Sure. In very broad strokes, Mr. Schiefke and committee, what we call “exogenous factors”, which are things like COVID, the atmospheric river and other events effectively external, really resulted in about $9 billion of cost—big picture on the overall project—just to give you a sense. About a third of the overrun is really attributable to those types of factors.
Broadly, I would say a couple of other things, though, with respect to cost. This is really from a reflection on a long career in this space. When they looked at the original Trans Mountain pipeline expansion proposal and what it was supposed to cost, and looked at comparable projects that were proposed around the same time—specifically, Enbridge's northern gateway project—they were in the same time zone for cost.
What you saw over time as the projects were originally conceived, until, say, the termination of northern gateway, was that the project costs moved in lockstep. If you look at other projects across time, you see a substantial increase in costs, whether it was the Alberta clipper project, which is a Canadian-U.S. project by Enbridge, or the line 3 replacement, which followed about 10 years later, there was a substantial increase in cost.
A lot of it had to do with how things are done now relative to earlier points in time. This has been commented on by both gentlemen, either in their comments or in the Q and A. That is a reality of part of the reason the cost has increased over time.