JosetteWierNortherGatewayPipelineReport 148

7/29/2019 JosetteWierNortherGatewayPipelineReport 148

1/26

1

WOODSENERGYREPORT

SEPTEMBER 2012

ISSUE No.148

Published... Periodically... Since 1994

There are stories to be told............

Author: C.B. Woods, Editor: K.E. Tottrup

Research: J.A.Woods

~COMPLIMENTARY~


2/26

2

WoodsLegal.ca

WOODS ENERGY REPORTSEPTEMBER2012

ISSUE No. 148

SUMMARY

During August 2012, several critically important characteristics of energy regulation in Canada becameabundantly clear.

Notably, that in Canada energy regulation and the institutions that oversee these activities possess bothconsiderable resiliency as well as a remarkable level of public policy expertise.

First, the regulatory framework is extremely resilient, the most notable example demonstrating this resiliencybeing the recently concluded pre-hearing phase of the Gateway Project Joint Review Panel proceeding. In

this example, successfully completing this phase prior to beginning the Final Hearings, which began, asscheduled in Edmonton on September 4 2012.

During the Gateway Project Joint Review Panel pre-hearing phase innumerable issues and concerns wereraised by intervenors, yet each of these issues and concerns were examined, comments from the publicrequested; and decisions issued by the Joint Review Panel allowing the process to continue.

Second, regarding the level of public policy expertise, the National Energy Board (NEB) is showing itself to befully capable of examining the complex details of the TransCanada Pipeline Ltd (TCPL) RestructuringProposal; as well as understanding the alternatives proposed by intervenors.

Ultimately when a decision is arrived, at it should be expected that such a decision will recognize the diverseand divergent interests at play, as well as the full scope of implications of such a decision on all parties.

In the meantime, the regulatory environment has numerous other issues before it, all inviting thoughtfulanalysis.

These regulatory issues include:

Safety and operational oversight; areas over which the NEB is again clearly asserting its leadership Tolling issues (including priority access) for a potential Trans Mountain Expansion Project, and the

right of prospective shippers to fully participate in the discussion of such issues, and as well,

The environmental issues related to such a facility expansion when applied for; and the interests ofthe public in participating in such a proceeding, and finally,

The Abandonment Costs proceeding, with multiple landowner associations now fully engaged.Finally, the time limits regarding environmental assessment procedures have now been announced, but thepractical implications associated with such mandatory time limits, has yet to be fully understood.

Overall, August was quite a month.

E-VERSION.Please feel free to forward the Canadian Regulatory Report to colleagues in the industry. Alternatively, if youare not receiving it currently, but wish to do so please e-mail your request [email protected],providing the e-mail address where you would like the Report delivered.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


3/26

3

WoodsLegal.ca

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY 2

ENERGY INITIATIVES

CANADA

1. NEB CHAIR RECOMMITS: PIPELINE SAFETY STATED TOP PRIORITY 42. LEGISLATED DEADLINE IMPOSED ON GATEWAY JRP PROCESS 43. VARIOUS NORTHERN PROCESS MEMORANDUM EXECUTED WITH NEB 54. NEB RESPONDS TO REQUEST TO ANNOUNCE AMENDED NEB ACT 5

UNITED STATES

5. US CONGRESS (HOUSE AND SENATE) ENERGY INITIATIVES ONGOING 6DECISIONS & REPORTS

6. NEB DENIES TCPL REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM OPR REGULATIONS 77. ENBRIDGE PIPELINE CONTROL ROOM INSPECTION COMPLETED 78. SUNCOR OPEN SEASON COMPLAINT DECISION RELEASED BY NEB 7

KEY PROCEEDINGS

9. GATEWAY PRE-HEARING PROCESS- NUMEROUS ISSUES/FILINGS 810. TCPL RESTRUCTURING PROCEEDING REVEALS MULTIPLE ISSUES 13

ONGOING HEARINGS

11. VANTAGE PIPELINE POST CERTIFICATE ISSUES EXAMINED 1812. CHEVRON PRIORITY APPLICATION REGULATORY PROCESS 1813. NGTL NORTHWEST MAINLINE KOMIE PRE-HEARING FILINGS 1914. ABANDONMENT COSTS PROCEEDING PIPE ASSOCIATION FILINGS 1915. TCPL EASTERN MAINLINE EXPANSION RATEPAYER CONCERNS 2016. TRANS MOUNTAIN DOCK PREMIUM REVENUES ANNOUNCED 2017. CENTRA TRANSMISSION REGULATOTY PROCESS ONGOING 2018. COCHIN PIPELINE REVERSAL PROJECT FILED BY TRANS MOUNTAIN 2019. TRANS MOUNTAIN EXPANSION TOLL PROCEEDING PUBLIC COMMENTS 2120. SOUTHERN LIGHTS CONCERNS REGARDING PRIORITY OF SERVICE 2121. TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT OPPOSITION 2222. ULTRAMAR FILES SHIPPER COMPLAINT-TRANS NORTHERN PIPELINE 2223. CENOVUS COMPLAINT NEGOTIATIONS REGARDING WESTSPUR ISSUE 22

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

24. MULTIPLE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS- TIMELINES ESTABLISHED 23UPCOMING PROCEEDINGS

25. LISTING OF UPCOMING POLICY PROCEEDINGS & PUBLIC HEARINGS 25


4/26

4

WoodsLegal.ca

ENERGY INITIATIVES

CANADA

1. NEB CHAIR RECOMMITS: PIPELINE SAFETY STATED TOP PRIORITYOn Aug 1 2012 the Chair of the NEB restated the importance the NEB places on pipeline safety and explainedhow we hold companies accountable for public safety and protection of the environment and take swift

and appropriate action when they do not.

The NEB Chair then reviewed the various ongoing activities including inspections, compliance meetings,emergency exercises audits and investigations. Further, he noted regarding Enbridge Pipelines Inc. (EPI) theNEB undertook approximately 25 compliance verification activities per year, and had imposed 2precautionary pressure restrictions on EPI pipelines, one in 2010, and one in 2011, which remain in force.

Regarding possible initiatives where inspections identify anomalies including revoke authorizations, imposesafety orders, issue stop-work orders and monetary penalties as well as pursue criminal prosecution where

necessary.

The Chair indicated the recently passed Jobs Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act (JGLPA) includes a newinitiative, the Administrative Monetary Penalty which establishes daily penalties for individuals ($25,000),and companies ($100,000), with each day a separate violation, and no maximum limits.

Finally, and not unexpectedly the Chair noted the NEB was reviewing the details of the US NTSB EnbridgeMichigan 2010 Oil Spill Report, to identify all lessons learned that may be applied to pipelines andcompanies under the Boards jurisdiction

As noted, elsewhere the NEB has as well undertaken an inspection of the EPI Control Room, with furtherinspections and safety audits to ensure compliance expected.

2. LEGISLATED DEADLINE IMPOSED ON GATEWAY JRP PROCESSOn Aug 3 2012 the Minister of Environment and Chair of the NEB advised the Gateway Joint Review Panel(JRP) that as a result of the Jobs Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act (JGLPA) and the related CanadianEnvironmental Assessment Act 2012 (CEAA 2012), that deadlines were now in place regarding the publichearings and subsequent issuing of the Gateway JRP Final Report.

The Minister and Chair jointly established the time limits under CEAA 2012 and the NEB Act and inrespect of the application for the Enbridge northern gateway Project within 543 days of coming into force ofCEAA 2012.

As such, an Amendment to the Agreement Concerning the Joint Review of the Northern Gateway PipelineProject was executed between the Minister of Environment and the National Energy Board

Specifically this would mean the environmental assessment and report must be submitted no later than

Dec 31 2013. If the Project is approved by the Governor in Council, the NEB will issue the certificate ofpublic convenience and necessity for the Project within 7 days of the Governor in Councils order.

Subsequently, on Aug 7 2012 the Chair of the NEB advised the Gateway JRP that as a further result of theJGLPA the Gateway JRP would no longer be required to issue a separate Environmental Assessmentfollowed by a Gateway JRP Final Report, but that both would now be issued as a single Report.


5/26

5

WoodsLegal.ca

Lastly, in the Aug 7 2012 Letter the Chair noted that if the Minister of Environment and I [the NEBChair] are of the opinion that the time limit is not likely to be met, then I may under subsection 6(2.2) of theNEB Act take any measure I consider appropriate to ensure the time limit is met.

3. VARIOUS NORTHERN PROCESS MEMORANDUM EXECUTED WITH NEBOn Aug 8-9 2012, the NEB executed Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with several Northernregulatory agencies, specifically:

The Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB) The Nunavut Water Board (NWB)

The purpose of the Northern MOUs is to allow for a free exchange of information and expertise between theNEB and the NIRB and the NWB.

Further, these sharing agreements appear to provide that where applications are made requiring oversightby multiple agencies the Northern MOUs allow for a freer exchange of technical information to evaluate themerits of the application.

4. NEB RESPONDS TO REQUEST TO ANNOUNCE AMENDED NEB ACTOn Aug 13 2012, the NEB responded to a Request by the Canadian Association of Energy and PipelineLandowner Associations (CAEPLA) dated July 18 2012 requesting changes to the NEB Act as a result of theJobs Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act (JGLPA).

The specific request related to CAEPLA assertion that as a result of the JGLPA that the public should benotified as to amendments to Section 112 of the NEB Act regarding damage prevention.

The NEB noted the NEB Act already provides for the option of pursuing criminal prosecution for

unauthorized activity on NEB regulated right of ways that endangers public safety or the environment

The NEB also noted, The changes will not alter the NEBs current approach to damage prevention

Having said that the did note further initiatives were presently underway including the development ofadministrative monetary penalties, but left the opportunity with the CAEPLA If you have suggestions

regarding specific publications or proposed modifications that may be of most assistance to landowners to

advise the Board accordingly.


6/26

6

WoodsLegal.ca

UNITED STATES

5. US CONGRESS (HOUSE AND SENATE) ENERGY INITIATIVES ONGOINGUS House

The US House of Representatives announced a series of wide-ranging energy related initiatives including:

August 1 Natural Resources Committee approved a motion to issue subpoenas to 5 ObamaAdministration officials regarding the drafting editing or reviewing of the Dept. of Interior DrillingMoratorium Report that was edited to appear as though the moratorium was supported by a panel of

engineering experts when it was not.

August 8 The US House issued a Listing of House Bills related to various energy issues that arepresently stalled in the US Senate awaiting review.

These Bills include:

HR 6082- Replacement Offshore Drilling Plan Bill HR 4480- Expanded Production on Federal Lands HR 3408- Expansion offshore Production/ANWR Lands HR 1231- Lifts Offshore Moratorium 2012-2017 Leases HR 1230- Open Gulf of Mexico/Offshore Virginia Leases HR 1229- Firm Time Lines for Drilling Permit Processes

August 13 Letter to Salazar- Secretary Dept. of Interior regarding concerns related to potentialtakeover of Nexen by the China offshore Oil Corp. The Letter also raised concerns regarding the adequacy ofrecord keeping regarding foreign state-owned energy companies operating in the US OCS (OuterContinental Shelf).

August 15 Letter(s) of Concern to the Council of Environmental Quality and Office of Science andTechnology regarding outstanding questions related to the implementation of the National Ocean Policy.

August 28 The House Committee briefly noted as a result of Hurricane Isaac over 93% of daily oilproduction has been shut in and over 64 % of the offshore rigs have been evacuated.

August 30 The House Committee sent 2 subpoenas to Dept. of Interior officials to appear before theCommittee to respond to questions regarding the drafting of the Dept. of Interior Drilling MoratoriumReport.

The date for the Committee hearing is Sept 13 2012.

US Senate

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources acknowledged approval for Shell Chukchi Sea

Exploration related activities by US Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.

Senator Murkowski noted, While we would all like to see a discovery this summer the most important thing

is for Shell to continue to make progress and demonstrate once again that Arctic drilling can be done safely.

Senator Murkowski also noted since the 1970s more than 100 wells have been drilled in the Beaufort and

Chukchi Seas.


7/26

7

WoodsLegal.ca

DECISIONS & REPORTS

6. NEB DENIES TCPL REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM OPR REGULATIONSOn Aug 17 2012 the NEB issued a Decision regarding the TransCanada Pipelines Ltd (TCPL) KeystonePipeline Request for Relief from the NEB Onshore Pipeline Regulations (OPR) and CSA Z662 (Request).

The TCPL Request related to an NEB inspection of various Keystone Pipeline Pump Stations on June 6-92011, which revealed the stations were not equipped with an alternate source of power capable of operatingeach stations Emergency Shut-Down (ESD) system.

Following actions by TCPL staff, and s series of written exchanges NEB staff advised as of April 23 2012TCPL was still not in compliance with the NEB OPR Provision.

As a result, on May 7 2012 TCPL applied for relief form the OPR and CSA Z662 requirements.

The NEB Decision states The Board finds that TransCanada has not demonstrated that current mitigation

measures provide a level of safety that is equivalent to that provided for by the OPR-99 subsection 12(a) andCSA Z662-11 Clause 4.14.3.3.

The NEB then directs TCPL to submit a corrective action plan by Sept 17 2012 to address the non-compliance with OPR-99 subsection 12(a).

7. ENBRIDGE PIPELINE CONTROL ROOM INSPECTION COMPLETEDOn Aug 17 2012, the NEB released the Enbridge Control Room Inspection Initial NEB Findings.

As a result, the NEB requested a range of technical information, manuals and procedures regardingemergency response issues as well as the internal reports and corrective actions taken as a result of theEnbridge Michigan 2010 Oil Spill.

The NEB ordered the requested information by Aug 24 2012.

On Aug 24 2012, Enbridge provided a Response to the NEB Request for Additional Information.

8. SUNCOR OPEN SEASON COMPLAINT DECISION RELEASED BY NEBOn Aug 17 2012, the NEB issued a Decision regarding the Suncor Energy Complaint regarding the TransMountain Pipeline (TMP) Open Season Expansion Pipeline Project.

The issue of concern related to a provision of the Facility Support Agreement (FSA) requiring the prospectiveshipper to support the proposed toll methodology associated with the TMP Expansion Project.

The NEB found that the prospective shippers should be free to contract for service and raise concernsrelated to the tolls and tariff provisions to be applied to this service. The NEB therefore struck the offendingprovision from the FSA.

Further, the NEB invited any prospective shippers to participate in the related TMP Expansion TollProceeding, presently being heard by the NEB.

In that regard, It is expected that the ability of any shipper to subscribe for capacity on the TMP proposedexpansion will be raised as an issue in the TMP Part IV (Toll) Application.


8/26

8

WoodsLegal.ca

KEY PROCEEDINGS

9. GATEWAY PRE-HEARING PROCESS- NUMEROUS ISSUES/FILINGSOn Aug 1 2012, the Gateway JRP responded to the Gitxaala First Nation Notice of Motion dated July 272012, which requested a hearing delay pending further and more complete responses from the FederalGovernment. The Gateway JRP requested Comments and Reply Comments on the Motion. As well, theGateway JRP issued JRP Ruling 74 denying Cullen (MP) his request to participate in the Final Hearings.

In addition, on Aug 1 2012 the Gitxaala First Nation and the Heiltsuk First Nation issued timing estimates forcross-examination of the Gateway Pipeline Project. Also, both the Gitgaat First Nation and the HeiltsukFirst Nation issued Lists of Witnesses for the Final Hearings.

Finally, the Wetsuweten First Nation filed a Notice of Motion to Remove the Aboriginal EngagementSubmission by the Gateway Project from the Gateway Application, and on the same day the Haisla FirstNation filed a Notice of Motion to File Late Evidence.

On Aug 2 2012, the Gateway JRP issued JRP Ruling No 75 denying Douglas Channel Watch the opportunityto file the US NTSB Enbridge Michigan Oil Spill Report.

Also on Aug 2 2012, the following indicated they would be cross-examining the Gateway Project:

Alberta Federation of Labour BC Nature and Nature Canada Council of the Haida First Nation Douglas Channel Watch Driftpile Cree First Nation Fort St James Sustainability Group Haida First Nation Josette Weir Kelly Izzard Province of British Columbia

As well, Witness Lists were provided by:

Driftpile Cree First Nation Friends of Morice Bulkley

Also the Douglas Channel Watch filed Notice of Motion No 7 Request to File Late Evidence, while the HaislaFirst Nation filed a Notice of Motion to Request to File Information Requests and Late Evidence. WhileFriends of Morice Bulkley filed a Late Request to Question the Gateway Project at the Final Hearings.

On Aug 3 2012 the Minister of Environment and Chair of the NEB issued Northern Gateway ProjectAmending Agreement, the purpose of the Agreement to fix the date by which the Gateway JRP must issue theGateway JRP Final Report. Accordingly the Gateway JRP Final Report by Dec 31 2012.

Also the Gateway JRP issued a Procedural Order regarding the Haisla First Nation Notice of Motion requestfor Additional Information from the Gateway Project.

On the same date a number of Intervenors indicated an intention to cross-examine Gateway Projectwitnesses:

Haisla First Nation Nathan Cullen (MP)


9/26

9

WoodsLegal.ca

Northwest Institute Samson Cree First Nation United Fishermen Union Wetsuweten First Nation

Note: The Province of Alberta indicated that it would not be cross-examining Gateway Project Witness

Panels. As well, if necessary Alberta indicated it wished to be examined in Edmonton (by ForestEthics), butresisted the request by Gitxaala First Nation to be examined.

The Gateway Project indicated that it would be cross-examining a broad range of IntervenorWitnesses/Panels including various First Nations, environmental groups, and the authors of the numerousstudies that they sponsored. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers also indicated that it would becross-examining several intervenor panels.

As well various Intevenors responded to the Government of Canada Submission regarding Requests toQuestion Government Participants including:

Alexander First Nation Coastal First Nations

CJ Peter Associates Ecojustice (ForestEthics) Haisla First Nation

Ecojustice also provided a Witness Lists.

The Government of Canada (Canada) filed a Notice of Motion to file Additional Marine GeotechnicalStudies. Canada also filed Responses to Gitxaala First Nation Information Requests. However theDepartment of Justice filed a Submission opposing the request by the Gitxaala First Nation to provide awitness to testify on behalf of the Government of Canada.

On Aug 6 2012 the Daiya-Mattess Keyoh First Nation indicated the Gateway Project and Government ofCanada Panels it wished to cross-examine, as did an individual intervenor-Douglas Beckett.

On Aug 8 2012 a series of pre-hearing filings included:

The Gitxaala First Nation filed a Submission in Support of the Haisla First Nation Motion regardingfurther information from the Gateway Project.

Coastal First Nation indicated that it would also have questions for the Province of Alberta. The Government of Canada challenged the Northwest Institute right to examine various Federal

Government Witness Panels.

As well, the CJ Peter Associates advised as to the Gateway Project Witness Panels it will cross-examine.

On Aug 9 2012 the Alberta Federation of Labor filed a Submission in support of the Haisla First NationNotice of Motion dated July 30 2012.

As well, the Gateway Project filed a Submission in response to the various Haisla Notices of Motion:

Haisla Motion July 31 Haisla Motion Aug 1 Haisla Motion Aug 2

On the same date the Gateway Project filed a Submission in relation to the Gitxaala Notice of Motion datedJuly 27 2012.


10/26

10

WoodsLegal.ca

On Aug 10 2012 the Province of Alberta responded to the Coastal First Nation Request to Cross-ExaminingAlberta indicating it wished the Gateway JRP deny the request.

On the same date the Gitxaala First Nation filed a Submission supporting the Wetsuweten First Nation

Motion requesting the Gateway Project Aboriginal Engagement Update be removed from the record. Also,the Haida First Nation filed a Notice of Motion to file Late Oral Evidence. Further, the Haida First Nationalso provided a Listing of the Gateway Project Panels it wished to cross-examine. Finally the Gitxaala FirstNation filed a Submission asserting the need for the Federal Dept. of Justice present a witness, or witnesses totestify on behalf of the Government of Canada.

On Aug 12 2012, the Friends of Morice-Bukley indicated their intention to cross-examine various GatewayProject Panels.

On Aug 13 2012 the Gateway JRP noted the Gitxaala First Nation Notice of Motion to file Additional WrittenEvidence and requested comments from intervenors.

The Gateway JRP also issued JRP Ruling No 76 regarding various requests by Josette Weir to Compel theGateway Project to Answer Information Requests, approving several, denying the balance. As well theGateway JRP issued JRP Ruling No 77 regarding the Gitgaat First Nation Notice of Motion dated July 112012, denying their request.

Also Kelly Izard filed a Notice of Motion to File Late Evidence.

On Aug 14 2012 the Gateway JRP issued JRP Information request No 11 to the Gateway Project. Further theGateway JRP filed JRP Information Request No 2 to Transport Canada.

As well the Gateway JRP issued JRP Ruling No 78 ordering Transport Canada to respond to the CoastalFirst Nation Information Request (while denying the request made to the Pacific Pilotage Authority.

On Aug 14 2012 the Coastal First Nations filed s Submission regarding the Gateway JRP Proceedingrequesting funding under CEAA>

On Aug 15 2012 the Gitxaala First Nation filed a Response Submission regarding their Motion to Compel

Information Requests from Federal Government Participants. As well the Haisla First Nation filed in supportof the Gitxaala First Nation Motion.

On the same date the Haisla First Nation (HFN) filed a Reply Submission to the Gateway Project Submissiondated Aug 10 2012. This Reply Submission is only in support of the Haisla First Nation Motion of July 302012. The HFN separately filed a Submission regarding the Gateway Project Submissions in relation to theAug 1 and Aug 2 HFN Motions.

Also on Aug 15 2012 the Coastal First Nation filed a Notice of Motion requesting the Final Hearings bepostponed.

On Aug 16 2012 the Gateway JRP issued JRP Ruling No 79 granting the Request to File late Evidence by theHaisla First Nation.

On the same date the Gateway JRP responded to various Intervenor Requests to Cross Examine the Provinceof Alberta. The Gateway JRP authorized AFN, Alexander First Nation, Haisla First Nation and Ecojustice(Rainforest et al). The Requests of Swan River First Nation, Josette Weir and the United Fisherman Unionwere denied.

Also, on Aug 16 2012 the Haisla First Nation filed a Notice of Motion to File Additional Evidence.


11/26

11

WoodsLegal.ca

On Aug 17 2012 the Gateway JRP issued Procedural Direction No 9 providing details on the Final Hearingsto begin in Edmonton on Sept 4 2012. As well the Gateway JRP issued JRP Ruling No 80 denying the JosetteWeir Requests for further information.

The Gateway Project filed a Submission not opposing the Gitxaala First Nation Request to File LateEvidence. As well in response to previously issued JRP Ruling No 79, the Haisla First Nation advisedconfirming the Late Evidence (Gap and Response Capacity Analysis) will be supported by witnesses torespond to questioning.

On Aug 21 2012 the Gateway JRP issued a Procedural Update for the Edmonton Hearing: The ScheduledPanels include:

Gateway (Need, Economics, Tolling) Alta Fed of Labour Cenovus/Nexen/Suncor/Total E&P Coastal First Nation Communication Union Forest Ethics Advocacy Gitgaat First Nation Province of Alberta Haisla Nation MEG EnergyNote: The Gateway JRP Ruling no 81 confirmed Kitimat BC would not be included as a hearing locationas requested by the town.

Also the Haisla First Nation filed a Notice of Motion to File Additional Evidence. The Haida First Nation fileda Submission indicating participation in the Gateway JRP process does not constitute consultation in respectof Haida Aboriginal title and rights.

On Aug 22 2012 the Gateway Project filed further details regarding the Various Gateway Project Panelsscheduled for Edmonton, Prince George, and Prince Rupert. The Gateway Project also filed AdditionalInformation in relation to the US National Transportation Safety Board Report on the Enbridge Michigan

2010 Oil Spill.

Also on Aug 22 2012 the Alberta Federation of Labour filed a Notice of Motion Requesting FurtherDocuments and Information. As well the Government of Canada responded to Requests by Nathan CullenMP and by Terry Vulcano to cross-examine various Federal Panels, indicating it was not prepared toaccommodate the Request.

On Aug 23 2012 the Province of Alberta (Alberta) responded to the Terry Vulcano Request to Cross-examineAlberta, opposing the Request. On the same date further witness information was provided by AlbertaFederation of Labour, Coastal First Nations, Forest Ethics, Gitgaat First Nation, and the Province ofAlberta.

On Aug 24 2012 the Gateway JRP issued a series of JRP Rulings:

Haisla Requests to file additional information-o Subsequent Gateway Project responses found sufficient

Requests to examine the Federal Government-o Submissions requested from Cullen (MP) and Vulcano

Alberta Federation of Labour Notice of Motion-o Submissions / reply Submissions Requested by JRP

Daiya-Mattess Keyoh Late Evidence Motion-o JRP Finding DMK presented arguments/no ruling needed


12/26

12

WoodsLegal.ca

Also Gateway JRP issued JRP Ruling No 82 allowing the filing of Late Evidence by Gitxaala First Nation.

Finally the Gateway JRP issued JRP Information Request No 12 to the Gateway Project.

On Aug 26 2012 the Douglas Channel Watch filed Notice of Motion challenging evidence filed by the GatewayProject.

On Aug 27 2012 Terry Vulcano provided further information regarding his Request to Cross-examine theProvince of Alberta.

On Aug 28 2012 the Gateway issued a further series of JRP Rulings:

Gateway JRP Procedural Direction 10-o Details of Hearing Room Procedures

Douglas Channel Watch Motion-o Submissions/ Reply Submissions Requested

Multiple Notices of Motion Aug 2-21-o Submissions/Reply Submissions Requested

As well, the Gateway Project filed their Objections to the Alberta Federation of Labour Notice of Motion.

On the same date Cullen (MP) filed a reply Submission to the Government of Canada Submission.

On Aug 29 2012 the Gateway JRP issued JRP Ruling No 83 rejecting the Wetsuweten First Nation requestto remove Gateway Project evidence, notably the Gateway Aboriginal Engagement Update.

On Aug 30 2012 the Gateway JRP issued the JRP Ruling Regarding Questioning of Federal GovernmentParticipants. As well the Gateway JRP issued JRP Ruling No 84 rejected the Request to defer the start of theFinal Hearings.

On the same date, the Gateway Project issued the Gateway Project Opening Statement.

On Aug 31 2012 the Gateway JRP issued a series of JRP Rulings:

JRP Ruling No 85- Weir Funding request rejectedJRP Ruling No 86- Rejected request for Federal dataJRP Ruling No 87- Information separately providedJRP Ruling No 88- Request to disclose BC Report deniedJRP Ruling No 89- Requests to examine on Reports allowedJRP Ruling No 90- Request for Duty Counsel denied

Further Gateway Project filed responses to the Information request No 8 of Josette Weir. As wellSubmissions by the Gateway Project were filed regarding the Alberta Federation of Labour, as well as theMultiple Notices of Motion filed Aug 2-21 2012.

Transport Canada also filed responses to Information Request No 2.

Cullen (MP) also filed a Clarifying Submission limiting his proposed role at the proceeding.


13/26

13

WoodsLegal.ca

10. TCPL RESTRUCTURING PROCEEDING REVEALS MULTIPLE ISSUESDuring August 20-31 2012 the TransCanada Pipeline Ltd (TCPL) Application for Approval of theRestructuring Proposal and Mainline Final Tolls for 2012 and 2013 (Application) continued in Montreal Que.

Panels testifying were:

TCPL Panel 7- Cost of Service Issues

TCPL Panel 8- Intervenor Proposals TCPL Panel 9- Business Risk/Fair Return TCPL Panel 10- Overall Justification

The TCPL Application Proceeding will resume in Calgary on Sept 10 2012.

Below is a brief description of the issues to be covered by each panel, as well as intervenor and NEB concerns

TCPL Panel 7- Cost of Service Issues

TCPL outlined basis for TCPL Revenue Requirements for 2012 and 2013 of $1590 million (2012) and $1536million (2013).

These estimates are substantially below the 2010 Revenue Requirement ($1735 million) and 2011 RevenueRequirement ($1820 million).

Note: The Rate of Return for the 2012 and 2013 years is based on an ATWACC of 7%.

Details for each year (2010-2013) are provided including:

Revenue Requirement Transportation by Others Integrity/Insurance Costs Rate Base Income Tax/Depreciation Costs

Regulatory/Collaborative Costs Electric Costs/Tax on Fuel Municipal/Provincial Taxes Regulatory Amortization O&MA Costs Compensation & Benefits Debt Redemption Costs/Gains

Issues & Concerns

Understanding the implications of suspending NOL Pipeline Integrity Program Evaluation of ongoing need by TCPL of Great Lakes Pipeline for Firm Service Extent to which capacity system expansion used for backhaul service requirements Competitive issues related to use of Great Lakes versus Union Gas capacity Need to understand impacts of Shell LNG Project on Mainline Throughput Prudency of TBO arrangements being examined by NEB on prospective basis Whether TCPL should be put at risk for some component of TBO contracts Need to better understand basis for arriving at specific TBO volume on Great Lakes Concerns where capacity on Great lakes contracted, but related Open Season did not proceed TCPL noted Great Lakes capacity used for operational integrity not just firm service Need to better understand basis for removing a specific line from service (reliability issues) Great Lakes evolution from key element of TCPL system shifted to RAM/IT Services


14/26

14

WoodsLegal.ca

TCPL Panel 8- Intervenor Proposals

The TCPL Evidence provided both general and specific comments in relation to the Intervenor Proposals.

General Comments

Require TCPL to absorb prudently incurred costs Are inconsistent with ongoing regulatory compact No mechanisms for TCPL to recover costs in future Low carrying costs imposed/securitization inappropriate

TCPL countered that in dispute costs were prudently incurred and that the level of utilization is irrelevantto cost recoverability.

Specific Comments: CAPPo CAPP proposal of fixed tolls/defer estimated at least $500 milliono Note: Under TCPL Low Case $1.3 billion deferred after 2 yearso CAPP model under-recovery for initial years followed by over recoveryo Near term volume risk followed by uncertainty as to long term forecastso TCPL perspective that CAPP carrying costs proposed are below costo Also $500 million be added (5 years) to a Long Term Adjustment Account

Specific Comments: MASo No return for NOL segment-Estimated $427 million (8 years)o Incentive mechanism proposed for O&M and Debt Costso MAS proposed initial savings to TCPL followed by 50/50 sharingo Also cost allocation to WCSB producers (long haul tolls increased)

Specific Comments: IGUAo Overall removal of $1.6 billion from Rate Baseo $800 million securitization, $852 TCPL debt costo TCPL concerned with tax consequenceso Challenged assertions that TCPL not managed business properlyo Also TCPL only party to manage its business risk is counter-factual

Specific Comments: APPrOo Large $2.2 billion securitization-reduced cost of capital/depreciationo Obtaining assumed Federal Government sponsored debt uncertaino Revenue shortfalls over 5 years placed in account (no return earned)o $1.0 billion account earning return for benefit of shippers unreasonableo Revenue requirement arbitrary reduction of $250 million inappropriateo Phase out of TBO Accounts- would create operational uncertainty

Issues & Concerns

Many capacity system related decisions are made by TCPL without consultation Shipper view that TCPL should be required to have greater risk accountability Risk issues described by TCPL as not just financial/tolling but operational also APPrO proposals not consistent with regulatory compact/low risk and low reward TCPL continued to assert underutilization risk properly a shipper issue (not TCPL) Also argued that so longer as viable regulatory solutions exist- Public Interest served TCPL continued to note uncertainty regarding future system usage and related tolls CAPP noted that TCPL Deferral Accounts act in similar fashion to CAPP Proposal


15/26

15

WoodsLegal.ca

Viability of securitization proposal would depend upon Federal Government support Concerns expressed that TCPL removing service option valued by customers (RAM) Service enhancements (bidirectional service, increased nomination cycles) resisted Concerns that TCPL Proposal (Alberta Extension) breaches the regulatory compact Argued by TCPL excessive service pricing flexibility would erode commodity market Also viewed CAPP ROE (9.5%) insufficient given risk imposed by CAPP Proposal Concern with CAPP proposal that TCPL loses ability to adjust tolling for 5 years Split rate base (core/non-core) would need to be gradually implemented (service by service) TCPL system actually already transitioned (long term to short term, firm to interruptible) Concern that shareholder exposure to cost will increase the ROE requirement substantially Toll spiral increase often has associated threat by pipeline bypass (TCPL view-not yet) Interest in whether tolls could be set at below the full cost of service rate (where bypass) Potential for higher ROE to be earned by TCPL under such bypass conditions Alternative interest also shown in various levels of FT service being provided Discussion of used and useful concept TCPL no meaningful continuation of service But TCPL perspective- Market shift (beyond pipeline control) not TCPL risk issue Whether NEB examines both prudently incurred and as well used and useful tests Issue of extent to which TCPL might operate at risk activities within existing operations Extensive discussion of investor response to NEB decision regarding TCPL Restructuring

TCPL Panel 9- Business Risk/Fair Return

The TCPL discussion of Fair Return and Business Risk notes the TCPL Application requests an After TaxWeighted Average Cost of Capital (ATWACC) of 7.0% which it noted would equate to a Return on Equity(ROE) of 12% (40% Equity), or 10.4% ( 50% Equity).

In support of the Fair Return (ATWACC) expert evidence was provided by:

Dr. P R Carpenter Brattle Group A M Engen BMO Financial Dr. L A Kolbe Brattle Group Dr. M J Vibert Brattle Group

Business Risk Issues

At the outset TCPL argued for a distinction of fundamental risk versus variability risk.

Fundamental Risk-o Being supply, competitive, operating and regulatory issues.

Variability Risk-o Being year to year risks affecting yearly pipeline earnings but not the long term expected

earnings stream of the pipeline.

TCPL evidence indicated that in their view fundamental risks should be given greater weight than

variability risk.

TCPL then described the Fundamental Risks in greater detail:

Supply Risk-o Both deliverability and pricing substantially lower than earlier estimates, with conventional

supply continuing to decline, and unconventional supplies being developed at a substantiallyslower pace.


16/26

16

WoodsLegal.ca

Competitive Risk-o - Described the emergence of US Rockies supply and multiple US Shale supply as creating

competitive risk to the TCPL Mainline.o As well there are multiple projects underway, in both Canada and the United States to

deliver these supplies to Eastern Canadian markets or to displace existing US marketsserved by Canadian supplies.

oThe LNG export projects and the markets they serve also are seen to be a major competitiverisk to TCPL.

Operating Risk-o No major change as described by TCPL.

Regulatory Risk-o No major change seen by TCPL but with various caveats, being:

Continued recovery of prudently incurred costs An appropriate balance of prospective risk sharing Changes be prospective/all relevant factors examined Regulatory Compact/Cost of Service maintained

In summary, the Restructuring Proposal is described as an innovative significant and balanced response tothe dramatic and unanticipated changes in the business environment of natural gas supply, demand and

transportation in North America.

Note: TCPL estimated if the Restructuring Proposal was not implemented the ATWACCrequirement would be 7 1/2%-7 3/4%.

Although eliminated from the October draft, the September Application equated to an ROE of 13.5% (40%Equity).

Issues & Concerns

Variability in results for estimating ROE using different estimating tools (DCF vs. CAPM) Understanding the throughput (and risk) implications on TCPL of Shell LNG Export Project Concerns with extent to which regulatory authorities elsewhere have accepted ATWACC approach

Discussion of differing rate regulation in US vs. Canada and differing risk and reward approaches Extent to which securitization would be seen by investor community as an extreme solution Evolution from merchant function to transportation services yet still retains regulatory compact Timing of when TCPL was aware of extent to which competitive supply alternatives would impact Discussion of opportunity vs. reasonable opportunity to earn return on capital Asymmetric Issue- That TCPL has downside exposure with only limited opportunity to earn more Discussion of US vs. Canadian pipeline ability to discount service offering below cost of service levels

TCPL Panel 10- Overall Justification

TCPL described restructuring as comprehensive suite of cost allocation, toll design and service changesasan innovative and balanced response to the dramatic and unanticipated changes in the business environment

of natural gas supply, demand and transportation in North America.

In the face of what TCPL described as stakeholders being broad and diverse, and interested partiesinterests having different often conflicting interests TCPL went on to describe the restructuring as in the

Canadian Public Interest, consistent with NEB regulatory standards resulting in tolls that are both just andreasonable and not unjustly discriminatory.

TCPL argued while each aspect of the restructuring can stand on its own merits the TCPL Application mustbe evaluated on its entirety-as a package rather than a collection of individual components- to achieve a just


17/26

17

WoodsLegal.ca

and fair outcome that avoids the potential inequities that might otherwise occur through piecemealadoption.

An extensive discussion of the Regulatory Compact is included which focuses on the NEB as rather thanproviding exclusive franchises instead allows for competition amongst the few and as such licences facilitieswhere required and in the Public Interest while allowing the pipelines to recover prudently incurred costs .

Under the Regulatory Compact pipelines are protected from throughput variation and other factors beyondthe control of the utility in exchange for this earning a lower risk and cost of capital.

TCPL finally noted that Under the Regulatory Compact and cost of service methodology the utility has no

opportunity to recover more than the costs that it incurs to provide service.

And further The corollary is that the utility should not be deprived of the opportunity to recover all of its

prudently incurred costs.

Issues & Concerns

Understanding the impact of depreciation on valuation of Northern Ontario Line (oil conversion) Concerns with extent Long Term Adjustment Accounts increase cost burden for future shippers Concerns with extent of shift of costs from long haul services to short haul service shippers Tolling concerns regarding toll increase (+30%) from Application to Revised Throughput Estimate

Cross-examination of TCPL Panel 10 will resume Sept 10 2012 in Calgary.


18/26

18

WoodsLegal.ca

ONGOING HEARINGS

11. VANTAGE PIPELINE POST CERTIFICATE ISSUES EXAMINEDOn Aug 2 2012 in relation to the Vantage Pipeline Application to Re-Route the Pipeline, the NEB filed NEBInformation Request No 2.

On Aug 9 2012 Vantage Pipeline filed responses to NEB Information Request No 2.

On Aug 16 2012, and Aug 23 2012 Vantage Pipeline provided additional technical information to the NEB.

On Aug 29 2012 the NEB issued NEB Approval of the Plan Profile and Book of Record (PPBoR).

12. CHEVRON PRIORITY APPLICATION REGULATORY PROCESSOn Aug 3 2012 the NEB issued NEB Chevron Canada (Chevron Priority) Application for PriorityDestination Designation Procedural Order MH-2-2012.

The Chevron Priority Application requests an order designating Chevrons Burnaby refinery as a Priority

Designation under Trans Mountain Pipeline (TMP) Tariff Rule No 88.

List of Issues

Criteria for Priority Designation Implications of Granting Request Whether Issues affected by:

o TMP Toll Applicationo Suncor Energy Complaint

Procedural Schedule Interventions Due Aug 24 Additional Evidence Sept 11 Information Requests Oct 2 Responses to IRs Oct 16 Intervenor Evidence Oct 30 Information Requests Nov 20 Responses to IRs Dec 4 Reply Evidence Dec 18 Public Hearing Jan 15

On Aug 21 2012 the NEB issued Amended Procedural Order to the Chevron Priority Application, extendingthe deadline for Interventions to Aug 31 2012.

On Aug 31 2012 Tesoro Canada Supply (TCS) filed their Comments on the List of Issues.

Also Chevron on the same date Chevron Canada advised that it had no objection to Mr. Bob Vergette asbeing one of the NEB Members assigned to hear this matter.


19/26

19

WoodsLegal.ca

13. NGTL NORTHWEST MAINLINE KOMIE PRE-HEARING FILINGSOn Aug 7 2012 regarding the NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd (NGTL) Northwest Mainline Komie NorthExtension Application (Application) the NEB issued an NEB Clarification regarding the Fort Nelson FirstNation Panel that it would only appear to testify in Fort Nelson BC.

On Aug 8 2012 the Ache Dene Koe First Nation filed a Request for Late Intervenor Status, a Request to FileEvidence and Amend the List of Issues.

On Aug 9 2012 the NEB provided a Comment Process for the Acho Dene Koe First Nation Request.

On Aug 14 2012 the Acho Dene Koe First Nation (ADKFN) indicated in support of their intervention that itproposed to provide traditional land use evidence.

On Aug 16 2012 the NEB issued NEB Information Request No 7 to NGTL.

On Aug 20 2012 the NEB issued a Decision regarding the ADKFN Request allowing the ADKFN LateIntervenor Status, allowing for the filing of Late Evidence, but refusing to Amend the List of Issues.

On Aug 28 2012 the Fort Nelson First Nation filed Supplementary Written Evidence.

On Aug 29 2012 NGTL filed responses to NEB Information Request No 7.

On Aug 31 2012 the ADKFN filed their Written Evidence.

14. ABANDONMENT COSTS PROCEEDING PIPE ASSOCIATION FILINGSOn Aug 7 2012 Stephanie Fradette filed evidence in relation to the NEB Group 1 Pipeline AbandonmentCosts Proceeding.

On Aug 9 2012 the NEB issued a Decision regarding the Manitoba Pipeline Landowners Association (MPLA)

Notice of Motion dated July 12 2012. The MPLA Notice of Motion Requested further information fromEnbridge Pipelines Inc. (EPI), both in terms of further details to those already provided in various responsesto IRs, as well as a second series of IRs.

The NEB in large part rejected the MPLA Notice of Motion. However, it did find the need for someadditional information, which it requested EPI provide by Aug 22 2012.

On Aug 9 2012 the Canadian Associations of Energy Pipeline Landowner Associations (CAEPLA) also filedextensive evidence in this proceeding.

Also on Aug 9 2012 the Ontario Pipeline Landowners Association filed Additional Evidence.On Aug 22 2012 Enbridge Pipelines Inc. filed further responses to the MPLA Notice of Motion and NEBRuling.

On Aug 24 2012 the South Peace Landowners Association filed Written Evidence.

On Aug 28 2012 the NEB filed NEB Information Request No 3 to Various Group 1 Pipelines.

Also on Aug 28 2012 further Written Evidence was filed by a number of intervenors including:

Canadian Associations of Energy Pipeline Landowner Associations Manitoba Pipeline Landowners Association and and Mr. Rick Kraayenbrink Dr. Ken Habermehl


20/26

20

WoodsLegal.ca

15. TCPL EASTERN MAINLINE EXPANSION RATEPAYER CONCERNSOn Aug 8 2012 in relation to the TransCanada Pipelines Ltd (TCPL) Eastern Mainline Expansion Project,TCPL provided copies of Responses to Nashville Ratepayers Association Concerns of July 19 2012, and Aug 12012.

16. TRANS MOUNTAIN DOCK PREMIUM REVENUES ANNOUNCEDOn Aug 13 2012 Trans Mountain Pipeline (TMP) advised the NEB and shippers as to the TMP WestridgeDock Premium for the April-June 2012 period.

The TMP Dock Premium for the Period April-June 2012 was $34,180,345.

17. CENTRA TRANSMISSION REGULATOTY PROCESS ONGOINGOn Aug 14 2012 in relation to the Centra Transmission Holdings (Centra) Tariff and Tolls for 2012

Complaint (2012 Complaint), the NEB issued NEB Information Request No 1 to Centra.

On the same date, both AbitibiBowater Shipper Group, and Union Gas each filed an Information Request onCentra regarding the 2012 Complaint.

On Aug 28 2012 Centra filed responses to various Information Requests from the National Energy Board,AbitibaBowater Shipper Group, and Union Gas.

On Aug 31 2012 AbitibiBowater Shipper Group filed a Notice to Stay the Proceeding on the basis that theresponses to numerous Information Requests were incomplete, or unanswered.

18. COCHIN PIPELINE REVERSAL PROJECT FILED BY TRANS MOUNTAINOn Aug 17 2012 Kinder Morgan Canada (KMC) filed the Cochin Pipeline Reversal Project Application(Cochin Application).

The Cochin Application would be to reverse the flow of the pipeline and transport light condensatewestbound instead of propane in an eastbound direction.

The Cochin Application was preceded by an Open Season, which attracted 100,000 bpd of shippercommitments for terms of a minimum of 10 years.

The cost of associated facilities will be $260 million, with full in-service planned for July 2014.

As well, Kinder Morgan has applied for similar approvals from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Elements of the KMC Cochin Application include:

KMC Cochin Application Detailso Purpose/Economic Feasibilityo Engineering Design/Constructiono Emergency Management/ Safetyo Facilities/Land Requirementso Technical Description-Details


21/26

21

WoodsLegal.ca

Open Season/Shipper Commitments Tolls Tariffs Financial Information

o Uncommitted Shippers Rateso Committed Shippers Rates

Environmental/Socio-Economic Impacts Public Consultation/Aboriginal Engagement Construction Schedule/Other Authorizations

Supporting Appendices

NEB Supply and Demand Study Purvin & Gertz Report Open Season /Tolls & Tariffs Stantec ESA Report Public Consultation/Aboriginal Engagement

19. TRANS MOUNTAIN EXPANSION TOLL PROCEEDING PUBLIC COMMENTSOn Aug 20 2012 the NEB issued an NEB Request for Comments regarding the Trans Mountain Pipeline

(TMP) Expansion Toll Application. Specifically the NEB Request relates to the Draft List of Issues.

Comments were requested by Sept 4 2012, with TMP Reply Comments by Sept 10 2012.

On Aug 21 2012 the Corporation of Delta filed a Submission regarding the TMP Toll Application. On Aug 28 2012 Ecojustiice filed a Request to Extend the Deadline for Submissions. On Aug 29 2012 Stewart (MP) filed a Submission regarding the TMP Expansion Toll Application.

Each of these Submissions expressed concerns with the limited scope of the proposed proceeding, theadequacy of environmental protections, and the opportunity for public input and comment.

20. SOUTHERN LIGHTS CONCERNS REGARDING PRIORITY OF SERVICEOn Aug 21 2012 Enbridge Southern Lights (ESL) Pipeline filed an Update on Available Capacity on the ESLPipeline.

At issue is the Right of First Offer (ROFO) provision in the ESL Transportation Service Agreement (TSA).

The ROFO provision was the subject of a Complaint by Imperial Oil Ltd (IOL), however the NEB in denyingthe IOL Complaint noted no committed shipper had exercised the ROFO and no potential shipperincluding Imperial has sought and been denied committed service as a result of the ROFO.

The NEB therefore denied the IOL Complaint.

The ESL Update noted 2 committed shippers were electing capacity under the ROFO but expressed concernsthat there remains a cloud of uncertainty resulting from a potential challenge being filed with the NEB.

The ESL Pipeline also noted that it intended to hold an Open Season on available capacity on the existingsystem; with the risk being a ROFO exercising party might be placed at risk should the ROFO process beultimately disallowed.

The ESL has simply requested by this filing to request IOL or any other party wishing to challenge theROFO do so prior to the planned ESL Open Season.


22/26

22

WoodsLegal.ca

21. TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT OPPOSITIONOn Aug 23 2012 the City of Burnaby filed a Submission regarding the Proposed Trans Mountain PipelineExpansion Project (Burnaby Submission).

Concerns were expressed regarding the potential impacts of the Proposed TMP Expansion Project.

A Detailed Study prepared by the City of Burnaby regarding potential impacts was included as a part of theSubmission.

Included was a preliminary assessment of project risks, impacts and distribution of benefits.

Copies of the Burnaby Submission were forwarded to the Premier of BC, Federal and Provincial Ministers ofEnvironment, all Federal and Provincial MP/MLAs representing Burnaby, as well as the NEB.

22. ULTRAMAR FILES SHIPPER COMPLAINT-TRANS NORTHERN PIPELINEOn Aug 29 2012 Ultramar Ltd filed a Complaint regarding Trans Northern Pipeline (TNP) Tolling Practices.

Ultramar receives service from TNP under a Priority Access Agreement (PAA) in order to ship product from

Montreal Que. to the Toronto area.

Ultramar is in the process of constructing a pipeline from Levis Que. to Montreal, which will increasesubstantially, is shipping requirements on the TNP.

These volumes would be over and above the volumes accessible under the PAA.

Following negotiations and advice TNP rejected the Ultramar proposal.

The NEB has not as yet responded to this complaint.

23. CENOVUS COMPLAINT NEGOTIATIONS REGARDING WESTSPUR ISSUEOn Aug 31 2012 Enbridge Pipelines Inc. (EPI) filed an Update on Settlement Negotiations with CenovusEnergy Inc. and Crescent Point Energy (Update).

Discussions are ongoing and all parties support their continuation, with the regulatory process suspendedpending these negotiations.

EPI indicated a further Update would be provided by Oct 31 2012.


23/26

23

WoodsLegal.ca

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

24. MULTIPLE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS- TIMELINES ESTABLISHEDDuring August the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency evaluated a broad range of energy andmining projects.

Further as a result of the Jobs Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act (JGLPA) and the associated issuance ofthe Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012, deadlines on various Joint Review Panels have now beenimposed. The related deadlines under CEAA 2012 are noted below:

These various Joint Review Panels included:

Frontier Oil Sands Mine Aug 3

The Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project includes the construction, operation and reclamation of an oilsands surface mine 110 km north of Fort McMurray.

Production capacity is anticipated to be about 277 000 barrels per day of bitumen. Regulatory Timetable:

o The JRP will be established March 23, 2013.o The JRP will submit its report January 17, 2012.o The decision statement will be released May 17, 2014.

New Prosperity Gold/Copper Aug 3

The New Prosperity Gold-Copper Mine is to consist of an open pit Copper and Gold minedevelopment

The New Prosperity Mine is located 125 km southwest of Williams Lake, B.C. Average annual production is expected to be 108 million pounds of copper and 247 thousand ounces

of gold production annually over the 20-year mine life. Regulatory Timetable:

o The JRP will submit its report February 26, 2013.o The decision statement will be released June 26, 2013.

Pierre River Mine Project Aug 3

The Pierre River Mine includes the construction, operation, and reclamation of an oil sands surfacemine and bitumen extraction facilities

The Pierre River Mine Project is located 90 km north of Fort McMurray. Regulatory Timetable:

o The JRP will submit its report January 7, 2014.o The decision statement will be released May 7, 2013.

Marathon Platinum/Copper Aug 3

The Marathon PGM Mine includes construction, operation, and decommissioning an open pitplatinum group metals and copper mine 10 km from Marathon, ON.

Production would be 22, 000 tonnes per day over 11.5 years. Regulatory Timetable:

o The JRP will submit its report July 31, 2013.o The decision statement will be released November 28, 2013.


24/26

24

WoodsLegal.ca

Jackpine Mine Expansion Aug 3/Aug 17

The Jackpine Mine Expansion includes a mine, processing facilities 70 km from Ft McMurray AB The expansion would increase bitumen production by 100,000 bpd to 300,000 bpd Regulatory Timetable:

oThe Public hearing will begin Oct 29 2012.

o The JRP will submit its report June 21, 2013.o The decision statement will be released Oct 19, 2013.

Hopes Mining Project Aug 27

The Hopes Mining Project is an open pit iron ore mine located in Nunavik Region of Quebec. The mine will produce 72,000-144,000 of ore per year over a 48 year life span Regulatory Timetable:

o Comments on the scope of the required environmental assessment required are requested bySept 17 2012


25/26

25

WoodsLegal.ca

UPCOMING PROCEEDINGS

25. LISTING OF UPCOMING POLICY PROCEEDINGS & PUBLIC HEARINGSListed below are some of the key upcoming policy proceedings and major public hearings including anyassociated pre-hearing regulatory schedules.

Key Policy Proceedings

Administrative Monetary Penalties Policy Papero Public Comments Due Sept 28, 2012o AMP Policy Finalized July, 2013

NEB Pipeline Abandonment Costs & Related Submissionso Group 1 Pipelines

Proposals for Collection of Funds Nov 30, 2012 Proposals for Setting Aside Funds Nov 30, 2012

o Group 2 Pipelines Proposals for Collection of Funds Nov 30, 2012 Proposals for Setting Aside Funds May 31, 2013

NEB Abandonment Cost Hearingo Responses to Information Requests Sept 21, 2012o Reply Evidence Filed Oct 12, 2012o Public Hearing Begins Oct 30, 2012

Safety & Environmental Protection Objectiveso Inter-Agency Initiative-Safety & Environment Sep 30, 2012o Proposed Forum on Pipeline and Facility Safety Sep 30, 2012

Keystone XL Pipeline Alternative Routingo NDEQ Draft Environmental Report TBAo Public Open House/Comments TBAo NDEQ Final Environmental Report TBAo Dept. of State Presidential Permit Under Review

Alaska Pipeline Project Open Seasono Solicitation of Interest Sept. 14, 2012

Major Public Hearings

Cenovus Complaint Regarding Enbridge (Westspur)o Pre-hearing regulatory process Suspendedo Enbridge/Cenovus negotiations Ongoing

Gateway Joint Review Panel Final Public Hearingo Final Hearings Begin Sep 4, 2012

Enbridge Line 9 Reversal Project Applicationo EPI Line 9 Application Approved

Trans Canada Mainline Tolls Restructuring 2012-2013Public Hearing Scheduleo Calgary Hearing (4 weeks- as reqd) Sep 10, 2012

NGTL NEXT Applicationo Stakeholder Negotiations Process Suspended

NGTL Northwest Komie Mainline Extensiono Public Hearing Begins Oct 10, 2012o Environmental Screen Rpt. Issued Prior to completiono Applicant Comments 14 days following


26/26

26

o Intervenor Comments 21 days following NGTL Leismer to Kettle River Crossover

o NGTL Crossover Application Approved TCPL Eastern Mainline Expansion

o Regulatory Process Complete Approved Chevron Review and Variance (Trans Mountain)

oRegulatory Process Complete Denied

Centra Transmission Tolls Applicationo Intervenor Evidence Sept 11, 2012o Information Requests Sept 25, 2012o Responses to IRs Oct 9, 2012o Final Argument TBA

Suncor Open Season Waiver of Rights Complainto Regulatory Process Complete Supported

Chevron TMP Priority Destination Applicationo Interventions Due Aug 24, 2012o Additional Evidence Sept 11, 2012o Information Requests Oct 2, 2012o Responses to IRs Oct 16, 2012o

Intervenor Evidence Oct 30, 2012o Information Requests Nov 20, 2012o Responses to IRs Dec 4, 2012o Reply Evidence Dec 18, 2012o Public Hearing Jan 15, 2013

TMP Expansion Toll Applicationo NEB to issue Procedural Schedule Pending

Please contact the undersigned at (403) 869-2334, or by e-mail at:[email protected] the extentyou have any questions relating to the regulatory issues described above, or any other Canadian regulatorymatters.

C. Brian WoodsProf. Corp.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]