City of Burnaby Presentation

2014 March

Kinder Morgan National Energy Board (NEB) Application for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMEP)

Presentation Outline Scope of Project • Overview of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMEP) • Facilities and Infrastructure Expansion in Burnaby • Emergency Response

National Energy Board • Stakeholders • Public Hearing Process • NEB Decision Making Process

City Response • Overview of the City Response • Key Issues for Burnaby • Listening to the Concerns of Burnaby Residents

Overview Trans Mountain Expansion Project

How has the Scope of the Project Changed?

KM’s Initial Proposal

750,000 bpd

Dual line operation

“Twinning” of Pipeline

1000 km of new pipeline

Pump Station, Storage and Marine Terminal Expansion

Application to the NEB

890,000 bpd

Product: Heavy crude

Langley to Burnaby – new corridor

980 km of new pipeline (reactivation of lines)

Expansion concentrated in Burnaby

Commercial Basis for the Expansion

• Export

• Open Season 2011 - 2012

• 13 shippers with firm service transportation agreements for 15- and 20-year terms

• Total contracted volume under these agreements: 707,500 bpd of the proposed 890,000 bpd

Infrastructure and Facilities Expansion in Burnaby

This map illustrates the existing Trans Mountain Pipeline through Burnaby

Pipeline Routing Through Burnaby

Pipeline Right-of-Way • What is a right-of-way?

• Ownership and rights

• NEB Act and NEB Pipeline Crossing Regulations and negotiated easement agreements

Written Permission/Permit Required for works within the Safety Zone: • Operating vehicles or mobile equipment over the

right of way where a roadway does not exist;

• Reducing the depth of soil covering the pipeline;

• Ploughing below 30 cm (1 foot);

• Ground levelling;

• Installing drainage systems;

• Augering;

• Fencing; etc.

Pipeline Expansion within Burnaby

Initial Proposal

Dual- line operation to introduce heavy crude

product

“Twinning” new pipeline within existing ROW, where

possible

Current Proposal

Line 1 (existing): 350,000 bpd*

Line 2 (heavy crude):

540,000 bpd

Separate new corridor

* KM has indicated Line 1 may also be used for heavy crude at lowered capacities

This map illustrates the route options Kinder Morgan presented to the City in December 2012.

The highlighted areas represent the routing and alignment study areas for the proposed pipeline.

WESTRIDGE/ LOCHDALE

FOREST GROVE/ LAKE CITY

LOUGHEED TOWN CENTRE

The circles represent the neighbourhoods that would be directly affected by the proposed routing and alignment study areas.

Pipeline Expansion Westridge Neighbourhood

Initial Proposal

Consolidation of Burnaby Mountain Terminal – Westridge Marine Terminal distribution line

2 distribution lines through the neighbourhood within a single ROW

Current Proposal

Creating a new route through Westridge Neighbourhood to accommodate two 30” pipelines

3 distribution lines through the neighbourhood within two ROWs

WESTRIDGE ELEMENTARY

LOCHDALE ELEMENTARY

FOREST GROVE ELEMENARY

BURNABY MOUNTAIN SECONDARY

CAMERON ELEMENTARY

STONEY CREEK COMMUNITY SCHOOL

LYNDHURST ELEMENTARY

This map highlights the schools that may be impacted by the routing and alignment study areas for the proposed pipeline.

BRUNETTE RIVER AND

CONSERVATION AREA

BURNABY MOUNTAIN/

BURNABY 200 CONSERVATION

AREAS

BURNABY MOUNTAIN

CONSERVATION AREA

This map highlights the conservation and environmentally sensitive areas that may be affected by the routing and alignment study areas for the proposed pipeline.

Construction of previously twinned section of the TMPL Jasper, Alberta

Burnaby Mountain Terminal

7185 Shellmont Street | 189 acre site

Existing Site Context

13 storage tanks | 125,000 bbl – 130,000 bbl | Capacity: 1.7 million bbl

Existing Burnaby Mountain Terminal Site

2 Local Watersheds

Existing Site Context

14 new storage tanks | 250,000 bbl – 325, 000 bbl | Capacity: 5.6 million bbl

Conceptual Burnaby Mountain Terminal Expansion

New Storage Tank Replacement Storage Tank * Note: this layout is for demonstration purposes only.

Current Volume of Oil Per Unit: 8,995 bbl per acre (3,535 m3 per hectare)

189 acre site

Current Volume of Oil Per Unit: 8,995 bbl per acre (3,535 m3 per hectare)

189 acre site

Proposed Volume of Oil Per Unit: 29,630 bbl per acre (11,640 m3 per hectare)

189 acre site

Distribution of the TMEP

Storage Capacity

Current Trans Mountain Storage Capacity

Four Storage Terminals within the Trans Mountain Pipeline System:

• Edmonton • Kamloops • Sumas • Burnaby

In Operation 40 storage tanks Total capacity of 5.3 million barrels October 2014 (Edmonton Terminal Expansion Project in service) * 54 storage tanks Total capacity of 10.8 million barrels * Edmonton Terminal Expansion Project – 15 new storage tanks (one replacement tank) approved under separate application to the NEB in 2008, and amended in 2011 for additional capacity

Burnaby

• 13 tanks • 1.7 mil. bbl

Sumas

• 6 tanks • 715,000 bbl

Kamloops

• 2 tanks • 160,768 bbl

Edmonton*

• 35 tanks • 8.0 mil. bbl

26 tanks 5.6 mil. bbl

7 tanks 890,000 bbl

2 tanks 160,768 bbl

39 tanks 9.25 mil. bbl

+ 14 tanks (one replacement)

+ 1 tank

no tanks proposed

+ 5 tanks (one replacement)

Summary of TMEP Storage Tank Capacity

* Including the Edmonton Terminal Expansion Project

20 new tanks distributed between the existing terminals

=

72 storage tanks total with a capacity of

15.8 million barrels

For comparison 3 Aframax tankers can load approximately 1.7 million barrels

Emergency Spill Response - Land

Current Approach to Oil Safety on Land • Regulatory Framework – NEB Onshore Pipeline Regulations

• Accident Prevention – Canada

• Whistle Blower Hotline

• Third-Party Damage and One-Call system

• Accident Prevention – Kinder Morgan

• SCADA system – 24 hours monitoring from control centre

• Right-of-way surveillance – visual surveillance

• “Smart-pigs” – in-line inspections

KM Proposed Land Safety Measures • Kinder Morgan has indicated that they will be reviewing

their spill prevention and Emergency Response Plan, requirement of the NEB

• KM will be seeking mutual aid agreements with the industry to assist in event of an emergency - Chevron, Suncor, Shell, Imperial Oil

• Canadian Energy Pipeline Association have established the Mutual Emergency Assistance Agreement (MEAA), effective January 2014

KM Proposed Emergency Response on Land

• Kinder Morgan is seeking the use of Burnaby infrastructure and resources, as part of their proposal:

• Fire Department and other municipal resources as “first-responders” to leaks, spills, fires, and other emergencies

• Tie into the Curtis-Duthie Water Pump Station as a back-up water feed for the Burnaby Mountain Terminal (among other options)

KM’s Trans Mountain Track Record (2005 – Present)

2005 • 1,320 bbl of crude leaked out of the Sumas Terminal (Abbotsford),

polluting Kilgard Creek

2007 • Burnaby Oil Spill (1,572 bbl)

2009 • 1,258 bbl oil leaked from Burnaby Mountain Terminal (contained on-site)

2012 • 692 bbl of oil spilled from ruptured pipeline at Sumas Terminal (Jan.) • Leak in containment area at Sumas Terminal (April)

2013 • 12 bbl of oil leaked from pipeline outside of Merritt BC • 25 bbl of oil leak detected outside of Hope BC

Burnaby Oil Spill 2007 • Where: Inlet Drive, Burnaby

• Volume: 250 m3 (1,572 bbl)

• Response Time: 24 minutes

• 50 homes impacted; 250 Burnaby residents evacuated; 1200 m of shoreline along the Burrard Inlet impacted – long term impact to local ecosystems & wildlife

• Cost of Clean-Up: undisclosed by KM but estimated at + $15 M

• Cause: Human error

• Court findings determined Kinder Morgan and 2 contractor companies at fault

Effects of the 2007 Burnaby Oil Spill

Kalamazoo River Oil Spill 2010 • Where: Michigan, USA

• Volume: 3,320 m3 (20,882 bbl) of heavy crude (diluted bitumen) spilled.

• Largest land-based spill in North American history.

• Response Time: + 18 hours

• 30-50 households displaced; significant and long-term impacts to environment and ecosystems; clean-up ongoing

• Cost of Clean-Up: $1 B (2013)

• Cause: pipeline corrosion (40 years old pipe); poor response time

• At Fault: Enbridge

Westridge Marine Terminal

7065 Bayview Drive | 15 acre site

Existing Westridge Marine Terminal Site

Existing Westridge Marine Terminal Photo Credit: Stephen Rees

1.4 ha foreshore expansion

Kinder Morgan has indicated that the existing dock may be decommissioned in the future.

Conceptual Westridge Marine Terminal Expansion

Kinder Morgan visual representation of the proposed Westridge Marine Terminal Expansion

Westridge Marine Terminal Activity • From 8 tankers per month to 34 tankers per month (from 3% to 14%)

• Each tanker transporting between 550,000 – 580,000 bbl

EXISTING

PROPOSED

Marine Emergency Spill Response

Emergency Spill Response - Liability

• Polluter Pay Approach (Responsible Party)

• International Conventions, Canada Shipping Act and Marine Liability Act set liability at a $1.312 billion limit.

Four - tier approach to provision of funds:

Western Canada Marine Response Corporation ($138 M)

International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund ($174 M)

International Oil Pollution Compensation Supplementary Fund ($840 M)

Canada’s Ship Source Oil Pollution Fund ($160 M)

Greater than $1.3 billion, the Canadian government would be responsible for the

cost of the oil spill clean-up

Benefits to Burnaby

• Kinder Morgan’s proposal seeks to only comply with the regulatory public engagement process, as required by the NEB

• A modest increase to the tax yield from Kinder Morgan’s properties in Burnaby is anticipated.

• The negotiation of off-setting benefits to the City is currently not a part of KM’s proposal

National Energy Board (NEB)

Public Hearing Process

Summary (Summer 2013) • 2011/2012 – Open Season (3 KM public engagement sessions in Burnaby)

• May 2013 – NEB approved KM Tolling Application for the

TMEP • July 2013 – NEB published the List of Issues which will be

considered as part of the Public Hearing for the TMEP • July 2013 – NEB announced funding available to the public

in order to participate as an Intervenor in the anticipated Public Hearing Process

• Application submission by mail or email • Funding not available to local government

Summary (Present) • 2013 December 16 – Kinder Morgan formally

submitted their facilities application to the NEB for the TMEP

• 2014 January 15 – NEB announced Application to Participate as an Intervenor for the TMEP

• Two weeks after receipt of KM application

• 2014 February 12 deadline

• Application must be filed electronically

Kinder Morgan Conceptual Timeline

Stakeholders

Establishing the Process • NEB appointed joint review panel (David Hamilton,

Don Young, and Lyn Mercier)

• NEB reviews Kinder Morgan’s application for completeness (3 to 4 months)

• NEB issues Hearing Order (expected March 2014)

• Hearing Order sets out form, time and location of Hearing

Components of the Public Hearing • Evidence (expert reports)

• Information Requests (to and from)

• Hearing (written, oral or both)

• Expert panels

• Cross-examination

• Lay witness submissions

• Written arguments

• Oral statements

NEB Decision Making Process • NEB prepares and submits report (within 15 months)

• NEB establishes Certificate Terms and Conditions

• Cabinet reviews report and directs the NEB (within 3 months) to either:

• Issue a certificate subject to the terms and conditions set out in the report; or

• Dismiss the application

• If a certificate is issued, Kinder Morgan will have to settle compensation for acquisition of rights-of-way (agreement, negotiation or arbitration)

• Overview of Phased City Response • Key Issues for Burnaby • Community Outreach

City Response

Phase I • Application to Participate in the NEB Public

Hearing

Phase II • Strategy and Scoping of Issues

Phase III • Preparation for the NEB Public Hearing

Phase IV

• Participation at the Public Hearing

Overview - City Response

On 2014 February 03, the City of Burnaby applied to to the NEB for Intervenor Status

in the hearing for the TMEP

Identification of Key Issues for Burnaby

Big Picture Issues

&

Local Issues

Big Picture

Expansion of the TMEP in Burnaby is not appropriate given the urban transformation and significant

population growth of the City and broader Metro Vancouver region

since the early 1950s

Burnaby Urban Context - 1955

Burnaby Urban Context – 2012

City of Burnaby:

Intervenor

Environment

Localized Impacts to Residents

Economy and

Employment

Property, Land Use

and Resources

City Infrastructure

Public Health and

Safety

Risk Assessment

Emergency Response

Off-Setting Benefits

Potential Issues or Concerns

Listening to Burnaby Residents’ Concerns

Website and Questionnaire

Contact Information:

Email: TMEPInquiry@burnaby.ca

Phone: 604.297.4400 (direct line)

Fax: 604.294.7425

Mail: Engineering Department

• TMEP Overview • FAQs • Council Reports, Press Release, Events • Links to NEB and Kinder Morgan • Burnaby Online/Mail-in Questionnaire

End