Yes. It was a very large spill, and otherwise as you described. I don't think that diminishes any of the concerns or learning that anyone may have, but it was not an NEB-regulated one. I think everything else, I would say, would apply anyway.
The Wrigley incident is an interesting one on the Norman Wells line that goes from the Norman Wells field down to Edmonton. It's a crude oil line from an oil field that has been in activity since the 1920s. The pipeline is from the 1980s. As I understand it and as you described it, these were not ruptures. They were pinhole leaks that, as I understand it as a biologist, turned out to have been quite a novel form of corrosion, and were initially related to the hydrostatic testing fluid that was used, which of course in northern Canada has to have antifreeze added or the water will freeze before they can complete the hydrostatic test. Typically, methanol is added, and the pipe is hydrostatically tested in sections.
My understanding so far is that there was an unusual form of corrosion initiated in certain sections of the pipe. That has been very carefully investigated and is much better understood now than it was at that time—