En bridge Northern Gateway Project

Joint ReviePa!,eI

Letter of Comment -

Contact information and written comments will be placed on the public registry for this project.

Hard copy filings may be made by mail, courier, hand delivery or fax at the address below:

Joint Review Panel - Enbridge Northern Gateway Project444 Seventh Avenue SW., 2nd floor mailroomCalgary, Alberta T2P 0X8

Facsimile: (403) 292-5503, or toll free at 1-877-288-8803

Date: rn4.--e 2.. 2 c I 2

Contact InformationName:

K

r Address:R

Title (Optional): City:4/Q_(( n(c::c

Organization Province:(Optional): (3?

Telephone: Postal Code: v ci j 14 0

Facsimile: Email:d

Please ensure that your letter of comment includes:

. the nature of your interest in the application

• comments on the application• any relevant information that will explain or support your comments

CommentsAttach additional pages if necessary.

C/ c/

‘‘ Canadi 1+1 dEnVronnlcnt1

OF-Fac-OiI-N304-2010-01O1

TEN-MINUTE PRESENTATION: GRANDE PRAIRE March 28/2012

GRANDE PRAIRIE: Quality Hotel and Conference Center, 11 201, Ai 1 00th Ave. at 2:00 pmMT time & 1 pm FSJ time. Ken Forest. presenter. kforest@bluenova.ca

Panel Members: Ms. Sheila Leggett: Biologist, National Energy Board

Ken Bateman: Energy Lawyer

Hans Matthews: Geologist/Business management

Thank you for listening. At my personal expense, I spent 3 hours driving fromCharlie Lake near Ft. St. John BC to be here for this very brief opportunity tospeak to you. I will spend three hours driving home to the best place ever.

Please know: I am against the Enbridge pipeline. I believe it will create anincentive to built the Site C dam on the Peace River, thus denying most ofnorthern BC’s potential market garden food supply.

1 My background for this brief is backed by credibility & Integrity

• Some years ago, concurrent with my mountaineering, rock climbing andwhite water canoeing experiences near Calgary AB, I became interestedin science:

• I attended the U of Calgary, where I obtained a Biology chemistrydegree; & later I attended Simon Fraser U. in BC where I obtained aMasters degree in Educational leadership.

• My wife, Darby, and I moved from Calgary to the Peace Country,attracted by the river valley and the entrepreneurial energetic andfriendly community.

• In the Peace, I developed & pioneered an Outdoor Education LearningSite at Cameron Lake, and its curriculum for local School District’sstudents.

• My wife and I have now raised a family while hand- building a log homeoverlooking the banks of the Peace River

• In 1989 I Received an Award: The Medal of Bravery, from Canada’s thenGov. Gen. Jeanne Sauve at Rideau Hall, Ottawa

• I am currently a Peace Valley Environment Association Director

• Over the years, I have worked as: Paramedic, a Medical researcher inrenal physiology at Foothills Medical school, a Biology/chemistryteacher, an elementary and secondary School Principal, & a Facultyassociate for Simon Fraser University and for the University of Victoria.

4 How does this proposal affect me and my community?

GENERALLY

- This Enbridge cumulative-impact connection exemplifies thedifficulty with Enbridge’s business centered money & profitapproach over other equally or more important Northern andCanadian needs and values.

- This potential pipeline will subvert the interests of stewardship andsustainability by exacerbating the exploitation of our commonCanadian resources and compromising the long-term welfare ofnorthern BC’s future generations.

- Many Peace area residents would not benefit from this pipeline.They would, in fact, be hurt by it.

SPECIFICALLY

- Flooding the Peace valley threatens our northern community’sfuture market garden food supply. The unique geography of thePeace Valley contains nearly 20% of BC’s class one and twoagricultural soil capable of growing corn, tomatoes, apples andcantaloupes. With peak oil and accelerating climate change,northern food production will, in the future, be both necessaryand critical for quality of life, and even survival.

- Flooding over 5000 acres of class one and two soil in the Peacevalley for electrical power (to foster fossil-fuel production andtransport) would forever condemn northern residents to importfood.

- Building Site C would cause Peace valley homes and families to bebulldozed, burned or flooded out, with resident’s livelihoods,compromised. The flood reserve on the Peace must be lifted.

Flooding a valley cannot be mitigated.

It is for these reasons that

I FEEL THAT THE PANEL SHOULD NOT RECOMMEND THE ENBRIDGEPIPELINE PROJECT.

2 My belief & understanding of the Enbridge pipeline is that it is NOT in thepublic Interest of Northern BC. That is:

• I feel that the Enbridge pipeline (from a cumulative impact prospective)is in part, a threat to BC’s Peace River & Peace valley, the Peace area ‘smarket-garden food production capability, wildlife genetic diversity, andPeace River hundred-year old pioneer farms & ranches including theirheritage and their livelihoods.

3 Why & how do I link the proposed Enbridge pipeline with my concerns forthe Peace?

• [At the end, I will provide sources in support of these linkagestatementsj

- First: The BC government’s and BC Hydro have an incentive tobuild the Site C dam on the Peace River. The incentive is createdby the opportunity to send more than half of the powergenerated by the proposed Site C dam on the Peace River to theHome River Basin of North East BC.

- Second: If produced, electrical power from Site C would enable theextraction, processing, and transport of Home River natural gas,to go to the Alberta Tar sands at Ft. McMurray.

- Third: Home River natural gas would supply a significant amountof the energy needed to increase, by a third to a half, thebitumen supply for the proposed Enbridge Pipeline.

- So: If the pipeline is not built, the demand for tar sands bitumenfor West Coast transport to Asia, will be diminished. And itfollows that much of the incentive to build Site C will be also bediminished.

- A decrease in incentive for construction of the pipeline could deterSite C construction.

- That is: The northern location of Site C makes it attractive forsupplying firm power to facilitate gas extraction, processing andtransport of natural gas to the tar sands. If Enbridge is not built,a major incentive to build Site C dam and to flood 1 00 km of thePeace Valley and its tributaries is removed.

• Sources which indicate connections between Site C Dam. HomeRiver gas, Bitumen production from the Alberta Tar Sands. andthe Enbridge Pipeline are as follow: [THE LINKS]

(Senator Richard Neufeld, Minutes from Fort St. John counsel briefing,Feb. 08 201 0) Former BC Energy Minister Neufeld, indicated publically at Ft. St.City Hall, that Site C was of prime importance to deliver 500 mw of the then 900mw of power to the Home River Basin for methane gas production. Site C energyproduction forecast has now increased to 1 100 mw.

(BC Hydro 2008 Long Term Acquisition Plan, Evidentiary Update,Attachment 3) states that: The potential exists for significant electric load growthin the greater Ft. Nelson Horn River Basin area within the range of 100-350Megawatts by the year 2020. Interconnecting the Fort Nelson region to the BCTCinterconnected system would require a high voltage line, 230 kV to be constructedfrom the Peace River region to Fort Nelson. This line would be approximately 300 kmin length. Line cost is $403 million (in 201 3 dollars). BC Hydro is investigatingcommercial and industrial end uses of electricity within the Northeastern B.C. oil andgas sector. As the design of the BCTC Bi has not yet been established, its sizecontinues to be flexible and would be established at a later date.

• (Oil and Gas Inquirer, Vol. 22, No. 1, January 2010). The oil and gasindustry wants to send (sic) natural gas east to Fort McMurray to make steam toextract oil from the Alberta tar sands

• (North American Oil & Gas Pipelines: Horn River Mainline Project, 2011,Brad Kramer.) Location: British Columbia, AlbertaProduct: NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL), a subsidiary of TransCanadaOverview: In response to the rapidly increasing development of natural gasproduction from the northeastern British Columbia shale basins, NGTL proposes toextend its Alberta System to transport sweet natural gas from the Horn River, B.C.,area to a tie-in point on the existing Northwest Mainline of the Alberta System. Thisextension of the Alberta System will involve three components: One, the acquisitionof the Encana Ekwan Pipeline, which is anticipated to be effective fourth quarter2011. Two, the construction of the Horn River Mainline (Cabin Section), which isapproximately 72 km of 36-in, diameter pipeline and related metering and valvefacilities running from a point on the Ekwan Pipeline, north to a natural gasprocessing facility in the Cabin, B.C., area. And three, the construction of the KomieEast Extension, which will consist of approximately 2.5 km of up to 24-in, pipe andrelated metering and valve facilities.

• (Oil & Gas Financial Journal, Oct. 01, 2011) The Horn River Basin shale play islocated in northeast British Columbia and is a relatively new natural gas discovery. Itis the largest known shale gas field in Canada. A large number of mostly Canadianand American companies have been busy obtaining leases in the Horn River area, anda 36-inch pipeline is being built to transport natural gas from this remote area to atie-in point on TransCanada’s existing Alberta System.

Experts estimate there is about 250 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of natural gas in thefield, of which 10% to 20% is recoverable. Another emerging shale play in BritishColumbia, just south of the Horn River shale, is the Montney shale, which isestimated to hold up to 50 tcf of gas reserves and extends east into Alberta.

• (Arthur Caldicott, Energy and Mining Analyst, Watershed Sentinel, June04, 2010) New Site C “clean energy dam will be connected to coal and gas miningoperations in Northern BC. The new Site C dam “being billed by the provincialgovernment as clean energy” will be used to produce more natural gas through theNortheast transmission line. Some of it (the natural gas) is inevitably going to endup in the tar sands cooking bitumen out of the sand, and more of it will be exportedto Asia”.

• (Paul Wells, Daily Oil Bulletin, Nov. 09, 2011) Due to it’s geographicallocation Nexen Inc. market manager believes BC Horn River producers should supplytheir demand for natural gas through TransCanada Corporation’s North CentralCorridor Pipeline

• (Canadian Oil Sands: Opportunities and Challenges to 201 5” MarketAssessment National Energy Board (web site: wwwneb-one.gc.ca))conclusion:

- Natural gas requirements for the oil sands industry are projected to increasesubstantially during the projected period from 1 7 million cubic metres (0.6 billioncubic feet) per day in 2003 to a range of 40 to 45 million cubic metres (1 .4 to 1.6billion cubic feet per day in 201 5. In response to higher and more volatile gas prices,producers are seeking ways to reduce their dependence on natural gas as the majorsources of energy and hydrogen for their operations.