Alberta Energy
Regulator (AER)

Third-Party Review
23RFP-CS016
Third-Party Review Supplemental Report
September 11, 2023

Table of Contents

4

Project Overview

6

Observations and Opportunities for Improvement

19

Appendix

This document is intended solely for the information and internal use of The Audit and Finance Committee of the Board of Directors of the Alberta
Energy Regulator and is not intended to be and should not be used by any other person or entity. No other person or entity is entitled to rely, in any
manner, or for any purpose, on this document.
The procedures performed comprise an advisory engagement, which is not subject to Canadian Auditing Standards or Canadian Standards on Review
or Assurance engagements. Consequently, no opinion or conclusion intended to convey assurance are expressed. Had additional p rocedures been
performed, other matters may have come to our attention that would have been reported.

© Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities.

Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) | Third-Party Review | 23RFP-CS016

2

Project Overview
This Supplemental Report details the Observations and Opportunities for Improvement for the third-party review
performed. This Supplemental Report must be read in conjunction with the Third-Party Review Report dated
September 11, 2023.

© Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities.

Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) | Third-Party Review | 23RFP-CS016

3

Background, Objective and Scope
Background

Scope

The Audit and Finance Committee (AFC) of the Board of Directors(Board) of the AER engaged Deloitte as a third-party to assess (hereinreferred to as “Review”) the AER’s actions surrounding the Kearlseepage and spill.

The scope of the Review included:• Risk Evaluation and Incident Communication• Incident and Emergency Response• Incident Notification• Incident Investigation Protocol• Investigation Communication (internal and external) Protocols• Compliance and Enforcement Processes• Board Reporting and Communications• Review of relevant policies and procedures

Objective

Out of Scope

The objective of the Review was to review and provide
recommendations on the AER’s policies, standards, procedures andcommunication processes for emergency response, incident reporting,investigation and action specifically during the period of the Kearlincidents between May 19, 2022, and issuance of the EPO.

The scope of the review did not include:• Development of process maps
• Interviewing Imperial employees and directors• Identifying and/or reviewing gaps in Imperial’s response• Public communication support, including responding to public
inquiries• Forensic analysis of the response to the Kearl seepage and spill

An Environmental Protection Order (EPO) was issued February 6, 2023,
by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) to Imperial Oil Limited (Imperial)in response to two containment incidents at the Kearl Oil Sands
Project (Kearl). Kearl is an Imperial owned and operated oil sands site
in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region of Alberta, 45 kilometres northeastof Fort McKay.

Deloitte commenced work on the Review on May 16, 2023. The remainder of this report provides the results of the Review.
© Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities.

Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) | Third-Party Review | 23RFP-CS016

4

Approach and Methodology
Approach

Methodology

The following activities were performed as part of Deloitte’s approach to the Review:

Our workplan leveraged Deloitte’s Global Framework for C&IR, which is based upon
leading practice principles and includes the following:• Confirmed the objective, scope requirements, priorities, and timing with the AFC.
• Leveraging our Internal Audit approach, developed a workplan based on Deloitte’s
Global Framework for Crisis and Incident Response (the "C&IR Framework").
• Performed internal interviews with AER personnel to understand the AER’s
policies, standards, procedures and the actions taken in relation to the Kearl Lake
seepage and spill.
• Performed interviews arranged by the AER, with external stakeholders, including,Indigenous Peoples and the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo (RMWB).
• Reviewed the relevant AER policies, standards and procedures based on the resultsof information gathered in interviews and compared against the C&IR Framework.
• Reported opportunities for improvement.

© Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities.

Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) | Third-Party Review | 23RFP-CS016

5

Observations and Opportunities for Improvement
By Scope Area & Principles for Incident Response1

1 Based on Deloitte’s Global Framework for Crisis and Incident Response© Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities.

Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) | Third-Party Review | 23RFP-CS016

6

1

Risk Evaluation and Incident Communication
Guiding Principles for
Incident Response:

1. Preparation and Activation of Incident Response; 5. Informative Reporting

Review Criteria

The AER’s policies, standards, procedures, and/or processes outline how the AER evaluates and communicates risks. Risks are evaluated and communicated by
the AER in compliance with expected policies, standards, procedures, and/or processes.
The expected practices are outlined in the Manual and Incident Response Handbook, along with the Emergency Management ProgramManual, for risk evaluation
and assessment purposes. In responding to an industry incident or emergency, the AER formally receives reports through the Environment and Dangerous Goods
Emergency EDGE system, which is shared with other Government of Alberta (GoA) response groups. The EDGE system answers phones, and occasionally, the AER
is informed of incidents by the duty holder. When an incident or emergency is reported to the EDGE system, it serves as the initial point of contact. The EDGE
system gathers relevant information and employs a triage process to evaluate the severity of the reported incident, categorizing it as an emergency, an incident, acomplaint, or a normal notification. This information is shared with the AER through an EDGE call sheet1, which is used by the AER team to review the initialassessment made by the EDGE system, take over the evaluation of the matter, lead the response, and contact the appropriate stakeholders.

Background

On May 19, 2022, it was reported to the AER directly by Imperial and through the EDGE system thatdiscoloured water was being observed around the Kearl leaseboundary. On May 20, 2022, an AER inspector visited the Imperial site and observed the seep areas. The incident response andinvestigation took place from May
20, 2022, and is ongoing to the date of this report in support of the EPO issued, including ongoing consultations with the AER Subject Matter Experts (SMEs)
throughout. On September 2, 2022, a Notice of Non-Compliance was issued to Imperial under EPEA Approval 46586-01-00, Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.3. Through ourinterviews with the AER, it was stated that due to the need to gather a robust understanding of the incident and to protect the integrity of the incident response
process, from the initial notification of the incident to the Notice of Non-Compliance, that there was no communication or engagement with Indigenous Peoples,
RMWB, or other external stakeholders.
During our interviews with the Indigenous Peoples and the RMWB, feedback was provided that these groups were not informed about the incidents at Kearl until
after the issuance of the EPO which was on February 6, 2023.Moreover, all respondents expressed significant concern with thegap in communications around theevent, especially in the context of one email to a single point of contact to the communities in May 2022 with no additionalfollow-up until the EPO was issued. For
nine months a developing event with offsite impacts was being managed and no additional communications were formally providedto regional Indigenous andFirst Nations communities.

1 EDGE Notification Reference Number: 0390737© Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities.

Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) | Third-Party Review | 23RFP-CS016

7

1

Risk Evaluation and Incident Communication (cont’d)Based on procedures performed for the Kearl incidents, our Review found that the AER followed its existing policies, standard s, procedures, and/or processes. We
did note the following opportunities for improvement when comparing to our C&IR Framework, and in consideration of the expect ations of the Indigenous
Peoples and municipalities interviewed:• Insufficient details outlining the start-to-finish processes and procedures for how an incident or emergency should be handled i ncluding timeliness of theinspection.
Observations• Lack of details in the communications plan on how the AER should inform, engage, and consult with Indigenous Peoples, municipalities, and other impacted
stakeholder groups while there is an active incident response process (Refer to Observation 5, Investigation Communication, f or additional details).
• AER did not use the available Incident Response Outreach (IRO) to provide information regarding the response to an incident i n a timely manner to theaffected Indigenous Peoples and stakeholders.
• Simultaneous and inconsistent use of the terms “incident” and “emergency” throughout policies, procedures and manuals.
• While informal practices exist, there are no documented procedures for internal communication and escalation to management or the Board.
In consideration of the lessons learned by the AER resulting from the Kearl incidents, the AER should develop a plan consider the suggested practices in the C&IR
Framework. In order to do this, the AER should consider the following:• Create more detailed incident and emergency processes covering reporting, inspection, evaluation, communication, escalation, resolution, and post-incident
review.

Opportunities for
Improvement• Create detailed call-out protocol and procedures outlining who, when, and how to communicate internally and externally during emergencies. These plans
should address various communication channels and timelines for updates.
• Adhere to the Incident Response Officer's (IRO) guidelines and provide the information to the different stakeholders on a tim ely basis.
• Standardize and clarify the terms "incident" and "emergency" across policies, procedures, and manuals.
• Establish formal documented procedures for internal communication and escalation to management and the Board for incidents an d emergencies.

© Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities.

Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) | Third-Party Review | 23RFP-CS016

8

2

Incident and Emergency Response
Guiding Principles for
Incident Response:

2. Roles/Decision Making Authorities; 6. Implementation/Operational Response
The AER's policies, standards, procedures, and/or processes outline:

Review Criteria• The AER's role when an incident is reported; and,• Whether the AER is required to assess or verify the level of seriousness for each incident reported.

Background

The AER follows the guidelines outlined in the Incident Response Handbook, the Emergency Management Program Manual, and Compliance and Enforcement
Program. These documents define an incident as “an unexpected occurrence or event requiring action by response personnel to prevent or minimize impacts on
people, property, and the environment”1, but do not define an emergency. When an incident or emergency is reported through the EDGE system, or directly fromthe duty holder, the documents note that the AER’s main role is “to ensure that the duty holders respond in efficient, effective, and appropriate manners to all
incidents”. The AER uses Incident Response Handbook, which includes the Assessment Matrix for Classifying Incidents based onDirective 0712, to assess the levelof seriousness.
On May 19, 2022, discoloured water was reported around the Kearl lease boundary. As per the guidance in Incident Response Handbook, an AER inspector visitedthe Imperial site on May 20, 2022, and observed the seep areas.

1 Source: ”Incident Support System Procedure 006”

2 Directive 071: This directive sets out the requirements for emergency preparedness and response for sites regulated under theOil and Gas Conservation Act, Pipeline Act, Oil Sands Conservation Act, and Geothermal Resource Development Act.

© Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities.

Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) | Third-Party Review | 23RFP-CS016

9

2

Incident and Emergency Response (cont’d)Based on procedures performed, for the Kearl incidents, our Review found that the AER followed the existing policies, standards, procedures, and/or processes.
There were no areas of non-adherence to stated policies and procedures. We did note the following opportunities for improvement when comparing to our C&IR
Framework, and in consideration of the expectations of the Indigenous Peoples and municipalities interviewed:• The AER’s Emergency Management Program Manual does not:− Provide step by step guidance and timeliness of the steps to be followed during an emergency, including early notification of potentially impacted stakeholders;− Provide a definition of an emergency; and,

Observations− The types of testing to be performed once an emergency has been reported.
• The AER’s Incident Response Handbook does not include the following:− Instructions to define when or how water samples should be taken by industry;− How the AER will provide oversight of the sampling and results;− When the AER would take samples directly; or,− A clear indication of whether groundwater is included in Section 3a (Impact to a Waterbody – Delineation and Sampling) under its definition of a waterbody
within the Incident Response Handbook.
• There is a lack of guidance in Directive 071, which may result in inconsistent application of the directive in future inciden ts or emergencies.
The AER should develop a plan to update the documentation to align with our C&IR framework and the expectations of Indigenous Peoples and municipalities
interviewed, as well as lessons learned by the AER as a result of the Kearl incidents. In order to implement this, the AER sh ould consider the following:
Opportunities for
Improvement• Revise and update the AER's Emergency Management Program Manual for noted observation areas.
• Provide specific guidelines for inspectors and licensees regarding sample collection, methods, responsibilities, locations, f requency, and handling protocols.

• Incorporate and elaborate on the definition of "waterbody," explicitly indicating its coverage with regards to groundwater, e ither inclusion or exclusion, within
the Incident Response Handbook.
• Specify if Directive 071* applies to Oil Sands mining, e.g., Kearl incidents.

© Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities.

Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) | Third-Party Review | 23RFP-CS016

10

3

Incident Notification
Guiding Principles for
Incident Response:

4. Stakeholder management; 5. Informative Reporting

Review Criteria

The AER’s Call Handling Procedures outlines a notification process. The notification process based on the severity of the incident is followed and tracked as part of
the triage setup in EDGE system for the Kearl incidents.

Background

The Alberta EDGE system is operated by the Ministry of Transportation and is responsible for being the point of contact for all energy, environmental, andindustrial emergencies, incidents, and complaints reporting. Based on the classification and severity of incidents, the EDGEsystem will forward them to therelevant parties whether inspectors, major investigations team or to other Governmental bodies, such as Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC). The
classification and severity of incidents are categorized, as defined by the AER Triage Table, into one of the following: Complaint (unknown impact), Incident (minor
impact), Emergency (significant impact) or other routine notifications.
During our Review of Kearl incidents, the main events that occurred related to incident notification were as follows:• The EDGE system was notified on May 19, 2022, and forwarded to the AER inspector on the same day.

• The call type was classified as “Incident”.
• The severity assessed as minor impact.

Observations

Based on procedures performed, for the Kearl incidents, our Review found that the AER followed the existing policies, standards, procedures, and/or processes.
There were no areas of non-adherence to stated policies and procedures. We did note the following opportunities for improvement when comparing to our C&IR
Framework, and in consideration of the expectations of the Indigenous Peoples and municipalities interviewed:• The existing criteria being used during the triage process by the EDGE system are subjective in nature on how an incident versus an emergency is defined.
The AER develop a plan to update the documentation to align with our C&IR Framework, and the expectations of Indigenous Peoples and municipalities
interviewed, as well as lessons learned by the AER as a result of the Kearl incidents. In order to implement this, the AER should consider the following:
Opportunities for
Improvement• Define precise incident criteria for the AER Triage Table for EDGE.
• Review and update the AER Triage Table for lessons learned from this incident for the Alberta EDGE system operated by the Min istry of Transportation to use.
• Ensure timely notification of Indigenous Peoples and all relevant stakeholders, including those potentially affected, by incorporating them into the incident
notification and triage process.

© Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities.

Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) | Third-Party Review | 23RFP-CS016

11

4

Incident Investigation Protocol
Guiding Principles for
Incident Response:

6. Implementation/Operational Response

Review Criteria

The AER has a documented and approved incident response and investigation protocol, with tracking of the execution of the incident response and investigation
protocol in place.
As a response to reported incidents and emergencies, the AER Compliance and Enforcement personnel are deployed through Compliance Assurance Procedures
to conduct verification activities, including inspections. These actions involve utilizing a range of compliance or enforcement tools, such as issuing Notices of Noncompliance, orders, administrative sanctions, or penalties.

BackgroundIn our Review of Kearl incidents, we obtained documentation to evidence that the inspectors visited the area within 24 hoursof the reported incident on
May 20, 2022, and followed the incident response protocols set forth by the AER. Throughout the initial inspection and the following testing of the seepage, its
severity was classified as an “Incident”.
We have received feedback from both Indigenous Peoples and the RMWB about the incident response and inspection processes, expressing concerns over thelack of transparency from AER regarding ongoing incident response and inspections.

© Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities.

Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) | Third-Party Review | 23RFP-CS016

12

4

Incident Investigation Protocol (cont’d)Based on procedures performed, for the Kearl incidents, our Review found that the AER followed the existing policies, standards, procedures, and/or processes.
There were no areas of non-adherence to stated policies and procedures. We did note the following opportunities for improvement when comparing to our C&IR
Framework and in consideration of the expectations of the Indigenous Peoples and municipalities interviewed:
Observations• Procedures lack a defined timeline and detailed criteria for the re-evaluation of reported incidents and emergencies to validate their classification and severity.
• The procedures on engaging and communicating with Indigenous Peoples do not provide clear guidelines or expectations for the timeliness of communications.
• The procedures do not define a specific timeline for concluding the incident response process.
• Through the interviews, the AER has noted challenges balancing the integrity of incident response and investigation process and the level of transparency
expected from Indigenous Peoples and other stakeholders.
The AER develop a plan to update the documentation to align with our C&IR Framework, and the expectations of Indigenous Peopl es and municipalities
interviewed, as well as lessons learned by the AER as a result of the Kearl incidents. In order to implement this, the AER should consider the following:• Develop a systematic method to re-evaluate incident categorization, including for seepage and spills.
Opportunities for
Improvement• Create clear guidelines and timelines for engaging with Indigenous Peoples for more timely and relevant communication during incident response.
• Set clear timelines for incident response processes to ensure appropriate response time.
• Formulate explicit guidelines for sharing information with Indigenous Peoples, stakeholders, and the right holders during incident response process,considering their diversity.

• Specify if Directive 071 applies to Oil Sands mining, e.g., Kearl incidents.

© Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities.

Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) | Third-Party Review | 23RFP-CS016

13

5

Investigation Communication (Internal & External) Protocol
Guiding Principles for
Incident Response:

3. Communications/Public Relations

Review Criteria

The AER has documented and approved internal and external incident communication protocols. The AER followed and tracked theexecution of both the internaland external response.
The AER’s Engagement and Communication (E&C) team is engaged in the incident and investigation process for internal and external communications during thedrafting phase of an EPO as per the Order Procedure (May 2020), including understanding how and when to communicate with Indigenous Peoples andstakeholders, and issuing public media releases. During the Kearl incidents, the E&C team:• Met with the Statutory Decision Maker (SDM) to understand incident response process details, expected issuance date, and stak eholders to notify, in addition
to the Government of Alberta, municipalities and Indigenous Peoples.
• Identified stakeholders and Indigenous Peoples list to receive official email notifications.
• Posted a public media release to the AER website upon EPO issuance.
Background

During the drafting phase of the EPO, the SDM begins notifying management that an order is expected to be issued and detailsare shared. For the Kearl incidents:• Communication to senior management began one week prior to EPO issuance, focused on the seepage incident and the incident res ponse and actions take forcontainment to date.
• The intent to issue an EPO and information to support this action was shared with executive management on February 1, 2023.
• The Board received a communication informing them of the EPO when it was issued on February 6, 2023.
During our Review of Kearl incidents, we obtained documentation demonstrating that an inspector visited the site to review the area and further understand thereport from the EDGE system within 24 hours of the reported incident on May 20, 2022. The inspectors discussed the incident details with SMEs and continue todo so.
After the EPO was issued on February 6, 2023, communications were initiated with the Indigenous Peoples and the RMWB.

© Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities.

Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) | Third-Party Review | 23RFP-CS016

14

5

Investigation Communication (Internal & External) Protocol (cont’d)Based on procedures performed, for the Kearl incidents, our Review found that the AER followed the existing policies, standards, procedures, and/or processes.
We did note the following opportunities for improvement when comparing to our C&IR Framework, and in consideration of the exp ectations of the Indigenous
Peoples and municipalities interviewed:
Observations• The AER lacks structured processes and procedures for both internal and external communications. This extends to the absence of clearly outlined
communication protocols to be followed in response to evaluated incidents and emergencies, whether during or post the inciden ts or emergencies.

• Absence of formal documentation on when, how and what to communicate to both external and internal parties including Indigenous Peoples, municipalities,
and other affected parties.
• The AER does not have specific process to verify that stakeholders and Indigenous Peoples received the initial or subsequent communications.
The AER develop a plan to update the documentation to align with our C&IR Framework, and the expectations of Indigenous Peopl es and municipalities
interviewed, as well as lessons learned by the AER as a result of the Kearl incidents. In order to implement this, AER should consider the following:
Opportunities for
Improvement• Develop thorough communication protocols prioritizing efforts, identifying risks, and choosing channels based on severity.
• Create protocols for engaging Indigenous Peoples and external stakeholders (for example, municipalities, and/or the public), specifying types of incident
response, incidents, investigations and emergencies which require communication, and the frequency, methods, content, and res ponsible parties for such.
• Assign roles for communicating with local communities and inhabitants in the affected areas.
• Verify stakeholders' receipt of initial and subsequent communications.

© Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities.

Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) | Third-Party Review | 23RFP-CS016

15

6

Compliance and Enforcement Processes
Guiding Principles for
Incident Response:

6. Implementation/Operational Response

Review Criteria

The AER has documented and approved Compliance and Enforcement processes. The AER followed and tracked the execution of the Compliance andEnforcement processes.
The AERs Compliance & Liability Management program provides a framework to address violations or non-compliance issues by the duty holder. Within thisframework, a SDM is delegated the ability to issue an order, which are used to require regulated parties to address non-compliance issues or take proactive
measures. The role of an SDM is outlined in the Statutory Decision-Making guide, including background information, and recommended statutory decision-making
approaches. This guide serves as a resource and pertinent information for making a wide range of statutory decisions under the AER's jurisdiction.

Specifically, an order can be issued in the following circumstances:
Background• Risk to public safety;• When there is a release of a substance to the environment that may cause, has caused, or is causing an adverse effect to the environment; or,• When an energy resource activity is operating in a noncompliant manner.
With regards to the Kearl incidents, on September 2, 2022, a Notice of Non-Compliance was issued to Imperial under EPEA Approval 46586-01-00, Sections 4.2.1
and 4.2.3. Following this, the incident response process and follow-up with Imperial continued as the incident continued to evolve and further information was
gathered. The EPO was issued to Imperial on February 6, 2023, in response to two containment incidents at Kearl (the second of which occurred on February 4,2023), detailing the actions Imperial was required to take and the deadlines of these actions.

© Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities.

Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) | Third-Party Review | 23RFP-CS016

16

6

Compliance and Enforcement Processes (cont’d)Based on procedures performed, for the Kearl incidents, our Review found that the AER followed the existing policies, standards, procedures, and/or processes.
There were no areas of non-adherence to stated policies and procedures. We did note the following opportunities for improvement when comparing to our C&IR
Framework, and in consideration of the expectations of the Indigenous Peoples and municipalities interviewed:• Order Procedures1:

Observations− The definition of "significant impacts" is subjective.
− The timeline for the standard process for issuing an order is not specified, only mentioning that it takes 3+ days, with no m aximum limit mentioned.
− While created to give SDMs guidance for issuing orders, some sections are subjective, particularly in determining when and ho w to consider actual andperceived risk factors for issuing an order and selecting the appropriate order type.
− There is limited risk criteria based on actual or potential risk factors provided to the SDMs.
• Statutory Decision-Making Guide was last updated in March 2016.
The AER develop a plan to update the documentation to align with our C&IR Framework, and the expectations of Indigenous Peopl es and municipalities
interviewed, as well as lessons learned by the AER as a result of the Kearl incidents. In order to implement this, the AER should consider the following:

Opportunities for
Improvement• Clearly define "significant impacts" in Expedited EPO process. Provide examples for guidance.
• Following the completion of evidence gathering, set time limits for the Standard EPO process.
• Develop objective criteria that the SDMs can use to assess and determine the specific actions to take based on actual and pot ential risk factors.
• Include "Perceived risk" factor in the decision-making process to address concerns related to public safety, the environment, or orderly development.

1 Order Procedures: A document that defines the statutory decision makers process to follow to produce an order.

© Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities.

Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) | Third-Party Review | 23RFP-CS016

17

7

Board Reporting and Communications
Guiding Principles for
Incident Response:

5. Informative Reporting

Review Criteria

The AER’s policies, standards, procedures, and/or processes outline Board reporting requirements, including escalation criteria. Information provided to the Board
was delivered in a timely manner.

BackgroundIn relation to the incidents at Kearl, the Board of AER was notified about the issuance of the EPO on February 6th, 2023. The communication was about therelease which was reported on February 4th, 2023, by the duty holder. However, through this communication to the Board, therewas no indication that there
had been an ongoing event occurring since May 2022 and that there was a potentially EPO forthcoming of that incident.

Observations

There is no comprehensive guide or manual detailing procedures for escalating and reporting the different incidents to the Board. This also includes a lack ofdefined timelines, and clear criteria of notifications, frequency and information expected to be shared.

Opportunities for
Improvement

The AER develop a plan to update the documentation to align with the C&IR Framework, expectations of Indigenous Peoples and municipalities interviewed, as
well as lessons learned by the AER as a result of the Kearl incidents. In order to implement this, the AER should consider the following:• Create clear guidelines for Board communication, specifying shared information, communication frequency, timing, and preferred methods.
• Establish an escalation protocol for incidents and emergencies, defining the chain of command and steps to escalate information to the Board.

© Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities.

Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) | Third-Party Review | 23RFP-CS016

18

Appendix: Policies, Procedures and Manuals© Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities.

Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) | Third-Party Review | 23RFP-CS016

19

Appendix: Policies, Procedures and Manuals Reviewed
Deloitte was provided with documentation as a part of this Review, but it should be noted that the list of documents provided is not comprehensive of all policies, procedures,
guidelines, and manuals at the AER. Deloitte was directed to relevant documentation for this review by management.
Q4 Key Performance Metrics Scorecard
Q4 Key Performance Metrics Slides
AB-NWT Water Management Agreement
Admin Boundaries Map
Administrative Penalty Preparation
Adverse Impact to Groundwater
AER AUC Inspection & Incident Rates
AER AUC MOU
AER Bulletin 2016-22, Leak Detection
AER Contravention Report
AER Emergency Management Program Manual 2022 11 01
AER Manual 021 Contamination Management
AER Triage Table 2023 Mar 20 - Update
AER-2022-MOU0005 AER-IOGC Signed
AER-Edge 2021 MOU
AER Release Reporting Presentation
Annual Reporting Activity Requirements 2022 June
ASTM D3839-08 Guide
Attributes and Behaviours - Behaviour Continuum
Attributes and Behaviours - Our Values and Attributes
AUC Contacts
Baseline Assessment Checklist 2022 03 01
CIC Call Handling Procedures for the Coordination and Information Centre 2016 02 04
Closure and Liability Closure Collapsed Features
Closure Flow Diagram
CLosure Procedure
Coal Mine Inspection Manual
Coal Mine Inspection Training Guide
Collapsed Features Assessment Form
Compliance & Liability Management
Compliance Assurance Procedures ManualCompliance Dashboard Noncompliance Enforcement Tab Submission Procedure 2022-04
Contamination Not Requiring AER and EOP Regulatory Oversight
Conversation Guide
Corporate Incident Management Plan 2022
Creative Sentencing Procedure
CSA Training I 2021 06 02
CSA Z662-19 Oil & Gas Pipeline Systems© Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities.

De-hy Provincial Inventory
Directive 056 Pipeline Technical FAQ
Directive 077 Clause Locations in CSA Z662-15
Directive058
Directive071
Directive077 2022 07 12
Guide to Laying Charges
Prosecution Procedure
EDGE Call Handling Procedures Update 2022
Elements Database Procedure
EM 2023 Annual Report
Environment Procedures Manual Revision 49 2023 01 31
Environmental Emergency Response Standard Operating Procedures (Jan 2021)
EPA EDGE Call Receiving and Handling Procedure
EPEA Approval & Ground Water Referral Contact List
Field Sampling Manual
Field Surveillance Incident Inspection List
File Brief Policy
File Naming
FlexSteel Installation and Operations Manual
Foam on Waterbodies
General Bylaw 2022 Sept 22
Goals and Conversations Q&A
Incident report
Inspection Report 1
Inspection Report 2
Inspection report 3
Inspection Report 4
Inspection Report and FIS PDF Final Report
Investigator Prosecution Checklist
IST PROC 006 - Issuing of Executive Incident Notifications and Situation Report
Manual 013 November 2019
Off Lease Emulsion Release
Order Procedure May 2020
Pipelines Procedure Manual Dec 1
Plain Language 1 Student Handbook
Plain Language 2 Student Handbook
Post Investigation Review

Production Procedures Manual 2020 01 03
Referral Contact List - Remediation Contamination
Release Prevention Checklist 2021 05 06
Release Reporting FAQ - 2018
Release Report
Remedial Action Plan Guide - GoA - 2020
Remediation Regulation
Responsible Energy Development Act
Safe Excavation Near Pipelines Brochure
SDM Meeting Policy
Spill of Unknown Origin
Spur After Action Report
Statutory Decision Making Guide
Suspended Facilities Checklist
The Inspector's Field Sampling Manual - Environment Canada
Tip Sheet -Pipeline Basic Inspection Questions
Training Course - AER Drilling Waste
Training Manual - Spill Response 2014-09
Transfer of Pipeline Records FAQ
Triage Review Process
Voluntary Self-Disclosure Form Instructions
Voluntary Self-Disclosure FormVSD Form June 2016
VSD Process - FAQs June 2016
Warning Letter Procedure
Waste Management Facilities Introduction
Waste Management Facility Records Inspection Tip Sheet
Water and Fisheries Surveillance Program Plan

Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) | Third-Party Review | 23RFP-CS016

20

About Deloitte
Deloitte provides audit and assurance, consulting, financial advisory, risk advisory, tax, and related services to public and private clients spanning multiple industries. Deloitte serves four out of five Fortune
Global 500® companies through a globally connected network of member firms in more than 150 countries and territories bringing world-class capabilities, insights, and service to address clients’ mostcomplex business challenges. Deloitte LLP, an Ontario limited liability partnership, is the Canadian member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche
Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee, and its network of member firms, each of which is a legally separate and independent entity. Please see www.deloitte.com/about for a
detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited and its member firms.
Our global Purpose is making an impact that matters. At Deloitte Canada, that translates into building a better future by accelerating and expanding access to knowledge. We believe we can achieve thisPurpose by living our shared values to lead the way, serve with integrity, take care of each other, foster inclusion, and col laborate for measurable impact.

To learn more about how Deloitte’s approximately 312,000 professionals, over 12,000 of whom are part of the Canadian firm, please connect with us on LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram, or Facebook.
© Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities.