 |
|
Other Locations: October
17 Leduc |
Round Two - Response Forms - SUMMARY RESULTS - Response forms were made available to the public via the web site, by fax or mail upon request and at all of the public sessions. The purpose of the response forms was to gather feedback about the public's opinion of the content of the Directions Document. The deadline for submission of the response forms was officially October 31st. However, to accommodate a number of later submissions the actual deadline was extended to November 6th. A total of 35 response forms were received and tabulated. The information in the response forms will be considered by the Advisory Committee prior to developing their final recommendations. In the response form, respondents were asked to indicte their level of agreement/satisfaction with regard to the overall direction the Advisory Committee is moving in with respect to recommendations, and with regard to the directions for recommendations that the Committee identified for each of the 'priority issues'. In addition, respondents that disagreed with or with dissatisfied with the directions were asked to provide a written response of their reasons. The qualitative questions have been complied into tables providing both the actual number of responses for each option and the per cent of the total that the actual number of responses represent. Additionally, the tables include the total number of responses (n = x) for each of the quantitative results. (It is important to note that not all of the respondents provided answers to all of the questions. Consequently, all n-totals do not equal 35). For the purposes of this summary, the tables for the questions with quantitative results have been provided and the written responses have been provided for the open-ended questions. Do you generally agree with the overall direction the Advisory Committee is moving in with respect to developing recommendations?
If you disagree or strongly disagree, please provide your reasons. Do not let this exercise get watered down to appease industry The direction that appears to be evolving is one of increased regulation and reduction of sour gas activities. This is a dangerous direction; when no one has addressed the issue of sour gas in the overall scheme of today's society (i.e. increased traffic, water usage, other industries, etc.). See the following comments obviously the EUB CANNOT hear the concerns of persons affected. Listen to the people, municipal governments, provincial and federal. A very small group of people stand to profit at the expense of the health of thousands. If there is a remote possibility of accident the application is NO! These studies have been done for years. WHAT are you doing for the people, like myself, who have been sick and struggling for years as a result of sour gas poisoning? While the gas companies and the government profit from this industry we, the people, have been poisoned. What is this or any study going to do to help us? You know the irreversible long-term health effects already. What are you going to do for those of us who are chronically sick (nausea)? I feel like our concerns about health are not being taken seriously. There is scientific literature that demonstrates a real human health danger from sour gas emissions. I feel that it's your responsibility to conduct a literature review. But stick to your guns, get help for us the general public. Human health and safety re flaring (who is looking at this issue?), chronic health affects, as they relate to human health........need to been highest priority. Not strong enough measures to ensure the health and safety of residents. This still assumes the EUB is trustworthy. I feel most people do not think so. No mandate to review accumulated impacts of petroleum and other industries on our environment (people and wildlife) or to look at the sustainability or economical supplies for Albertans in the years to come. We are currently paying outrageous prices for oil and gas because market prices are based on world supplies. In the future we won't be able to afford the price of dwindling resource of petroleum. BUT I am concerned how many concerns were screened out by the committee determining that an element or aspect of the regulatory system was NOT in need of changes, despite related concerns being raised by a number of participants (see last paragraph, Page 9). Human Health issues must become priority #1. Until the committee recognized human health effects caused by indiscriminate, illegal flaring by industries nothing else really matters. Ecological effects, environmental liabilities are ignored by EUB, these contribute directly to human health impacts. Alberta Environment and the EUB have allowed industries to abuse neighbors by these activities of industry by basically ignoring the rights of landowners to live. Freedom of Enjoyment of their land without interference by industry, air, soil, water. Overall, how satisfied are you that these directions, as they currently stand, will support the health and safety of Albertans?
n = 33 For each of the fourteen major issue areas, please
check those that you are generally in agreement 1. DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
2. EUB ROLE
3. MONITORING
4. JURISDICTION
5. INDUSTRY PROCEDURES AND PERSONNEL
6. EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANNING AND PREPAREDNESS
7. UNDERSTANDING HEALTH EFFECTS
8. TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE
9. SETBACKS
10. PUBLIC CONSULTATION BY INDUSTRY
11. PUBLIC AWARENESS AND UNDERSTANDING
12. ABORIGINAL ISSUES
13. IMPLEMENTATION
14. NON-MANDATE ISSUES
Do you have any other comments that you would like to make? The AEUB used to be internationally recognized as one of the best, if not the best, non-partisan, agencies of its kind in the world - until it was gutted by budget cuts. If this initiative is to have any meaning, bring back the Board! To date the industry and gov. Have run rough shod over albertans to promote industry they are continuing to do this inspite of mounting displeasure of albertans and mounting evidence showing major health concerns for humans and animals. The advisory committee has done a very good job of bringing to our attention the working of the oil and particularly the sour gas industry and whatever can be done to improve operations.
With regard to Lockend well, the EUB has stated none of these recommendations would be implemented as well was proposed and hearing held before they occurred. For this reason we feel betrayed and feel this could well be a useless and expensive process. Thank you for the opportunity to be candid. The EUB should be ashamed
to allow this issue to drag on NO is the most appropriate
answer. If I am threatened in any way, such as sickness or
death because of this product I WILL RESPOND IN KIND. One of the biggest problems is the arbitrary use of "sour" versus "sweet" designation. The terms are misused and interchanged to the point that they have little meaning. "Sweet" sounds harmless but in fact it is not. Specify what is present to clarify Having had extension dealings with EUB personnel over the years. I trust their commitment. I do however, recognize that with cutbacks, industry expansion, and de-regulation the public's general level of trust has been eroded. Generally satisfied with directions. Provincial guidelines for flaring emissions are too high. Don't like the fact that industry policies itself. Fines or penalties for violations are not sufficient. I think the Advisory Committee is passing the buck regarding many of the issues within their mandate. And their mandate was too narrow to begin with. Please stop poisining us!! These are not action directions, just observations. You need recommendations for action which should include identifying and helping those who have suffered cope with out loss. If greed is 1 of 7 deadly sins this is a prime example The EUB needs to be strengthened overall from an organizational and resource basis. The EUB needs to consider other ADR processes so that everything doesn't end in hearings. In addition, there needs to be an ability to sort out substantive vs. trivial I am impressed with the amount of material you have sifted, the issues you identified and suggested directions for improvement and in a very TIMELY fashion! Good work! Such efficiency by a committee is truly impressive!!! #6 Should have been more
widely publicized and or meeting held in Edmonton. (Leduc is
not Edmonton). Thank you to the committee for their endless hours they have committed to this project. It is greatly appreciated I sincerely wish good things will come out of this project. Human health needs to be
top priority.......again as they relate to all the Oil &
Gas industry activities. I feel the committee is moving in the right direction and the issues I shared in June are being addressed by your document. I hope there is the will' to implement the recommendations and provide enhanced health protection for our citizens. Overall the recommendations sounded good however the EUB is too biased toward industry to be trusted with any of the scrutiny or implementing of issues. No mention about committee selection. Biased? Need expert committee AND public committee. Public at large representation appears swamped by petroleum industry and Alberta government. The more fundamental problem with respect to air quality and the environment in general is that we are ruled by a group of people which does not want an effectively functioning EUB or department of the environment. The price to be paid by our children and grandchildren will be enormous. I am pleased to see the inclusion of health and other agencies in the process. It would be great if this committee could also submit a recommendation to the government about the need for more experts available to the public with regard to public health and safety. At this time a majority of the experts are hired consultants which may sometimes bias their reports to suit the people who hire them. This is a good beginning but it needs action. Cost to Health System from respiratory, hypersensitivity needs to be estimated also. Include long-term effect costs of cancer and MS, etc. Cost to Agriculture because of adverse effects on livestock, water, and soil and compensation to farmers. It would help if workers in office would have understanding of what takes place in field. I feel the committee has great initiative and I, for one, thank you for listening to my fears and concerns. Your job will be a long one, not without 'certain scrutiny'. Anything that causes oil and gas companies to be more proactive in their safety and consciousness of people's basic need of living their lives without fear -- this is our biggest expectant out of this whole 'ordeal'. NONE OF THESE ISSUES MATTER UNTIL HUMAN HEALTH IS #1 PRIORITY of EUB. More inappropriate activities by industry increase daily. We suggest a Environmental Auditor office become reality in Alberta. Monitory video taping of flares in question, that have had regulatory problems or environmental complaints. If government agencies wanted to regulate industry effectively, the policy of 'self' regulation has to be thrown out the window. The public expects government agencies Alberta Environment, EUB, Health Boards, to protect public health. By ignoring the health concerns of Albertans, both EUB and AB Environment are not doing adequate, appropriate work to ensure safe health of Albertans. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
