Mackenzie Gas Project

1. Mackenzie Gas Project Comments on the MVEIRB Draft Work Plan for theAssessment of the Mackenzie Valley Gas Pipeline Project (dated December 18, 2003)

2. Public hearings as described in the Work Plan are unnecessary and would be redundant and duplicative. MVEIRB review and referral process appears to be leading to two rounds of environmental review hearings, one as part of Phase 1 of the MVEIRB environmental assessment and one as part of the contemplated Joint Review Panel process. This would lead to duplication that the Cooperation Plan was designed to avoid. We recommend that Project referral be made on the basis of significant public concern, which we believe exists based on letters to the MVLWB concerning the Camsell Bend applications, and the proceedings from the proponents’ EIS regional workshops. The MVEIRB may choose to validate these findings where necessary, preferably by soliciting written public comment on the Project as a means of supplementing existing documented evidence of public concern. MACKENZIE GAS PROJECT Comments on MVEIRB Draft Work Plan ITEM COMMENT RECOMMENDATION • The Phase 1 schedule is problematic in that it would delay Project start-up. • The Phase 1 process described in the Work Plan will require an estimated 6-7 months from the time of referral to the MVEIRB for environmental assessment to Ministerial decision, versus the 4 months contemplated in the Cooperation Plan. We recommend referral of the Project to a Joint Review Panel on the basis of significant public concern. Modify the Work Plan and schedule to provide for completion of the environmental assessment and submission (by the MVEIRB) of its report to the Minister by no later than March 2004. Impact of Work Plan schedule on Cooperation Plan schedule Proposed public hearing process in Work Plan

3. The Scope of Development is too broad. In section 2, Scope of Development, the MVEIRB deems the “scope of the development to include all components and activities associated with extracting natural gas and natural gas liquids from the Parsons Lake, Taglu, and Niglintgak gas fields, process the gas and gas liquids for shipment and ship the gas and gas liquids to the currently existing pipeline system in Alberta.” This scope can be interpreted to include work of a preliminary or investigative nature such as the winter geotechnical programs. This scope includes facilities works and activities that will be dealt with by regulatory and environmental agencies in other jurisdictions (e.g. ISR, Alberta). This scope can be interpreted to include activities, works and facilities in other parts of Canada and beyond. The MVEIRB should determine the scope of the development for the Project more narrowly on two accounts. First, as per the description of the Project in the PIP, the scope of development should explicitly exclude environmental field studies, fieldwork activities and other activities of a preliminary investigative or evaluative nature (e.g. environmental and traditional knowledge field studies, geotechnical work and trencher trials, engineering surveys, geophysical surveys, bathymetric surveys, and the like). Second, the MVEIRB should confine its assessment to those facilities, undertakings and activities occurring within the Mackenzie Valley. Other environmental and regulatory agencies have authority over facilities and activities outside the Mackenzie Valley. Accordingly, the point form component examples should be deleted to the extent that they relate to field studies or other activities of a preliminary investigative or evaluative nature, or if they relate to facilities, undertakings or activities occurring outside the Mackenzie Valley. Also, point form components addressing different modes of transportation in the Mackenzie Valley should be consolidated. MACKENZIE GAS PROJECT Comments on MVEIRB Draft Work Plan ITEM COMMENT RECOMMENDATION Breadth of Scope of Development in the Work Plan

4. Reference in 5.1.1 to “EA reports provided by the Developer” is unclear. In section 2, Scope of Development, second paragraph to “...gas liquids to the currently existing pipeline system in Alberta.” Reference in section 2, Scope of Development, third paragraph, first sentence to “four principal components”. This should be clarified to limit EA reports and information to that which the Developer has already submitted. Modify to reflect that the gas liquids pipeline will feed into the existing Enbridge gas liquids line at Norman Wells. The Project considers the gathering system to include the natural gas liquids pipeline to Norman Wells and, accordingly, the principal components are the field production facilities, gathering system including natural gas liquids pipeline, and gas transmission pipeline. MACKENZIE GAS PROJECT Comments on MVEIRB Draft Work Plan ITEM COMMENT RECOMMENDATION For the purposes of the Work Plan, the MVEIRB should narrow the scope of assessment to exclude impacts in the rest of Canada and beyond. Impacts in the rest of Canada should be handled through cooperation with applicable environmental agencies, including through the processes contemplated in the Cooperation Plan. • The Scope of Assessment is too broad and general. • In section 3, Scope of Assessment, there is a reference in the second line of paragraph 2 to “impacts in the rest of Canada and beyond.” Breadth of Scope of Assessmentin the Work Plan Role of Developer in the Environmental Assessment process • The role of the Developer in the process is unclear. • In section 4 it is unclear whether the roles and responsibilities as described are intended to apply to Phase 1, Phase 2 or both phases of the environmental assessment process. In particular, the role of the Developer as described in 4.3 appears to be more relevant to Phase 2 activities than Phase 1. The responsibilities and expectations for the Developer in Phase 1 of the environmental assessment should be limited by the nature and type of information that the Developer has available at that particular stage in the process (e.g. PIP, Camsell Bend applications, Regional EIS workshop proceedings). General and clarification items

5. Reference in section 5, EA Process, first sentence of 5.1, to “Appendix A”. Some terms and phrases in the Draft Work Plan are ambiguous and need to be defined or clarified. Examples: impacts from induced development induced development post closure activities pre-construction pre-development restoration Should it read “Appendix B”? Clarify and/or define the applicable terms and phrases. MACKENZIE GAS PROJECT Comments on MVEIRB Draft Work Plan ITEM COMMENT RECOMMENDATION ..cont. General and clarification items