It flows under soccer fields, parks and waterways, near doughnut shops, major subway intersections and residential backyards across the GTA: An underground river of oil, one that many Torontonians likely don’t know exists.

The crude travels through pipelines like Line 9, a 76-centimetre pipe operated by Enbridge Inc. that currently transports up to 240,000 barrels of imported light crude oil daily from Montreal to Sarnia, Ont.

A slew of information posts dot its pathway throughout the city, advertising a pipeline that has lain below for almost four decades. And yet it flies beneath the radar of most residents.

Now, Enbridge is seeking a significant change. Not surprisingly, the proposal has not drawn the kind of reaction that Northern Gateway has in B.C. or Keystone XL in the United States.

Enbridge has applied to the National Energy Board to allow it to change Line 9’s flow direction, so it can carry western oil eastward. It also wants to boost the flow to 300,000 barrels a day of either conventional crude or diluted bitumen (called dilbit) from the Alberta oilsands.

The board will consider the request at a hearing in late August.

The western part of the pipeline, between Sarnia and the Westover terminal near Hamilton, has already been approved with the reversal of flow set to start later this year.

In Toronto, the underground Line 9 crosses the north end of the city, generally following Ontario Hydro’s right-of-way near Finch Ave. But sections of the pipeline veer close to residential areas, especially from Bathurst St. west to Tapscott Rd.

And yet it appears many of the residents in these areas, and elsewhere in the city, don’t even know the pipeline exists, let alone that Enbridge wants to make changes.

The company plans open houses in the next couple of months (dates and locations to be determined) “to provide information on our integrity dig program and the line,” said Enbridge spokesman Graham White.

Of course, those open houses will be long after the National Energy Board’s deadline for those interested in applying to comment in a letter (it doesn’t mean you’ll actually get to comment) or to appear as an intervenor (so you can ask questions), as the Ontario government has done. That deadline was Friday. By the time you read this, if you haven’t already applied, you’re out of luck.

Among the minority of residents who did know about the proposal in time to apply to send a comment letter is Jan Morrissey, a member of the Bayview-Cummer Neighbourhood Association which represents about 1,700 households.

She agrees most people have been in the dark about Line 9, although it’s starting to change. Morrissey spoke at an association meeting at the beginning of the year and found only one other person in the group of about 60 knew about Enbridge’s proposal. Many were unaware there was even an underground oil pipeline in the area.

“I was very surprised,’’ said Morrissey, whose North York house is about a kilometre from the pipeline and who heard about the proposal herself through an email from an environmental group.

The ESL teacher has a brother living in Michigan, scene of a 2010 oil spill from a ruptured Enbridge pipeline (of similar age to Toronto’s). About 3.3 million litres of diluted bitumen oil spewed forth, fouling the Kalamazoo River and causing evacuations and respiratory problems in residents. It’s still not completely cleaned up. In a report last year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency criticized Enbridge’s response to the spill.

Enbridge isn’t the only company dealing with heavy oil spills from old, ruptured pipelines. A 65-year-old 50-centimetre Exxon Mobil pipeline in Mayflower, Ark., ruptured on March 29, spilling more than 1.6 million litres of heavy Alberta crude oil into a lakeside community.

The state is probing the incident which has fired up activists opposed to the controversial Keystone XL proposal. The pipeline remains a flashpoint in the U.S. and was the focus of a raucous April public hearing in Nebraska.

Morrissey wishes there was more discussion here about the Line 9 proposal. Her association is holding a public meeting on the issue in late May and she’s formally asked Enbridge to attend as well as someone from Toronto Fire Services.

Local councillor David Shiner (Ward 24), provincial Liberal MPP David Zimmer (Willowdale) and federal Conservative MP Chungsen Leung (Willowdale) haven’t exactly been front and centre on the issue.

When Morrissey asked Leung about the pipeline and the possibility of holding an open house, she says she was told: “Our government supports building pipelines in any location, and any direction.’’

One Toronto councillor who has been outspoken about the issue is Anthony Perruzza, who represents York West (Ward 8) which contains a section of the pipeline. In February, he proposed a motion, later approved, authorizing council’s legal staff to take part in the energy board hearing, to seek out information in advance and to report back in July.

“The City of Toronto sits at one of the biggest freshwater supplies in the world,’’ says Perruzza. “These pipelines cross the city, traverse it completely. Any leakage, any rupture, any break, any undetected leaks over time will have disastrous consequences for us and for our water.’’

The age of the pipeline also concerns Perruzza. “It’s 40 years old. It’s similar to that line in Kalamazoo. Who knows what the wear and tear on that has been?’’

Perruzza says he doesn’t think the city can say no to the Enbridge proposal, nor does he think the energy board will stop it.

“It’s more in the nature of, how is this going to work? How do we protect ourselves? We have to make sure we have developed protocols should something happen.’’

Since raising the issue at her community association meeting, Morrissey and other volunteers have distributing about 500 informational flyers from Yonge St. east to almost Leslie St.

Word is spreading and people “are upset they did not know about it from somebody else other than us,’’ says Morrissey, who adds she’s not necessarily against the proposal. She just doesn’t have enough information to decide.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Chris Stoute, a retired engineer whose Willowdale house backs onto the hydro field where the Enbridge pipeline, and others, are embedded, says he had “no inkling’’ about the proposed Line 9 changes until he got a flyer recently.

Stoute appreciates “that oil has to be transported and (I) have no problem with that in my backyard, so to speak’’ but before permission is granted he’d like to know that “adequate contingency plans are in place to minimize any accidental release of pipeline cargo.’’

Overall, he believes pipelines are safe. “The pipeline has operated safely for over the 30 years since we’ve been here, but that is no reason for complacency. On the contrary, it is reason for greater alertness with regards to an aging asset. The probability of failure, though low, increases with each passing year.’’

Just how safe is it to transport diluted bitumen through a pipeline — especially an old one — is a matter of dispute.

Enbridge’s White says “the vast majority’’ of Line 9’s product will be “light crude oil.’’ But even diluted bitumen “is not more harmful to pipes than any other product and there are many scientific studies that prove this.’’

“The vast majority of sediment, sand and water has to be removed from the product before it can be introduced into our lines for transport. We move processed and upgraded crude, not raw crude.”

Pipeline age is also not an issue, White says. “For properly monitored and maintained steel pipelines, there is no shelf life. They can operate in perpetuity,’’ he says, adding many systems and checks are in place.

“It starts with our control centre in Edmonton which monitors all lines constantly and checks for pressure variations, volume and density differences and other inputs. If there are any issues detected they can remotely and quickly shut down the line until further, including on-site, inspections are conducted.’’

But Adam Scott, a spokesman for the activist group Environmental Defence, noted the Edmonton office failed to detect the Kalamazoo rupture for 17 hours, a fact noted by the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Scott says despite “industry spin’’ pipelines which have shipped tarsands oil “have been shown to spill several times more often than those which carry conventional crude.’’

Although Enbridge “downplays their intentions to use Line 9 as an export pipeline for tarsands oil’’ Environmental Defence believes this is “the long-term plan for the pipeline reversal. Export of tarsands diluted bitumen is the goal of all the major pipeline proposals being proposed at the moment.’’

What the person on the street is saying

The Star asked a number of people chosen at random near Yonge St. and Finch Ave., where the pipeline runs, if they knew that the city has an underground oil corridor and if they knew of the Enbridge proposal.

Mackeey Hashemi, 17, student. “No, I didn’t know’’ about a pipeline nor had she heard of the proposal to increase the flow. “They’re increasing the oil – do they know what they’re dealing with?’’ If there was a spill, she says, it would be devastating. “I don’t want to deal with that.’’

Casey Park, 22, an Environmental design graduate student, said he didn’t know there was an oil pipeline running underground through the city. “If this is old pipeline...I suspect it could create problems,’’ he said when told there was a proposal to increase production and change the type of oil to include diluted bitumen.

Ricardo Ledezma, 54, a musician originally from Mexico, knew there was a pipeline in the area because he has seen the signs on standing posts. “I am sure it’s safe. If it was Mexico, I wouldn’t say that. But Canada is a safe country. The regulations are good.’’

Pat Barnum, 61, a retiree, has lived all her life in Toronto and said she’s “never’’ heard of an underground oil pipeline here. “How secure is it? I’d like to know.’’ She says if the oil that’s going to be moving through the pipeline is more corrosive she has some misgivings.