, you know, the crews get better, they're more

efficient, there's less impact when they're moving from one spread to the other.

I'm just trying to take that logically then if you did that with all 12 spreads.

10348. I'm not denying that there's other factors in consideration, I’m just

going there and trying to answer your question when I'm talking about by having

---


10350. MR. VULCANO: --- less impacts.

10351. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Okay.

10352. MR. VULCANO: And I will have more questions under the

socioeconomic component on that; I mean we're bordering on that.

10353. So if I may, I'll thank everybody for allowing me to ask my questions.

10354. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Vulcano.

10355. Dr. Wier is the next person who's going to pose questions of this

witness panel and I understand she's joining us remotely so we'll just get that

infrastructure in place.

10356. DR. WIER: Hello?

10357. THE CHAIRPERSON: Hello, Dr. Wier, this is Sheila Leggett.

10358. DR. WIER: Hello? I can barely hear you, hello?

10359. THE CHAIRPERSON: Hello, Dr. Wier, this is Sheila Leggett.

10360. Can you hear me?


Examination by Dr. Wier


10361. DR. WIER: Yeah, that’s better.

10362. THE CHAIRPERSON: Oh great.

10363. DR. WIER: Thank you very much.

10364. Am I heard properly as well?

10365. THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yeah, we're able to hear you were

clearly in the hearing room, thank you.

10366. DR. WIER: Very good.

10367. First, I want to thank the Panel for allowing me to participate long

distance, it's -- I'm very grateful for that. I apologize for registering so late.

10368. Hello?

10369. THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you're still with us, yup.

10370. DR. WIER: Okay.

10371. I apologize for registering so late with this Panel because we had a

glitch in the email communication with Mr. Neufeld and I learned yesterday that I

would be on this Panel so …

10372. I want also to say that I was not able to listen to the hearing ---

10373. THE CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Dr. Wier, we just need to stop you for

a moment, you're fading on us.

10374. We'll just have to get the technology rolling so that we're able to hear

you clearly.

10375. You didn’t switch to a speakerphone or something like that?

10376. DR. WIER: No, I'm ---

10377. THE CHAIRPERSON: Oh, you're back loud and clear now. So ---




10378. DR. WIER: I'm -- I'm -- okay, I put it ---

10379. THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so you had said that you were grateful

to be participating remotely and we're glad that the technology appears to be able

to work so that we're able to accommodate that.


10381. THE CHAIRPERSON: And maybe you could carry on from there,

please?

10382. DR. WIER: Yeah, and I -- I was delayed for my registration from a

glitch in communication with Mr. Neufeld.

10383. In any case, I was not able to listen -- hello?

10384. THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

10385. DR. WIER: Hello?

10386. THE CHAIRPERSON: We're still hearing you.

10387. DR. WIER: I have an echo.

10388. So I was not able to listen to the hearing yesterday and the transcript is

not available. So if I repeat a question that was asked yesterday, I’m sure you will

know how to mention it to me.

10389. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Dr. Wier.

10390. Again, you're fading so we're -- we heard what you said for that last

sentence but I wouldn’t want you to proceed further. Let's try you -- let's try

again and see, Dr. Wier, if you can hear?

--- EXAMINATION BY/INTERROGATOIRE PAR DR. WIER:


10392. The gist of my questions are about the Semi-Quantitative Risk

Assessment and if Louise could pull the B75-2, page 18, and you'll have to let me




know when it's on the screen, please.

10393. THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Wier, we again hear you -- are you

staying consistently the same place ---

10394. DR. WIER: Yeah.

10395. THE CHAIRPERSON: --- with your telephone?

10396. There, you're back now.


10398. THE CHAIRPERSON: Yeah.

10399. DR. WIER: I'm going to try my -- another phone, so let's try this.

10400. Was this better?

10401. THE CHAIRPERSON: Can you speak a little more, please?

10402. DR. WIER: Is this better?

10403. THE CHAIRPERSON: No, it's not, I'm sorry to say.

10404. Can we go back to the other phone?

10405. DR. WIER: We're back on the other phone.

10406. THE CHAIRPERSON: That’s much clearer, thank you, Dr. Wier.

10407. DR. WIER: I wonder if I should position myself maybe differently.

10408. How is this now?

10409. THE CHAIRPERSON: This is perfect the way you are right now.


10411. So, okay, my first question is regarding the Semi-Quantitative Risk




Assessment and if Louise could put B75-2, page 18?

10412. Ad please let me know when it’s on the screen.

10413. THE CHAIRPERSON: It’s on the screen now, Dr. Wier.

10414. DR. WIER: Okay, so regarding the analog ILI, the following factors

at the end under “Summary of Methods” were examined: water content ---

10415. THE CHAIRPERSON: I’m sorry, Dr. Wier, we’re losing you again.

10416. It’s just that you fade. We’re able to still hear your voice but it’s not

nearly as clear as other times when you’re speaking.

10417. DR. WIER: I don’t know how to solve this. I -- nothing is ---

10418. THE CHAIRPERSON: Nothing is changing; is it?

10419. DR. WIER: No.

10420. THE CHAIRPERSON: We can hear you again.

10421. So let’s try again and I know that our sound technician in the back will

be working on a full-time basis here trying to make sure that we can get the

volume consistent so that we can have this conversation without anybody not

being able to hear the full conversation.

10422. So you -- we’re on page 18 and you were speaking with reference to

the ILI data?

10423. DR. WIER: Yes, looking at the factors that were examined and

maybe I will not read them but they do not include the nature of the fuel

transported and I want to ask the question: Why was the nature of the fuel

transported not mentioned?

10424. MR. JAMES MIHELL: I believe we had an IR on that, Dr. Wier.

10425. In fact, I believe it was in response to your IR number 8, B97-2,

Adobe page 19.




10426. DR. WIER: Of course, I don’t have the ability to pull it but ---

10427. MR. JAMES MIHELL: I understand.

10428. We’ll try to perhaps convey what we’re seeing on the screen here

because that must be ---


10430. MR. JAMES MIHELL: --- you don’t have the benefit that we have

here in this room.

10431. DR. WIER: Can you repeat the -- I’m pretty good, actually, B98?

10432. What is it?

10433. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Hang on, it’s B97-2 and we can hang on

while you get that up.

10434. DR. WIER: Yep, I have it.

10435. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Okay, and if you go to Adobe page 19.


10437. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Just to refresh your memory, you had asked

a question about the content of or the product composition ---


10439. MR. JAMES MIHELL: --- that was being transported through the

what we’re calling the “analog pipeline”, the 36-inch line 4.

10440. And so the table that’s provided there on, I guess it’s Adobe page 19,

provides a product stream breakdown for that pipeline.

10441. DR. WIER: I see that. My apologies, so this was answered.

10442. Are the others aware of the uncertainties about the safety of

transporting dilbit as I submitted in my first evidence -- written evidence, B217-




18-1 -- which is the US Pipeline Safety Regulatory Certainty and Job Creation

Act amendment of last December?

10443. THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Wier, it’s Sheila again. I’m just going

to ask you to slow down a little bit when you’re speaking so that we can follow

you.

10444. DR. WIER: Thanks. Sorry.

10445. Are the -- (sound problems) -- in the amendment of the US Pipeline

Safety Regulatory Certainty and Job Creation Act of 2011 with this amendment

that requests a review of the safety of transportation of dilbit?

10446. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Dr. Wier, I think you’re referring to a

document and, unfortunately, it’s a little bit garbled but is this an aid to cross that

we would have in hand that we could refer to just so that we could be really clear

as to which document you’re referring to?

10447. DR. WIER: No, this was my written evidence B17-18-1.

10448. THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Niro, were you able to hear that?


10449. THE CHAIRPERSON: So, Dr. Wier, we have your written evidence

on the screen and perhaps from there you could -- now that we’ve got this in front

of us, you could pose your question that you wanted to ask to the witness panel?

10450. DR. WIER: So the question is: Are the others aware -- I have an ech

-- are the others aware of the uncertainty regarding the safety of the transportation

of dilbit?

10451. THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Wier, we lost you again.

10452. Do you have the web broadcast playing in the background by any

possibility?

10453. DR. WIER: No.

10454. THE CHAIRPERSON: You’re just on the phone; are you?




10455. DR. WIER: Yeah, I’m just, okay ---

10456. THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, we thank you for your patience as

we’re trying to work through this.

10457. I’m just wondering if it would be a good idea if you tried dialing back

in if that might be of help on the technical side. Just give us one minute, Dr.

Wier.


10458. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Madam Chair, the other thing that might be

helpful is if she could reference the page number that she’s referencing, we can all

go to that page number and read what she’s referring to and, that way, if there’s a

communication breakdown, we can still get the gist of what she’s getting at.

10459. DR. WIER: It’s one page.

10460. THE CHAIRPERSON: I was going to say the written evidence is

one page.

10461. So okay, Dr. Wier, your voice is coming in clearly again. Let’s give it

another try. I know that, like I say, our sound technician is working diligently in

the back of the room.

10462. So I’m sorry to have to ask you to do this again but we’ve got your

written evidence on the screen. Would you please repeat your question and take

your time because it helps us be able to understand you when you speak more

slowly?

10463. DR. WIER: Thank you.

10464. Are the others aware of the uncertainty regarding the safety of the

transportation of dilbit reflected in the amendment in the Act, last December?

10465. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Yes, we -- we are looking at the evidence

now and we have read this particular paragraph making reference to a proposed

study that the Secretary of Transportation is expected to undertake.




10466. DR. WIER: So what -- why has dilbit then not -- the nature of this

fuel not included in the risk assessment then?


10467. MR. JAMES MIHELL: I’m sorry for the delay. I’m just looking for

a document here; so bear with me.


10468. MR. JAMES MIHELL: So I understand your question to be: Are

we aware of the study that is referenced in this document and the need to address

dilbit corrosivity?

10469. There have been a number of records back and forth -- a number of

documents back and forth on the record pertaining to dilbit corrosivity and, you

know, I guess perhaps the most comprehensive discussion on that was provided in

Haisla IR number 2, B45-8, Adobe page 28.

10470. And while that’s being called up, I can also just give you our

experience with regard to dilbit corrosivity.

10471. So what we did is we basically found a pipeline that is operating with

the same type of products as is proposed for the Northern Gateway pipeline, in the

same hydraulic regime, the same sort of flow rates, same turbulent flow and had

extensive operating experience with that pipeline.

10472. And we referred to that as our “analog pipeline” and it’s 36-inch Line

4. And there’s extensive amount of inline inspection data on that pipeline that we

reviewed and we characterize that review as representing 10,000 kilometre years'

worth of ILI information. And by that term, 10,000 kilometre years, what I mean

is that basically there’s a -- if there was 1,000 kilometres' worth of ILI data, it

would have been 10 years at the time that the ILI data was taken.

10473. So lots of -- ample time for corrosion to initiate and manifest itself and

show itself on in-line inspection logs and so we would expect to see evidence of --

sorry, evidence of internal corrosion had that pipeline been susceptible to active

internal corrosion. And in fact, we didn’t see evidence of internal corrosion.

10474. And when I first went through the in-line inspection data on this




analog data set, I was a little bit flummoxed because, ultimately, I was tasked with

defining a finite failure likelihood for the Northern Gateway pipeline. And I

remember saying to one of the corrosion engineers at Enbridge, "You know,

you’re not making this easy for me to come up with a finite number".

10475. And in order to come up with a finite number, I need to be able to see

any evidence, some sort of evidence that there has been active internal corrosion

going on on this analog pipeline. And in fact, I’m seeing nothing. And he

pointed out to me that, well, perhaps I should just call it as I see it.

10476. So nevertheless, we didn’t stop there. We did some modeling to try to

ascertain, you know, why that would be the case. And the modeling suggested

that the -- what little water might be entrained in the product stream and it’s

characterized in terms of a commodity called BS&W, Basic Sediment and Water,

which is no more than 0.5 percent would be fully entrained in a fine dispersion

and that the surfaces of the pipeline would be oil wet -- what they call oil wet.

10477. And basically, oil wet pipelines don’t corrode. If you put oil on

pipelines or any steel and keep the water away from the surface of the pipe, it

won’t corrode.

10478. So we also, in addition to that, looked around for other people's

experience and we found some reference to other people’s experience. And I’m

going to cite from the SQRA document B75-2, Adobe page 120.

10479. And specifically -- I’ll wait for that to come up on our end. And

presumably, Dr. Wier, you’ll have B75-2 open at your end. But if you could to

Adobe page 120, we could all be on the same page.

10480. And there’s a section there called 2.2.1.1. It has a starting paragraph

followed by a second paragraph and a couple of bullets embedded within that

second paragraph, and I can perhaps just read from that.

10481. DR. WIER: I don’t think -- 125?

10482. MR. JAMES MIHELL: I’m sorry; it’s Adobe page 120.

10483. DR. WIER: Twenty (20), oh.

10484. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Let us know when you’re there.





10485. DR. WIER: Yeah, I am on that.

10486. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Okay. And so what we’re just saying there

at the end of the first paragraph is that:

“Therefore, because no water accumulation is expected, no

[…] internal corrosion is expected on this pipeline.”

10487. It goes on to say that:

“This conclusion is consistent with an API publication [called]

'Pipeline Transportation of Diluted Bitumen from the

Canadian Oil Sands' which states among its findings: That

although oil sands diluted bitumen has been transported

through Canadian and U.S pipelines for more than a decade,

there have been no instances of crude oil releases caused by

internal corrosion from pipelines carrying Canadian diluted

bitumen.”

10488. And the second point there says that:

“Corrosivity of diluted bitumen is largely similar to crude oil,

which is considered to be low.”

10489. The paragraph below that says that:

"The above findings were also corroborated in a presentation

given by Cheryl Trench to the 6th

Annual Pipeline Safety

Conference in November, 2011. The issue of crude oil sourced

from Canadian oil sands was included in that presentation,

and the results of an investigation into the internal corrosion

history of pipelines carrying that product were provided. The

study investigated PHMSA accident data for pipelines that

have interconnections to Canadian crude sources. It also

investigated data from U.S Energy Information Administration

Form 814; shipment-by-shipment crude imports to determine

which refineries were sourcing Canadian oilsands crude.




Finally, it investigated pipeline industry information to

determine all interconnections, including storage hubs to

determine which part of the pipeline infrastructure could have

transported Canadian oilsands crude. The results of this

analysis established that there has not been one failure in any

of this infrastructure that is attributed to internal corrosion

resulting from the transportation of Canadian oilsands crude.”

10490. DR. WIER: If I may say, one wonders why the U.S are spending

money doing a review and even amending their Act. So I want you to keep in

mind that it’s not known, that you are implying and you are quoting resources that

the reality is there is an uncertainty factor. And I want to keep that in mind.

10491. Okay. You mentioned this NPS 36, line 4 and you say it’s an analog,

but there’s no -- I couldn’t find any information. What is this NPS 36, line 4?

Which terrain, which length? How old is it? Since when were the ILI data

obtained? What is the presentation of the line inspected? So could you -- or

should I go one by one?

10492. MR. JAMES MIHELL: I see where you’re headed with that. And

again, there was an information request to that effect and it was answered as

response to JRP No. 11. The document number on that was B101-2, and I’ll wait

for it to be called up. And we need to go to Adobe page 33.

10493. While we’re doing that, I would just like to respond to your assertion

that not everything is known, that there is some uncertainty. And I have to say

that I don’t disagree with you on that. You know, this is not something that we

should pretend is a foregone conclusion.

10494. All we’re saying is that when we look to our analog ILI information

and the experience of others, it doesn’t appear that dilbit pipelines are unusually

exposed to internal corrosion. However, that doesn’t mean that we can be

satisfied to the extent that we can say we don’t need to do anything about

worrying about internal corrosion. We do.

10495. We need to treat it as a very real concern and, to that extent, I think -- I

have to be careful. I always -- I always am tempted to wander outside of the

scope of this panel, which is really design.

10496. But there’s another panel on operations, and I think they would be




very happy to go into a lot of discussion about the things that they will be doing

on this pipeline in terms of inspection and maintenance to ensure that internal

corrosion doesn’t manifest itself on this pipeline to the point where it presents a

threat at any time in the future.

10497. I think I need to stop there with respect to operations issues because

it’s outside the scope of this panel. But I just wanted to point out that I agree with

you, Dr. Wier, that there is uncertainty, always. There’s -- we can be assured that

we have to be vigilant against this threat all the time, so ---


10499. MR. JAMES MIHELL: At this point, do you have -- let’s see ---

10500. DR. WIER: I think -- what number -- what was the page number you

were referring to on B101?

10501. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Sure. It was Adobe page 33, and there’s a

Table 2 there.


10503. MR. JAMES MIHELL: And I won’t read out from that table

because there’s a lot of information, but I’ll give you time to peruse that table and

maybe ask any specific questions you might have.

10504. DR. WIER: Well, those were not the questions I had. It was more

like what is the length of this pipeline and how old is it, stuff like that. Ninety-

nine ('99), so -- okay.

10505. And the inspection, what length were -- of the pipeline was inspected?

10506. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Is there -- I don’t have this table open on

my computer, but is there a row in here that talks about length? If not, I'll have to

confer with some of my colleagues to get you that answer. So I apologize for the

delay.

10507. DR. WIER: No, I don’t find the length. And I wonder if stating the

percentage of it that was inspected because 10,000 kilometre years doesn’t really

speak to me.





10508. DR. WIER: Did I lose the connection?

10509. THE CHAIRPERSON: No, you're right here. I think that the

witness panel was just conferring, so we'll just let them seek to get the -- I think

the question is the length of the pipeline.

10510. DR. WIER: The question is the length of the pipeline and the lengths

of the inspected -- the inspected lengths of it. Was it 10 percent of it was

inspected, or how much?

10511. MR. JAMES MIHELL: I think we've got a preliminary answer to

that, and I apologize for the delay.

10512. The number I'll give you right now is going to be subject to check. It's

on the order of about 1,000 kilometres. Oh, and the amount -- all of that 1,000

kilometres was inspected.

10513. DR. WIER: Oh, okay, 100 percent. So it's been inspected for 10

years.

10514. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Well, it's been inspected twice, actually.

And -- so it's the most recent data set that is the most instructive, I think, because

-- again, this is going to be subject to check because I'm going on my memory

here, but I believe it was inspected one time in 19 -- sorry, 2007. And I think that

the second time it was inspected was in 2010.

10515. I'm just looking over my shoulder just to see if anybody is waving at

me that I might have those numbers as wrong. But as I say, that’s all subject to

check.

10516. And we really like to focus on the 2010 data because, of course, the

pipeline is older in 2010 and it, therefore, has been given more time to corrode.

So that’s really where we focused, is the 2010 data.

10517. DR. WIER: As a side question -- I’m a little bit surprised. So it was

built in 1999 and it took eight years for the first inspection?




10518. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Yes, that’s what it sounds like.

10519. DR. WIER: Is that -- is that common practice?

10520. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Well, back in the early part of the last

decade -- so the -- like the 2000s, I think that was probably typical of practice

then. Since that time, I think inspection intervals have decreased; the periods

between inspections have decreased.

10521. Again, I have to be careful here because I'm getting into the realm of

operations, but I'm just going to try to be responsive to your question based on my

general observations. I think the inspection periods have decreased typically

corresponding with the availability and reliability and the performance

characteristics of these new in-line inspection tools, which have now become very

adept at identifying very small features. And as such, they're very effective at

finding corrosion features. And so it's become quite common practice now to

inspect at a little bit more regular intervals.

10522. And I think that you can probably ask the operations team about

inspection intervals if you like, but I'm not qualified to address that.


10524. You write -- or the -- in the report, I read that the pipeline will operate

in fully turbulent mode and with the BSW that you mention. What -- the question

is, what is the percentage of the time the pipeline will not operate in fully

turbulent mode?

10525. And we heard about in previous hearings -- in the previous hearing

when there will be -- there will be time when this will not happen. Any idea?

10526. MR. RAY DOERING: The pipeline is expected to operate in

turbulent flow virtually always. There could be short periods of time where the

pipeline would be shut down for maintenance and inspection requirements, but

while it's operating it's expected to be operating in fully turbulent flow.

10527. I -- and Dr. Wier, we did just check. We have made a commitment for

Northern Gateway -- and it has been described in the previous IR responses; we'll

see if we can find that -- that the in-line inspection -- the suite of in-line inspection

tools will be run for Northern Gateway within the first two years of going into




operations.

10528. So that gets to Mr. Mihell's comments that the frequency of in-line

inspections such as the one we would do for internal corrosion not only have been

increased, but the base line is established very early on in the project life.


10530. My next question refers to B97, page 9.

10531. THE CHAIRPERSON: And just ---

10532. DR. WIER: It's a simple -- simple thing. Is it on the screen?

10533. THE CHAIRPERSON: It is. I was just going to ask -- it's Sheila

again, Dr. Wier. I was just going to ask the witness panel if you would please

identify yourself just when you're beginning your answer to your question so that

Dr. Wier knows who she's talking with.

10534. Thank you.


10536. Okay, so -- can I ask my question?

10537. THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Dr. Wier, please go ahead.

10538. DR. WIER: Are any of -- okay, the response b to the -- the question

was:

“How many of those failures occurred in mountainous terrains

similar to the ones in [...] BC?”

10539. And the answer was “They haven’t been” ---

“[...] there have been no oil pipeline failures in BC in

mountainous terrain.”

10540. And I wasn’t clear what he'd meant. Are any of those pipeline in

mountainous terrains?




10541. THE CHAIRPERSON: Again, Dr. Wier, it's Sheila Leggett here and

I think the panel's just thinking. So when you hear the silences, that’s all that’s

going on.


10542. MR. RAY DOERING: Well, one of the -- certainly one of the

pipelines that would have been used here to compile this data -- sorry, this is Ray

Doering speaking, by the way, Dr. Wier.


10544. MR. RAY DOERING: One of the pipelines that would have been

considered for the B.C. data would have been the Trans Mountain Pipeline, which

certainly does cross mountainous terrain within British Columbia. And I think

what this -- and other pipelines involved in this would have been other National

Energy Board regulated pipelines in B.C. and I’m not sure if that’s Spectra

Pipelines or Pembina Pipelines in this case. We'd have to go look at the source.

10545. But in the case of Trans Mountain Pipeline, yes, it does cross

mountainous terrain, but I think the indication is that there were no failures within

that mountainous terrain ---

10546. DR. WIER: M'hm.

10547. MR. RAY DOERING: --- on Trans Mountain Pipeline.

10548. DR. WIER: Yeah, that’s the -- that was the question. Thank you.

10549. My next question refers to B97, page 10-11 ---

10550. THE CHAIRPERSON: We have page 10 on the screen now, Dr.

Wier.


10552. So to the question -- I ask the question:

“How old is the oldest 'modern' pipeline with shows the 80%




reduction of corrosion risks?”

10553. The answer is:

“The 80% used in the QRA is a qualitative assessment based

on expert opinion and is not based on historical data.”

10554. So I'm curious, you know, what is the qualitative data that

substantiates the 80 percent reduction of corrosion risk expert opinion if it's not

historical?

10555. THE CHAIRPERSON: And Dr. Wier, it's Sheila Leggett again.

Just to continue the blow-by-blow, they're just -- the Panel just looks like they’re

seeking additional information.


10557. MR. JAMES MIHELL: So I’m sorry, I had a brief conference back

there to figure out this question.

10558. My name is Jim Mihell by the way, Dr. Wier.

10559. DR. WIER: Hi.

10560. MR. JAMES MIHELL: And I wonder if we could scroll up a little

bit so I could re-read this question, a little -- I’d like to see some of the -- and

perhaps the preamble to E, if I could see it?

10561. DR. WIER: I don’t have it on the ---

10562. MR. JAMES MIHELL: I’m okay. I can see it here, thanks.

10563. So this -- yeah, this question, Dr. Wier, refers to a preliminary very

high-level risk assessment that was performed and was subsequently replaced by

the SQRA that you referenced earlier that is the most current and representative

risk assessment. It’s the one that we are using at this point, that risk assessment

that is shown is B75-2.

10564. So I think the previous risk assessment being that it’s been supplanted

by this later risk assessment I think we’d prefer to really focus on the most current




and representative risk assessment if we could.


10566. Can we go back to the 80-percent reduction?

10567. Is the 80 percent reduction of corrosion risk the opinion of experts

working for Enbridge or is it a rate that’s generally agreed in the field?


10568. MR. JAMES MIHELL: So I am led to believe that this -- I

apologize, this report -- this earlier report isn’t my work and so it’s difficult for

me to speak to it.

10569. But it was the expert opinion of Dr. Bercha, I believe, and he had some

means of evaluating that 80 percent.

10570. Again, that earlier risk assessment has since been replaced and I guess

we are now using what we feel is a better representation, a better basis for the

Design-Based Risk Assessment and that’s the risk assessment that’s in B75-2.

10571. DR. WIER: Okay. Thank you.

10572. Now, my next questions, I’m going to pull quite a few references, B97,

page 12.


10573. THE CHAIRPERSON: That’s on the screen now, Dr.Wier.

10574. DR. WIER: It mentions that, regarding the NTSB Accident Report, it

mentions that:

“While operational factors contributed to the failure to detect

this incident promptly, the probable cause in the NTSB view

was due to physical failure mechanisms and not an operational

one.”

10575. And I’ll stop there.




10576. Now, I would like to pull evidence D4-5, no, D4.5.5 ---

10577. THE CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me ---

10578. DR. WIER: --- which is the interview of Mr. Zupan -- I don’t know

how to pronounce it -- regarding the Marshall accident, the Kalamazoo spill, on

page 17, and -- if you let me know when it’s on the screen?

10579. THE CHAIRPERSON: It’s on the screen now, Dr. Wier.

10580. DR. WIER: Okay, so Mr. Zupan mentioned that it’s clear that we --

that in hindsight the person should have had additional training. It’s clear to us

what we could have done more to train and support those people. Now, on page

19, on the same document of Mr. Zupan.


10581. THE CHAIRPERSON: We have page 19 on the screen.

10582. DR. WIER: On line 25 -- on line 24:

“...our loss rate was higher than that, and so we were [on line

25 we were] continually in a...”

10583. Replacement and retraining mode.

10584. On page 42 ---

10585. THE CHAIRPERSON: That’s now on the screen too, Dr. Wier.

10586. DR. WIER: Mr. Zupan mentioned there’s a long journey, on line 11:

“…we've looked at is this is still a journey…”

10587. On line 16:

“We will not be able to get there in a short period of time

because of the whole training piece.”




10588. Now, so this is it for Mr. Zupan.

10589. For the conclusion of the NTSB investigation on B92-3, page 133 to

135.

10590. THE CHAIRPERSON: We have page 133 on the screen now.

10591. DR. WIER: Okay, so line:

“Conclusion 7: Enbridge Integrity Management Program was

inadequate.

11: The inefficacy performance of control centre.

Conclusion 12: Enbridge failed to train control centre staff in

team performance.

Number 13: Enbridge failed to ensure that all Control Staff

Centres had adequate knowledge.

Number 14: Enbridge management did not prohibit control

centre staff from using unapproved procedures”

10592. That’s very important.

“Number 17: Enbridge control centre staff had developed a

culture that accepted not adhering to procedures”

10593. Very important.

“18: Enbridge review of its public awareness program was

ineffective in identifying and correcting deficiencies”

10594. And:

“Conclusion 27: Enbridge’s failure to exercise effective

oversight of pipeline integrity and control centre operation,

implement an effective public awareness program and

implement an adequate post-accident response were

organizational failures that resulted in the accident and




increased its severity.”

10595. Okay, that’s pretty well-known and next reference would be Volume

86, October 10th ---

10596. MR. LANGEN: Madam Chair ---

10597. DR. WIER: Line 5921 ---

10598. THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Wier, counsel for Northern Gateway,

Mr. Langen, has something that he’d like to say at this point.


10600. MR. LANGEN: Sorry to interrupt you, Dr. Wier.

10601. I appreciate Dr. Wier’s jumping us through a number of exhibits or

documents that are on the record that relate to the NTSB investigation of Line 6B,

it appears, and I was patiently waiting for a question and I appreciate that she may

want to go to other documents, but I think it would be helpful to know what her

question might be because I may suggest that this line of questioning go to

another panel.

10602. So if she could indulge us, with your indulgence, Madam Chair, we

might save some time here if she can just give us an idea where she might be

going given that she keeps referring to multiple documents.

10603. DR. WIER: If I may? Thank you.

10604. I’m exactly there. The -- what’s happening is the Semi-Quantitative

Risk Assessment revised concludes on, may I quote it, B75-2, page 24, that the

probability -- maybe I’ll wait for it to be on the screen?

10605. THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Wier, what page was it?

10606. DR. WIER: Page 24.

10607. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. It’s on the screen now.

10608. DR. WIER: It says:




“Therefore, the probability of incurring full-bore failures

related to incorrect operations is considered negligible.”

10609. It’s not even looked at in assessment.

10610. DR. WIER: So my question is, is it correct to call lack of oversight,

lack of implementation, lack of training and support, lack of adhering to

procedures, operational failures? That’s my question.

10611. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Okay. It's Jim Mihell again, Dr. Wier.

There's a couple of things I'd like to point out.

10612. One was that the findings of the NTSB were that the initial release in

the Marshall incident was actually cracking underneath a polyethylene tape

coating system which gave rise to a corrosion -- or an environmental cracking

mechanism which, by the way, we don’t anticipate with high performance coating

systems these days any longer. But that being the case, I do acknowledge that

there were operational failures in recognizing the leak and reacting promptly to

the leak.

10613. I -- again, because I'm on the design panel here, can't go into the

outcomes of the Marshall incident and describe what sorts of changes have been

undertaken with respect to ensuring that a Marshall incident type of occurrence

with respect to identifying and isolating a leak on time doesn’t ever happen again.

That’s the purview of the Operations Panel and I will defer to them to talk to that.

I’m sure they’ll have lots of opportunity to speak to that.

10614. Secondly, with respect to the SQRA, perhaps I can take you to page

138 of the SQRA. And the SQRA document is B75-2.

10615. THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Wier, can you let us know when you're

there, please?

10616. DR. WIER: Yeah, I will. Okay. And which page?

10617. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Page 138.

10618. DR. WIER: Thank you. I am on it.




10619. MR. JAMES MIHELL: Okay. And so near the bottom we get into

incorrect operations and it talks about the approach that was used to derive failure

estimate -- failure frequency estimates on operations failures.

10620. And just over the page -- we're just starting into the start of incorrect

operations there, but just over the page it concludes that:

“This equates to a failure frequency of 5.607x10-5

failures/km.yr.”

10621. It is a finite failure frequency that was anticipated bearing in mind,

once again, that, technically speaking, the root cause of the actual release at

Marshall was environmentally assisted cracking and not technically an operations

related failure, acknowledging at the same time that operations failures

subsequent to the release led to an unacceptably long time to detect and respond

to that leak. That’s a separate matter.

10622. So we are, for the purposes of the SQRA, not discounting the

possibility of operations failures occurring. We looked at the PHMSA database

associated with other past operations failures to guide us in terms of the

magnitude of releases that are typical of operations failures and concluded that

these tend -- these types of failures tend not to be characterized as full bore

ruptures, but as releases of smaller magnitudes.

10623. And so for the purposes of, I guess, pairing up rupture frequency with

rupture consequences, the rupture risk associated with incorrect operations was

considered to be zero. However, there is not considered to be a zero risk

associated with incorrect operations. It's considered in the SQRA and was

evaluated as part of the SQRA and will be there to instruct the risk-based design.

10624. DR. WIER: Well, what's missing in your evaluation is the failure of

the -- it's not the crack. It's the failure of the integrity management system and the

whole corporate structure around it. So it -- it appears -- anyway, this is not the

place to argue, but I want for the record to mention that there is more than a crack

to a crack. It's what led to the crack and what's been ignored and all the warnings

and so on. I'm not going to be late on this.

10625. Okay, so next question is leak detection sensibility. And I was very

puzzled with last week statement, Volume 86, October 10, line 5783.





10626. THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Wier, that’s now on the screen.

10627. DR. WIER: Thank you. So -- I can't pronounce -- Mr. Barry Callele

says that:

“The CPM has a minimum threshold detection [...] of 1.5 to 3

percent of nominal flow under steady state operating

conditions.”

10628. And on line 5786, I believe it's the same person who said:

“...at this point in time that’s the best estimate of future

performance given a 1 percent to 2 percent range of sensitivity

on the metres.”

10629. So I did not understand those two numbers. So it is correct to

understand that, with a sensitivity range of 1 to 2 percent for 1.5 to 3 percent

nominal flow, there will be cases that no leak can be detected?

10630. MR. BARRY CALLELE: Dr. Wier, it's Barry Callele, and it's okay

to say “Callele” as well. It's understood in my family both ways.

10631. What we were describing here, Dr. Wier, was a future predicted state

for Northern Gateway Pipeline given a meter frequency described previously as

having ultrasonic meters at every pump station and custody transfer meters at the

inlet and the outlet of the pipeline.

10632. So it's not a theoretical future performance, although that’s kind of the

wording. I wish we wouldn’t have used the word “theoretical” at the time. But

anyways, what it is, is it's a calculation of future predicted performance of a

computational pipeline model.

10633. Now, that last statement I redacted it or had errata on it. I think I

mentioned in it that it's the best estimate of future performance given a 1 percent

sensitivity of the meter. The variability occurs due to different volume balance

segment lengths in the pipeline.

10634. DR. WIER: So it's 1.5 to 3 percent plus or minus 1 percent?




10635. MR. BARRY CALLELE: No, it's 1.5 to 3 percent depending upon

which segment you're in in the pipeline.

10636. DR. WIER: So what's this latest 1 percent?

10637. MR. BARRY CALLELE: That’s just indicating -- sorry. That’s just

indicating, Dr. Wier, what we assume to be the accuracy of the meters that we use

to measure the flow rate on the pipeline.

10638. DR. WIER: Oh. yeah, okay. Okay, thank you. Thank you very

much.

10639. MR. BARRY CALLELE: You're welcome.

10640. DR. WIER: Next question regards quality assurance in Volume 87 on

line 7631.


10641. THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Wier, that -- that’s up on the screen

now.

10642. DR. WIER: Okay. So line -- Mr. Leadem asks:

“[If the] quality assurance and inspection apply to the work

done by contractors as well?”

10643. And Mr. Fiddler on line 7633, “Absolutely” was the response.

10644. And this is, to me, in quite contrast with what took place in Wisconsin.

And if you want to look at D217-21, page 6, which is my written evidence.

10645. THE CHAIRPERSON: It's on the screen now.

10646. DR. WIER: Okay. So I mention that:

“Enbridge's more than 500 construction permits violations in

Wisconsin in 2007-2008 were settled by the Wisconsin

Department of Justice for a meagre $1.1 million.”




10647. That was significant, more than the pipeline ropes that Mr. Fiddler

mentioned in Volume 87, line 7683 and it wasn’t that debris was being left

uncovered. It was debris such as the pipe rope that I mentioned that wasn’t

necessarily being picked up on the same day.

10648. So Mr. Fiddler seemed to really downplay the seriousness of those

violations.

10649. In D217-9-4, page 1 …


10650. THE CHAIRPERSON: That’s on the screen now, Dr. Wier.

10651. DR. WIER: The Wisconsin Wetland Associated describes the very,

very significant and repeated violations during construction:

“… 60 violations from July 30 to September the 9th …”

10652. That’s more than one a day related -- well, just about one a day:

“…related to erosion control, wetland restoration, land

clearing, trenching, dewater and lack of compliance with Best

Management Practices;

Over 19,000 gallons of oil were spilled in Clark County, WI on

January 2nd

, 2007 when a pipeline ruptured contaminating

farmers’ fields;

Over 150,000 gallons of crude oil spilled into a farm’s field

and seeped into the groundwater table in Rusk Country;

In May, 2008, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

referred the case of Enbridge … repeated failure to comply

with its wetland and waterway to the Department of Justice.”

10653. So my question is: Given this awful record, what is the plan to

monitor and act on repeated violations during construction and operation?




10654. MR. LANGEN: Madam Chair, it’s Mr. ---

10655. DR. WIER: How are you going to assure us that you’re going to do

better than four years ago?

10656. THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Langen?

10657. MR. LANGEN: Dr. Wier, it’s Mr. Langen speaking, counsel for

Northern Gateway.

10658. The last question that she just provided I think was a fair question.

The prior question had a nested assertion in it and an argumentative one and I

would ask her to frame her question, the one that she just asked in the course of

my interrupting her. If she wants to reframe that question, I’m happy with it.

10659. The earlier one, we’re seeing a pattern of assertions and I understand

that Dr. Wier may feel strongly about this but I’d like the questions to be fair

questions to the witnesses without assertions in the more argumentative portions

to them.

10660. If I can ask for that I’d appreciate it. Thank you, Madam Chair.

10661. DR. WIER: So, if I may, as I understand from the material I quoted,

the quality assurance and inspection will apply absolutely to contractors, fine.

10662. The records show that, very recently, this hasn’t been the case. So,

how can we trust that, once again, very minor fines will not deter contractors to

repeat what they’ve done recently?

10663. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Ms. Wier, it’s Tom Fiddler here and I want to

back up, if I could briefly and you may not have caught up to all of the transcripts

subsequently because this line of questioning has come up again.

10664. And I made clear that, in the initial line of questioning, that there’s an

extent of limitation to my knowledge and Mr. Underhill on the Operations Panel

will speak to that. I believe. Mr. Leadem made note of that. And so I wasn’t

discounting or suggesting there weren’t other environmental violations, I just

don’t understand or have the details.

10665. Further to that, though, of the 500 permit violations, I did make note




and have some notes in front of me that advise that 115 were alleged to be non-

compliances in the end and, ultimately, all the wetlands were cleaned up to the

satisfaction to the Wisconsin DNR.

10666. That’s not to discount that there were some procedural and work

practice issues. And I -- in follow on questioning elaborated on our Construction

Management Environmental Protection Management Plan and Program inclusive

of a detailed orientation of not only the workforce, of the contractors but also

enhanced expectations and training and qualification of our inspection staff

including focused environmental inspectors.

10667. And, in that regard, we are committed to an objective -- not unlike our

leak goal -- of zero regulatory non-compliances and permit condition non-

compliances.

10668. DR. WIER: So how binding is the commitment that you just made on

the record?

10669. Because I understand that this was also a commitment that was also

made for the Lakehead.

10670. MR. TOM FIDDLER: And all I can do, personally, is reassure you

by our follow-up activities. We built two projects shortly after that, immediately

after that, in Wisconsin and Minnesota without a non-compliance of any

significance for certain and I can’t go beyond that.

10671. And we’ve built thousands of kilometres in Western Canada since

then, continually improving and working with our contractor community on

compliance and environmental risk mitigation.


10673. This leads very nicely to the next question--

10674. THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Wier, it’s Sheila Leggett here.

10675. DR. WIER: It’s my last question.

10676. THE CHAIRPERSON: I just wanted to check with you. We were

supposed to finish sitting at 12:30 and it’s now 10 to 1, what’s your estimate of




the remaining time that you need for the rest of your questions?

10677. DR. WIER: Probably 5 to 10 minutes, if possible?

10678. THE CHAIRPERSON: Let’s continue in that vain but we --

unfortunately, because of scheduling constraints, we will need to stop sitting at

1:00 o’clock and so, if we’re not finished by then, we’ll just pick up again with

you on Monday morning when we sit again.


10680. If Louise could pull aid to cross-examination which is a website which

is the letter that the National Energy Board posted yesterday or October the 11th

regarding Trans-Canada compliance with technical -- no -- what is it --

TransCanada non-compliance with technical standards.

10681. And it’s very sad. It’s -- this letter posted two days ago shows that a

large pipeline company, again, is not following procedures and regulations and it

has a strong echo with the Marshall accident with the enumeration of non-

compliance practices.

10682. And it’s very, very distressing to see that the regulator had not flagged

those non-compliances and that it takes a whistle-blower, at great costs I’m sure

to that person, to uncover them.

10683. So here we just heard Mr. Fiddler -- okay, so I don’t want to be

argumentative so here are the questions: How can Northern Gateway commit to

the use of a certified independent party for welding inspections and non-

destructive examination to forward results to NEB to inspections that meet the

requirements of the onshore pipeline regulations?

10684. Which was not done by the other company?

10685. So how can Northern Gateway commit?

10686. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Ms. Wier, it’s Tom Fiddler again.

10687. What I can describe to you is our process and, not to suggest anything

of a negative nature to our friends at TransCanada, but our practice is that we

independently hire and qualify all of our pipeline inspectors.




10688. That includes written tests that includes prerequisite -- not only

training but work experience and demonstration and verification of that work

experience. We do accommodate -- and I want to clarify this -- we do

accommodate opportunities for -- I’ll call them “apprentice inspectors” if you will

-- in the process but, certainly, under the oversight of individuals who have

significant experience.

10689. We’re very proud of -- and we’ve just evolved to a computer-based

training program with a complete Inspection Performance Management Program,

if you will, around pipeline inspectors so that if you envision and are familiar with

quality management practices, it’s a quality management circle around inspector

performance qualification as a prerequisite, so they’re pre-qualified. They’re

examined and tested relative to the Enbridge specifications and expectations, and

that’s both written as well as audits, and then we archive that information relative

to that individual inspector. And we also do a post-project assessment of their

performance.

10690. And there's other dimensions to an inspector's performance, as you

may understand, in any workplace and team environment. So we’ve got a very

robust -- and I know for a fact, having participated with API committees and the

CSA committee, that our Inspection Performance Management Program around

pipeline inspectors is world class.

10691. DR. WIER: So if failure to have done, which from the leak had --

okay. If failure to have done so is discovered and it -- what is Northern Gateway

prepared to offer as a clear and robust indication that it has outgrown its corporate

culture of deviance?

10692. MR. TOM FIDDLER: No, you’re crossing up an operational culture

with a construction culture. And not to again suggest one’s lesser than the other

---

10693. DR. WIER: Okay, so that will close my questioning.

10694. MR. TOM FIDDLER: What I could say, Ms. Wier, just to give you

some reassurance, within Enbridge as a whole, and it is a fairly recent evolution,

we do have a whistleblower system and hotline, if you will, that allows for

anonymous and independent accusations and investigations inclusive of internal

legal team and in an anonymous and very rigorous way.




10695. So we’ve got mechanisms that we make the workforce, including the

contractor community and our stakeholders of, in terms of advising of concern

with ethical conduct or performance of work conduct or the like, so ---

10696. DR. WIER: So are any member of the public who witnesses a

crossing of a creek or whatever outside the regulations able to phone that

whistleblower line?

10697. MR. TOM FIDDLER: Yes, they are.

10698. DR. WIER: Do you have to be employed by Enbridge?

10699. MR. TOM FIDDLER: No, you don’t.

10700. DR. WIER: And how long has this been in place?

10701. MR. TOM FIDDLER: I’d have to verify that. It is certainly

something that’s evolved in the last three or four years. It doesn’t go back that far

in terms of being one of the management systems and mechanisms in the

organization.

10702. DR. WIER: After the Lakehead problems -- well, thank you very

much. This closes just on time for a beautiful day.

10703. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Dr. Wier, for your

questions of this panel.

10704. So just as we’re wrapping up for the day, we’ll start on Monday

morning and call Alberta Lands Ltd., then Enoch, Ermineskin and Samson Cree

Nations, followed by Northwest Institute of Bioregional Research and then

counsel for the Secretariat as well as the Panel. That will be the order that we will

proceed in for this panel.

10705. So with that, we’ll call for any other preliminary matters that parties

want to raise at this point.

10706. MS. SHANNON: Sorry, I don’t want to delay, but we just have two

quick preliminary matters.




10707. The first is Northern Gateway is ready to file a response to

Undertaking No. 32.

10708. THE CHAIRPERSON: Ms. Niro, could we have an exhibit number

for that, please?

10709. THE REGULATORY OFFICER: That will be B-140.

--- EXHIBIT NO./PIÈCE No. B-140:

Enbridge Northern Gateway’s Response to Undertaking U-32

10710. MS. SHANNON: Thank you, Ms. Niro.

10711. Also, we were asked this morning to confirm the order of panels that

will be seated in Prince Rupert. And the order that is currently listed in our

responsibility document is correct, but I’ll just confirm that that will be the

Marine Environmental Socioeconomic Assessment Panel followed by the Marine

Preparedness and Emergency Response Panel, then the Kitimat River Valley

Panel, the Aboriginal Engagement and Public Consultation Panel and, finally, the

Shipping and Navigation Panel.

10712. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms. Shannon.

10713. And with that, we’ll close and thank everybody for your participation

and involvement this week and we will sit again on Monday morning at 9 o’clock.

Thank you.

--- Upon adjourning at 12:58 p.m./L’audience est ajournée à 12h58

joint review panel for the enbridge northern gateway project · joint review panel for the enbridge...

Documents