PSSG: Session Round 1 - Rocky Mountain House

Location:

Rocky Mountain House

Date:

June 21, 2000

Committee Reps:

Gerry Desorcy
Paul Jackson
Tim Lambert
Frank George
Judith Bugg
Brian Winter
Randy Gossen
Doreen Healy
Barry Virtue
Kevin McLeod

Number of Participants:

19*

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:

The daylong session in Rocky Mountain House was well attended with the Committee receiving a range of input from the public. Key and consistent issues that were presented involved: (1) the EUB's approach and effectiveness related to regulating and monitoring the industry, (2) the influence that government and industry has on the EUB, and (3) the ineffectiveness of ERPs.

Prevention, Policy and Jurisdiction

Several of the participants indicated that the EUB is short staffed and as such, there is not enough monitoring and more reliance on operators to monitor themselves. Several participants expressed general feeling that regulations are not enforced sufficiently.

Some of the participants believe that the EUB is highly influenced by government and industry money and that communities are less trusting of the EUB and the operators because of this belief.

Because very few applications are denied, a few of the participants indicated the EUB rubber stamps applications without proper consultation and that the community concerns are largely ignored. In addition, a few participants indicated that there was a general feeling that landowners need to have a greater influence on the decision making.

One person indicated that the legal jurisdiction is confusing and that it is not clear to residents, or even to the regulating bodies, who is responsible for what.

A few of the participants suggested that the EUB is mostly superficial and that they only respond to visually noticeable issues and ignore the ones that are difficult to settle.

Operators not following procedures was a concern for a few people. They believe that the bad operating procedures of a few companies creates a distrust of the industry as a whole.

Event Consequence Management

All of the participants mentioned health conditions that they believe are related to sour gas emissions. The most common effects centered on respiratory problems, animal health, emotional stress and allergies.

Contaminated water was a big concern for some of the participants. More testing of water in residents' wells, underground streams, and in rivers was requested by most of the concerned individuals.

The lack of research regarding the cumulative effects of sour gas emissions was expressed by a few of the participants.

Some of the participants mentioned that residents are taking all of the risks and that they have nothing to bring to the bargaining table. They further indicated that operators have control of the situation because they do have something to bargain with and often times they underestimate the level of risk to the community.

Several of the participants indicated that the setbacks are too small. Suggestions ranged from 2km to 20 km. EPZs were also viewed as too small by several people. One participant suggested that the zones be based on property lines instead of residences.

Most of the participants had concerns regarding the ERPs. Some of the concerns were that the ERPs do not consider livestock, animals in general, topography, or climate. As well, there was a concern by some of the participants that the plans may not work because no one has ever tested them.

Communication and Compensation

There was a general feeling by some of the participants that there is a lot to learn about sour gas and that the amount, and the technical content, discourages the public. One participant believes that the EUB does not bother to inform residents because it is to their advantage to have an ignorant public.

Some of the participants indicated that there needs to be more information sharing between residents, operators, and the EUB. As well, the information provided by EUB should be user friendly and include diagrams and definitions.

Some of the participants suggested that there is a lack of consistent answers from operators and the EUB and that this frustrates community residents. A few of the participants suggested that all answers be written and signed.

A few of the participants believe that they have no one to turn to who will actually listen and help them. Because of their experiences, they distrust the EUB and view them and the operators as not credible.

With regard to compensation, a few participants indicated that the companies should compensate for the loss in property value. As well, one individual suggested that neighbours should be compensated as well as the landowner.

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

	Location:	Rocky Mountain House
	Date:	June 21, 2000
	Committee Reps:	Gerry Desorcy Paul Jackson Tim Lambert Frank George Judith Bugg Brian Winter Randy Gossen Doreen Healy Barry Virtue Kevin McLeod
	Number of Participants:	19*
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: The daylong session in Rocky Mountain House was well attended with the Committee receiving a range of input from the public. Key and consistent issues that were presented involved: (1) the EUB's approach and effectiveness related to regulating and monitoring the industry, (2) the influence that government and industry has on the EUB, and (3) the ineffectiveness of ERPs. Prevention, Policy and Jurisdiction Several of the participants indicated that the EUB is short staffed and as such, there is not enough monitoring and more reliance on operators to monitor themselves. Several participants expressed general feeling that regulations are not enforced sufficiently. Some of the participants believe that the EUB is highly influenced by government and industry money and that communities are less trusting of the EUB and the operators because of this belief. Because very few applications are denied, a few of the participants indicated the EUB rubber stamps applications without proper consultation and that the community concerns are largely ignored. In addition, a few participants indicated that there was a general feeling that landowners need to have a greater influence on the decision making. One person indicated that the legal jurisdiction is confusing and that it is not clear to residents, or even to the regulating bodies, who is responsible for what. A few of the participants suggested that the EUB is mostly superficial and that they only respond to visually noticeable issues and ignore the ones that are difficult to settle. Operators not following procedures was a concern for a few people. They believe that the bad operating procedures of a few companies creates a distrust of the industry as a whole. Event Consequence Management All of the participants mentioned health conditions that they believe are related to sour gas emissions. The most common effects centered on respiratory problems, animal health, emotional stress and allergies. Contaminated water was a big concern for some of the participants. More testing of water in residents' wells, underground streams, and in rivers was requested by most of the concerned individuals. The lack of research regarding the cumulative effects of sour gas emissions was expressed by a few of the participants. Some of the participants mentioned that residents are taking all of the risks and that they have nothing to bring to the bargaining table. They further indicated that operators have control of the situation because they do have something to bargain with and often times they underestimate the level of risk to the community. Several of the participants indicated that the setbacks are too small. Suggestions ranged from 2km to 20 km. EPZs were also viewed as too small by several people. One participant suggested that the zones be based on property lines instead of residences. Most of the participants had concerns regarding the ERPs. Some of the concerns were that the ERPs do not consider livestock, animals in general, topography, or climate. As well, there was a concern by some of the participants that the plans may not work because no one has ever tested them. Communication and Compensation There was a general feeling by some of the participants that there is a lot to learn about sour gas and that the amount, and the technical content, discourages the public. One participant believes that the EUB does not bother to inform residents because it is to their advantage to have an ignorant public. Some of the participants indicated that there needs to be more information sharing between residents, operators, and the EUB. As well, the information provided by EUB should be user friendly and include diagrams and definitions. Some of the participants suggested that there is a lack of consistent answers from operators and the EUB and that this frustrates community residents. A few of the participants suggested that all answers be written and signed. A few of the participants believe that they have no one to turn to who will actually listen and help them. Because of their experiences, they distrust the EUB and view them and the operators as not credible. With regard to compensation, a few participants indicated that the companies should compensate for the loss in property value. As well, one individual suggested that neighbours should be compensated as well as the landowner. * Several participants indicated that they were acting as representatives for larger groups and/or organizations.