PSSG: Session Round 1

Location:

Vulcan

Date:

June 8, 2000

Committee Reps:

Frank George
Judith Bugg
Robert Ollerenshaw

Number of Participants:

8*

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:

Members of the public participating in the Discussion Sessions in Vulcan expressed a variety of concerns related to sour gas facilities. The three issues that were most frequently identified, include: (1) concerns about air and water quality and their relationship to public health, (2) issues related to the increasing development of wells in proximity to populated areas, and (3) dissatisfaction with the communication between industry and the community.

Prevention, Policy and Jurisdiction:

Several participants indicated that the existing EUB policies are ineffective and are not sufficiently enforced. A suggestion was made that for exploration and seismic, there should be strict policies for leaving the land and water undisturbed. In addition, there should be policies restricting the number of wells in one area (particularly near populated areas).

Some of the participants suggested that the EUB is too closely linked to the government and as such, their decisions were 'economically-driven' and favored the energy companies. The EUB should monitor more closely to prevent problems and should inform people more effectively so that they understand that they can participate in the decision making process.

Several participants stated that the technology currently available to reduce emissions is not being used and that incineration as an alternative to flaring should be adopted.

Event Consequence Management

Some participants indicated that more research was required in the areas of: cumulative effects and the effects of sulfur dioxide. Participants believe that these are having a negative impact on the air and water quality and that a variety of the human and animal health issues in the area (respiratory problems, insomnia, reproductive problems, nausea, etc.) are related to these environmental issues.

Most of the participants suggested that, given the cumulative effects, there should be drilling limits established near populated areas and that all wells (level I, II and III) need to be scrutinized closely - not just level IV wells. It was suggested that several level I wells could be just as hazardous as one level IV given the cumulative effects and the lack of monitoring.

Some of the participants suggested that setbacks are currently not adequate and need to be more site specific and consider topography, settlement patterns and climate.

Several of the participants state that the EPZ should not be solely determined by radius, but should be defined by 'affected area' and consider wind conditions, overall climate and topography.

Communication and Compensation

Most of the participants indicated that the companies were difficult and frustrating to deal with and arrogance and intimidation from the companies was not uncommon. This has lead to an overall distrust and in some cases apathy within the community - people have become frustrated and given up. Overall the participants said that there needs to be a better and more effective method of communication between the companies, the public and the EUB.

Some industry participants indicated that the difficulties between the oil companies and the public are company specific and that some companies are 'communications driven' and respond effectively to the public. Some oil companies attempt to provide the community with information, hold open houses, and generally build trust within the operating area.

Most of the participants suggested that there is an overall lack of public awareness (e.g. the decision making process, contact information) and that this needs to be resolved. There was some suggestion that this should be the EUB's role. People should be made aware that they do have the opportunity to provide input into the decision making process.

Some of the participants indicated that because of inadequate monitoring or enforcement and because the industry and regulators are 'economy driven' and no alternatives are sought, the community is forced to suffer the consequences (air and water) of flaring.

Some of the participants suggested that the EUB and others do not provide enough information about possible risks and the community is not effectively made aware of existing wells and ERPs or possible water contamination - the community is expected to assume the risks.

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

	Location:	Vulcan
	Date:	June 8, 2000
	Committee Reps:	Frank George Judith Bugg Robert Ollerenshaw
	Number of Participants:	8*

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: Members of the public participating in the Discussion Sessions in Vulcan expressed a variety of concerns related to sour gas facilities. The three issues that were most frequently identified, include: (1) concerns about air and water quality and their relationship to public health, (2) issues related to the increasing development of wells in proximity to populated areas, and (3) dissatisfaction with the communication between industry and the community. Prevention, Policy and Jurisdiction: Several participants indicated that the existing EUB policies are ineffective and are not sufficiently enforced. A suggestion was made that for exploration and seismic, there should be strict policies for leaving the land and water undisturbed. In addition, there should be policies restricting the number of wells in one area (particularly near populated areas). Some of the participants suggested that the EUB is too closely linked to the government and as such, their decisions were 'economically-driven' and favored the energy companies. The EUB should monitor more closely to prevent problems and should inform people more effectively so that they understand that they can participate in the decision making process. Several participants stated that the technology currently available to reduce emissions is not being used and that incineration as an alternative to flaring should be adopted. Event Consequence Management Some participants indicated that more research was required in the areas of: cumulative effects and the effects of sulfur dioxide. Participants believe that these are having a negative impact on the air and water quality and that a variety of the human and animal health issues in the area (respiratory problems, insomnia, reproductive problems, nausea, etc.) are related to these environmental issues. Most of the participants suggested that, given the cumulative effects, there should be drilling limits established near populated areas and that all wells (level I, II and III) need to be scrutinized closely - not just level IV wells. It was suggested that several level I wells could be just as hazardous as one level IV given the cumulative effects and the lack of monitoring. Some of the participants suggested that setbacks are currently not adequate and need to be more site specific and consider topography, settlement patterns and climate. Several of the participants state that the EPZ should not be solely determined by radius, but should be defined by 'affected area' and consider wind conditions, overall climate and topography. Communication and Compensation Most of the participants indicated that the companies were difficult and frustrating to deal with and arrogance and intimidation from the companies was not uncommon. This has lead to an overall distrust and in some cases apathy within the community - people have become frustrated and given up. Overall the participants said that there needs to be a better and more effective method of communication between the companies, the public and the EUB. Some industry participants indicated that the difficulties between the oil companies and the public are company specific and that some companies are 'communications driven' and respond effectively to the public. Some oil companies attempt to provide the community with information, hold open houses, and generally build trust within the operating area. Most of the participants suggested that there is an overall lack of public awareness (e.g. the decision making process, contact information) and that this needs to be resolved. There was some suggestion that this should be the EUB's role. People should be made aware that they do have the opportunity to provide input into the decision making process. Some of the participants indicated that because of inadequate monitoring or enforcement and because the industry and regulators are 'economy driven' and no alternatives are sought, the community is forced to suffer the consequences (air and water) of flaring. Some of the participants suggested that the EUB and others do not provide enough information about possible risks and the community is not effectively made aware of existing wells and ERPs or possible water contamination - the community is expected to assume the risks. * Several participants indicated that they were acting as representatives for larger groups and/or organizations.