8.21(1)(b) Bruce Carson [bacarson@ucalgary ca} ‘Thursday, June 04, 2009 12:44 PM Beale,Mike [NCR], bruce.carson@canadaschool-ee.ca Hamilton, Bob [NCR]; Shugart.lan [NCR] RE: 8G scenario note [Message delivered by Not Link] Original Message: om: "Beale, Mike [Nt ent: Thu, June 04, 0: "Hamilton, Bob [NCR]" , “Shugart, Tan [NCR] " ec.ge.ca> (0&6 scenario note attached is current draft (may be final by now) of the scenario note Hope it's not inconsistent with your reading of things > <<0il nd Gas -- Scenario note SJUNO9.3.doc>> <> 000156s.19(1) MIN-XXXXXX SCENARIO BRIEF MEETING BETWEEN MINISTER PRENTICE AND KEY OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES TIME AND LOCATION Date Friday June 5,2009 Time TBD, (meeting expected to last 45 minutes) Place TBD PARTICIPANTS Environment Canada Jim Prentice, Minister of the Environment Ian Shugart, Deputy Minister Bob Hamilton, Associate Deputy Minister Industry CEOs from leading O&G companies Bruce Carson, Executive Director, Canada School of Energy and Environment, CONTEXT OF MEETING This is a follow-up to the meeting of April 17 in Calgary. Itis envisaged that you will open the meeting with general remarks, and that Bruce Carson will then present on the work of the Oil and Gas Working Group. ANTICIPATED OBsEcTIVEs, OUTCOM DELIVERABLES 8.21(1)(b) To ensure follow-up, it was agreed to establish an Oil and Gas Working Group, chaired by Bruce Carson, and including of CAPP, and the Deputy Ministers of Alberta Environment, Saskatchewan Environment, and Environment Canada. 0001578.21(1)(a) 8.21(1)(b) Good progress has been achieved to date by the Working Group, as set out in the Status Report circulated by Bruce Carson and included in your binder for this meeting. This Status Report has been provided to all participants in advance of the meeting. CONSIDERATIONS 000158Page(s) 000159 to\a 000160 Is(Are) exempted pursuant to section(s) est(sont) exemptée(s) en vertu de(s)(I')article(s) 24(1)(a), 21(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act de la Loi sur I'accés a l'informationPage | of 2 S190) Shafea,Anisa [NCR] From: Bruce Carson [ruce.carson@canadaschool-ee.ca] Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 4:40 PM To: ‘Shugart.lan [NCRJ; Jim Ellis: Liz, Quarshie@gov.sk.ca; @capp.ca; Hamilton,Bob [NCR], Beale, Mike [NCR]; ce: Laviolette Suzanne {NCR}; pam.quinnett@gov sk ca: | ‘@canadaschool-ee.ca; Ladouceur Sylvie [NCR]; Shafea,Anisa [NCR]; @canadaschool-ee.ca ‘Subject: Draft Work Plan for FPIWG ‘Attachments: CAPP_EDMS-#152973-v1-FPIWG_Work_Plan_June_2009.D0C Hello, Bruce was asked to circulate this to the group. He has not had time to read it yet today but wanted you to have it ASAP. for Bruce Carson Executive Director CANADA SCHOOL OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT Address: MS 253 ~ 2500 University Dr. NW, Calgary, AB T2N IN4 Phon 403 220-2200 Fax: 210-7824 CELL: Email: bruce.carson@canadaschool-ee.ca Website: www.canadaschoolofenergy.com Subject:Draft Work Plan for FPIWG Date:Mon, 8 Jun 2009 12:21:07 -0600 From:] @capp.ca> To:Bruce Carson ce: “@capp.ca>, @eapp.ca> Bruce, This is 2 follow up on your discussion with ___ about the FPIWG work plan Attached is a draft outline of the work plan. The last couple of pages pastes workplan elements into the format of the orignal list of issues for discussion as a check that we are covering them off, which we are with the exception of the extension of carbon pricing to broad consumption and how to ensure a nationally coherent system. Please Note / Veuillez noter: ‘This communication is int ded for the person or entity to which it is addressed and Cette communication est reservee a l'usage de la personne a qui elle est adressee et 9/13/2011 votePage 2 of 2 219(1) Bruce Carson Executive Director CANADA SCHOOL oF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT Phone: 403 220-2200 FAX: 403 210-7824 CELL: Email: bruce.carson@canadaschool-ee.ca Website: www.canadaschoolofenergy.com Address: MS2SS 2500 University Drive NW Calgary, AB Canada T2N IN4 9/13/2011 ooot62FPIWG Work Plan Flesh out option “D” for further analysis ‘The option developed for further examination with a view to better understanding economic impacts and environmental results. It is recognized by the Steering Committee that option “D’ has been developed in the particular context of the oil and gas sector; further analysis and discussion would be needed to consider its applicability to other EITE sectors. Work Plan: 1. Fill in the details of the option to allow assessment of cost impacts on industry. * Growth: Accommodated as it occurs (i.e. no overall cap) through free allocation to * Update oil and gas sector range of s 2020 forecasts, .g. use CERA recent work. © Existing facilities: Allocation based on escalating improvement from base year tensity, subject to a minimum performance standard (e.g. 85% of sector average emissions intensity), and multiplied by current production; * Define improvement rates for existing facilities, resulting path of free allocations. = Address base-period issues, use of 3-year average to avoid single year anomalies. "Review “denominator” issues and propose resolution. Assess the range across facilities of emissions/unit of output. ‘Minimum performance standard (see new facilities). © New facilities: Three year start-up/baseline period, after which allocation based on performance standard (e.g. 85% of sector average emissions intensity) multiplied by current production; + Assess alternatives for defining the performance standards for new facilities in each sub-sector. * Carbon price determination: © Technology Fund: Two-tier price, with first tier at greater of, e.g. $15 or average USS. carbon price, and access limited to a percentage of a facility's regulatory obligation, and second tier ‘safety valve” set at equivalent to US safety valve price or a specified amount. * Clarify the rationale for the Technology Fund. * Clarify the rationale for a floor price. * Elaborate the rationale for linking price to the U.S. by formula versus cross-border emission trading, and preliminary view on the linking formula. = Assess alternatives for access limits on Tier 1, and basis of setting the Tier 2 safety valve price. jure 8, 2008 0016s© Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and U‘S. / Foreign Allowances: Access limited to a portion of a facility's regulatory obligation (e.g. 10%). + Assess alternatives for access limits for each of CDM and US. / Foreign Allowances and specific mechanisms for implementing. © Incentives for advancing transformative technology © Governance process and criteria for support from Technology Fund revenues. © Other means of providing incentives: direct government funding, tax measures, other. © Oil and gas sector coverage © Coverage of emissions other than energy use combustion emissions = Assess implications and practicality of coverage of specific other ‘emissions (other than energy use combustion emissions) under cap and trade and alternatives, e.g. along with broad energy use coverage by carbon pricing. © Facility coverage thresholds: ‘+ Assess implications of alternative size thresholds for coverage by the cap and trade system and alternative coverage approaches for emissions from facilities below the threshold, e.g. along with broad energy use coverage ‘by carbon pricing. * Economic analysis and cost curves. © Flesh out details of the analysis. 2. Emission quantification, monitoring, data quality assurance, reporting and compliance system. ‘© Identify a process for developing a design of a single, harmonized Canadian system. © Identify areas of harmonization with the U.S. system. 3. Articulation of the cap and trade system 0 How to position the innovative elements of the Canadian system that differ from the “standard model”: Technology Fund, price link by formula, performance standards and growth accommodation. © On-going thorough assessment and comparison of the Canadian system with Waxman- Markey bill. votesWork Plan in Terms of the Original List of Issues for Discussion 1. Coverage and thresholds a, What should be the threshold for coverage in the oil and gas sector? b. What is the best method of addressing small facili ss? c. How to address flaring, venting and fugitive emissions in upstream oil and gas? Oil and gas sector coverage © Coverage of emissions other than energy use combustion emissions ‘Assess implications and practicality of coverage of specific other emissions (other than energy use combustion emissions) under cap and trade and alternatives, e.g. along with broad energy use coverage by carbon pricing. * Facility coverage thresholds: Assess implications of alternative size thresholds for coverage by the cap and trade system and alternative coverage approaches for emissions from {facilities below the threshold, e.g. along with broad energy use coverage by carbon pricing. d. Over what time frame should coverage of the system be extended to broad use of petroleum products and natural gas? Not addressing. 2. How to accommodate the growth needs of the oil and gas sector within the environmental goals of the framework, e.g. by combining an allocation for new facilities with fixed caps? and 3. Under a fixed cap approach for the industrial (non-electricity) sectors, what approach to allocation should be taken — a common approach across all sectors or something else? and 4, What emissions performance standard should be applied to new oil and gas facilities (e.g. CCS)? Growth: Accommodated as it occurs (i.e. no overall cap) through free allocation to facilities; Update oil and gas sector range of s 2020 forecasts, e.g. use CERA recent work, Free allocation to facilities: © Existing facilities: Allocation based on escalating improvement from base year emissions intensity, subject to a minimum performance standard (e.g. 83% of sector average emissions intensity), and multiplied by current production; Define improvement rates for existing facilities, resulting path of free allocations. Address base-period issues, use of 3-year average to avoid single year anomalies. Review “denominator” issues and propose resolution. Assess the range across facilities of emissions/unit of output. ‘Minimum performance standard (see new facilites). oootss* New facilities: Three year start-up/baseline period, after which allocation based (on performance standard (e.g. 85% of sector average emissions intensity) multiplied by current production; Assess alternatives for defining the performance standards for new facilities in each sub-sector. 5. How should the regulatory framework incent transformative technology investments such as CCS (e.g. through a Technology Fund, bonus credits for stored emissions or something else)? Incentives for advancing transformative technology * Governance process and criteria for support from Technology Fund revenues, ‘© Other means of providing incentives: direct government funding, tax measures, other. 6. What are the pros and cons of different cost containment/price determination measures e.g. a, Technology Fund? b. Government sale of allowances — price set judgementally to be roughly equivalent to (not lower than) a rolling average of US price? c. Linking of Canadian and US allowance and credit markets? d. Degree of access to international market through CDM credits? Carbon price determinatio) © Technology Fund: Two-tier price, with first tier at greater of e.g. $15 or average U.S. carbon price, and access limited to a percentage of a facility's regulatory obligation, and second tier ‘safety valve’ set at equivalent to US safety valve price or a specified amount, Clarify the rationale for the Technology Fund. Clarify the rationale for a floor price. Elaborate the rationale for linking price to the U.S. by formula versus cross- border emission trading, and preliminary view on the iinking formula, Assess alternatives for access limits on Tier 1, and basis of setting the Tier 2 safety valve price. * Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and U.S. / Foreign Allowances: Access limited to a portion of a facility's regulatory obligation (e.g. 10%). Assess alternatives for access limits for each of CDM and USS. / Foreign Allowances and specific mechanisms for implementing. 7. Emission quantification, monitoring, reporting and compliance system a. How best to ensure domestic harmonization and how to move over time to harmonized approach with the US? Emission quantification, monitoring, data quality assurance, reporting and compliance system. © Identify a process for developing a design of a single, harmonized Canadian system. ‘© Identify areas of harmonization with the U.S. system. 8. How best to ensure a nationally coherent cap and trade system? Not addressing. 0016s@ABC Canada CANADA SCHOOL (OF EMERGY AND ENVIRONMENT Bruce Larson Executive Director June 15, 2008 REC'D - DCU - Honourable Jim Prentice Minister, Eavironment Canada Jus G6 2009 10 Wellington Street Gatincau, Queboe KES THS REGU -UCM - MOE Dear Minisyef, wna ‘On behalf of the Canada School of Energy and Environment, thank you for finding time to attend ‘our inangural working conference ("The Search for a Canada - U.S, Climate Change Accord: the Road to Copenhagen and Reyond") in Banff, Alberta, We recognize how difficult itis to carve ‘wo full days out of very busy schedules and we appreciate that you were willing to make it happen. rom the outset, we envisioned putting top decision makers, academies und climate change ‘exper in the same room to inform the development of Canadian policy leading up to the United ‘Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. We were particularly pleased that ralented represcniatives ofthe federal, provincial and territorial governments were able to join industry and academic leaders in Banff. And, although the number of participants grew beyond our ‘original expectations, we firmly believe that the quality of the participants and theiv candid and thoughuful discourse made the conference a resounding success. ‘There is no doubt thatthe fulsome and open dialogue will prove very useful as Cunada develops its climate change policy in the lead-up to Copenhagen in Decsmber. ‘As this was our first event as an institution, we are trying to determine what improvements we ‘can make to ensure that future working conferences are as useful and effective as possible. To thot end, we have attached « confidontil survey und a self-addressed stamped envelope, We ‘would appreciate it if you would provide any ennstructiveertieism or comments that wed assist us in preparing fumure events. AU results are confidential. ‘Thack you auxin for your cutstunding contribution to the Canada School of Energy and Environment and to policy development an the Road te Copenhagen, and boven Sincerely, \ Lon Shey % Aelye 2a Pu. ue qroke Yeo 4 asret a Bruce Carson reste Dieter A Si huglatéeeniy stel Basnernent yw anataschaciofennryy cam MS 255 2500 University Drive NW Calgary, AB TN AINE eovue 403 220-2200 +> 08210-7624 «*» bruce.carson@cenadeschool-ee.ca Chaat ooots7 i tCanada School of Energy and Environment Banff Dialogue Questionnaire 1M 253, 2500 University Dr. NW (Calgary Alberta T2N N46 Fax 1-403-210-7824 Please spend @ moment to tell us what you thought of our inaugural conference. Your Input is valuable to us to ensure we have met your expectations and ta provide insight Into what you would be interested in for our future events, In advance, thank you far your time and consideration. All input is confidential, please return this survey in the ‘envelope we have provided. es ‘wnat ves your observation of the folowing, ‘+ Length of Conference [emma + Speaking duration of the panels Comments: «Tie tama tories | ‘Commer: + Quality and Content of Panel Discussion forthe following Working Seaton &- Cann Py commen + Progress Achleved through discussion? Commer: I ‘+ Overal! Impression of the Conference? “Carers Page tot? oootse‘We at the CSEE would appreciate any additional comments and/or innovative working session suggestions for future conferences and events: Page 2082 oootsePage(s) 000170 to/a 000170 is(are) not relevant n'est(ne sont) pas pertinente(s)Bruce Carson [bacarson@ucalgary.ca] Tuesday, June 16, 2009 8:02 AM Shugart.ian [NCR}; Beale, Mike [NCR]; Hamilton, Bob [NCR] Re: Oil and Gas production and emissions That would be great [Message delivered by NotifyLink] “Original Message- - From: "Shugart, Ian [NCR]" Sent: Tue, June 16, 2009 5:26 AM To: "Beale,Mike [NCR]" , , "Hamilton, Bob [NCR]" Subject: Re: Oil and Gas production and emissions That would be good. 1 Beale, Mike (NCR) "bacarson@ucalgary.ca’ ; Shugart,Tan (NCR]; Hamilton, Bob [NCR] Tue Jun 16 06:25:17 2009 Subject: fw: Oil and Gas production and emissions Bruce, Ian, Bob -~ attached is a doc for the FPING videocon this am. I believe Andy et al will'be sharing Jim et al. Bruce, if you like I can talk briefly to what the Technical Group has been up to in the last few days. Mike Sent from my BlackBerry From: Young, Tony (NCR] To: icapp.ca>; ‘Andy Ridge’ ; @gmail.com; @petro~canada.ca" Ipetro-canada.ca>y Beale, Mike {NCR} Co: Metivier, Louise [NCR]; Jones,Matt [NCR]; Ryan,Helen [NCR]; Pelletier, Patricia [NCR]; Macaluso, Nick [NCR] Sent: Mon Jun 15 20:09:48 2009 Subject: O11 and Gas production and emissions Hi - as discussed, attached is a table showing basic production and emissions trends for the oil and gas Sector that we are carrying in our reference case. Thanks (and if anyone is left off the email list please forward as appropriate). <> 000171zzt000 THe [teow - : 5 E ToL Fort [cvst_ oso] - : : : HORS DATTA THO tom _[st : : : : TORTS HD PUT HO TOL tw [eu [rir _|- : a E ‘Ba PE WOTETOTTRTT, = THOT, we [ove [oe Tse __ | aapora wnaqoneg Tr aor [wee [cor ory [ere [ee rme w__ [rasa wee] west | wen _| vee apeAITT SPURS TIO tir [wer | oor wee foie [var | seer ToRTAPOT WUT TOT Fa [sor pow Tore} oat | ces er ot oF [se pore os _[eu [oo 9 | 9 [car 00 30 0 ET o_o [eer | Tag wT | oi [te [ se fee pet | sor [are fore TeuoHURAUOD THIOL ¥0 ro 0 Fo air [eee foe eee FF TF ot FL a a Te a Tt ve [ee sor [vor [aos [wows a [set free [Foe [reese [ari | Taos | Bio __| Bassong paw wonsaporr ED PAR TO TrUOHTRATOy WoRAPOTA FD PUFTO eo stor [oto | 900 | owe stoz [oraz | oan GAT SUTURE p29 AVE DTD Sia wonaapoag s[pAo"] uonsnpoy pue spUdI], LoFssIUU JOIDIg seE PUP [LOPage't off 8.19 (1) $.21(1)(a) Shafea,Anisa [NCR] s.24(1)(b) From: Bruce Carson [bruce.carson@canadaschool-ee.ca] Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 7:50 PM To: Prentice, Jim MO [NCR]; [NCR]; Shugart,lan [NCR]; Hamilton, Bob [NCR]; Beale, Mike {NCR} '8.14(a) ‘Subject: electricity i met with in his office this afternoon as he told me he has been working with trying to Bruce Carson Executive Director CANADA SCHOOL oF #NERGY AND ENVIRONMENT Phone: 403 220-2200 FAX: 403 210-7824 CELL: Email: bruce.carson@canadaschool-ee, Website: www.canadaschoolofenergy.com Address: MS255 2500 University Drive NW Calgary, AB Canada T2N IN4 9/13/2011 000173,Page’l of 1 3.19 (1) Shafea,Anisa [NCR] Bruce Carson [bruce carson@canadaschool-ee.ca] Wednesday, June 17, 2009 4:22 PM ‘Shugart,lan [NCR]; Jim Elis; Liz. Quarshie@gov.sk.ca; ‘@capp.ca; Hamilton,Bob [NCR]; Beale Mike (NCR) Cc: _Laviolette Suzanne [NCR]; pam.quinnett@gov.sk.ca, ‘@canadaschool-ee.ca; Ladouceur, Sylvie [NCR], Shafea,Anisa [NCR]; @canadaschool-ee ca Subject: Meeting on Tuesday, June 23, Calgary Hello, Bruce asked me to communicate the following: In his opinion the discussion would work better if as many of the group could be at the meeting in person as possible. ‘The meeting will be held at the offices of EnCana, Tuesday, June 23 - time time is 9:30 am to Noon. 1240 in Bankers Hall East Tower. It has video conference, Go to the 12th Floor and use the lobby phone to call Sonja (her extension is 3620 - full # is 403-645-3620) and she will let you in and show you to the meeting room. Thank you, (any replies are set to come to me) for Bruce Carson Executive Director CANADA SCHOOL OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT Address: MS 253-2500 University Dr. NW, Calgary, AB T2N IN4 403 220-2200 Fax: 210-7824 CELL: bruce.carson(@canadaschool-ee.ca Website: www.canadaschoolofenergy.com 9/13/2011 00174Page(s) 000175 to\a 000175 Page(s) 000175 to\a 000175 est(sont) exclue(s) en vertu de(s)(I')article(s) 69(1)(g) re: c,e of the Access to Information Act de la Loi sur I'accés a l'informationPage T oft Shafea,Anisa [NCR] 5.19 (4) From: Bruce Carson [bruce.carson@canadaschoolee. al Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 6:14 PM To: ‘Shugart.lan {NCR]; Hamiton,Bob [NCR]; Beale Mike [NCR]; Liz Quarshie@gov sk.ca; Jim Ets; Subject (Fwd: Meeting Agenda} Attachments: FPIWG June 23.doc please find attached proposed agenda for tomorrows meeting~be jon, 22 Jun 2009 16:06:00 -0600 @uealgary.ca> Beanadaschool-ee.ca ‘anada School of Energy and Environment ‘To:bruce.carson@canadaschool-ee.ca CANADA SCHOOL OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT MS 251 2500 University Dr. NW. Calgary, AB T2N ING Fax: 403-210-7824 Mobile: Email ‘@sanadaschool-ec.ca Website: www.canagascnoolofenergy.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This email message, including any attachments, is intended only for the named recipient(sjand may contain information that is confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this message in error, or are nat the ‘named recipients), please delete immediately. Bruce Carson Executive Director <1-[if tyml]->CANADA SCHOOL oF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT Phone: 403 220-2200 FAX: 403 210-7824 CELL i: ruce.carson@eanadaschool-ee.ca www.canadaschoolofenergy.com 'MS2S5 2500 University Drive NW Calgary, AB Canada T2N IN4 9/13/2011 000176awn Federal Provincial Industry Working Group Meeting Calgary and Ottawa June 23,2008 9:30 am Calgary- EnCana Office 12" Floor, 855 2 St. SW Ottawa- DM's Board Room- Gatineau Introductions-Technology check Summary of progress to date (Chair) Discussion on Chairs Report Introduction and Review of Working Draft Dated June 22, 2009- entitled “Briefing of the FPIWG on Possible Policy Updates for the Oil and Gas Sector” Roundtable Discussion Next Steps In camera Session Adjourn 00017Shafea,Anisa [NCR] Bruce Carson [bacarson@ucalgary.ca] Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:29 PM Beale Mike [NCR] RE: Electricity scenario Thxs (Message delivered by NotifyLink] Original Message~ "Beale, Mike (NCR]" at the electricity "scenario" last Thursday evening Hi Bruce. Attached is our Late n Calgary. We eviously term sheet), reflecting the discussion Mike nave shared with Alber > jo.doc>> ectricity sce: 000178Page(s) 000179 to\a 000180 Is(Are) exempted pursuant to section(s) est(sont) exemptée(s) en vertu de(s)(I')article(s) 24(1)(a), 21(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act de la Loi sur I'accés a l'information$.24(1)(a) $.21(4)(b) Bruce Carson [bacarson@ucalgary ca] Wednesday, July 15, 2009 7:06 PM Hamilton Bob [NCR]; bruce.carson@canadaschool-ee.ca Beaie,Mike [NCR] RE: electricity 8.19 (1) Think the first one could be included [Message delivered by NotifyLink] “Original Message: From: "Hamilton, Bob [NCR]" Wed, July 15, 2009 5:03 Pu To: canadaschool-ee.ca> Cet "Be: e,Mike [NCR]” > Bruce Carson Executive Director CANADA SCHOOL oF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT 403 220-2200 FAX: 403 210-7824 CELL: .e.carson@canadaschool-ce. _weww.canadaschoolofenergy.com Address: MS25S 2500 University Drive NW Calgary, AB Canada T2N IN4 9/13/2011 00182Page(s) 000183 to\a 000190 Is(Are) exempted pursuant to section(s) est(sont) exemptée(s) en vertu de(s)(I')article(s) 24(1)(a), 21(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act de la Loi sur I'accés a l'informationPage T of t 8124(1)(a) 8.21(1)(b) Shafea,Anisa [NCR] 8.19 (1) From: Bruce Carson (bruce carson@canadaschool-ee.cal Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 7:47 PM To: Hamilton,Bob [NCR] Cc: —_Beale,Mike [NCR] ‘Subject: Re: Outline just sent it to folks-looks good to me--be Hamilton,Bob [NCR] wrote: IE you agree this seems reasonable, feel free co Bob Sent using BlackBerry Bruce Carson Executive Director <|~-[if !vml]-->CANADA SCHOOL oF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT Phone: 403 220-2200 FAX: 403 210-7824 \daschoolofenergy.com MS2SS 2500 University Drive NW Calgary, AB Canada T2N IN4 9/13/2011 ooo192Page(s) 000193 to\a 000203 Is(Are) exempted pursuant to section(s) est(sont) exemptée(s) en vertu de(s)(I')article(s) 14(a), 14(b), 21(1)(a), 21(1)(b) of the Access to Information Act de la Loi sur I'accés a l'informationBruce Carson [bacarson@ucalgary ca] ‘Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:20 PM Beale,Mike (NCR] Re: Report Great--not since I have known you:) [Message delivered by NotifyLink] iginal Message~ eale, Mike [NCR]" Tue, July 21, 2009 12:17 PM cbacarson@ucalgary.ca>, "Hamilton, Bob To: ce NCR]" [wer]" Subject: Re: Report Bruce, Mike Sent from my BlackBerry : Bruce Carson ; Sent: Tue Jul 21 11:08:20 2009 Subject: Re: Report Beale, Mike [NCR] wrote: Way to go! Tf it helps, T have included a circulation” on attached. Am now en route, Mike -Original Message~ From: Bruce Carson (mailto: Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5AM <8ob.Hamilton@ec.gc.ca>, “Shugart, Tan ca> Hamilton, Bob [NCR]; Shugart,Tan (NCRI header "draft -- not for calgary around 3 acarson@ucalgary.ca] To: Beale,Mike [NCR]; Hamilton, Bob (NCR]; Shugart,Ian {NCR]; bruc! Subject arson@canadaschool-ee.ca R Report Ok--will do as soon as I get into the office-- for tomorrow: )--be [Message delivered by NotifyLink] getting ready 000204Original Message~- From: "Beale,Mike (NCR]" Sent: Tue, July 21, 2009 6:42 aM Tot , "Hamilton, Bob [NCR]" , “Shugart,Ian (NCR]" Subject: RE: Report, Bruce, I think it's primarily optics -- Bob is now in flight, and asked me to ask you to circ the re! to the WG if you are comfortable with it ed report Mike Original Message Bruce Carson [mailto:bacarson@ucalgary.cal Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 8:18 aM To: Beale,Mixe [NCR]; Hamilton, Bob [NCR]; Shugart,Tan [NCR]? bruce.carson@canadaschool~ee.ca Subject: Re: Report I need someone to explain to me the actual effect or actual differences between what is presently written for option 8 and what is proposing=-be [Message delivered by NotifyLink] Original Message-~ Beale,Mike [NCR] Tue, July 21, 2009 5:20 AM Tor "Hamilton, Bob (NCR]" , "Shugart, Tan [NCR]" Subject: Re: Report ca> , ruce .carson@canadaschcol-es.ca> Sent: Mon Jul 20 23:31:25 2009 Subject: Fw: Report See below. Esp comments re: circulation. I don't think it should go beyond working group and propose to say that to But want to make sure we're all on the same page before I do. Would at least need to confirm with given his comments earlier today. 2 000205Ellis Views? Mike - what do you think about proposed addition? Bob s.19(1) Sent using Blackberry From: @capp.ca> To: Hamilton, Bob [NCR]; bruce. carsonécanadaschool-ee.ca ; ; Liz.Quarshie@gov.sk. Shugart, Ian [NCR] Ge: Beale, Mike [NCR]; icapp.ca> emailte: - tcapp.ca> + @capp.ca> Sent: Mon dul 20 23:24:22 2009 Subject: RE: Report Bob Thanks for picking up most of our comments on the earlier draft. There are two areas where we have outstanding concerns regarding the draft 1) The first is that my earlier feedback regarding Option B does not appear to have been incorporated: "Further to my note on Saturday, I'd Like to propose a change in the manner in which we describe Option B. At our previous FPING meeting, we talked about a standard based on GHG performance (e.g. life cycle to refinery outlet) for competing crudes and natural gas. I believe for purposes of modelling we subsequently elected to use 4 W-M proxy for natural gas and conventional crudes and used a wells-to-tank standard based on competing crudes for oil sands. This is also the manner in which we discussed the option at our meeting on July 17. While this approach is ok for analytical purposes, we should continue to describe the design principle for this option as being a performance standard for all crude oil and natural gas based on GHG emissions for competing alternatives (i.e. don't single out oil sands in the design of the framework)." We would appreciate this revision being incorporated in this version of the report. 2) Tt is important (at least from our perspective) that the commentary on the Options address the issue of competitiveness. We had proposed language in our earlier comments that addressed this issue, but would be open to other wording. We can address the above points in our telecon at Tuesday, or alternatively deal with them via email. 0 pm Calgary on My preference would be to issue the final version of this report to CEOS and Winisters on a confidential basis in advance of the meeting on ednesday. It is a comprehensive description of the results of our work activity and I think it is important that the group go into the meeting with a common basis for the discussion. ‘Thanks, 000206 Jin Docurr Information Act / Do From: Hamilton, Bob [NCR] {mailto:Bob.Hamiltontec. geeky LO Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 7:35 eM To: bruce.carson@canadaschool-ee.ca; 2 1 Jim Ellis; Liz-Quarshie@gov.sk.ca; Shugart, tan [NCR] Cc: Beale,Mike [NCR] Subject: Report Working Group, Bruce asked me to send you this revised version of the report which I think picks up all of the comments. Please review and any outstanding issues can be discussed on tomorrow's conference call. A reminder that this document should be for working group members only and not distributed further (although it will be helpful for our briefings). ‘Thanks. Bob Please Note / Veuillez noter: This communication is intended for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete all copies. Cette communication est reservee a l'usage de la personne a gui elle est adressee et peut contenir de l'information confidentielle et privileges. Si vous avez recu cette communication par erreur, veuillez immediatenent communiquer avec son expediteur et detruire toutes les copies. Bruce Carson Executive Director Canada School of energy and environment Phone Email: Website: Addzes; 8.19 (1) 403 220-2200 FAX: 403 210-7824 CELL: bruce.carsen@canadaschool-ee.ca wa. canadaschoolofenergy.com MS255 2500 University Drive NW Calgary, AB Canada T2N Ind 000207a. informaite yt / Document ci de la Loi sur laccés forn ” Shafea,Anisa [NCR] From: Bruce Carson [bacarson@ucalgary.ca] ‘Tuesday, July 21, 2009 6:44 PM Hamilton Bob [NCR]; Beale Mike [NCR]; Shugar.ian NCR; bruce.cersonéBcanadaschook ee.ca; Re: "final" O&G report Bob--i am not in my office-~can you send to as he is briefing CEOs [Message delivered by NotifyLink] Original Message~ - “Hamilton, Bob [NCR]" : Tue, July 21, 2009 4:35 PM To: "Beale,Mike [NCR]" , , "Shugart,Ian (NCR]" , , pupject Ket “Zana. Usu report Looks good to me. Bob Sent using BlackBerry - Original Message ~ Beale, Mike [NCR] Fron Tor 'bacarson@ucalgary.ca’ ; Hai ‘bruce. carson@canadaschool~ee.ca’ ? ton,Bob [NCR]; Shugart,Tan (NCRIs Cc: Beale,Mike (NCR) Sent: Tue Jul 21 18:22:28 2009 Subject: "final" 06G report Attached is one more cut at this as per messages today: = put in caveat re not being govt policy = fixed Annex 2 to align with the changes made to the Exec Summary = changed header to read "confidential -~ not for cix” Mike Original Message-~- Prom: Beale, Mike [NCR] Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:21 AM Tor "bacarsonéucalgary.ca'; Hamilton, Bob [NCR]; Shugart,Zan [NCR]; bruce. carson@canadaschool-ee.ca Subject: RE: Report Way to go! If it helps, I have included a header "draft -- not for circulation” on attached. Am now en route, arrive Calgary around 3. Mike 2 Carson [mailtotbacarson@ucalgary.ca] Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:05 aM Beale,Mike [NCR]; Hamilton,Bob [NCR]; Shugart,Ian [NCR]; bruce.carsonécanadaschool- Subject: RE: Report 8.19 (1) Ok--will do as soon as I get into the office-- -getting ready for tomorrow:)--be 1 000208Information Act / Do 2 la (S19 (Dacoes 8.24(1)(a) 8.24(1)(b) (Message delivered by NotifyLink] Original Message~. Prom: "Beale, Mike [NCR]" Sent: Tue, July 21, 2009 6:42 AM To: , “Hamilton,Bob [NCR]" , "Shugart, Lan [NCR]" , Subject: RE: Report, Bruce, I think it's primarily optics Bob is now in flight, and asked me to ask you to circ the revised report to the WG if you are comfortable with it. Mike Original Message Bruce Carson [mailto:bacarson@ucalgary.ca] : Tuesday, July 21, 2009 8:18 AM To: Beale, Mike [NCR]; Hamilton,Seb (NCRJ; Shugart, Tan [NCR]; bruce.carson@canadaschool- Re: Report T need someone to explain to me the actual effect or actual differences between what is presently written for option 8 and what [Message delivered by NotifyLink] -Original Message~ "Beale, Mike (NCR]" ‘ue, July 21, 2009 5:20 AM Sent: To: “Hamilton, Bob (NCR]" , "shugart, Tan [NCR]" Shugart@ec.gc.ca>, Subject: Re: Report Bob, I can pick up his two comments and re-send to you shortly (his first was apparently not’ included in their track changes which is why it got lost). Re circulation, I'wd just note that dec is titled ‘report to Mins and CEOs". Mike Sent from my BlackBerry From: Hamilton, Bob [NCR] To: Shugart, Ian [NOR]; Beale,Mike [NCR]; ‘bruce. carson@canadaschool-e: Sent: Mon Jul 20 23:31:25 2009 Subject: Fw: Report See below. Esp comments re: circulation. t don't think it should go beyond working group and propose to say that to But want to make sure we're all on the same page before I do. Would at least need to confirm with given his comments earlier today. Views? Mike - what do you think about proposed addition? Bob 000209um leased o Information Act | Do 8.19 (1) sént using BlackBerry From: capp.ca> To: Hamilton,Bob [NCR]; bruce.carson@canadaschool-ee.ca ; Jim Ellis ; Liz.Quarshie@gov.sk.ca Shugart, Tan’ [NCR] Ce: Beale,Mike [NCR]; Collyer, @capp.ca>; @capp.ca>s \capp.ca> sent: tion Jul 20 23:24:22 zouy Subject: RE: Report, Bob Thanks for picking up most of our comments on the earlier draft. There are two areas where we have outstanding concerns regarding the graft: 1) The first is that my earlier feedback regarding Option B does not appear to have been incorporated: "Further to my note on Saturday, I'd like to propose a change in the manner in which we describe Option B. At our previous FPIWG meeting, we talked about a standard based on GHG performance (e.g. life cycle to refinery outlet) for competing crudes and natural gas. I believe for purposes of modelling we subsequently elected to use a W-M proxy for natural gas and conventional crudes and used a wells-to-tank standard based on competing crudes for oil sands. ‘Thais is also the manner in which we discussed the option at our meeting on July 17. while this approach is ok for analytical purposes, we should continue to describe the design principle for this option as being a performance standard for all crude oil and natural gas based on GHG emissions for competing alternatives (i.e. don't single out oil sands in the design of the framework).” We would appreciate this revision being incorporated in this version of the report 2) It Je important (at least from our perspective) that the commentary on the Options address the issue of competitiveness. We had proposed language in our earlier comments that addressed this issue, but would be open to other wording We can address the above points in our telecon at 1:00 pm Calgary on Tuesday, or alternatively deal with them via email. My preference would be to issue the final version of this report to CEOS and Ministers on a confidential basis in advance of the meeting on Wednesday. It is a comprehensive description of the results of our work activity and I think it is important that the group go into the meeting with a common basis for the discussion. ‘Thanks, From: Hamilton,Bob [NCR] [mailto:Bob.Hamiltongec.gc.ca] Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 7:35 PM To: bruce.carson@canadaschool-ee.ca; Jim Ellis; Liz.Quarshie@gov.sk.car Shugart, Tan (NCR] Ce: Beale,Mike [NCR] Subject: Report Working Group, Bruce asked me to send you this revised version of the report which I think picks up all Of the comments. Please review and any outstanding issues can be discussed on tomorrow's Conference call. A reminder that this document should be for working group members only and not distributed further (although it will be helpful for our briefings). Thanks. 3 000210Bob Please Note / Veuillez noter which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged have received this communication in error, delete all copies. This communication is intended for the person or entity to information. If you please contact the sender immediately and Cette communication est reservee a l'usage de la personne a qui elle contenir de 1*information confidentielle et privileges. Si vous avez recu cette communication par erreur, son expediteur et detruire toutes les copies. est adressee et peut veuillez imnediatement communiquer avec 00211