Location:	Leduc
	Date:	October 17, 2000
	Number of Participants:	12
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 In major driver issue: farmers and landowners should also be named. Landowners should be involved in any changes to the existing mineral leasing system. How can the leasing system be changed?  Coordination of planning and development of subsurface resources Only 1 or 2 facilities should be allowed per 100 sq miles. Directional drilling is trespassing. 2. EUB Role Content of regulations RE existing regulations: IL #s are changed frequently to make corrections. Information is put out too fast before regulations are researched for clarity, overlap etc. RE integrity of old sour pipelines: some old pipelines, if they were welded for sour gas, may not be in too bad of shape, but to convert a sweet line to sour is not acceptable RE third party damage to pipelines: Farmers should not be held accountable for damage if the lines were not put down deep enough. RE increased pressure testing when converting pipelines: testing doesn't prove anything. Sour gas reacts with steel and needs special weld joints. There should be high fines or loss of license to enforce this. Effectiveness of the field surveillance system and other enforcement measures It is not useful to just make more regulations without enforcing them. Regulations must be enforced. Years ago a company polluted over its limits. Nothing was done because if it was shut down it would have cost too much $ and created to many job losses. Will economics still continue to rule over other concerns? The EUB must have more teeth and have a strong enforcement policy and must be held accountable Complaints must be acted on right away (24 hours a day), and farmers and people living nearby must be notified immediately Loss of license would discourage companies from abusing the system RE increased number of experienced EUB field staff: staff must have the power to shut down and enforce Application and decision process Need external, independent audits of the decisions the EUB makes regarding licensing. EUB must be held accountable when licenses are issued, and staff should also be aware of health matters regarding levels of H2S RE developing a less formal and user-friendlier hearing process: if strong enforcement were in place you would not need a less formal or friendlier hearing process. Relationship with Stakeholders In the document it says that "people spoke of the perceived bias of the EUB": this is not worded strong enough. There IS a bias because of the structure of the EUB; the bias is motivated by the funding. EUB should consult with farmers and landowners next to projects when something happens, and there should be more involvement with them before. 3. Monitoring There must be an emphasis on research: 'understanding' health effects implies that there is knowledge to be understood, but more research is needed. In certain cases where people are very close to sour gas plants they should have electronic monitors in their home that are connected to the EUB so that the EUB will know what is going on. This should be a high priority. Should have automatic shutdowns on site, and it also should set the alarm off at the EUB and at local residents' homes (and maybe at local fire halls). Monitors should measure all types of pollutants RE personal exposure monitoring: this shouldn't even have to be considered RE improving the understanding of health effects: if governments would release some of the medical findings then a lot of studies would not have to be repeated 4. Jurisdiction Ministries (Natural Resources, Environment, etc) should not have the power to over-rule a decision in favor of industry and economics. This has not happened with the EUB in the past, and should not happen in the future. EUB jurisdiction over shutting down a facility has improved over the years. This must continue. EUB must be accountable when they issue a license, even to see that reclamation is done so that the area returns to the condition it was in before entry by industry. Landowners should not be held when applying to the banks for loans because there is contamination on the land that has not been reclaimed properly. There should be no more sulfur or other material that could react with the elements that are present in the soil before entry. Federal and provincial governments should work together, not against each other 5. Industry Procedures and Personnel Drilling operations for sour gas should have special regulations 6. Emergency Response Planning and Preparedness Need a standard for ERP so public can trust that when the EUB accepts an application an acceptable ERP has been developed. ERPs don't recognize that some people don't have phones or that some people have respiratory problems and can't be rushed around. More conservative standards are needed in ERPs. Something should be established with 911 so that the public can call 911 and the 911 operator will contact the EUB. GIS could be used to retrieve necessary information. The RCMP is undermanned, so the 911 operator must contact the EUB directly and not go through the RCMP. The EUB could have one central, toll-free number for landowners to call in an emergency. The EUB should take responsibility if a call comes in, rather than referring the caller tot he company. Time lag between calling and having the call addressed is dangerous. Phones must be in place, and there must be some way for notification of problems. Evacuation signs should be in place (what about dead end roads?) Ownership must be handled very carefully so that all material and documents are transferred In the event of a leak all people must be notified right away and removed from the area. Not only surrounding people need to be notified, even 100 or more miles away (ie. effects of Lodgepole blowout) 7. Understanding Health Effects There must be an emphasis on research: 'understanding' health effects implies that there is knowledge to be understood, but more research is needed. For example, if 8% or workers experience knockdown, someone should be researching the neurological impacts. No one is doing anything, and this is inadequate! Research on cattle was done a few years ago (Cattle Commission AB) but was not released to the public. WHY? (Committee member informed the public that the study had been released and was available, but the public said it was released much later and there were rumors that the original results were doctored). Research must be released to the public as soon as it is found The Western Canada Study says that the government will own the results. The report MUST be made available to the public! Government covers up research. RE the Advisory committee received little information from the experts with respect to SO2: maybe the experts don't want to or where told by the governments not to reveal the hazards of H2S and SO2 and what happens even at low levels 8. Technical Knowledge Dispersion modeling No comments Risk assessment No comments 9. Setbacks Criteria for setbacks More signage is necessary to indicate who owns the facility, pipeline, etc. so that the public knows who is responsible and who to contact in an emergency. Existing signage is small and situated on the wellhead. In an emergency you can't get close enough to read it. The location and the size of signage is important. Setbacks should be a lot further from farmyards (people and animals) and communities than they are now. Then the landowner should be compensated if he or she cannot sell their property for development because of these H2S plants. RE 48% of rural respondents believed the setbacks were reasonable: were these 48% on the opposite side of the plant? Landowners should be compensated very highly for some of these sites Effects of setbacks No comments 10. Public Consultation by Industry Industry withholds facts from the public. This must change! Land agents must be accountable for their actions on material and what kind of facility is to be installed, and must pay more for the nuisance and inconvenience. People must be told the truth. The rights of surface and subsurface owners must be respected. 11. Public Awareness and Education A lot more education must be done by industry and government. Poor understanding by land agents is a big problem. Companies must cooperate more with providing information to surrounding people who live nearby. EUB must make brochures more readable and more available to surface and subsurface owners. 12.  Aboriginal Issues No comments 13. Implementation Some priorities must be pulled out of the report. Recommendations are good, but there are a lot of them and it will require a lot of time to implement them. EUB shouldn't start with the easy stuff. They must be pushed to address the most important issues. Priorities must be identified both within issues and across issues. Concern that the political will doesn't exist to implement this. What regulations already exist, and what power is there to do more? There shouldn't be a whole bunch more regulations created that are not enforced. Reports should also be issued regarding who broke the rules and what fines were given or licenses were lost.  14. Non-mandate but Important Issues RE compensation: the public is being ignored. Community members must stick together to have more power. Protection of groundwater is important. There should be no routine flaring. Flaring must come to a stop! Additional Comments: Would like to see a review of the existing regulations for sour gas development and what is currently being implemented. Although some issues are identified as being outside the committee's mandate, it doesn't say who IS responsible for them or where the public can get information on it. There should be a backgrounder that better describes levels of ppm so that people can understand it. ie. what standard levels exist and what the effects are at these levels. Many people don't know that as sweet wells are used H20 is injected into them, and over time they may not be sweet anymore. Companies are not exposing this to the public, and the public should know. Many 'sweet' wells are sour. The report does not address this. There should be an inventory of all existing and abandoned sour wells. The public should know what is in their community: existing lines, all active and inactive sites. This is important because wells capped for 30 years may corrode and leak. There should be something on the Land Title saying it was there, even if the caveat has been removed. When a certificate has been issued, the company should not be able to take the land back without renegotiating with the landowner. RE references to websites for further information: some people don't have access to the internet