1. The Great Northern Pipeline Debate Stephen J. Wuori Group Vice President Planning and Development Arctic Gas Symposium November 30, 2001 Houston, Texas

2. Enbridge Midcoast Energy Inc. operates gas gathering, distribution and processing facilities in nine states Enbridge: North & South America

3. Northern Pipeline Development The Bottom Line n Project economics must be positive and robust n The Core Producers will direct the development n Political / Social issues must be resolved n Either pipeline route can be effectively constructed and operated n Only one pipeline route will be developed in the near term

4. North American Natural Gas Reserves Northern Frontier Arctic Islands Eastern Canada Eastern US Gulf of Mexico Gulf Coast US Heartland Rockies and West Western Canada Base Map Source: Cambridge Energy Research Associates

5. Expected Regional Gas Balances and Flow Changes – 2000 to 2010 Net Change in Supply/ Demand Balance (bcf/day) Incremental Gas Flows (bcf/day) XX 3.7 -0.7 1.3 1.5 6.3 0.3 0.8. 2.1 1.1 -2.5 0.2 -2.5 -1.4 0.0 -0.8 0.4 0.5 -2.3 1.5 -2.2 0.1 -2.6 1.0 -0.7 1.5 1.2 0.2 4.2 1.9 0.6 0.5 0.8

6. Who’s Who and the Routes Alaska Gas Producers (AGP) State of Alaska Alaska Others MD Core Producers(MD 4) MD Explorers (MD Others) NWT Others

7. Route Cost & Toll Comparison Enbridge is route neutral Safety and environmental excellence is a baseline requirement Alaska to Lower 48 Market South North Total Project Cost (US$billions) 17.215.1 Notional tolls (US$/mcf) 2.392.07 (Far North O&G Conference on Sept. 20, ’01) Both Routes are Constructable Operable Mackenzie Valley (Stand Alone) Total Project Cost (US$billions) 2.3 Notional tolls (US$/mcf) 0.95 Prudhoe Bay Inuvik Norman Wells Anchorage Whitehorse Yellowknife Edmonton

8. Prudhoe Bay Inuvik Norman Wells Anchorage Whitehorse Yellowknife Edmonton “Northern” Pipeline Challenges Unique “Northern” P/L Issues Enbridge Northern Expertise Experience Applied to the Future Enbridge is route neutral

9. Northern Expertise n Enbridge has substantial experience constructing and operating northern infrastructure projects…. Alaska Inuvik Norman Wells Zama Inuvik Gas Norman Wells Pipeline

10. Over the Top Enbridge Proposed Location Near to Shore

11. The “Measured Approach” Build two smaller lines “consecutively” in the same right-of-way

12. The “Measured Approach” BENEFITS –Cost estimates 48-inch vs. 2x36-inch within 7% –Reduced project risks –Socio-economic benefits –Improved schedule for first gas to market –Pipeline capacity better matched to market needs Build two smaller lines “consecutively” in the same right-of-way

13. Success requires: n Continental decision-making n Robust project economics n A Producer decision to proceed n Common understanding n Cooperation of all stakeholders

14. The Great Northern Pipeline Debate Stephen J. Wuori Group Vice President Planning and Development Arctic Gas Symposium November 30, 2001 Houston, Texas