appendix b – table and individual discussion guides · discussion guides were intended for a...

Appendix B – Table and Individual Discussion Guides This appendix contains the comments participants submitted through Table and Individual Discussion Guides. The Table Discussion Guides were intended for a group of participants to write any questions of clarifications, along with responses to the discussion question (see below). The Individual Discussion Guides were intended for each participant to write the responses to the same discussion question (see below). Comments are numbered for ease of reference only.

Discussion Question: What are the 3 most important things that the Ontario Energy Board should focus on in its report to the Ontario’s Minister of Energy, based on the impacts identified during the Part One consultation and the information from the OEB’s technical advisors

Comments from each Table and Individual Discussion Guide have been recorded separately. A copy of the Discussion Guide is available on the ‘Resources Page’ of the OEB’s Energy East Consultation website (ontarioenergyboard.ca/oebenergyeast).

Table Discussion Guides

KENORA 1. There were no table discussion guides submitted at the Kenora Community Discussion

THUNDER BAY 2. • Whose water will we drink if/when the pipeline spills? Who will pay for it? Where will it come from?

• How does TransCanada measure/compensate for loss of quality of life due to their company’s damage of lands – shouldtheir pipes leak (for example)?

• How will TransCanada be held responsible for environmental damages – environmental damage as it is defined by thoseaffected, and not the company – who does not live on the land it has the potential to pollute?

• What processes will be put in place to try TransCanada should it be necessary?3. • We have not been provided with full information, do the ‘experts’ have noted. Therefore we need that info and another (a

3rd) consultation• Ontario should re-affirm that climate change be considered in the “wider CO2 emissions context”• We have not been convinced that benefits outweigh the risks to our environment.

4. • Question for Jake: in regard to the mechanical properties of the pipe, your expert stated that gas pipelines are built to ahigher standard than what would be required for “oil”?

• Are you talking about conventional oils or diluted bitumen? à are the standards considered the same for both? à havedifferences been considered in terms of pipeline integrity?

• What is the probability of failure (from internal or external sources) of the pipeline?• Include assessment of final consumption of fossil fuels• Premier to take stronger stance on climate change including end users/final consumption• Need extension on additional consultation à change to NEB• $1 billion enough for a bitumen clean up à “financial capability” should include the government holding in trust

5. • Opportunity to see/respond to full and complete application?• Minutes à Amount à impacts• Will wait traditional ecological knowledge (TEK)? First Nations consultation – WAIT!• Emergency management à discuss at all?• Tape à what standards? Change? Need to change the system – especially because near here• Significant water crossing - all water• No guarantees – we need some!• Accountability of all forms of oil transport (including pipelines, rail, truck, etc.) should be considered. Regulations should

be consistent and tight across all modes and communities should have a say on all modes.• Consideration of real costs and benefits. Also including alternatives such as renewable energy and safer forms of energy

(including oil price fluctuations and the possibility of stranded assets)

Appendix B: Table & Individual Discussion Guides

Page 1 of 27

• Communities need a say on the complete and final application. We can’t assess all factors otherwise6. • What is to be done to ensure adequate natural gas supply for North Bay to Cornwall?

• Are there intermediate values between pumping stations?7. • Value 58>59 for hydro – testing is the least likely to rupture

• Suggestions: Ontario – do not support the expansion of the oil sands. The pipe will lock in climate change• Pollution costs, tourism, fishing, drinking water• Building trades à Kenora à Hearst

8. • Who has the final say what is a significant water way?• Since corrosion is considered to be a large factor in failure to the line, who will be applying the coating? There have been

studies on corrosion and most failures are due to the application. Will they be looking for trained professionals to do thisimportant work? Research the CAS program certified applicator specialist.

9. • Definition of “significant water crossing”• No dilbit by pipeline. Not safe ever• Tougher regulations needed for rail transport too• Develop alternative economy

10. • What other in-line inspection tools are used other than SmartPig? What are the names of risk management firms that usein line inspection tools?

• Please explain the economic benefit to Ontario of this project. This is not made clear in the technical report.• What is the failure rate of DSAW weld conversion pipeline at valve sites?• How effective has TransCanada’s leak detection system proved to be in the past?• Not support pipeline – try to get off fossil – renewable energy – leave it in the ground. Because we need to discuss

climate change, upstream and downstream• Zero tolerance for leaks• Province should put a price on carbon in order to level the playing field and enable us to work towards getting off carbon• The OEB should recommend that the Province commit to further investment in the green economy and not allow this

pipeline to proceed.11. • How enforceable/what influence will the recommendations put forth by the OEB be within the NEB review/approval?

• Enforceability of OEB advice - TransCanada Pipelines consents as per the reports• Environment• Enforceability of OEB recommendations and enforceability of TransCanada commitments

12. • Is bitumen being refined in Canada? If so, how much will stay in Canada?• Are extreme temperatures (winter) being considered as a threat to pipeline integrity? For example, can bitumen become

a solid form during the extreme temperatures (-30°/-40°) and cause a blockage which would result in a rupture?13. • Every water crossing is significant

• Our risk their reward• Why oil instead of bitumen?


Page 2 of 27

• Highest standard is it only present • Leak detection history • If there’s no benefit, why do it • If pipe is same after 30 years – why a 40 yr limit?

KAPUSKASING 14. • Protection of source water à mitigation measures.

• Ensure topography study is completed and posted on website • Statute of limitations for claims • Location of TC nearest ER Team and equipment to include response time of TC

15. • Environmental impact and emerging response in various communities with varying degrees of capacity • Hopefully economic benefits in northern Ontario will be long rather than short term (e.g. during construction)

16. • Water, all water bodies above on or in the ground need to be considered significant and the TCPL/government/OEB need to guarantee the safety of water, no matter the cost.

• Socio-economic effects, benefits, monitoring, long term high level career, jobs • How to prevent, manage messes • Highest safety standard

TIMMINS 17. • Human operating nobs should be criminally responsible for overriding shut off valves before line has been checked for a

spill • Liability for spill clean up. Oil company should also bear responsibility not just let pipeline declare bankruptcy after major

spill • Time to detect and shut down a spill should be automated and shortened from 22 minutes down to 12 minutes • Shut off/check valve combinations should be installed at every water crossing.

NORTH BAY 18. • An “incomplete” report should be rejected as unacceptable

• Insufficient external research with regard to safety of water and the environment • Emergency response plan not finalized • $1M – would not cover costs of supplying North Bay and area with drinking water for extended period let alone restore

environment • Dilbit analysis crucial • Due diligence

19. • Source water protection for North Bay and all watersheds, not convinced! • Focus your energy on stopping this project – its doomed to failure

20. • Application from TC is incomplete, especially in regard to environmental issues – this is the wrong way to review such application


Page 3 of 27

• From the information that the consultation process has given the citizens of North Bay, it is clear that TC has completed no proper studies of any part of the environment.

• There needs to be a complete environmental assessment of every component of the environment • There is no acceptable level of risk for this pipeline, in its entirety.

21. • Citizens influence at the National Energy Board level? • Climate change no more fossil fuel infrastructure development • TransCanada is submitting an incomplete application and the current application ignores or glosses over the variety of

products piped, where valves will be located, how mitigation of environmental impacts will be accomplished and a host of other issues

• The Ministry of Energy should recommend rerouting (or justifying why re-rerouting is not justified) around sensitive water resources.

• How will TCPL be held accountable for cleanup and remediation of land and water affected by the operations of the Energy East pipeline or an accident involving the Energy East pipeline?

22. • I want to know what guarantee I have in 1-7 generations to come (or maybe more) the 100% guarantee of having “ clean” air, water plant life, ecosystems and habitat life to be free of any health risk factors related to this pipeline? You cannot give a guarantee to be studied as we cannot predict the future you cannot play God with our lives!

23. • Why not focus on dilbit? • What are they shipping on this pipeline? • Why was report not complete before it was presented to public for discussion? • Why not all line required to be built to maximum available standards on quality for public safety? • What is highest available technical standard?

24. • The people of Ontario have not spoken on the application because significant information has not yet been provided • Better geological review of risks of water • A full climate review of Energy East that accounts for more climate change and reject it.

25. • NEB process cannot move forward with an incomplete application • Water – there is no level of reports to ensure a failure won’t happen • No to pipelines – yes to going green! • Our Prime Minister said “we will have pipelines – no brainer”! The decision is already made. There is no consultation! • Full address climate impacts (a) increase is not modest = 7 million and (b) Ontario is part of global; global impact will

affect Ontario 26. • Water – wells adjacent to the pipeline

• Safety – integrity of the pipeline and emergency response and what about slow leaks 27. • Can valve be controlled manually as well as remotely?

• Is there back up for all valves? • How much of the refined for consumption as fuel in Canada? • To “help” the cause full disclosure needed for standards, safety and 100% cleanup.


Page 4 of 27

• Water source protection • Economic impact of a leak in the North Bay watershed; i.e. decreased/loss of tourism, business, college/university

enrollment (who would come to a community in a polluted watershed), plummeting property values (people count on the equity in their home to provide for them in retirement) à TC would likely declare bankruptcy if made to make reparation

• TC needs to be doing their assessments/evaluations with due diligence and it is glaringly not. Also, their application to the NEB should be returned to them and they should have to fully complete everything before presenting their application to the NEB.

• To demand that Ontario pursue with the federal government the need for a long term national energy strategy. KANATA

28. • Develop and fund alternative sources of energy • Fund alternative sources of public transportation so we don’t need to use so much oil • Do a more realistic assessment of pipeline on climate!

29. • There were too many “best practice”, “not many”, without numbers “acceptable” • Make the monitors of the pipeline independent, not TransCanada. This will most likely become more crucial with time.

Will the ERP teams have an obligation to publicize their findings? 30. • What is the lifespan of the FBE coating? What are the plans for external inspection? Replacement? Is there any thought

to replacing the polyethylene coated sections? • Will the consultants review the environmental impact given the fall in the price of oil? You assume that rail could be a

substitute, rail costs $23/ barrel, oil now sells for $43 in order to justify the environmental risks. • There must be a clearly demonstrated need for this energy here in Ontario and Canada for the pipeline to be approved

and it is not needed. Energy conservation and sustainable green energy alternative must be fully explored and developed before we approve this pipeline. We have greater social benefit from supporting green energy alternatives in terms of jobs created for $ spent and health and environment protected.

31. • Has dilbit been tested in the pipeline? Require scientific evidence that it is not more corrosive and will not quickly erode the integrity of the pipeline.

• We need a much higher liability to TransCanada than 1 billion in even of spill for cleanup. • Why do we take all these risks for so little benefit economically? • Our source of conventional natural gas is reduced and we are thrown into dependence on fracked gas from USA – more

GHG intensive; more costly. Who pays for that pipeline? Include this in cost analysis. • Include all the oil the pipeline will carry in the pipe to wheels GHG analysis. We must take responsibility for every barrel

we export by pipe and rail. • Don’t assume there will be other pipelines • Get a clear picture of a dilbit spill. What happens to oil? What happens to diluent?

32. • Lessons learned from other spills in order to get a more realistic understanding of their socio-economic impacts • The need for a much more detailed emergency response plan in the event of spills • A much more realistic assessment of climate impacts of 1.1 million barrels per day of tra sands oil being dug up and


Page 5 of 27

burned 33. • What is the track record of TransCanada in living up to past commitments in corporate culture, maintenance, etc?

• What will be the costs to the province and municipalities to be equipped/trained/ready to respond in the event of a spills or rupture?

• Do we really need to do this? Won’t it just make things worse for our grandchildren? 34. • Recommendations:

Climate change Contamination of water Chemical composition going through pipeline and health risks Detection of slow leaks Will there be an explosion Emergency response = how or where will water come from? • Transparency • Evaluations from scientists who are being muzzled • Slow leak detection – predicted and consequences of those leaks • Chemical toxicity of the substances flowing in the pipeline • Climate change impacts • Details of chemical substances and the risks to health and environment associated with those chemicals

35. • Respect and usage of land use and Aboriginal land treaty rights. Want TEK and TLRU studies • Safe water • Education vs. pipeline value on the future • Alternative energy • Time to prepare for the future post-pipeline

36. • Broad cost benefit analysis of non-renewable enterprises as compared to renewable projects both provincially and inter-provincially should be performed

Missed on [display] board • Taking into consideration we are facilitating a technological lock-in with Energy East and not exploring alternatives to the

same extent • Include to what extent we have surpassed Canada’s 2020 targets in the climate change section in addition to the projects

impacts on provincial (or national) biodiversity • Transparency of the project by making information available on pumping stations/spills in a public registry for questioning

and consultation outside of tonight’s events 37. • Does the failure risk assessment include terrorism threat?

• How many leaks has the pipeline slated for conversion had historically? • Environmental assessment and human health impacts must be completed • Stop the process until the full information is provided


Page 6 of 27

• Foster the transition to clean energy (like Germany) refuse this pipeline • Be prepared for protest and civil disobedience if this pipeline is approved • How much of the pipeline runs more than 10 km away from emergency responses? The % of isolated territory through

critical watersheds is far too high a risk for the long term. 38. • We need more information re: quality of pipeline. This has not been addressed.

• Is TransCanada planning to replace old pipelines with new up to date good quality steel and other materials? • Technical solutions proposed by energy East may appear and in fact be sound – but what assurances is there that the

company would in fact follow through on full implementation? 39. • Process it too fast. Asking for response without information

• Focus on alternative sources of energy – wind and solar – in the areas where the pipeline would have gone • Solicit reasonable advice on climate change impacts and global oil production • Toxicity of different materials that might be put in the pipe vary enormously. Dilbit is too toxic to transport long distances.

Only upgraded products without sulphur, toxic materials, nitrogen or PAHs should be permitted 40. • Not mentioned – Renfrew County Northern Ontario prone to forest fires! What are the additional risks from natural

disasters? • Seriously consider whether it is better to leave the tarsands in the ground • Develop alternative sources of energy from fossil fuel • Safety, especially slow leaks which would not be detected by the computer monitoring • Being pushed too fast (before elections?!)

41. • Climate change impact must be realistically measured • National energy strategy – how does this fit into a sustainable energy plan for the future for Ontario? • Protect water • OEB and NEB processes be halted until TransCanada submits its full application

42. • Safety: Water Diluent transport and reliance on Saudi import Health effect of spill (carcinogenic)

• Climate change Extraction à climate change Climate report seems off. Rail y capacity seems exaggerated if CAPP’s numbers are referenced. Questions if oil will be developed either way Reduction in oil production elsewhere needs to be explained

• Economics Cost of cleanup Cost of environmental destruction Property values Natural gas supply accessibility


Page 7 of 27

Resource economy clean energy for competitions • 2008 AFL refine in Alberta

43. • Climate change impacts should assume that this pipeline will not displace production in other parts of the world • A feasible and complete cleanup plan that addresses human health concerns for all products (including dilbit) must be a

pre-condition to an application. • The OEB process should continue until TC’s application is complete

44. • Referendum on this! Put it to a vote! • Its not true that global warming increases as a result of development of oil sands will be offset by reduction in oil

production elsewhere, because oil sands are much dirtier i.e. higher carbon emissions • Will track record of subcontractors re: safety, reliability be made high priority when contracts awarded? • OEB should set guidelines, not NEB • Public should be allowed to ask questions in an open forum and receive answers in an open forum • Revised TCPL application with environmental additions must be reviewed and discussed in a public forum • We need to leave oil sands in the ground to have a change of remaining within 2° increase in global warming!

45. • Our understanding of technical analysis based on TC application concerns about this • For example, TC track record – 1-8 1998-2013 1 of 8 leak detection • Climate à unacceptable, report big problems, not clear • Pipeline safety • Waterways • Encourage Ontario to take a strong position rejecting the pipeline • Pipeline should be rejected – bad policy decision

46. • There are many great concerns here tonight • This is a safer way to move oil which have proven to do more environmental damage and leaks. This will also eliminate

buying oil from foreign countries which is happening now. • Is this system any different than what is installed in the rest of the world (other continents)?

47. • Water is a critical concern • The absence of clarity in the emergency response plan capacity is unacceptable (the Ontario Government cannot

properly intervene if they do not have this information in hand) • The climate change report is based on a series of deeply flawed assumptions, the contract with the consulting firm

should be ended and they should start again • Assessments, including environmental assessments, should not just be about “how” to move forward, they should be

about “whether” or not to move forward. In this case, the OEB should be recommending that the Government of Ontario do everything it can to stop this project.

48. • Focus on pipeline integrity especially emphasizing protection of water supplies 49. • Where’s alternative water coming from in the event of a leak?

• Need for an independent review of the environmental impact


Page 8 of 27

• Legal ways of indemnifying the citizen affected in the event of a leak CORNWALL

50. • Opportunity cost – what other energy technology will not be advanced, as a result of the attention paid to building energy east

• Need for hydrostatic testing of entire pipeline in addition to internal crack inspection • Need greater involvement of Ministry of Environment to ensure pipeline operator fulfills commitments re: safety

51. • 17000 bls max 22 min full flow size of Olympic swimming pool • Environmental impacts à FN ecological studies not filed • EA process – skewed because not all data/analysis, impact assessments have been filed – identified as incomplete.

Need further public consultation • Leak detection system à performance specs? • Emergency response à asses the localized impacts based on drainage, soils, land use, groundwater and develop

response plans for spills accordingly 52. • Does US have any say in this?

• How wide is ROW for pipe? • What is the multiplier effect of risks in our area of a corridor less than 5 km distance from St. Lawrence RIver

Within a gas pipeline in same ROW Proposed line 9 oil pipeline in same ROW In a higher risk earthquake zone

• Risk to drinking water • Danger to St. Lawrence River • Proximity of gas and oil pipeline – risk! Separation • Proximity rail car and oil pipe • Do diluents get returned to oil source and if so how is it shipped?


Page 9 of 27

Individual Discussion Guides

KENORA 1. • Before any decisions/recommendations are made, the full environmental pieces need to be completed to so that

decisions are informed of evidence based and there needs to be accountability for completion of information. 2. • Utilizing the precautionary principle to review whether there is scientific consensus that this pipeline will not result in

irreversible damage, in relation to the following concerns: o Climate change àcan they prove Energy East will not result in irreversible climate implications (seems to me

impossible to prove - it will o Risk to water and land due to spill. Can they prove (a) that industry standards are strong enough to ensure there will

not be a spill (the safety records shows they can’t) – 1 spill at 1.8 litre per second for 22 min = 2.2 million litres oil; (b) that industry will actually comply to standards (numerous NEB audits show industry doesn’t comply) àand how will this be monitored and held accountable

o Economic risk of pursuing a dying economic model and supporting an industry through subsidies when our economy would be better served pursuing green economy with those tax dollars àplease study what an alternative energy and green economic strategy could look like for Ontario.

3. • Such a complex system – remote controls strike me as asking for failures. I believe the monitoring needs to be tripled – so that there are 3 levels of failure before disaster. So much can go wrong – think of “hacking” that has become so prevalent.

4. • Definition of significant water crossing – how do we identify one? • True northern economic impacts? Risk vs. reward • The process of identifying water crossing/valve placement. Community involvement.

5. • Is there a backup to the monitoring system, in case that doesn’t work? • How much oil would leak in “12” minutes max? • What would a shut down cost the TCP?

6. • Shut down timing – how many 1000P./min lost before shut down. Shut down is a process not just closing 1 valve. • Solar power – back up for pumping? • Water crossing – many more than Eastern Ontario Ottawa Region • Ruptures near elevation changes – what has been considered re downhill movement? • What happens during another widespread ice storm and resultant power failure and a spill happens? • Does Homer Simpson work at the oversight station in Calgary? • A pipeline system that facilitates oil sands expansion is not environmentally kindly and is very unwise therefore, carbon

release. THUNDER BAY

7. • No recommendation without full info, i.e. Graham Sanders comment • Safety – unacceptable failure rate + emergency response


Page 10 of 27

• Climate change – focus should be on decreased GHG – no increase is acceptable 8. • Approve the pipeline to bring real jobs to Northwestern Ontario

• Limit oil by rail because it is less safe • Put valves at every watercourse crossing

9. • Impact (negative) on environment, Alberta and length of the pipeline. Forest removal, soil removal, toxic ponds, area of France à devastated for 1000 years!

• Certain oil spills, polluted streams in Northwestern Ontario, impacts of line maintenance on carbon. Gas lines have proven unreliable (dozens of gas explosions in past 20 years!)

• Oil flowing east, increases value CAD$ and negatively impacts on Ontario economy (manufacturing) 10. • This should not be able to go forward without addressing the many environmental concerns for which Energy East did

not provide specific data or response plans in their application. This is not proper consultation when we don’t have all the facts – bring us back all the facts.

• There are not sufficient benefits to this pipeline for the citizens who live in the communities it runs through – only a paltry # of jobs – not worth risk!

11. • Not enough information included in the application à i.e. environmental • True purpose of project – there does not seem to any real need or benefits for this project • Ontario regulations or stipulations à if the project is to go ahead, how will local communities benefit? Can the province

set stipulations to ensure the company hires local for the project? 12. • Recommend that there be full disclosure to communities in northwestern Ontario on how natural gas price will be

affected by proposed pipeline 13. • Water – any steps possible to prevent spill from entering waterways.

• Benefit sharing with all communities along route • Pipeline safety – above standards parts. Large fund created to completely clean up spills. Penalty paid to community for

every barrel leaked 14. • Safety to people and our environment - principle #1 speaks to highest available technical standards but the consultants

only use “industry standards” as the bar; and with the many pipeline leaks in the past don’t give me confidence in present standards.

• Climate change – this pipeline will allow for expansion of the tar sands which have significant negative impact on all of us.

• Address the issue of impact of the pipeline on oil transport by rail. Will it eliminate rail transport? • Consultation process is flawed as TransCanada has not submitted all relevant reports

KAPUSKASING There were no individual discussion guides submitted at the Kapuskasing Community Discussion

TIMMINS 15. • The increased cost to the consumer of oil for this project and continuation of pipeline.


Page 11 of 27

• Concerns of safety and response to any explosion or spill concerning the pipeline. Safety and response teams should be trained in different provinces and towns around the pipeline, ready to respond to an emergency.

• Water crossing and water access 16. • Pipeline safety and natural environment impacts are most important

• Water way protection is very important. Should have pressure valves at each major river crossing – Montreal River, Mattagami River, etc.

• If gasoline blows up it will take out the oil line and cause a major oil spill 17. • Water resources (distances and ruptures to sources)

• Better responses on ruptures and shut of valves on water crossings • Consultation to public close to pipeline

18. • Wetlands à if wetlands are affected through spill or other the proposal states that they will re-locate? How can one possibly do that?

• Using data from Enbridge (the Polaris Institute) have calculated that 804 spills occurred. Is this what northern Ontario has to look forward to!

• Who will be responsible for training 1st responders etc.? 19. • Environment – water – sources of life. Pollution potential unacceptable

• 22 minutes to shut down line bare minimum of time how much pollution would occur in that time? • Whole environments can be destroyed. Lakes, trees, fish, animals, people • Northern Ontario is major wetland area flowing north to James Bay - not easy access for clean up. • Expectation of 2 failures per year in northern Ontario – not acceptable risk • Need to tighten up time security • Protect our water • Protect life • Why do we need to send oil east? • Why don’t we process it near source?

20. • The impact on drinking water for communities: (a) in event of “spills” • The impact on our wildlife (fish-caribou): (a) their habitat, and (b) their re-productive habits • Precautions that should be taken first – we are not interested in “clean up” procedures. We don’t want any spills – one is

one too many!! • Consult more with municipalities. Use wider scope.

21. • Liability associated with a number of spills along pipeline – liability stacking • Risk management – explosion of gas line impact on oil lines – we are seeing double the number of incidents on gas lines

over past 10 years. Why place valve; proposed pump station and compose stations so close together. • Criteria for site specific environmental protection clarified • Broaden the scope of the Environmental Assessment? Looking for an explanation of what broadening scope of EA

entails.


Page 12 of 27

22. • Concern of the size of the pipe is the question that it would take 11 minutes, not acceptable to long shutting down specially at 1000 psi pressure

• Moving the pipe at Thunder Bay and Nipigon it passes between great lakes, superior and small lake. Protecting people and water source.

• TransCanada Pipeline would be hard to keep a pipe in the ground when they go through wetlands with a 1000 psi pressure ground is soft and pipe would lift from the ground?

23. • Weight of gas versus oil in design NORTH BAY

24. • Demand an actual complete application. No action, no tax dollars of ours ‘should’ be spent on an “incomplete application” • Scientific studies à (using recent technology) based on facts, based on bitumen not a general term of ‘oil’. i.e. studies

quoted on bitumen was effects on sea water and Trout Lake is freshwater – no excuse for such mistakes • TransCanada has provided maps and information to the OEB. That is not ethical • The process is rigged against us • We, citizens of Ontario are paying OEB – if we (majority) say no, will the federal government hear us? • Meet highest standards, not minimum

25. • Application: stop Energy East OEB • The application is incomplete

26. • First Nations consent • Water safety – better information on it. No more glossing over, explain yourselves. What about other studies. • What happens to people after a spill? How long could clean up take? How long will you provide water for? What about

the animals and wild life? 27. • If the application is incomplete, why is it even getting looked at instead of a no!

• Water safety • First Nations consent

28. • Come and talk to us when the TransCanada application is complete • Obviously they are not sincere!!

29. • Must not accept “incomplete” application – NEB must require full and complete application • All areas addressed and notes for public information • Full application must be available to public

30. • How will TCP clean up a spill? TCP needs to give detailed methods that will be used. • TCP should install many more shut-off valves at each water course • If a leak occurs, will the clean up by TCP be brought up to NEB standards or to the Ontario Environment standards. How

will TCP supply clean water to all people affected by a spill for an extended period of time (e.g. 30 years) 31. • Whether the proposals are complete or not, the pipeline is really not any benefit to humanity. Everybody is against the

possibility of pollution to our precious water, and fish and wildlife. Everyone is afraid of the impact on the environment as well. Please listen to the voice of the people and save us from the consequences of poor choices.


Page 13 of 27

32. • The economic benefit cannot possibly outweigh any risks. • There is no way to clean up dilbit. Please see Kalamazoo River. Still being cleaned up 3 years after a spill. • Why did TransCanada models of possible spills not include where the pipeline crosses direction, through the east end of

Trout Lake 33. • How can an “incomplete application” be submitted? And why is it being considered at this time

• Safety of water and the environment • Emergency response not finalized and funding insufficient in event of a spill

34. • Why aren’t they using due diligence and state of the art technology (ALCS/failsafe) to reduce spills to 2-3 minutes? What is considered “insignificant” effects

• Consultation with communities upon completion of assessments/studies and provision of details of plans • Weighting factor in following recommendations/questions made by communities (after #1) in affecting any/all decisions

made regarding the pipeline. • How are you going to protect the waterways, watersheds, drinking water, agricultural land, if you have incomplete data

and plans? 35. • Scientists all over the world are saying that fossil fuels should remain in the ground in order to protect the ozone layer

and the environmental effects that are causing disasters of floods, droughts, tornadoes, hurricanes, increase in temperature and rising water levels, etc. As a result, we need to say no to the pipeline.

• 17,000 barrels à 20 mins à break – not acceptable. Damage/impact impossible to remediate. What happens in the winter - if breaks occur?

• Water needs to be good, clean and 100% protected – no exceptions. A referendum across Canada is essential on this issue once all information has been divulged and opinions by various areas have had time to go over these issues.

36. • Water. Water. Water. 37. • OEB should put a pipeline for bitumen only – not a combination

• OEB should bypass Trout Lake with pipeline 38. • Getting a complete application from TransCanada then acquiring resources and funds to properly verify the truth of its

content, while delaying the NEB decision until this exercise is complete. • Insuring that TransCanada provides a water sources equivalent to the one we currently have forever should a spill occur

that does any contamination to Trout Lake during construction or operations, a spill of any kind be it silt, or any type of oil, or construction waste, etc.

• Testing what the impact of TransCanada’s use of a pipeline already 23-years-old (built in 1990-91). 39. • TransCanada’s application must be complete

• Need much more clarification on environmental impact and protection • Need more info at actions of dilbit and how to deal with it • Need to know that TC will be responsible for clean up – not us and future taxpayers • Need proof that highest standards will be used – not minimum

40. • Water. Water. Water.


Page 14 of 27

41. • Use local union workers during the construction and maintenance of this project. • Perform a complete ultrasonic inspection of the converted gas lines before filling with oil. • Continuous ILI [in-line inspection] runs and repairs of this project for the life of the above. • If a possible leak is suspected, do an emergency shutdown then determine if there is a leak.

42. • All water – using qualified independent geologists • Ethical practices of TransCanada because they are awful. • Ontario to challenge power of federal government to push this through. What about the power of residents. How is this

democratic? 43. • Incomplete and lack of studies concerning protection of water from dilbit and other oil product spills.

• Increase of greenhouse gases, both in Canada and globally (factor of climate change) • Oppose Energy East pipeline – as it is not in the interest of North Bay, not in the interest of Ontario, not in the interest of

Canada long term. 44. • TransCanada’s application is incomplete. The “standards” and “science” referred to by TransCanada area not trustworthy

or based on fact. More information is required. • We don’t want our water, or land or land and animals poisoned, nor do we trust TransCanada’s ability to rectify

accidents, environmental spills. • The recommendations needs to be put forth that if a pipeline cannot go through our community or across Canada safely

(too expensive or not possible) then it must not go through. 45. • Will the OEB insist on a TC preparing source water protection plan for high profile areas such as Trout Lake?

• Will the Ontario government have access to the ERPS prior to regulatory approval? BC denied by NEB their request to see ERP for Kinder Morgan!

• Will the Ontario government do its own EA on the Energy East proposal as Quebec if doing? 46. • Water. Water. Air. Air.

• Use Berger Commission as an example of a responsible EA consultation process. Look at the communities’ impact, right to have a say over its future, development and right to decide what is best for its citizens.

• “No risk scenario” • Meaningful studies and review of the impact to Ontarians geological study needs to be performed on scientific fact, with

true data that is accurate and current. • Review of standards drinking water in relations to UOC’s and additives to dilbit. • Extend deadlines so the public can review completed reports and applications. Meaning full process

47. • Full environmental assessment including social impact, economic impact and environmental impact on a provincial and a local level. Including a social license requirement by the community where the pipeline conversion is going through including potential impact to Widdifield Forest Provincial Park

• The Scope of this review was too narrow and restricted to the limited information provided in the application. The review should go outside the application and take into account the real risks. MLSD sheets, studies based on this, studies on fresh water not salt, historical review of spills from construction 1990’s and impacts, ground water resources, well water, communities right to say no – social license re: ”Berger Commission”


Page 15 of 27

• Consultants should read whole report before coming to public (Jake) • Emergency plan be reviewed and allow public comments before NEB approval and recommendations to federal cabinet.

48. • The impact on environment and on the social/individual well-being of Ontario citizens both short and long term are totally inadequate regarding analysis and remedial mitigation and damage control.

• We should be moving away from expansion of fossil fuel use and expansion due to global warming. It is unconscionable to be proceeding with this application at this time.

• There is little economic benefit to the province but massive risk to its land and people economically. This makes no sense!!

• There is more jobs etc. in moving this province into new technology of the post fossil fuel energy system. If we survive to get it done in time.

49. • The quality of the geological studies as well as other environmental reporting • Spills response and clean up requirements, timelines, enforcement etc. and particularly with respect to remote locations • Water quality in the even of a spill. How is TransCanada going to supply clean (portable) for all residents long term in the

even of a major spill? Do they have contingency money for that? This money needs to be available and the ministry needs to make sure that residents are taken care of.

50. • Incomplete reports/studies • Drinking water impact: provide drinking, bathing watering water for life? • Spill – flow in Trout Lake as an example. We should not just be concerned about flow to the water Treatment Plant • Climate impact – long term • Plants, animals, fish • Consultants should be gathering information: studies beyond TransCanada reports – this does not constitute peer

review, otherwise • This pipeline is certainly not worth it. Do not support the pipeline

51. • The fact that this proposal has only barely scratched the surface in terms of its safety studies – no one has even looked at Trout Lake’s water flow, yet they feel ok recommending that it is safe.

• The OEB have accepted the consultants’ recommendations, which were based on the info given to them by TransCanada – no one has verified this info! Where is 3rd party verification of this information?

• There is virtually no benefit from this pipeline, and infinite risk. 52. • I have grave concerns about the ability of TransCanada Energy East to ensure that my drinking water will be safe even if

they have emergency services and clean up and they are willing to provide me and the North Bay community with drinking water.

• Cannot ensure the leaks will not happen. Clean drinking water is a human necessity and a human right. No job, no company, and no transportation need can or should trump the right of all Canadians – me included – to clean and safe drinking water.

• I cannot ever support the TransCanada pipeline. The studies that the OEB reported suggest that the modeling studies are not consistent and do not account for all types of oil.

53. • I have heard more than 3 important issues that the people have mentioned. I “along” have more than 3 issues with the


Page 16 of 27

TransCanada pipeline. • I don’t feel confident at this current time that TransCanada pipeline is completely prepared for further action. • Too many grey areas: example – too many uncertain and incompleteness

54. • North Bay does not have redundancy in drinking water and apparently less reservoir time than any spill. Could TransCanada create redundancy (as it wouldn’t be needed without the pipeline application)? The issue of providing water temporarily versus a potential long term need of clean water. Look into drawing water from Lake Nipissing.

• What happens if TransCanada goes bankrupt and there is a spill? How will clean up be financed? • Who monitors that the clean up standards are upheld and long term monitoring? Do they pay MOE? • OCWA [Ontario Clean Water Agency] is not part of mitigation in North Bay. • This is not a proposal that is accepted by the public in general

55. • We cannot trust TransCanada or any other oil company to put environmental and drinking water safety above profits. • How would emergency response and true clean up happen? What would that actually look like? There are no details.

This is an incomplete application. • The standards put forward by the Minister don’t seem high enough for environmental protection. Verification of

TransCanada’s numbers/analysis was not possible by the consultants – this was not their mandate. I’m concerned about the process of consultation, OEB’s stance or the Minister’s stance. It is clear to me that the vast majority of people at the North Bay engagement are strongly against the pipeline. I hope that is clear from the engagement session. Can Ontario block the pipeline?

• How is it possible that the federal cabinet can make a decision on this pipeline? That affects Ontario communities and lands and peoples? This is unethical.

56. • Clean water, drinking water and impacts on wildlife and the environment in the case of failure. Trout Lake in North Bay. • The fact that the pipeline crosses vast tracts of land located in Treaty areas, vast tracts of land that could be polluted in

the case of pipeline failure – wetlands impacts. Not being able to clean up properly. • The NEB process concerns me. As does the impact OEB can have – how serious will NEB take OEB’s

recommendations? I can’t believe that it’s the federal cabinet who make the final decision. This is unethical. 57. • Need to address more surface water and springs specifically in the most susceptible areas (where the coating is “tape”),

to determine risk to water and environment more thoroughly. • What are the long-term commitments for funding to maintain the pipeline in the long term? Is the funding open to being

decreased in the future when the pipeline is done and operating? (and people aren’t paying attention to it anymore) • Need better analysis and re-valuation of overall plan to make a pipeline when the overall emissions in Canada and the

world will increase, and we should be focusing on alternative renewable resources of energy. 58. • $1 billion is nowhere near enough to even cover initial costs of spill, what about long-term?

• Increase of land tax is drop in the bucket as opposed to decrease on value of land, decrease in tourism, fishing, and hunting

• Too much risk to our water supplies, now and the future. • Wrong direction - should be pursuing renewable resources, leave oil, it will be needed, we need to address very real

issue of climate change


Page 17 of 27

• Incomplete environmental assessment - being asked to agree to proposal without all data is not confidence inspiring. • The number of valves totally inadequate – personally live on small lake near pipeline. There are 3 wetland, creek, and

stream, which could be affected by spill. That’s 3 on 1 small lake. There are literally hundreds of them. • Types of products being transported are no varied with different behaviours – spills react in different ways, some float,

some sink – making it almost impossible to clean up. • This pipeline is old. Facts presented are based on new pipelines. Too risky. • 22 minutes of spills add up to a colossal amount of oil. • Need to have independent environmental assessment done, not TransCanada propaganda.

59. • Lack of true, lasing economic impact • Possible ruptures and contamination of drinking water – lack of completed testing, identification of water crossings and

emergency procedures • No consent from First Nations?

60. • Toluene, ethylene, benzene, the scary substances that would make diluent work – how corrosive are they while in transit? How deleterious are they to the environment when released?

• What are the properties of heavy oil after the diluent has disappeared – how easy is it to remove from source water, especially in Trout Lake, our City’s water surface?

• What are the properties of diluent and oil sands crude together? Is TransCanada full of it when they say that the mixture is not coarse or corrosive, or more so than natural gas?

61. • Concerned that NEB timeline will start approval process even though TCPL submitted an incomplete application. Nothing should happen until OEB and NEB are completely satisfied that all supporting documentation for the TCPL application has been submitted and carefully reviewed.

• The Province should insist that TCPL should prepare and submit complete detailed ERPs for NEB and provincial review and acceptance prior to NEB approval, not after NEB approval and prior to commissioning.

• I absolutely agree that Ontario should insist that TCPL file sufficient Financial Assurance to meet all potential adverse impacts and clean up measures in case of spills. The Province and all municipalities should incur no expenses to respond to any spill or to ensure that all clean ups are 100% complete and satisfactory.

62. • What are the affects of diluted bitumen specifically when there’s an oil spill. Calling light crude oil the same as diluted bitumen is a lie.

• Water is life – nothing is more important and guarantees are empty • I absolutely object to TransCanada submitting an incomplete proposal. The ethics are questionable.

63. • Province should require the project to meet the highest standards and should set those standards for any projects crossing Ontario.

• The people were not permitted to comment and participate in the process because the application was incomplete. • No amount of risk is acceptable to our way of life and to our water. Stop the pipeline entirely.

64. • We, Ontarians, believe that there is very little benefit from this pipeline project, and infinite risk for water, animals, environment, climate, First Nations people

• There have been inadequate and poorly done studies assessing safety.


Page 18 of 27

65. • Generally – the report of TransCanada pipeline was so incomplete – we must wait until more info is received. I heavily agree with my brother and sisters in Eqaudor – leave it in the ground.

• 1047 accidents since 2011 – speaks volumes • OEB info available on website, so I will keep track re your TCPL online • Our water is our most precious resource here. Sun power/wind power/waterfall power etc. all interest me more and our

planet earth. • It was good to be here. Thank you.

66. • What different weight of natural gas • Compared to oil a cubic of natural gas • 1000 psi pressure. A cubic yard of gas. A cubic yard of oil. • 2 breaks already with gas a lot lighter • different vibration • Bypass away from Trout Lake watershed.

67. • As TransCanada hasn’t even completed the report this round should be completed in full before We are required to comment. Complete the report first.

• Start the comment and deadline for submission only after the report application is complete • At pump station require hydro power to operate what contingency is provided if the hydropower is out at time of a failure?

68. • Research by Theo Colbourne, and C. Miller conclude – we will never have clean water if someone errs. The scientists say any part per trillion and less of chemicals in our water, is dangerous.

• Industry/government are silencing the scientific debate. Let the truth be known – what hazards do we face at any exposure. Bring on the materials data!

• The community’s children, labourers, engineers, police officers, firefighters, paramedics, nurses, doctors, biologists are all at risk.

• Dilbit, poisons – placed under, over and though, leaking, rushing into watersheds, lakes, creeks, drinking water uptakes, and our 10-million-dollar state of the art water filters, equates to horrible negligence.

• Our people, our community, our economy will get unjust death sentence • Say yes to uphold provincial water laws to protect citizens. • Say yes to the Charter of Canadian Rights and Freedoms. We have the right to life. Water is life. The people saw no to

any risk to our water. KANATA

69. • Safety: Given 1.1 million L of dilbit per day over more than 4000 km for an indefinite time, the changes of a spill is very high. If the fastest time to detect and stop such a spill is 22 min than means more than 1.5 million leaks if the leak is significant. If this happens over Rideau River, our drinking water is compromised.

• Climate change: the assertion that an increase in greenhouse gas production from the increase in production at the oil sands is based on the contention that the Canadian increase would be offset by world decrease. If this were true, the price of oil worldwide would not fluctuate as drastically as it has. We should not be contributing to climate change caused


Page 19 of 27

catastrophe. • The Economy: looking back at the price of oil over the last new decades, the fluctuations are enormous. We cannot make

meaningful projections from this record, certainly not over 28 years. Look at what happened in Venezuela in the mid 80s (food riots and police massacres) because of the sharp decrease in oil prices, look at Alberta today. Over 28 years the price of oil must go down, because most industrial countries are going green, and so the price of oil will go down.

• Recommendation to OEB: please oppose the EE pipeline. 70. • A broad CBA [Cost-Benefit Analysis] of non-renewable enterprises as compared to renewable projects taking into

consideration we are facilitating a technological lock-in with Energy East by not exploring alternatives to the same extent. • Include within a climate analysis to what extent this project will contribute to surpassing 2020 targets and take away from

the progress made by provinces like Ontario moving away from coal because contrary to the report the climate impacts will be substantial.

• If you have not considered already the issues regarding cleaning up spills in winder under ice 71. • Including 20/20 targets in the climate change section (assessment)

• Understanding level of investment on return of investment • Making information available in a public registry for questioning and consultation to occur (outside of tonight’s events) • Within climate change section, include how this project will further impact 20/20 targets or any other future targets (i.e.

Paris 2015). 72. • Because of the role of the NEB: we are concerned with the timing of the election with the timing of the report – with the

current federal government, we are concerned that nothing we say here matters. • Everyone opposed: we think people should be writing to their MPs and MPPs and MPPs should elicit the views of their

constituents. 73. • A safe and alternative water source in case of a leak within one of the water crossings

• To ensure that there will be compensation for provincial parks and areas if there is a leak • To ensure that native treaties and rights are fully recognized and that they will be compensated for their lands.

74. • How do all of the experts have no answers for where the alternative source of clean water will com from? • Need to include many studies on the possible GHG emissions contribution the pipeline will create. • Do any of lands that the pipeline goes through have Aboriginal title claims?

75. • The process should be halted until the environmental assessment is complete and the human health effects are actually documented.

• This is a desperately incomplete application. It should be turned back to the applicant to complete 76. • A complete independent environmental analysis of the effects of the pipeline must be consulted. There is no need to rush

such an influential project • Aboriginal land treaties must not be violated by the construction of the pipeline. Aboriginal groups must be consulted and

seriously regarded. • It must be proven that the pipeline will generate more long-term economic prosperity than $12 billion funding in

renewable/sustainable energy sources for Canadians. 77. • What are the flow rates in litres and potential volume of leaks at various type of ruptures? Where are the tables for spills


Page 20 of 27

and flow rates? • What exactly is flowing through this pipeline and what are the dilutants being used when dilbit is being transported? • Has TransCanada considered the impact of an earthquake on pipeline integrity given that we are in an earthquake zone

where earthquakes of 6.2 magnitude have occurred? 78. • A worse case scenario on drinking water wells that includes the effects to drinking wells including all type of wells

(bedrock, dug, and sand points next to waterways). • What is the solvent used to dilute the bitumen and the potential affects on groundwater. The people in the township of

Beckwith know first hand the effects (have to have water, can’t drink or shower). TCE plume. • What are the risks to communal supply wells (Kars, Carp, Richmond) and the eskers that the pipeline passes through

underground? CORNWALL

There were no individual discussion guide submitted at the Cornwall Community Discussion MAIL

79. • The pipeline should not be supported by Ontario if the oil is primarily being transported for shipping to other continents that already have oil. It is wrong to risk environmental damage shipping oil just to undermine the price of oil in another continent. I would however, support a pipeline for distribution in North America, provided the construction and maintenance standards are adequate.

• The standards for this pipeline must minimally be the same as for fuel storage; having the ability to contain 100% of a spill. A double walled pipe would do this, and provide the ability to detect and contain any small chronic leaks in the pipe. The oil-filled pipe would also be protected from environmental corrosion or earth movement.

• If the first 2 points have been met, then I would also like to see funds put towards research investigating the movement of oil in various soils during small leaks and major ruptures. Also the study of effects on drinking water and aquatic environments, and possible methods to contain and clean up spills.

80. • Having attended the Community Discussion in Thunder Bay on January 14, 2015, I think the Ontario Energy Board should reject the TransCadana Energy East Pipeline Application as it focuses on 3 important things: o Safety

− It was mentioned that some sections of the pipeline have polyethylene tape which would not meet standards for the pipeline

− Concern re: water crossings not being carefully identified − Concern re: the pipeline experiencing extreme weather changes − Concern that the pipeline will be controlled from Calgary

o Concern re: Diluted Bitumen Spills − In the meeting in Thunder Bay it was said that the probability of a spill would be 2 incidents a year. The spills will

have a detrimental effect on water, wildlife, the environment and human health. Emergency plans, specifics for clean up and money for the clean up may not be enough to ever clean up the spills. The problems from the Kalamazoo Michigan spills continue and are frightening.


Page 21 of 27

o Climate change − On the television news January 16th, 2015 it was reported that 2014 was the hottest year on earth and carbon

emissions are to blame. We don’t need anymore greenhouse gasses. o In closing, I’d like to say that the meeting in Thunder Bay was very well organized. The information that was presented

was excellent and the discussions were helpful. EMAIL

81. • The OEB Energy East Consultation and Review document presented at the North Bay on January 21, 2015 repeatedly emphasized that the Energy East Application was incomplete in numerous areas and that information promised before the end of 2014 had not been received. OEB should INSIST that NEB delay hearings on the application until ALL required information is received with time to assess it and address any clarifications needed.

• WATER, WATER, WATER. The application DOES NOT provide for enough protection to drinking water sources or recreational lake and river waters. The OEB must INSIST that enough emergency shutoffs are provided on the route that ANY water source - lake, river, stream or wetland, can be isolated from a spill immediately. In addition, the application has NOT provided detailed ERP’s to deal with spills. This information and planning with local authorities MUST occur before dilbit is transported. The present information indicates that all planning is based on crude oil transport. DILBIT, with its different properties, must be clearly indicated in the information that Energy East uses.

• TCP reported in their public information sessions that when pipe leaks are identified, the flow can be shut down within 10 minutes. Smaller leaks of ≤1.5%, apparently, may take up to four hours to identify. The Application states that shutdown would take a minimum of 22 minutes from the point of confirming a leak. Some pipe breakdowns have been found to continue for more than a day. None of this is acceptable near any water source. OEB must INSIST the error factors in monitoring be eliminated as much as possible.

• Integrity of Pipe checking with PIG’s needs to be done on at least one quarter of the line annually. TCP indicated in their public presentations that they don’t presently plan on that frequency with crude oil pipes. Unfortunately, the request is to transport dilbit, a much more corrosive product.

• Other technologies that are available should be examining the line on a continuous basis. At a minimum, annual reports re pipe condition, number of leaks, volumes of leakage and how the cleanup and remediation of spills were done by Energy East must be an OEB requirement, with these reports going to the Ontario government inspectors/auditor for review and action, and then be made public.

• I am working from the theory that OEB and NEB will both approve this project. Having said that, it is my hope that OEB and the Minister will PROTECT the people of this province from the possible negative effects of this project with great vigour.

82. • What is the safest method of transportation of the crude oil - rail or pipeline? • The importance of Jobs and other Economic impacts. Look beyond the direct impacts during the construction and

operation of the pipeline within Ontario, and consider the total economic impact to tax revenues to Canada, and the extra funds becoming available for possible stabilization or increases to Equalization Payments which Ontario will benefit from. Consider the benefits to public and private Ontario Pension plans from a healthier Canadian Petroleum industry. Consider also the benefits to the Toronto Bay Street financial sector from a healthier Canadian Petroleum industry, and


Page 22 of 27

the economic benefits to Canada as whole. Consider as well, the Ontario manufacturing sector selling into more economically healthy petroleum producing provinces.

• Would a pure 'green-field' pipeline installation be safer and less disruptive than the current Energy East proposal? 83. • The science of climate change is being ignored. If plans go ahead for the building of pipelines, there will be a greater

threat to climate stability. To preserve life on our planet, we must leave the oil in the ground. • With the pipelines carrying all kinds of things – some quite toxic – the risk to our water supply, to the health of animals

and humans, and to our whole environment is too great! • It was clear that the information given by the company for the consultation and review process was sadly lacking in

completeness. Approval must not be given without truthful and complete information. 84. • Thank you for putting together the discussion session on the pipeline proposal in Ottawa last night. Generally speaking, I

am concerned about the climate change issues brought forward, but I'm not sure that (essentially leave it in the ground) discussion isn't confusing the serious safety and environmental issues of pumping dilbit through a pipeline in populated and sensitive areas of the Ottawa Valley for what appears to be consumption elsewhere.

• This was my first exposure to the process, and I couldn't help coming away from it thinking that major points that had been raised in these discussions already aren't being addressed at all. Trans Canada seems to be trying to wait us out. Personally I thought the system shut down processes, detection of small leaks, and processes for provision of water for communities whose well water might be affected were very casually treated by the Trans Canada proposal.

• Our table did say something last night, and I will re-state one item (#3, essentially all we said) from the table here. But other things have occurred to me.

• So, the three most important things the OEB should focus on in its report to the energy minister. o My number one concern is the effect of a spill in the region. Dilbit is a carcinogen and the result of a spill is a very

problematic cleanup. Wells and sensitive waterways may be affected. One only needs to look at the Kalamzoo River disaster. I understand for Trans Canada and the oil producers that using an existing pipeline that services the region with natural gas is an economical solution. But unlike natural gas which is being used in the region, the oil (and dilbit) is being transported through the region to another destination. Aside from the obvious economic question, why is an alternate and less sensitive route not being proposed?

o The proposal is to convert a pipeline that serves the region with natural gas. This decreases potential supply of natural gas to the region. In my house I am heavily committed to natural gas. What are the quantified affects of the pipeline to supply of natural gas, and are there commitments to be undertaken by Trans Canada that the delivery costs, or localized gas price increases due to reduced supply will be bourne by Trans Canada. Gas supply issues are a guaranteed political issue in the region if there are adverse effects.

o The issue raised at the table concerned the costs of clean up following a spill. There was concern raised that although Trans Canada might be healthy financially today, well we know what happened to Nortel, and who got screwed. The proposal put forward was that a very large bond be posted, in the billions of dollars for a cleanup. If Trans Canada doesn't post this on their own, they would be forced to go to the market for insurance. An interesting side effect of this could be that the insurance industry might become an effective safety regulator if they had a large financial stake.

85. • Proposed expansion of oil sands is not in keeping with containing global carbon emissions and minimizing global


Page 23 of 27

warming to within 2 degrees celsius nor does it address subsequent environmental degradation of the Alberta landscape, including air pollution, contamination of water and destruction of boreal forest. Ontario cannot redeem itself by noting that the pipeline will produce minimal emissions within its boundaries. This is a global issue, not a narrow interpretation. You have drawn comparison to the Pembina Institute's study however it confounds this writer- whether shipped by rail or pipeline the net effect is increased production. (C. Mc Glade, P. Ekins. The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2 degrees C. DOI 10 1083 Nature 14016. R A Frank et al. Profiling oilsands mixtures from industrial developments and natural ground waters from industrial developments and natural groundwaters for source identification. Environ Sci Technol. 2014. 48(5), pp 2660-2670)

• Integrity, emergency response and security of proposed pipeline including: o Logistics of responding to a dilbit spill under uniquely unfavourable weather and terrain conditions in isolated areas

such as Northwestern Ontario o Human error in interpreting the need for pump shutdown as occurred at the Kalamazoo spill despite a leak detection

system o Potential vulnerability of SCADA to network attacks o The need to identify critical bodies of water and corresponding valve placement with potentially greater number of

valves required than originally proposed. This however does not preclude the concern for spills at any point along the pipeline that could contaminate our valuable watershed.

• May it be suggested that there is need to create a comprehensive national energy strategy that includes: o A security policy for eastern Canada, an area currently dependent upon foreign oil. o Consideration for a more tempered expansion of the oilsands o Consideration for upgraders and refineries close to the resource. (This in turn would also minimize the proportions of

dilbit shipped that is more difficult and expensive to clean up). o A vision for economic growth through research and development of renewable resources in all areas of the country.

86. • The potential impact of the Energy East project on water and other aspects of the natural environment are serious. There is no question that there will be a leak or a spill along its extensive route (and probably many leaks/spills) if it is allowed to go ahead. Not only are communities dependent upon water that it will be passing through for their drinking water but vegetation and all manner of life forms are also dependent upon the many lakes and streams that this pipeline would pass through. Having been to the recent OEB presentation on the TCPL application to the NEB, it became clear that the TCPL's application did not take serious the human and environmental risks involved or emergency preparedness. It was deemed "incomplete" by the reviewer which only confirms for me that this project should not go ahead.

• Ontario and Canada should be giving leadership in supporting and initiating the development of renewable energies, and moving away from oil. There are no alternatives to drinking water but there are alternatives to oil. Oil is the resource of the past. When one travels to any number of other countries, it is obvious that Canada is "behind the times." when it comes to the development and use of renewable energies. Approving this project only furthers the use and depletion of a non-renewable resource that is and will continue to wreak havoc for human lives and the environment. Let's use our human creativity to move forward into the energy future which is now! ... in a different direction than oil.

• If Ontario is truly concerned about the impact of this project upon its population and environment then we should do as


Page 24 of 27

Quebec and conduct our own assessment rather than simply analyzing the TCPL application to the NEB. Ontario has the largest section of the pipeline running through it therefore, we will have more potential for impact and thereby, carry more of the risks. Hence, we should not let this application simply be rubber-stamped by the NEB.

• Thank you for including my comments in the summary report of the consultation process. 87. • What are the 3 most important things that the OEB should focus on in its report to Ontario's Minister of Energy?

o The impact on water It is certain that accidents will happen and response times WILL be TOO long. I know the history and the stories, do YOU? TransCanada's record is one of catastrophies. Water is a resource we can NOT afford to jeopardize. Do not think that we are fools. If the Ministry goes ahead with this project, we will KNOW that it has not the interests of Canadians at heart.

o The impact on climate change At a time when most countries decide to lower their carbon footprint because our planetary survival depends on it, what do you think Canada should do??? Go ahead with a project that will increase greenhouse gas emissions? Go ahead with a project that will support fossil fuel industries instead of renewable energies?

o The impact on Aboriginal territory Much of the land this project would traverse is aboriginal territory, and it is NOT acceptable to go ahead with a project that infringes on their rights. FULL consent is required on very serious issues, and this is one of them! The tar sand operation is already damaging much land (theirs and ours). This HAS TO STOP!!

88. • Re three most important things that the Ont. Energy Board should on in its report to Ont. Minn. of Energy. o Major Water Crossings must have valves on each side of the crossings. The definition of Major Water Crossings

must be accepted by the Municipalities through which the pipeline flows. o Clean up crews must be stationed nearby all major water crossings in order to deal with any spill and they should be

prepared to deal with spills under the ice. o Any blasting operations within four miles of the pipeline must be closely monitored and be of much less impact than

the present allowable guidelines. At present in Ontario the blasts are monitored by the companies doing the blasting and who is checking to see if the monitors are calibrated properly. Someone from Trans Canada Pipelines should be present to ensure that things are done properly. There should be heavy fines if the blasting companies fail to have properly calibrated monitoring equipment or if they do any blasting in the area without Trans Canada Pipeline personnel present or if the blast exceeds the allowable parameters.

89. • Most important things that the Ontario Energy Board should focus on in its report to Ontario's Minister of Energy. Number 1: Water Safety/Integrity My property backs onto the TransCanada Pipeline which is part of the PROPOSED Energy East Pipeline and my water supply comes from an underground well. Thirteen homes in the twenty-six home neighbourhood back onto the pipeline which will transport this multi-named/unknown "oil" substance - these pipes were installed during construction in 1992/93. During construction/installation a neighbour's well was lost and in TransCanada's rectifying of the situation the drillers they hired blew our good drinking water/supply well. A new well was drilled for us, but a water filtration system had to be installed to make the water drinkable/useable. I/we are left with having to replace the system as it ages/wears out. We had good water without filtration before TransCanada constructed their "new" lines. When there is a leak/rupture/etc. my/our land and wells will be contaminated. TransCanada says it will provide drinking water. Is this for life? Does this include water for bathing/watering vegetables/berries/fruit that I use to feed myself? They


Page 25 of 27

didn't provide water filtration support/replacement for life so why should we believe they'd do so in the case of a leak or rupture. Their response time to try and rectify the situation when there is a leak will be sufficient time to contaminate/pollute by land and well water. We were here before them, and we intend to be here - this is our home, now for a two generations. The City of North Bay will not bring city sewer and water to our area, and the city water supply is under threat too. We don't want TransCanada or the Harper Government to confiscate our land - Ontario's Ministry of Energy has to put a stop to this until the application is COMPLETE and everything is clearly defined - not the ambiguous and incomplete application!

• Number 2: Safety - Measures/Reponses/Etc. All safety measures should be clearly defined, all safety protocols/procedures set-up with response times. Clearly define/describe how they will ensure the safety of those living near the pipes carrying this "oil" substance so they will not have to leave their homes, their belongings, their land, their way of life.

• Number 3: Find alternate sources of energy instead - clean drinking water is more precious and needed than oil for foreign markets. Here's hoping democracy still works and the safety of the environment is more important than greed!

90. • Here are the three things that I believe the Ontario Energy Board should focus on in its report to Ontario’s Minister of Energy. o First of all, if the Energy East pipeline construction is being built to primarily move oil to the east coast, to then be

shipped across the Atlantic Ocean, I do not support it. It is ethically and environmentally wrong to use oil to ship oil to undermine the price of oil in another continent that already has oil. The greenhouse gasses produced when shipping the oil add to climate warming and the risk of damage to the environment by an oil spill just for economic gain by a few people is not warranted. However, I would support the construction of a pipeline for the distribution of oil within North America, provided the construction and maintenance standards are adequate.

o The standards for the construction of this pipeline must minimally meet the same standards as fuel storage. The key factor here is having the ability to contain 100% of a spill. This would probably require the construction of a double-walled pipeline. The existing pipeline may be used as the outer wall of the pipe, saving costs. The benefit of this is the opportunity to detect and contain any small, chronic leaking in the pipe that would otherwise go undetected by the current failure detection systems that use variations in pressure to detect failures in the pipe. There would be benefits to the maintenance and repair of the oil-filled pipe, as it would not be subject to corrosion by soil or water, and would be less apt to be damaged by any movement in the earth.

o If my first to concerns have been met, I would also like to see some funds put towards research investigating the movement of oil out of the pipe during small leaks and major pipe ruptures, oil movement within the pipeline trench and in various types of soils. Also the study of effects on drinking water and aquatic ecosystems is warranted, along with potential methods to contain and cleanup spills.

91. • I was pleased to meet you briefly at the recent meeting at the Brookstreet Hotel. I have to commend you for your masterly facilitation job. As you urged me, I am sending you my comments on the presentation. o 1. Overall Emissions

− The statement was made, I believe by Jake Mutre(?) of Navius Research(?), that the increase in emissions in the tar sands would be offset by a reduction in global emissions. I have to deny this claim. The fact is that there will be no offset but rather an increase. This is because the tar sands are clearly the most carbon emissive source of


Page 26 of 27

hydrocarbons in the world. All forms of petroleum development cause emissions for extraction, refinement, transport and, finally, consumption. But for the tar sands the greatest concern is at the extraction stage when the tar has to be separated at great cost from the sands they are embedded in.

− In the case of surface extraction, I see additional problems with the destruction of many acres of natural forest, and tailings ponds rapidly degrading many additional hectares of native forest and downstream water courses. The health of local residents relying on these waters is being detrimentally affected.

− Even using the more recent drilling process, in which vast quantities of heated water are used to release the tar, there is a substantial cost to heat the water and a disposal problem with the decontamination and disposal of the water. There is, of course, the risk to the contamination of the aquifer from which First Nations people and wildlife rely for their sustenance.

− I would agree with one of the comments submitted by someone at the meeting that no development in the tar sands should be made that reduces extraction elsewhere in the world. However, I go beyond this to urge that no expansion whatever be allowed in the tar sands and that the project actually be scaled back. In either case the product available for flow through the pipeline will be far less than needed for its economic viability.

o 2. Impact in Ontario − I reject the conclusion that the impact of the tar sands will likely be minimal. This betrays a very narrow vision. The

reality is that the pipeline will enable, and in fact demand, a quantitative expansion of the tar sands with a consequent increase globally in carbon emissions to the atmosphere. This affects the whole world and cannot be dismissed locally. We do so to our peril. While I may not live long enough to feel the effects of this danger, our children and grandchildren will certainly be affected. This is unconscionable and must be prevented by whatever means may be available. Certainly, the rejection of this pipeline is one of those means.

o 3. Natural Gas Supply − The conversion of this pipeline from gas to bitumen must not be allowed to affect the supply or price of gas to

Ontario and any offset based on the use of fracked gas should be rejected. • Thank you for allowing the space to hear comments. I hope they contribute positively to the result.

92. • Environmental o Clearly address location of habitats at risk of extinction and proximity of pipeline and all at risk habitats, loss

of trees and impact on lumber industry. Not enough details. o All communities need to be included, including SRF, Raymore

• Health o Proximity of pipeline to rivers and very specific contingency plan w.r.t. a spill. So how will they deal with

benzene toluene aerosolitation? How will they combat health consequences of a spill? Not to mention the consequences of drinking water contamination.

o Ontario is not an end user must strongly justify such an disastrous risk.


Page 27 of 27

appendix b – table and individual discussion guides · discussion guides were intended for a...

Documents