Committee Members |
|
| Gerry DeSorcy – Chairman | Marilyn Craig – Secretariat |
| David Wilson – Risk and Research | David Spink – AB Environment |
| Brian Winter – Public-at-large | Tim Lambert – Regional Health Authority |
| Frank George – Oil & Gas Industry | Maureen Bolen – AB Agriculture |
| Kevin McLeod – AB Health | Barry Virtue – AUMA |
| Rob Ollerenshaw – Land Dev. Industry | John Squarek – Oil & Gas Industry |
| Randy Gossen – Oil & Gas Industry | Cindy Miller-Reade – AB Municipal Affairs |
| Judith Bugg – Public-at-large | Brent Friesen – Regional Health Authority |
| Ron Wolsey – Disaster Services | Marjorie Young – City of Calgary Admin. |
| Bart Guyon – AAMD&C | |
EUB Board and Staff |
|
| Arden Berg | Harry Lillo |
| David DeGagne | |
Committee Members Absent |
|
| Rob McManus – B.C. Oil & Gas Comm. | Bob Clark – Land Dev. Industry |
| Paul Jackson – Public-at-large | Steve Hrudey – Risk Research |
| Dan Clarke – AB Human Resources | |
Guests |
|
| George Kupfer - Praxis |
The meeting was opened by the Chairman.
Minutes of 28 April were approved as distributed. 12 May minutes had not been distributed and will be reviewed at the next meeting.
a) Applications – Routine vs. Non-routine Process/Enforcement
EUB Facilities Applications staff presented additional information to the committee regarding the process industry must use for calculating hydrogen sulphide (H2S) release rates and the EUB audit process and then responded to questions from committee members.
The H2S release rate calculation uses historical reservoir pressure data known from over 230,000 wells drilled in the province. The company must use the highest H2S concentration and the highest absolute open flow potential (AOF) found within a 5 kilometre search area and the rates for all zones that may be encountered must be cumulative. There are built in safety factors in the process including that some sour zones may not be encountered, and the chance of hitting both the maximum AOF and maximum H2S are remote.
The EUB’s random audit process is designed to audit a higher frequency of well licence applications with high inherent risk wells. Staff experience and expertise is also used to select applications for audit.
Staff stated that they believe the current system is working well but also realize that any system can be continually improved. They stated that we can always learn from experience. The staff welcome feedback from the committee and recognize that it will bring a different perspective and possibly positive changes to the system.
Committee members noted that they will need a clearer understanding of the EUB process used for wells that enter the EUB’s adjudicative process.
b) EUB’s Legal Process for Decision-Making
Doug Larder provided a written handout of his previous presentation on the EUB’s legal process and then responded to questions.
He noted that EUB legislation is geared towards protecting public safety and health as part of looking out for public interest. Inherent in regulations, first and foremost, is a safety and health focus and the broad breadth of the regulatory regime is founded on the basis of public safety. One of the purposes of the Act is to “secure observance of safe practices”.
When an application for a sour gas facility is made the applicant is required to contact all potentially impacted parties including the municipal authority and others. If a hearing is to held, potentially impacted parties including Municipalities are provided with a notice of hearing and provided the opportunity to make submissions and participate in the hearing. The Board considers this evidence along with that of other interveners in its decision making process. The Board also has the authority to decide who will sit on a hearing panel and can, through an Order In Council, have medical or other experts on the panel.
Action Item: David DeGagne will provide the committee with an organizational chart of key EUB staff who might be resource people to working groups with a reference to their area of expertise.
c) Risk Presentation and Discussion (Dr. Wilson)
David Wilson provided an overview of risk assessment and demonstrated the variations in results that can occur. Risk assessment for industries such as aviation, nuclear power, and oil and gas activity look at rare event situations and he indicated that you can often predict the future based on past occurrences. He cautioned the committee against placing too much reliance on results of risk assessment alone and stated that the focus should be on prevention and the inspection and feedback process to ensure that systems are properly maintained.
d) Memoranda of Understanding (MOU’s)
Harry provided a summary of MOU’s and other agreements that currently exist between the EUB and other organizations.
Action Item: Harry will identify agreements that apply to sour gas and public safety. Marilyn will provide the committee with a copy of the latest draft animal health protocol prior to the start of the outreach process.
Larry Bell and Geoff Morrison of Crestar attended the meeting and showed a video of the recent well blowout at Enchant and provided an overview of the observations and learnings from the event. Examples of issues suggested that this committee could consider in its review include determination of emergency planning zones (EPZ’s), coordination of government decisions during an emergency, evacuation levels, and declaration of a local state of emergency.
Gerry reported that he, George Kupfer and Cliff Supernault had met with IOGC and IRC to discuss how best to consult with the First Nations community. The organizations agreed to provide feedback on how and when to consult with First Nations. They expressed disappointment that there is no Aboriginal representative on the Committee and noted that they would still be willing to assist in finding a suitable representative. They were assured that the process is intended to provide a safe framework for all Albertans including the Aboriginal community. Gerry left an open invitation with them for an Aboriginal Representative on the Committee.
It was agreed that the IRC will work with the Committee as a resource to facilitate separate meetings with Aboriginal Communities. The committee will try to hold meetings with the communities when in those areas if possible, otherwise separate meetings will be scheduled for other acceptable dates.
A meeting with those who represent the Metis communities has also been arranged for 31 May where they will discuss ways to consult with the Metis people.
Praxis provided an update of the public outreach process. Advertisements have appeared in 4 out of 6 Southern Alberta papers, and will appear over a period of two weeks. Other ads will appear in local area papers approximately 10 days prior to meeting dates. Ads will also appear in two Aboriginal papers.
It was agreed that we need to confirm actual meeting locations and make sure we advertise those locations in advance through public announcements, ads in local papers, community radio and TV channels, and other places such as the town offices. It was noted that Praxis is sending letters/invitations to those who have already shown an interest in participating as well. Richard will provide the Committee with a list of individual groups he has sent invitations to so far.
Action Item: Marilyn will provide Praxis with a list of those who have appeared as interveners at EUB hearing over the past year and Praxis will send invitations to them.
Action Item: Brian Winter will provide Praxis with a list of members of the Alberta Fire Chiefs Association and Praxis will send them invitations. Marilyn will ask Barry Virtue and Bart Guyon for lists of names and numbers of AAMD&C, AUMA officials and Praxis will send invitiations to those in sour gas regions.
Praxis will develop a schedule of members to attend each session based on the availability information provided. An itinerary will be provided. Praxis has block booked hotel rooms in the various centres.
Action Item: Committee members are asked to advise Praxis if they require a room. Marilyn will assist with travel arrangements on request.
Frank George introduced the communications representative of CAPP, Dave MacGinnis. Dave, Frank George and Greg Gilbertson had met to discuss the possible media strategy for the committee and Dave provided an overview of issues/concerns to consider. He suggested that the committee should consider being more proactive with media rather than on an ad-hoc basis. He believes that the only way to get key messages out is through mass media or mass mail out. It was agreed that the committee needs to think about the strategy it wants to develop and determine what further media relations it may want to develop.
It was agreed that the committee needs to have key messages that will be used consistently when approached by media. The committee agreed to offer to meet with local media when in communities. Praxis will make arrangements to hold press conferences. It was agreed that key message statements must include that this is an independent group which is confident that its recommendation will be acted on, and that the committee wants to hear the views of Albertans.
Action Item: Richard will develop a key message document on Monday for comment by end of Tuesday. The media release will be sent out and media contacts made once the key message statements have been agreed to. Press conferences will be arranged by Praxis for each outreach location.
It was agreed that the Communications and Compensation Working Group would work with Praxis on an on-going basis to determine consultation needs.
Praxis provided an update on Web site matters.
Action Item: Committee members were reminded to provide Richard with bio sketches if they had not already done so. The outreach process registration form, bios, advertisement, and other materials will be added to the web site as soon as possible.
Action Item: Praxis will develop a rough draft of the Random Sample Survey and circulate for input.
Praxis developed a revised timeline as requested at the last meeting to reflect a deadline date of mid December to have the final report presented to the EUB.
There was a discussion about allowing time for approval of the document by constituents prior to submitting the report to the Board. Members must recognize that people will disagree with some of the contents of the document, and some organizations may not approve of the entire report. The committee was reminded that any dissenting views will be captured in the document.
Praxis explained that the Directions document will outline the Committee’s findings and direction, but will not include specific proposed recommendations. It will indicate the general direction the Committee is heading with recommendations but will not include specific wording of recommendations. It could also provide options with pros and cons of each and ask the public for feedback. Draft recommendations could be included where there was clear direction/consensus and the need for action.
Action Item: Praxis will provide the Committee with examples of Directions documents so it is clear what we may be producing.
A discussion of the draft “Committee Structure and Issues” document dated 23 May including key challenge areas took place. The group was reminded that document is a work in progress and could be modified throughout the process as needed. Gerry indicated that the three working groups should review items within the groups and provide comments back.
Action Item: Committee members will provide Marilyn with any comments on the Committee Structure and Issues document. Marilyn will revise the document and send out to the committee.
Gerry agreed that he will ask the EUB Chairman for an extension for delivery of the final report to mid-December. He asked that the groups begin developing work plans and schedules for reviewing the issues including determining additional EUB resources and outside experts that may be required. It was also agreed that a methodology to use to address broad challenge areas should be developed that would be used by all working groups.
Action Item: Gerry and the working group chairs will meet to discuss possible approaches/methods to use to review the broad challenge areas and recommendations will be made to the working groups through the chairs. It was agreed that the approaches did not need to be identical for all working groups but the approaches should be similar.
Action Item: Each working group was asked to develop some key questions to be used for the outreach sessions and the response form.
It was agreed that members could have alternates participate on working groups if they wish.
The Committee had previously decided to have industry representatives attend a committee meeting to share their experiences, however there was agreement not to do so at this time.
June 12, 2000 EUB offices.
It was agreed to use the mornings of June 12, 23, and 30 as working group sessions followed by full committee meetings starting at noon in West Hall.