DOCSLIB.ORG

Statementh Other Factors Affecting the Competitiveness of the Markets Served by the Reversed Seaway Pipeline

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Statementh Other Factors Affecting the Competitiveness of the Markets Served by the Reversed Seaway Pipeline 20111202-5190 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2011 4:46:13 PM STATEMENTH OTHER FACTORS AFFECTING THE COMPETITIVENESS OF THE MARKETS SERVED BY THE REVERSED SEAWAY PIPELINE 20111202-5190 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2011 4:46:13 PM TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR STATEMENT H Section I. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 II. The U.S. Department of Justice's Analysis of the U.S. Crude Oil Pipeline Industry .......................................................................................................................... 2 Ill. The Reversed Seaway Pipeline Is a New Entrant Pipeline ............................................ 3 IV. The Availability of Unutilized Capacity Held By the Reversed Seaway Pipeline's Competitors ................................................................................................... 5 V. Crude Oil Exchanges and Trading ................... :: ............................................................ 6 VI. The Reversed Seaway Pipeline's Potential Shippers are Experienced and Knowledgeable Oil Industry Participants .... ~ ............................................................ 7 / "-· H-i 20111202-5190 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2011 4:46:13 PM c STATEMENTH OTHER FACTORS AFFECTING THE COMPETITIVENESS OF THE MARKETS SERVED BY THE REVERSED SEAWAY PIPELINE I. Introduction_., 1 In addition to the existing competitive alternatives discussed in Statement D and 2 the potential new entrants discussed in Statement E, there are numerous other factors 3 to consider that affect the competitiveness of the Reversed Seaway Pipeline. First, 4 when the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") evaluated the competitiveness of U.S. 5 crude oil pipelines, it concluded, for various reasons, that alllower-48 crude oil pipelines 6 could be safely deregulated which also implies that all these crude oil pipelines could be 7 safely allowed to change market-based rates. 1 Second, the Reversed Seaway Pipeline ( "--··· 8 is a new entrant in terms of providing a new outlet in its origin market and a new 9 supplier to its destination market. The Reversed Seaway Pipeline is expected to begin 10 operating by the second quarter of 2012, but it is not expected to reach its full 375 MBD 11 capacity until early 2013. A new entrant, such as the Reversed Seaway Pipeline, 12 provides shippers in both its origin and destination markets with an additional option 13 which, by definition, will make the Reversed Seaway Pipeline's origin and destination 14 markets more competitive. Third, there is unutilized pipeline capacity in the Reversed 15 Seaway Pipeline's origin and destination markets, and, in the Reversed Seaway 16 Pipeline's destination market, there is unutilized dock capacity that would support 17 increased waterborne deliveries of crude oil. The pro-competitive effects of this OIL PIPELINE DEREGULATION, REPORT OF U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, May 1986 (hereinafter "DOJ DEREGULATION STUDY'). H -1 20111202-5190 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2011 4:46:13 PM 1 unutilized capacity are discussed in Statements E and G, and the data underlying the 2 calculation of the amount of unutilized capacity is presented in Statement D. Fourth, 3 crude oil exchanges and other forms of crude oil trading allows potential shippers on the 4 Reversed Seaway Pipeline in both its origin and destination markets to use all of the 5 Reversed Seaway Pipeline's competitors. Fifth, all of the Reversed Seaway Pipeline's 6 potential shippers are experienced and knowledgeable oil industry participants, which 7 implies that these shippers would have knowledge of and access to all of the 8 competitive options identified here. These five pro-competitive factors are discussed in 9 more detail below. ·· II. The U.S. Department of Justice's Analysis of the U.S. Crude Oil Pipeline Industry 10 The competitiveness of the markets served by crude oil pipelines was evaluated ( ( 11 by the DOJ in the DOJ Deregulation Study. The DOJ Study's purpose was to determine 12 whether individual oil pipeline companies faced sufficient competition in all the markets 13 they served to completely deregulate these oil pipeline companies. This is a much 14 greater lessening of regulatory constraints than would occur if a pipeline were allowed to 15 charge market-based rates subject to ongoing Commission oversight. The DOJ study 16 reached the following conclusion regarding crude oil pipelines: "The Department 17 recommends that all existing crude oil pipelines [excluding the Trans Alaska Pipeline 2 18 System] be deregulated." The DOJ elaborated on the 19 2 DOJ DEREGULATION STUDY at 62. ( ( H-2 20111202-5190 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2011 4:46:13 PM 1 reasons why it concluded that all the existing lower-48 crude oil pipelines could be 2 safely deregulated as follows: 3 The Department has not identified any crude pipeline that presents a clear 4 case for continued federal regulations. In addition, there are theoretical s considerations that tend to lessen the need for the continued federal 6 regulation of crude pipelines. Crude production and crude refining are 7 activities that feature fewer participants and larger investments than those 8 in product marketing. Thus, crude origin and destination markets are 9 more likely to exhibit characteristics that either mitigate the exercise of 10 market power or undercut the effectiveness of regulation. These 11 characteristics, which include vertical integration, bilateral exchange, and 12 bottlenecks elsewhere in the vertical supply chain, weaken the justification 13 for continued federal regulation of crude oil pipelines. 3 Ill. The Reversed Seaway Pipeline Is a New Entrant Pipeline. 14 The Reversed Seaway Pipeline is a new entrant with service expected to begin :s during the second quarter of 2012 with a capacity of 150 MBD, and, by early 2013, its ( __ 16 capacity will be increased to 375 MBD. The fact that the Reversed Seaway Pipeline is a 17 new entrant should be a sufficient reason to grant it the authority to charge market- 18 based rates. The Reversed Seaway Pipeline's potential shippers have existing 19 alternative means of transporting crude oil from the Reversed Seaway Pipeline's origin 20 market and/or supplying crude oil to the Reversed Seaway Pipeline's destination 21 market; namely, the means of transport they are now using before the Reversed 22 Seaway Pipeline begins service potentially during the second quarter of 2012. The 23 Reversed Seaway Pipeline has to offer a more attractive option to its shippers to get 24 them to use the Reversed Seaway Pipeline instead of whatever means these shippers 25 are currently using. 3 /d. at 62-64. H-3 20111202-5190 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2011 4:46:13 PM ;.-- In its 1986 DOJ Deregulation Study, the DOJ concluded that a new oil pipeline, ( (~ / 2 such as the Reversed Seaway Pipeline, could be safely deregulated independent of the 3 extent of competition that existed in the market that it served.4 Granting the Reversed 4 Seaway Pipeline the authority to charge market-based rates gives it much less 5 autonomy than it would have under complete deregulation, because the Commission 6 would continue to exercise regulatory authority over the Reversed Seaway Pipeline and 7 maintain the ability to rescind market-based rates if necessary. Therefore, there is 8 much less risk involved in granting the Reversed Seaway Pipeline market-based rate 9 authority than would be involved in deregulation. 10 The DOJ further concluded that "no newly built oil pipeline be federally regulated 11 because regulation is not needed in order to prevent economically inefficient behavior / 12 by new oil pipelines."5 While the DOJ concluded that neither new crude oil pipelines nor ( ( \ 13 new product pipelines should be federally regulated, it concluded that the reasons for 14 not regulating new crude oil pipelines were stronger because "the regulation of new 15 crude pipelines in particular can impose significant and costly resource allocation 16 distortions."6 Therefore, the DOJ Study's conclusions would support the deregulation of 17 all the crude oil pipelines, and all new entrant oil pipelines, and, thereby, also supports 18 the FERC granting the Reversed Seaway Pipeline the authority to charge market-based 19 rates since it is both a crude oil pipeline and a new entrant pipeline. 4 /d. at 143-44. 5 /d. at 143. 6 /d. at xv. H-4 20111202-5190 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/2/2011 4:46:13 PM c·- IV. The Availability of Unutilized Capacity Held By the Reversed Seaway "- Pipeline's Competitors 1 The amount of excess (unused) capacity held by the Reversed Seaway 2 Pipeline's competitors in both its origin and destination markets is analyzed in 3 Statement G, Tables G.3 and G.7 for the Gulf Coast Destination Market and Table G.16 4 for the Cushing Origin Market. For the Houston to Lake Charles Area definition of the 5 Gulf Coast Destination Market, the excess capacity held by others is 5. 78 times the 6 estimated deliveries by the Reversed Seaway Pipeline. For the Cushing Origin Market, 7 the excess capacity held by others is 4.45 times the estimated receipts by the Reversed 8 Seaway Pipeline when the market size is measured by local crude oil production only, 9 and 1.34 times the estimated receipts by the Reversed Seaway Pipeline when the ( -- 10 market size is measured by local crude oil production plus deliveries of crude oil to the origin market from remote production areas. 7 In both its destination and origin markets, ""---- 11 12 the excess capacity held by the Reversed Seaway Pipeline's competitors is more than 13 sufficient to replace all of the Reversed Seaway Pipeline's deliveries to its destination 14 market or its receipts in its origin market. 15 Regarding the excess capacity at the Gulf Coast dock facilities, the data needed 16 to calculate the amount of calculate the amount of unutilized dock facility capacity is 17 produced in Statement Din Tables D.8 and D.9. Table H.1. below presents a 18 7 Since the Reversed Seaway Pipeline is not yet operating, its receipts are estimated to be 90% of its 375 MBD capacity which equals 337.5 MBD.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Regulation of Access to Oil Pipelines 777
    REGULATION OF ACCESS TO OIL PIPELINES 777 THE NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD: REGULATION OF ACCESS TO OIL PIPELINES JENNIFER HOCKING* In the past few years, a number of long-distance oil pipelines have been proposed in Canada — Northern Gateway, the Trans Mountain Expansion, Keystone, and the Energy East Project. This article describes the criteria used by the National Energy Board in approving the allocation of capacity in oil pipelines to firm service contracts while requiring that a reasonable percentage of capacity is allocated for uncommitted volumes (common carriage). It explains the economic theory related to regulation of access to major oil pipelines. It reviews and analyzes relevant NEB decisions, which show that the NEB supports well- functioning competitive markets, but will exercise its discretion to resolve complaints where markets are not functioning properly. The article also explains the economic significance of the proposed long-distance oil pipelines to Canada and Alberta despite the current low price of crude oil. The article concludes with recommendations for a written NEB policy regarding access to capacity in oil pipelines. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. SIGNIFICANCE OF PROPOSED OIL PIPELINES TO THE CANADIAN ECONOMY ................................. 778 A. PIPELINES NEEDED DESPITE LOW PRICE OF OIL ............... 780 B. SHIPPING OF OIL BY RAIL ................................ 781 II. OIL PIPELINES AS COMMON CARRIERS ........................... 781 A. THE NATURE OF COMMON CARRIERS ....................... 781 B. COMMON CARRIAGE OBLIGATION SUBJECT TO REASONABLENESS TEST ............................... 783 C. WHY WERE OIL PIPELINES ORIGINALLY DESIGNATED AS COMMON CARRIERS? ................................. 784 III. MAJOR LONG-DISTANCE OIL PIPELINES TODAY ................... 785 A. ENBRIDGE PIPELINES .................................... 786 B. TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE .............................. 787 C. SPECTRA ENERGY EXPRESS-PLATTE .......................
    [Show full text]
  • Concerns Regarding Tar Sand Crude and the Proposed Seaway Pipeline
    Concerns Regarding Tar Sand Crude and the Proposed Seaway Pipeline DFW Water Supplies Threatened Submitted by Seaway - A Pipeline of Poison The Enbridge Seaway pipeline is slated to start operations June 2012. It will reverse a 36-year old pipeline to carry bitumen crude from Cushing to the Gulf coast. Concerns regarding the Seaway include the following: • Dilbit is far more toxic -- and explosive than conventional crude. • Pipeline transports highly pressurized, acidic and corrosive material making pipes susceptible to rupture. • Aging pipeline is 36 years old. • Dilbit spill threatens DFW water supplies and their tributaries with proprietary material that is difficult, if not impossible to clean up. • Tar sand crude will increase U.S. oil costs 2-4 billion dollars. • Tar sand is meant for export, not to decrease our dependency on foreign oil. • Lack of oversight demands both federal and state agency intervention. Seaway Tar Sand Pipeline is Coming to DFW On November 16, 2011, Enbridge Inc. announced the purchase of a 50% share of the 670-mile Seaway Crude Pipeline System. Enterprise Products Partners L.P. will continue to own the other 50% of Seaway and will operate the system. The Seaway is an existing crude oil transportation network, originally built for natural gas, that includes a 500-mile segment from Freeport, Texas to Cushing, Oklahoma. Seaway will be reversed to carry diluted bitumen from Cushing to the vast refinery complex near Houston and the Texas City Terminal. Anticipating the pipeline’s reversed service as early as June 2012, the change from its current feedstock to the more viscous bitumen will result in a reduced throughput of 350,000 to 150,000 barrels per day.
    [Show full text]
  • Enbridge Inc. First Quarter Interim Report to Shareholders for the Three Months Ended March 31, 2015
    Enbridge Inc. First Quarter Interim Report to Shareholders For the three months ended March 31, 2015 NEWS RELEASE Enbridge reports first quarter adjusted earnings of $468 million or $0.56 per common share HIGHLIGHTS (all financial figures are unaudited and in Canadian dollars unless otherwise noted) First quarter loss was $383 million, including the impact of net unrealized non-cash mark-to-market losses First quarter adjusted earnings were $468 million or $0.56 per common share Expansion of the Canadian Mainline system between Edmonton and Hardisty placed into service in April Enbridge delivered a formal proposal to transfer the majority of its Canadian Liquids Pipelines business and certain renewable energy assets to Enbridge Income Fund Enbridge announced a plan to optimize previously announced expansions of its Regional Oil Sands System Enbridge announced it will build, own and operate the Stampede Oil Pipeline to the planned Stampede development in the Gulf of Mexico Effective March 1,2015, Enbridge quarterly common share dividend increased by 33% over the last year to an annual rate of $1.86 per share CALGARY, ALBERTA – May 6, 2015 – Enbridge Inc. (Enbridge or the Company) (TSX:ENB) (NYSE:ENB) – “Enbridge delivered a solid first quarter of 2015, reflecting a combination of strong asset performance and the ongoing successful execution of our growth capital program,” said Al Monaco, President and Chief Executive Officer. “Adjusted earnings for the first quarter of 2015 were $468 million or $0.56 per common share. “Our results were in line with our expectations, and we remain on track to deliver full year adjusted earnings per share within our guidance range of $2.05 to $2.35,” Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Enbridge Line 3 Replacement Project Market Analysis
    Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Application Submitted to the NEB Line 3 Replacement Program Appendix 10-3 ENBRIDGE LINE 3 REPLACEMENT PROJECT MARKET ANALYSIS October 2014 15455 Dallas Parkway Level 58 Republic Plaza Tower 42 Suite 350 One City Centre 9 Raffles Place 25 Old Broad Street Addison, TX 75001-4690 1021 Main Street, Suite 1560 Singapore 048619 London EC2N 1HN Phone: 214-954-4455 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: 65-6832-1341 United Kingdom Phone: 713-890-1182 Fax: 214-954-1521 Fax: 65-6832-1491 Phone: 44-0-207-374-8994 Fax: 214-954-1521 Page 1 of 33 Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Application Submitted to the NEB Line 3 Replacement Program Appendix 10-3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................... 5 CRUDE OIL MARKET OVERVIEW .................................................................... 8 UPPER MIDWEST ......................................................................................... 9 LOWER MIDWEST ....................................................................................... 10 ONTARIO / QUEBEC .................................................................................... 12 MID-CONTINENT .......................................................................................... 13 GULF COAST ............................................................................................... 14 DESCRIPTION OF ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY ........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Seaway Crude, Opinion No. 546 -ORDER on INITIAL DECISION ON
    154 FERC ¶ 61,070 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Seaway Crude Pipeline Company LLC Docket No. IS12-226-002 OPINION NO. 546 ORDER ON INITIAL DECISION ON REMAND (Issued: February 1, 2016 ) Docket No. IS12-226-002 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Background ............................................................................................................................. 5 II. Are Seaway’s Committed Shipper Rates at Issue? ................................................................. 6 A. Committed Shipper Rates ................................................................................................... 6 1. The Independence of a Presiding Administrative Law Judge .................................... 11 2. Remand Authority ...................................................................................................... 16 3. Review of Committed Rates ....................................................................................... 18 4. Criticisms of the Commission’s Impartiality.............................................................. 27 B. Commission Determination .............................................................................................. 27 III. What is the Appropriate Rate Period or Periods? ............................................................. 28 A. Commission Determination .............................................................................................. 30 IV. What Rate Methodology Should be Utilized? .................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Enbridge Profile
    Out on the Tar Sands Mainline Mapping Enbridge’s Web of Pipelines A Corporate Profile of Pipeline Company Enbridge By Richard Girard, Polaris Institute Research Coordinator with Contributions from Tanya Roberts Davis Out on the Tar Sands Mainline: Mapping Enbridge’s Dirty Web of Pipelines May 2010 (partially updated, March 2012). The Polaris Institute The Polaris Institute is a public interest research and advocacy organization based in Canada. Since 1999 Polaris has been dedicated to developing tools and strategies for civic action on major public policy issues, including energy security, water rights and free trade. Polaris Institute 180 Metcalf Street, Suite 500 Ottawa, ON K2P 1P5 Phone : 613-237-1717 Fax: 613-237-3359 Email: [email protected] www.polarisinstitute.org For more information on the Polaris Institute’s energy campaign please visit www.tarsandswatch.org Table of Contents Foreword ......................................................................................................................... iv Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................3 1. Organizational Profile ...................................................................................................5 1.1 Enbridge’s Business Structure ....................................................................................5 1.1.1 Liquids
    [Show full text]
  • Enbridge Over Troubled Water the Enbridge Gxl System’S Threat to the Great Lakes
    ENBRIDGE OVER TROUBLED WATER THE ENBRIDGE GXL SYSTEM’S THREAT TO THE GREAT LAKES WRITING TEAM: KENNY BRUNO, CATHY COLLENTINE, DOUG HAYES, JIM MURPHY, PAUL BLACKBURN, ANDY PEARSON, ANTHONY SWIFT, WINONA LADUKE, ELIZABETH WARD, CARL WHITING PHOTO CREDIT: SEAWIFS PROJECT, NASA/GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER, AND ORBIMAGE ENBRIDGE OVER TROUBLED WATER The Enbridge GXL System’s Threat to the Great Lakes A B ENBRIDGE OVER TROUBLED WATER The Enbridge GXL System’s Threat to the Great Lakes ENBRIDGE OVER TROUBLED WATER THE ENBRIDGE GXL SYSTEM’S THREAT TO THE GREAT LAKES TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE . 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . 4 DOUBLE CROSS — ­ENBRIDGE’S SCHEME TO EXPAND TRANSBORDER TAR SANDS OIL FLOW WITHOUT PUBLIC OVERSIGHT . 6 CASE STUDY IN SEGMENTATION: FLANAGAN SOUTH . 8 THREAT TO THE HEARTLAND: WISCONSIN THE TAR SANDS ARTERY . 9 ENBRIDGE’S “KEYSTONE KOPS” FOUL THE KALAMAZOO . 11 TAR SANDS INVASION OF THE EAST . 1 3 “THE WORST POSSIBLE PLACE” — LINE 5 AND THE STRAITS OF MACKINAC . 1 4 OF WILD RICE AND FRACKED OIL — THE SANDPIPER PIPELINE . 18 ABANDONMENT: ENBRIDGE LINE 3 MACHINATIONS . 21 NORTHERN GATEWAY . 23 CONCLUSIONS . 24 TAR SANDS MINING IN ALBERTA CANADA. PHOTO CREDIT: NIKO TAVERNISE PREFACE If you drive a car in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois or Michigan, chances are there’s tar sands in your tank. That fuel probably comes to you courtesy of Canada’s largest pipeline company, Enbridge. This report tells the story of that company and its system of oil pipelines in the Great Lakes region. TAR SANDS OIL refers to a class of crude oils that Before there was Keystone, there was the Lakehead System.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Refiners Don't Care If Keystone Gets Built Railroads and Rival Pipeline Firms Are Making the Keystone Pipeline Less Necessary
    U.S. Refiners Don't Care if Keystone Gets Built Railroads and Rival Pipeline Firms Are Making the Keystone Pipeline Less Necessary. By Ben Lefebvre Sept. 4, 2013 U.S. companies that refine oil increasingly doubt that the controversial Keystone XL pipeline expansion will ever be built, and now they don't particularly care. Railroads are carrying soaring amounts of crude from Canada down to refineries along the U.S. Gulf Coast, reducing the need for the TransCanada Corp.TRP.T +0.46% project, which is still awaiting approval from the U.S. government after two years of delays. Meanwhile, a rival pipeline company, Enbridge Inc., ENB.T -0.09% is expanding existing pipes to carry Canadian crude south—and it doesn't need federal permission because it's using existing pipeline rights of way. In addition, so much oil is sloshing around the U.S. from its own wells that refiners don't need lots more heavy crude from the north to keep busy. "Keystone XL has been back-burnered for so long that any relevant parties have been able to make plans as though the project never even existed in the first place," says Sam Margolin, an analyst at Cowen & Co. TransCanada designed the proposed conduit to ship 830,000 barrels a day of heavy crude from western Canada, as well as lighter-grade oil from North Dakota shale fields, to the U.S. refining complex along the Gulf of Mexico. The cross-border Keystone project, billed as a way to reduce heavy oil imports from Venezuela and Mexico, requires a permit from the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Liquids Pipelines Customer Handbook
    Enbridge Pipelines Inc. 200, 425 – 1st Street S.W. 2020 Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 3L8 Telephone: 403-231-3900 enbridge.com/customerhandbook Liquids Pipelines Customer Handbook Enbridge Liquids Pipelines Customer Handbook February 2020 How to reach us c How to reach us d Table of Contents 1 President’s Message 2 Meeting the Needs of Our Customers 4 North American Supply Projection 6 The Enbridge Mainline 6 Mainline System Capacity 7 Recent Expansions 10 System Optimization 11 Mainline Tolls 12 Oil Sands Infrastructure 12 Existing 13 Development 14 Market Access 14 Eastern Access 15 Southern Access Extension 16 Spearhead Pipeline 18 U.S. Gulf Coast Access 20 Express/Platte 21 Bakken Infrastructure 22 Non-Regulated Contract Terminals 25 Diluent Access 26 Pipeline System Configuration 27 Oil Sands Regional System Configuration 28 Maps • Commodity Movement Map • Athabasca Major Pipelines • Major Canadian and U.S. Forward-looking Information Crude Oil Pipelines and Refineries This booklet includes references to forward-looking information. Although Enbridge believes these forward-looking statements are reasonable, based on the information available on the date such statements are made, they are not guarantees of future performance or outcomes. Life Takes Energy The Energy You Count On, 1 the Reliability You Expect At Enbridge, we exist to help fuel the further mainline optimizations, and of course Vern Yu our largest project, the US portion of the Line quality of life for millions of people across President, 3 Replacement project. The expansion of the Liquids Pipelines, Dakota Access Pipeline and completion of the Gray Oak Pipeline will provide North America. We are North America’s Enbridge Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 ENB Q2 Report.Pdf
    Enbridge Inc. ENB Second Quarter Interim Report to Shareholders For the six months ended June 30, 2014 HIGHLIGHTS (all financial figures are unaudited and in Canadian dollars unless otherwise noted) Second quarter earnings were $756 million and six months earnings were $1,146 million, both including the impact of net unrealized non-cash mark-to-market gains and losses Second quarter and six months adjusted earnings were $328 million and $820 million, respectively, or $0.40 and $1.00 per common share, respectively Enbridge Inc. and Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. announced an equity restructuring involving the General Partner’s incentive distributions rights within Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. Enbridge Inc. continued to execute its long-term funding plan and raised approximately $3.3 billion since the end of the first quarter through a combination of debt and equity issuances Marathon Petroleum Corporation named anchor shipper and equity partner in the US$0.9 billion Southern Access Extension Project, and will fund 35% of the project Ontario Energy Board approved Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. five-year incentive rate application Northern Gateway Project approved by the Government of Canada, subject to conditions CALGARY, ALBERTA – August 1, 2014 – Enbridge Inc. (Enbridge or the Company) (TSX:ENB) (NYSE:ENB) – “Earnings for the first half of this year are in line with our expectations and our full year adjusted earnings per share guidance of $1.84 to $2.04 per share,” said Al Monaco, President and Chief Executive Officer. “More broadly, we are keenly focused on the implementation of our strategic plan and on our key priorities of safety and operational reliability, execution of our growth projects and extending and diversifying our growth beyond 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • Enbridge Inc. ENB Annual Report
    Enbridge Inc. ENB Annual Report Can energy be transported safely? “While we have a strong safety record delivering energy, that is not good enough for us. We believe all incidents can be prevented and we’re investing billions of dollars to work towards that goal.” Cynthia Hansen, Senior Vice President, Enterprise Safety & Operational Reliability ↳ Page 6 How is Enbridge growing? “We’re currently working on $36 billion in commercially secured growth projects, and every single one of our businesses is growing—from liquids and gas pipelines to renewable power generation to gas distribution.” Byron Neiles, Senior Vice President, Major Projects ↳ Page 9 How is Enbridge preparing for the future of energy? “We’re investing in renewable and alternative energy technologies that provide attractive returns to our investors while reducing our carbon footprint.” Don Thompson, Vice President, Green Power and Transmission ↳ Page 17 WhyshouldIinvestinEnbridge? “We’ve consistently delivered industry-leading returns to our shareholders, and with our significant secured growth opportunities, we’re confident we’ll continue to do so for many years to come.” Adam McKnight, Director, Investor Relations ↳ Page 23 2013 ET An Energy Transformation 2013 Awards and Recognition North America is in the midst of a ↳Page34 transformation in the way energy is produced, transported and Management’s Discussion & Analysis used. Enbridge is deeply involved ↳Page36 in this shift. Consolidated Financial Statements ↳Page3 ↳Page121 G+E Growth + Execution Notes to the Consolidated Financial Excellence in project execution Statements is critical to capturing growth ↳Page126 opportunities across all of Enbridge’s businesses. Glossary ↳Page9 ↳Page181 R+I Renewables + Innovation Five-Year Consolidated Highlights Society needs all forms of energy ↳Page182 and Enbridge is playing a major role in that evolving energy mix.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 1 to Semi/Sepp 1.1
    < APPENDIX 1 TO SEMI/SEPP 1.1 / { \ . ' ATTACHMENT 1 lETIER OF COMMENT HMRIN!3 QRQ~R OH.·l-~99~ KINDER4'MOROAN ( r•·•·• Clotli<O"' IMC. Filed Electronically July '30, 2009 · National Energy Board 444 Seventh Avenue S.W. Calgary, AB T2P OX8 . Attention: Ms. Claudine Dutil~Berry, Board Secretary Dear Madam: Re: Hearing Order OH-1-2009' Keystone XL Pipeline Application Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. Filing Material Enclosed for filing with the National Ene~gy Board ("NEB") is Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. ("Kinder Morgan")'s Letter of Comment respecting TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP .Ltd/s Keystone XL Pipeline Application. Kinder Morgan is filing this document c electronically by placing it in the NEB's electronic filing repository, Yours truly, r ~org. ~~··C. an~~a Inc•. ~l ..J ~~~/ At:JitAt~· lD. Scott S·~~~es~- , , ; . V .P. Regulatory and Finance cc, OH-1-2009 List of Parties Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. Suite 2700, 300 - 5th Avenue SW, Calgary, AB T2P ·5J2 Phone: (800) 5~5-7219 Fax: (403) 514-6401 www.kindermorgan.com •' / Kinder Morgan can3da Inc. Letter of Comment Heanng Order OH-1-2009 ( Pagel ) / KINDER MORGAN CANADA INC. ·LETTER OF COMMENT HEARING ORDER OH-1-2009 KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE APPLICATION J1,1ly 30, 2009 To: The Secretary National Energy Board 444- 7th Avenue S.W. Calgary, AB T2P OX8 Background· 1. ·On February 27, 2009, TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd. ("Keystone") applied to the National Energy Board (the "NEB") for ce~cati.on approving: the construction of pipeline from Hardisty, AB to Monchy, SK (the ."XL Pipeline"); and a ·tolling mechanism charging contract shippers with tolls varying by term and Spot shippers with tolls baSed on a maximum of the 10 year contracted toll plus 20%.1 ) 2.
    [Show full text]