• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Hearing Order MH-052-2018 Board File OF-Fac-PipeGen-T211 01 National Energy Board Jurisdiction of Coastal GasLink Project February 26, 2019 Michael Sawyer Information Request (IR) No.1 to Coastal GasLink Pipeline Ltd. Contents 1.0 Topic: 2011 Shell Request for Proposals .............................................................. 1 2.0 Topic: Project Development Agreement ................................................................ 2 3.0 Topic: 2012 CGL Project Description – interconnection with NGTL ...................... 4 4.0 Topic: 2012 LNG export application – CGL access to NGTL (Alberta System) ..... 4 5.0 Topic: 2012 LNG export application, Appendix A – CGL connects with NGTL ...... 7 6.0 Topic: NMML Proceeding – CGL interconnects with NGTL ................................... 9 7.0 Topic: BC EAO Proceeding – CGL interconnects with NGTL .............................. 16 8.0 Topic: 2015 LNG export licence application – CGL connection with NGTL ......... 17 9.0 Topic: TCPL 2013 to 2017 Annual Reports – CGL expected interconnect on NGTL ........................................................................................................................... 20 10.0 Topic: CGL denial of connection to NGTL ........................................................... 21 11.0 Topic: CGL’s unawareness of supply arrangements for CGL .............................. 23 12.0 Topic: Five separate receipt meters at CGL inlet ................................................ 26 13.0 Topic: Only one meter station at CGL inlet ......................................................... 27 14.0 Topic: Exclusion of inlet facilities from application to OGC .................................. 29 15.0 Topic: CGL Limited Partnership or joint venture? ................................................ 30 16.0 Topic: CGL’s equity interest ................................................................................ 32 1.0 Topic: 2011 Shell Request for Proposals Reference: i) A97628-1 Coastal GasLink - Additional Written Evidence - A6R5I9, January 25, 2019, paragraph 32 Preamble: CGL states: “32. Coastal GasLink is the result of a 2011 request for proposal (RFP) from Shell Canada Energy for the transport of natural gas within BC to supply the LNG Canada Facility.” Sawyer IR1 to CGL February 26, 2019 Jurisdiction of CGL Pipeline Page 2 of 32 Requests: 1.1 Which corporate entity within TCPL responded to Shell’s 2011 RFP? 1.2 What is the date of TCPL’s response to Shell’s 2011 RFP? 1.3 In designing its response to Shell’s 2011 RFP, what did TCPL understand to be the physical source(s) of the gas to be transported? 1.4 Did Shell’s 2011 RFP specify “an area near Groundbirch BC” as the location from which proposals would transport gas? How did Shell’s 2011 RFP describe the location from which proposals would transport gas? 1.5 In designing its response to Shell’s 2011 RFP, did TCPL understand Shell’s ‘need for proposal’ to include access to the WCSB and market hubs? 1.6 Did TCPL’s proposal in response to Shell’s 2011 RFP contemplate a connection to the NGTL System, whether directly or indirectly, whether at the ISD or later, or whether by TCPL or a third party? If so, provide the details with supporting documentation. If not, describe what needs the proposal was designed to meet and provided supporting documentation. 1.7 If TCPL’s proposal in response to Shell’s 2011 RFP was not designed to provide the LNG export shippers with a connection to the NGTL System, access to the Montney region, access to the WCSB or access to the NIT market hub, explain why TCPL publicly described the CGL pipeline proposal as providing those features? 1.8 Provide a copy of TCPL’s response to the 2011 RFP. If TCPL claims confidentiality regarding some or all of the contents of the response to the RFP, provide an undredacted copy to the Board and a redacted version publicly. For each redaction, specify the asserted reason for the claim of confidentiality. 1.9 Was TCPL’s proposal in response to Shell’s 2011 RFP the same in material respects as the CGL Pipeline Project that emerged in 2012? Please describe any significant differences. 1.10 Was TCPL’s proposal in response to Shell’s 2011 RFP designed to meet an explicit or implied requirement that the proposal be within provincial jurisdiction? 1.11 Did TCPL state or imply to Shell that TCPL’s pipeline solution in response to the 2011 RFP would be within provincial jurisdiction? 1.12 Please describe the steps and dates through which TCPL’s response to Shell’s 2011 RFP led to the 2012 Coastal GasLink Pipeline Project. 2.0 Topic: Project Development Agreement Reference: i) TCPL, 2012 Second Quarterly Report to Shareholders, p.3, https://www.transcanada.com/globalassets/pdfs/investors/reports-and- filings/annual-and-quarterly-reports/2012/transcanada-2012-q2-quarterly- report.pdf, and A97948-2 2019-02-15 Sawyer AWE CGL jurisdiction - A6S0X0, Sawyer IR1 to CGL February 26, 2019 Jurisdiction of CGL Pipeline Page 3 of 32 p.2, and A97948-4 B. 2012 transcanada-2012-q2-quarterly-report excerpts - A6S0X2 ii) A97628-1 Coastal GasLink - Additional Written Evidence - A6R5I9, January 25, 2019 iii) October 29, 2018, A95224-1 Letter to NEB re LNG Canada Development Inc. request for standing - October 29, 2018 - A6J5G8 Preamble: In Reference (i), TCPL says that: “In June 2012, TransCanada announced that it had been selected by Shell Canada Limited (Shell) and its partners to design, build, own and operate the proposed Coastal GasLink project, an estimated $4 billion pipeline that would transport natural gas from the Montney gas-producing region near Dawson Creek, British Columbia to the recently announced LNG Canada liquefied natural gas export facility near Kitimat, British Columbia.” In Reference (ii), CGL says that TCPL’s submission was chosen under the terms of Shell’s 2011 RFP. CGL then describes the Project Development Agreement as follows: “33. TCPL’s submission was chosen under the terms of the RFP. TCPL then entered a Project Development Agreement (PDA) for CGL to construct Coastal GasLink with the following arm’s length counter-parties (including by way of assignment, in the case of PETRONAS) who collectively underwrite 100 percent of Coastal GasLink and own 100 percent of its capacity, both in the following proportions: a. Shell Canada Energy (a subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell plc) (40%); b. North Montney LNG Limited Partnership (a subsidiary of PETRONAS, owned by a Malaysian state-owned company (SOC)) (25%); c. PetroChina Kitimat LNG Partnership (a subsidiary of PetroChina, owned by a Chinese SOC) (15%); d. Diamond LNG Canada Partnership (a subsidiary of Mitsubishi Corporation) (15%); and, e. Kogas Canada LNG Ltd. (a subsidiary of KOGAS, a Korean SOC) (5%). (collectively, the Participants). ... 40. Construction of Coastal GasLink is governed by the PDA. Under the terms of the PDA, CGL must meet key milestones to provide commissioning gas to the LNG Canada Facility.” While CGL does not list LNG Canada as a counterparty to the PDA, LNG Canada Development Inc. (LNG Canada) says in Reference (iii) that “LNG Canada is party to an agreement with TransCanada PipeLines Limited for the development of the Coastal GasLink Pipeline Project.” Requests: 2.1 Is LNG Canada a party to the Project Development Agreement? Sawyer IR1 to CGL February 26, 2019 Jurisdiction of CGL Pipeline Page 4 of 32 2.2 Does the term “Project Development Agreement” refer to a single high-level contract or to the entire complex package of interrelated agreements and sub- agreements between and among CGL and the counter-parties? 2.3 Describe in overview the structure of the Project Development Agreement. 2.4 Can CGL warrant that the PDA defines the CGL project in a manner that is consistent with the descriptions of the CGL project provided to the BC EAO, the CEAA, the NEB, the BC OGC, First Nations, and the public? 2.5 Can CGL confirm that the PDA contemplates that CGL will connect with the NGTL System and provide access to the WCSB and the NIT market hub? If not, provide supporting documentation. 2.6 Does the scope of the PDA exclude any gas infrastructure upstream of the receipt meters at the CGL inlet? If so, list all agreements CGL or affiliates have with LNG Canada or LNG Canada participants that include within their scope any gas infrastructure upstream of the receipt meters at the CGL inlet. 3.0 Topic: 2012 CGL Project Description – interconnection with NGTL Reference: i) TransCanada, Coastal GasLink Pipeline Project Description, CGL4703-CGP-EN- SD-001, October 30, 2012, and A97948-2 2019-02-15 Sawyer AWE CGL jurisdiction - A6S0X0, p.2, and A97948-3 A. 2012-11-07 Coastal-GasLink- Project-Description excerpts - A6S0X1 Preamble: In the 2012 CGL Pipeline Project Description, Reference (i), CGL states: “the Project will have an interconnection with the existing NGTL System at Groundbirch, which will provide access to other western Canadian natural gas supply.” [underline added] Requests: 3.1 Does CGL agree that the 2012 CGL Pipeline Project Description says the Project will have an interconnection with the existing NGTL System at Groundbirch, which will provide access to other western Canadian natural gas supply? 3.2 Does CGL agree that it told the NEB, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the BC Environmental Assessment Office, First Nations, members of the public, and potential investors that the CGL Pipeline Project will have an interconnection with the existing NGTL System at Groundbirch, which will provide access to other western Canadian natural gas supply? 4.0 Topic: 2012 LNG export application – CGL access to NGTL (Alberta System) Reference: i) July 27, 2012, LNG Canada Development Inc., Application to the NEB for a Licence to Export LNG, - A2V3H8 Sawyer IR1 to CGL February 26, 2019 Jurisdiction of CGL Pipeline Page 5 of 32 ii) TransCanada, Coastal GasLink Pipeline Project Description, CGL4703-CGP-EN- SD-001, October 30, 2012, and A97948-2 2019-02-15 Sawyer AWE CGL jurisdiction - A6S0X0, p.2, and A97948-3 A. 2012-11-07 Coastal-GasLink- Project-Description excerpts - A6S0X1 Preamble: In its July 27, 2012 Application to the NEB for a Licence to Export LNG, Reference (i), LNG Canada Development Inc.

Load more

  32

Copy Link