Location:	Drayton Valley,
	Date:	October 18, 2000
	Number of Participants:	10
Other Locations: October 17 Leduc October 18 Drayton Valley October 19 Rocky Mountain House October 23 Sundre October 24 Grande Prairie October 25 Red Deer October 26 Calgary October 30 Pincher Creek Summary Aboriginal Summary Response Forms	MEETING NOTES 1. Development Planning Coordination of surface and subsurface planning and development No comments Coordination of planning and development of subsurface resources The density of oil wells and gas wells is a concern. Certain levels of emissions may be OK for individual facilities, but when 10 wells are nearby the cumulative emissions are not acceptable. In these situations the letter of the law is there, but the spirit of the law has been lost. 2. EUB Role Content of regulations No comments Effectiveness of the field surveillance system and other enforcement measures No comments Application and decision process Concerned that anything lower that 1% H2S is considered sweet. At 0.9%, if the pipeline breaks it will release 9000 ppm H2S. The operator must notify people that there is some sour content even though it is classified as sweet, and there must be an appropriate ERP developed. The operator may already be required to develop and ERP, but they don't always notify the people. The report must address this. Sweet developments can be 100m away from residents, when really they are not sweet. Sweet should be classified as 10ppm over 8 hours. When sour wells and flaring are being proposed next to where people live, the people should have a vote to determine if it should be allowed. There should be a democratic process, rather than EUB decisions. Relationship with Stakeholders No comments 3. Monitoring A deadline should be set. Adequate monitoring doesn't exist, now monitors only read 1ppm H2S and 10ppm S02. AB Resource Council is trying to develop a small monitor for landowners (like a rig rat): it is solar paneled and has a digital read out. It can be downloaded to a computer and will give a complete readout of the peaks, which is what bothers landowners. AB Resource Council needs $ to develop this. It is necessary!! There should be more emphasis on this in the report. Should have chemical analysis of raw gas in pipes. H2S and SO2 are marker gases. EUB should make it a requirement to know what is in the pipes and what could be released. For example, in one case there was 67% methane, but the H2S was only 0.4% and only the H2S was monitored. (Committee member explained that toxicologist say that if the other compounds ever got high enough to harm you, the H2S level would already be so high that you would be dead) Committee member stated: H2S and SO2 are of major concern. Perhaps certain situations (ie. Enchant) may require more detailed monitoring of other chemicals. Personal monitors are available. There is a gap in knowledge of health effects of people and the concentrations to which they have been exposed. Personal monitors are passive monitors and don't record peaks. Better monitors must be developed. CO2 and other chemicals should also be mentioned Water quality and soil quality must also be considered, not just air quality. 4. Jurisdiction No comments 5. Industry Procedures and Personnel No comments 6. Emergency Response Planning and Preparedness ERPs talk about 'sheltering', but they don't explain that you can only be sheltered for a certain amount of time. New furnaces have fresh air intakes. Every 3 or 4 cycles fresh air has replaced the old air in the house. Question asked: what are the present standards for evacuation? Concerned that these standards are not appropriate. 'Sensitives' are voluntary. Who will you know who to notify? Will a database be built to know who is sensitive and who is not? Rather, there should be one low level to ensure that everyone is safe. Question asked: what is the evacuation distance in an ERP? RHA needs more consistent, complete information regarding ERPs and industry activities. One man worked for the RHA in Hinton. There are currently 18 wells being drilled in the Hinton area. Some companies keep the RHA well informed about their activities and their ERPs, other companies do not. The RHA needs to have current information in order for them to be able to respond effectively in an emergency. With 18 new wells it is difficult for the RHA to keep track. Should they trust that they are getting good, current information? They also need to know who else the information has been given to? 7. Understanding Health Effects A discussion occurred about the 'triple-shifted-Rheiman' standard. Committee members explained to the public how it was developed and what it meant. Many comments resulted: Disagree with 100ppm standard. At 10ppm employees are required to mask up, but the EPZ allows 20ppm, and now this equation is saying 100ppm. Apparently there was a test on cattle at 100ppm and nothing happened, but was this pure H2S or the H2S we breathe from the plants, mixed with other compounds? During the Lodgepole blowout one man was exposed to 5.9ppm. Before the blowout his calves weighed 630lbs when they were weaned, after the blowout they weighed only 430lbs. This 100ppm standard must be fought. It is not safe! In safety courses they say that 50ppm H2S can kill a cow, and 600-700ppm can kill a human. The 100ppm level is not safe! Concerned about levels. During the Lodgepole blowout one family was exposed to between 0.1ppm and 0.5ppm H2S, but still the daughter (11 months old at the time) has had chronic problems for 18 years. International doctors in Geneva develop standards and set guidelines for how much H2S we can be exposed to. This is not appropriate! They should be here, breathing in what we breathe in, and then they can decide what is safe! The committee members pointed out that exposure time must also be taken into consideration when trying to compare these levels. For example, the level set for employees is based on exposure over a different time than the EPZ. The committee also reminded the public that exposure to low level H2S is outside their mandate. There is a statement in the document about employees having higher tolerance because they have worked around H2S, but isn't the opposite? The more you are exposed, the more susceptible you become? Concerned about statements that include "average". There are many people with sensitivities who must also be considered. CO2 and other chemicals should also be mentioned. A medical advisory board should be set up. The medical community is not updated or aware of the effects of sour gas. Once someone is toxified, their symptoms become very confusing. 8. Technical Knowledge Dispersion modeling No comments Risk assessment Risk assessment groups used are mainly from Alberta, and they are all paid by oil. We should use risk assessment groups from out of the province, out of the country, in order to get different perspectives and know what other risk assessment groups would say. 9. Setbacks Criteria for setbacks Finally the public has had a chance to voice its concerns about setbacks. They must be paid attention to. Effects of setbacks No comments 10. Public Consultation by Industry No comments 11. Public Awareness and Education No comments 12. Aboriginal Issues No comments 13. Implementation What are the deadlines for when the EUB will act on this? The public is skeptical. Often things are forgotten and nothing is done. 14. Non-mandate but Important Issues No comments Additional Notes: Pleased with the issues addressed. The format is exciting and of high caliber. It addresses the issues she was personally concerned about. The committee has done an excellent job. All through Alberta communities are forming groups, and now the public has a stronger voice Other operations also give emissions ie. pulp & paper and other oil & gas operations. There are cumulative effects. Water quality and soil quality must also be considered, not just air quality One woman attended who had participated in the telephone survey. She commented that she was glad to know there is information and that someone is doing something about these issues. The telephone survey was difficult to answer. The questions wanted yes/no answers, but sometimes this wasn't appropriate. It is evident from some of the comment the public made during the first round (in Appendix C) that the public needs more education and more information. They are unaware of some things. The problem is how do you educate the public when they are not interested or don't have concerns? There is enough crown land to use for sour gas development. The health effects are too big a cost to develop sour gas near people. It is good to see that AB Health is finally getting involved! Originally in Drayton Valley they could get no help from the MD. Now the MD is playing a role. MD must be involved and aware in advance, not only called in for emergencies. The cattle industry has been criticized for E.Coli: farmers can only spread so much manure on the land. But seismic holes are often left open. The Walkerton crisis can happen here. Waste must be spread, but it is dangerous if seismic holes are left open. This must be addressed, not only on private land but also in ditches. There are currently no standards for size of blast, depth, etc.