PSSG: Session Round 1

Location:

Millarville

Date:

June 8, 2000

Committee Reps:

Gerry Desorcy
Brian Winter
Paul Jackson
Brent Freisen

Number of Participants:

4*

Other Locations:

June 8 Millarville
June 8 Vulcan
June 9 Pincher Creek
June 19 Red Deer
June 20 Drayton Valley
June 21 Rocky Mtn. House
June 22 Sundre
June 24 Grande Prairie
June 26 Edson
June 27 Hinton
June 28 Leduc
June 29 Calgary

Summary Aboriginal

Summary Response Forms

Summary Written Forms

Session Overview:

Two issues were consistently presented by the participants in Millarville. These include: (1) dissatisfaction with the attitude and approach of some of the operating companies in the area when dealing with the publics concerns and questions related to sour gas, and (2) concerns related to flaring and incineration.

Prevention, Policy and Jurisdiction:

Several participants indicated that in a general context the EUB is a good organization, but lacks the authority to enforce penalties for companies not following regulations. It was suggested that the EUB should have a better system to ensure that company's promises are kept (enforced regulations and penalties). In addition, participants indicated that the EUB is not 'user-friendly' and in some cases lacks sufficient follow-up with members of the community.

Some of the participants said that broader intervenor funding should be made available and the requirements for intervenors should be clearer and make more accessible.

Some of the participants requested that the public receive earlier notice for the licensing application process.

Most of the participants in Millarville suggested that proposed new well development in the Millarville area is an unreasonable concentration given the proximity to communities.

Some indicated that other technology is available (such as incinerators) to reduce flaring but is not used enough - Millarville should be a "flare-free zone".

Some participants raised concerns about the safety of 30 to 40 year old pipelines that remain in the area, and that community members have not been informed of their present status.

Event Consequence Management

Suggestion made by one participant that a 'Performance Bond System' should be implemented whereby companies collectively contribute money into a bank managed fund that is accessible for reconciliation of problems related to sour gas and that a 'COM Alert System', involving a phone call to residents to inform them of minor incidents, also be implemented

Some raised public health concerns with specific reference to air quality, noting that emissions cause acid rain and damage galvanized barbed wire

It was suggested that wells are generally too close to communities and as such, setback distances should be greater.

Communication and Compensation

Industry's (especially landmen) poor communication with the public was a consistent focus by almost all of the participants. It was stated that a number of companies do not keep promises and in some cases are disrespectful. This has resulted in a generalized distrust of the industry. In addition, it was stated that the flow of information between the industry and the public is limited and slow.

Some participants indicated that the EUB system was confusing and that more user-friendly information should be developed (e.g. info package). In addition, participants indicated that the EUB response time to concerns was slow.

Most of the participants indicated that public consultation is necessary and essential. However, it was suggested that the consultation process should take place before money is exchanged for mineral rights so the company knows what the community expects and the community knows what the company intends to do.

Most of the participants indicated that the public has a low level of awareness related to sour gas issues and more events and activities should be conducted to improve awareness - public education is essential.

Several participants suggested that some of the profits from the industry go toward clean up and that no company should be given a license until it proves that it can handle potential problems and clean up.

* Several participants indicated that they were acting as representatives for larger groups and/or organizations.

	Location:	Millarville
	Date:	June 8, 2000
	Committee Reps:	Gerry Desorcy Brian Winter Paul Jackson Brent Freisen
	Number of Participants:	4*
Other Locations: June 8 Millarville June 8 Vulcan June 9 Pincher Creek June 19 Red Deer June 20 Drayton Valley June 21 Rocky Mtn. House June 22 Sundre June 24 Grande Prairie June 26 Edson June 27 Hinton June 28 Leduc June 29 Calgary Summary Aboriginal Summary Response Forms Summary Written Forms	Session Overview: Two issues were consistently presented by the participants in Millarville. These include: (1) dissatisfaction with the attitude and approach of some of the operating companies in the area when dealing with the publics concerns and questions related to sour gas, and (2) concerns related to flaring and incineration. Prevention, Policy and Jurisdiction: Several participants indicated that in a general context the EUB is a good organization, but lacks the authority to enforce penalties for companies not following regulations. It was suggested that the EUB should have a better system to ensure that company's promises are kept (enforced regulations and penalties). In addition, participants indicated that the EUB is not 'user-friendly' and in some cases lacks sufficient follow-up with members of the community. Some of the participants said that broader intervenor funding should be made available and the requirements for intervenors should be clearer and make more accessible. Some of the participants requested that the public receive earlier notice for the licensing application process. Most of the participants in Millarville suggested that proposed new well development in the Millarville area is an unreasonable concentration given the proximity to communities. Some indicated that other technology is available (such as incinerators) to reduce flaring but is not used enough - Millarville should be a "flare-free zone". Some participants raised concerns about the safety of 30 to 40 year old pipelines that remain in the area, and that community members have not been informed of their present status. Event Consequence Management Suggestion made by one participant that a 'Performance Bond System' should be implemented whereby companies collectively contribute money into a bank managed fund that is accessible for reconciliation of problems related to sour gas and that a 'COM Alert System', involving a phone call to residents to inform them of minor incidents, also be implemented Some raised public health concerns with specific reference to air quality, noting that emissions cause acid rain and damage galvanized barbed wire It was suggested that wells are generally too close to communities and as such, setback distances should be greater. Communication and Compensation Industry's (especially landmen) poor communication with the public was a consistent focus by almost all of the participants. It was stated that a number of companies do not keep promises and in some cases are disrespectful. This has resulted in a generalized distrust of the industry. In addition, it was stated that the flow of information between the industry and the public is limited and slow. Some participants indicated that the EUB system was confusing and that more user-friendly information should be developed (e.g. info package). In addition, participants indicated that the EUB response time to concerns was slow. Most of the participants indicated that public consultation is necessary and essential. However, it was suggested that the consultation process should take place before money is exchanged for mineral rights so the company knows what the community expects and the community knows what the company intends to do. Most of the participants indicated that the public has a low level of awareness related to sour gas issues and more events and activities should be conducted to improve awareness - public education is essential. Several participants suggested that some of the profits from the industry go toward clean up and that no company should be given a license until it proves that it can handle potential problems and clean up. * Several participants indicated that they were acting as representatives for larger groups and/or organizations.