PSSG: Session Round 2 - Pincher Creek

Location:

Pincher Creek

Date:

October 30, 2000

Number of Participants:

14

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

Jurisdiction in planning must be sorted out. There must be integration. There should be resolution at the top level: planning on a regional basis that takes all things into account. But this would be 25 years too late: the province is covered with wells. The top level in the EUB must take responsibility.

Coordination of planning and development of subsurface resources

Stratified leasing goes against the minimization of facilities: leases sold by the province are stratified and this leads to proliferation of facilities. But industry and the EUB are trying to put oil, sweet, and sour facilities in the same area. This causes industry to work together.

Question: If changes to lease sales need to be made, how will the appropriate agency by influenced? What is the mechanism for referring things to the other parties? (Committee answer: The EUB may recommend changes to the Land Tenure System. EUB will be asked to act as a catalyst, and the parties will be asked to report back to the public.)

Need forced pooling across sections, not only within one section of land. Regulations need to be changed. Unitization looks at the whole reservoir. This is more effective

2. EUB Role

Content of regulations

Need forced pooling across sections, not only within one section of land. Regulations need to be changed. Unitization looks at the whole reservoir. This is more effective.

The mandate of the EUB says it will "balance the risks and benefits": does this mean there must be a risk equivalent for every benefit?

Effectiveness of the field surveillance system and other enforcement measures

Lack of consistency in EUB actions. This creates confusion among companies. There is no consistency between field offices ie. what is acceptable in Red Deer is written up in Drayton Valley.

Experienced people have been lost in the EUB and in industry.

Questions: who is the enforcement agency? What is the EUB? How do they know when incidents occur? How much power do they have?

Industry comment: the EUB doesn't hesitate to shut you in.

Industry is very powerful and rich. Paying fines may be no problem for them.

There should be a requirement for breaches of regulations to be made public immediately. If a company is drilling near me and they breach a regulation I want to know.

Companies' report cards are always bad. If they do something good that can be adopted by other companies nothing is heard about it. The EUB should provide the medium for companies to share experience and technology.

Application and decision process

Lack of consistency in EUB actions

question: what is the committee recommending to address the EUB bias in applications and decisions?

The attitude of EUB staff must be adjusted to address EUB bias.

Current process is confrontational. It is quasi-judicial and often sours relationships.

Some recent efforts at resolving issues have been progressive, but often one side wants to press an issue and the other side runs and hides.

A lot of issues are examined over and over and information from previous hearings is not available. Information should be readily available to both sides and interveners. This could help to resolve issues earlier.

Sometimes conditions are not met, whether by accident or neglect or due to the level of contractors. Sometimes the public notices this, and sometimes they are not able to notice it. Someone must take responsibility for this and monitor to see that conditions are met. Follow-up and enforcement are needed.

Relationship with Stakeholders

There is a lack of consistency in EUB's efforts to communicate with stakeholders, including Aboriginal.

Question: how do people contact the EUB?

3. Monitoring

Question: What is the monitoring process? Are monitoring results sent in to the EUB? Is there continuous monitoring? Is it a 24 hour graph? Are the monitoring results inspected?

Question: How can the public get the results from monitoring? This should be readily available.

There should be crosschecking of monitoring instead of relying on self-monitoring. Results could be compared with the company's own results to see if there are discrepancies. Could be done just at major installations/facilities.

Question: is it feasible that a second check could be done in Pincher Creek? (Committee response: the community could pursue and air management group.)

Concerns re: multi-stakeholder groups for aim management: there is inconsistency between what some companies say at CASA and what they do in Pincher Creek. These stakeholder groups are not always good. The concept is good, but they don't always operate well. CASA is missing southern Alberta. These groups require a huge volunteer commitment and a lot of resources. Some companies won't financially commit. The EUB and AB Environment must encourage companies to be more involved. There should be funding available from EUB, AB Environment. CASA has a minimal budget.

4. Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction in planning must be sorted out. There must be integration. There should be resolution at the top level: planning on a regional basis that takes all things into account. But this would be 25 years too late: the province is covered with wells. The top level in the EUB must take responsibility.

5. Industry Procedures and Personnel

Some companies don't give a damn. Oil companies are very powerful.

Industry should open up and give information to the public. Ie. monitoring results

Companies should hand out information on the EUB when they do any development. They should go to landowners and people in the EPZ and surrounding area

6. Emergency Response Planning and Preparedness

Question: is it necessary to have an ERP for suspended and abandoned wells? Are companies required to keep active contact with surrounding people?

With so many companies in one area it is difficult to tell where problems are coming from. Ie. the valley smelt of H2S and it took a long time to figure out which well it was coming from.

Trappers, transients, and recreationists must be contacted. Impact on peoples' psyche is significant.

Need more work between companies and various regulatory agencies.

some gas wells are drilled and tested but never produce. How long will the valves, pipes, etc be good? Will they one day fail? These should be inspected.

7. Understanding Health Effects

Need coordinated research on human and animal health. All health agencies in AB must be involved. There is too much confusion in published research. Much more sour gas is available for development and we need to know how to deal with it.

Developing standards (ie. standard health effects table) won't work because at hearings people are there for the purpose of disagreeing with what some other 'experts' are saying. People shouldn't be denied the right to disagree or go to hearing because some standards have been accepted. Such standards won't work unless the EUB is completely credible, which it is not. Therefore people need to challenge EUB and industry standards. If such standards are pursued, the experts working on it must be credible.

re: a standard health effects table: is the EUB saying they can establish 'truth' in this area?? It is the responsibility of a hearing panel to determine truth. Standards should not prevent people from going to hearing.

Industry must make their research available to the public

experts must talk to each other outside of hearings

It is very important to have the 'right' people involved in research. Researchers should consult the public and get feedback on the direction of their research.

8. Technical Knowledge

Dispersion modeling

No comments

Risk assessment

No comments

9. Setbacks

Criteria for setbacks

No comments

Effects of setbacks

There should be compensation for land sterilization due to setbacks.

People shouldn't be put in a position where they have to move to get compensation.

Fair, equitable compensation is needed. The money could come from the operator, or from the government through money earned on leases.

10. Public Consultation by Industry

No comments

11. Public Awareness and Education

Companies should give out information on the EUB when they do development in an area.

Acknowledge that both industry and/or regulatory agencies' effectiveness is muted by a lack of trust; lack of regard for their respective rights and/or authority. Bridging this credibility gap is a crucial component to ongoing exploration and development for sour reserves and one that should be jointly addressed by industry and such agencies.

12. Aboriginal Issues

The concerns of the Lubicon people should be looked at and learned from.

This is a very important issue.

13. Implementation

Will there be a response from someone for each of these issues?

14. Non-mandate but Important Issues

Question: what comments have you heard about these issues and where is the Committee going in regards to them?

Ground water should be in this mandate. It is fundamental to public health, and is a big issues in Pincher Creek. There is pollution of ground water by sulfur. We don't want to see this as a side issue! Recommendations are needed in order to expect any action in this area…it should be come a direction issue and have recommendations on it. Perhaps a committee is needed to examine this.

RE compensation: balancing risks and benefits may work at the provincial level, but it doesn't work at the local level. Local people assume all the risk and only benefit as much as the average Albertan.

Question: does the EUB deal with compensation for quality of life?

Fair, equitable compensation is needed. The money could come from the operator, or from the government through money earned on leases.

	Location:	Pincher Creek
	Date:	October 30, 2000
	Number of Participants:	14

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 Jurisdiction in planning must be sorted out. There must be integration. There should be resolution at the top level: planning on a regional basis that takes all things into account. But this would be 25 years too late: the province is covered with wells. The top level in the EUB must take responsibility. Coordination of planning and development of subsurface resources Stratified leasing goes against the minimization of facilities: leases sold by the province are stratified and this leads to proliferation of facilities. But industry and the EUB are trying to put oil, sweet, and sour facilities in the same area. This causes industry to work together. Question: If changes to lease sales need to be made, how will the appropriate agency by influenced? What is the mechanism for referring things to the other parties? (Committee answer: The EUB may recommend changes to the Land Tenure System. EUB will be asked to act as a catalyst, and the parties will be asked to report back to the public.) Need forced pooling across sections, not only within one section of land. Regulations need to be changed. Unitization looks at the whole reservoir. This is more effective 2. EUB Role Content of regulations Need forced pooling across sections, not only within one section of land. Regulations need to be changed. Unitization looks at the whole reservoir. This is more effective. The mandate of the EUB says it will "balance the risks and benefits": does this mean there must be a risk equivalent for every benefit? Effectiveness of the field surveillance system and other enforcement measures Lack of consistency in EUB actions. This creates confusion among companies. There is no consistency between field offices ie. what is acceptable in Red Deer is written up in Drayton Valley. Experienced people have been lost in the EUB and in industry. Questions: who is the enforcement agency? What is the EUB? How do they know when incidents occur? How much power do they have? Industry comment: the EUB doesn't hesitate to shut you in. Industry is very powerful and rich. Paying fines may be no problem for them. There should be a requirement for breaches of regulations to be made public immediately. If a company is drilling near me and they breach a regulation I want to know. Companies' report cards are always bad. If they do something good that can be adopted by other companies nothing is heard about it. The EUB should provide the medium for companies to share experience and technology. Application and decision process Lack of consistency in EUB actions question: what is the committee recommending to address the EUB bias in applications and decisions? The attitude of EUB staff must be adjusted to address EUB bias. Current process is confrontational. It is quasi-judicial and often sours relationships. Some recent efforts at resolving issues have been progressive, but often one side wants to press an issue and the other side runs and hides. A lot of issues are examined over and over and information from previous hearings is not available. Information should be readily available to both sides and interveners. This could help to resolve issues earlier. Sometimes conditions are not met, whether by accident or neglect or due to the level of contractors. Sometimes the public notices this, and sometimes they are not able to notice it. Someone must take responsibility for this and monitor to see that conditions are met. Follow-up and enforcement are needed. Relationship with Stakeholders There is a lack of consistency in EUB's efforts to communicate with stakeholders, including Aboriginal. Question: how do people contact the EUB? 3. Monitoring Question: What is the monitoring process? Are monitoring results sent in to the EUB? Is there continuous monitoring? Is it a 24 hour graph? Are the monitoring results inspected? Question: How can the public get the results from monitoring? This should be readily available. There should be crosschecking of monitoring instead of relying on self-monitoring. Results could be compared with the company's own results to see if there are discrepancies. Could be done just at major installations/facilities. Question: is it feasible that a second check could be done in Pincher Creek? (Committee response: the community could pursue and air management group.) Concerns re: multi-stakeholder groups for aim management: there is inconsistency between what some companies say at CASA and what they do in Pincher Creek. These stakeholder groups are not always good. The concept is good, but they don't always operate well. CASA is missing southern Alberta. These groups require a huge volunteer commitment and a lot of resources. Some companies won't financially commit. The EUB and AB Environment must encourage companies to be more involved. There should be funding available from EUB, AB Environment. CASA has a minimal budget. 4. Jurisdiction Jurisdiction in planning must be sorted out. There must be integration. There should be resolution at the top level: planning on a regional basis that takes all things into account. But this would be 25 years too late: the province is covered with wells. The top level in the EUB must take responsibility. 5. Industry Procedures and Personnel Some companies don't give a damn. Oil companies are very powerful. Industry should open up and give information to the public. Ie. monitoring results Companies should hand out information on the EUB when they do any development. They should go to landowners and people in the EPZ and surrounding area 6. Emergency Response Planning and Preparedness Question: is it necessary to have an ERP for suspended and abandoned wells? Are companies required to keep active contact with surrounding people? With so many companies in one area it is difficult to tell where problems are coming from. Ie. the valley smelt of H2S and it took a long time to figure out which well it was coming from. Trappers, transients, and recreationists must be contacted. Impact on peoples' psyche is significant. Need more work between companies and various regulatory agencies. some gas wells are drilled and tested but never produce. How long will the valves, pipes, etc be good? Will they one day fail? These should be inspected. 7. Understanding Health Effects Need coordinated research on human and animal health. All health agencies in AB must be involved. There is too much confusion in published research. Much more sour gas is available for development and we need to know how to deal with it. Developing standards (ie. standard health effects table) won't work because at hearings people are there for the purpose of disagreeing with what some other 'experts' are saying. People shouldn't be denied the right to disagree or go to hearing because some standards have been accepted. Such standards won't work unless the EUB is completely credible, which it is not. Therefore people need to challenge EUB and industry standards. If such standards are pursued, the experts working on it must be credible. re: a standard health effects table: is the EUB saying they can establish 'truth' in this area?? It is the responsibility of a hearing panel to determine truth. Standards should not prevent people from going to hearing. Industry must make their research available to the public experts must talk to each other outside of hearings It is very important to have the 'right' people involved in research. Researchers should consult the public and get feedback on the direction of their research. 8. Technical Knowledge Dispersion modeling No comments Risk assessment No comments 9. Setbacks Criteria for setbacks No comments Effects of setbacks There should be compensation for land sterilization due to setbacks. People shouldn't be put in a position where they have to move to get compensation. Fair, equitable compensation is needed. The money could come from the operator, or from the government through money earned on leases. 10. Public Consultation by Industry No comments 11. Public Awareness and Education Companies should give out information on the EUB when they do development in an area. Acknowledge that both industry and/or regulatory agencies' effectiveness is muted by a lack of trust; lack of regard for their respective rights and/or authority. Bridging this credibility gap is a crucial component to ongoing exploration and development for sour reserves and one that should be jointly addressed by industry and such agencies. 12. Aboriginal Issues The concerns of the Lubicon people should be looked at and learned from. This is a very important issue. 13. Implementation Will there be a response from someone for each of these issues? 14. Non-mandate but Important Issues Question: what comments have you heard about these issues and where is the Committee going in regards to them? Ground water should be in this mandate. It is fundamental to public health, and is a big issues in Pincher Creek. There is pollution of ground water by sulfur. We don't want to see this as a side issue! Recommendations are needed in order to expect any action in this area…it should be come a direction issue and have recommendations on it. Perhaps a committee is needed to examine this. RE compensation: balancing risks and benefits may work at the provincial level, but it doesn't work at the local level. Local people assume all the risk and only benefit as much as the average Albertan. Question: does the EUB deal with compensation for quality of life? Fair, equitable compensation is needed. The money could come from the operator, or from the government through money earned on leases.