1324
ENCANA SHALLOW GAS INFILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AND EUB APPLICATION NO. 1435831
______
JOINT REVIEW PANEL HEARING CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO:
SECTION 4.5 OF THE "AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH A PANEL
FOR THE ENCANA SHALLOW GAS INFILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT"
AND THE EUB'S RULES OF PRACTICE
______
PROCEEDINGS AT HEARING
OCTOBER 15, 2008
VOLUME 7
PAGES 1324 TO 1666
______
Held at: Energy Resources Conservation Board Govier Hall, 640-5th Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1325
APPEARANCES
JOINT PANEL:
Robert (Bob) Connelly, Panel Chair Bill Ross, Panel Member Gerry DeSorcy, Panel Member
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AGENCY (CEAA):
Marie-France Therrien Jeff Davis Lucille Jamault
ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION BOARD (ERCB):
JP Mousseau, Esq., Board Counsel Meighan LaCasse, Board Counsel Jodie Smith Jennifer FitzGerald Mirtyll Albiou Peter Hunt Bruce Greenfield Carrie Dickinson Shaunna Cartwright Ken Banister Tom Byrnes Steve Thomas Karl Jors Lawrence Jonker Darin Barter Bob Curran
PROPONENT
Shawn Denstedt, Esq. ) For EnCana Corporation Ms. Terri-Lee Oleniuk ) Ms. Leanne Campbell )
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1326
INTERVENERS:
Kirk Lambrecht, Esq. ) For Government of Canada, Jim Shaw, Esq. ) Environment Canada, Robert Drummond, Esq. ) Natural Resources Canada, ) Department of National ) Defence, Parks Canada, ) Agriculture Canada, ) Department of Fisheries ) and Oceans
Ms. Jennifer J. Klimek ) For the Environmental Mr. H. Binder ) Coalition )
John McDougall, Esq. ) For the Suffield Ms. Kelly Lemon (student) ) Environmental Advisory ) Committee.
Keith Miller, Esq. ) For the Suffield Industry ) Range Control.
REALTIME REPORTING:
Mainland Reporting Services, Inc. Nancy Nielsen, RPR, RCR, CSR(A) Tambi Balchen, CRR, CSR No. 9166
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1327
INDEX OF PROCEEDINGS
DESCRIPTION PAGE NO.
Request by Mr. Trottier 1329
Encana witness panel (on former 1330 oath/affirmation): Joel Heese (On former affirmation) Francis L'Henaff (On former oath) Gerard Protti (NOT PRESENT) Stephen Fudge (On former oath) Douglas Collister (On former oath) John Kansas (On former oath) Dr. David Walker (On former oath) Ron McNeil (On former oath) Ian Simpson Moss (On former oath) Spencer Cox (On former affirmation)
Cross-Examination By Board Staff, By 1331 Mr. Mousseau (Continued):
Questions By the Board, By Mr. Desorcy: 1429
Questions By the Board, By Dr. Ross 1460
Questions By the Chairman 1498
Undertaking Spoken To 1522
Re-Examination By Mr. Denstedt 1523
COALITION witness panel (sworn or 1534 affirmed): Dr. Powers Mr. Sedgwick Mr. Binder Mr. Unger Dr. Stelfox Ms. Bradley Mr. Wershler Mr. Wallis.
Opening Statements By the Coalition 1537
Discussion Re: Timing 1590
Opening Statement By the Coalition, 1592 Continued
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1328
INDEX OF EXHIBITS
DESCRIPTION PAGE NO.
Exhibit 002-131: Licence to 1394 temporarily divert water dated September 9, 2008
Exhibit 001-049: COSEWIC Assessment 1409 and Updated Status Report on the Ord's Kangaroo Rat
Exhibit 006-037: Dr. Powers - Summary 1535 of Submission on Economics
Exhibit 006-038: Mr. Sedgwick - 1536 Summary of Submission
Exhibit 006-039: Mr. Binder - 1536 Presentation to the Joint Review Panel
Exhibit 006-040: Ms. Unger - 1536 Presentation to the Joint Review Panel
Exhibit 006-041: Dr. Stelfox - 1536 Presentation to the Joint Review Panel
Exhibit 006-042: Ms. Bradley - 1536 Presentation to the Joint Review Panel
Exhibit 006-043: Mr. Wershler - 1537 Submission on Terrestrial Biophysical Assessment
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1329
1 (THE PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED AT 8:31 A.M.)
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Good morning, Ladies and
3 Gentlemen. Welcome once again to this hearing. This
4 begins our 7th day of proceedings.
5 It looks like all of you, perhaps with the
6 exception of our Secretariat, have recovered from the
7 excitement of last night's election and are ready to
8 resume the proceedings here this morning.
9 Before we begin, I understand that we have a
10 request from Mr. Trottier to speak to the, to the
11 Panel.
12 Go ahead, Mr. Trottier.
13 REQUEST BY MR. TROTTIER:
14 MR. TROTTIER: Mr. Chairman, my name is Gary
15 Trottier and I have registered as an individual to
16 give a presentation at the informal hearings next
17 Monday. And I was going to have some questions during
18 that to, to EnCana, and I think they are best answered
19 by Mr. Protti. So I would, I would request that I
20 could perhaps -- I understand that he's, he's here
21 tomorrow. And if I could ask those questions, I'd
22 appreciate it. And I have talked to Mr. Denstedt
23 about that, so...
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Trottier.
25 MR. DENSTEDT: I can confirm that and it is
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1330
1 common practice that in Joint Review Panel hearings to
2 allow this kind of flexibility, so we have no
3 objection to that at all.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Denstedt. We
5 would be pleased to provide you with that opportunity,
6 Mr. Trottier, so on Thursday we'll make provision for
7 you to have the opportunity to raise some questions.
8 MR. TROTTIER: Thank you very much, sir.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Just in terms of
10 our timing, we'll continue with the same schedule as
11 we had yesterday, breaking around 10:30, continuing
12 until noon, and recessing at 12:00 noon.
13 We'll now continue with Mr. Mousseau,
14 continuing off from his cross.
15 ENCANA WITNESS PANEL (ON FORMER OATH/AFFIRMATION):
16 Joel Heese (On former affirmation)
17 Francis L'Henaff (On former oath)
18 Gerard Protti (NOT PRESENT)
19 Stephen Fudge (On former oath)
20 Douglas Collister (On former oath)
21 John Kansas (On former oath)
22 Dr. David Walker (On former oath)
23 Ron McNeil (On former oath)
24 Ian Simpson Moss (On former oath).
25 Spencer Cox (On former affirmation).
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1331
1 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY BOARD STAFF, BY MR. MOUSSEAU
2 (CONTINUED):
3 MR. MOUSSEAU:
4 Q. We left off yesterday with sort of a, a larger
5 question with respect to timelines and activity with
6 respect to the PDA and the regulatory process for
7 getting well and pipeline licences and getting on the
8 ground. And I'm not certain if you need me to repeat
9 the question or whether you've had a chance to work
10 on the question as I phrased it last night, so...
11 A. MR. COLLISTER: I think it would help,
12 Mr. Mousseau, if you could rephrase the question,
13 please.
14 Q. Sure. So what I wanted to understand was, assuming a
15 recommendation from this Panel, is that a permit be
16 issued and in fact a permit is issued, from that time
17 forward, I want to understand what's going to take
18 place before drilling starts. So, assuming a
19 permit's issued in March, what would take place in
20 terms of the preparing of PDAs, how many people
21 that's going to take, and how long that's going to
22 take, when Well Licence Applications and Pipeline
23 Licence Applications might be filed with the ERCB, so
24 that's, that's sort of the timeframe that I'm looking
25 at. If that frames the question for you.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1332
1 A. MR. HEESE: Thank you for restating the
2 question. I think we will begin with Mr. Collister
3 giving an outline of the various wildlife surveys and
4 inventories that will be conducted. And then he will
5 turn back to me to -- for the -- describe the
6 contractibility assessment, pulling together the
7 materials into a final product, and eventually getting
8 to the ERCB licence. So beginning with Mr. Collister.
9 A. MR. COLLISTER: Okay. It, it was my, my
10 intention just to go right into the field surveys and
11 describe just at a high level, as you'd requested, the
12 timing and sort of the effort that's required for each
13 of them. Prior to that, there would be obviously some
14 planning and there's a database of information that
15 would be worked with and so on, but that, that doesn't
16 necessarily relate directly to the field survey. So
17 I'll just go into the field surveys.
18 Q. Before you go there, and again just so I don't miss
19 this point, is it fair to say that you -- prior to a
20 permit being issued, EnCana is going to continue to
21 work on this so that the necessary ground work would
22 be complete? In other words, the desktop work, is
23 that ongoing, or would you be waiting for a decision
24 on the permits before you'd start the additional
25 desktop work for the first 400 wells?
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1333
1 A. MR. HEESE: The stages that are outlined
2 here are outlined as individual stages, but there are
3 some that will be -- there will be flexibility that
4 those can be done concurrently. If the decision from
5 this Panel is to proceed with the Project, we would
6 certainly adopt any additional conditions placed by
7 the Panel on our PDA process. So in regards to
8 further development, at this point it is really
9 subject to additional conditions that may or may not
10 be placed by the Panel.
11 So once that decision is provided, we -- it
12 is our position that a permit would be issued for the
13 whole course of the planning and develop -- or, all,
14 all the planning and inventories, bringing it to a
15 stage where we would then apply to SEAC with the
16 process that we've identified, with routine and
17 non-routine situations. They would also, SEAC, make
18 recommendation to the Base Commander based upon those
19 decisions, at that point, would then pursue licence to
20 the ERCB for Well and Pipeline licence. Does that,
21 that clarify?
22 Q. No.
23 A. Okay.
24 Q. Really, what I, what I want to understand is, and from
25 what I've understood so far from Mr. Collister is,
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1334
1 prior to hitting the ground to do the ground level
2 work, there's some desktop work that's going to
3 happen. Some initial desktop work. Is that, is that
4 accurate?
5 A. Certainly, yes. Understanding -- or doing the optimal
6 layout pattern, any, any sort of desktop work we don't
7 really see need for additional permitting outside the
8 recommendation to just proceed with this Project. So
9 desktop work --
10 Q. And I'm not focusing on the permitting at this point.
11 My question is simply this: Is that work going to be
12 ongoing from this time forward so that if a permit is
13 issued, EnCana can hit the ground running? That's,
14 that's the question.
15 A. And that is correct.
16 Q. Okay. So, sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Collister, if
17 we can keep it going.
18 A. MR. COLLISTER: No problem. The first field
19 survey that -- and maybe I'll preface this by saying
20 I'm going, I'm going to speak to the effort as it
21 pertains to surveying one-third of the NWA. Okay,
22 because that's what's happening each, each year prior
23 to the construction season.
24 So the first survey that would occur in the
25 year would be for Sharp-Tailed Grouse leks and the,
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1335
1 and the timing for that is April. And our estimate
2 for the effort required is about 45 person-days. So a
3 four-person crew would be 11 or 12 days in the field.
4 April, April is a time when Military templating is not
5 too much of an issue, so there's a lot of flexibility
6 there. I just mention that because that is an input
7 into this, the whole effort and how large a crew do
8 you use and so on, is how much flexibility there is in
9 terms of Military templating.
10 Q. All right. And that's useful information.
11 A. So Sharp-Tailed Grouse in April. The next, the next
12 effort would be for amphibians, primarily Great Plains
13 Toads, and what we're looking for there is the
14 breeding ponds, the breeding areas. That's a
15 nocturnal call survey. It's -- it involves three
16 replicates through -- depending on the year, these
17 animals are very sensitive to temperature and
18 precipitation and so on. So it varies year-to-year,
19 and even in the season, when the animals call. So
20 it's a three replicate survey to try and accommodate
21 that. And it would span a period from late
22 April until early June, depending on the year.
23 And we're, and we're estimating
24 42 person-nights for that. So, again, a four-person
25 crew for 11 nights or, or a larger crew for less. And
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1336
1 when we get into May, we do start to run into some
2 issues with templating, so, so that would factor in as
3 to how large a crew would be mobilized.
4 The next survey I can speak to is, is a
5 survey of nesting raptors in the river valley, that's
6 envisioned to be a helicopter survey, sometime in
7 May we'll say, later on in May. And that's just a
8 one-day effort, a few hours to do that survey.
9 Then we move into -- oh, I should back up a
10 second. During the Sharp-Tailed Grouse survey, we're
11 interested in, in identifying snake hibernacular as it
12 relates to wells that are close to the escarpment of
13 the Saskatchewan River or coulees associated with it.
14 And there, and there's potential, again, depending on
15 the year and when the Sharp-Tailed Grouse surveys are
16 done that hibernacular could be active and there would
17 be an opportunity for those crews, those Sharp-Tailed
18 Grouse crews, after they have done their Sharp-Tailed
19 Grouse survey in the morning to, to actually do some
20 work on snake hibernacular. So there's some potential
21 for efficiency there on those two surveys.
22 Then we get into Loggerhead Shrikes and
23 Burrowing Owls. Loggerhead Shrikes will be surveyed
24 for only in areas where the habitat's appropriate.
25 That species needs a shrub to nest in, so there has to
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1337
1 be that on the ground. The southern portion of the
2 NWA tends not to have much of that. The Sand Hills
3 has a lot of it. There's a lot of Shrikes in the Sand
4 Hills.
5 So, if we're -- and those surveys for
6 Burrowing Owls and Loggerhead Shrikes would, would,
7 would occur from, let's say late May until as early as
8 early July for Burrowing Owls. Shrikes need to be
9 done from late May until perhaps the middle of June.
10 Where, where Shrikes need to be surveyed for,
11 Shrikes and Burrowing Owls can be surveyed together.
12 The technique is a little bit different, but, but, but
13 they can be surveyed during the same survey.
14 And in terms of efforts, if we're only
15 surveying for Burrowing Owls, so there are no -- if
16 there's no potential for Loggerhead Shrikes, we're
17 talking about 48 person-days for Burrowing Owl, so a
18 four-person crew is 12 days, let's say. And if we,
19 and if we're surveying for Shrikes and Burrowing Owls
20 together, then we're, then it goes up to
21 70 person-days because Shrike surveying is a little
22 more intense.
23 Then we move into surveying permanent
24 wetlands for Northern Leopard Frogs, and that would
25 occur primarily in August, early September, after the,
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1338
1 at, at the time when there's most likely to be the
2 most frogs around, the tadpoles have, have turned into
3 adults, or young adults. So that would occur then.
4 That one's a difficult one to estimate the
5 time effort for because it, of course, depends on the
6 wetlands and so on. But, but we've kind of
7 guesstimated 14 person-days to do that. That's
8 probably high.
9 And then, and then there's potential in
10 September to, to survey for snake hibernacular, again,
11 adjacent to wells that are close to an escarpment
12 edge. And again, that's a little bit difficult to
13 estimate for. It will be very localized and very
14 specific, but let's say 10 person-days for that.
15 Again that's probably high.
16 And the other, the other survey I'll mention
17 on the wildlife side is Ord's Kangaroo Rat, which is
18 not -- if you recall, that's not an NWA-wide survey,
19 it's a focused survey, after the wells have been
20 located initially, subject to many of these other
21 surveys. And our estimate for that is 64 person-days.
22 It's an intensive survey right around the potential
23 location of infrastructure and wells.
24 So that's the -- those are the wildlife
25 surveys.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1339
1 Q. And just with, with the Ord's Kangaroo Rat, is that a
2 time sensitive one, is that --
3 A. Yeah, sorry. It's not very sensitive. The, the
4 appropriate time to do it that we've identified
5 anywhere from June to September.
6 Q. Okay.
7 A. So the animals are active and you can, and you can
8 identify that they're around all through that period.
9 Q. So what I get from what you've told me is that it's
10 not a question where every team is on the ground at
11 the same time?
12 A. No.
13 Q. It's, it's staggered?
14 A. It is.
15 Q. Okay.
16 A. Okay, so that's the wildlife surveys and I'll maybe
17 just pass off to Mr. Kansas and he'll speak just a
18 little bit to rare plant and vegetation species.
19 Q. Sure.
20 A. MR. KANSAS: Good morning. Rare, rare
21 plants, undesirable vegetation surveys, and general
22 plant community surveys, all will be done together.
23 And they will be done along the -- just, just --
24 they're focus surveys, as, as is the Kangaroo Rat, and
25 that will be done in the construction areas and, and
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1340
1 right-of-ways that are staked already. They will be
2 done June and July and require approximately
3 80 man-days. Crews of four.
4 Q. Okay.
5 A. MR. HEESE: That kind of ends some of the
6 wildlife and rare plant inventory, so do you want me
7 to begin with the contractibility and some of the
8 other --
9 Q. Sure.
10 A. Okay. There are additional inventories or surveys
11 that will be done, specifically the archaeological and
12 historical. And that one is not time sensitive,
13 particularly, obviously you can't do it when there is
14 snow on the ground, but that's one of those that can
15 happen concurrently to all these other operations so
16 there's a broad window and opportunity to do that.
17 As well, after our preliminary siting phase,
18 it is our plan to forward a package to Siksika and to
19 begin discussions with them, so, again, that is a
20 concurrent phase overlapping the, the previous surveys
21 that Mr. Collister and Kansas have already outlined.
22 So your characterization earlier of a staggered
23 approach is appropriate for what they were describing
24 but there will be other concurrent activities possibly
25 being, being undertaken at that, at that time as well.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1341
1 The contractibility portion, which is
2 identified as stage 6, again, there is opportunity for
3 concurrency with that. It was outlined in the
4 specific stages to accurately describe it, but there
5 will be opportunity as well for that contractibility
6 assessment to occur somewhat concurrently, certainly
7 with the rare plants and Ord's Kangaroo Rat surveys,
8 once the right-of-ways have already been fairly well
9 designated.
10 We envision, essentially, teams of two with a
11 construction supervisor as well as an environmental
12 individual to undertake the contractibility and field
13 assessment, particularly looking at access trail,
14 final locations, development of mitigations, and it is
15 not unreasonable to suggest, you know, as a very
16 conservative number, you know, five locations they
17 could do in a day if we needed to or -- so using two
18 crews at, at five a day, it is a significant volume of
19 work, but happens somewhat concurrently with the other
20 operation, or the other inventories that are happening
21 at that time.
22 As well, a final legal survey of the
23 locations with Midwest Surveys; we envision two crews
24 working somewhat concurrently as part of the
25 contractibility assessment. You know, the final legal
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1342
1 survey is wrapped in that final assessment. Again,
2 two crews doing, conservatively, five locations a day
3 is, is what we envision there.
4 Q. So when, when do you envision PDAs being complete for
5 the first 400 wells in terms of the time of year?
6 And I include pipelines in that as well.
7 A. For all 400 proposed? Again, remember, we will be
8 working on battery-by-battery basis, so it is our
9 intention to have battery -- one battery prepared, or
10 in, in some cases it might be two batteries prepared
11 to allow for pipelining beginning October 1st. That
12 doesn't necessarily mean every single battery of those
13 425 will be prepared for October 1st.
14 There will be continued applications to SEAC
15 and DND after, most likely, that date, but certainly
16 to have, you know, one, two, maybe even three
17 batteries prepared for October 1st with subsequent
18 batteries coming in after that point.
19 Q. Okay. And how long do you anticipate the SEAC review
20 to be for those applications?
21 A. One moment. As we had outlined earlier, it is our
22 intention to feed information to SEAC as it is
23 collected, so in advance of the final product. So,
24 again, to keep them abreast -- addressed of what's
25 going on, understanding the various iterations. So we
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1343
1 don't want it to be a situation where we effectively
2 just throw a, a whole battery on their desk and, you
3 know, you're right, expect rapid approval. So we want
4 to keep them informed throughout the process. To
5 streamline their process, we have proposed routine and
6 non-routine process. So, again, recognizing, or our
7 position that they will be able to deal with routine
8 applications very promptly and focus most of their
9 attention and scrutiny to the non-routine locations.
10 So it is -- I believe it's reasonable for
11 several weeks review per battery, maybe as much as a
12 month, for, for an individual battery, you know,
13 somewhat concurrently again, recognizing that as they
14 review routine applications, they'll, they'll only
15 become more assured of the process as we've gone
16 along. The same for the non-routine. As they have
17 made decisions for either approval or denial, how they
18 arrive at those decisions will become more and more
19 streamlined and the whole process will expediate
20 itself with experience through the process.
21 Q. Okay, and I take it once you've got SEAC and the Base
22 Commander signed off, they'll be forwarded to the
23 ERCB as routine applications?
24 A. Unless there's reason that it would still be
25 non-routine according to the ERCB criteria, but I, I
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1344
1 find that a highly unlikely situation, that there'll
2 still be an ERCB non-routine application once we've
3 gone through the SEAC and DND. If, if there was
4 reason to file as a non-routine, we would file as a
5 non-routine. However, it is our understanding that,
6 yes, they will, will be routine applications for
7 licence.
8 Q. Okay. And I just want to confirm that EnCana's aware
9 that any application involving a well or a pipeline
10 within 100 metres of a waterbody would be
11 non-routine.
12 A. My understanding of that particular section of
13 Directive 056 is there are provisions for how to
14 operate within 100 metres of a waterbody. So provided
15 you meet those provisions, it is still handled as a
16 routine application. It's only in the event that
17 you're not capable of meeting the additional criteria
18 the ERCB has laid out, that it would then welcome a
19 non-routine application.
20 I might also point out one of the specific
21 criteria is having a Crown approval that's typically
22 reserved on Provincial land for having a PLA or an
23 MSL. However, I believe the approval of SEAC and the
24 DND would be sufficient, however, that is up to the
25 ERCB.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1345
1 Q. Okay. Now, if SEAC doesn't agree, and you don't get
2 Base Commander approval, is it EnCana's intention to
3 still forward those applications to the ERCB?
4 A. MR. L'HENAFF: No, we would not forward
5 those to the ERCB.
6 Q. Okay. I think we're through last night's untimely
7 question, gentlemen.
8 Just before we move on, I'd, I'd asked you,
9 Mr. Heese, and you, Mr. L'Henaff, with respect to a
10 commitment on Spider-Plowing. I wonder if this is a
11 good time to go with that.
12 A. MR. HEESE: Sorry, I believe the
13 commitment that you requested us to go away with was
14 whether we would commit to working in non-frozen
15 conditions, it wasn't a specific commitment to only
16 using the Spider-Plow. So I was prepared to answer to
17 the commitment I understood that you were requesting
18 that we work under only non-frozen conditions for
19 pipelining. And the answer to that is, no, at this
20 point we are not prepared to make that commitment.
21 We feel that the construction methods that we
22 have designed will be appropriate, not only for the
23 soil type but for the conditions that we are based in.
24 And when you look at the overall program design, by
25 having a very small footprint in, in the first place,
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1346
1 by maximizing the non-frozen period with our
2 pipelining, the, the gains that would be offered by
3 making a commitment like that are minimal. However,
4 our commitment is to use the right equipment for the
5 right soil type at the right season.
6 Q. Okay, sir. I'm, I'm just going over my question as
7 written in my -- my question as written. I would
8 have to check the transcript, but it was a specific
9 commitment with respect to Spider-Plowing only during
10 periods of dormant non-frozen period, so I'm not
11 certain if that changes your answer.
12 A. I don't believe it does. Again, we are committing to
13 using the right construction technique and equipment
14 for the right soil type at the right season.
15 Q. Thank you, sir. I'm going to give you a reference.
16 Again, I don't think it's necessary to turn it up,
17 but this, this relates to a statement made by EnCana
18 in its Reply Submission, page 2. -- or 2-21. And
19 EnCana states:
20 "Where it is necessary to access a
21 site during wet conditions, EnCana
22 will consider the use of
23 all-terrain vehicles to reduce
24 damage to the environment."
25 And I want to start with inquiring as to what
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1347
1 circumstances will it -- under what circumstances will
2 it be necessary to access sites during wet conditions?
3 A. I'm sorry, I would like to find that reference. Can
4 you repeat that?
5 Q. Sure. 2-21.
6 A. And that was in --
7 Q. Sorry, it's in 002-010, that's Volume 1 of the EIS. I
8 misspoke. 2-21. And it's Section 2.2.3.4.
9 A. That particular comment was made early on in the EIS
10 Project, project, again specific to well inspections
11 and pipeline integrity checks.
12 Our Wet Weather Shutdown criteria has been
13 expanded significantly since that statement was made.
14 Specifically within our Environmental Protection Plan,
15 page 6.3, section 6.4.1, which describes our Wet
16 Weather Shutdown, and that will be applied to all of
17 our operations on the Suffield Block.
18 This specific reference was in the event
19 that, you know, the use of quads or something like
20 that was appropriate. It was to leave some
21 flexibility. However, our Wet Weather Shutdown has
22 built upon that and it is as it is described within
23 our EPP, which will determine how we approach the land
24 and periodic -- or it really is a system where we shut
25 down for wet weather and very, very rare instances
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1348
1 where we would require the use of a vehicle such as
2 this as we described. So, I would -- if we wanted to
3 describe the specific Wet Weather Shutdown section --
4 Q. We're going to go there.
5 A. Okay.
6 Q. So --
7 A. MR. FUDGE: Maybe I -- perhaps I could
8 just add, because I recall the discussion about that
9 section explicitly. And my understanding is that it
10 was, it was really meant for -- that statement in
11 there was meant for in Wet Weather Shutdown conditions
12 but where there was a necessity because of accident or
13 upset conditions or something very unusual, event, an
14 unusual event, that's the only time that a quad or
15 something like that would be used during wet weather.
16 Otherwise it's a shutdown. So that, that was clear to
17 me at the time when we were reviewing that.
18 Q. And that makes sense to me as well, sir. I just
19 wanted to confirm that we're talking exceptional
20 circumstances, if there's a pipeline break, you've
21 got to get out there and it's wet?
22 A. MR. HEESE: That's exactly it, yeah.
23 Q. And I, and I think I'm going to where you were at
24 there, Mr. Heese. The reference I have is, is
25 002-077, which I think is what we were talking about,
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1349
1 Section 3.7 and specifically page 3-9. And I'm going
2 to take you to four criteria developed by EnCana that
3 indicates shut down or work modification should
4 begin.
5 I'm ready, actually. I've been waiting.
6 A. Sorry. I, I too am ready.
7 Q. Okay. So when I read those shut down or work
8 modification criteria, it, it strikes me that some
9 damage has already been done if this is occurring; is
10 that, is that fair?
11 A. The specific criteria you're referring to, I believe,
12 is in association with Section 120. I think it's
13 important to read line 114 first, because that kind of
14 sets the stage for the entire Wet Weather Shutdown,
15 and maybe I'll even read it:
16 "All project personnel have a
17 responsibility to recognize and
18 prevent effects."
19 So, in regards to prevention, this, this section
20 is really for those rare circumstances where we find
21 ourselves in, in a situation. However, it is our
22 intention to shut down in advance of these very, these
23 very additional criteria that you've outlined in 120.
24 Again, I believe I have -- I'm on the record already
25 as describing the activities we currently do to
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1350
1 prevent effects, you know; checking a variety of
2 weather sources, checking radar, checking even the
3 Alberta Motor Association weather cams that are on the
4 Trans-Canada Highway to actually watch approaching
5 storms and make decisions in advance of inclement
6 weather.
7 So the Wet Weather Shutdown and the criteria
8 outlined in 120 is really, again, a rare event and in
9 the event we find ourselves in such conditions, to
10 outline how we should respond to that.
11 Q. And I take it that those requirements apply equally to
12 operations as they do to construction. So in terms
13 of swathing or other maintenance activities, the same
14 things are going to apply?
15 A. Before answering that specifically, if I could just
16 again talk generally. This whole section was written
17 in consideration of Alberta Environment's CNR IL98-4,
18 which outlines Alberta Environment's expectations for
19 shutdown in wet weather. So as their expectation is
20 that it applies to all operations, it is ours as well,
21 that this applies for all of our operations, including
22 the ongoing operations which is why, when I originally
23 brought up this section, I was referring within
24 section 6.
25 It is essentially a repeat of this traffic
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1351
1 protocol that's identified specifically in the
2 Construction section that we are now referring to,
3 that is correct. The use of protocols, as well as the
4 responsibility to prevent the effects, applies to all
5 of our activities.
6 Q. And does EnCana have the ability to shut their wells
7 down remotely? Can you do that through the SCADA
8 system? No?
9 A. SCADA is just monitoring.
10 Q. Okay.
11 A. It is not remote shut-off. Just let me confirm. That
12 is correct, we can't remotely shutdown.
13 Q. Okay. So in the event of really wet conditions and
14 you had a problem with a well, you'd still have to go
15 in to shut it in until conditions were dry, is that
16 fair, so you can do some work on it?
17 A. Shutting in, shutting in a well is a fairly
18 straightforward operation. If it happened to be
19 during a period of overall standdown, it would be a
20 matter of assigning the appropriate vehicle to access
21 the field in those conditions. But you are correct,
22 it would require manual shut-off.
23 Q. Okay. It's my understanding that EnCana previously
24 operated on Suffield with low pressure balloon tires
25 on pick-up trucks as a mitigation method. Can you
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1352
1 discuss the effectiveness of that as a mitigation
2 method?
3 A. I'm aware of previous activities in the NWA where the
4 use of balloon tires was one of the mitigative factors
5 in areas of high risk.
6 My understanding of average tires in the day
7 where those were being operated were generally
8 narrower than the types of tires that are standard
9 equipment on trucks these days. The off-road truck
10 tires that are equipped with, or the off-road truck
11 tires on trucks these days are roughly equivalent to
12 what a balloon tire would have been in the '70s and
13 '80s when that was a primary mitigation for the area.
14 A. MR. L'HENAFF: If I can just add as well,
15 that was a period in time when the metering
16 requirements, the measuring requirements were
17 different due to regulation. The operators had to go
18 out to the sites basically every day and every week,
19 so they had to go there irrespective of the weather
20 conditions.
21 Now, because of the change in the regulations
22 and the medium requirements surrounding that, we have
23 a lot more flexibility on choosing, you know, just the
24 right conditions. So on top of, I guess, the tire
25 requirements that have changed significantly since
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1353
1 back in the '70s and '80s, there's been quite a change
2 in the regulatory requirements. So our need to go out
3 to each site and recover those recorders has certainly
4 changed through the decades.
5 Q. Have you done any studies, though, recently, to
6 determine differences in compaction rates between, as
7 we say, ordinary tires and balloon tires?
8 A. MR. HEESE: No.
9 Q. Okay. Now, when we were talking yesterday, I think I
10 heard that the rig kick-off date is planned to be
11 around October 15th.
12 A. That's correct. Subject to weather and ground
13 conditions as always, yes.
14 Q. Sure. And I understand from earlier testimony that
15 the peak construction months are November to January.
16 Is that, is that accurate as well? I think that was
17 in your Opening Statement.
18 A. That would be accurate.
19 Q. Okay. I'm wondering how far past January EnCana might
20 extend its construction period to complete its
21 program and whether there's an absolute end date for
22 you.
23 A. The end date that we have proposed is April 15th, but,
24 again, as we are describing our traffic control
25 protocols and specifically wet weather, it is always
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1354
1 contingent upon the actual weather and condition of
2 the ground at that point. It would be very difficult
3 to predict a hard cut-off date when spring break-up
4 might happen, when the ground might change. It would
5 be variable year to year, which is why the
6 construction activity is fairly heavily loaded to the,
7 more to the front end of the developments, recognizing
8 that towards the tail end, while we have identified
9 April 15th as the official end, the actual ground
10 conditions will be variable at any point from, or in,
11 in March and April.
12 Q. Okay. And we talked briefly about an event where a
13 pipeline might rupture and you need to go out there
14 in wet conditions. I guess my question is, is how
15 will EnCana be able to detect small pipeline leaks in
16 between annual inspections?
17 A. We currently use very specialized and highly sensitive
18 equipment. And that equipment is on the main access
19 trails, essentially the all weather or the built-up
20 gravel type roads, so that is a complement to the, to
21 the other inspection programs. So it is less, less
22 susceptible to weather conditions being that it can
23 operate from high grade roads.
24 Q. Okay. And I'm, I'm not certain that I got to my
25 question. Maybe it was asked poorly. I just -- I
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1355
1 really want to know how EnCana will be able to detect
2 pipeline leaks in between annual inspections, if it's
3 a low-level leak.
4 A. Just one moment, please. Standard practice of driving
5 all of our pipelines to determine low-level leaks is,
6 is the standard. However, we are moving down a path
7 to try and eliminate as much actual pipeline travel as
8 possible. And that includes the use of highly
9 specialized units that can detect very, very low
10 levels from the all-weather access network with the --
11 or the, the high grade roads within the National
12 Wildlife Area.
13 So we will still conduct yearly inspections.
14 However, how that is actually done, moving from a
15 situation where we're driving every single
16 right-of-way to one where we can narrow or -- sorry,
17 use highly specialized equipment to drive only the
18 high weather, the high grade all-weather roads within
19 the National Wildlife Area to pinpoint the areas where
20 there might be a leak, and then only follow up with
21 specific right-of-way assess -- or investigations at
22 that time.
23 Q. And just so I understand, the equipment measures
24 pipeline pressure or something similar to that. It
25 doesn't measure the road? Like I guess that's where
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1356
1 it's falling apart for me.
2 A. Sorry, it measures the air.
3 Q. Measures the air above the road?
4 A. In any -- in association with the air around the road,
5 whether or not there would be a pipeline leak. So in
6 the event that the equipment on our high grade road
7 senses that there's reason to believe there is a leak
8 or some sort of release in the area, then we follow up
9 with a site specific evaluation on that, in the area.
10 However, it's, it's intentionally to try and relieve
11 the overall traffic and presence on, on our pipelines
12 in the area.
13 Q. And is there pressure instrumentation as well to
14 back-up those concerns where you could notice a
15 change?
16 A. The level of leaks that I believe we're discussing are
17 so low that we would not recognize a pressure drop.
18 And it is only by active sampling that we would, that
19 we would find those leaks.
20 Q. And I guess what we want to understand is what
21 specifically is the technology?
22 A. We're currently using a company by the name of Gas
23 Track, which uses a gas ionization method which is
24 capable of measuring in parts per billion.
25 A. MR. L'HENAFF: If I could maybe just
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1357
1 clarify, put it into context. So our, our pipeline
2 failure rate is extremely low. We've got a good track
3 record there. The plastic pipe is another feature of
4 that and it has a good track record.
5 And so -- and then our corrosion program,
6 that really goes to protect the steel pipes that we
7 have.
8 So the kind of leaks that we're talking about
9 are really -- we're talking about pinpoint leaks that
10 really release a small amount of, of methane. And so
11 it's an electronic sniffer that is basically sampling
12 the air.
13 So that, that degree of leak, so extremely
14 rare event, that degree of leaks, we won't, wouldn't
15 be able to detect it at a metered site that's
16 basically metering the battery production.
17 Q. Thank you, sir. Maybe going on to the other end of
18 the table for a little while and talk about some
19 Crested Wheatgrass. And my first question is how
20 will Crested Wheatgrass invasion rates be monitored?
21 A. DR. WALKER: I don't believe we've got a
22 targeted program for monitoring Crested Wheatgrass
23 invasion. There is the suggestion in the Submission
24 that, that an integrated undesirable plant program be
25 developed with the other stakeholders. And that a
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1358
1 decision be made as to which species are actually
2 undesirable and what should be done about it.
3 Q. Okay, and just maybe to follow up on that a bit. I, I
4 think you suggested that other oil and gas operators,
5 PFRA, DND, and Environment Canada would be involved
6 in that sort of initiative. I guess my question is,
7 is there a successful working model out there to
8 document past experience with this sort of vegetation
9 management, sort of a stakeholder group approach?
10 A. Yes, there are other models, certainly.
11 Q. Can you expand on that?
12 A. Certainly the work that Dr. Darcy Anderson has done
13 would be a good model. Scott Henderson, the
14 University of Regina, has also done extensive
15 monitoring in Grasslands National Park. There are
16 other models in the States that have looked at Crested
17 Wheatgrass and, and the reason for its dominance and
18 rate of spread.
19 Q. And, and I think what I'm getting at is actually sort
20 of this multi-stakeholder approach to managing this
21 issue. I know there's multi-stakeholder approaches
22 in Alberta for other issues like air emissions. I'm
23 wondering if there's a model with respect to this
24 sort of weed or undesirable plant management upon
25 which this recommendation could be based.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1359
1 A. There are certainly invasive species organizations in
2 the province and in fact across Canada and across
3 North America that look at the issue and look at
4 solutions.
5 Q. Okay, but in terms of a multi-stakeholder group, you
6 don't, you don't know of another one that's been
7 successful in this sort of an approach?
8 A. MR. FUDGE: We have -- just to add to
9 Dr. Walker's comments. We have -- as part of the
10 Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan, we have put
11 forward a candidate study in foreign native grassland
12 integrity that would measure the, the status and
13 trajectory of weed densities. And the establishment
14 and persistence of tumbling weeds as a monitoring
15 study, not as a control study, or a control process.
16 And I think that's what, what Dr. Walker is
17 speaking to as well, is multi-stakeholder -- to what
18 are -- okay, we know where the weeds are, we know what
19 they are doing, which way they are going, as it were,
20 or what their trajectory is, but what are, what are
21 you going to do about it. And that, I believe, in my
22 interpretation of what's being suggested, is it would
23 take all the land users and adjacent land users
24 together to deal with those kind of issues.
25 Q. And I, and I think I get what the idea is. I just
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1360
1 simply want to know if that idea's been tested
2 before, and if it has, I just want to know how it
3 works. And if it's novel, that, that's not
4 necessarily a bad thing. I just want to know if
5 it's, if it's been successfully implemented somewhere
6 else?
7 A. DR. WALKER: Certainly it, it's not novel.
8 I suppose it's probably novel in terms of Crested
9 Wheatgrass per se. Although I have to say, grasslands
10 certainly looked at it, looked at where the Crested
11 Wheatgrass was, where it was going. They have
12 recently done a study on, on the economics of, of how
13 the, the problem should be approached. So, yes, there
14 are models there and they work. And it does involve
15 everybody who uses the NWA to be involved so that it's
16 targeted and it's effective.
17 Q. And, and just from EnCana's perspective, who should
18 lead this initiative?
19 A. Well, it's not up to me to decide. That's possibly
20 something for the Panel or the...
21 Q. But I want to know EnCana's perspective. So the Panel
22 can obviously make a recommendation on it, but to
23 guide us in that, to guide them on that
24 recommendation, it might be useful to hear what
25 EnCana has to say.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1361
1 A. MR. L'HENAFF: I suppose we haven't put a
2 lot of thought in it, but I would think that it would
3 be natural for the DND to lead that initiative, as
4 the, as the landowner. But, you know, as Mr. Fudge
5 and Dr. Walker have indicated, it's, it's an issue for
6 the region, for the area. And so you would certainly
7 require commitment of all the users. And so I think
8 that would be key element, is that for the users of
9 the, of the Base, and specifically the NWA to, to be
10 able -- to be committed to the process. And, you
11 know, driving themselves towards a solution to the
12 issue.
13 Q. Okay. And Dr. Walker, back to you, you mentioned
14 Henderson. And in the, in the record there's a,
15 there's an article by Mr. Henderson, or maybe it's
16 Dr. Henderson. And it's found at 003C-006. And it's
17 entitled, "Crested Wheatgrass Invasion Influence of
18 Prevailing Winds and Grazing at Suffield National
19 Wildlife Area". I take it you're familiar with this?
20 A. Yes, I am.
21 Q. Okay. And, and my understanding of what he says in
22 this report is, traffic frequency affected the
23 density and distance of maximum invasion, and while
24 he wasn't able to tie his Suffield investigations to
25 specific traffic frequencies, he suggests that
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1362
1 restricting traffic may be more important than
2 grazing management.
3 First, I wanted your opinion on that
4 statement or that concept. Why don't we start with
5 that.
6 A. DR. WALKER: I, I suppose that would be
7 one of the unanswered questions as to how Crested
8 Wheatgrass gets moved around, whether it's vehicles
9 or, or cattle or wildlife. But the, the bulk of the
10 evidence to date suggests that it is what we call
11 propagule pressure, the ability of this species to
12 produce huge amounts of seed that outnumber the native
13 seed production upon the landscape. And so, wherever
14 there is a large source of seed is where it's going to
15 spread from whichever means.
16 So it, it might be -- if the objective is
17 the -- if the goal is to reduce the amount of Crested
18 Wheatgrass on the landscape to, to catch it at the
19 source, is to reduce the seed production. Perhaps to
20 prevent it from, from heading out, although that has
21 collateral damage involved with that as well.
22 So I think all these issues need to be
23 weighed against the other issues and, and discussed
24 with the stakeholders as to how it's to be addressed.
25 There are, are pastures there that PFRA use, and, and
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1363
1 certainly we don't want to start taking away those
2 prime pastures. Those are critical for reducing the
3 grazing pressure on native range. And, and there are
4 still remnant areas that were seeded during the
5 settlement in the NWA, in the SNWA. And as I've
6 mentioned previously, I think that we have to go about
7 controlling this species in a very thoughtful way
8 because some of the alternatives are not very
9 palatable. To have annual grasses, for example,
10 invade and take the place would be quite disastrous.
11 So, at the moment, I look at Crested
12 Wheatgrass on the landscape there, as a, as a place
13 holder. It's, it's keeping things out that we don't
14 want in. And there is some evidence that, that it can
15 be replaced. Usually on an episodic basis, when we
16 get certain droughts and when we get some good sources
17 of seed from other locations, and so that's part of
18 that EnCana Reclamation Plan, is to seed all areas
19 that have a possibility of, of undesirable species
20 becoming established with native species so that they
21 have the best chance of getting established. And we
22 have a, a preferred seed bank rather than an
23 undesirable seed bank on the sites.
24 Q. And I guess just to, just to follow up, given it's
25 been identified as a potential vector for Crested
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1364
1 Wheatgrass, how should it be considered in terms of
2 ongoing cumulative effects?
3 A. Well, it, it's been on the landscape for the last 60,
4 70 years. We've, we've -- that, that's part of the
5 NWA. It's, it's certainly on my, my radar. It's not
6 a critical element in terms of ecosystem
7 functionality. And so I, I think that there are other
8 issues and other problems to direct our efforts
9 towards.
10 Q. I want to move a bit to issues of grazing and cattle.
11 And I just want to know whether wellheads will be
12 protected from cattle, with a metal guardrail?
13 A. MR. HEESE: You're referring to the Tech
14 Fence, the, the small wellhead fence? That is our
15 practice in areas where there's cattle grazing to have
16 all wells guarded by Tech Fences.
17 Q. Okay, and in terms -- has EnCana experienced issues
18 where cattle rub on the guardrails for the wellheads.
19 A. I have seen some instances where the Tech Fence is
20 used as a potential rubbing post, correct.
21 Q. And does that have the, the effect of creating bare
22 ground in those places?
23 A. In some cases the amount of hoof sheer and
24 congregation of cattle can lead to an increase in bare
25 ground on locations. However, they are generally site
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1365
1 specific. It's not -- it's not a characterization of
2 all the wells. It's a subset of, of the wells. But,
3 yes, the additional impact of cattle can lead to bare
4 ground around some of the, some of the Tech Fences.
5 Q. Okay. And whose responsibility is it to, to deal with
6 that bare ground? Is that, is that for the PFRA or
7 is that for EnCana?
8 A. Ongoing discussions with PFRA as to how we can best
9 manage their operations with our operations is an item
10 that I will be taking into the future. It, it's a
11 situation that is not unique to the Suffield Block,
12 understanding the interactions of cattle with
13 wellheads. Certainly all the prairie areas outside
14 the block have that same sort of situation. And
15 maintaining open communications with, with the various
16 stakeholders is important.
17 Q. Maybe I can just bring you back to EnCana's
18 intention --
19 A. MR. L'HENAFF: If I can just add, but they
20 are responsible for the site. That's our well site.
21 So the ground conditions there and keeping it up to
22 snuff is certainly our responsibility.
23 Q. Okay, and so maybe if you can just walk me through
24 what, what happens and what steps are taken to deal
25 with that ground currently.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1366
1 A. MR. HEESE: I'm currently documenting the
2 situations where that was -- where that is occurring,
3 where I'm seeing, you know, systemic challenges with
4 PFRA to develop mitigation or additional steps, in
5 some cases, it may lead to additional fencing. In
6 some cases it may lead to additional seeding of the
7 location to try and regenerate some vegetation at this
8 point. But specific steps are, are in development.
9 Q. Okay. I'm going to turn now to the topic of
10 reclamation. And this is something I'm going to
11 explore with Mr. Protti as well, but here I want to
12 talk about some of the more practical aspects rather
13 than the regulatory requirements itself. And my
14 first question is, is what criteria should be
15 achieved to ensure reclamation is successful? And
16 I'm not talking regulatory criteria, I'm sort of
17 talking on, on the ground. If an area's been
18 successfully reclaimed, what should we see?
19 A. DR. WALKER: I guess that would be me.
20 I've, I've got a number of, of monitoring protocols
21 that are to be applied at various stages through the
22 reclamation process. And, and, in fact beginning
23 before construction, they are outlined in Appendix K.
24 There are some guidelines. But very briefly, the kind
25 of, of plant materials that are used has guidelines
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1367
1 and criteria that is using source identified seed. In
2 other words, we know where it comes from, we have a
3 good idea where it -- how it performs. It, it may be
4 certified seed, but it also may be seed that has --
5 is, is acquired from a local grower. For example,
6 there is a grower near Brooks who, who cultivates wild
7 stands of Blue Grama Grass. That would be an example
8 of a local source that is not certified that would be
9 source identified.
10 There's a protocol for, for maintaining the,
11 the chain of custody of the seed material so that it
12 doesn't get substituted by the contractor. So EnCana
13 will be acquiring and providing it to their
14 contractors to seed.
15 There's a protocol for monitoring the seed
16 rate because that has a big impact on the eventual
17 outcome. Too much seed ends up producing a
18 monoculture, much the way Crested Wheatgrass does when
19 it's overseeded.
20 There's a protocol for seedling establishment
21 a year after seeding. We need a certain number of
22 plants per square metre in order to get the cover we
23 need, in order to get erosion control. So that is
24 another stage at which there will be monitoring and
25 targets established.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1368
1 There's a ground cover protocol that we are
2 looking for in terms of providing erosion control. It
3 varies, whether it's wind erosion or water erosion.
4 We're looking for that target to be met in somewhere
5 between two and four years after. There are action
6 items or, or responses, of adaptive management
7 protocols if these targets aren't met. And, and then
8 we're looking at a couple of other protocols that are
9 in existence throughout the life of the Project. And
10 that is the absence of undesirable species and the
11 presence of desirable species through that.
12 There are a number of other aspects of the
13 monitoring protocol that look at, at hydrologic
14 function, and that relates to compaction, infiltration
15 rate and, and especially to erosion control. So the
16 erosion control target is, is in effect throughout the
17 life of the Project. And that's the, the basis for
18 the sustainability objective that Mr. Protti was
19 talking about.
20 So that's a brief rundown of the reclamation
21 monitoring that will go on through the Project.
22 A. MR. HEESE: If, if I might maybe, in
23 addition to the detail that Dr. Walker provided, the
24 question relating to what, what should you see, you
25 know, when you go to a location to determine
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1369
1 reclamation. If I could bring this up a level. You
2 know, we, we want to restore rangeland functionality
3 to our disturbances.
4 To do that, we'll be using three specific
5 measures, the first being site stability, the second
6 being biotic integrity, the third being hydrologic
7 function, and looking at indicators on our
8 right-of-ways to confirm that. So in answer to your
9 question, you know, it is a return to rangeland
10 functionality.
11 Q. Then when you say return to, to rangeland
12 functionality, is that another way of saying
13 equivalent land capability?
14 A. DR. WALKER: Yes, it is. In fact, the new
15 criteria that SRD has brought out for forested lands
16 refers to that specifically as that, equivalent land
17 capability, in their interpretation means a
18 functioning ecosystem.
19 Q. And in, and in terms of reclamation, if we were to put
20 different reclamation standards on a spectrum, you'd
21 have equivalent land capability somewhere in the
22 middle and would you have full ecological restoration
23 to one side; is that a step up?
24 A. No, it means the same. Well, I -- pardon me. There
25 are, are situations, certainly lots of them, where
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1370
1 equivalent land capability, or the pre-existing
2 condition may not be functioning. It may be less
3 because of prior land use. So that's where restoring
4 it to equivalent land capability may not necessarily
5 be the best goal. It may not be the intention of the
6 regulators to return a degraded landscape to a
7 degraded state. If there is the opportunity to
8 improve it, especially if it costs less, we somehow
9 need to have regulations that encourage that.
10 Q. Okay, but my, my understanding is that, that
11 intervenors such as DND and Environment Canada have
12 proposed a reclamation standard of, of ecological
13 restoration. And from reading their report it
14 suggests to me that it's requiring something more
15 than equivalent land capability.
16 A. I would agree. It, it requires the -- restoration to,
17 to a functioning landscape. The way the protocol is
18 set up is that it often -- it can be --
19 Q. Can I just -- I don't want to interrupt you, but I
20 think I need to really understand which protocol
21 you're talking about.
22 A. The protocol that's in Appendix K.
23 Q. Okay. Your protocol?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1371
1 A. It, it is a way of comparing to a reference site. And
2 that reference site could be one that is in existence.
3 It could be one that DND and EnCana goes out and looks
4 at a well site and says, yes, this is exactly what
5 what we're looking for. The protocol provides a means
6 of measuring that and describing that quantitatively,
7 and then that can become a target. It's flexible
8 enough, the protocol, that it, it can accommodate a
9 very, a variety of different land uses and land use
10 objectives.
11 So, for example, if it would -- the land use
12 objective would be grazing, we might look at one
13 reference site. And if it was to, to encourage rare
14 plant habitat, preservation, it might be a, a
15 different set of, of, of measurements or targets for
16 the same criteria and indicators that I've listed
17 here.
18 But it, it is a very much a collaborative
19 approach in that the, the landowner and the Proponent
20 need to get together and decide what the targets are.
21 And, and these can be quantitatively described and
22 then it sets in place a clear target as to what is
23 expected.
24 Q. So, if I'm understanding your answer, hypothetically
25 speaking, if this Panel was to recommend ecological
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1372
1 restoration to take place rather than equivalent land
2 capability, the protocols in Appendix K could address
3 that?
4 A. Yes, they do. The protocol in Appendix K, Ecosystem
5 Functionality, does follow the Society for Ecological
6 Restoration guidelines as well as, as the range health
7 approach. And that is based on a functioning
8 landscape.
9 A. MR. KANSAS: If I could add, just the
10 nature of these narrow pipelines and the mitigation
11 measures proposed, there's a natural tendency over
12 time towards ecological integrity from a biotic point
13 of view. There's a natural infilling of native plants
14 into the, into right-of-way. It's... Our findings
15 over the last few years have shown that.
16 Q. So -- okay, I think I'll move on from there. Turning
17 to EnCana's Reply Submission, we're going to
18 page 117, figure 8. And --
19 A. MR. HEESE: I've got it. I'll probably
20 be speaking to this section.
21 Q. And the EnCana assessment, Protocol for Range Health
22 includes category E, Noxious Weeds. And my, my
23 question is simply, what plant species are included
24 in this category?
25 A. And, and before I answer that, I think it's important
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1373
1 to clarify and separate this exhibit from Appendix K,
2 which is proposed for the Project. These are not --
3 this is not the product of what is proposed in
4 Appendix K of our reply evidence. This was one
5 example where I have tried to apply the SRD method of
6 range health as part of an ongoing monitoring program
7 in the Koomati Block, on the Suffield Block. So I
8 just want to make that clarification. So this is
9 still a work in progress and it was to provide an
10 example of some of the long -- some of the monitoring
11 that we do of the area.
12 In specific answer to your question, there
13 were some particular items that I did have to modify
14 from the SRD category to try and understand the
15 regulatory environment that is placed on an oil and
16 gas company, as well as respecting oil and gas
17 disturbances versus grazing impacts, which is what
18 this protocol was originally designed for.
19 So the specific category of noxious weeds on
20 this case, or in this case, I chose to restrict that
21 to noxious and restricted weeds as identified in the
22 Alberta Weed Control Act. So, to know that if, in any
23 event, if I received anything less than full marks
24 that there was an immediate obligation to return to
25 that location and ensure compliance with the Weed
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1374
1 Control Act.
2 So, again, separate this example from what is
3 proposed in, in Appendix K.
4 Q. So if I can jump, then, to what is proposed in
5 Appendix K, I take it it would include noxious weeds
6 but would it also include species like Crested
7 Wheatgrass?
8 A. DR. WALKER: Would that be included in the
9 protocol?
10 Q. The way I understand this, this, this report card is,
11 is it determines what noxious weeds are there and
12 includes that in, in an assessment of, of the range
13 health. I'm wondering if things like Crested
14 Wheatgrass or Smooth Brome would also be measured and
15 monitored, measured and monitored in a similar sort
16 of report card?
17 A. It, it would be in a, in a similar way. As I
18 mentioned, though, it, it's going to determine -- it
19 would depend on the stakeholders deciding what the
20 targets are. And that would certainly include the,
21 the presence of undesirable species. This, this is a
22 -- this report card is, is, an attempt to use the
23 standard range health protocol for a reclamation site
24 and it, it's appropriate certainly for, for managing
25 cattle on rangeland, but it -- there are, there are
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1375
1 difficulties with it importing it over for reclaimed
2 sites because, as this indicates, bare ground was
3 quite high. And that, that would be expected at an
4 early stage after reclamation. So it, it, it may
5 not -- would not necessarily get the same score under,
6 under the system I'm proposing. There might be other
7 means of erosion control for site stability rather
8 than ground cover from litter that's accumulated.
9 So this is an example, but it doesn't work
10 very well. The protocol in Appendix K is based on the
11 same fundamental structure, but the indicators would
12 be different and would be scored differently.
13 Q. Okay. I think we should probably go to Appendix K,
14 then. If we can go to page K15 in Appendix K, which
15 is in the Reply Submission, I think on the first
16 paragraph, it states:
17 "Indicators are ranked in units of
18 departure from expected
19 hypothetical or from an appropriate
20 local reference site."
21 And I, I just want to understand how EnCana
22 intends to use reference sites and how they will be
23 selected.
24 A. They, they could be selected based on a, on a
25 theoretical site potential as, as, "as good as it
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1376
1 gets", for example, but the way it's been set up, I
2 would like to have reference sites chosen from the
3 landscape, get the involved parties involved so that
4 they can have a look at it. And can approve it and it
5 can be described quantitatively and that becomes a
6 target, and there could be several reference sites
7 based on different ecological sites, based on soil
8 type or a position or land use, for example.
9 Q. And, and what's the timing for selecting the reference
10 sites?
11 A. There is no particular rush to choose the reference
12 sites because, at least for the final abandonment
13 stage, the, the protocol looks after the early stages
14 to a certain extent in terms of ground cover, species
15 selection. I suppose there may be some land uses
16 where, where an early decision on, on the land use
17 should be decided so that the Reclamation Plan can be
18 tailored for that. For example, if it is for rare
19 animal or rare plant habitat, you may want to do less
20 if -- rather than, than more, but in general, EnCana
21 would probably want to look after their facilities,
22 we'll look after the wellheads, the pipelines and the
23 trails and so there would be a high emphasis on site
24 stability in that regard.
25 Q. And would reference sites include reclaimed sites?
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1377
1 A. I, I think they should be reclaimed sites. I think
2 they should be -- well, they could be existing
3 operational well sites. There are many sites out
4 there that have, have returned to all native species
5 that looks like somebody's just jammed a pipe in the
6 ground, and other than that, it, it looks like totally
7 native prairie, no non-native species, various
8 diversity and, and distribution of native plants. So
9 those sites could be used as target sites and for, for
10 similar types of landscapes where wells are proposed.
11 Q. On the same page, it suggests that the monitoring plan
12 was modelled after the range health assessment model,
13 which is an ASRD model, if I understand that?
14 A. Partially, but it's mostly modelled on, on the, the
15 U.S. indicators, the one that's proposed by -- well
16 proposes being used by the Bureau of Land Management.
17 Appellant and Pike (phonetic), Schafer and Herrick
18 (phonetic) are the authors, principal authors of that.
19 It's also based on an Australian model of
20 ecosystem functionality, and which covers the same
21 attributes. So it's, it's a rather rigorous
22 definition of functionality. It, it has been -- it is
23 well thought out, it's been used in a number of
24 different applications. In this case, we're adapting
25 it for use for reclamation.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1378
1 Q. Are there some key differences from the ASRD model
2 that, that could be highlighted?
3 A. Yes, there are. And the principle difference is the
4 composition of the species. With managing rangelands
5 for grazing, you're looking at the effects of grazing
6 pressure, removing the sensitive species, the
7 decreasers, and looking at the presence of increaser
8 species. So the composition is a, is a sensitive tool
9 to monitor grazing pressure, whereas for reclamation,
10 we're looking for a pioneer community and a trend and
11 a succession towards a target plant community at the
12 end. So it's, it's different in that regard.
13 A much higher emphasis is placed on site
14 stability for reclamation compared to the, to range
15 health. For range health, you're looking at a, an
16 undisturbed landscape and the background erosion rate
17 is what you get. There's not much opportunity for
18 changing that. Although, that is changing now in the
19 States where they are looking at problems with certain
20 kinds of rangeland, native rangeland, that's
21 contributing to sediment lows in streams, but it, it
22 simply reverses, I guess, the order of, of the
23 attributes. Site stability is first and on the, on
24 the protocol I'm suggesting, and the biotic integrity
25 and the particular, the species composition, is, is
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1379
1 the principle attribute that's being looked at in the
2 ASRD model.
3 Q. I understand what you said was that one of the key
4 differences is it's been changed because of grazing
5 or to, to reflect grazing issues. Does that also --
6 do those changes take into account wildlife habitat
7 or --
8 A. The aspects of wildlife habitat are covered under
9 biotic integrity, and that would be covered under what
10 we call the desired plant community in biotic
11 integrity. Another aspect of biotic integrity is
12 whether there's nutrient cycling, whether it's
13 self-sustaining.
14 Under the desired plant community, certain
15 wildlife may require certain species and so that would
16 become part of the desired plant community. And that
17 would reflect the value of that landscape for wildlife
18 habitat.
19 Q. Okay, and just -- I want to know whether EnCana has,
20 has used this range health assessment protocol
21 proposed in Appendix K in other grasslands
22 environments or would this be the first application
23 of this protocol?
24 A. MR. HEESE: This would be the first
25 application.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1380
1 Q. And Dr. Walker, I take it you've applied this
2 elsewhere, just not for EnCana?
3 A. DR. WALKER: Yes, I did a, a field
4 verification, I'll call it, on, on a number of EnCana
5 well sites when I was looking into this. And prior to
6 that -- well, I -- I've been working on this for about
7 five years, applying it in different places, in the
8 Brooks area for two years, and prior to that, had a
9 look at the Express Pipeline right-of-way a number of
10 times as well, as I've tried to fine-tune it, and
11 looked for weaknesses and adjust for the, for
12 efficiencies.
13 Q. We're going to jump to Appendix Q now, and I'm looking
14 for a table entitled, "Site Inspection Summary". I
15 think it's on page 7-16.
16 A. MR. HEESE: I have Appendix Q. Was there
17 a specific page?
18 Q. 7-16, I think. That's where it is. There isn't a
19 specific page. My question is, is more general than
20 that. What I understand this table to list is sites
21 for immediate clean up and also sites for clean up at
22 the time of well abandonment and final reclamation.
23 And it appears that reclaiming some vegetation
24 deficiencies, small areas of drilling mud and cement
25 have been deferred for some wells until final
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1381
1 reclamation. And I'm wondering whether EnCana has
2 accepted the recommendation to defer those activities
3 on those well sites?
4 A. The recommendations were accepted at this point in
5 time. However, we have since decided to revisit and
6 ensure that there is absolute -- that any deficiency
7 that can be remedied prior to final reclamation is
8 addressed immediately.
9 So the comments surrounding cement fragments
10 that could be left were very small in nature. They
11 weren't large piles. Any large pile of any sort of
12 residual material were absolutely cleaned up. They
13 were specific comments to just very small isolated
14 patches. So the recommendation was taken at the time,
15 however we are committed to returning to all of these
16 locations and ensuring that any deficiency marked is,
17 is remedied.
18 Q. And just if you can help me understand that
19 commitment. Is EnCana's intention to remedy those
20 deficiencies immediately or prior to reclamation? I
21 don't know the timeframe for that commitment.
22 A. Oh, as soon as possible.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. We did also submit in Appendix N of our reply evidence
25 a revisit to those locations to confirm that the
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1382
1 recommendations that were outlined in here were, in
2 fact, taken and to further confirm that we will again
3 ensure that everything is, is remedied in the specific
4 situations where they, in our revisits, again found
5 very small isolated patches, so those will be removed
6 as soon as possible.
7 Q. Okay. We're going to go back to the main body of the
8 Reply Submission. We're going to page 56. And,
9 again, I don't think we need to turn it up, but what
10 I understand EnCana has stated there is that it has
11 been successful at transplanting rare plants on the
12 Express Pipeline and Foothills Pipeline project. And
13 I wanted EnCana to expand a bit on, on that process
14 and whether or not it was successful.
15 A. DR. WALKER: On, on the Express Pipeline,
16 when rare plants were, were identified, you want a
17 detail of the whole process? Step by step or? In one
18 -- in, on Express Pipeline is what we called wild ling
19 transplants (phonetic). We took plants out of the
20 field as late in the fall as possible so that they
21 would be dormant and they were sent to various growers
22 with experience and they were stored and healed and
23 then brought out and transplanted back on the
24 right-of-way, and those were monitored after
25 construction and there was successful transplanting.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1383
1 It was variable.
2 On the, on the Foothills Pipeline example,
3 that was my project I was on the Foothills lines south
4 of the Frenchman River, and it was a stand of, of a
5 plant that was rare in Saskatchewan, but not in
6 Alberta, and where it's very prolific in British
7 Columbia, and we did two things there: we, we dug up
8 plants -- well, we narrowed the right-of-way to reduce
9 the impact. And we dug up plants, salvaged them, and,
10 and grew them up and transplanted them back on to the
11 right-of-way. We also grew some from seed. And we,
12 in the post-construction monitoring, we created a
13 setback, I guess you'd call it. We fenced off the
14 rare plant stand and monitored that over the next
15 eight years. And we, we did put plants back and they
16 did establish, although where they were fenced off
17 where the cattle didn't reduce the grazing, the litter
18 accumulation, the rare plants were crowded out, both
19 by the plants that we seeded but also adjacent where
20 it was undisturbed where the native plants grew back
21 and also crowded them out.
22 Where they survived and where they are still
23 increasing today is that part of the area that was not
24 fenced, where the cattle trampled and disturbed the
25 ground. And at that point they are increasing there.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1384
1 So I guess that would be successful and not
2 successful. The best approach would have been for us
3 to do less rather than more in terms of maintaining
4 the habitat for those rare species.
5 Q. And just so I'm clear, is it EnCana's intention to do
6 any plant transplants as a part of this Project?
7 A. The, the main objective is to, to find them and avoid
8 them. If, if there are situations where, where, where
9 a rescue may be a choice, then that needs to be
10 discussed with regulators in terms of certainly if
11 it's a SARA listed species before those actions were,
12 would be taken.
13 I notice from the rescue plans that, or the,
14 plans that have been prepared, there seems to be the
15 distinction between naturally occurring populations
16 and ones that are horticulturally derived. So it may
17 mean that, that under this protocol that they are
18 proposing that if, if we did transplant and were
19 successful, they wouldn't count as, as being rare
20 plants, so that would have to be investigated.
21 Q. You mentioned having to talk to regulators if it was a
22 SARA listed species. Would, would that require a
23 SARA permit, then?
24 A. I assume that, that harvesting seed would require a
25 SARA, a SARA permit, yes.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1385
1 Q. Okay. I want to talk a bit about controlled burns
2 now, and, and I'm wondering from a policy
3 perspective, does EnCana support a policy of
4 controlled burns for the NWA? I guess I don't want
5 to know what effect that would have.
6 A. Perhaps I could just add a bit of science background
7 to that. The northern part of the NWA, the Sand Hills
8 area has not burned since '87. And that was a
9 particularly hot severe fire. It ended up
10 extirpating -- extirpating Varny Buffalo Berry
11 (phonetic) from the area. And it has not burned
12 since.
13 And the fuel load has accumulated to a degree
14 that I find alarming, especially the last three years
15 of above average moisture. And so I think that some
16 sort of fire management needs to be investigated in
17 that area, not just from -- it is an issue, I know,
18 from, from some landowners that are outside to the
19 northeast have expressed concern about the fire hazard
20 that's there, and my own concern for, for EnCana
21 people working out there with that kind of fuel load
22 there.
23 So some sort of fire management plan I think
24 has to be looked at, investigated and that might, it
25 might include prescribed burns or some, or some sort
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1386
1 of fuel reduction measures.
2 Q. Okay, and --
3 A. MR. L'HENAFF: If I could just add -- so
4 that's correct. We kind of see it as a collaborative
5 efforts initiative. It needs to be managed at a, at a
6 regional level. We're certainly willing to
7 participate in those management efforts, for sure.
8 Q. Okay. And if management efforts were introduced and
9 there were some controlled burns, can you comment on
10 the ecological and operational effects upon the
11 reclamation program involving native species. What
12 might the impact be there?
13 A. DR. WALKER: Of prescribed burns?
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. Are we talking before or after the Project, after
16 construction?
17 Q. Why don't we go after construction.
18 A. I, I -- it tends to be species specific and site
19 specific and, and I don't see that affecting our --
20 the reclamation targets or goals. In fact, if
21 anything, it may help enhance those goals by perhaps
22 controlling undesirable species.
23 Q. Okay. And in terms of a safety hazard, can you, can
24 you expand on what impact a controlled burn would
25 have on, on oil and gas facilities?
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1387
1 A. MR. L'HENAFF: It really wouldn't have much
2 of an effect from a safety perspective. What likely
3 would occur would be some of the ancillary equipment,
4 like the, the insulation on the wellheads and, you
5 know, we've -- burns are a typical thing in the MTA,
6 so our facilities are frequently exposed to that level
7 of burning. And typically what we have to do is there
8 there are caissons, replace the plywood, above-ground
9 facilities have to replace the insulation, but it
10 doesn't pose much of a safety risk at all.
11 Q. Okay. I'm going to move to water use now. And my
12 first question is, did EnCana consider treating
13 higher salinity ground water from the Belly River or
14 deeper formations for drilling and completion
15 purposes?
16 A. No, we haven't considered that, for, for a couple of
17 different reasons. One is our existing sources, you
18 know, our, our -- seem to be satisfying the needs and
19 like I say, they are kind of, as I've indicated
20 before, spread between three main sources: The city
21 of Medicine Hat, the South Saskatchewan River, and a
22 couple of local dugouts.
23 On top of that, the water required for the
24 drilling, which is effectively half the requirement,
25 you really need that freshwater so you can't use
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1388
1 the -- any water with saline content in it. So, for
2 those reasons, we hadn't really considered using
3 deeper source water.
4 A. MR. HEESE: While we're on the topic,
5 sir, of water in general, I just thought it would be
6 appropriate to offer that, through our production
7 fields, any produced water that is captured in the
8 field, we do take to a facility where we do recycle
9 the water for use in our completions operation. So it
10 is, it is somewhat consistent with the type of
11 question you were asking, but not, again, the same
12 application of using Belly River formation water.
13 Q. Okay. And how much make-up water will be used for
14 drilling and completion fluids then, can you -- by
15 way of a rough percentage?
16 A. MR. FUDGE: I have, I have the numbers
17 here. You mean in terms of the overall program and
18 the annual use of water and the sources thereof? Is
19 that what you'd like to know?
20 Q. Yeah, why don't we go there.
21 A. Okay. Okay. So, in a, in a -- there, there are in
22 the scenario of and in the NWA of 425 wells, and this,
23 these numbers, by the way, also include 200 other
24 wells, so in fact it's more than what is required for
25 425 wells. It's for 625 but these are numbers that we
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1389
1 have. So this is a -- this will be a high-end
2 estimate. But -- and in the evidence, this has been
3 noted as well.
4 The total annual water use, and this includes
5 recycling, has already been included in this, would be
6 about 60,000 cubic metres of water per annum. And
7 about 10,000 of that would come from the South
8 Saskatchewan River. That's under licence by the
9 province. The licence, by the way, is for
10 70,000 cubic metres that could be withdrawn under
11 their licence with the, with the Alberta Government,
12 Alberta Environment, with EnCana's licence. But they
13 are proposing to take 10.
14 The EnCana, the Suffield wells that EnCana
15 uses, including dugouts, around 30, let's call it
16 35,000 cubes.
17 And off-site water purchase, which is
18 Medicine Hat, which was just referred to, about
19 16,000 cubic metres, for a total of 60,562 cubic
20 metres so just a little over 60,000 cubic metres per
21 annum.
22 Now, it, it's important to note, though, that
23 this water is presently being withdrawn today from
24 those sources. So it's not an incremental amount.
25 This is already being withdrawn from these sources on
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1390
1 an annual basis for the ongoing drilling activities
2 that are occurring so there's no net increase in water
3 use proposed for the shallow gas drilling in the NWA.
4 So that's, that's important to know.
5 The other thing to note is that the period of
6 use of this water is during the dry, frozen winter
7 period where, one, withdraws for example from the
8 South Saskatchewan River are very low, two, the, the
9 groundwater use is during the period of recharge, and
10 not during the period of net water deficit that the
11 Great Plains undergo in this area. So those are just
12 a couple of items.
13 Anyway, so perhaps that answers your
14 question.
15 Q. No. I was actually curious about the, the produced
16 and swabbed water and I wanted to know where that fit
17 in in this. So what's the approximate volume of
18 produced and swabbed water that's going to be used?
19 Not that the other information wasn't helpful, but
20 the specific question was a bit different. I was
21 going to get to that. No one should feel bad.
22 A. MR. L'HENAFF: One moment. I'll just
23 confirm the number. So just the -- sorry. So just a
24 couple of numbers for you here just to calibrate what
25 is produced, water, how it fits in. So the NWA
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1391
1 produced water is about 150 cubes a month year to
2 date. We've recycled approximately 3500 cubes for
3 this year.
4 Q. So it's pretty small?
5 A. In comparison to, to the overall, yes.
6 Q. Okay. And where will that produced water be stored
7 before and after it's treated?
8 A. It gets treated at a recycle pit at one of our
9 compressor stations, but it effectively gets used at
10 the same time as it is getting produced.
11 Q. Okay. So -- and where would that recycle station be
12 in relation to the NWA?
13 A. It's outside of the NWA at one of the compressor
14 stations on the southern border of the block. It's
15 basically a settling pond.
16 Q. Okay. Now, with respect to the, the permit that
17 EnCana has from Alberta Environment to withdraw from
18 the South Saskatchewan River, is that a temporary
19 water diversion permit?
20 A. MR. FUDGE: That's correct.
21 Q. And what's, what's the lifetime on that? Is there an
22 expiry period on it?
23 A. Well, this is a -- it's temporary -- my understanding
24 is it's an annual licence applied for and granted on
25 an annual basis. And I actually have a copy, if you'd
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1392
1 like me to put it on the record here, of -- this was
2 received on September 15th, 2008. So this is the most
3 recent water licence that has been granted by Alberta
4 Environment to EnCana to withdraw 70,000 cubic metres
5 max from the South Saskatchewan River from the period
6 basically over the winter period is what they're
7 saying here.
8 Q. Okay. But, but it needs to be renewed each year, is
9 that fair?
10 A. That's my understanding. That's right.
11 Q. What, what's the potential of it not being renewed
12 September 2009? You may not be able to answer that.
13 A. I can't, personally.
14 A. MR. L'HENAFF: I guess we don't think that
15 the potential is very high. We've been renewing this
16 one for quite some time. But it is up to Alberta
17 Environment.
18 Q. Okay. It's my understanding that the South
19 Saskatchewan River basin has been designated as a
20 water short area. Is that accurate?
21 A. MR. FUDGE: I understand that's correct.
22 Q. Okay. And could that have any implications on future
23 renewals?
24 A. Well, it may. I really can't -- I don't think any of
25 us can speak for Alberta Environment. The only two
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1393
1 things I can say is that of the 70,000 cubic metres of
2 water that are permitted under this, this water
3 licence, EnCana proposes to use 10,000. So it's a
4 small -- it's obviously a fraction of what they are
5 allowed to take. Number two, they are going to
6 withdraw that water during a low water withdraw period
7 where other users, like agriculture, which is probably
8 the, the largest, and even municipal water use is, is
9 either zero or low for that period of, of time of the
10 year.
11 Q. Okay. And are there any monitoring requirements
12 associated with that temporary diversion permit?
13 A. My understanding is they -- EnCana is obliged to
14 report their use. And they do. They track their --
15 how many tanks they are taking out, tank loads and so
16 on.
17 Q. Okay. And --
18 A. I believe -- excuse me. All those specifications and
19 requirements are, are in, are noted in the licence,
20 what EnCana is obliged to do and the reporting
21 thereof.
22 Q. And maybe we should take your suggestion, sir, and
23 enter that on the record since we've discussed a bit
24 of it, so...
25 MR. DENSTEDT: Sure, we'll undertake to make
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1394
1 copies of that and I think that's exhibit 130. 131.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: I believe it's 131,
3 Mr. Denstedt. Thank you for that undertaking.
4 MR. DENSTEDT: I may be able to help on the
5 temporary water licence. As a matter of law, Alberta
6 Environment maintains management of their water
7 resources typically through temporary water licences.
8 They are more and more loath to grant permanent water
9 licences because of the, the priority associated with
10 that. And there is inherent in the Water Act in
11 Alberta, in any event, regardless of whether we have a
12 permanent licence or a temporary licence, an emergency
13 section that allows Alberta Environment to stop
14 withdrawal of water from anybody if an emergency
15 arises. So it's a way for Alberta to manage their
16 water resources. I hope that's helpful.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
18 EXHIBIT 002-131: Licence to temporarily divert
19 water dated September 9, 2008
20 MR. MOUSSEAU:
21 Q. I asked about monitoring in relation to the water
22 diversion permit. I'm wondering if there's other
23 monitoring proposed with respect to EnCana's water
24 use and in relation to the dugouts and the wells on
25 the base?
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1395
1 A. MR. FUDGE: The licensed wells that have
2 been proposed to have water withdrawn from them, and
3 that is the "Big Bob" and Dugway wells. Those are
4 licensed wells, again, with the provincial licence.
5 And, in fact, in Appendix 2G of the, of Volume 3,
6 there is monitoring reports for 2005 listed there.
7 But that, again, is a requirement that those -- that
8 monitoring be reported for those wells. I think
9 it's -- anyway, that's the answer to that question.
10 And also, of course, in the, Environmental
11 Effects Monitoring Plan that has been submitted to the
12 Panel, there is a requirement -- there is a candidate
13 program for water quality and quantity from these
14 wells and dugouts that will be used on the, on the
15 Military base.
16 Q. Okay. And do you know if that monitoring data goes to
17 DND or SEAC?
18 A. I'd have, I'd have to refer to my EnCana colleagues on
19 that one. We understand -- yes, I understand it goes
20 to SIRC, those, those -- as well as the Provincial
21 Government.
22 Q. It goes to SIRC?
23 A. That's correct. Yes. SIRC.
24 Q. Now I have a question for sure. With respect to the
25 dugouts, are those associated with wetlands.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1396
1 A. MR. HEESE: There has been reference to
2 "Big Bob", which is a dugout in, in a wetland area.
3 Q. Okay. And is, is there monitoring associated with the
4 surrounding wetlands?
5 A. MR. FUDGE: There -- I believe there has
6 not, but I'll let EnCana answer that one but -- to
7 confirm that. But there is proposed to be monitoring
8 for this Project, particularly of those wetlands fed
9 by this overflow of well raw water into a dugout and
10 then into these adjacent wetlands.
11 A. MR. HEESE: There has also been a
12 recently submitted LandWise report looking at the
13 water bodies and we are proceeding with
14 recommendations outlined in the LandWise report, so
15 there is, there is monitoring going on on all the
16 various water sources with recommendations that EnCana
17 will be following up on.
18 Q. Okay. And is there any specific monitoring
19 requirements for shallow groundwater systems to
20 ensure wetlands won't be impacted?
21 A. MR. FUDGE: Well, that's I believe what
22 I -- that is, in fact, what is proposed.
23 Q. That's the specifics?
24 A. Yeah, exactly, to look at the, the, the connectivity
25 between, between these, these wetland areas and
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1397
1 groundwater in this area, in the area of, of the water
2 withdrawal from dugouts and/or wells. So that is,
3 that is something that's been proposed.
4 I just want to point out that in volume, in
5 Volume 4, in the groundwater chapter of Volume 4, the
6 water level measurements for the, the licensed wells,
7 based on the 2005 data, show very clearly water
8 withdrawal and water recharge in those wells. That
9 you get a very, a very good recovery from, from water
10 withdrawal in terms of the level of the wells. And,
11 you know, the bottom line is that it's -- it, it is
12 evidence of a sustainable use of that groundwater.
13 The ground, the groundwater in that area in this
14 pre-glacial valley aquifer, there are no other real
15 users than the, than EnCana's proposed use.
16 Also, as I did point out, they are proposing
17 to use water from those wells much lower again than
18 their licensed amount, but also during the, the time
19 of recharge, during the winter, and not during the net
20 water deficit of the summer.
21 Q. Right. And just, just so I understand it, those wells
22 are licensed to EnCana, or are they licensed to the
23 Base?
24 A. To EnCana, I believe.
25 Q. To EnCana?
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1398
1 A. Yes.
2 A. MR. HEESE: Just one moment, please. The
3 dugouts that are in association with water wells are
4 licensed to EnCana.
5 Q. Okay. And just so I'm entirely clear, EnCana's not
6 using any water sources that are licensed to the Base
7 or that would require Base approval?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Okay. Now, I'm informed that there are numerous
10 buried valley channels underlying the Suffield site
11 and that these buried channels generally contain
12 sediment layers with extremely high porosity. And
13 I'm just wondering if you can accept that statement?
14 A. MR. FUDGE: Are you referring to this
15 pre-glacial valley that's just to the west of the
16 National Wildlife Area?
17 Q. I am.
18 A. Yes, I believe that's correct.
19 Q. Okay. And what I guess I'm wondering is, has EnCana
20 experienced lost circulation while either drilling or
21 cementing in these areas?
22 A. MR. L'HENAFF: So we don't have any
23 information here to, to indicate if we have or have
24 not had any instances of lost circulations. However,
25 what I can add is in the southern part of, of the
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1399
1 block in, in this area that you're talking about, we
2 are aware of an active aquifer there. And so our
3 practices have been to land our conductor pipe and
4 surface casing lower and, and basically manage the
5 situation like that through our drilling operations.
6 And then of course we've got a good track
7 record. Shallow gas has a good track record around
8 groundwater protection, and basically have cement
9 string going from our shallow gas zones up to surface.
10 And from a frac perspective, we basically have our --
11 the lead Park Pikauki (phonetic), 50 to 100 metres of
12 shale basically separating the formations.
13 Q. Okay, but should, should EnCana experience lost
14 circulation, does it have a protocol that it follows
15 if it's above the basic groundwater protection?
16 A. Yes, we do.
17 Q. Okay. Could, could you walk me through that?
18 A. That would be part of our drilling protocol. I'm not
19 familiar with the details of that. But effectively it
20 would be to maintain control of the well and basically
21 achieve circulation of that. Now, it's a rare event.
22 I don't know whether it has ever occurred. It's a
23 rare event. And like I say, the -- once we understand
24 where, where the active groundwater systems are, we
25 accommodate that through a modification of the
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1400
1 conductor surface casing program.
2 Q. Don't take this the wrong way, but is there someone
3 behind you who might be able to answer that question,
4 in terms of the specific protocol for lost
5 circulation? It's just --
6 A. No, what I would have to do is get our drilling
7 engineer.
8 Q. Is that something we could do at the break? Is it a
9 matter of a quick phone call?
10 MR. DENSTEDT: I think we could take that by
11 way of an undertaking. Take a phone call and put it
12 on the record in that matter. Is that satisfactory,
13 sir?
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
15 MR. MOUSSEAU: I have one more question
16 along those lines and maybe it would be useful to put
17 that on the record as well if the same source is for
18 that information.
19 MR. DENSTEDT: You bet.
20 MR. MOUSSEAU:
21 Q. It's simply an expansion on that. What's EnCana's
22 protocol, should lost circulation be encountered
23 while cementing above the basic groundwater
24 protection and doesn't achieve full cement coverage
25 above the basic groundwater protection?
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1401
1 A. MR. L'HENAFF: I'll, I'll confirm with our
2 drilling engineer and get back to you on that as well.
3 Q. That would be useful. Thank you, sir.
4 A. MR. FUDGE: Excuse me, I just have one
5 comment on your question, sir, that you asked a few
6 questions back on, on groundwater. When you made the
7 statement about, I believe, numerous buried channels
8 or something to that effect. You know, what -- and
9 then I spoke, spoke about, did you mean the
10 pre-glacial valley, et cetera, et cetera, that
11 conversation we had. I just wanted to point out that
12 from the McNeil and McNeil 2008 report, which has been
13 filed as evidence, it specifies that there is one, in
14 this area, that we're talking about, west, just west
15 of the NWA, in that pre-glacial valley area, there's
16 one major aquifer called the Lethbridge Buried Valley
17 or, or aquifer, that is the one that produces the
18 water. And there are others, but they are much less
19 productive.
20 I don't know if that helps, but just that
21 they're not all the same. But this Lethbridge
22 particular sequence is the one that's more productive
23 from a groundwater aquifer perspective.
24 Q. Sure, and that's useful. That's useful, thank you,
25 sir.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1402
1 A. Thank you.
2 MR. MOUSSEAU: I'm not sure if we want to
3 stop now. This is sort of a natural break. And
4 contrary to my expectations, I still have some more
5 questions, sir.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mousseau, I think that's
7 a good suggestion. Let's break now for about
8 15 minutes.
9 (MORNING BREAK)
10 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 10:30 A.M.)
11 (PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED AT 10:45 A.M.)
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Ladies and Gentlemen, I
13 believe we're ready to reconvene.
14 Mr. Mousseau, please continue.
15 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY BOARD STAFF, BY MR. MOUSSEAU
16 (CONTINUED):
17 MR. MOUSSEAU: Sure.
18 Q. I'm going to move now to, I have some questions on
19 Ord's Kangaroo Rats. And because I've meddled with
20 the questions, my reference may not be entirely
21 accurate, but I, I think we can get beyond that
22 problem.
23 My understanding is that EnCana has taken the
24 view that it's not possible to map habitat supply for
25 the Ord's Kangaroo Rat due to the fine scale of
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1403
1 habitat used by the species. And my question is
2 simply, what, what does EnCana mean by "the fine
3 scale habitat selection"?
4 A. MR. KANSAS: Kangaroo Rats spend the vast
5 majority of their time in, in the vicinity of their
6 burrows and den sites. And they move perhaps
7 100 metres, 80 to 100 metres from their den site at
8 any given time. And the den sites are specifically
9 located in areas of active dunes or sandy areas on, on
10 riverbanks or along roadsides. So they are very
11 specific in their, in their habitat use. Many of the
12 burrows and den locations are, are already known in
13 the NWA through 15 years of research by the University
14 of Calgary, so it was not, not practical for us to --
15 given that we were going to avoid these K-rat areas,
16 known K-rat areas anyways, it would, would be
17 redundant to attempt at this point to map habitat at
18 that fine scale, okay.
19 Q. Okay, and but, could you map that, the high
20 suitability habitat based on soil mapping, is that,
21 is that a tool you could have used or...
22 A. No.
23 Q. No?
24 A. No, it would not work. At a, at a course level, you
25 could, but they are so specific in their habitat use.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1404
1 Q. Okay. One of the concerns expressed by the Government
2 of Canada was that underground drilling may be a
3 particularly acute form of disturbance for Ord's
4 Kangaroo Rats and my question is whether EnCana is
5 aware of any studies that have assessed the effect
6 of, of noise or drilling on, on Kangaroo rats?
7 A. The only study that, that is of any detail that was
8 done on the effects of, of oil and gas activities on
9 Kangaroo rats was done just outside the National
10 Wildlife Area on the North Suffield pipeline. And
11 that was a -- it wasn't a drilling study, it was a, a
12 major pipelining study with heavy equipment, 54 days
13 of construction. And there was minimal impact on the
14 Kangaroo rats. No, no mortality, et cetera.
15 In terms of drilling, I'm not aware of a
16 study, no.
17 Q. Okay. And, and what's the potential for, for winter
18 construction to disturb burrowing species? I think
19 we talked about this specifically with respect to
20 frogs. And I'm wondering if we can expand that a
21 bit, to the Kangaroo Rats, snakes. I guess it was
22 toads, not frogs, sorry. I think you indicated that
23 the impact would be minimal, but maybe if we could
24 address those other species as well.
25 A. I can start with the Kangaroo Rat. There would be two
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1405
1 ways that you could affect, affect these critters; one
2 would be actual physical damage of their, of their
3 residence. The chances of that happening are very,
4 very slim because of the, the PDA process will allow
5 identification of, of the, of the residences, and they
6 will be avoided by the standard 250 metre setback.
7 The other would be interruption of, of torpor
8 activities, they are shallow, shallow hibernation, I
9 guess you could call it, during the winter. Now,
10 there has been work on, on that sort of thing, not in
11 terms of oil and gas interruption or drilling
12 interruption, but just generally, how Kangaroo rats
13 use torpor.
14 I think it's very uncertain right now, and,
15 that, that could be a subject of potential monitoring
16 research that could be done. And I, and I believe we
17 do indicate that in the Environmental Effects
18 Monitoring Plan, is to look at the effects of, of
19 winter drilling on Kangaroo rats. Specifically with
20 the University of Calgary.
21 Q. And is there other research proposed with respect to
22 the Ord's Kangaroo Rat with respect -- with the
23 University of Calgary, or is that the, is that the
24 specific one proposed?
25 A. Well, we were asked to, to supply EnCana with a kind
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1406
1 of a what we thought based on the issues and that we
2 thought would be useful for regional monitoring and
3 monitoring with respect to the project. That's one of
4 the ones that I put in because there's a little bit of
5 uncertainty there.
6 It's really up to the Committee in setting
7 the Terms of Reference as to what, you know, we would,
8 we would -- I think EnCana would, would speak with the
9 University of Calgary researchers and ask them what
10 they felt the main issues were from their perspective
11 and then go forward from there.
12 Q. And if the University of Calgary didn't take up this
13 invitation, I take it there would be individual or
14 there'd be monitoring by EnCana itself under the EMP?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Yes, okay. Now, you were going to give me the
17 information on the Ord's Kangaroo Rat. And we were
18 going to talk about I guess the only other species
19 was snakes.
20 A. MR. COLLISTER: I, I think the comments that
21 I made previously with regard to hibernating toads and
22 the potential for direct mortality as a result to
23 disturbance penetration would hold for snakes as well.
24 In the uplands, the snakes that we'd be concerned
25 about would be Plains Garter Snakes and, and Western
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1407
1 Hognose Snakes. Those are the two species that, that
2 would spend the winter in the upland. And so it's
3 certainly possible, as I mentioned, with respect to
4 Great Plains Toads that an overwintering animal could
5 be uncovered. As I stated previously, I'm not aware
6 of that happening. It would be a very rare event.
7 With respect to Rattlesnakes and Bullsnakes,
8 and Wandering Garter Snakes , which primarily winter
9 in the river valley or the coulees associated with the
10 river valley, because there's no drilling in those
11 areas then there's no, there's no risk of that sort of
12 impact.
13 Q. Okay. And does EnCana know roughly what numbers of
14 Ord`s Kangaroo Rats are in the NWA? Does it have a
15 rough idea of that population?
16 A. MR. KANSAS: Yes. Yes. The -- that
17 population is monitored closely by the University of
18 Calgary. It ranges -- there's a tremendous amount of
19 winter mortality just by way of -- because of the
20 nature of them being on the northern edge of the
21 range, they basically freeze or die of hypothermia.
22 And I think the -- subject, subject to check, I think
23 it ranges from perhaps 300 or 200 to 1,000, depending
24 on the time of the year. So early spring there'd be a
25 very low number.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1408
1 Q. And is that -- as much as you can say, is that range
2 stable over time? Is it increasing or decreasing?
3 A. I think Kangaroo rats, if anything, would be
4 decreasing because -- but not -- well, mainly because
5 of habitat change. There's a real problem with active
6 dunes becoming less abundant. And I think that's --
7 we were talking about fire, controlled fire, a while
8 ago, and I believe the DND has been looking at this
9 problem and trying to trigger blow-outs through
10 burning, burning dune areas. So it's really a habitat
11 issue that's the problem.
12 Q. Okay. It's like we're in sync now. I talked to your
13 counsel earlier about giving you a document which is
14 the COSEWIC assessment and updated status report on
15 the Ord's Kangaroo Rat. That you have in front of
16 you.
17 MR. DENSTEDT: Mr. Chairman, that's correct,
18 and we have no objection to that. In the Joint Review
19 Panel processes, it's typical to examine on documents
20 as an aid to cross-examination, so we have no, no
21 objection.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
23 MR. MOUSSEAU: And I think, in terms of a
24 number, it might be 009-009 (sic), if it's a panel
25 document.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1409
1 THE CHAIRMAN: I'll, I'll accept your
2 reference on that. I don't, I don't have the latest
3 updated list here in front of me.
4 MR. MOUSSEAU: I think the only other
5 exhibit we've entered is the notice and that was my
6 calculation.
7 EXHIBIT 001-049: COSEWIC Assessment and Updated
8 Status Report on the Ord's Kangaroo Rat
9 MR. MOUSSEAU:
10 Q. And the question I wanted to ask you about, and it was
11 fairly innocuous, but if we can turn to page 20, the
12 top of the page states:
13 "In addition, the Alberta Ord's
14 Kangaroo Rat recovery team has
15 proposed that experimental habitat
16 management and development of a
17 beneficial management plan for
18 maintaining active dune, active
19 sand dune habitats is a high
20 priority for 2005 to 2009."
21 And I'm wondering if you know what steps, if any,
22 have been taken to put that recommendation into play.
23 A. As I mentioned previously, it's my understanding that
24 the DND, and this is just by hearsay, is -- has
25 initiated that activity with Dr. Darren Bender of the
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1410
1 university, the University of Calgary, in terms of
2 burning to try to trigger additional bare ground and,
3 and active sand dune habitat.
4 Q. Okay. Do you know if a specific beneficial management
5 plan has been developed?
6 A. I'm not aware of that, but it could be. It would be a
7 good question for, for DND, perhaps.
8 Q. Okay, and I guess the only other question I had to
9 follow up on that is -- would, would that be
10 something you would want to review in preparing
11 either the EIS or the PDAs?
12 A. Well, the EIS is prepared. I'm quite happy and
13 comfortable with my call and significance on Kangaroo
14 rats. It wouldn't affect, or change that.
15 The PDA, yes, that would be useful for the
16 PDA proceedings.
17 Q. Okay.
18 A. I just, just have a little information here,
19 Mr. Mousseau. That the best management plan has not
20 been done in consultation with the recovery team,
21 K-Rat Recovery Team. EnCana is a member of the K-Rat
22 Recovery Team. There's a -- someone sits on the, on
23 that team. It doesn't mean it's not in its infancy
24 and moving forward elsewhere.
25 Q. Okay, but I -- but it -- my read of the recommendation
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1411
1 was that it was a high priority for 2005 to 2009. As
2 we're late in 2008 --
3 A. Well, there's best laid plans, you know.
4 Q. Fair enough, sir. One of the Panel's Information
5 Requests to EnCana was to inquire if EnCana obtained
6 input from the Ord's Kangaroo Rat Recovery Team to
7 determine the most appropriate measures to put into
8 place to compensate any cumulative effects of the
9 Project on the Ord's Kangaroo Rats. And I'm
10 wondering if EnCana had that opportunity to, to
11 explore the Panel's request.
12 A. We, we had contact very early on with Dr. David Gummer
13 of the Alberta Museum in Edmonton. And I believe that
14 EnCana's in, in pretty close contact with Dr. Gummer
15 on methodologies and research for, for Kangaroo Rat.
16 In terms of compensation, no, I, I have not
17 spoken with, you know, with the Recovery Team on that.
18 I would be happy to, though.
19 Q. Sure, fair enough, sir. In Exhibit 002-013, and this
20 is page 5-100, again, I don't think you need to turn
21 it up, but this is where I'm coming from, EnCana
22 states that the mitigations for the Ord's Kangaroo
23 Rat are those that are found in Section 5.8.2 and
24 those applied in the EnCana Suffield Pipeline
25 Project, which we talked a bit about earlier. And
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1412
1 what I wanted you to do is briefly describe the
2 mitigations from the Suffield Pipeline Project that
3 are different from those found in 5.8.2.
4 A. I'd have to get 5.8.2 in front of me first, if I
5 could.
6 Q. Sure.
7 A. Perhaps I can start with the, the recommendations from
8 Gummer and Robertson, 2004, which is the North
9 Suffield Pipeline Study. Their principal
10 recommendations to limit the effects of this major
11 pipeline were:
12 - nighttime surveys to, to locate exact
13 locations of, of burrows and den complexes;
14 - to mark the known K-rat burrow
15 locations clearly for the purpose of the construction
16 people seeing them;
17 - to avoid burrow locations;
18 - no trucks or large vehicles where
19 K-rats occur; and
20 - to try to avoid nighttime activity.
21 Those were the, those were the main
22 recommendations.
23 And you're pointing me towards -- what page
24 is it again, Mr. Mousseau?
25 Q. It was 5.8.2.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1413
1 A. I've got the wrong document here. Let me... Oh,
2 page 5-45. Okay, I have that here. And this was
3 general mitigation, as I understand it, for wildlife.
4 This is not specific to Kangaroo Rats, but it doesn't
5 mean that what we mentioned in our reply isn't going
6 to be done.
7 Q. Right. And I think what I was noting was that the
8 mitigation mentioned for Kangaroo Rats were these
9 mitigation processes and those used in the pipeline
10 project. And I just wanted to find out where the
11 differences lay. And I think, I think you've set me
12 straight on that.
13 A. Sure.
14 Q. I want to turn now, and this may be a question that
15 has to be answered by Mr. Protti, but I'm not
16 entirely certain, and this comes from Appendix A of
17 the Reply Submission, which was the discussion of
18 legal matters. And if we could go to page A-9. And
19 it's a discussion of a recommendation by Environment
20 Canada that no industrial activity be permitted in
21 areas preliminary assessed as critical habitat.
22 And EnCana's response to this recommendation
23 is that it's not based on the law and is not relevant
24 to the Panel in considering the environmental effects
25 of the Project.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1414
1 And what I want to understand, is EnCana
2 saying that the Joint Panel should ignore the
3 information provided by Environment Canada regarding
4 their preliminary assessed critical habitat, or is it
5 simply arguing that it cannot be used for SARA
6 purposes because the critical habitat hasn't, doesn't
7 meet the formal requirements as that term is defined?
8 I want to know what use, EnCana believes,
9 this Panel should use that information for, or
10 whether EnCana believes it should be entirely
11 disregarded.
12 MR. DENSTEDT: I'm not sure the panel can
13 answer that question. That is a legal topic which
14 we'll address in final argument.
15 But if I can help, though, when we looked at
16 this from a legal perspective, there is no legal
17 definition of "Preliminary Critical Habitat". And
18 that's the point of EnCana's evidence. Absolutely the
19 Joint Review Panel can take into consideration what
20 Environment Canada is saying about the existence of
21 preliminary critical habitat. The effect or the
22 outcome from a legal perspective is, is quite
23 different, though.
24 I think if that helps, Mr. Mousseau.
25 MR. MOUSSEAU: I think that does help. And
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1415
1 maybe this can crystallize the issue.
2 Q. I take it EnCana does not at this point take issue
3 with the methodology or analysis used by Environment
4 Canada, it's the use for which they have used it in
5 their recommendation; is that fair?
6 A. DR. WALKER: I think there would be
7 some disagreement with the method with which the
8 critical habitat has been defined, at least with the
9 plants.
10 A. MR. COLLISTER: I think your question is
11 going, Mr. Mousseau, to all of the assessment of
12 preliminary critical habitat across all of the
13 species, or are you still on Ord's Kangaroo Rat?
14 Q. No, this is a more general question. Let me put it
15 into context. Environment Canada's filed information
16 suggesting, "We've gone out and looked for critical
17 habitat and this is our, this is our preliminary view
18 of what we see as critical habitat." That
19 information is in front of the Panel. And I want to
20 know, from EnCana's perspective, what use should or
21 could be made of that information.
22 A. I think that, in EnCana's Reply Submission, it's
23 pretty clear that, that, that EnCana doesn't agree
24 with the calculation of preliminary critical habitat
25 for many, if not all of the VECs that it was
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1416
1 calculated for. And, and that's well documented in
2 the reply, the weaknesses that were identified by
3 EnCana.
4 Q. Okay. And maybe, maybe I can be clearer, then.
5 There's, there's, there's an opinion from Environment
6 Canada on Preliminary Assessed Critical Habitat and
7 there's an opinion from EnCana. I just want to know,
8 EnCana's not saying, "Panel, don't consider what
9 Environment Canada is saying because it doesn't meet
10 the criteria"; you're saying, "Consider it, but
11 consider it in light of the, the shortcomings that
12 we've identified"; is that fair?
13 A. Clearly I think the panel is entitled to, to consider
14 that information, so.
15 Q. And I think that answers my question, sir.
16 In response to another Information Request
17 from the Panel, EnCana stated -- and this is
18 Exhibit 002-060 and it was Information Request 21.
19 It says:
20 "Assessing and managing regional
21 cumulative effects was a regional
22 planning exercise normally
23 conducted with other stakeholders
24 and land users."
25 And the question is, should a co-operative
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1417
1 regional assessment or monitoring program of
2 cumulative effects be initiated?
3 A. MR. KANSAS: Yes, I, I would be very
4 much in support of that. I think it's a, I think it's
5 the right thing to do in this area. And it can be
6 informed by findings of the, the Project as well as
7 other findings in the Great Sand Hills, et cetera.
8 Q. Okay. And we talked about earlier a similar
9 multi-stakeholder group process for managing things
10 like Crested Wheatgrass and noxious weeds. Is it the
11 same approach, in your perspective, that would be
12 useful, given the different users of the Base?
13 A. Well, I think if there, if there were to be a broader
14 regional or a strategic cumulative effects assessment
15 triggered perhaps by this Project, as tends to happen
16 in Alberta, then, then that would -- the kind of model
17 that the Great Sand Hills has looked at might, might
18 be an approach to, to looking at, at setting up a
19 similar structure.
20 I think the key would be to keep it
21 constrained to perhaps the Dry-mixed Grass Region of
22 Alberta, or something like that. Something, something
23 like the sustainable strategy that the Alberta
24 Government's done, but a little more specific to, to
25 prairie environments. That, that would be ideal. And
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1418
1 I, I think that has to be driven by, not so much by
2 EnCana, but, but by needs that are for the prairie
3 that are, that are concerns of the government more
4 than anything.
5 Q. Okay. And I take it if such a program was
6 established, EnCana would, would want to be involved
7 in it?
8 A. MR. L'HENAFF: Yes, that's correct.
9 Q. Okay. I'm going to jump now to the next Information
10 Request, which was JRP 21. And here the Panel asked
11 EnCana whether offset opportunities might be used in
12 the case where regional environmental impacts,
13 combined with EnCana's residual project impacts
14 within the NWA, and the purpose would be to create
15 net impacts that were zero or positive for the NWA.
16 EnCana's response was that offset
17 opportunities existed and the company would
18 participate in discussions about offset
19 opportunities.
20 And I wanted to know, first of all, what
21 other stakeholders or landusers should participate in
22 those discussions?
23 A. I think this question would be, would be best left for
24 Mr. Protti.
25 Q. Okay. And, and I have some other questions with
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1419
1 respect to offsets. Again, are those questions for
2 Mr. Protti, or should I just -- my concern is some of
3 them deal -- I'm going to ask them and you can tell
4 me if they should go to Mr. Protti or not because I
5 don't think we're going to have the same panel
6 composition down the line.
7 I'm wondering whether there's environmental
8 offsets EnCana could suggest that would be applicable
9 to vegetation management or SARA species?
10 A. MR. KANSAS: Vegetation management of
11 SARA species. Could -- which SARA species are you
12 referring to?
13 Q. I don't have a particular one in mind, sir. I'm just
14 wondering more in general terms.
15 A. So your -- an example would be -- you mean existing,
16 existing vegetation issues that could be remedied to
17 offset residual impacts of the Project? That's sort
18 of what you're after?
19 Q. Yeah.
20 A. Okay. Well, I, I think an example would be sumps that
21 are being looked at outside of the, just outside of
22 the NWA. There's been talk about locating those sumps
23 in areas of Crested Wheatgrass. Maybe on the edges of
24 the battleground between Native Prairie and Crested
25 Wheat. And then after, after using the sump for a
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1420
1 year or so, reclaiming back to native seed. And, and
2 producing some contiguous native habitat. That's
3 that's one example of a potential offset in the
4 Regional Study Area.
5 Q. And anything for wildlife species that you can...
6 A. Well, creating native prairie is good for wildlife.
7 That's -- anything you can do to, to create a near,
8 near native habitat, or near native prairie
9 environment is, is good for prairie wildlife in
10 general.
11 Q. Okay. Both the Environmental Protection Plan and the
12 Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan indicate that
13 those documents will require updating based on
14 adaptations through the Project. And I'm wondering
15 how EnCana envisions the process to change those two
16 documents and who would be involved in that.
17 A. MR. FUDGE: Well, I can speak to the
18 Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan in the first
19 case in that I see that as the, the Environmental
20 Effects Monitoring Committee, with EnCana, and with
21 the regulators, would be in a continuous -- it would
22 be a life-of-project document and life-of-project
23 evolving set of monitoring plans, which would be put
24 together by this Stakeholder Committee and, on behalf
25 of EnCana, would be reviewed by the Multi-Stakeholder
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1421
1 Committee on behalf of EnCana and then forwarded to,
2 to SEAC, as it outlines there.
3 So I see that as a, like, continuously
4 evolving and a document that would be updated as the
5 Project progresses from construction through to, to
6 the first results of post-construction monitoring.
7 As far as the Environmental Protection Plan,
8 I believe it actually is stated in the Environmental
9 Protection Plan the fact that it is, again, a
10 life-of-project document and will be updated on a
11 regular basis as new information comes to light. And,
12 particularly, information from one construction season
13 to the next, for example, that we could -- EnCana
14 could update with the construction phase aspects of
15 the Environmental Protection Plan as information
16 became available from the first year construction that
17 would be appropriate to put in place for the second
18 year. If there's any refinements or additions, that
19 kind of thing. And then looking forward to, of
20 course, the -- to operations.
21 And may I also add that this process itself,
22 this review process, this Panel review process could
23 well inform aspects of both documents.
24 Q. And with respect specifically to the EPP, is that
25 something that EnCana would seek consultation with,
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1422
1 with other parties, such as DND and SEAC?
2 A. MR. HEESE: That's a correct
3 characterization is how we would see any changes
4 specifically to the EPP being done.
5 Q. And just with respect to the Environmental Committee,
6 I take it DND and SEAC would be involved. Do you
7 envision any other outside players involved?
8 A. MR. FUDGE: That's a -- yes. Yes to
9 your first question. SEAC and DND involvement,
10 indeed. And also that other stakeholders, and I
11 believe there's a list here of potentials, that would
12 be involved, potentially could be involved in a
13 program like this. Government regulators, for
14 example, scientists, be they consultants or
15 researchers that have specific bodies of knowledge
16 that would be useful to sit on this committee. As
17 well as -- some of the groups, in fact, that are
18 intervenors here in these, in these hearings, that
19 have interest in the wildlife area, either vegetation
20 or wildlife, et cetera.
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. DR. WALKER: I would add that it would
23 be logical for CWS to be a lead for any scientific
24 investigations in the NWA.
25 A. MR. FUDGE: Yeah, exactly, yeah.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1423
1 Q. I just want to turn now briefly to the three well
2 applications. And, as I understand it, there's still
3 work to be done on the PDAs for those three well
4 applications; is that correct?
5 A. MR. HEESE: We expect that as
6 condition of approval for those three locations that
7 we would redo the entire Pre-Disturbance Assessment,
8 as we've outlined.
9 Q. Okay. And I think you've told me you want to redo it
10 because it, let's call it, it's "stale-dated"; is
11 that fair?
12 A. Various portions of it effectively have an expiry, in
13 some cases a legal expiry, in the case of the legal
14 survey plans. In other cases, effectively an expiry
15 when you're dealing with very mobile and dynamic
16 wildlife features, so we would want to revisit that to
17 make sure that again we're proceeding on the best
18 information we have.
19 Q. Right. And as I recall the evidence, some of the,
20 some of the studies that are going to be incorporated
21 into the PDA process haven't been done for these
22 wells; is that fair as well?
23 A. That is correct. There have been some additional
24 revisions to specific methodologies that have not been
25 done.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1424
1 Q. And is it possible that these revised PDAs may
2 identify environmental impacts that were not
3 previously identified?
4 A. I find that unlikely. That they would more likely
5 recognize a change. Again, when you're dealing with
6 highly dynamic wildlife features that might move
7 around there, it might be. But I would be quite
8 surprised if there was significant revision as those
9 locations are currently as a result of doing a
10 further, or redoing the Pre-Disturbance Assessment.
11 Q. Okay, but there's a potential there that an impact
12 could be discovered?
13 A. There's potential, thus we fully expect a condition of
14 the approval is to redo the PDA.
15 Q. And what then would occur if the PDA turned up an
16 impact that required a change?
17 A. If there was a change that required the -- or if there
18 was a change that would effectively null the licence,
19 we would then reapply. At least on changes.
20 Q. Okay. Right. And --
21 A. MR. FUDGE: Excuse me, Mr. Mousseau,
22 just in terms of your terminology, I guess I have a
23 little bit of difficulty with the word "impact".
24 You're using just -- "interaction" perhaps might be a
25 better one. I think if -- or, or "location". If
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1425
1 there was a location of a wildlife species or a
2 potential interaction due to the placement of a well
3 or pipeline, then it would be moot. But it's not an
4 impact on that, on that VEC per se. So just so we're
5 not confused by the environmental assessment versus
6 this PDA process.
7 Q. Right. And just to be really clear, Section 3 of the
8 Energy Resources Conservation Act requires the Board
9 to consider the potential environmental impacts of a
10 proposed project. And I guess the question is, how
11 can a Panel fulfill its mandate if there's a
12 potential for the discovery of additional impacts
13 arising from a revised PDA? So the term was chosen
14 carefully.
15 A. Right. And with the PDA process properly carried out,
16 there will be no impact in that context. So that
17 would be, would be my suggestion. And if there were
18 to be any potential even, i.e., the non-routine
19 recommendation that have to go forward with to SEAC,
20 if there was a, for example, not necessarily an impact
21 to, but at least even an infringement on a buffer,
22 right, so.
23 Q. But as I understand it, these aren't going to SEAC.
24 These have been filed straight with the Board. So,
25 so we're in a different scenario in this case. And
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1426
1 so I guess one of the issues the Panel has to
2 struggle with is, if there's a potential for a
3 change, can it fulfill its mandate until the final
4 PDA update has been filed?
5 MR. DENSTEDT: Maybe I can help. I think we
6 heard this earlier. Non-routine applications under
7 the NWA permit, if it should be approved, do go to
8 SEAC for confirmation of compliance with the PDA
9 process. So it's not that it goes straight to the
10 Board, they all go to SEAC.
11 MR. MOUSSEAU: But these ones haven't gone
12 straight to the Board. And I'm talking very
13 specifically about these three well applications. So
14 I understand what the intended process is down the
15 line. What the Panel has to struggle with is, if I
16 can use the term, this is a bit of a "one-off" in that
17 these PDAs haven't gone to SEAC, they are not
18 complete, and, and the Board is dealing with them
19 differently than it otherwise would.
20 So I'm wondering if this Panel thinks that
21 there's a potential for impacts that might impact the
22 Panel's n ability to assess them.
23 MR. DENSTEDT: Well, maybe I don't
24 understand the question. The --
25 MR. MOUSSEAU: I don't either.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1427
1 MR. DENSTEDT: As I understand it,
2 Mr. Mousseau, you're asking the witnesses that in
3 respect of the three Well Licence Applications in
4 front of the Panel what's the process because it's
5 come straight to the Board. And I think what
6 Mr. Heese said is that, yes, but we expect a condition
7 to be in compliance with the PDA process, which
8 includes going to SEAC, and that therefore is the, is
9 the way in which the impacts are avoided.
10 I believe that was his testimony, but.
11 MR. MOUSSEAU:
12 Q. Okay. And maybe I, maybe I heard it differently. My
13 understanding was that they were asking for -- that
14 EnCana's asking for approval of these well licences
15 with a condition requiring EnCana to go out and redo
16 the PDA. Is that fair?
17 A. MR. HEESE: Forgive me for the delay.
18 We expect condition of approval to follow through with
19 the PDA. The PDA process includes referral to SEAC
20 and the Base Commander for final approval. If, as a
21 result of fulfilling that condition by doing the PDA
22 it results in, you know, a recommendation or the SEAC
23 recommendation is that the well or the pipeline,
24 whatever conflict might be, resulted in a relocation,
25 we would have to reapply for licence.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1428
1 We do believe, however, that it is unlikely
2 that those locations will move. And we'll be
3 successful effectively obtaining SEAC approval and DND
4 approval, thus fulfilling the requirements of the
5 licence. But in the event, in the unlikely event that
6 there was a further move, we would either amend the
7 licence or reapply for the particular situation where
8 there was a re-route.
9 Q. So then would an additional condition be put on the
10 licence essentially providing that it requires an
11 approval by SEAC and DND as well? Is that what
12 you're envisioning?
13 A. I believe that's inherent in the process, but if they
14 wanted to explicitly specify that, we would not be
15 adverse to that.
16 Q. Okay. And I think it's inherent in the normal
17 process. I'm just trying to explore how we're going
18 to do this one-off.
19 And my final question is, it's more for
20 convenience than anything else, but EnCana's made a
21 number of environmental commitments throughout the
22 proceeding and it can be useful to have a single
23 consolidated list of those commitments. And I'm
24 wondering if EnCana can undertake to provide one of
25 those to the Panel and to parties prior to final
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1429
1 argument.
2 A. MR. L'HENAFF: Yes, we will undertake
3 that.
4 MR. MOUSSEAU: Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
5 those are my questions.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Mousseau.
7 I recognize you will be back later with further
8 questions to Mr. Protti beginning tomorrow, but I
9 thank you for the examination that you have brought to
10 these proceedings at this point.
11 At this stage we'll now turn to my colleagues
12 on the Panel and, and provide them with an
13 opportunity, including myself, for questions of EnCana
14 as well. And I'll start to my right with Mr. DeSorcy.
15 QUESTIONS BY THE BOARD, BY MR. DESORCY:
16 MR. DeSORCY: Good morning, Gentlemen.
17 Q. I have a number of matters that I want to make sure I
18 understand EnCana's position on. And the first one,
19 sir, relates to a conversation you had, Mr. L'Henaff,
20 with Mr. Mousseau yesterday about abandonment
21 conditions. And if I heard you correctly, I believe
22 you were indicating that abandonment conditions would
23 occur on the basis of an individual well rates, when
24 each well is incapable of producing, so to speak.
25 And that the abandonment conditions would be
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1430
1 essentially independent of a project or a battery
2 threshold or limiting rate. And, indeed, if I heard
3 you correctly, I thought you also said that
4 abandonment would be essentially independent of the
5 price for gas. And I have to confess, I need some
6 help understanding your position, sir. Can you go
7 over that again and make sure I understand your
8 position on the abandonment conditions.
9 A. MR. L'HENAFF: Absolutely. I'd love to
10 do that.
11 So, no, I guess we don't believe that they
12 are independent of all those factors. I think all of
13 those factors are intrinsically built into the
14 abandonment decision or the abandonment point in time.
15 I think when we're -- when I was talking
16 about abandonment evaluation, at a pilot level or at
17 a, at a battery level, we use a well rate as a proxy
18 for looking at what, when that well may cease to
19 produce. But I entirely agree with your comments that
20 abandonment of a field, abandonment of a battery is a
21 complex thing and you really need to integrate all of
22 those factors into it. And that would be our approach
23 is to do that appropriately at that moment in time.
24 Q. And, sir, that helps me, I obviously was
25 misunderstanding the position you were taking.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1431
1 Tell me, if you were making an assessment, an
2 abandonment assessment, how significant would the
3 fact that many of the wells were drilled
4 directionally as opposed to the plain vertical
5 drilling? How large a role, in your experience,
6 would, would that play in determining those
7 abandonment limitations for, for the well, for the
8 battery, for the Project?
9 A. So the, the path of the wellbore would relate to the
10 bottom hole pressure that, that the well would, would
11 cease to flow at economic rates. So because of the
12 path of the wellbore is quite tortuous, and a key to a
13 shallow gas well is its ability to lift the liquids,
14 so lifting the liquids through the life of the well is
15 a key element to that pressure. And that's where in,
16 through our calculations, depend upon the nature of
17 the wellbore, but I think between 30, I think the
18 numbers were between 30 percent and 45 percent of
19 those reserves would be not recovered due to, due to
20 the condition of that wellbore.
21 Q. And, sir, you're getting to the point that I really
22 wanted to understand. It wasn't clear to me whether
23 that 40 percent or so loss was due to the contact of
24 the reservoir and the lengthy reach, or whether it
25 was due to additional costs and difficulties in, in
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1432
1 producing the well and lifting the water. And I want
2 to make sure that I understand, does that 40 percent
3 loss include both of those factors or just one of
4 them?
5 A. No, you're absolutely correct, it includes both of
6 those factors. It's difficult to peel them apart from
7 one and another. But our, our rough calculations
8 indicate in between 10 and 15 percent is due to the
9 production character of the wellbore and the rest is
10 due to the contact character of the wellbore.
11 Q. So 25 or 30 percent due to the contact of the
12 reservoir?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Let me, let me continue the discussion on directional
15 drilling. And, again, a follow-up to some
16 conversation that you had with Mr. Mousseau to make
17 sure I understand the situation.
18 One of the things that I believe he asked you
19 was, if you had an environmental constraint that kept
20 you from drilling a vertical well where you would
21 like to drill it for resource or recovery purposes,
22 would you drill directionally or would you not drill?
23 And I think you said, typically you expect you would
24 not drill. Am I correct so far?
25 A. That's correct. But, but we, of course, would look at
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1433
1 the situation. So we'd evaluate it for sure.
2 Q. And, sir, when you're evaluating it, maybe I better
3 back up and, and say that I, I took it that you were
4 responding to Mr. Mousseau's question from the
5 viewpoint of using an existing well site and drilling
6 directionally from that well site because you alluded
7 to the losses and recovery due to the reach. So I, I
8 took it that was the case. And my question to you,
9 sir, is whether or not one of your considerations
10 would be to select a well site that avoids the
11 constraint but is perhaps halfway between an existing
12 trail or a road and where you would otherwise locate
13 the well so that you avoided much of the loss due to
14 reach.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And my question, is is -- would that be part of your
17 consideration presumably in the PDA process?
18 A. Yes, it would. We would absolutely take a look at
19 that. And, again, it would be based upon the -- how
20 far off of the, the perfect optimal target zone and
21 how far the reach would be, so we would absolutely
22 take a look at that.
23 Q. One other question relative to the resource aspects
24 and it relates to the McDaniels review. I've read
25 the letter. I've listened to what you had to say.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1434
1 And, quite frankly, it isn't clear to me just what
2 McDaniels did.
3 Did, did McDaniels review the work of EnCana,
4 the estimates that EnCana made, and agree with them,
5 or did EnCana take all of the -- or, or McDaniels
6 take all of the information and do an independent
7 study and come up with similar results? And it's
8 quite frankly not clear to me. Can you help me?
9 A. I think I can. What McDaniels has done, when it comes
10 to those specific pilot areas that we've been talking
11 about, they, every year, review those pilots, and
12 publish their own analysis of that. And the reserve
13 numbers that I ran through I believe it was yesterday
14 where, where they were showing an appreciation of
15 those reserve numbers because of the confidence level
16 that they were seeing was due to that independent
17 review.
18 On top of that, we asked them to take a look
19 at our NWA program and to make their comments with
20 regard to our estimated recovery of 125 bcf due to
21 that program. So what they did was take a look at
22 that as an independent analysis, levering off of the
23 information that they have already done with regard to
24 our pilots, as well as our ongoing infill drilling
25 operations across the block and, as a result of that,
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1435
1 they were, they were able to generate that letter.
2 Q. That helps me, sir. I'd like now to turn to the PDA.
3 And a lot said about that. And, and certainly the
4 recent questions and the responses have helped me in
5 understanding, but there are a number of general
6 matters I want to ask you about and, and perhaps a
7 few detailed ones.
8 One of them, sir, has SEAC been involved in
9 any way with EnCana in developing this PDA?
10 A. Not really. We have sat down with them before, before
11 this hearing to consult with them around that and
12 basically we walked them through that process, but
13 they haven't been involved in developing this PDA
14 process.
15 Q. Should they be?
16 A. Their input absolutely should be included.
17 Q. And, sir, I take it that you have not, EnCana has not
18 had any discussions with SEAC that would assist us in
19 understanding from your point of view what kind of
20 additional resources SEAC might need? You've noted
21 that, you've made a recommendation, but I take it
22 that's based on EnCana's position and without input
23 from SEAC?
24 A. No, that was a sentiment that, that they, or at least
25 the two members that they -- that we've met with,
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1436
1 echoed in our meeting with them as pre-consultation is
2 that they also indicated that resourcing was a
3 constraint and resolving that would, would help.
4 Q. Was that general or do you have anything specific to
5 add? I know we'll hear from SEAC, but I want to make
6 sure I understand EnCana's position in that respect.
7 A. Yeah, it was just a general discussion. You know,
8 the, the additional resources could be provided in, in
9 a multitude of ways.
10 Q. Sir, I note that on several occasions you've alluded
11 to I think the term was "availability of staff" from
12 SEAC. And I took that to be perhaps a suggestion on
13 the part of EnCana that perhaps the three members of
14 SEAC would be adequate to do the task, but they have
15 got too many other things on the go. Was that what
16 you were getting at, or?
17 A. Kind of. You know, I think these are busy times for,
18 for everyone. And when people have multiple things to
19 do, they balance their time as, as best they can. And
20 so I think it's really a comment with regard to
21 re-invigorating SEAC and providing the necessary
22 resources to accomplish their task properly.
23 So whether it's different members or
24 additional members or whether it's supporting members
25 to help them, I don't know exactly, but I do know that
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1437
1 I certainly had the impression that, like all of us,
2 we're being pulled in many directions. And we need
3 to, I guess, help the resourcing side of that and the
4 focus side of that.
5 Q. I guess in part what I'm getting at, sir, and I hope
6 you'll appreciate that it's somewhat difficult for a
7 Panel such as this to recommend resourcing something
8 when we don't have an appreciation for what kind of
9 resources we're talking about. And so what I'm
10 getting at is, is it EnCana's view in any respect
11 that three people, if they had the time, would be
12 able to do this, or, or are you thinking it would
13 take considerably more people? Any, any comments?
14 A. I do have a few comments.
15 Q. Please.
16 A. And Mr. Protti may well have additional.
17 So I guess how we've tried to construct this
18 proposal is to put the lion's share of the effort on
19 EnCana; so for us to do all of the legwork, for us to
20 do all of the summarization so that it's in nice tight
21 packages and all the required information is, is
22 basically being borne by EnCana. And even if there's
23 subsequent questions to be answered or subsequent
24 studies to be made, I would envision that that work
25 would be thrown back to EnCana to execute.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1438
1 However, just to go through the material and
2 to consume the material, and then to have some
3 discussion around that, I, I would envision that the
4 three SEAC members would likely need a support staff
5 to assist them.
6 Q. And, and, sir, can you tell me in your six steps, and
7 because of the earlier discussion I'm not going to go
8 through them with you as I had planned to at one
9 stage, but, but where during that time would you be
10 identifying and, again, I understand that the outcome
11 from each step would go to SEAC and DND, but when
12 would the routine/non-routine designation have been
13 made? Is that in effect after step six, is that when
14 they become routine/non-routine?
15 A. For the most part. I think because we envision
16 80 percent of the wells or in excess of 80 percent of
17 the wells will fall into the "routine", I think early
18 on, you'll be able to see that happening, and so
19 you'll get confidence that you'll be able to avoid all
20 of the environmental resources.
21 The, the pipelines or wells or access trails
22 that, that have a tighter pinch point, that it looks
23 like you're closer to an environmental resource, those
24 are the ones that would require further work and you'd
25 have to do a -- go down to the constructibility side
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1439
1 of things, look at various options.
2 So I would think that through the course of
3 the process, the wells would separate themselves out
4 relatively nicely and you would be able to see which
5 of the wells are going to be non-routine earlier on.
6 And the non-routine -- or the routine -- sorry, the
7 routine wells would be separated out relatively early,
8 you would be able to see them coming. The non-routine
9 wells would have to be worked. But, again, you would
10 be able to identify which those are, and really what
11 those issues are. A lot of the time the issue would
12 be a buffer with a wetland, or a wildlife.
13 Q. Well, sir, if, if I may, to make certain I understand
14 just what kind of a task SEAC would be facing, can I
15 ask you to look at Figure J9. That's the three wells
16 you're applying for licences for. And I know that
17 this was prepared under a process other than the
18 proposed PDA, so I'm just using it as an example to
19 ask certain questions.
20 And I'll -- if, if we're looking at the 11 of
21 28 well, for example, and this is constructibility
22 sitings, so it seems to me it's in -- in terms of the
23 currently proposed PDA, it's step 6 --
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. -- has been done.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1440
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And tell me with respect to that well, and with
3 respect to the access through the buffer zone, and
4 with respect to its location in proximity to the
5 buffer zone, would this go to SEAC in this form, or
6 would there be other material that would cover every
7 option that you looked at, the benefits, the costs,
8 or disbenefits associated with them, would it, would
9 it identify those options, if there's more than one,
10 that's acceptable to EnCana, those that aren't
11 viable, so that when SEAC looks at it, they
12 understand everything and, and, perhaps more
13 importantly, if they make the decision "no", it's
14 "no"; it's not "more work to be done", it's "no".
15 Can you help me, sir, just what EnCana plans and what
16 EnCana is prepared to commit to in terms of the
17 information that would go to SEAC.
18 A. Absolutely. That is in fact our vision, is that this
19 would, for these non-routine wells, this is a
20 partially-done project. What we would then do is take
21 this and hire some specialists to take a look at the
22 pros and the cons of the various alternatives. So do
23 an analysis of this. Look at alternatives. If the
24 pipeline isn't going to go across this buffer, what's
25 the next best alternative route and what's the pros
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1441
1 and cons associated with that.
2 Button that up into a proposal and move that
3 forward through SEAC so that their job would be as
4 easy as possible, so that all of the options, all of
5 the impacts, the pros and the cons, some of the
6 suggested mitigation to reduce some of the impacts.
7 In this example, one of the mitigations might
8 be you, you plough in dormant conditions but you don't
9 have an access route that's there. You basically have
10 an access route that's in a different place. Or you
11 say the access route has a calendar lock-out. That
12 might be one of the suggested mitigations in the
13 recommendations that would be moved forward to SEAC.
14 So really the vision would be to do as much
15 of the legwork as we possibly can to allow SEAC to
16 really just absorb that material and to be able to
17 come up with a decision and judgment as best as they
18 can and, and move it forward if they so chose to to
19 the Base Commander.
20 Q. And, sir, can I confirm again with you that if, and
21 much of this questioning is a hypothetical, if the
22 Panel agreed with this proposed process, and, and
23 with the notion that a project could go forward, that
24 a "no" from SEAC would mean a "no" and would not be
25 the trigger for an ongoing negotiation and
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1442
1 consideration of options?
2 A. That is correct.
3 Q. Sir, how would the issue of, the potential issue of
4 offsets be handled in the PDA process? Because it
5 seems to me it's broader and not, not really
6 addressed by the six steps. Can you help me?
7 A. Yes. As I guess I see it. And Mr. Protti, again, I
8 think would, would certainly add to the comments. But
9 as I see the offsets, that discussion is more in the
10 context of our overall footprint. So our overall
11 footprint, you know, at the, at the moment of
12 construction is 0.5 percent, and then, whatever it is,
13 it improves to through the course of time.
14 So really the offsets are, I think, the way I
15 think about it should be applied at a project level.
16 When it comes down to specific locations, avoidance is
17 always our first, and, and the bulk of our locations
18 would fall into this. And so I think offsets should
19 be considered at the project level.
20 Q. And it was that very consideration that led to the
21 question, is it doesn't seem to fit into a PDA
22 process.
23 I should make it clear that I would welcome
24 any further comments when Mr. Protti is available on
25 any of these matters. It's hard to distinguish which
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1443
1 ones are for you and which ones are for him.
2 A. I appreciate that.
3 Q. In step 1, where you reference the optimizing resource
4 recovery step, I want to make sure I understand that.
5 Is your control and knowledge of these reservoirs,
6 these formations, such that you have geological maps
7 or the like, or is this optimization step more based
8 on the geographical centre of the target drainage
9 area? Just what is the situation?
10 A. Yes, that, that is more the situation, is it's just
11 the inter-well spacing of the existing wells, so it's
12 basically picking, picking the centre spot of that.
13 We don't have enough understanding of the local
14 geology. There's, there's a lot of factors that, that
15 make that unmappable at that local scale. So it's
16 really a, taking a look at the geographic locations of
17 that, of that optimal spot to hit that un, undrained
18 part of the reservoir.
19 Q. And, sir, I can understand the desire to do that. If
20 you're drilling 1,000 wells, statistically you're
21 better off to have done that. But would you agree
22 with me that, for any one target area, that that --
23 you may be picking the wrong spot by picking the
24 centre; there may well be a spot elsewhere that would
25 pick up more permeable stringers, which are more
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1444
1 extensive and would provide better drainage? I'm not
2 suggesting, again, that doing it for 1,000 wells or
3 not having that goal for 1,000 wells isn't a good
4 one. I'm asking: Do you recognize that sometimes
5 you could be moving the well for an environmental
6 constraint and actually improving the situation?
7 A. We absolutely do recognize that. The difficulty comes
8 in in quantifying those local reservoir differences.
9 We don't have the degree of, of detail because these
10 are at the microlevel. And so, you know, what we had
11 thought about is could we manage this through
12 geostatistics. But, again, that's a probabilistic way
13 of managing it. So we recognize the fact that the
14 centre, the geographic centre may not be the best, but
15 we have no better way of determining fine movements
16 within that centre spot.
17 Q. I understand. I fully appreciate that, sir. I guess
18 my question is would you be prepared -- are you
19 prepared to recognize that you don't know that when
20 it comes to an environmental trade-off?
21 A. Yeah, absolutely. In fact, our very first criteria,
22 when we looked at the -- when you start with the
23 perfect centre spot, but, but 50 metres movement is,
24 is the very first criteria, is make those moves with,
25 with no, no hesitation whatsoever.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1445
1 Q. And, sir, when it comes to this initial optimizing
2 resource recovery step, or siting, in doing so, would
3 you have any regard for, you know, the four
4 surrounding wells that really set out the kind of
5 triangular target you're after? Would you have
6 regard for the capability of those wells? I guess
7 what I'm asking you, sir, is, in your experience, if
8 you've got four wells and perhaps three or maybe four
9 of them tend to be poor wells, they don't have a lot
10 of silt stringers, they don't appear to be very
11 extensive, and the production and related drainage
12 seems to be on the poor side, do you typically find
13 in your experience that an infill well is not as good
14 or can -- is it just so variable that it may be a
15 very good well? Just what is your experience?
16 A. Our experience is that, locally, wells are similar for
17 sure. But if you are in a tighter part of the
18 reservoir, the, the issue is really where those silt
19 stringers are. And often is not what we find is when
20 we look back at the old wells they were completed with
21 different frac designs and so what we would need to
22 do -- and so their past performance would be related
23 to that older design. So what we would need to do is
24 make some accommodations for -- and that's part of the
25 process, too, is go in and optimize those other wells.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1446
1 But you don't have the same degree of baseline
2 assessment to tell, you know, whether or not you're in
3 a sweet spot or not because the old wells may not have
4 accessed the group of stringers that the frac at that
5 point in time was designed to capture.
6 Q. Can you tell me, sir, if during that step one, the
7 siting for recovery, resource recovery optimization
8 purposes, would you have regard for the location of
9 the existing wells? And let me explain. I recognize
10 your discussions with Mousseau, Mr. Mousseau
11 regarding, you know, perhaps 14 or 15 wells might be
12 an optimum. But if you already have 8 wells in a
13 section, and they are in the centre of LSDs 2, and 4,
14 and 6, and 8, and so on, that you really don't have
15 much choice, because if you drill 15 wells, you're
16 leaving one target area un, undrained.
17 However, I notice, and I just have a, a
18 limited well plot here, less than a township, and I
19 notice that some of them are quite irregular now.
20 I'm sure for, for reasons, I see some with only three
21 wells in a half section. At least on my plot. I see
22 some where, you know, you have five wells in the
23 northern half of the section. And three in the
24 southern.
25 And I'm, I'm just wondering, sir, if your
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1447
1 siting process is one whereby you say, "We're going
2 to drill a well in LSDs 1, 3, 5, 7, et cetera. Now,
3 geologist, engineer, pick the best spot in that LSD."
4 Or do you start from quite a different direction and
5 lay out a battery area and say, "Having regard for
6 whatever you do know about the reservoirs, about the
7 formations, and given the existing wells, where
8 should the additional wells go that will best drain
9 the reservoir with the fewest number of wells?" So
10 that if there are opportunities to get effective
11 drainage with, with 14 wells or 15 wells in a square
12 mile, not necessarily a legal section --
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. -- that you would avail yourself of it. Now, I'd like
15 to understand just what your philosophy is in that
16 regard.
17 A. Sure. So I guess there's two areas that I'd like to
18 explore in answering your question.
19 You're absolutely correct. Our approach in
20 designing the additional wells is we take a look at
21 the existing wells and take a look at the reservoir in
22 between them. So we're really looking at all of those
23 undrilled blocks of land. And that's where the
24 inter-well distance, so the 400 metres, which is the
25 effective 40-acre spacing, the 400 metres we believe
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1448
1 is the block of land that we're targeting. And that's
2 why you can move it around because sometimes you have
3 more than 400 metres leeway before you start bumping
4 into an existing well.
5 And sometimes you say, well, I can put two,
6 or three or four wells in there for sure to get that
7 spacing that we're targeting. So that is the approach
8 on the local design.
9 With regard to what is the optimal, just
10 thinking about those questions last night, and if you
11 mentally reference back to the plot from the GLJ in
12 the Sand Hills, it's similar. Like, I think our
13 reservoir is better than that. That was our study
14 area they were looking at. But -- so on the part of
15 the curve that's still rising up, and based upon our
16 estimates, we still anticipate on average 100 mms per
17 well, so there's still quite a bit of, of resource to
18 recover.
19 So I think our optimal -- if, if we had a
20 greenfield and we didn't have any pattern established,
21 our optimal would be probably 22 wells or 20 wells per
22 section. But because the inprint is already mostly
23 there, we're working with that 16. And so those two
24 elements I think go into the local design; is that we
25 try and maintain that inter-well distance of 400
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1449
1 metres and we fit them in as best we can.
2 So sometimes that --
3 Q. I think -- you have agreed with me earlier that the
4 inter-well distance concept is a good one,
5 statistically, over a broad area; but in any one
6 region, it may not give you the sweet spot.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. I guess, sir, what I'm really trying to understand is
9 are you targeting a number of wells per section or
10 are you, or do you have as your target effective
11 drainage with the fewest number of wells, even though
12 it might be a little less than you would get if you
13 drilled more wells, it's still pretty effective
14 drainage because the existing pattern is irregular.
15 And that's really what I'm trying to understand, what
16 your, what you're aiming for.
17 A. Yes, we're aiming for effective drainage. And like I
18 say, we believe the four -- what we're -- the blocks
19 of reservoir we're looking at is about the 400. But
20 if we can do that with three wells rather than four,
21 that is absolutely our desire.
22 Q. And that, sir, is the part I wanted to make sure of.
23 Now, with respect to the PDA, and perhaps I'm
24 getting more and more into an area where Mr. Protti
25 might be involved, but I would like to raise them and
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1450
1 see if that's the case or if you have responses.
2 Would you agree with me, sir, that the PDA
3 proposal that you've put forward is, is a major
4 undertaking for SEAC?
5 A. Yes, I think that would be true.
6 Q. And would you also agree with me that it's very
7 important if the NWA is to be developed at closer
8 spacing without lasting environmental impacts?
9 A. Yes, I agree.
10 Q. Would you agree with me that, that, especially if
11 you're going to drill or construct in three years,
12 that it's right to get it -- that we need to get it
13 right the first time, you can't, you can't have a
14 process that you play with for a few years before the
15 wells are drilled?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Given all those things, sir, has EnCana considered the
18 possibility, if it does get approval for the Project,
19 of perhaps having a pilot period to test the ability
20 of SEAC to handle the PDA process and, indeed, to
21 test the process itself whereby you might drill one,
22 one battery, for example, as a pilot and use the
23 learnings to modify SEAC to ensure that it's properly
24 resourced? Any comments along those lines, sir?
25 A. I have a few comments.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1451
1 Q. Please.
2 A. And I'm sure Mr. Protti will. We haven't, we haven't
3 considered that and that's predominantly because we're
4 very confident in this PDA process. It's, it's not
5 absolutely brand new. I think how it's all come
6 together and the various forms of surveys are
7 enhanced. But we certainly have been surveying for
8 wildlife and for vegetation out there. We certainly
9 know how to do that. We know how to take that
10 information and incorporate that into a site-specific
11 plan. We know how to make site, site assessments.
12 And so these are all pieces that we've done
13 many, many times before and we know how to move them
14 through a process that manages at a campaign level.
15 So we are fairly experienced at that. And I
16 think we're very proud of the PDA process because we
17 think we've gone quite a few steps ahead. We're,
18 we're siting environmental assets at the battery level
19 and will ultimately be at the NWA level. But, you
20 know, we've, we've, as a community, we've done that
21 before in the past and we know how to do that.
22 So a lot of these elements are, are very
23 tried and true. How we are putting them together is
24 just a new and a better way to put them together. How
25 they affect modifications of specific project elements
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1452
1 I think is tried and true. We are very confident that
2 80 percent of the locations will be able to be
3 avoided. So it's because of those factors that, that
4 we believe that we've evolved it to a high degree.
5 Q. I recognize that, sir. I take it you recognize that
6 that view is not necessarily shared by all, all
7 stakeholders.
8 A. I appreciate that.
9 Q. Can I ask you a somewhat related question, sir, and,
10 again, one that you may wish to have Mr. Protti
11 comment on. I know that you're proposing, and I'm
12 going to term it a three-year drilling and
13 construction phase, you have mentioned the
14 possibility of a spillover, and if I understand what
15 has been taking place in the total Suffield Block,
16 that means drilling in the NWA more or less on the,
17 at the same pace of development in the Suffield Block
18 elsewhere than in the NWA.
19 I hear EnCana, recognizing the importance of
20 the, this, the environment and including the wildlife
21 in this area, and, and yet I hear EnCana proposing
22 the same pace of development in this very sensitive
23 area that they have typically followed in a less
24 sensitive area.
25 Indeed, if I heard Mr. Fudge correctly this
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1453
1 morning, there was some reference to the 425 wells in
2 the NWA and 200 elsewhere. So it might even be in
3 total at a, at a greater pace.
4 And I guess, sir, it occurs to me that some
5 people might see a disconnect in the position that
6 EnCana is taking; that it's very important to do
7 things properly in the NWA and yet we can maintain
8 the same pace of development that we do elsewhere.
9 Can you comment for me, sir, and, in
10 particular, what I'm looking for is I would like to
11 understand the reasons why EnCana is proposing to do
12 this development at that pace over three years. And
13 I would like to know from the viewpoint of
14 environmental impacts, from the viewpoint of impacts
15 on the use of the surface by others, I would like to
16 know from the viewpoint of resource recovery, and I
17 would like to know from the viewpoint of EnCana's
18 corporate objectives.
19 So I'm looking at the total package. And
20 what, what the trade-offs are involved --
21 A. Sure.
22 Q. -- in, in this pace of development --
23 A. You bet.
24 Q. -- of the Project that you have.
25 A. So I'll leave some of those comments to Mr. Protti.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1454
1 But with regard to the pace, a lot of the numbers that
2 were provided was just to kind of give the indication
3 that, that we wouldn't carry on in the Suffield Block
4 in the same manner. We would just treat it as an
5 integrated program. So, so the level of activity,
6 which has been ranging at between 500 and 600 wells
7 per year on the block. That's within the scope of, of
8 what we've been doing and this is within the scope of
9 what I guess the Military experiences with regard to
10 our activities. So those -- that's where those
11 numbers are coming from.
12 With regard to the Project design in the NWA,
13 the way that we viewed it was the winter construction
14 period was the best time to get that work done. And
15 we looked at it that if, if we could kind of go
16 through that construction period in a shorter time, so
17 three years, then we would be getting on the road to
18 recovery as quickly as possible and really maintaining
19 that footprint through the next 40 years. So it was
20 really a sense around trying to optimize that
21 construction period. And it was from the
22 environmental footprint perspective.
23 If, you know, the Panel would see it as a
24 different way, and that, you know, the better way to
25 go would be to spread that out over a five year
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1455
1 program -- like I say, our intent was to try and
2 minimize our footprint by moving through that
3 construction period in a relatively efficient way and
4 then getting on with the, with the operations period
5 and the reclamation associated with that, the recovery
6 associated with that.
7 So, so that's where the design came from. It
8 was, it was purely from a sense of trying to get on
9 with that construction period.
10 Q. And, sir, it, it -- it seems to me that when you're
11 facing that kind of pressure, and you referred I
12 think to the window from October 15th to April 15th,
13 you're putting a tremendous amount of pressure on
14 extending that period beyond what it should be
15 extended. Mother Nature is in control of just what
16 happens during that period. And so it's that kind of
17 consideration.
18 And I hear what you're saying, but I would
19 like to leave with you that I -- perhaps you could
20 respond later, or when Mr. Protti has joined you, but
21 I would like to understand the reasons why you've
22 chosen that, if they go beyond what you've just said,
23 and, in particular, whether or not you've had regard
24 for environmental impacts of a, of a three-year
25 versus a five-year and whether you've had regard for
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1456
1 impacts on the other surface users of, of a change.
2 And, indeed, whether or not you took into account the
3 views of other stakeholders. I would like to
4 understand where your three-year target comes from.
5 A. Sure.
6 Q. One additional question, if I may, and that relates to
7 your Opening Statement. I think it's -- I believe
8 it's on page 18 of your Opening Statement, sir. If I
9 can find out. Where you have referred to the
10 viability. You're looking at other -- I better wait
11 until you have that, sir. You've referred to there
12 being no viable alternative to this Project. And I
13 know you discussed that with others earlier, but I
14 want to make sure I understand what you're getting at
15 there.
16 When you say "no viable alternative", are you
17 thinking of economic viability or is it in a broader
18 sense? Just what do you mean by that?
19 A. Sure. It's, it's basically looking at it from a
20 simple stance; it's the statement that we can't get
21 these reserves out without drilling. You know,
22 compression, additional compression, we've examined.
23 That won't get these reserves out. Additional frac'g.
24 It's, it's from that sense that the only way to get
25 these reserves is, is through additional contact with
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1457
1 those reserves.
2 Q. And, sir, do I take it from that, then, that use of
3 the term "to this Project" does not necessarily
4 relate to every cubic foot of your 125 billion
5 incremental estimate, that, that it may well be that
6 a project that involves certain areas where the
7 target drainage area is undrilled, or where it's
8 drilled directionally, or where perhaps the start of
9 the first year of construction is delayed for a year
10 because of a pilot of the PDA process, or even where
11 you string out construction over a few more years,
12 are you suggesting that those are not viable
13 alternatives by this statement?
14 A. No. Those, those -- this comment is not related to
15 Project schedule, how it all unfolds, or even, like
16 you say, the magnitude or the amount of wells. Like,
17 each well kind of stand on, stands on its own as a
18 unit. So, no, it was certainly not related to
19 schedule.
20 MR. DeSORCY: Thanks very much. And those
21 are all the questions I have. I might add that I
22 certainly would welcome further comments on any of the
23 matters I raised when Mr. Protti is available and I'm
24 specifically looking for more information related to
25 the schedule, the three-year schedule.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1458
1 A. Sure.
2 MR. DeSORCY: Thanks very much,
3 Mr. Chairman.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Protti.
5 Sorry, Mr. DeSorcy.
6 MR. DeSORCY: Does that mean I'm going to
7 get paid Mr. Protti's salary?
8 THE CHAIRMAN: With that slip, I think
9 it's pretty certain that we do need a break at this
10 stage, so we will break until about 1:20 to allow an
11 hour for lunch. Thank you.
12 (NOON RECESS)
13 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 12:20 P.M.)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1459
1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION
2
3 I, Nancy Nielsen, RCR, RPR, CSR(A), Official
4 Realtime Reporter in the Provinces of British Columbia
5 and Alberta, Canada, do hereby certify:
6
7 That the proceedings were taken down by me in
8 shorthand at the time and place herein set forth and
9 thereafter transcribed, and the same is a true and
10 correct and complete transcript of said proceedings to
11 the best of my skill and ability.
12
13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my
14 name this 16th day of October, 2008.
15
16
17
18 ______
19 Nancy Nielsen, RCR, RPR, CSR(A)
20 Official Realtime Reporter
21
22
23
24
25
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1460
1 (PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED AT 1:20 P.M.)
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, I
3 believe we're ready to start again this afternoon.
4 Mr. Denstedt, you have a matter you wish to
5 draw to our attention.
6 MR. DENSTEDT: Yes, sir. The Exhibit 131
7 has been made available to the Panel and the Panel
8 staff. That's the Alberta Water Licence.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Right.
10 MR. DENSTEDT: Thank you.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Denstedt. In
12 that regard, since you've made reference to an
13 exhibit, just one administrative matter. The exhibit
14 that Mr. Mousseau referred to needs to be corrected.
15 It actually is Exhibit 001-049 and this was the
16 COSEWIC assessment for the Ord's Kangaroo Rat, just to
17 correct the record.
18 And with that we will continue our, our
19 questioning and I will turn to Dr. Ross to continue
20 the Panel's questioning this afternoon.
21 QUESTIONS BY THE BOARD, BY DR. ROSS:
22 MR. ROSS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
23 Q. The first question -- I'll just pose them and you can
24 allocate. It will be mostly at that end of the
25 table. The first question relates to snake mortality
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1461
1 and the mitigative measure of reducing speeds from
2 70 kilometres per hour to 50 kilometres per hour.
3 The question is a simple one. Is there any empirical
4 evidence either with EnCana in the National Wildlife
5 Area or elsewhere that shows the effectiveness of
6 that mitigative measure?
7 A. MR. COLLISTER: I'm not aware, I'm not aware
8 of any. It's -- that, that speed limit was arrived at
9 for mortality in general, including snakes. Snakes
10 were a big consideration from road mortality, but it
11 also is in consideration of other species and slower
12 is better is, I guess, about all I can, I can provide,
13 but I'm not aware of any empirical studies at that
14 level, at the 50-kilometre level. It's slower than
15 the one or two studies we are aware of.
16 Q. Thank you, Mr. Collister. The next question relates
17 to the use of your PDAs to avoid rare plants. I
18 think it intuitively, it's clear if you go and do a
19 survey to find where the rare plants are and avoid
20 them, that's straightforward enough. How would you
21 avoid rare plant critical habitat?
22 A. MR. KANSAS: Rare plant critical habitat
23 has not been finalized, so there's -- for, for SARA
24 listed plant species there is preliminary rare plant
25 habitat mapping for, for SARA listed rare plants, but
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1462
1 it's on the basis of if there is even one, one
2 location within a quarter section, the entire quarter
3 section is deemed to be critical habitat.
4 Now, Dr. Walker and I both have problems with
5 that designation as being far too broad. It seems
6 logical that rare plants are subject to basically
7 moving the earth. If you, you plow, SpiderPlow
8 directly over or, or trench directly over or, or run
9 an area badly, critical habitat for rare plants, by
10 nature has to be close to the individual species.
11 Maybe Dr. Walker can add to that somewhat.
12 A. DR. WALKER: Yeah, the question is, what's
13 the definition of "critical habitat". Are you using
14 the definition that is in the recovery plans that
15 Environment Canada put out or...?
16 Q. Certainly my intent was the conceptual level of
17 critical habitat. I understand that there is a legal
18 definition that is important. I also know that, that
19 that critical habitat is not yet in place. It seems
20 logical to me that before the end of construction of
21 this Project, should it proceed, that there could be
22 in place, critical habitat, defined under the Species
23 At Risk Act in which case my question would be: how
24 would you accommodate the existence of such critical
25 habitat in the PDAs because that would create a more
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1463
1 onerous response, I would think. And so perhaps the
2 question would be, just given the concept of
3 critical, small "c", critical habitat, how would you
4 deal with that in the PDA process?
5 A. DR. WALKER: Well, if, if you were to
6 accept the assumption that, that the rare plants out
7 there are, are in critical habitat and that it's been
8 -- and oil and gas activity has been going on for the
9 last 30 years and that disturbance is part of their
10 regime that it requires, then you might say that
11 what's going on now, the area plus the level of
12 disturbance is critical and just as some of the
13 threats that are described in the recovery plan might
14 be stabilization of dunes or a, a reduction in grazing
15 which creates habitat -- bear with me.
16 You might say that a threat would be a
17 reduction in the kind of activities that are going on
18 out there now, the traffic, truck traffic, et cetera.
19 So what I'm saying is, is what's there now might be
20 considered the default and that altering that may
21 threaten the habitat.
22 Q. Do I infer from that, Dr. Walker, that you have some
23 disdain for the idea of critical habitat?
24 A. No, on the contrary, sir. I'm, I'm just suggesting
25 that, that where the source of disturbance comes from
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1464
1 probably doesn't matter to the plant whether it's
2 human induced or whether it's naturally induced. We,
3 we have a bit of an issue in southern Alberta on a
4 potato farm. The operator there washes the potatoes
5 with sand and so there's a large pile of sand
6 constantly in use and in motion and there's a stand of
7 sand Verbena growing on that and, and so what I'm
8 suggesting is if, if you were to put a setback or to
9 prevent the normal use of that product for, for what
10 it's being used for might end up destroying the
11 habitat and in that regard you might say that's
12 critical.
13 Q. I think I'm going to move on at this point and I'll
14 thank you, gentlemen, for your advice. But related
15 to that, Dr. Walker, you indicated that -- I think
16 this morning that you would probably need a Species
17 At Risk Act permit to relocate a, a listed -- sorry,
18 an endangered plant species. Now, my question is not
19 so much about that particular example, and it may be
20 to Mr. L'Henaff or to Mr. Heese, but under what
21 conditions more generally would EnCana likely require
22 permit under SARA?
23 A. MR. HEESE: My understanding of the
24 Species At Risk Act right now, there contains specific
25 prohibitions that are already in effect. If, through
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1465
1 the course of our PDA process, we were led to believe
2 that our activities may approach (phonetic) one of
3 those prohibitions, that would be a situation where we
4 would go and obtain a permit. Likely it is a
5 situation where we would just cancel the development
6 or really look at relocation, that sort of thing.
7 In regards to your previous comments about
8 critical habitat and our ability to avoid critical
9 habitat, I think our ability to avoid is obviously
10 based upon the scale of the critical habitat
11 designation. My understanding is the Canadian
12 Wildlife Service is looking at various ways of
13 designating critical habitat. It may be identified at
14 the quarter section level. It may be identified
15 through GPS co-ordinates, those sort of things. There
16 are various ways of doing it. So speaking from a
17 quarter section level, if critical habitat was
18 designated on one specific quarter section, our
19 ability to avoid that critical habitat would be fairly
20 straightforward.
21 However, if, if it turned into a situation
22 where it was quarter section adjacent to quarter
23 section adjacent to quarter section where they built
24 upon each other and created large tracts of
25 essentially critical habitat, once that critical
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1466
1 habitat has gone through the procedures outlined in
2 the Species At Risk Act we would adhere to the Species
3 At Risk Act and apply for permits to potentially
4 operate within those critical habitats.
5 Q. Okay. My, my purpose in asking about critical habitat
6 was not to provoke a discussion of the proposed
7 interim critical habitats that, that will come up,
8 I'm sure, very soon and then we'll ask some questions
9 about that. My question was about the concept and
10 how your process would deal with that and I think I
11 understand that.
12 If, if you -- I'm sorry, Mr. Kansas?
13 A. MR. KANSAS: Dr. Ross, if I could, I'm not
14 100 percent happy with my last answer and I would like
15 another chance here.
16 Q. Please.
17 A. By definition, rare plants occur in micro habitats.
18 That's a pretty common -- for the most part, most rare
19 plants occur in rare areas, either very wet or very
20 dry, escarpments, et cetera, so that's, that's -- I
21 don't even -- this idea of, of mapping habitat with an
22 existing mapping system, you know, over the years I've
23 worked with quite a few really high quality rare plant
24 people and, and they often do not want to map rare
25 plant habitat. I'll say map rare plant potential.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1467
1 They say, hey, they occur everywhere they're in
2 microhabitat. So, so by nature I think the PDA
3 process will be very effective because it will look
4 for those rare habitat types, those very wet, very dry
5 areas and that's where we'll be avoiding, EnCana will
6 be avoiding wetlands.
7 For example, saline wetlands tend to have a
8 lot of rare plants. Those areas will be avoided. So
9 I'm not saying the concept of critical habitat for
10 rare plants is not necessary but ultimately I think it
11 will, it will focus down to these rare plant
12 communities or rare seepage areas, et cetera, and by
13 nature you can't map those very effectively. They
14 have to be seen on the ground.
15 Q. Thank you for that, Mr. Kansas. In seeking SARA
16 permits more generally, I'm, I'm not sure what the
17 process is. Is there -- have there been a lot of
18 such permits issued? What's the nature of the
19 application process? How, I guess, in EnCana's view,
20 and in case there's anyone else listening from the
21 Government of Canada there may be a hint of a future
22 question here as well, how in EnCana's view would
23 those permits be dealt with -- applications be dealt
24 with and under what conditions would you expect to be
25 successful?
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1468
1 A. DR. WALKER: Can I take a shot at that? I
2 would, I would envision SARA permits being sought to
3 get more information. The recovery plans are outlined
4 and there's a certain amount of uncertainty as to
5 where the population is, what, what the requirements
6 are and I think EnCana might be in a position to
7 contribute, participate or support a program that
8 might do a population level survey of the, of the rare
9 species, perhaps look at means of rescuing them,
10 propagating them perhaps and finding out just why
11 they're rare and what their requirements are. And in
12 that regard that information becomes power and becomes
13 easier to ascertain what the risks are.
14 At the moment, you know, Environment Canada
15 is perhaps responding appropriately to the lack of
16 information by, by setting some very large areas for
17 critical habitat, but I think the opportunities for
18 getting more information are very ripe at this point
19 and that could benefit everybody by, by investigating
20 that and in that case you would need a SARA permit to,
21 to perhaps collect and transplant or relocate those
22 particular species.
23 A. MR. COLLISTER: I could maybe just add a
24 little bit and I hope it's helpful. I've seen the --
25 the application process for a SARA permit at this
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1469
1 point in time, to my knowledge is, it's
2 straightforward. There's an application form that's
3 been developed. EnCana, in, in terms of some of the
4 surveys that have been done, and I'm thinking of the
5 ones that fed into the demonstration of the PDA, some
6 of those surveys could be construed, for example, the
7 Burrowing Owl surveys are called a playback survey,
8 and involve when an owl is detected, the nest burrow
9 has to be approached to get co-ordinates so that it
10 can be avoided in the future and so that could be
11 construed as resulting in harassment and disturbance
12 and under SARA that could be interpreted to require a
13 permit.
14 EnCana did investigate that with Environment
15 Canada prior to those surveys and was advised at this
16 time that that was not the case, a permit wasn't
17 required. So I, I think the permitting process is
18 evolving a little bit with Environment Canada, at the
19 risk of speaking for them which I can't. But that's,
20 that's the experience I think that EnCana has had with
21 it so far.
22 A. MR. HEESE: If I might add just a little
23 bit to that. I am not aware of many permits that have
24 been issued for incidental activities. It's something
25 that I have been trying to stay on top of through the
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1470
1 SARA registry where they document all the permits they
2 have given. It has been sometime since I've checked,
3 but I am aware of only one previous instance in
4 British Columbia where a, an incidental activity or a
5 permit was granted due to an incidental activity and
6 that was specific to shoreline protection and, and the
7 presence of some rare plants. So it is something that
8 does not happen regularly.
9 Other than the situation that Mr. Collister
10 explained where we approached SARA or Environment
11 Canada to get the assurance on what would be necessary
12 for doing Burrowing Owl surveys we have not applied
13 for permits of this nature and I think that speaks to
14 our ability to address the prohibitions in Section 32
15 and 33, protections of the individual and the
16 protections of the residents. Certainly as the scale
17 of protections increase, particularly through the
18 designation of critical habitat, we will definitely
19 become more familiar with that, that process and apply
20 for the necessary permits as critical habitat is
21 designated.
22 My, my understanding is the material that
23 they would review when determining whether or not to
24 issue a permit or an agreement, there's those two
25 options within the Species At Risk Act. The very
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1471
1 information that we would be collecting through our
2 PDA process would be very similar, if not fully
3 appropriate, for them to make a decision. If through
4 that process they needed additional information we
5 would go get that information, but I believe the
6 process as we've put forward would, would be very
7 similar to what their expectations would be prior to
8 issuing the permit.
9 Q. I'm going to change subjects to talk about the
10 suggestion that I think Dr. Walker made this morning
11 about a multi-stakeholder group to examine the
12 transport of seeds. Under the assumption -- sorry,
13 probably seeds of evil plants, invasive plants and
14 Crested Wheatgrass and all of those terrible things.
15 It seems to me that one of the important
16 principles of managing cumulative effects is that
17 cumulative effects require cumulative solutions and
18 so this multi-stakeholder idea is certainly one that
19 is attractive, but I, I guess I want to understand a
20 little bit more about what a group is intended to do.
21 Groups can study things, groups can discuss things.
22 But at some point either this leads to an
23 intervention that would actually reduce impacts or it
24 doesn't. And so I'm, I'm interested in the purpose
25 of this stakeholder group and what kind of outcomes
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1472
1 are anticipated.
2 A. DR. WALKER: Well, I would think that the
3 first thing that such a group would do would be to
4 identify what the undesirable species are. We're not
5 calling them "evil". We're calling them "undesirable"
6 species and the definition that we've used in the EIS
7 for "undesirable" is one that, that causes some sort
8 of environmental impact for our objectives, so that
9 may be a plant that is preventing our re-vegetation of
10 the species to establish.
11 It may be the wheat skeletons that are
12 blowing into the coulees, but this certainly needs to
13 be put in context because some of the species that we
14 just sort of say, yes, we will avoid anything under
15 the Alberta Wheat Act is not necessarily applicable,
16 that is, if you're not near farmland and it's an
17 agricultural weed it's not going to impact
18 agricultural production and, to my mind, is not a
19 problem if it's not persistent on the landscape. And
20 that's kind of the view we've taken to things like
21 Russian Thistle. It is a problem in agriculture, but
22 it's not if you're not near cultivated land and it's
23 not too dense, we tend to just leave it on the
24 landscape. It doesn't persist. It acts actually as a
25 facilitator plant in trapping snow and cutting wind,
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1473
1 et cetera. If it is too thick, though, then it
2 becomes a problem. So context is everything in that
3 case. So that would be the first order.
4 There are -- we're in a bit of a dilemma.
5 There is one plant that is rare on the landscape, but
6 it's also prohibited under the Wheat Act and so you're
7 -- not only are you required to destroy it but you're
8 perhaps required to look after it. Now, that could
9 perhaps be resolved by such a committee.
10 In my opinion, that plant should probably be
11 delisted as an, as a prohibited weed rather than taken
12 off the rare plant list. So the same goes for other
13 species and it tends to be area specific. So this is
14 where DND and CWS and the PFRA and EnCana need to get
15 together to decide which of these species are creating
16 a problem and then develop some sort of approach as to
17 how to control it and that would mean, first of all,
18 putting your efforts where you're going to get the
19 best results and then what sort of control mechanisms
20 because without such a co-ordinated effort, it often
21 doesn't amount to anything.
22 So your question was what sort of an outcome?
23 I would say that it would be a target list and then
24 the next would be a cost benefit analysis of control
25 and then it would be how, how are they going to go
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1474
1 about it without too much collateral damage to other
2 species on the landscape?
3 Q. I'm going to go off on a little tangent and then I'm
4 going to move on. You listed a bunch of the likely
5 suspects for such a multi-stakeholder group but you
6 didn't neighboring, for example, the Grassland
7 Naturalists or environmental groups, and yet I would
8 have thought they would have had a fair bit of
9 expertise in this sort of an area. Was that an
10 inadvertent slip or did I just not pay attention?
11 A. DR. WALKER: I don't think I made a list
12 of stakeholders but, you know, certainly I hope I
13 mentioned CWS in my list of --
14 Q. I believe you did.
15 A. Yes, okay. Good. Well, then the rest would be EnCana
16 has offered to have various stakeholder steering
17 groups formed, so I would assume that they might open
18 the door for other stakeholder inputs, yes. In my
19 mind it would include other interested parties, yes.
20 Q. If in terms of the outcomes, I guess this, this may
21 shift from your end of the table to the other, but to
22 what extent is EnCana committed as an outcome of such
23 a process to undertaking some of the measures that
24 that such a group might determine would be effective
25 or necessary and under what conditions would you
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1475
1 proceed to do something or to what extent is this a
2 group that would study things?
3 A. MR. L'HENAFF: So no, we're committed to
4 this. We think it's the right solution as well and we
5 don't see it merely as a group to study things. We
6 really want to get out there and make a difference, so
7 we would be committed to to studying things at the
8 front end, understanding what's driving that and then
9 converting that into a regional action.
10 Q. So you have a huge budget to take action, do you?
11 A. I suppose that would be Mr. Protti's.
12 Q. Changing the subject -- I'm sorry, first, thank you
13 for the answers to those questions. They were quite
14 helpful.
15 You indicated earlier that last Tuesday, my
16 notes say, that potential bad streak of weather could
17 have a major effect on the constructibility and, and
18 you might have to defer a lot of construction from
19 one year to another.
20 I guess I'm interested in the process by
21 which such a decision would be taken. Obviously it
22 involves advice and so on, but the first -- the
23 question, and I'll even make it multiple choice for
24 you: Who, in EnCana's view, would make the decision
25 to defer a major chunk of the annual construction?
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1476
1 And the suspects that I have here are: EnCana, SEAC,
2 Base Commander, ERCB, none of the above, or I guess,
3 before "none of the above", "all of the above"?
4 A. MR. L'HENAFF: So I can offer, I guess, some
5 comments around that. Often a deferral is as a result
6 of bad conditions and you're not able to accomplish
7 the work that you envision. Wet weather would be
8 probably a good example of that. An early spring. So
9 rather than just a short rainshower that may or may
10 not affect a little localized area, an early spring
11 break-up that basically locks you out of an area.
12 We're very familiar with, with this sort of
13 thing. It happens to us fairly frequently. Working
14 on the Military block, we, we have to combine the
15 appropriate weather conditions with also the Military
16 template. So, basically, when the Military is out
17 there doing their training, we're locked out of, of
18 those lands. And so, in effect, we have to leave
19 behind pieces of undone work. So wells might get
20 drilled but they don't get completed and they don't
21 get tied in. So I think that's a normal course of
22 business for us. We are used to making those
23 decisions. And those decisions are based upon the
24 factors on the ground. Can you do the work properly?
25 If you can't, leave it behind for the next season. So
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1477
1 I think we would take that exact same approach.
2 If we can drill a well, great. If we can
3 complete it and tie it in, great. If a piece of that
4 has to fall behind, then it has to fall behind. And
5 we'll catch up on it.
6 Q. I guess I was more interested not in leaving three
7 wells behind, but if you had to leave 250 wells
8 behind and, and the question was, who decides?
9 A. So we often do leave many, many wells behind, 50, 100
10 wells. It's -- that's -- it happens. It's part of
11 doing business out there. And so who decides is, is,
12 you know, really right at the ground level. The
13 co-ordinators basically decide when work can proceed
14 and when it cannot. And it won't proceed until the
15 conditions are right. And if that means you miss your
16 construction season and you have to wait for the next
17 construction season, so be it.
18 Q. I'll take it that the answer, then, is EnCana?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Thank you. Do you have an NWA permit for the
21 activities that are -- the operation of the existing
22 wells in the National Wildlife Area?
23 A. So I think part of that's outlined in our Appendix A,
24 but -- so we feel that our existing facilities are --
25 fall under kind of a grandfathering. But we certainly
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1478
1 do have a permit. And we've been working with the DND
2 for some time now, working out the conditions, what
3 those conditions might be for a permit for routine
4 operations, and so we do have a permit for a large
5 part of those operations.
6 Q. I'm a little bit confused as to whether the answer was
7 "yes" or "no". But I guess you said you do have a
8 permit for a large part of the operation?
9 A. For the routine part of the operation.
10 MR. DENSTEDT: Maybe I can help.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
12 MR. DENSTEDT: There is a legal debate in
13 respect of whether a permit is required or not, so I
14 think it is a "yes" or "no". It is a "yes" and "no"
15 answer; that EnCana, in an attempt to protect its
16 rights, on the advice of counsel, has protected its
17 rights by taking the position that it may in fact not
18 need a permit but, at the same time, has proceeded to
19 develop a permit with conditions and is in the process
20 of negotiating those conditions so that both bases are
21 covered. If that helps.
22 MR. ROSS: I have a lawyer joke about
23 that, but I think I won't go there.
24 Q. Adaptive environmental management has been a term that
25 EnCana has used a good deal at this hearing. And I
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1479
1 guess I'm interested in knowing a little bit more
2 precisely about what EnCana's understanding of that
3 term is. For example, in the literature "active
4 adaptive environmental management" is often used
5 where one purposely explores multiple management
6 strategies and then measures the outcome of them to
7 compare and see which one might be best, or "passive
8 adaptive management" where one tries a single
9 strategy and monitors it purposely to see what the
10 outcomes are to see whether adaptations are in order.
11 I guess I'm interested in, in exploring this. And
12 I've got a bunch of derivative questions later on.
13 But how, how do you see your practices as being
14 adaptive environmental management?
15 A. DR. WALKER: Perhaps I could go first and
16 then you could get cornered with commitments.
17 The adaptive management comes in because the
18 way the reclamation success protocol is set up is that
19 it is goal oriented. There's a target to, to get to.
20 And because of the way the process goes, everybody
21 wants to know, well, how are you going to get there?
22 So the EPP and the reclamation plan and the protection
23 plans all have suggested ways of doing this, but the
24 adaptive part comes in as to, depending on
25 circumstances, whether it's a hot, dry spring or a
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1480
1 cool, wet one, or other circumstances are what
2 triggers the choice of mitigation. So the adaptive
3 part comes from the choice of mitigation methods that
4 are site specific and weather dependent and
5 appropriate for the particular circumstances. Does
6 that help somewhat?
7 Q. I, I guess the purposeful intent of trying a
8 management strategy, a reclamation strategy, if you
9 prefer, and then having some hypotheses about what
10 will be the consequences and then measuring the
11 results to see how they fit with the theory and then
12 adapting as appropriate is what I had -- what would
13 be the nature of the hypotheses that would be tested
14 in such a, such a scheme? And, more importantly, how
15 are they determined within the company or within the
16 relevant organization?
17 A. Well, I think it's -- it's how you define adaptive
18 management. I guess, in the sense that EnCana is
19 using it in the EIS, is it's not, it's not a sort of
20 experimental "we'll try this, we'll try that, and see
21 how it works" kind of thing, or "we'll see if this
22 fails and then we'll try something else". It's, it's,
23 it's a decision tree in choosing an appropriate
24 mitigation measure. That's where the adaptive
25 management comes in so that we're not necessarily
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1481
1 wasting resources but we're also doing enough. And
2 that determination of what's enough is, is part of the
3 PDA process that -- and this is where a professional
4 qualified person would come in to make the
5 determination as to whether or not erosion control
6 measures are necessary, if siting well sites are
7 located in low protected, well drained areas, then an
8 erosion control plan wouldn't be necessary. But if it
9 is in a more exposed area and the reclamation
10 assessment suggests that there is a risk of erosion,
11 then it would be a matter of choosing one of the
12 appropriate erosion control measures.
13 The same would hold true in terms of, of
14 proximity to watercourses where runoff water may be a
15 concern where water quality is a concern. It would be
16 up to a professional to determine what the risk is and
17 what the mitigation measure is appropriate. And in
18 some cases a setback may be appropriate. Sometimes it
19 might have to be violated if there are other competing
20 interests. But it would be up to a professional to
21 make those kinds of determinations and not try to
22 cookbook the results in terms of some of these very
23 tight decision trees, which give me a bit of grief,
24 because they aren't really goal-oriented; it's just
25 some of -- it's convenient for regulators because you
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1482
1 just go A, B, C, or whatever, to come up out with a
2 decision, but it doesn't look at the overall picture
3 which is, you know, conserve the environment.
4 A. MR. KANSAS: Maybe a hard example of
5 what I, what I envisioned we could do for adaptive
6 management is, say, pipelines are put in with a
7 certain technique and a certain soil type and a
8 certain site condition and the -- a certain seed mix
9 is used and a seeding rate, I would say, for example,
10 monitoring the results of that seed, that seed mix and
11 seeding rate, in particular, habitat types, and if the
12 result wasn't moving in a trajectory that was thought
13 to be best for the land, then modifications could be
14 made to the seeding rate or the seed mix. So that's
15 the kind of how I envision adaptive management working
16 in the context of that, that aspect of the Project.
17 Q. I was expecting Mr. Fudge next, so go right ahead.
18 A. MR. FUDGE: Oh, I'm sorry. It's a chain
19 reaction.
20 Dr. Ross, in the environmental effects
21 monitoring, the Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan
22 on page 14, Section 3, there's a discussion of
23 adaptive environmental management that's in the
24 evidence. And I think it captures, it captures some
25 concepts I think quite well. One, it refers back to
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1483
1 EnCana's Corporate Responsibility Policy and it refers
2 to that. And it might be just worth while, if I may,
3 just to read a couple of sentences from that because
4 it does, it does relate adaptive management. We've
5 just heard a number of, a number of examples of how
6 when that might occur, but it relates it back to
7 corporate, EnCana's corporate philosophy or policy.
8 So on page 14, Section 3 of the Environmental
9 Effects Monitoring Plan, I don't have the exact number
10 there, but anyway, it says, and I quote:
11 "EnCana's Corporate Responsibility
12 Policy defines its commitments
13 towards environment, health and
14 safety, EH&S, and provides the
15 foundation of its management. One
16 of the principles guiding the
17 behavior of EnCana to implement its
18 corporate policy commitments are to
19 achieve high performance of EH&S is
20 the following."
21 And it's a quote:
22 "We establish EH&S objectives
23 regularly, measure our progress,
24 and strive to continually improve
25 our EH&S performance."
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1484
1 So I see it imbedded in their corporate policies,
2 that particular piece.
3 And, you know, throughout the -- and then it
4 goes on in this section to discuss the adaptive
5 management, adaptive environmental management that we
6 see as a part of the Environmental Effects Monitoring
7 Program.
8 So where, where, during the course of
9 environmental effects monitoring and carrying out
10 those plans, unanticipated adverse effects occur, for
11 example, anything untoward or anything that's -- or
12 new or modified mitigation measures could be applied
13 or something, is working or not, all those things can
14 be approved or modified as long as you're out there
15 actually measuring something and inspecting and
16 monitoring these, the, the Project as it, if it were
17 to be approved.
18 So I think that, that the Environmental
19 Effects Monitoring Plan inherently has this adaptive
20 environmental management piece that's articulated
21 there and EnCana's corporate policy and commitment to
22 adaptive environmental management is articulated
23 there.
24 Q. Let me try to put the pieces I've heard together and
25 see if I've got it roughly right. You have an
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1485
1 Environmental Protection Plan that you put in place,
2 and because you're not entirely certain about the
3 outcome of these things you, you, you have an expert
4 panel who will suggest to you in some fashion what
5 monitoring should be carried out to determine the
6 success of those mitigative measures to determine the
7 effectiveness of the Environmental Protection Plan.
8 And if the results show that it's working
9 brilliantly, then you just keep on doing the same
10 thing. And if it shows there are some ways of
11 improving, then you make the relevant adaptations to,
12 to improve. Would that be roughly right?
13 A. DR. WALKER: From my perspective --
14 sorry, go ahead.
15 Well, with the exception of your first
16 sentence which was "if we're not quite sure what the
17 outcomes are". I hope what we've done is, is
18 predicted possible circumstances and mitigation
19 measures.
20 And I guess the first big one would be
21 weather. There is such a variation in weather and so
22 various mitigation methods and methods would be
23 appropriate for that.
24 I think other, other things that can get off
25 schedules, perhaps DND exercises that would lock out
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1486
1 activities. So that's where the adaptive part needs
2 to come in is choosing appropriate measures based on
3 the conditions that are there. And I don't think that
4 it's based on uncertainty as to the outcomes. It's
5 just dealing with uncertain weather and operating
6 conditions.
7 Q. I might have thought that if you were certain about
8 the outcomes, then you probably have better things to
9 do with your money than to fund monitoring studies
10 that would predict what you already know would
11 happen. Certainly the Environmental Protection Plan,
12 as I read it, has, has descriptions of what you would
13 do under different weather conditions. And so those
14 are already incorporated. I wouldn't think you could
15 change the weather if the weather doesn't work out
16 well. But I do understand that weather is one of the
17 things that will lead to uncertainties of outcome.
18 And I think on that point we're of common mind.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Sorry, Mr. Fudge,
20 you're --
21 A. MR. HEESE: If I might add as well,
22 regardless of the specific monitoring plans that are
23 identified for follow-through, if there is opportunity
24 amidst our active operation that we can continue to
25 minimize our impact, absolutely we will continue it,
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1487
1 making those sorts of decisions. If new technology
2 becomes available, maybe even as an example this gas
3 track technology that I mentioned earlier, here is a
4 superior piece of equipment out there that we can now
5 apply to our pipeline testing. That's not necessarily
6 something that might have been tracked specifically
7 with our monitoring program in the EEMP. But when it
8 comes to adaptive management and embracing new
9 technology and new techniques, absolutely those are
10 things that we will continue in spite of what's in the
11 EEMP. I guess to give you maybe some real examples of
12 things that we are already trying, recently we have
13 tried equipping one of our drilling rigs with a more
14 advanced water recycling device in that, it's not
15 because there was a specific problem, but just in
16 general we want to reduce our water consumption. And
17 if there was opportunity to recycle, we wanted to
18 grasp that. So we demo'd the technology on one of our
19 rigs. It turns out the shallow gas wasn't the
20 appropriate application. So we recognized a
21 technology, we gave it a shot, and it didn't work.
22 In the same regard, understanding spot stains
23 and how to best respond to the occasional equipment
24 leak. First of all, it's our practice to have good
25 operating equipment. But there was a, there was a
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1488
1 situation where we recognized we were having some
2 failures on our hydraulic hose. So looking back and
3 responding to a specific deficiency, we realized it
4 actually went back to the actual manufacturer, that
5 there was a manufacturing defect, and we had the
6 crimping on the hydraulic hoses changed. So we
7 responded to the problem.
8 But to go one step further, again, we are
9 currently evaluating the use of vegetable-based
10 hydraulic oils and the potential application as a demo
11 in just -- in any unit or two. So, again, it's not
12 something that we're prepared to move forward. But
13 both situations where we recognize a deficiency and
14 adaptively manage and fix that, but also take the next
15 step and say, well, look, how can we even get better,
16 I think that's an example of how small changes like
17 that are, are evident and are part of our, our
18 corporate structure. And how we operate is to grasp
19 ahold of new technologies and anything that might
20 change or -- change our operations for the better.
21 Q. Thank you. I have two residual questions about this.
22 The first one relates to this committee to advise on
23 the Environmental Effects Monitoring Program and to
24 shape it, and I'm just trying to figure out what
25 would be the nature of those recommendations? Would
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1489
1 those recommendations be made by your committee of
2 experts and then posted on the web for public
3 comment, or would they be internal to EnCana, or
4 somewhere in between?
5 A. MR. FUDGE: Typically, and I'm just
6 basing this on other projects, I'll let EnCana speak
7 to this as well, but certainly the web has been one
8 mechanism that -- recently I've been involved with,
9 myself, with a similar kind of committee, putting
10 forward recommendations and the work being carried
11 out. So both the recommendations and the results,
12 summaries of the results of the work and so on were
13 all made available on the web, on a dedicated website
14 for this committee and for the monitoring plan.
15 That's one way certainly.
16 And in, in the past, certainly other
17 mechanisms of distribution in terms of having it
18 available in libraries, that sort of thing.
19 Q. Okay. The next question is: Suppose that as a result
20 of the monitoring program the adaptive management
21 plan determines that a notable revision to the
22 Environmental Protection Plan is in order, as you've
23 indicated, you update it routinely, but you've also
24 suggested it would be a condition of approval. And
25 so I guess the question is, when you make a change to
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1490
1 it, what is the regulatory process that would be
2 involved in, in making that change? Would it go to
3 the ERCB, would it go to SEAC and DND? Would it go
4 to the public? I'm not sure of the process that you
5 envisage.
6 A. MR. L'HENAFF: So the process we
7 envisioned is, is to have this whole process, this
8 Panel hearing to inform and really kind of flush out
9 the EEMP and the EMAP, but I guess what we had
10 envisioned would be, it's one of the flow charts
11 that's in the EEMP section, having a series of
12 scientists, knowledgeable people look at effects that
13 are really kind of confirming the EIS, so the inherent
14 work that's going on in the EIS. It's a confirmation
15 of that.
16 So you take the areas that you're most
17 sensitive to and you design some studies around that.
18 You get those studies back. And it will confirm or it
19 will say you need to adjust.
20 SEAC and DND is integral to that process, so
21 that's kind of the central hub that you're developing
22 these studies for, developing the learnings from these
23 studies for.
24 When it comes to an adjustment to the EPP, I
25 suppose we haven't thought through all of those
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1491
1 pieces, but it would make sense that it would go
2 through that same train. That SEAC and DND, and
3 likely the ERCB would review those changes because
4 those changes would come as a result of observing an
5 effect, redesigning a mitigation for that, and then
6 incorporating it into a new process, and then that new
7 process would be, would have to be sanctioned
8 basically by the regulatory bodies. And that would be
9 like SEAC, the Base Commander, the ERCB.
10 Q. Thank you. Lastly, some cumulative effect questions.
11 First, let me deal with the geographic boundaries
12 chosen. On Thursday, Mr. Collister indicated that
13 the number one impact on species at risk, I think
14 including specifically Burrowing Owls, but I don't
15 care which ones, was agriculture. And I pose this
16 question in such a way as to provoke but also to
17 invite a response. So why did you choose your
18 boundary so as to exclude all agricultural
19 activities?
20 A. MR. KANSAS: The reason for that was
21 that -- well, first of all, the size of this, this
22 study area relative to the increment is appropriate in
23 my mind, as well as the nature of the boundaries. My,
24 my feeling about cumulative effects is, and I think
25 this is represented in the, in the CEAA
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1492
1 Practitioners's Guide, is that the nature and the
2 magnitude of the increment and its effects, its, its,
3 its halo effects, should dictate in part the nature,
4 the size of the Regional Study Area and the bounds of
5 the Regional Study Area.
6 And, in this particular instance, when I
7 looked at this Project and went to the noise people,
8 for example, and asked them, "Will noise transfer out
9 across the South Saskatchewan River to the other side
10 of the river?", they said, "No, no, it will not to any
11 great degree." Or, "Do antelope utilize areas east of
12 the river as a large mammal that tends to sometimes
13 dictate regional study area boundaries?" The answer
14 was "No". The other -- "The SARA-listed mammal that
15 I'm dealing with, is it, is it affected by the, by the
16 South Saskatchewan River, Ord's Kangaroo Rat?" "Yes,
17 it's a barrier."
18 EnCana has no influence over, over
19 agricultural activities in the region. That's another
20 one.
21 The other thing is that I asked the Special
22 Areas people, if you look at the surrounding areas
23 around what we chose as the Regional Study Area, to
24 the north of it's special areas lands, which are
25 grazing lands, to the, to the west is a grazing co-op,
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1493
1 to the south is a grazing co-op, and to the east is a
2 river. And all of those areas -- I looked into, for
3 example, I called Lorne Cole (phonetic) from the
4 Special Areas and asked him directly, or Joel did, "Do
5 you anticipate changes over time in the Special Areas
6 in terms of agriculture and change in that regard?"
7 And he, he said, "No, I don't expect it in the
8 timeline of your Project."
9 So, to me, it was not appropriate to just
10 grab a chunk of, of -- widen the study area to 6, 7
11 thousand square kilometres just to grab some
12 agricultural lands that, that really are agricultural
13 lands now, they don't serve as, as habitat for these
14 species. To me it wouldn't have added to the, to the
15 value of the Project in any way. And it wouldn't have
16 helped us assess the significance of cumulative
17 effects of the Project in combination.
18 The other thing I could add is that the Great
19 Sand Hills study, you have to ask yourself, if that's
20 an example, an exemplary example, which I believe it
21 is, of a strategic CEAA at a broad regional level, why
22 did they choose not to, to use the agricultural lands
23 that surround, surround the Great Sand Hills area,
24 which they didn't, as part of their study area? I
25 think it's probably for the same reasons I looked at.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1494
1 Q. Okay. Let me move on to your cumulative effects
2 assessment for the Ord's Kangaroo Rat. That was one
3 where I think you indicated earlier today the primary
4 issue is a habitat issue.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Your -- I think it would be fair to characterize your
7 work on cumulative effects of Ord's Kangaroo Rats as
8 being within your Regional Study Area; indeed, within
9 the local study area since, as you say, they don't
10 move around much, and in a timeframe from the
11 mid-'70s to the present.
12 Now, the evidence seems that, that we've seen
13 around here, including the COSEWIC report that was
14 discussed earlier, suggests that the, the habitat has
15 shrunk greatly within that very timeframe and within
16 that very study area. And so we have a species that
17 has become listed driven primarily by, I think I'm
18 characterizing it correctly, by the loss of habitat,
19 and yet you still seem to have no significant
20 cumulative effects. And so help me to understand
21 that one.
22 A. Okay. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I, I see a
23 cumulative effect as defined in your own guidelines as
24 being the effects of the Project in combination with,
25 with -- the residual effects of the Project in
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1495
1 combination with the effects of other reasonably
2 foreseeable land actions and projects that occur in
3 the study area that you choose that would lead to an
4 issue for the, for the VEC that you're talking about,
5 a long-term sustainability issue.
6 Q. I might have said "and past activities", but --
7 A. And past activities.
8 Q. -- I agree with your --
9 A. Yeah. So when I think about Kangaroo Rat, you know --
10 and I was wrong earlier, I may as well put it on the
11 record now to be expedient -- I was low. 300 to a
12 thousand, I was way off. It was 700 to 3,000 in terms
13 of the range.
14 Q. Thank you.
15 A. When I think about the Kangaroo Rat and the effects, I
16 think of the Project-effect first. I think of all the
17 mitigation measures that are used to, to address that,
18 the impacts on Kangaroo Rat; winter drilling when the
19 animals are in their burrows, daytime driving only in
20 the operational period when the animals are not
21 normally out, studies that were done in the past that
22 indicate, you know, a major pipeline activity had no
23 effect on, on reproduction, survival, movements, or
24 negligible effects.
25 And, you know, and I think to myself, well,
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1496
1 the incremental effect of the Project is minimal. The
2 likelihood that we're going to even kill a Kangaroo
3 Rat is, is, is negligible. There's no evidence that
4 that's happened in many years of research.
5 And then I think of the other things that
6 have been happening. For example, you say the habitat
7 is changing over time. Now, that's due to, likely, to
8 the lack of fire in the NWA, or the shortage of fire,
9 putting fires out on that Double Wide Scrape on the
10 west side, and lack of a, of large herbivore. There
11 were cattle there '60s and '70s until they were pulled
12 out because of impacts. And perhaps, although it's
13 contradictory to what the Sand Hills study says,
14 perhaps climate change. I say it's contradictory, the
15 Great Sand Hills studies indicate that there should be
16 more dunes over time based on climate change.
17 So I, I find it difficult to know how to
18 assess that. I know our increment is small. I know
19 our possibility of impact is very, very low. So to
20 attribute a cumulative effect to something that's
21 totally outside the halo of this Project I, I find
22 difficult. I see that as a, as a broader -- that's
23 where I see project-specific CEAA moving into a
24 strategic, you know, realm.
25 Q. Okay, could I -- I just want to be sure I understand
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1497
1 so I'm going to try and walk you through your
2 words --
3 A. Okay.
4 Q. -- and see if -- where I go wrong here. You indicated
5 in the EIS -- well, I'm going to get carried away
6 here -- quite reasonably, that you would predict the
7 Project residual impact. And if it were -- if it
8 were negligible --
9 A. Negligible, yes.
10 Q. -- then you would not do a cumulative effects
11 assessment. But if it were significant or
12 insignificant, then you would?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And if you do a cumulative effects assessment, then
15 you look at the effects of the Project plus the
16 effects of other human activities.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And we agree -- we agree -- I'm sorry, you have stated
19 that the fire control has resulted in this rather
20 heroic collapse of habitat for the Ord's Kangaroo
21 Rat. It's an endangered species. I might have
22 thought that that alone would have been a significant
23 adverse cumulative effect to which your project adds,
24 however modestly. Now, I, I try to use your words.
25 A. No, you're correct. You're correct in that regard.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1498
1 My feeling, though, is that -- that the -- the
2 residual project effect is so minimal, even though
3 I've called it "insignificant", "non-negligible", it's
4 so minimal that I, I couldn't mathematically model my
5 way out of this and look at change over time.
6 Certainly, if, if they're predicting that -- "they"
7 being Dr. Bender from the U of C -- that if there's no
8 intervention in terms of opening up those active
9 dunes, that dunes could be gone by I think 2014 or
10 something like that. Now, these animals require
11 active dunes. Certainly from a cumulative effects
12 point of view, a regional cumulative effects point of
13 view, something has to happen there or else the
14 impacts of the Project, even if they were very, very
15 small, could be in issue.
16 I'm making the assumption that, that there
17 will be, as part of our Environmental Effects
18 Monitoring Plan, movements in that direction to, to
19 increase habitat quality. In fact, the, the
20 development itself may open up dunes through, through
21 pipelining, through, through active dune areas.
22 DR. ROSS: Thank you very much for your
23 responses.
24 Mr. Chairman, I'm done.
25 QUESTIONS BY THE CHAIRMAN:
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1499
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Dr. Ross. I have
2 a few questions as well. And I would like to start
3 with a question, or a clarification to Mr. Denstedt in
4 his response to Dr. Ross's question regarding the
5 application of the National Wildlife Regulations in
6 the NWA. If I understood you correctly, your comment
7 was in relation to existing operations only. Is that
8 correct, sir?
9 MR. DENSTEDT: That's correct.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: It has nothing to do with the
11 Project as -- that we're currently reviewing; in other
12 words --
13 MR. DENSTEDT: That's correct.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you for that
15 clarification.
16 Q. My next question has to do with baseline information.
17 And I think I might direct it to Mr. Fudge in part
18 because he referred I think a few days ago to a, to
19 the original environmental assessment that was done I
20 believe in 1977. It was also mentioned in
21 Mr. Protti's opening remarks, if I recall, on the
22 first day.
23 I don't recall seeing much reference to that
24 study in the documentation associated with this
25 review. And I wonder, Mr. Fudge, does -- did that
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1500
1 study produce any baseline data that you could rely
2 on in terms of your present Environmental Impact
3 Statement, or did you just disregard that? I just
4 don't have a good understanding of what it was all
5 about and would appreciate some background on that
6 historically.
7 A. MR. FUDGE: I think -- I'll start off
8 with my appreciation and perhaps my colleagues here
9 might speak to their use of this information or others
10 in the work they did.
11 But it's clear -- I actually read that
12 document years ago when I was working in the, in the
13 area in my -- during my thesis work. And also -- but
14 I think what's important is that was an assessment
15 done to the standards of the day, and so in 1977, by
16 Renewable Resource Consultants I believe in Edmonton
17 in 1977, as you said.
18 It was followed by at least four reports that
19 I'm familiar with; two done by Hardy Associates in
20 subsequent years and two done by Western Oil Field
21 Environmental Services thereafter. So for four years
22 after drilling started in the Middle Sand Hills, in
23 particular in that northern area, the National
24 Wildlife Area. And perhaps it was for the, yeah, for
25 the whole area that encompasses the National Wildlife
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1501
1 Area today. But it focused a lot on the Sand Hills
2 because, in those days, one, there were a lot more
3 active dunes 20 some-odd years ago than there are
4 today. In fact, that was the, the big -- one of the
5 big environmental concerns was, was the stability of
6 those dunes. There's a lot of active dunes today.
7 They're actually moving along and would oil and gas --
8 shallow gas activity get more of these dunes active
9 and, and create a negative impact from more active
10 dunes. As we -- it's interesting to note the
11 discussion we're having today that there's, in fact,
12 perhaps from an Ord's Kangaroo Rat, there's not
13 enough.
14 But, anyway, so those -- but, so, really -- I
15 think what really transpired and the learnings, at
16 least for my own personal self, came from the
17 application of, of, of the -- sorry, the
18 investigations, which were similar to some of the
19 evidence we've seen, like the AXYS investigations of
20 how are the, how is the, how are these sites being
21 revegetation -- revegetated? How is the soil being
22 stabilized? What are the environmental issues around
23 the pipelining aspect, the well-site drilling and so
24 on, and the selection of routes and sites?
25 So that I think was the real take-home
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1502
1 message for me over the period of the original
2 assessment and then the work done thereafter. In
3 terms --
4 So that it was really the environmental
5 protection measures, if you like, and the siting
6 issues. And obviously that's, that's evolved over
7 time. So that's number 1.
8 I think the -- and number 2, even in those
9 days in the 1970s, Canadian Wildlife Service was doing
10 -- was very active in the area and, by the way, the
11 Province as well. Provincial investigators in the
12 '70s, in the early to mid-'70s, prior to drilling,
13 they did a lot of inventory work in terms of wildlife,
14 in terms of vegetation and the like, and published
15 those. University researchers well. And that was the
16 real body of literature in the '70s, anyway, that
17 certainly I used in the late '70s and that -- those,
18 those were used today.
19 So that's my understanding of that
20 background, that -- just to give you a little
21 perspective. Now, how these gentlemen used it or
22 referred to it, I would have to ask them to respond.
23 A. MR. KANSAS: I've reviewed those five
24 studies that Mr. Fudge refers to. He's right. Back
25 in the '70s there was a real focus on, on large
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1503
1 mammals, ungulates and raptors. Those were the big
2 topic of the day. We didn't get into the kinds of
3 small, smaller animals, birds, diversity, that sort of
4 thing. That, that's kind of an early '90s thing that
5 biodiversity started becoming big and started to
6 become a movement towards non-consumptive species.
7 So in a way the, for me, from a wildlife
8 point of view, those were really good contextually for
9 me to see, for example, what antelope numbers were
10 like back, back in the '70s, et cetera. But other
11 than showing graphs of change over time -- and, and
12 some -- there was some, some information on, on
13 impacts. I think it was Holtz and Reynolds 1980.
14 They -- from CWS. They actually did a small study
15 based on aerial surveys to understand how, I believe
16 it was three drilling wells; one deep gas well, two
17 shallow gas wells, would affect deer and antelope in
18 the northern -- in the Middle Sand Hills area. And
19 from that, they came to the conclusion that no more
20 than five drilling rigs at any given time should be
21 operating in the Middle Sand Hills.
22 So that kind of information I pulled out.
23 May not have referred to it in the reply -- in our
24 evidence, but I was conscious of it. But in terms of
25 using it as a baseline it's difficult because it's so
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1504
1 old.
2 A. DR. WALKER: For the reclamation side of it,
3 some of the recommendations are actually -- were very
4 good and, and have been implemented. For instance,
5 from the, from the Western Oil Field report, the first
6 recommendation is that route and site selection should
7 be made by a person or group trained to recognize
8 areas most suitable for development. So they're,
9 they're suggesting something similar to what is being
10 proposed today; is a PDA process of site selection in
11 the field to reduce disturbance. And they go on to
12 suggest erosion control measures as well.
13 The Hardy report suggests that installation
14 of pipe using a plowing technique should be used
15 because it greatly reduces the environmental impact.
16 So that's another early recommendation that has been
17 adopted.
18 And another one of their suggestions,
19 wellsites were located on low ground where reclamation
20 will be enhanced by the presence of finer-textured
21 soil and the protection from winds. So that's another
22 procedure that was implemented then and was carried
23 on.
24 I was actually around at that time. And that
25 the invitation of the AEC environmental co-ordinator
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1505
1 was invited there to, to, to make some suggestions.
2 I'd spent five years working in the Foothills and I
3 figured I knew most about Sand Hills, but I came away
4 from that visit learning more than I perhaps gave in
5 terms of information. And it was as a result of, of
6 the environmental co-ordinator at the time, a man
7 named Major Hank Barrett, thank you, he was a former
8 Base Commander, and when he retired went to work for
9 AEC, and he had no background in environmental
10 protection, but he had an enormous amount of common
11 sense and was a keen observer, and he got caught in
12 the middle; CWS wanted him to use native species, and
13 the advice he got from the Agricultural was to use
14 Crested Wheatgrass. And so, as a result, he said,
15 "I'm not going to use anything." And so chose sites
16 that, that reclaimed quickly, chose routes. That was
17 the first time I learned that you could tell a
18 reservoir engineer where to put a well site. That was
19 new to me. But he did that. And that has been policy
20 since then that, that wellsites could get moved 50
21 metres without even calling Calgary.
22 Further distances are in evidence out there
23 where they've re-located wells to be in protected
24 sites. So it was a matter of, of good common sense.
25 And, and I learned a lot from Major Barrett. And
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1506
1 those lessons learned from those initial environmental
2 assessments and the work of Hank Barrett are the
3 reason why some of the sites out there are, are
4 exceptionally good in terms of their, their, I'm going
5 to say restoration back to a native plant community.
6 Because that's what you see out there.
7 THE CHAIRMAN:
8 Q. Well, thank you for that history. I gather that it
9 was of value in terms of environmental protection
10 rather than -- or those studies in terms of
11 environmental protection rather than being a value in
12 trying to establish baseline conditions.
13 Maybe another question related to that: At
14 what point, then, do you feel the studies that have
15 been going on in the NWA have produced information
16 that would establish a reasonable baseline? Would
17 this be in the '90s where you're starting to see data
18 gathered that you could rely on in terms of
19 understanding what, what the baseline conditions
20 would be?
21 A. I think it is very, very difficult to establish a
22 baseline in the NWA because it is recovering from such
23 a long history of disturbance. The early heavy
24 grazing, the farming, and then the trespass grazing,
25 early oil and gas activities that disturbed the
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1507
1 ground. It is in a progression of recovering.
2 Removal of the horses in the early '90s is another
3 disturbance on the landscape that got removed and, and
4 made changes.
5 So at what point in point in time would you
6 like to have a baseline? Certainly from a functional
7 point of view it could be established, but in terms of
8 plant numbers and composition and animal numbers,
9 it's, it's a shifting baseline so far as I can see.
10 A. MR. KANSAS: I feel that it -- really,
11 the Canadian Wildlife Service inventory in '95, '96
12 was -- it was a really good inventory. And the
13 approach they took was very systemic. For most of
14 their inventories, they went along a UTM grid line.
15 They just plopped in plots all along. So, so to me
16 that's, that's really an ideal baseline. It's not
17 biased towards any particular habitat type. It's very
18 good work. And it served our purposes very well for
19 the EIS.
20 Q. So most of the, if I understand it, most of the
21 information that has been collected on the
22 environmental attributes over many years has been
23 collected by Canadian Wildlife Service, probably,
24 rather than EnCana or AEC before EnCana existed?
25 A. Yes. And DND. DND's got some good work that they've
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1508
1 done in the last couple few years and, and prior to
2 that.
3 Q. Thank you. My next question: If, if this Project
4 does proceed as you have proposed, some of your
5 studies that you've done in connection with the
6 Environmental Impact Statement, the proposed PDAs,
7 Environmental Effects Monitoring Program will
8 certainly create a very large database. Are you --
9 do you have a high degree of certainty with the
10 collection of all of that information that you would
11 be able to see in the future should the project
12 proceed how it might affect the valued ecosystem
13 components?
14 A. I, I personally do. I think it's really important to
15 think about scale in that issue. For example, you
16 probably read or heard about this triangle method used
17 for sampling the quarter sections where we
18 systematically flip the triangle on its vertex and
19 took measurements along, five times along each side of
20 the 500-metre long triangles. That data in my mind
21 would serve a good basis for long-term monitoring of,
22 of quarter section level wheat, possible wheat issues
23 that might arise at that scale.
24 The other scale would be there's the option
25 to go back to individual pipelines and individual
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1509
1 lease sites. There's, there's several databases out
2 there now that we've collected and are saber rattling
3 back and forth in these hearings with the -- but
4 they're all good data, and over time the land changes
5 and they could be monitored at that level. So there's
6 a good basis for, right now for monitoring change over
7 time and then adapting practices, I think.
8 Q. Thank you. The next question related to this again,
9 but following up on some of the discussion involving
10 Dr. Ross's questions. As you proceed through a
11 construction season, again, assuming the Project
12 proceeds, do you have some kind of a lessons learned
13 that, then, feeds into, I guess from your
14 Environmental Effects Monitoring Program that feeds
15 into the Environmental Protection Plan and can you do
16 that effectively within that short time period
17 between one construction season and another?
18 A. MR. FUDGE: Perhaps -- well, I can start
19 off on this. There are -- actually, in terms of the
20 Environmental Protection Plan itself and updates to
21 it, that is actually covered in a section of this, and
22 speaks about the, you know, in the field situation.
23 For example, when a change might be made to a
24 procedure or to -- or shutting a project down,
25 shutting a particular piece of work down for specific
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1510
1 purposes, all of those are going to be documented as
2 part of the Environmental Protection Plan and part of
3 the duties of the environmental inspector.
4 So if there's any adaptation that needs to be
5 done by EnCana and their contractors in terms of
6 construction, there's a procedure here of how to
7 document that and how that feeds into the
8 Environmental Protection Plan. And we talked about, I
9 guess it was Dr. Ross, in response to his question,
10 about where it went from there to the, to the
11 regulatory authorities, but. So that, that's really
12 ensconced in the concept of the, of the protection
13 plan to update it with the real field information and
14 any changes that are proposed in terms of any of the
15 procedures, that kind of thing, to adapt them or
16 update them.
17 A. MR. L'HENAFF: And if I can just add as
18 well, it's another facet of the adaptive management as
19 we employ it at EnCana. Mr. Heese kind of outlined a
20 couple specific examples that were maybe more along
21 the line of the, the -- I can't recall what term you
22 used. Yeah, so not the passive side but the, I guess
23 the more reactive side or aggressive side.
24 With respect to the passive side of things,
25 another facet that fits into the adaptive management
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1511
1 is project look-back, so at the conclusion of a
2 project we would, we would look at the project at
3 different degrees of, of detail. Formalized project
4 look-backs, what went off well, what didn't go off
5 well, go into a root-cause analysis. If something was
6 not occurring as you saw fit, what were the root
7 causes behind that? Was it a training element, people
8 weren't aware of it? Was it a systemic issue that the
9 processes just weren't built to fall like that?
10 So as a result of understanding that, then
11 you could cycle back and go into an improvement cycle
12 and make those, those changes.
13 So related to the NWA, of course there would
14 be heightened project look-backs and they'll -- that
15 sort of information will be fed, fed back through the
16 adaptive management cycle.
17 The Environmental Inspectors on site would
18 form a key element to that as in what's working,
19 what's not working. If it's not working, what, what's
20 the root cause of it, sort of thing. So, so those
21 would be facets of that adaptive management cycle.
22 Q. Thank you, Mr. L'Henaff. I understand the process. I
23 guess I'm struggling or trying to understand whether
24 between one season or another you can accomplish all
25 of this to take the lessons learned from one to apply
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1512
1 to the next. That's really the fundamental question.
2 A. I guess, you know, I could offer that we, we do look
3 at our projects and turn them around in, in that
4 order. It's because of the nature of our projects
5 that we have project-specific start/stop cycles.
6 So it's a matter of getting that look-back
7 done in a timely manner. And, you know, we would do
8 that in the NWA.
9 Q. Thank you. My next question has to do with the
10 advisory committee for the Environmental Effects
11 Monitoring Program. This may be a policy question
12 that perhaps Mr. Protti might best answer, but I
13 believe in your suggested makeup of that committee
14 you have suggested including membership from possibly
15 the Environmental Coalition or some of its groups.
16 Is it your policy -- presumably for -- if they chose
17 to participate in that, they would need some
18 financial assistance to do that. Is it your policy
19 to provide that kind of financial assistance for
20 non-governmental groups such as the Coalition?
21 A. Absolutely, we would certainly look at that. And I'll
22 leave it to Mr. Protti to elaborate further on that.
23 Q. Thank you. My next question has to do with the issue
24 of, of trenching in frozen conditions that we talked
25 about a little bit earlier today.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1513
1 You, I believe, were, were, were not willing
2 to make a commitment about stopping the plowing in
3 frozen ground conditions. And I understand the
4 reasons that you provide in that respect. I wonder,
5 though, is this an example of the kind of matter that
6 you might discuss with the Department of National
7 Defence as you enter into the season where freezing
8 starts and you wish to continue to do trenching
9 activity at that point? Is that such an example
10 where that kind of consultation would occur?
11 A. MR. HEESE: I think it would be
12 appropriate again to keep them informed of how the
13 project progresses to ensure that we're adhering to
14 the conditions of the permit and ensuring that we are
15 doing a minimal disturbance job. That would be fair
16 to engage them in discussions at that point.
17 I would like to add, though, again it is our
18 intention to maximize the non-frozen period. And I
19 guess what we were -- again, to reiterate our
20 commitment using the best installation method for the
21 best conditions that are present and, and for the
22 appropriate soil type, that is our commitment, and to
23 continue to work openly with DND, certainly. That's,
24 that's fair.
25 Q. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Heese. My next question I think
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1514
1 is probably also directed to you. It has to deal
2 with the matter of Environmental Inspectors. Do you
3 have inspectors currently employed in the MTA,
4 Military Training Area.
5 A. We do not currently have inspectors as they've been
6 described for this Project in the MTA. The -- some,
7 some of the roles have been assigned to activity-level
8 co-ordinators to ensure that they're doing the minimal
9 disturbance job. And I provide general council and
10 guidance to, to those activity inspectors as well.
11 As we have defined the role of an
12 Environmental Inspector within this Project, no, that
13 specific role does not currently happen outside the,
14 sorry, does not currently exist on the block.
15 Q. Given your -- thank you. Given the, I guess, the
16 practice in the MTA, which is a little bit different,
17 I think, than what you are proposing based on what
18 you just indicated, are there examples where
19 construction would be, would have been shut down in
20 the past as a result of that, that activity
21 supervisor, I think was the term you used?
22 A. Wet weather shutdown is one of those where I think the
23 current individuals actually do an exceptional job.
24 It is not to say we are without incident, but the
25 level of care that they take to evaluate the weather,
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1515
1 approaching storms and systems, understanding the
2 length of the particular operation that they're
3 undertaking and their opportunities for shutdown, I
4 think they do make good decisions.
5 However, again, as an added level of
6 assurance, having somebody with an environmental
7 background, being a dedicated environmental inspector
8 will only reassure that the best decisions are made.
9 But I do feel that the activity co-ordinators that we
10 have in the MTA right now take that responsibility
11 very seriously. They discuss amongst themselves
12 almost hourly what they see changing in the weather
13 and how they might respond to that.
14 Q. Okay. In the future, moving into the NWA, I guess
15 what I'm seeking is, is what assurances do we have,
16 does DND have, if this Project proceeds, that these
17 environmental inspectors will have that full
18 authority to shut down an activity not only due to,
19 say, weather conditions but also other environmental
20 concerns?
21 A. MR. L'HENAFF: They absolutely will have
22 that authority.
23 Q. Okay. Thank you for that commitment.
24 My next question has to do with a matter that
25 I believe was raised by the Government of Canada and
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1516
1 specifically Natural Resources Canada regarding the
2 issue of soil slumping, concerns about that. And I
3 wonder, again, based on your operating practices, do
4 you have or have situations occurred where drilling
5 has resulted in soil slumping?
6 A. MR. HEESE: Just to clarify the specific
7 reference, that would be slumping in association with
8 the river breaks or, you know, mass wasting as opposed
9 to specifics, subsidence on a pipeline? Do you have a
10 specific --
11 Q. I was thinking of drilling and it could be anywhere.
12 A. So drilling in proximity to the river --
13 Q. That would be one example --
14 A. - would be an example?
15 Q. -- that would probably be an area where it might more
16 likely occur I would presume, if it ever did occur.
17 A. Yeah, certainly from EnCana, I, I've had no knowledge
18 of any incident where drilling led to a slumping or
19 where it was a possible contributor.
20 Q. Okay. My next question is, is related to the, the
21 responses to Mr. Mousseau this morning regarding the
22 PDA process and the various studies that will be,
23 that will be conducted over the summer period. My
24 recollection is that the PDAs would be completed for
25 submission to SEAC, to the Base Commander, and then
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1517
1 ultimately to the ERCB somewhere around the end of
2 September, first of October. And I really wonder to
3 what extent these people would be able to turn around
4 an approval in time for you to start your
5 construction as you are proposing, is the first
6 question. The second question is, given that there
7 could be delays there, what would that mean for your
8 program?
9 A. MR. L'HENAFF: So we feel that we'll be able
10 to get the first batches out early September,
11 September 1 basically. So the first batteries would
12 be coming out. So individuals reviewing those reports
13 would have effectively a month to kind of get the
14 program rolling. And then the remainder of the
15 program would follow through through September. And
16 we would anticipate that we would have all of the
17 material in October 1, basically.
18 If the reviews weren't completed in the
19 appropriate time and October 1 passed by, then we
20 would begin whenever those reviews were completed. So
21 if the first year it took, took some time, it took us
22 to October 15th, we would not begin until we went
23 through the process appropriately.
24 Q. Would you agree with me, Mr. L'Henaff that's a pretty
25 ambitious period of time, or a pretty ambitious
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1518
1 timetable, a month, roughly, for all of those
2 approvals to be received for a process that in fact
3 will be very new at that point?
4 A. I guess I can, you know, refer back to how I, I talked
5 about the PDA process and, you know, these surveys,
6 each of these elements are not new to us. We've been
7 doing them in different ways. And, and even coupling
8 them together into an overall assessment for a battery
9 and that is not new to us.
10 So we certainly have -- you know, and it's
11 really due to the work that we've been working with on
12 -- with the DND around the work that's required for
13 the MTA and progressing the EOs (phonetic) and that.
14 So none of these pieces are really new to us.
15 Buttoning them together is not new to us. So I think
16 we do have a lot of experience in doing this sort of
17 work. We're certainly -- we understand how we would
18 want to really move our process to the next level and
19 really expedite a lot of that work. We've had a lot
20 of those thoughts and a lot of those discussions
21 because we've had at least two years of evolution
22 around, around the MTA process and that, so.
23 We've got a lot of experience in progressing
24 each of the widgets. We've got a lot of experience
25 from a well (indiscernible) perspective in buttoning
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1519
1 these assessments together and, and, and using that to
2 move the wells and the pipe and then moving that
3 forward as a package of information which, you know,
4 predominantly gets communicated in an executive
5 summary, like, that's a map that shows you where all
6 of the features are and an executive table at the back
7 that shows you where all the key features are and what
8 the issues are there.
9 So I believe, I believe it is, it is do-able.
10 A. MR. COLLISTER: I don't -- maybe I could
11 just add one thing. I don't know if it's helpful,
12 maybe it's already understood, but much of the
13 information that would, that would be included in the
14 actual applications, as I understand it, come
15 September 1 or whenever the first application would be
16 put in, would already be familiar to SEAC, for
17 example, in the sense that we talked about surveys
18 this afternoon and, for example, a Sharp-Tailed Grouse
19 survey being done in April, it would seem to me that
20 that would be provided in its entirety to SEAC shortly
21 after that.
22 So those -- so the field surveys would be
23 provided in their entirety early and, and then the
24 applications would, would draw on those as required.
25 So I think that would help in terms of, of all the
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1520
1 information not being new to SEAC when the application
2 lands on them, so hopefully that would speed it up a
3 bit.
4 Q. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. I imagine
5 we'll have similar discussions for SEAC and the
6 Department of National Defence later in these
7 proceedings on that same subject.
8 My next question, I think is a follow-up to
9 comments made by Dr. Walker regarding the matter of
10 possibly or at least the value of having targets
11 established for ecological restoration. And I
12 wonder, has there been any discussions with the
13 Department of National Defence on this subject at
14 this point?
15 A. DR. WALKER: None that I'm aware of.
16 Q. Okay. Thank you. And a similar, I guess a similar
17 question, the 1992 MOU between Environment Canada and
18 the Department of National Defence made reference to
19 the development of a management plan for the National
20 Wildlife Area. And we have evidence in the
21 Government of Canada submission about such a plan.
22 Again, I wonder, has EnCana participated in the
23 development of such a plan at this point?
24 A. MR. HEESE: I'm not aware of EnCana
25 participation.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1521
1 Q. Okay. Thank you. My final question is perhaps
2 related or perhaps best answered by Mr. Protti but I
3 will throw it out anyway, and, and have you reflect
4 on it, if necessary. I wonder to what extent, with
5 the creation of the National Wildlife Area in 2003,
6 how that has actually affected your day-to-day
7 operations in the National Wildlife Area. What I'm
8 getting at is, did EnCana decide at that moment to
9 undertake, I guess, practices that were different,
10 that were recognizing the value and the sensitivity
11 and the additional authority assigned to the Base
12 Commander associated with the creation of the NWA, or
13 did you continue to operate very much like you did in
14 the past?
15 A. MR. L'HENAFF: Yes, I think, I think
16 consideration on that question and having Mr. Protti
17 to spearhead the answer there would be, would be
18 appropriate.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: That would be fine. That
20 concludes my questioning. And I think that, that we
21 will start with the Coalition and hear their evidence,
22 but I think this is probably an appropriate time to
23 have a coffee break so that Ms. Klimek can assemble
24 her, her Panel.
25 MR. DENSTEDT: Mr. Chairman, I have a few
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1522
1 questions by way of redirect on the portions that have
2 been covered so far. I can do that with the Panel
3 members now, which might be useful for some of the
4 environmental folks who may or may not be here
5 Thursday, but I'm in your hands on that.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, I'm sorry, Mr. Denstedt,
7 I should have asked if you had any questions in that
8 regard.
9 I think it would be appropriate to take a
10 break at this point. We'll come back and have you
11 back on the stand. Thank you.
12 (BRIEF BREAK)
13 THE CHAIRMAN: I believe we're ready to
14 proceed now. Welcome back, everybody.
15 And, Mr. Denstedt, I understand you wish to
16 undertake a re-direct examination of the EnCana panel,
17 so please proceed.
18 MR. DENSTEDT: That's correct, sir. But
19 before I start, though, Mr. L'Henaff can respond to
20 the undertaking he gave to Mr. Mousseau earlier.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. L'henaff.
22 UNDERTAKING SPOKEN TO:
23 A. MR. L'HENAFF: Yes, just to close off on a
24 couple of those questions. With regard to yesterday,
25 JRP15 on page 5, you had a question around the analog.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1523
1 Yes, it is a direct analog. And the well spacing is
2 205 metres.
3 With respect to the drilling protocol related
4 to loss circulation, so it's a very rare event. When
5 and if that would occur, the procedure is to mix up a
6 loss circulation slurry mix of gel bentonite, sawdust,
7 cellophane and, and basically control the loss
8 circulation. If, if it doesn't happen, repeat, repeat
9 the process. If you're not successful, another step
10 in the procedure would be to pump a cement plug across
11 that interval. And then again, if that's not
12 successful, then we'd cement off, you know, that --
13 off the whole well, the initial part of the well that
14 you're drilling in and basically start again. So
15 that's the drilling process.
16 The low cement, so if you have no returns or
17 any indication of low cement, no returns, we would run
18 a cement bond lock and then be able to determine where
19 the cement lock was and then basically fix it through
20 the casing. So basically perforate and circulate it
21 in cement.
22 MR. MOUSSEAU: Thank you, sir.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. L'Henaff.
24 Please proceed, Mr. Denstedt.
25 RE-EXAMINATION BY MR. DENSTEDT:
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1524
1 MR. DENSTEDT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
2 Just a very few questions by way of redirect and I
3 almost enter into this part of the program with some
4 trepidation, but I will forge ahead, nonetheless.
5 Q. The first one is for Mister, for you, Mr. L'Henaff,
6 and that's in response to Mr. DeSorcy. You were
7 questioned about your consultation with SEAC in
8 respect of the PDA process. And I wasn't clear on,
9 on the extent of that or why, why it was that EnCana
10 didn't pursue more lengthy discussions with SEAC.
11 And perhaps you could elaborate that, on that?
12 A. MR. L'HENAFF: Sure. So as I, as I had
13 indicated, we only had the two members of SEAC and the
14 member from the ERCB and the member from Environment
15 Canada did discuss the PDA process. It was a
16 high-level discussion. I believe that both members
17 were fairly familiar with the siting process, with the
18 survey process, because we've, we've had an ongoing
19 discussions related to stuff like this with the DND,
20 you know, that's another element, long-term
21 discussions with them over several years. I think
22 we're quite well aware of each other's concerns and,
23 and we're -- I think the DND as well as SEAC is, is
24 very aware of the evolving processes on the Base. So
25 I think for those reasons it wasn't required. They
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1525
1 certainly didn't need to go into exacting detail
2 around, all around the PDA. They're fairly familiar
3 with the survey process, so fairly familiar with how
4 we put reports together and made adjustments to the,
5 to the specific sites.
6 My comments around some of their, I guess,
7 comments back was the resourcing side, the, you know,
8 you know, what, what would their role be, how would
9 the resourcing fit into that? But I got the
10 impression that they were certainly open and
11 listening.
12 Q. Mr. L'Henaff, the second question is for you again.
13 This is in response to examination by Mr. Mousseau.
14 He asked you a few questions about in a perfect world
15 if you could have avoided operational issues in
16 determining a steady state you would have. But could
17 you help the Panel on whether it's possible to do
18 decline analysis in the, in the face of those
19 challenges?
20 A. Certainly. So as I, as I had indicated, there were
21 many things going on and there was multiple objectives
22 that were going on and those were the dominant reasons
23 on choosing the offsets. However, you certainly can
24 do a decline analysis with changing conditions. Some
25 of the material that we've submitted, a re-analysis of
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1526
1 pilot period and other things, certainly shows that,
2 that you can do an analysis with changing conditions.
3 And I think continuing to revisit your analysis year
4 after year and, and seeing what the trends are. When
5 you get past those high-transition states and then go
6 into a more stabilized period, that analysis is
7 possible and, and gives you confident results as well.
8 Q. Thanks, Mr. L'Henaff. The next question is for, for
9 you, Mr. Kansas, and this was in response to
10 cross-examination by both Mr. Shaw and Ms. Klimek and
11 I was, I was a little confused at a couple of spots
12 when you were discussing the footprint at 0.5 percent
13 and, and I guess my question was, did that take into
14 account reclamation and recovery, or does that
15 exclude those two things?
16 A. MR. KANSAS: It excludes reclamation and
17 recovery, so it's a worst-case scenario.
18 Q. And, Dr. Walker, I have a question for you, and it was
19 actually occurred this morning and it was in response
20 to questioning by Mr. Mousseau. And he was
21 questioning you about the, I believe it was
22 monitoring in respect of the invasion of Crested
23 Wheatgrass from, from pipeline right-of-ways and
24 trails. And I think you referenced Mr. Henderson's
25 work and Mister, perhaps Mr. Smith's work, but I
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1527
1 can't recall.
2 And when I heard that exchange it wasn't
3 clear to me whether the references that you were, or
4 the answers you gave were in response to the
5 likelihood of the Project causing that kind of
6 invasion or whether you were commenting on Mr. Smith
7 or Mr. Henderson's work. And I wasn't clear on that.
8 And hopefully you can clear that up for me.
9 A. DR. WALKER: If I recall, the question
10 was, was there a model for monitoring the spread of
11 Crested Wheatgrass and, and perhaps controlling it or
12 removing it. Was that possibly the question?
13 MR. MOUSSEAU: My recollection was that the
14 questions relating to the Henderson project related
15 specifically to vehicle traffic as a, as a vector for
16 the spread of Crested Wheatgrass. And it's really
17 going to tax my brain to go back here, but I think I
18 asked you to comment, first of all, upon the
19 conclusions in the Henderson paper. And I think,
20 secondly, I asked you to comment on whether those
21 impacts were taken into account in the assessment of
22 cumulative effects. To the best of my recollection
23 that was the -- those were the questions I had asked.
24 A. Was I here?
25 MR. DENSTEDT: I'm sorry, I wasn't the only
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1528
1 one that was confused, then.
2 A. I obviously didn't answer that question.
3 With regard to Dr. Henderson's assessment of,
4 of this spread of Crested Wheatgrass, I take issue
5 with some of the assumptions that were made in, in
6 doing the study; certainly not with the methods, but
7 the starting assumptions were that the right-of-way
8 was 2.44 metres wide, which is the, the width of a
9 seed drill, they said, and I take issue with that
10 because a right-of-way that width is, is, is too small
11 to put a pipeline in. And, and also, because my
12 observations at the time were that, that there were no
13 limitations on how wide a right-of-way should be and
14 they took as much space as they wanted in those days.
15 They sprawled all over the place. And then the
16 standard practice was just to seed everything at a
17 very heavy rate. And that was from the
18 recommendations from the agriculture people. I know
19 myself they said very heavy rates should be used.
20 And I also know they used to use a broadcast
21 method, and so if there was any wind at all, the seed
22 would blow all over the place. And so I felt the
23 assumptions that, that you start measuring the spread
24 of Crested Wheatgrass from edge of a 2.44 metre
25 right-of-way was not a good starting point. That,
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1529
1 that the standard right-of-way at that time would have
2 been at least 20 metres. And with the drift of seed
3 blowing downwind, it, it could have gone anywhere up
4 to 30 or more metres wide.
5 And so what they were looking at was not the
6 spread of the Crested Wheatgrass out from the
7 right-of-way; they were looking at the recovery or
8 ingress of native species into the seeded area. And
9 Crested Wheatgrass would have established based on the
10 amount of disturbance. And over the trench it would
11 have been highly disturbed. They didn't save top soil
12 and so the Crested Wheatgrass would establish there.
13 And then, depending on the edges of that trench area,
14 depending on the amount of disturbance, would dictate
15 how much Crested Wheatgrass managed to get
16 established. And so that's what you see on the
17 landscape now is, is patches and elliptical bulges
18 along these right-of-ways of Crested Wheatgrass
19 growing and, and the native species establishing in
20 between.
21 So, in my opinion, using that as a means of,
22 of measuring the spread didn't start with good
23 assumptions. And that's in contrast to
24 Dr. Henderson's thesis and paper that started with a,
25 a very sharp edge, a seeded field right next to an
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1530
1 undisturbed native prairie area where the measure of
2 egress would be much more rigorous.
3 And so that was that part of it. And the
4 monitoring part was?
5 Q. Thanks, Dr. Walker. I think that was in response to
6 Mr. Mousseau's question, but I won't venture any
7 further down that path.
8 I, I do have a couple questions about species
9 at risk and, Mr. Chairman, it is in relation to
10 redirect specifically, but one of the purposes of
11 Joint Review Panel hearings is to elicit information
12 that's useful in your report and useful for your
13 recommendations, not just in respect of the Project,
14 but other things, so I think I will venture there.
15 And, and the first question I had is to you,
16 Dr. Walker. Did I hear you right when you said that
17 when a, when a species at risk, a plant species at
18 risk is rescued and seeds are propagated from that
19 plant, if it's replanted, those seeds are replanted,
20 it is no longer a species at risk?
21 A. Well, I, I possibly need some guidance in interpreting
22 what I read in the recovery plans that are there, but
23 there is a, a rider, a condition that indicates that
24 if a plant is not the result of, of natural
25 conditions, if it's a result of disturbed conditions
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1531
1 like roads, or if it's been propagated as a result of
2 horticultural intervention, then it, it has less than
3 rare status, I would say, or it doesn't get
4 inventoried, shall we say, in terms of where it sits
5 in the population.
6 Q. Thanks. I think if I have any other questions on
7 that, I'll pursue Environment Canada on that.
8 One, one final question, and that relates to
9 a series of questions that were posed by, by Dr. Ross
10 in respect of species at risk again. And, again, I
11 took it from the responses, and I want to make sure I
12 got it right because I'm, I seemed a little confused.
13 I thought what I heard you saying, Dr. Walker, and
14 you as well, Mr. Kansas, in respect of some of the
15 species at risk plants and in respect of Ord's
16 Kangaroo Rat that those species at risk might in fact
17 benefit from disturbance. Did I get that right?
18 A. Yes, you did.
19 Q. Okay. Mr. Kansas?
20 A. MR. KANSAS: Yes. I'll expand a little
21 bit. It's clear that Ord's Kangaroo Rat require
22 blown-out dunes as one, one aspect of their habitat.
23 They also use edges of roads and steep banks along the
24 river, but I don't think a Kangaroo Rat sees an
25 area -- let's say, for example, an area was
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1532
1 accidentally blown out by cattle going through a key
2 hole in a dune and travelling over that area and then
3 the area blew out because of that disturbance. I
4 don't think they see that much differently than they
5 would see a dune, a naturally blown-out dune. So any,
6 any form of open sand adjacent to native prairie is,
7 is fair game for Kangaroo Rat.
8 MR. DENSTEDT: Thanks, Mr. Kansas.
9 Mr. Chairman, that's all I have. I think any concerns
10 I have with that I'll follow up with Environment
11 Canada.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Denstedt.
13 We'll now turn to Ms. Klimek to begin
14 presentation of direct evidence.
15 Ms. Klimek, before you begin, perhaps I
16 should indicate that I'm not sure how long you wish to
17 take but this panel, and I don't mean to rush you in
18 any way, but this Panel is certainly prepared to sit
19 for the duration of your, of your evidence this
20 afternoon if that is appropriate from your
21 perspective. We may need to take a break at some
22 point in, in that presentation of evidence, but I, I
23 leave that to you to advise us in response to my
24 remarks.
25 MS. KLIMEK: What I would propose is that
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1533
1 we get through the direct presentations today, see
2 where we are, and then come back tomorrow morning for
3 cross-examination. And we do have one time limitation
4 which I have talked over with Mr. Denstedt and with
5 Mr. Mousseau and I do believe with Mr. Lambrecht.
6 Mr. Power has to be out of here by 4:00
7 tomorrow, he's got a flight back to southern climes,
8 and so if it looks like we're running up, I'm
9 wondering if we could finish the question with him,
10 he's pretty discrete, and then come back to the rest.
11 But I just wanted to give you an alert. I think it
12 may just play out just fine, but -- so we keep our eye
13 on that ball.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Klimek. We'll
15 certainly take that into consideration. Yes, we will
16 try to -- yes, we will accommodate that.
17 MS. KLIMEK: And we just need a few
18 minutes to do the switchover and get set up here if we
19 could, about five, ten minutes.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, please do so.
21 (Afternoon break)
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Klimek, I think you have
23 your Panel now seated. The first thing we will need
24 to do is to swear the witnesses in under oath for the
25 purposes of these proceedings.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1534
1 MS. KLIMEK: Yes, if we can do that now,
2 Mr. Chairman.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: I'll ask the Court reporter
4 to do that.
5 COALITION WITNESS PANEL (SWORN OR AFFIRMED):
6 Dr. Powers
7 Mr. Sedgwick
8 Mr. Binder
9 Mr. Unger
10 Dr. Stelfox
11 Ms. Bradley
12 Mr. Wershler
13 Mr. Wallis
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, please proceed,
15 Ms. Klimek, with your evidence.
16 MS. KLIMEK: Mr. Chairman, by way of a bit
17 of an opening, as you can see Dr. Mikenwinter
18 (phonetic) is not part of our Panel. She had the good
19 fortune, I believe, to move to Europe, and it was
20 impossible for us to get her here. Mr. Denstedt has a
21 few questions that he is going to put through to
22 Mr. Wallis. And she has advised us that she could be
23 available by phone. So if there are any questions
24 that we can do by way of undertaking or make some
25 arrangements if any other parties had a question for
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1535
1 her, if that would be okay.
2 And our panel today will be speaking to their
3 submissions as well as evidence that has come out in
4 the last week through cross-examination of the EnCana
5 panel. And what they have done, they all have
6 prepared written statements that I would propose to
7 hand out so people can go along with them. They don't
8 have to be taking notes. And I was going to present
9 those. I think they should be marked as an exhibit,
10 but in the order that people will be speaking, if that
11 works okay. As well, we have two PowerPoint
12 presentations so when we get to those we'll deal with
13 those.
14 So our first one would be Dr. Powers. So
15 that would be -- I'm not sure -- 06. I'm not sure
16 what the last number is.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Powers's exhibit would be
18 006-037.
19 MS. KLIMEK: Okay.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
21 EXHIBIT 006-037: Dr. Powers - Summary of
22 Submission on Economics
23 MS. KLIMEK: The next one would be
24 Mr. Sedgwick and that would be 006-038.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Correct.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1536
1 EXHIBIT 006-038: Mr. Sedgwick - Summary of
2 Submission
3 MS. KLIMEK: And 006-039 would be
4 Mr. Binder's.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Thank you.
6 EXHIBIT 006-039: Mr. Binder - Presentation to
7 the Joint Review Panel
8 MS. KLIMEK: And 006-004 would be
9 Mr. Unger's, 040.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: 040.
11 MS. KLIMEK: Yes, would be Mr. Unger's.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
13 EXHIBIT 006-040: Ms. Unger - Presentation to
14 the Joint Review Panel
15 MS. KLIMEK: And Dr. Stelfox's would be
16 next at 006-041.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Thank you.
18 EXHIBIT 006-041: Dr. Stelfox - Presentation to
19 the Joint Review Panel
20 MS. KLIMEK: And 006-042 would be
21 Ms. Bradley's.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
23 EXHIBIT 006-042: Ms. Bradley - Presentation to
24 the Joint Review Panel
25 MS. KLIMEK: And the last one would be
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1537
1 Mr. Cleve Wershler, which is 006-043.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Correct. Thank you.
3 EXHIBIT 006-043: Mr. Wershler - Submission on
4 Terrestrial Biophysical Assessment
5 MS. KLIMEK: Now, I'm going to turn --
6 Mr. Wallis is going to Chair our panel and I'm going
7 to turn it over to him to introduce the panel and then
8 I have a few questions for him and then they'll go
9 into their presentations.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Please proceed, Mr. Wallis.
11 OPENING STATEMENTS BY THE COALITION:
12 A. MR. WALLIS: Good afternoon. It's a
13 pleasure to be here and we appreciate your endurance
14 through these things.
15 I am the Vice President of the Alberta
16 Wilderness Association. I'm here as Chair, as our
17 counsel, Jennifer Klimek, has said.
18 We assembled this panel of experts on behalf
19 of three groups: Nature Canada, the Alberta
20 Wilderness Association, and the Grasslands
21 Naturalists. We were getting funding by CEAA to
22 assemble this panel of experts on the subject of
23 economics and biodiversity broadly, so we've looked at
24 policy matters, we've looked at some details in terms
25 of the natural gas recovery, and you'll hear expert
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1538
1 testimony on everything from cumulative effects on
2 grasslands, the impacts of this kind of development,
3 to a variety of testimony on species and vegetation
4 reclamation.
5 So to start with, I guess we'll get
6 Ms. Klimek to go through the panel members and qualify
7 them.
8 MS. KLIMEK:
9 Q. First, Mr. Wallis, we'll start with you. I think
10 you've given your position with AWA. Did you give
11 your position with Nature Canada?
12 A. MR. WALLIS: No. I'm Vice President of
13 Alberta Wilderness Association, but I'm here also as a
14 director of Nature Canada. I'm here, as I said, in a
15 volunteer capacity.
16 Q. Can you tell us a little bit about your background
17 that gets you in those positions?
18 A. Sure.
19 Q. Other than the drawing the short straw.
20 A. The short straw. I'm a professional biologist
21 registered in the Province of Alberta, but I do a lot
22 of work, both professionally and on a volunteer basis,
23 so I do a lot of work with species at risk, grassland
24 environments in environmentally significant areas.
25 Professionally, I work with industry,
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1539
1 conservation organizations, government agencies, and
2 landowners.
3 On the volunteer side, I've been involved
4 with a variety of conservation organizations since the
5 1970s and, again, focus largely on grassland
6 environments. It used to be the environment that drew
7 the shortest straw and didn't get any respect. I'm
8 glad to see that it's getting a lot more respect
9 today.
10 Q. And have you been presented before tribunals before?
11 A. Yes, I have. Various panels, including the ERCB way
12 back in the late 1970s on the Langdon Phillips Pass
13 500kV line, and then proceeding to the Old Man Dam
14 hearings, smaller environmental, NRCB, NAB, different
15 panel.
16 Q. Now, your CV is set out under Tab 8 of our submission,
17 is that correct?
18 A. Tab, pardon?
19 Q. Tab 8?
20 A. Yes, that's correct.
21 Q. And although you have some expertise, what capacity
22 are you here today?
23 A. My capacity largely was to corral the panel of experts
24 and keep them focused. There's a lot of information
25 here and we've tried to distill that down into what we
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1540
1 think are the important points, and so we have -- my
2 job really was to work with the various experts to
3 hone their presentations so that it would be most
4 informative, we hope, to the Panel.
5 Q. And our submission, which I'm embarrassed to say, I
6 can't remember the exhibit number, is 06?
7 A. 018, I think.
8 Q. 018, was prepared under your direction?
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. And you adopt that as the evidence of the Coalition?
11 A. Yes, I do. A lot of the -- I would put a caveat. A
12 lot of the Grasslands/Naturalists economics side of
13 things was prepared with Mr. Binder, but I accept that
14 as part of the global submission.
15 Q. Okay, thank you. Now, Dr. Power, I'm going to turn to
16 you next. Can you tell me a little bit about where
17 you work and what your position there is?
18 A. MR. POWER: Yes, I'm a Research
19 Professor and a Professor Emeritus in the Economics
20 Department at the University of Montana.
21 Q. And what is your -- how long have you been associated
22 with that?
23 A. I came to the University of Montana in 1968 and served
24 as Chairman of the Economics Department between 1978
25 and 2007, at which time I retired from administration
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1541
1 and teaching but continued on as a research economist.
2 Q. And what areas of study have you focused on during
3 that time?
4 A. Primarily resource economics, including energy and
5 environmental economics, but also a considerable focus
6 on regional economic development.
7 Q. And what geographic area have you focused your studies
8 on?
9 A. I've done research and published papers and reports
10 covering a good part of North America, but most of my
11 work has been focused on western North America.
12 Q. And your CV and your report is under Tab 7 of our
13 submission and I take it that was prepared by you?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And I see from your CV you've published extensively in
16 the area; is that correct? Is there anything that
17 jumps out that are relevant to this?
18 A. Well, I published six books, a dozen and-a-half book
19 chapters, over a hundred articles, reports, et cetera.
20 Q. Okay, and you've -- I understand you've sat on some
21 advisory committees. What role have you played on
22 those and what committees of relevance to what we're
23 doing here?
24 A. Since 1968, I've been on a technical advisory
25 committee for the Montana Power Company and
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1542
1 Northwestern Energy, two of Montana's electric and
2 natural gas utilities. I've also served on various
3 governors economic advisory councils.
4 Q. And you've presented evidence before panels and
5 tribunals before?
6 A. Yes. I've appeared before at least two panels,
7 Federal panels of this sort. I've also appeared
8 before a dozen public service or public utilities
9 commissions in the different states in the United
10 States. I've testified before the Federal Energy
11 Regulatory Commission, Bahill Power Administration
12 (phonetic), and other regulatory agencies.
13 Q. Have you appeared in Canada before?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And is that what you meant by the first Federal ones?
16 A. Yes. Federal. Canadian, Canadian panels.
17 Q. Okay. And Mr. Sedgwick, you're sitting next to
18 Mr. Power and what is your background?
19 A. MR. SEDGWICK: I'm a principal with Martin &
20 Brussett Associates and I'm a Reservoir Engineer.
21 Q. Okay. And how long have you worked in that field?
22 A. Over 25 years, close to 30.
23 Q. And have you been involved with regulatory processes
24 before?
25 A. No, I haven't.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1543
1 Q. Okay. Have you been helping clients get ready for
2 them and presenting things to --
3 A. I have done that, yes.
4 Q. Okay. And your report wasn't part of our original
5 submission, but it's now 06-025 and 06-032. Those
6 were prepared by you; is that correct?
7 A. Yes, they were.
8 Q. Now, Ms. Bradley, you're helping the gender equality
9 here. Could you explain a little bit about what your
10 background is?
11 A. MS. BRADLEY: If I may, I'm a Professional
12 Biologist registered in the Province of Alberta. My
13 specialty is Botany and I also have some facilitation
14 experience.
15 Q. Okay. And you prepared a report which is under Tab 4
16 and your CV is attached there; is that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And, now, your curriculum vitae lists several projects
19 you've worked on. Do you want to talk about a few of
20 those that are relevant to the issues that we have
21 here?
22 A. I've worked on several projects regarding
23 Environmental Assessment in Prairies region of
24 Alberta. I've specialized in rare plant survey. I've
25 done vegetation inventory, vegetation mapping. That
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1544
1 was more focused in the Southwest Foothills of the
2 province.
3 I've, in a volunteer capacity, participated
4 and I'm currently participating on reclamation
5 technical advisory committees for the Rugby Natural
6 Area (phonetic) in central Alberta and the Southern
7 Foothills study.
8 Q. Okay. And I understand you've had some involvement
9 with the Alberta Native Plant Council. Do you want
10 to explain what that is?
11 A. Yes, I've been a member of the Alberta Council, the
12 Alberta Native Plant Council since its formation,
13 about 20 years ago now. I'm currently southern
14 director and I represent the Alberta Native Plant
15 Council in various forums.
16 Q. And could you outline the work you've done with
17 respect to invasion of non-native species into
18 grasslands?
19 A. I've worked on a project for the Patisco (phonetic)
20 landowners related to a gas well, a proposed gas well
21 development in the Patisco (phonetic) grasslands. And
22 I did some work looking at reclamation of those sites.
23 I've recently been on a tour of the Express pipeline
24 right-of-way with Government agency people and
25 reclamation specialists and we've talked about
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1545
1 additional work on monitoring that project. And, as I
2 say, I've been involved in technical, reclamation
3 technical advisory committees, overseeing or guiding
4 research in the Rumsey Natural Area and the Southern
5 Foothills.
6 Q. And have you appeared before any tribunals like this
7 before?
8 A. No, I have not.
9 Q. We all get our first time.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Dr. Stelfox, can we get you to scooch up there? What
12 is your background?
13 A. DR. STELFOX: I'm a Landscape Ecologist.
14 My background, I'm Adjunct Professor, University of
15 Alberta, University of Calgary, Doctoral Thesis on
16 grassland dynamics.
17 Q. What is the focus of your work currently?
18 A. Most of the work I do is leading a team of people who
19 examine cumulative effects assessments that carries
20 scales from project-specific right up to large
21 regional assessments.
22 Q. Okay. And can you tell us a little bit about the
23 model you've developed?
24 A. Over the last decade, decade-and-a-half, I have led
25 initiative called the Alberta Landscape Cumulative
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1546
1 Effects Simulator, or ALCES, and that model has been
2 increasingly deployed by a variety of clients, whether
3 they be city governments, municipal governments,
4 provincial governments to examine regional cumulative
5 effects assessment, sorry.
6 Q. And has that model been reviewed by peers or how has
7 that been done?
8 A. During the past decade there has been three or four
9 systemic initiatives by government or by different
10 resource sectors to assess or critique the model, yes.
11 Q. Okay. And what's the result of those?
12 A. The conclusions of those assessments in terms of
13 running the model head-to-head with sector-specific
14 simulation models is that they generate the same
15 results if the assumptions are identical.
16 Q. Okay. And have you -- you've talked about what types
17 of environmental assessments you've been involved in.
18 You've touched on these, didn't you, earlier, or do
19 you want to --
20 A. Recently -- well, I guess the largest effort at
21 looking at regional cumulative effects assessment in
22 Alberta arguably would be the CEMA, Cumulative Effects
23 Management Association work done in Northeast Alberta
24 and I've led the cumulative effects assessment of that
25 project with respect to the hydrocarbon trajectories
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1547
1 and that of forestry and other land use practices.
2 Q. And for those people who don't know, CEMA is?
3 A. Cumulative Effects Management Association.
4 Q. Okay. And have you appeared before a tribunal before?
5 A. I have not.
6 Q. Now, Mr. Wershler, can you tell me a little bit about
7 what your background is?
8 A. MR. WERSHLER: I'm a Professional Biologist
9 in Alberta with expertise in both vegetation and
10 wildlife.
11 Q. And what areas, geographic areas have you been working
12 working on, and ecosystems?
13 A. I've worked in the grasslands for over 40 years. I'm
14 an environmental consultant now. I've worked on
15 surveys for the conservation and management of rare
16 species and habitats, population monitoring,
17 ecological surveys, environmental impact assessments,
18 environmentally significant areas, studies, and for
19 the oil and gas industry, I have experience ranging
20 from environmental constraints analysis for major
21 projects to surveys for well sites, pipelines and
22 seismic.
23 Q. And have you appeared in front of tribunals before?
24 A. Yes, I have. The Access pipeline, a couple of Cheviot
25 hearings, and a Wellbeck hearing (phonetic).
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1548
1 And specific to this geographic area, I've
2 worked on rare plants, wildlife and wetlands in the
3 National Wildlife Area and the Military Training Area
4 and adjacent lands.
5 Some examples of projects that I've worked on
6 are multi-year monitoring surveys of grasslands,
7 birds, amphibians and rare plants in the Milk River
8 natural area, a provincial environmentally-significant
9 areas overview, planning major gas fields for Nexen,
10 and a member of a couple of national recovery teams,
11 Burried Sparrow (phonetic) and Piping Plover.
12 Q. Okay. And your report is under Tab 5 of our report;
13 is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And Dr. Stelfox, did I ask you, yours is under Tab 3
16 and you prepared that; is that correct?
17 A. MR. STELFOX: That's correct, yes.
18 Q. Now, Mr. Binder, can you tell us a little bit about
19 first of all your position with Grasslands
20 Naturalists and a bit about your background?
21 A. MR. BINDER: I'm a member of Grasslands
22 Naturalists, which is a naturalist organization based
23 in Medicine Hat, Alberta, which is very close to the
24 Project here.
25 My background is I have a Masters degree in
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1549
1 Economics. I've done some post-graduate work in
2 optimal depletion of non-renewable resources. And
3 I've lectured in economics for four years at the
4 University of Alberta.
5 Then my career took a different path and I
6 become a lawyer. I practiced law as a criminal trial
7 lawyer for about 10 years and I've -- I quit doing
8 that about 11 years ago and have been ranching largely
9 since that time.
10 And, more recently, I've become involved in
11 writing smaller reports, economic reports that have to
12 do with projects such as the proposed Meridian Dam
13 (phonetic) project here in Alberta and also related to
14 wind farm development in the province. Thank you.
15 Q. And your evidence or report is under Tab 9 of our
16 submission; is that right, Mr. Binder?
17 A. MR. BINDER: Yes.
18 Q. Now, I'm sorry, did you want to?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Mr. Unger, can you tell us a little bit about your
21 background?
22 A. MR. UNGER: Sure. I'm a lawyer and
23 an active member of the Alberta Bar. My background is
24 in Biology and in Law. I have a B.Sc. In Biology and
25 a specialization in Environmental Law from Dalhousie.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1550
1 I practised in commercial and employment and
2 environmental litigation prior to moving to the
3 Environmental Law Centre in 2005 where I am currently
4 employed as staff counsel.
5 Q. And what's the nature of the work that you do at the
6 Environmental Law Centre?
7 A. Well, the Environmental Law Centre is a charitable
8 organization established in 1982 and they provide a
9 variety of public programs, everything from providing
10 information to the public on environmental and natural
11 resources law and policy to law reform activities as
12 well. My, my position there I've kind of focused on
13 water law, wildlife and conservation issues, tools for
14 conservation on private lands, and as well as
15 administrative law.
16 In that activities, I've been active in
17 collaborative, different collaborative kind of
18 councils in Alberta, including the Alberta Water
19 Council, and have done various law reform initiatives
20 based on species at risk and other issues.
21 Q. And what was your role for this panel?
22 A. I submitted a policy brief. I believe it's at Tab 12.
23 Q. Eleven.
24 A. Is it 11?
25 Q. Yes.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1551
1 A. Sorry, 11. Wrong one. So I prepared that for Nature
2 Canada.
3 Q. Okay. And what was -- and what were you looking at in
4 that? You'll get more into that in your
5 presentation?
6 A. Yes, I will. The primary focus of that information is
7 around conservation law and policy and specifically
8 international and domestic obligations that are
9 relevant to the Suffield NWA.
10 MS. KLIMEK: Okay. That is our panel,
11 Mr. Chairman and Panel Members, and I will now let
12 Mr. Wallis guide them through their presentations and
13 I will sit down.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Klimek.
15 Mr. Wallis, please proceed.
16 A. MR. WALLIS: Okay, without further adieu,
17 I will start with the economics and natural gas
18 recovery side of things. So our three experts there,
19 Dr. Power, Neil Sedgwick and Henry Binder. And we'll
20 start with Dr. Power. And try to speak slower, more
21 leisurely.
22 A. MR. POWER: All right. Good afternoon.
23 Thomas Michael Power
24 Research Professor
25 Economics Department
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1552
1 University of Montana
2 Missoula, Montana 59801
3 Summary of Submission on Economics
4 Society of Grasslands Naturalists
5 EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project
6 Joint Review Panel
7 Calgary, Alberta
8 October 15, 2008
9 My economics submission applied a relatively
10 small number of widely-accepted economics principles
11 to the EnCana infill proposal on the Suffield National
12 Wildlife Area. The intent was to use economics to
13 provide insight into some of the major public policy
14 issues raised by EnCana's proposal.
15 In this summary I would like to walk through
16 those economic principles and indicate some of the
17 insights that they can provide.
18 1. Diminishing returns
19 One of the oldest insights of economics is
20 the principle of diminishing returns. The general
21 idea behind diminishing returns is that, as we
22 continue to pursue a particular type of production or
23 consumption activity to the exclusion of other things,
24 after a point, the value to us of additional units of
25 that production or consumption begins to decline and
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1553
1 the value of those things we have been ignoring begins
2 to rise. That shift in economic value is what
3 ultimately leads us to diversify our production and
4 consumption activities rather than continuing to focus
5 on only one or a very few things. This principle has
6 important economic implications for evaluating
7 EnCana's proposal for infill drilling in the Suffield
8 National Wildlife Area.
9 That infill proposal is just a small part of
10 very extensive natural gas developments that cover the
11 prairie lands across southern Alberta and southwestern
12 Saskatchewan. As a result of that natural gas
13 development and other human activities, intact natural
14 prairie lands have become increasingly threatened and
15 increasingly rare while natural gas wells have become
16 increasingly prevalent and common. In that sense, one
17 would expect the value of unique prairie ecosystems
18 such as the Suffield National Wildlife Area, was
19 intended to protect, to rise relative to the value of
20 the small increment of additional natural gas that
21 could be obtained by further drilling within the
22 National Wildlife Area.
23 We have lots of one thing, natural gas, and
24 an ever-shrinking amount of another, intact prairie
25 ecosystems and the natural services they provide. At
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1554
1 some point, as more and more land is committed to
2 natural gas production and other commercial economic
3 activities, the natural area values associated with
4 the increasingly scarce, scarce natural prairie lands
5 will exceed the incremental value of the natural gas
6 that can be extracted. At that point it would be
7 economically rational to choose protecting the remnant
8 prairie lands by choosing not to further occupy and
9 develop those lands for natural gas.
10 2. Opportunity Cost
11 The second economic concept that I used in my
12 submission was that of opportunity costs.
13 The concept of opportunity costs seeks to
14 measure what it is we will actually go without when we
15 choose one course of action over another. It is
16 relevant in this case because central to a decision on
17 infill drilling is the question of what we would gain
18 or lose if the infill drilling does or does not
19 proceed.
20 That opportunity cost can be measured by
21 asking how producers and consumers coordinated by
22 markets would adjust if the infill drilling in the
23 National Wildlife Area is not approved. In response,
24 EnCana and other natural gas producers are likely to
25 invest in developing a natural gas resource somewhere
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1555
1 else that might not be quite as attractive an
2 investment. The price of natural gas might go up
3 slightly encouraging natural gas consumers to consider
4 using natural gas more efficiently or shifting to
5 another source of heat or energy.
6 One thing we can be certain of, however, we
7 will not simply go without the energy services that
8 the infill drilling might have provided. We will
9 adapt and meet our ways in another way, meet our needs
10 in another way. The opportunity cost is the
11 difference in the cost of obtaining an increment of
12 natural gas from the Suffield National Wildlife Area
13 and the cost of satisfying our demand for energy
14 services by other means. It is that difference in the
15 cost of these alternative sources of energy services
16 that we lose or gain.
17 Given that the alternative might simply be an
18 infill investment in some other southeastern Alberta
19 natural gas field, the difference in cost, the
20 opportunity cost of not proceeding with the Suffield
21 infill proposal, is likely to be quite small.
22 The opportunity cost could actually be
23 negative. Cost effective improvements in the
24 efficiency with which we use a smaller amount of
25 natural gas may cost less than the gas itself,
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1556
1 improving overall wellbeing while also reducing the
2 risk to the Suffield National Wildlife Area.
3 There is something economically disorienting
4 about proposals to "conserve" natural gas through
5 in-fill drilling in a natural area of national
6 significance while doing almost nothing to use the gas
7 so produced as efficiently as possible. In that
8 economic setting, there is no opportunity cost to
9 leaving the gas in place and pursuing energy services
10 by investing in those energy efficiency measures
11 instead. In fact, there is an economic, economic loss
12 associated with pursuing the gas because that is the
13 higher cost alternative. When the environmental risks
14 and costs associated with still more natural gas
15 development in the National Wildlife Area are also
16 included, the loss is likely to be even greater.
17 3. Economic Differences between Commercial Commodities
18 and the Environmental Services of Unique Natural Areas
19 The third economic principle I've developed
20 in my submission deals with the economic differences
21 between commercial commodities and the environmental
22 services provided by unique natural areas.
23 Natural gas is a commercial commodity that is
24 not desired directly but serves, rather, as an input
25 in consumption and production processes, processes
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1557
1 that, in fact, are what serves our needs and desires.
2 For that reason, there is a broad range of alternative
3 ways of obtaining the equivalent energy services that
4 could come from the infill proposal from the Suffield
5 National Wildlife Area. There is not just one way to
6 keep our homes comfortable or our businesses
7 energized. There is a broad and constantly expanding
8 range of alternatives, substitutes to or substitutes
9 for, the small increment of natural gas that might
10 come from infill drilling in the Suffield National
11 Wildlife Area. That is, there are close substitutes
12 and the range of substitutes available will grow over
13 time. In the short term, EnCana and/or other energy
14 companies will simply produce more natural gas
15 somewhere else. In the intermediate term, investments
16 will be made to increase the energy services obtained
17 from every unit of natural gas or energy used.
18 Technological change will also make renewable energy
19 resources more efficient and cost effective. We will
20 learn how to serve our need for energy services at a
21 lower and lower environmental cost.
22 While there are readily available low-cost
23 substitutes for the energy services that would
24 otherwise come from infill drilling in the Suffield
25 National Wildlife Area, the same is not true of the
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1558
1 Suffield National Wildlife Area itself. EnCana
2 recognizes the uniqueness of this natural area at the
3 national level. It was that uniqueness that led it be
4 included in the National Wildlife Area system to begin
5 with. Business firms cannot "manufacture" several or
6 even one new Suffield National Wildlife Area.
7 Electronic pictures or scientific studies of what that
8 Wildlife Area used to be do not even approach the
9 value of actually retaining the unique character of
10 that area as a fully functioning ecosystem.
11 Basically, the Suffield National Wildlife
12 Area is irreplaceable. That means that the cost
13 associated with its damage or loss is the full value
14 of that natural area, not just the difference between
15 its value and some close substitute. There is no
16 close substitute.
17 Looking forward, the gap between these two
18 values or opportunity costs, the natural gas commodity
19 value and the environmental values, will grow. While
20 technology and manufacturing will allow us to continue
21 to develop alternative ways of obtaining energy
22 services with as little environmental impact as
23 possible, technology and manufacturing will not
24 provide us with any more unique natural areas. In
25 fact, past trends that have steadily reduced the
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1559
1 number of intact natural areas will continue to shrink
2 that supply.
3 Because of the ways in which technology can
4 be brought to bear, to extend our access to energy
5 services at relatively low cost, but cannot be brought
6 to bear to replace the loss of unique natural systems,
7 over time the economic value of places like the
8 Suffield National Wildlife Area will increase relative
9 to the energy resources that might further be
10 extracted from it. That steady rise in the future
11 economic value of a preserved National Wildlife Area
12 must be kept in mind when decisions are being made
13 today about pursuing every last bit of natural gas
14 that might be profitably extracted from that unique
15 natural area.
16 To threaten the Suffield National Wildlife
17 Area in the pursuit of a small amount of additional
18 natural gas is to risk irreversible damage to a unique
19 irreplaceable gift of Nature in the pursuit of what
20 today remains a relatively common and cheap commodity
21 that is quickly consumed and for which there are many
22 substitutes. Sacrificing the unique and valuable for
23 that which is common and plentiful can only be
24 described as economically irrational.
25 4. The Economics of "Wasting" Natural Gas
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1560
1 The fourth economic concept I wanted to
2 briefly comment on is the idea of wasting natural gas
3 by leaving it in the ground.
4 Leaving natural gas under the Suffield
5 National Wildlife Area is not necessarily an economic
6 waste. At this point, EnCana intends to leave 57
7 percent of the original gas in place because it will
8 not be profitable to extract it. Most mineral
9 resources in the earth are left in place because the
10 cost of extracting and processing them exceeds their
11 value. Leaving in place a small amount of natural gas
12 that would be financially profitable for EnCana to
13 extract is not an economic waste if doing so protects
14 the unique values associated with the Suffield
15 National Wildlife Area. Just as EnCana weighs the
16 private costs and benefits and concludes that it is
17 not an economic "waste" to leave 57 percent of the gas
18 in place, it also would not be a "waste" if, after
19 considering the values associated with the Suffield
20 National Wildlife Area, it was concluded that the high
21 costs associated with damaging those values justified
22 not proceeding with the proposed infill development.
23 Just as private costs can justify proceeding no
24 further with extraction, high public costs can
25 certainly lead to a similar conclusion to proceed no
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1561
1 further with natural gas development in the Suffield
2 National Wildlife Area.
3 The recent decision of the Saskatchewan
4 Government to put the most environmentally-sensitive
5 parts of the Great Sand Hills off limits to on-site
6 natural gas development in order to protect their
7 natural area values is an example of a Government's
8 judgment that the environmental costs of natural gas
9 development can be so high that it is not worth
10 pursuing the natural gas resource. Despite the
11 potential loss of provincial government revenues,
12 employment and income, and energy company profits, the
13 Saskatchewan Government did not see this decision as
14 "wasting", in any sense, the natural gas resource.
15 Instead, the Saskatchewan Government concluded that by
16 restricting natural gas development, and I quote:
17 "[T]he province will continue to
18 fulfill its commitments for a
19 brighter, stronger, and sustainable
20 future for the Great Sand Hills and
21 to ensure future generations of
22 Saskatchewan families continue to
23 enjoy this unique and
24 internationally-recognized legacy."
25 It should be kept in mind that the Great Sand
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1562
1 Hills are not part of the Canadian National Wildlife
2 Area system.
3 5. The Impact of Infill development on jobs, incomes, and
4 Government revenues
5 Finally, and very briefly, I would like to
6 comment on the importance of potential jobs, income
7 and government revenues associated with the infill
8 proposal proceeding.
9 The employment opportunities, payroll, and
10 provincial revenues that the proposed infill drilling
11 would produce are, as EnCana points out, negligible or
12 insignificant from a regional and provincial point of
13 view. Jobs, income and government revenues provide no
14 economic justification for threatening the ecological
15 integrity of the Suffield National Wildlife Area.
16 Thank you.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Dr. Power.
18 A. MR. WALLIS: Now we'll proceed to Henry
19 Binder.
20 A. MR. BINDER: Chairman, Panel, Ladies and
21 Gentlemen.
22 MS. KLIMEK:
23 Q. Just hold for a second, Mr. Binder. I was just going
24 to make a comment about your references in your
25 paper?
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1563
1 A. Okay.
2 MS. KLIMEK: Mr. Binder, in his paper, has
3 put in references, but rather than repeat them, if
4 it's okay with the Panel, the Court Reporter could
5 just put them into the transcript or we'll have them
6 on the exhibit because it will get quite tedious to,
7 to say them.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, that sounds, sounds
9 fine.
10 A. MR. BINDER: My comments are going to be
11 directed at a very specific issue, and only one issue,
12 and that is going to be in relation to incremental
13 recovery and the work that EnCana has done in this
14 regard and has presented in Figure 2-3 which it
15 indicates reflects the production forecasts for the
16 infill drilling program in the National Wildlife Area.
17 Presentation to the Joint Review Panel
18 By Henry Binder
19 RE: EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project
20 Incremental vs. Accelerated Production
21 EnCana's Figure 2-3 (Ex 002-110 EIS Vol 2
22 p.2-8) depicts the initial burst in production,
23 represented by the blue area, associated with infill
24 drilling. A key issue is whether this burst is
25 primarily incremental production, that is, production
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1564
1 that could otherwise not be realized, or is it largely
2 accelerated production, that is, production that comes
3 at the expense of what existing wells would otherwise
4 have produced.
5 Inconsistency
6 Before proceeding, it is important to note
7 that Figure 2-3 is not an accurate depiction as it
8 stands, or at least not consistent with EnCana's other
9 decline results.
10 EnCana indicates that its reserves estimation
11 is based on decline analysis (Ex 002-060 #JRP 5) which
12 indicates remaining life estimates of 20 to 25 years
13 for existing wells and 20 to 40 years for infill wells
14 (Ex 002-110 EIS Vol.1 p.2-8).
15 In the figure one can readily see that by
16 2028 [here in this region in 2028] existing well
17 production is continuing at a healthy rate (at 6.8
18 MMcf/day) and infill well production has just about
19 petered out (at only about 2.5 MMcf/day). This is not
20 consistent with infill wells generally being expected
21 to outlast existing wells.
22 There's a typo in the paper there. Where it
23 says "infill wells" it should read "existing wells".
24 Hearing Testimony
25 EnCana's evidence at the hearing appears to
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1565
1 resolve this inconsistency by explaining that well
2 interference can be accounted for in the figure by
3 attributing some to the production of infill wells to
4 existing wells to compensate for interference losses.
5 (See Hearing Transcript October 7, 2008 Vol.2 pp.363
6 to 366).
7 EnCana's explanation can be illustrated in
8 Figure 2-3 by drawing a line below the red and blue
9 boundary to depict reduced production of existing
10 wells because of well interference and showing this
11 being compensated for by increased production of
12 infill wells, leaving total production not unaffected.
13 This circumstance is illustrated in Figure 2-3A.
14 On this interpretation, the blue area,
15 accordingly, does not represent actual production of
16 infill wells, as actual infill production would have
17 to be greater than what is shown to compensate for
18 interference effects. (See p.364, lines 23-25 of
19 above Transcript). In fact, what the blue area has to
20 represent in this explanation is incremental
21 production, which is less than actual production. On
22 this view, the type curve forecast labelled "Suffield
23 National Wildlife Area Type Curve" [in Ex 002-060
24 #JRP14] represents only incremental production for a
25 typical infill well, not actual production, which has
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1566
1 to be larger.
2 The problem with this explanation is that,
3 despite significant well interference, incremental
4 production is not reduced. This doesn't accord with
5 reality, since if the behavior of the reservoir is
6 more like a conventional reservoir, with significant
7 interference, there should be less incremental
8 production. Also, in this circumstance, one would
9 expect the total production and pre-infill curves to
10 cross as a consequence of well interference, but they
11 can't. This is because the type curve figure clearly
12 shows production approaching zero and it is
13 effectively, after aggregating, this production which
14 is added to the forecast pre-infill curve.
15 The simple fact that the pre-infill
16 production forecast continues to play a role in
17 establishing a lower boundary for total production
18 indicates that EnCana's new explanation is not
19 correct. This boundary is only plausible if
20 pre-infill wells are forecast to actually produce
21 120 bcf. With well interference, this lower boundary
22 for total production would not exist. Total
23 production could then approach the horizontal axis, or
24 zero, as expected.
25 Finally, it is clear from the discussion
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1567
1 below that the type curve reflects actual production
2 of a typical infill well. By not recognizing this,
3 EnCana's proposed rehabilitation appears to solve the
4 first inconsistency noted above, but adds new
5 problems. Figure 2-3 can be rehabilitated to reflect
6 reality, but this can only be done by first accepting
7 what it currently represents.
8 Consistent Explanation
9 To provide a consistent picture of production
10 forecasts, it is necessary to believe, as EnCana
11 states, that it produced Figure 2-3 in accordance with
12 its understanding of the complex geology of the
13 reservoir. This understanding is one of isolated
14 trapped gas being captured by the infill wells.
15 Accordingly, the assumptions made are that existing
16 wells will continue to produce what they are forecast
17 to produce despite infill drilling and that actual
18 production of infill wells based upon performance can
19 be legitimately added to that.
20 Evidence on Record
21 The position EnCana has maintained prior to
22 the hearing is clear from the following excerpts of
23 evidence on the record. (Highlighting in bold is
24 added). [First question]:
25 "Why in EIS Figure 2-3 do the
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1568
1 proposed wells not reduce forecast
2 production of existing wells, as
3 one would expect?"
4 And this is the response from EnCana dated
5 August 17th, 2007:
6 "The historical and production
7 forecast shown in Figure 2-3 is
8 shown as stacked information; i.e.,
9 the Future Production from the
10 project is added to the Historical
11 and Forecast Production to
12 illustrate EnCana's estimate of
13 total production from all wells
14 within the Suffield National
15 Wildlife Area.
16 The forecasts from current,
17 from current wells was derived from
18 decline analysis: the incremental
19 production from future wells was
20 derived from a tight well. The
21 tight well behavior was established
22 from well performance from EnCana's
23 D6/D8 pilot which has not exhibited
24 well interference."
25 (Ex.002-033 IR No. CEAA-EIS-008 #Grass5 A p.2).
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1569
1 Another question to EnCana:
2 "Does this figure simply hide the
3 interference at play?"
4 [The figure being referred to here is a
5 reproduction of Figure 2-3].
6 The response (b) dated January 31, 2008:
7 "Therefore, these figures are not
8 hiding interference. They merely
9 show the production profiles
10 associated with the reserve that
11 will be recovered. Infill
12 locations target the trapped gas
13 between the existing locations and
14 so have the effect of capturing
15 remaining benefits. The production
16 profile of the existing wells is
17 governed by the reserves that are
18 being recovered by the existing
19 wells than, likewise, for the
20 infill wells."
21 Also, in further support of a blue area
22 representing the actual production forecast for infill
23 wells, we find the following statements:
24 "Further, and regarding the type
25 curve, the D6/D8 and the D14/D16
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1570
1 pilots were selected as the most
2 representative of the
3 behavior/recoveries expected from
4 additional drilling within the
5 National Wildlife Area. From these
6 pilots, a single type curve was
7 derived. This type curve
8 illustrated in the following figure
9 represents the behavior of an
10 average infill well. Each well is
11 expected to recover approximately
12 100 million cubic feet. Together
13 with the project schedule of 425
14 wells per year drilled during the
15 fall/winter months, the type curve
16 was used to develop the total for
17 project forecast shown in the EIS."
18 And also there's a further comment:
19 "The production profile from an
20 infill well within the pilot areas
21 demonstrates rapid initial declines
22 following by a long period of low
23 decline rates. This is
24 demonstrated by the type curve
25 developed for a typical proposed
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1571
1 infill well. The type curve is
2 shown below."
3 So, clearly, this type curve is to reflect the
4 production profile from an infill well, so it
5 represents actual production of an infill well.
6 There are other supporting statements, but
7 very clearly EnCana is indicating that the red area
8 represents the actual forecast production of existing
9 wells. Infill drilling does not result in a change in
10 the forecast recovery of 16 wells which are expected
11 to recover an additional 120 billion cubic feet over
12 their remaining life.
13 Also, the blue area represents actual
14 forecast production of infill wells. Since it
15 reflects all of forecast production and not merely
16 incremental production, it can't expand to compensate
17 for interference losses.
18 To account for well interference in Figure
19 2-3 we must recognize that EnCana's forecast infill
20 production and assumed pre-infill forecast would not
21 change. With interference, the figure, therefore,
22 reflects an exaggerated picture of production
23 forecasts.
24 To account for well interference, the
25 production captured at the expense of existing wells
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1572
1 must be attributed back. In this -- in the figure,
2 this is illustrated by the blue area sinking down into
3 the red area.
4 So as shown in Figure 2.3B on the screen,
5 since the blue area represents actual production of
6 infill wells in a no-interference case, and the red
7 area below reflects the existing well production
8 forecast, if there is well interference, the whole
9 blue area has to shift down into the red area.
10 The consequences of the blue area shifting
11 down are shown in Figure 2-3B. Part of what appeared
12 to be incremental production in this region is merely
13 replacement for interference losses of existing wells.
14 Also, the reduction in incremental production
15 in this figure depends upon the extent of well
16 interference. So just to interject a comment here, if
17 there's more well interference, if we get down here
18 somewhere, the whole, the whole area shifts down even
19 more. If we have more well interference down here,
20 this blue area would shift down more. And, as a
21 consequence, incremental production would be reduced
22 to an even greater extent.
23 Now, Figure 2-3C also reveals accelerated
24 production represented by the light blue area. In
25 that area of the diagram, production rates with infill
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1573
1 are less than what pre-infill wells would have
2 achieved in the absence of infill drilling. This
3 wedged-shaped area must be subtracted from the blue
4 wedge-shaped area across from it to arrive at actual
5 incremental production.
6 And as can be seen in the figure, the blue
7 wedge could become quite large over time. Even at 4
8 million cubic feet per day, this amounts to 1.4
9 billion cubic feet per year, or 40 billion cubic feet
10 of accelerated production in 30 years.
11 So if I can, if I can just interject here,
12 this area here, this light blue area, you can see here
13 along the blue curve I'm pointing to here, with infill
14 production, well life would be shortened to about
15 here, which is what one would expect with well
16 interference. But if the infill hadn't taken place,
17 this curve here running along the top of this light
18 blue area would reflect production that could have
19 been achieved by existing wells but now can't be
20 achieved. And that has to be subtracted from the area
21 over here across, from the crossing to the left of it,
22 so that, so that with well interference you get two
23 effects; you get a very significant loss of
24 incremental production associated with the well
25 interference, then you get even more loss because of
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1574
1 this accelerated production, this light blue area,
2 that has to be subtracted in order to arrive at
3 incremental production.
4 So this figure accounts for what is happening
5 in the reservoir in a very reasonable way and in
6 accordance with what one would expect.
7 Since the last incremental production is
8 directly linked to the extent of the interference
9 effects, an appreciation of this loss can be gained by
10 reviewing the Martin and Brussay & Associates
11 (phonetic) results depicted in their Figures 4, 5 and
12 8, 9.
13 So just to show what Martin and Brussay
14 arrived at, is a very similar situation where you have
15 the curves crossing, you have the infill well
16 production coming on stream, and a huge shift down, a
17 significant shift down in this case in what the
18 existing wells are now expected to produce. So you
19 have the interference effect, you have these curves
20 crossing, and then this area here, this is on a log
21 long scale so it's not as easy to appreciate, but this
22 area here would have to be subtracted from the area to
23 the left of the crossing.
24 So these show significant interference
25 effects in the case of the D6/D8.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1575
1 Now, in the case of the D14/D16, as shown
2 here, the interference effects aren't, aren't nearly
3 as great. But you still have this crossing here, but
4 it comes at a later point in time.
5 So by, by properly making the adjustments to
6 the Figure that is being presented by EnCana, moving
7 away from its very strict assumption of no well
8 interference and accounting for well interference, we
9 end up with a picture that looks much like the
10 pictures in the Martin Brussay report that are based
11 on actual quantitative analysis.
12 To continue on. That these interference
13 effects cannot be attributed to backout as EnCana
14 claims is confirmed by EnCana's statement that the
15 backout response disappears in 3 to 6 months.
16 I didn't expect it would take me this long to
17 read this. I apologize. It seems to be taking quite
18 a while. But we only have two paragraphs to go.
19 I chose to look at the hyperbolic cases since
20 the consensus is that this decline is appropriate for
21 tight rock reservoirs. It is noteworthy that, after
22 Figure 2-3 is properly adjusted to account for well
23 interference, it looks quite similar to Figures 4 and
24 8, which show reduced production of pre-infill wells
25 and the curves crossing to reflect accelerated
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1576
1 production. The importance of correcting Figure 2-3
2 to properly account for well interference lies in the
3 fact that these profiles show a reservoir performance
4 and take into account all of the complexity of the
5 tight rock formations. The decline analysis includes
6 whatever is happening in the reservoir.
7 The primary problem with EnCana's suggested
8 revision of the Figure is that EnCana appears to
9 sometimes want to abandon its position of no well
10 interference but stay with its number on incremental
11 recovery. However, well interference and reduced
12 incremental recovery go hand in hand.
13 As can be seen from Figures 5 and 9 -- that
14 should be 8 and 9 -- if one waits long enough, and
15 presumes end rates within a reasonable range, forecast
16 production, forecast production can be zero. Like,
17 this is the forecast for infill well production and
18 this line here shows existing wells. And over time,
19 if this is with the appropriate end rate, this curve
20 here can come out and does, in fact, in this analysis
21 reach the same level of production if a lower end rate
22 is assumed here. Then for this curve -- and you can
23 arrive at the same level of cumulative production
24 which indicates that incremental production would then
25 be zero.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1577
1 Now, these forecasts are subject to error, as
2 all are, but based on this work and on the Martin
3 Brussay results, it's clear that incremental recovery
4 is, indeed, very small. And I would ask the Panel to
5 take that into account.
6 I would like to add that Mr. Sedgwick agrees
7 with the results of this analysis, but he indicated to
8 me that he doesn't necessarily agree with the wording.
9 You may have a similar view, I don't know,
10 but he would certainly express it differently.
11 Thank you.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Binder.
13 A. MR. WALLIS: And if we could now turn to
14 Mr. Sedgwick.
15 A. MR. SEDGWICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
16 Panel Members, Ladies and Gentlemen.
17 Martin and Brussay was approached in late May
18 of 2008, which was also pretty late in these
19 proceedings. We were approached by Mr. Binder on
20 behalf of the Grasslands Naturalists. They were
21 looking for an independent review of EnCana's
22 representations on incremental reserves and reservoir
23 issues. Our initial reaction --
24 MS. KLIMEK: Mr. Sedgwick, could I just
25 ask you to slow down a little bit. Our Court Reporter
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1578
1 is trying to write what you're saying.
2 A. MR. SEDGWICK: Sorry. I'm not sure I
3 can, but I'll try.
4 Our initial reaction was that there would not
5 be enough time to do a complete review. However, we
6 agreed to look at some of EnCana's submissions,
7 particularly JRPs 5 and 7, and get back to Mr. Binder
8 regarding what we could do, if anything, within the
9 timeframe.
10 When we reviewed JRPs number 7, the
11 inconsistency in the evaluations between the D6/D8
12 pilot and the other analogies, including the D14/D16
13 pilot, stood out like a red flag. The D6/D8 analysis
14 used exponential declines and an external comparison
15 of the performance of the pilot developed at 16 wells
16 per section to the performance of a group of offset
17 sections developed at 8 wells per section.
18 The other analogies, including the D14/D16,
19 were evaluated using hyperbolic declines and an
20 internal comparison of the performance of the same
21 section at various stages of development.
22 This latter is the normal approach to
23 estimating incremental reserves. We got back to
24 Mr. Binder and said we could look at the decline
25 analysis of the D6/D8 and D14/D16 pilots which were
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1579
1 the primary analogies used for the National Wildlife
2 Area.
3 In our report dated July 16th we presented
4 our evaluation of the two pilots which was done using
5 a consistent methodology. Our method was to compare
6 the analysis of the performance at various stages of
7 development within the pilot area. The results were
8 similar to EnCana's on the D14/D16 pilot, but much
9 lower on the D6/D8 pilot.
10 Based on a review of offsetting sections, we
11 suggested that the D6/D8 pilot was located in the area
12 of best reservoir, or sweet spot, and that the
13 reservoir quality degraded as you moved away,
14 particularly to the west and to the north.
15 We indicated that a comparison between
16 different well groupings to determine incremental
17 reserves was not valid as the reservoir quality was
18 not the same.
19 Our conclusion was an average incremental
20 reserve of 100 million per infill well for the entire
21 project was unreasonably high. In our opinion, an
22 average of 40 million per well was more reasonable.
23 This is incremental reserves.
24 We have not changed this conclusion. EnCana
25 defended their methodology on D6/D8 saying that
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1580
1 internally there was not a sufficient period of
2 stabilized production.
3 Sorry. Are you caught up? Where would you
4 like me to start? Go back to... Okay.
5 Internally, there was not a sufficient period
6 of stabilized production at 6.5 wells per section.
7 We agree that this is problematic but
8 maintain that our best-efforts analysis is valid and
9 more so than EnCana's method. One of EnCana's
10 defences was that they had a better understanding of
11 the reservoir. True. And they should have. But,
12 remarkably, in their latest response, referring to
13 Exhibit 2-124, Table 1, which I'm assuming you have
14 it. It was the latest response. They basically
15 confirm our analysis that there are variations in
16 reservoir quality, that the reservoir degrades to the
17 west and north of the D6/D8 pilot, and defend that the
18 D6/D8 pilot is in an area of best reservoir. In other
19 words, using the offset sections as a comparison for
20 determining incremental reserves is also very
21 problematic.
22 We can see from Table 1 that the alternate
23 recovery reserves at 8 wells per section vary
24 substantially from 2 bcf per section to over 5 bcf per
25 section.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1581
1 On the other hand, it would take only a
2 relatively small variation of just 400 million per
3 section, which could be reasonably expected, to change
4 the incremental reserve estimate by 50 percent.
5 In that regard, in our second letter dated
6 September 29th, we illustrated the problem with
7 EnCana's D6/D8 methodology by pointing out that the
8 same methodology applied to the D14/D16 pilot, using
9 the D14/D16 east offset, would yield an incremental
10 reserve of zero.
11 EnCana appears to have misread that report.
12 In their latest response, EnCana claims, and I'm
13 quoting here:
14 "Arguments against any incremental
15 recovery are contradictory to the
16 tight nature of this reservoir."
17 We agree and we have not argued against any
18 incremental recovery. Our objective was to show the
19 problem with EnCana's D6/D8 methodology. And we
20 believe their response actually confirms our point.
21 In addition to the D14/D16 east offset well
22 being looked at by Martin and Brussey, EnCana looked
23 at two more well groupings:
24 One they called the D14/D16 west offset,
25 which they discussed in Paragraph 4 of their response.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1582
1 This is the most northwesterly grouping. And the
2 ultimate recoveries were the lowest of all the
3 groupings shown in Table 1. There were no surprises
4 there.
5 The second group, though, appears to be an
6 offset ring surrounding the D14/D16 pilot. It is not
7 discussed directly in the text, nor does it appear in
8 Table 1. The results however, do show up in Figure 3
9 of the response that is the curve, it's the blue curve
10 labelled offset, in brackets, 8 wells per section.
11 In Paragraph 5 of the text, this Figure 3 is
12 represented as an updated analysis of the original
13 analysis of the D14/D16 pilot which was presented in
14 JRP number 7, Figure 7C, only this analysis includes
15 -- the updated analysis included updated production
16 performance.
17 A close look at Figure 3 shows that it is
18 more than just an update. In fact, it is an attempt
19 to re-evaluate the D14/D16 pilot using the same
20 methodology as used in D6/D8, in the D6/D8 case.
21 And they have also changed the decline
22 analysis of the current 16 well performance, the 16
23 well per section performance, to increase the ultimate
24 recovery from 3.3 bcf per section to 4.4 bcf per
25 section, which is an increase of over 30 percent.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1583
1 This is a significant change. And any reserve auditor
2 or reserve committee would question the justification
3 based on the actual new data.
4 A comparison of Figure 3 and JRP number 7,
5 Figure 7C shows that the small amount of production
6 data added provides no justification, justification
7 for any change, let alone such a significant change.
8 Ironically, if they had used the original ultimate
9 recovery of 3.3 bcf per section as shown in JRP number
10 7, their comparison to the offset group would have
11 resulted in zero incremental reserves.
12 In our initial report we also raise the issue
13 of acceleration. We established that there would be a
14 significant acceleration component and that it would
15 have a significant economic impact.
16 To clarify, oil and gas reserves are valued
17 by discounting at an annual discount rate, the value
18 of the product in the year it's expected to be
19 produced, the number of intervening years for the
20 present. The cumulative discounted value for each
21 year of production represents the net present value of
22 the reserve. The process is essentially the reverse
23 of an interest calculation. Obviously, the similar
24 (indiscernible) of gas or a barrel of oil is likely to
25 be produced, the more value it has as a reserve. Each
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1584
1 of the rate versus time projections in our report is
2 accompanied by the associated rate versus time
3 projection. Both the D6/D8 and D14/D16 plots show
4 that the pre-infill and post-infill projections cross,
5 which is a valid indication of acceleration, whether
6 or not you can see the interference at the wellhead.
7 EnCana has chosen to downplay the impact of
8 acceleration claiming they've seen no evidence of
9 interference. They have chosen not to present any
10 rate versus time projections. Evidence provided by
11 EnCana last week implied that our rate versus time
12 projections were interpretive and EnCana did not agree
13 with them. Specifically, EnCana stated, and this is
14 in the transcript for October 7th:
15 "In reference to rate versus time
16 projections", and I quote, "a rate
17 cume is more appropriate, is a more
18 appropriate analysis technique.
19 And where it crosses is kind of
20 neither here nor there."
21 We want to make it clear that rate versus time,
22 rate versus cume projections do not represent
23 different analysis techniques. They are simply
24 different visual presentations which highlight
25 different attributes, attributes of the same analysis.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1585
1 Any rate versus cume projection can be plotted on a
2 rate versus time graph and vice versa. The rate
3 versus time is simply the derivative of the rate
4 versus cume with respect to time.
5 This is a mathematical exercise, not an
6 interpretive one.
7 Also, where the curves cross is not neither
8 here nor there. Integrating the volume represented by
9 the wedge formed by the curves after crossover is a
10 valid estimate on accelerated production.
11 It should be noted here that an economic
12 evaluation by EnCana, its reserve auditors, would have
13 required converting the rate versus cume projections
14 to a rate versus time forecast.
15 I would like to make a couple comments about
16 reserve auditors, too. In their evidence presented
17 last week, EnCana relied on and expressed confidence
18 in their reserve auditor. While we appreciate the
19 sentiment, it can be misleading. A reserve auditor's
20 job is to estimate and categorize corporate reserves
21 within certain probabilistic confidence levels.
22 EnCana, under NI51-101, which is the, the National
23 Instrument for reporting standards for oil and gas
24 issuer's. Under NI51, for example, there should be at
25 least a 90 percent probability that the reserves
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1586
1 actually recovered will meet or exceed the estimated
2 proved volumes. The evaluators rely on aggregation to
3 achieve these goals. Most reserve reports for public
4 recording issuers contain statements to the effect the
5 confidence levels expressed in the reports are from
6 the aggregate and any extraction of individual,
7 individual evaluations may not meet the same
8 confidence levels.
9 In EnCana's AIF, Annual Information Form, for
10 the year-end 2007 filed on CR, EnCana booked over 13
11 tcf, trillion cubic feet, of net proved gas reserved
12 worldwide, including 7 tcf in Canada, of which 4 tcf
13 were evaluated by McDaniel. This represents gas
14 reserves only and does not include liquids.
15 The 125 bcf in gross reserves discussed --
16 sorry. Yes. Okay. Where do I have to go back to
17 again? Oh, you're not missing that much. Okay.
18 In EnCana's AIF for the year-end 2007 filed
19 on CR, EnCana booked over 13 tcfs, or trillion cubic
20 feet, of net proved gas reserves worldwide, including
21 7 tcf in Canada, of which 4 tcf were evaluated by
22 McDaniel. This represents the gas reserves only and
23 does not include liquids.
24 The 125 bcf of gross reserves discussed for
25 the NWA infill project represents only about 3 percent
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1587
1 of the proved gas reserves evaluated by McDaniel,
2 unless the 1 percent of the total proved gas reserves.
3 Reserve estimates for this Project could
4 sustain significant revisions without affecting the
5 overall confidence levels of the Corporation's
6 aggregate reserves. For a company of EnCana's size,
7 the degree of rigor actually declined to an individual
8 reserve estimate may be considerably less than implied
9 by the aggregate confidence levels without affecting
10 those aggregate confidence levels.
11 In conclusion, EnCana has stressed their
12 better informed analysis and their confidence in their
13 numbers. They're asking you to trust them.
14 We think our analysis shown has shown a level
15 of inconsistencies that belies that trust. In our
16 analysis, we did not have access to all the data,
17 which EnCana had, and also we were restricted by time.
18 However, our analysis is consistent and reasonable and
19 should be seriously considered.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Thank you,
21 Mr. Sedgwick.
22 A. MR. WALLIS: Yes, thank you. And
23 Dr. Power, I think you will conclude the economic
24 section here.
25 A. DR. POWER: Yes, I just have a minute or
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1588
1 a minute-and-a-half trying to summarize.
2 The justification for additional industrial
3 activity in the Suffield National Wildlife Area and
4 the environmental risks associated with it is the
5 benefit of the incremental natural gas that can be
6 retrieved by infill drilling.
7 Our economic submissions have made several
8 points about the size of those incremental natural gas
9 benefits.
10 First, some of the benefits of infill
11 drilling will be accelerated gas production that is
12 profitable to EnCana but does not represent net
13 incremental production.
14 Second, the net incremental production is
15 likely to be smaller than EnCana estimates.
16 Third, in the context of the province, Canada
17 and North America, the incremental production will be
18 tiny and easily replaced by other sources that do not
19 threaten unique natural areas. The value of the
20 Suffield National Wildlife Area however, is huge, and
21 the value will only grow over time relative to the
22 temporary value of accelerated production and
23 consumption of the natural gas.
24 Fourth, and finally, the Prairies of Alberta
25 and Saskatchewan have already been squeezed
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1589
1 intensively to give up their natural gas and other
2 resources. Given the extent and intensity of that use
3 and the damage to Prairie lands, it is economically
4 rational to set some of the few remaining examples of
5 Prairie ecosystems off limits to further industrial
6 development such as the Saskatchewan Government has
7 already begun to do in the great Sand Hills.
8 Thank you.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
10 MS. KLIMEK: Mr. Chairman, I just want to
11 give you a road map where you're going so you can
12 gauge where you want to break. We're done the
13 economic side. And the roadmap is Mr. Unger is going
14 to go over the policy and legislation. And then we're
15 going to go into the biodiversity side. So I leave it
16 up to you when you think a break -- if we need one.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: I think given your
18 intervention, this is probably -- I think what you're
19 doing, Ms. Klimek, is making a suggestion that we
20 should have a break now, so I do accept that. We will
21 stop for about 15 minutes.
22 MS. KLIMEK: Okay. Thank you.
23 (SHORT BREAK)
24 THE CHAIRMAN: My apologies to the Court
25 Reporter. She sits so far from me she's hard to see,
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1590
1 you know.
2 Mr. Lambrecht, please, go ahead.
3 DISCUSSION RE: TIMING:
4 MR. LAMBRECHT: Thank you for recognizing me,
5 Mr. Chairman.
6 With respect to an administrative matter
7 regarding our hours of sitting today, I understand
8 there are four more witnesses to go and what I'm going
9 to ask of the Panel, if it's not all right, is some
10 direction as to the hours in which we might sit to
11 facilitate some forward planning for the events ahead.
12 I have had some discussion with my friends
13 for the environmental groups and for EnCana and
14 advised them that I would like to propose that we
15 break at 6:00 today. I understand from speaking with
16 my friend for this Panel that it is not expected that
17 the remaining presentations will go too far beyond
18 that point and I'm of course reasonable and flexible.
19 However, I would like to suggest in view of
20 the future schedule of the Panel which includes
21 sittings on Saturday and, and Monday and some of the
22 other events that -- looking ahead, that in balancing
23 longer hours with some efficiency of process in the
24 proceedings that might be a reasonable balance to
25 break at 6:00 today. But, again, it's in the hands of
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1591
1 the Panel so I just want to make that point.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Thank you,
3 Mr. Lambrecht. Clearly there is a challenge trying to
4 fit all of these important presentations in, into the
5 evidence and we appreciate the effort that everybody
6 is, is, is setting here and contributing to this
7 hearing process. On the other hand, I, I would like,
8 if we can, to complete the, the evidence from the
9 coalition this evening. I know that this will mean a
10 long sitting but, Ms. Klimek, can you give us a sense
11 as to how much time you think may be required?
12 MS. KLIMEK: This Panel hasn't figured
13 out. Nobody trusts me on time estimates. I think we
14 won't be much past 6:00, 6:30 probably at the outset.
15 We have four left. We would prefer to get the
16 evidence in chief done because it holds together, I
17 think, in a better framework. It's been organized in
18 that way. So I'll sit down so they can get going.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: We would prefer to, if we
20 can, to hear the evidence. Obviously, we may have to
21 take a decision as we, as we proceed, but let's try
22 and, and proceed.
23 I would remind you, though, in the interests
24 of getting this recorded, please slow down. This is
25 not going to in fact speed things down. It may take
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1592
1 longer as a consequence, so I would ask you to speak
2 slowly when you do speak, please.
3 MS. KLIMEK: We've reminded them and in
4 fact we've threatened them with pain, so I think it
5 will work.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: I will rely on your threat to
7 keep them in line, Ms. Klimek. Please proceed.
8 OPENING STATEMENT BY THE COALITION, CONTINUED:
9 A. MR. WALLIS: Okay, Mr. Unger, could you
10 continue with the, with the policy evaluation.
11 A. MR. UNGER: Mr. Chair, Panel, Ladies and
12 Gentlemen.
13 My presentation will focus on some key policy
14 considerations operating in the Suffield National
15 Wildlife Area or NWA. Further details regarding the
16 law and policy framework -- sorry, related to wildlife
17 conservation can be found at Tab 11 of the Coalition
18 submission. Policy around wildlife and protected
19 areas in Canada has evolved over the years to become
20 more inclusive in terms of ecological considerations
21 and more precautionary in how decisions are made.
22 This evolution is reflected in the designation of
23 Suffield NWA and in the various laws and policies that
24 operate in that area.
25 The realm of conservation policy law has
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1593
1 moved from one that is anthropocentric focused on
2 conservation of hunted and commercially related
3 species to a broader more robust system of wildlife
4 and ecosystem protection.
5 An illustration of this is found in past
6 amendments to the Canada Wildlife Act which in 1970s
7 and 80s referred to wildlife as "non-domestic
8 animals". In 1994, the definition of "wildlife" was
9 repealed and the Act amended to apply to all organisms
10 and their habitat. On a broader scale, federal and to
11 a lesser degree provincial policies have progressed
12 from conserving wildlife for human use to conserving
13 ecological integrity protecting species at risk and
14 their habitat and preserving biodiversity for future
15 generations.
16 Pervading this policy evolution is the
17 concept of precaution. The precautionary approach
18 made its way on to the international stage through the
19 1992 Rio Declaration as principle 15. It states:
20 "In order to protect the
21 environment, the precautionary
22 approach shall be widely applied by
23 States according to their
24 capabilities. Where there are
25 threats of serious or irreversible
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1594
1 damage, lack of full scientific
2 certainty shall not be used as a
3 reason for postponing
4 cost-effective measures to prevent
5 environmental degradation."
6 The principle also appears in the preamble of the
7 United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity and
8 the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk.
9 Being a signatory to the Rio Declaration and the
10 Convention of Biological Diversity. The Government of
11 Canada proceeded to integrate the precautionary
12 principle in its domestic policy. The Canadian
13 Environmental Assessment Act adopted the principle in
14 its purpose statement and later reiterates that
15 precaution should be used in administration of the
16 Act.
17 Similarly the Species At Risk Act or SARA
18 specifically adopted the precautionary principle in
19 its preamble. SARA also implicitly incorporates the
20 principle in its provisions that protect critical
21 habitat. The critical habitat provisions recognize
22 that attempting to discern all impacts on an
23 individual organism and how management decisions might
24 impact the individual organism is fraught with
25 uncertainty. It is this uncertainty that requires
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1595
1 that a precautionary approach be taken in making
2 decisions that will have an impact on the NWA.
3 Taking a precautionary approach is not
4 limited to areas of ecological or biological
5 uncertainty. Decision makers are obliged to take a
6 precautionary approach where regulatory uncertainty
7 exists. There's a need to develop regulatory
8 certainty around management monitoring and compliance,
9 around invasive species and reclamation in the
10 Suffield NWA.
11 Canada also has international obligations to
12 protect significant and important wetlands and wetland
13 complexes as espoused by the Ramsar Convention on
14 Wetlands, and to conserve migratory birds. The
15 importance of Suffield in this regard is outlined in
16 the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement or RIAS that
17 accompanied the National Wildlife Area amendment
18 regulation. It states:
19 "The expansion and consolidation of
20 key prairie habitat areas for
21 migratory birds will be an
22 important contribution towards
23 Canada's international agreements,
24 including the Migratory Birds
25 Convention, the sorry, the North
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1596
1 American Waterfowl Management Plan,
2 the North American Bird
3 Conservation Initiative and the
4 United Nations Convention on
5 Biological Diversity."
6 The Convention on Biological Diversity seeks to
7 have biological diversity of member states maintained
8 or sustained. The Convention resulted in the creation
9 of the Canadian Biodiversity Strategy as the central
10 federal policy for biodiversity. Notably, the
11 strategy considers the creation of a network of
12 protected areas as a central management approach to
13 conserving biodiversity. The Convention and Canada's
14 Biodiversity Strategy is implemented into domestic law
15 through numerous instruments including the Canada
16 Wildlife Act and the Wildlife Area Regulations, SARA,
17 the Migratory Bird Convention Act 1994 and the
18 Fisheries Act, to name a few.
19 The Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation is
20 another key policy document aimed at preserving
21 biological diversity. The policy is focused on
22 wetland function both in terms of hydrology and in
23 terms of ecological function. The third strategy of
24 the policy indicates:
25 "The Federal Government will
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1597
1 continue to manage the use of
2 National Parks, National Wildlife
3 Areas, Migratory Bird Sanctuaries,
4 National Capital Commission lands
5 and other federal areas established
6 for ecosystem conservation purposes
7 so as to sustain their wetland
8 functions and natural processes."
9 SARA is also a key legislative instrument for
10 sustaining Canada's biodiversity. Prior to the
11 passing of SARA, Canada was lacking legislation to
12 specifically protect threatened and endangered
13 wildlife. Substantive legislation to facilitate
14 species at risk recovery was also elusive. Now, I
15 should mention that there are some provisions -- there
16 were some provisions under the Wildlife Act. They
17 still exist, but they didn't really deal substantively
18 with the issue.
19 The provisions in SARA dealing with critical
20 habitat illustrates the government's recognition of
21 the importance of habitat to species diversity and
22 retention. On most lands both provincially and
23 federally the SARA habitat protection provisions only
24 apply when further action is decided upon by the
25 responsible Minister and/or Cabinet, depending on the
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1598
1 circumstances. When critical habitat is located
2 within a federal park or protected area such as the
3 National Wildlife Area, SARA's habitat protection
4 provisions do not rely on further discretion -- I'm
5 sorry, discretionary decisions being made by
6 government.
7 Section 4 of the Wildlife Area Regulations
8 provide similar legislative protection. A permit
9 under the Wildlife Area Regulations can be granted
10 where the purposes -- or proposed activity does not
11 interfere with the conservation of wildlife. SARA
12 defines "critical habitat" as that habitat which is,
13 and I quote:
14 "...necessary for the survival or
15 recovery of a listed wildlife
16 species and that is identified as a
17 species' critical habitat in the
18 recovery strategy or in the action
19 plan for the species."
20 If an activity disrupts habitat necessary for
21 recovery of a species, it is also interfering with the
22 conservation of that species.
23 Wildlife areas also receive management
24 direction through the creation of management plans.
25 These plans are used to outline pre-existing uses and
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1599
1 ecological conditions in these areas and to detail
2 specific management approaches and objectives for an
3 area. Unfortunately, a management plan for the
4 Suffield NWA has yet to be created. Johanna McNulty
5 has submitted for Nature Canada a review of various
6 management plans across the country. As reflected in
7 this report, management plans have focused on the
8 protection, maintenance and improvement of habitat
9 within wildlife areas. Where the plans discuss
10 permitted uses, they are generally limited to
11 recreational or agricultural activities. Permitting
12 of other activities is usually not considered in the
13 management plans indicating a deferral to the primary
14 objective of the Wildlife Area Regulations of
15 conserving wildlife.
16 The Wildlife Area Regulations include some
17 very protective measures prohibiting a wide range of
18 impacts. Some of these prohibitions are worth
19 restating. Section 3 of the regulation indicates
20 that:
21 "No person shall ... damage,
22 destroy or remove a plant ...
23 operate a conveyance, [a
24 'conveyance' is defined in the
25 Canada Wildlife Act as 'a vehicle
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1600
1 aircraft or water-borne craft']
2 ... destroy or molest animals or
3 carcasses, nests or eggs thereof
4 ... carry on any commercial or
5 industrial activity, disturb or
6 remove any soil, sand, gravel or
7 other material ... dump or deposit
8 any rubbish, waste material or
9 substance that would degrade or
10 alter the quality of the
11 environment."
12 Those are just a collection of a few of the most
13 relevant prohibitions that I find applicable to the
14 situation. These protective provisions, along with
15 the rest of federal wildlife conservation regulatory
16 framework, inform how an Environmental Assessment is
17 to be conducted and also they inform how the Canadian
18 Environmental Assessment Act is to be applied. The
19 suite of international and domestic wildlife
20 conservation policies will impact the determination of
21 adverse effects and whether an effect is justified in
22 the NWA.
23 The regulatory context and the ecological
24 context are of central relevance to environmental
25 assessments. The federal government has produced
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1601
1 several guidance documents that indicate how an
2 Environmental Assessment should be undertaken where
3 species at risk, migratory birds and other federal
4 matters of interest are involved. What becomes clear
5 through all these documents is that the ecological
6 context, including species diversity and abundance, is
7 central to how environmental assessments are
8 conducted. All EIAs are not equal, nor should they
9 be. In determining whether there is a significant
10 adverse effect, an EIA must look to the particular
11 ecological and regulatory context.
12 The ecological context in the Suffield NWA is
13 stated in the RIAS, and I quote:
14 "The national significance of this
15 area as a northern refugium for
16 endemic prairie wildlife has
17 eloquently substantiated by recent
18 wildlife studies on invertebrates,
19 birds, mammals, reptiles and
20 amphibians. This is as a result of
21 three factors unique to the area:
22 its location near the northern
23 limit of the mid-continental
24 grasslands, the eolian grasslands
25 contained therein, and its
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1602
1 relatively unaltered vegetation."
2 The RIAS continues by noting:
3 "This contribution to prairie
4 species conservation, whereby large
5 blocks of native prairie landscape
6 are protected under a single
7 jurisdiction for the benefit of
8 endemic species and their habitat,
9 is unique because no similar
10 opportunities will arise in the
11 future. This area will provide a
12 secure habitat in which species can
13 reproduce and repopulate
14 surrounding prairie environs
15 currently impacted by human
16 development and population growth."
17 The Government of Canada decided to secure the
18 Suffield NWA as a protected area with the primary
19 objective of conservation, conserving wildlife. This
20 decision constituted a key step in meeting Canada's
21 international and domestic wild conservation --
22 wildlife conservation obligations, obligations that
23 include protecting species at risk and their habitats,
24 protecting wetlands and sustaining biodiversity.
25 Obligations that must not be overlooked in
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1603
1 environmental assessments.
2 Thank you for your...
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Unger.
4 A. MR. WALLIS: Dr. Stelfox, are you ready to
5 go? We'll start at a pretty high level here and go
6 right down to the species, to the next three.
7 A. DR. STELFOX: Mr. Chairman, the Panel,
8 Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you very much for the
9 opportunity to speak to you today.
10 My presentation is a synoptic overview of the
11 written, the written material that I've submitted.
12 There's two key messages that I'm going to deliver:
13 one is to argue why a full regional scale cumulative
14 effects assessment is required for this Project; and
15 secondly, to provide some commentary on what I
16 consider to be the significant inaccuracies of the
17 cumulative effects assessment that has been conducted
18 to date.
19 We'll start with the first. As indicated
20 before, the National Wildlife Area of Suffield is a
21 key remnant of what was a much more broadly
22 distributed mixed grass ecosystem. It is not uniform
23 but highly variable and in things like slope, aspect,
24 relief and soil types creating an equally diverse
25 assemblage of plant communities and biodiversity.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1604
1 This landscape is anything but static. It's
2 been dynamic through time and since the glacial ice
3 age retreated ten thousand years ago it has been
4 reshaped and altered by floods, by herbivory, by fire,
5 and this has been going on for several thousand years,
6 since glacial ice age retreated.
7 And the suite of biodiversity that we have
8 today which is profound in the National Wildlife Area
9 is a product of that and one of the key points here is
10 that the abundance and distribution of the
11 biodiversity is not constant. It's highly variable,
12 creating wicked problems to us as landscape ecologists
13 in terms of measuring their abundance through escape
14 and time. This will be a key message I'll come back
15 to.
16 Now, in recent decades, this area has not
17 only been shaped by natural disturbance regimes but
18 increasingly by human land use practices including
19 military activities, grazing, by cattle and in
20 previous decades by horses, by extraction of
21 hydrocarbon reserves and the associated road network.
22 So this landscape is now being shaped by normal and
23 natural disturbances but human land use practices in
24 its designation is in the National Wildlife Area.
25 Now, this image we're looking at I should ask
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1605
1 are you able to see the images on your laptop, too,
2 because some of the ...
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
4 A. Okay. What we're looking at here is the distribution
5 of a natural -- of, sorry, the grassland natural
6 region of Alberta showing not only the NWA but also
7 the entire Suffield Block and the Suffield is
8 relatively absent as we see here in terms of its
9 interior, major highways and major public roads, and
10 major rail systems but at the same time you're looking
11 at the natural gas wells and the first thing I need to
12 remind people that is there's spatial exaggeration.
13 We see lots of blue dots from well sites. They look
14 like they cover Suffield. They don't. But what we
15 can see clearly is that there's a network of natural
16 gas wells spread across Suffield and pipeline
17 infrastructure and of course associated with that is a
18 trail network or access roads.
19 Now, having said that, as we look here and
20 place the Suffield region in context of Alberta's
21 natural region, natural grassland region is that it is
22 one of the last strongholds of relatively contiguous
23 native grassland in Alberta and work done by the
24 southern Alberta sustainability strategy, work that I
25 did in conjunction with the Government of Alberta,
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1606
1 indicated that, in general, in Alberta, we will look
2 at somewhere between 1 and 0.5 percent loss of these
3 remaining native grasslands per year as a result of
4 expanded cultivation, the transportation network and
5 the footprint of the hydrocarbon sector. So this
6 landscape which is already highly fragmented and lost
7 will continue its decline in decades to come under a
8 business as usual scenario, making the natural, making
9 the natural grassland areas of Suffield
10 proportionately more important from a conservation
11 biological perspective as time marches on.
12 So clearly, from the perspective of
13 conservation biology the stakes are high. The
14 Suffield NWA is an internationally recognized native
15 grassland system. But it's only a vestige of what's
16 been once a broadly distributed bio.
17 From my perspective, given what we don't
18 know, which is a lot more than what we do about the
19 functioning of these systems, precautionary principles
20 should apply. If one of our goals is to maintain a
21 reasonable level of ecological integrity on the NWA, I
22 can't emphasize how much -- and it's come out time and
23 time again in questions I've heard in the last few
24 days -- the importance of having ecological
25 benchmarks, of having some place that is native
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1607
1 grassland where we can look at and try to understand
2 not only the distribution but relative abundance of
3 key biota and their ecological processes.
4 The NWA is probably our best bet and to
5 fulfill that purpose what we need to see through
6 meaningful time is a gradual increase in that natural
7 disturbance regimes that characterize that landscape
8 and a gradual reduction in the human land use
9 practices that occur.
10 So I would argue that the scale, magnitude
11 and intensity of the proposed gas well infill in
12 combination with existing hydrocarbon footprints and
13 the other land issues that occur on the NWA
14 necessitate a proper regional cumulative effects
15 assessment. Why?
16 A. The site is a National Wildlife Area with
17 its unique ecological properties. It's of significant
18 size, almost 50,000 hectares. The kind of development
19 that we're seeing proposed is not a few wells being
20 advocated by a mom and pop operation but rather 1275
21 wells by a large firm.
22 The current proposal, I would argue,
23 represents one of multiple drilling purposes that are
24 likely to influence this regional landscape and it's
25 important to adopt an appropriate life history
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1608
1 perspective in terms of understanding the extraction
2 of this natural gas well. So as we went from zero to
3 four wells per section, and four wells to 8 wells per
4 section, and now we're considering 8 to 16, knowing
5 that in terms of the volume in place that we're
6 expecting approximately half to remain under the
7 ground after 16 wells per section, that as commodity
8 prices increase and technologies improve every
9 reasonable argument would suggest that there should be
10 another pulse place. Here in this image we're just
11 reminding ourselves of the current footprint and the
12 proposed footprint of moving from 8 to 16. This is an
13 extensive land use trajectory by our criteria.
14 Now, I would like to shift to the key issues
15 that I have with the EIA that has been conducted so
16 far. My first is, in finding a meaningful reference
17 point for that performance, so clearly the plans have
18 identified a series of VECs and they're being
19 measured. The question is when do they get to a point
20 where they're unacceptable? And as they change
21 through time what do we compare them to?
22 So I would like to provide a hypothetical
23 example, so just a general example looking at three
24 species that are well known to have been reduced in
25 distribution and abundance in North America through
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1609
1 time. So in this particular scenario rule out a
2 2 percent decline per year over five decades, over 50
3 years. And anyone who would look at the graph would
4 see that there's been a significant reduction in this
5 case of abundance. However, we can look at just one
6 small chunk of that same curve. And in this case it's
7 a five-year in. And what we see is the curve is much
8 flatter. It's still declining but exactly the same
9 rate it did in the first image, but as it declines our
10 ability to detect that change is significantly
11 diminished because when it comes to VECs we do not
12 census it. We do not go out and count every
13 individual. It's very expensive, very time consuming,
14 arguably impossible.
15 We sample, and we also sample only a
16 proportion of the landscape and when we do the
17 variances relative to the means are very high, making
18 it statistically very difficult for us to detect
19 changes even when changes do exist, when we contrast
20 over short intervals of time, and that's what this
21 four-year interval will show us. If we compare that
22 to even ten years, yes, we continue to see the decline
23 at 2 percent per year. But our abilities to detect
24 changes, even when changes do exist is problematic in
25 a world where the species and the processes are so
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1610
1 variable in space and in time.
2 So here we'll illustrate in a slightly
3 different way. Again, we have this species changing
4 in abundance over 50 years. Someone proposes a
5 development and there it is. Someone measures
6 something on the ground, maybe the relative abundance
7 of a particular VEC and then contrasts it to the
8 status or the relative abundance of that VEC five, ten
9 years before.
10 In this case, clearly from the graph we can
11 see that the VEC has declined, but because of the
12 variances around those means our ability to say that
13 there has been a significant change is very difficult
14 statistically. In reality, what we do, as we march
15 on, is we have a benchmark that floats. So as one
16 proposal begets another proposal, in this case as zero
17 becomes 4 and 4 becomes 8 and 8 becomes 16, rather
18 than comparing the relative abundance and distribution
19 to what we had in a range of natural variability
20 situation, we always look over our left shoulder and
21 say where were we yesterday?
22 It's the kind of argument that if I were
23 asked to determine statistically whether I'm older
24 than I was a year ago and I always measure myself and
25 compare it to my age yesterday, I'm never
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1611
1 statistically different than I was, yet inescapably
2 I'm older than I was 50 years ago. This is a key
3 problem we have when we're measuring VECs that are so
4 variable in space and time. So we often come to the
5 conclusion that there's no significant change and this
6 is because we choose the wrong benchmark.
7 I would like to illustrate that. Here we see
8 a graph with the number of natural gas wells in
9 Alberta. It's been increasing. We have about 140,000
10 natural gas wells in Alberta. Here is a picture of
11 Alberta with the major cities. And now you can see
12 Suffield, and I'm going to start in 1905, and here is
13 1915, and here, as time marches on, you'll see small
14 red dots, the natural gas wells in Alberta. No one
15 here in this room would dispute that we had more than
16 we had 50 years ago. It's in fact grown at 7 percent
17 per year.
18 But as an ecologist, if I was asked not to
19 measure this population, not to census it, but to
20 sample it, say at 10 percent and do that every two
21 years, at that kind of sampling intensity if it was a
22 random design approach, I would conclude there has
23 been no significant increase in the number of natural
24 gas wells in the Province of Alberta through time.
25 So that leaves us with what is a better
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1612
1 approach to measure a VEC performance. And I would
2 argue it's something called range of natural
3 variability. It represents the spatial and temporal
4 variation in a VECs in a world defined primarily by
5 the natural disturbance regimes they're characterizing
6 throughout most of their evolutionary history.
7 So we have a recognition that natural
8 disturbance regimes like floods and droughts and
9 herbivory and fire, through pertubation (phonetic)
10 regimes that causes variation. And account for why in
11 some places frogs are common and other places they're
12 rare and some years they're numerous and other places,
13 other times they're not.
14 It is not, in any way, necessarily where we
15 want to be but what it becomes is a very useful
16 reference point against which we can compare the
17 performance of our VECs. So I'm not here to say that
18 with respect to species that we always want to be
19 inside of the range of natural variability. But it
20 gives us a consistent and valuable reference point on
21 which we can compare. And this is key to the National
22 Wildlife Area.
23 Where is it that we would go where land use
24 practices are relatively rare or absent and the
25 natural disturbance regimes exist. Where are these
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1613
1 ecological benchmarks, these scientific controls that
2 are so important? The National Wildlife Area
3 represents one such opportunity, but only if it
4 increases in ecological integrity and not if it
5 declines.
6 So EnCana and their consultants have
7 basically adopted a comparison where the 16 wells per
8 section were compared to 8. Again this is the
9 approach of looking over your left shoulder to where
10 you were yesterday and because of the spatial and
11 temporal variances of the data sets they have it is
12 exceptionally difficult to demonstrate a difference
13 even if a difference did exist. And we'll talk about
14 this here in a few minutes when we talk about pile
15 analysis (phonetic).
16 My second issue is one of how do you measure
17 footprint? There's no one I believe in this room that
18 would disagree that the gas play will require gas
19 wells, access trails, certain number of roads and
20 pipelines. By my analysis, and I think they're not
21 that different from that of EnCana, the direct
22 footprint, the actual direct footprint of where we are
23 today is around 2, 2.5 percent. It's not 20 percent
24 and we don't think it's half of 1 percent. At 2,
25 2.5 percent sounds like a small number. In fact it
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1614
1 is. The vast majority is not indirect footprint.
2 Direct footprint is a primary currency used
3 in this EIA in terms of evaluating consequence to the
4 VECs. So if we look at this image it's clear to see
5 that the vast majority of the landscape would appear
6 not to be in direct footprint. The question is
7 whether or not the VECs that have been selected are
8 being adversely affected by the movement from 8 to
9 16 wells per section.
10 So, here in simulating the NWA into the
11 future and the upper left graph is an area, units in
12 hectares, in the bottom it's in percentage. We can
13 see the effect of the first pulse of going to 4 then
14 jumping to 8. Then you can see where we are today.
15 That's basically 2008 so we're looking at 50 years
16 back and approximately 50 years forward. And as we
17 move to the next pulse and going from 8 to 16, yes,
18 we're going to go from about 158 hectares to about a
19 thousand which means going to -- from about 2.2 to
20 about 2.9 percent. In absolute area and in percentage
21 area it is small and the argument was made by the
22 consultants that it's insignificant.
23 From previous work that I've done in, in
24 prairie ecosystems and clearly from the literature
25 review, one of the key metrics that needs to be
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1615
1 examined in terms of looking at effects is edge.
2 Right now, on the NWA, we're sitting somewhere around
3 3.5 kilometres of edge per square kilometre of
4 landscape. This is anthropogenic or human caused
5 edge.
6 If the 8 to 16 trajectory unfolds it will
7 jump and go up to somewhere around 5 and, as discussed
8 earlier, how quickly it stays there will depend on how
9 quickly they reclaim, so that's, that's a key point.
10 Once we're looking at edge we can then begin to ask
11 the question: are there ecological processes or
12 species that are sensitive to edge?
13 The conclusion of the consultants is that
14 there is not. There is no evidence to conclude a
15 significant adverse effect in specific, or in general,
16 as caused by the linear features proposed by the
17 8 to 16. Yet this is in contrast to the work that was
18 conducted through the southern Alberta sustainability
19 strategy and the grassland component of the Southern
20 Foothills Study where edge was viewed and determined
21 from a modelling perspective based on empirical data
22 and literature review to be the key driver.
23 Once one looks at edge, you can begin to
24 examine the question of what would happen if that edge
25 displaces either species or ecological processes from
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1616
1 areas that are adjacent to that edge. And in this
2 case what I'm showing is, I think, six different
3 examples. These are full exclusion buffers varying
4 from 50 metres up to 500 metres. Now, the graph is
5 scaled to the size of the NWA which is 45,000 hectares
6 I believe. And you can see today we're sitting there
7 just past year 50 so that's basically 2008.
8 If there were a species or a process that was
9 displaced, either physically or behaviorally, from
10 edge up to 500 metres, fully displaced, approximately
11 80 percent of our landscape would have been lost to
12 them.
13 Now, in reality for most buffers they're not
14 full exclusion. Maybe 20 percent are, maybe it's
15 40 percent. But it still illustrates quite nicely
16 that as edge increases and if there are species or
17 processes that are sensitive to edge, the effects can
18 be profound. So the key question is, is there
19 scientific evidence, robust empirical scientific
20 evidence to defend that we should be buffering these
21 edges? Because if we're not then we can just go back
22 to area. And area is profoundly small. And then
23 probably logically conclude there is very little
24 additive incremental effect caused by this Project.
25 So the key question, in my mind, is what does the
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1617
1 evidence say?
2 Flipped around the other way, we can look at
3 the total amount of habitat on the landscape and here;
4 using an example of 100, 200 and 300-metre buffers,
5 show how much would have been lost if those buffers
6 were full exclusion and, again, at 200 metres about
7 40 to 45 percent of that landscape has been lost to
8 the species.
9 In the work that's been done in this Project
10 the footprint focus was on area. The area was said to
11 be, and I agree, the direct area to be exceptionally
12 small and therefore be insignificant. That latter
13 conclusion I, I disagree with wholeheartedly. All
14 evidence I have seen and the literature that I'm
15 familiar with would suggest that footprint edge is a
16 very important metric and that many species and many
17 processes are sensitive to it and so the Coalition is
18 going to present evidence as to the extent to which an
19 indirect habitat loss occurs.
20 The third issue -- so I think what we heard
21 from the consultants is we've got the good data.
22 We've got the data to show that there is no
23 significant adverse effects. And this point was made
24 to us in the pre-hearing scientific -- I'm not sure
25 what we'd call it -- review meeting and I asked the
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1618
1 consultants if they had conducted any statistical
2 power tests to determine whether or not the data they
3 had collected could determine a difference if a
4 difference did exist? We were told that work had not
5 been done and the consultants kindly agreed to do that
6 work and provided it to us.
7 So here is a concern: We have VECs, here is
8 an example of three, we go out there and compute a
9 range of natural variability, land use unfolds through
10 time, a VEC performance declines -- I'm speaking
11 generically and we have a project that's proposed and
12 we're comparing it to the previous one.
13 We do not census again, we sample. We
14 determine use and there are variances around that.
15 There's true variances associated with the spatial and
16 temporal variation of these critters and plants that
17 are measured on the landscape and here we can see it
18 today as proposed and here is a measurement of what it
19 might have been five, ten years ago. So yes, that VEC
20 has declined but there's tremendous variation around
21 that.
22 The problem is when you go out and sample
23 often because of limited resources and time and money
24 and person power we find it hard to sample with lots
25 of intensity. It's just another way of saying we
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1619
1 don't collect lots of data. And when your sampling
2 intensity declines the standard error or the measure
3 of variation increases making it increasingly
4 difficult to detect an effect if an effect is actually
5 there. That's what we as scientists call type 2
6 errors. In other words there is a difference. We
7 just can't detect it.
8 So with that, we asked the consultants to
9 conduct a power analysis. Now a power analysis is
10 just an empirical test which actually looks at the
11 data that, in this case, has been collected by EnCana
12 and ask the question: Can that data actually
13 determine a difference statistically if that
14 difference does exist?
15 Now, we'll start with the wildlife data and
16 we're only given one data set and this had to deal
17 with Sprague's Pipit. And I assume the reason we're
18 given Sprague's Pipit is that it's relatively abundant
19 in this area, so it would be an example of the
20 wildlife species that should have what we call "high
21 power." In other words, the data set should have a
22 higher probability of demonstrating differences.
23 The consultants asked a consultee company to
24 conduct an analysis for power. And they categorized
25 the results of these paired comparison of data into
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1620
1 four categories: Those that had high power, in other
2 words, could readily detect the difference of the
3 difference existed; moderate, low and extremely low.
4 And for the one example that we were provided
5 by EnCana, 22 of the 25 data sets of paired
6 comparisons were 80 percent of these field data
7 comparisons collected could not have detected a change
8 even if an actual change did exist. This is an
9 example of the type 2 error.
10 So when we looked at the EIA conducted by
11 EnCana, there's a very common conclusion in most of
12 the, most of the work that's been done. There's no
13 significant effect.
14 Now, that conclusion could be a result of one
15 of two different options. There really is no
16 difference out there when you compare 8 versus 16
17 wells, or close to a footprint versus far away. That
18 could be one conclusion. Or the other is you've
19 concluded that only because you didn't collect enough
20 data or at the proper resolution to actually determine
21 an effect even when that effect did exist.
22 And this statistical test indicates that
23 their data with respect to the wildlife applied-for
24 groups is not powerful enough to do the job.
25 With respect to plant communities, there were
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1621
1 two that were looked at. One was the vegetation
2 triangle program. And the other was the paired
3 pipeline program. And in both cases more than half of
4 the data that were collected were inadequate to
5 determine if there was an effect if the effect, if the
6 difference was actually there, and the words -- the
7 data couldn't have demonstrated a difference if the
8 difference did exist.
9 So the field data collected to compare energy
10 sector treatments has poor statistical rigor. These
11 data in general I would conclude cannot detect true
12 differences. As a result, the conclusions of the EIA
13 cannot be supported by data.
14 So my final conclusions is that the CEA
15 methodologies employed by EnCana could not have
16 detected a cumulative effect even if a profound one
17 did exist in this region. There's many inadequacies
18 that lead toward this conclusion: One, the methods
19 only considered the direct footprint effect, only the
20 area in the well pad, the area in the access road, or
21 the trail, the area in the pipeline. There is no
22 attempt -- or not. That's unfair. There was a
23 consensus or understanding that there was no need to
24 look at any of the indirect effects because they
25 weren't there. Why? Based on the data that was
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1622
1 collected. The data that had no statistical power to
2 demonstrate effects if they were there.
3 Someone's behind. Now, this is going to be
4 challenging. Someone has actually got to go and --
5 thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
6 I seem to have lost -- maybe what I could ask
7 you to do, Jennifer, could you just click it manually
8 because I think it will work then. Maybe it is
9 frozen.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Stelfox -- here we go.
11 A. DR. STELFOX: Secondly, the comparison of
12 the treatment effects was not again for range of
13 natural variability. It was just looking over your
14 left shoulder comparing 16 to 8.
15 Thirdly, the field data collected generally
16 have low, the example would be plant community
17 metrics, or very low power, and that would be with
18 respect to wildlife metrics, to detect changes even if
19 they did exist.
20 The CIA ignored the most important taxil
21 group with respect to ecological integrity, ecological
22 functioning, and biodiversity. And that's arthropods.
23 The study did not evaluate the consequences
24 of poor reclamation performance. When we grow these
25 land uses into the future, we grow footprints.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1623
1 What would be the consequence of alternative
2 reclamation trajectories in terms of landscape metrics
3 and the performance of VECs? This part of the work
4 was not completed.
5 From the perspective of a VECs, EnCana did
6 not demonstrate the key drivers to VEC performances
7 and the role of best practices. It would have been
8 very helpful to adopt the modelling approach which
9 could have looked at, what are the key footprints, are
10 they the wells or the pipelines, or the access roads,
11 in terms of influencing these VECs, and how might
12 their performance have been changed under a variety of
13 best practices? This speaks to an earlier question I
14 believe from the Panel looking at adaptive management
15 and active adaptive management, is how could we kick
16 the system in different directions to learn the most?
17 And this is where a modelling approach, doing rigorous
18 cumulative effects assessment would have been helpful.
19 And thank you for the opportunity.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Dr. Stelfox.
21 MR. WALLIS: Ms. Bradley, I presume you're
22 Ms. Bradley now, not -- not Mr. Bradley.
23 THE COURT REPORTER: Tomorrow. Sorry.
24 A. MS. BRADLEY: Okay. Mr. Chairman, Panel
25 members, ladies and gentlemen, I'm hired by the
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1624
1 Environmental Coalition of environmental organizations
2 to provide comments on the EnCana Shallow Gas Infill
3 Development Project in the Suffield National Wildlife
4 Area with a focus on the potential environmental
5 effects of the Project on soils and vegetation.
6 I was also asked to consider mitigation
7 measures as they affect soils and vegetation as well
8 as reclamation and restoration matters.
9 I have prepared a written submission and
10 responses to information requests based on my review
11 of EnCana's Environmental Impact Statement and other
12 relevant information filed with the Joint Review Panel
13 as well as discussions I participated in, in a
14 scientific working session on the Project held in
15 February, 2008.
16 I have also drawn on some published peer-
17 reviewed literature, reports prepared by consultants
18 and staff of government and industry, documents
19 regarding environmental matters on CFB Suffield that
20 were obtained through an Access to Information request
21 by the Federation of Alberta Naturalists on behalf of
22 the Environmental Coalition and my own experience and
23 discussions with professional colleagues including
24 those sitting beside me today.
25 In this presentation, I wish to highlight
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1625
1 some of the key points in my submissions which are
2 part of the record and some overall concepts regarding
3 project specific and cumulative effects of the
4 proposed Project that I see arising from the
5 application before the Joint Review Panel.
6 Grasslands are one of North America's most
7 threatened ecosystems and the Suffield National
8 Wildlife Area and its environs is a nationally and I
9 would venture internationally significant remnant of
10 native prairie. The function of national wildlife
11 areas and other protected areas is to preserve native
12 species and to serve as a benchmark or control against
13 which we measure the effects of our actions on
14 ecosystems which support prairie life, including
15 humans.
16 EnCana's EIS takes a landscape level approach
17 to consideration of the Project's effects on soils and
18 vegetation and I assume this is because the VECs for
19 soil and vegetation comprise almost all of the
20 National Wildlife Area and most of the local study
21 area and these effects include soils that are rated
22 as extreme to high sensitivity, to wind erosion,
23 subsurface contamination, water erosion and
24 salinization. Nearly all of the NWA is comprised of
25 these VECs and a large percentage of the local study
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1626
1 area.
2 The other key VEC was native prairie
3 grassland integrity and the National Wildlife Area and
4 the local study area together comprise a largely
5 intact block of native prairie.
6 An indicator used in EnCana's EIS to assess
7 effects of past land uses on soils and vegetation is
8 surface disturbance and, as my colleague Dr. Stelfox
9 pointed out, the area of existing surface disturbance
10 is estimated in the EIS to be about 2 percent of the
11 National Wildlife Area. The additional surface
12 disturbance of the Project is predicted to be less
13 than .5 percent of the NWA.
14 This level of disturbance is assessed as
15 "negligible to minor magnitude" and it is used as a
16 key reason to support the conclusion that cumulative
17 effects of the Project combined with past, existing
18 and future projects on soils and vegetation in the NWA
19 are insignificant. Rationale, other than subjective
20 observation, is not provided for the assertion that
21 this level of footprint is negligible to minor.
22 EnCana's EIS demonstrates a narrow
23 understanding of disturbance or footprint, and I think
24 we've heard this already, and it has likely led to
25 an underestimation of actual disturbance, direct and
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1627
1 indirect. The following are not considered in the
2 calculation of existing disturbance: Areas where
3 soils have been disturbed in the past and revegetated
4 although not to native condition; vegetation adjacent
5 to surface disturbance that has been modified by
6 ongoing activities, for example, destruction of
7 vegetation through compaction or high dust levels and
8 encroachment of non-native species which is termed
9 indirect disturbance; the area between the tracks on
10 a double-track trail or the area between a pipeline
11 and an adjacent double-track trail are not included
12 and that is in the footprint refinement provided to us
13 on October 7th.
14 In addition, findings of ground-truthing are
15 that the air photo interpretation misidentified or
16 overlooked a high proportion of double-track trails.
17 DND, the Department of National Defence,
18 determined that the 2001 shallow gas infill program
19 in four sections of the NWA resulted in a total
20 disturbance of well over 5 percent. A similar
21 analysis for 12 sections in the Koomati training area
22 determined total disturbed area to be 5.8 percent.
23 Other researchers have used empirical data to
24 determine that 2.3 percent and 2.7 percent of the NWA
25 is already invaded and compromised by non-native plant
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1628
1 species spreading from pipelines. ALCES model
2 results, conducted independently of the empirical
3 studies, estimate that 2.6 percent of the NWA may
4 already be occupied by non-native species spreading
5 from linear disturbances.
6 As my colleague Dr. Stelfox has already
7 noted, EnCana's EIS does not consider disturbance in
8 terms of fragmentation and anthropogenic edge; that is
9 the distribution or density of disturbance on the
10 landscape. These are widely viewed as more meaningful
11 ecological concepts than total area for considering
12 footprint over space and time.
13 Conclusions about linear fragmentation from
14 the regional environmental study in the Great Sand
15 Hills, a prairie environment similar to the Suffield,
16 Suffield NWA, are instructive. Esteemed scientists,
17 Dr. Reed Noss and Dr. David Gauthier, considered a
18 density of roads and trails of 1.9 kilometres per
19 kilometre squared to be the threshold between highly
20 developed and less developed areas.
21 In CFB Suffield, trail pipeline density
22 following two infill development projects have been
23 measured at 7 and 12 kilometres per kilometre squared,
24 four to six-fold the highly developed thresholds set
25 by the Great Sand Hills Advisory Committee. And
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1629
1 simulations using the ALCES model estimate current
2 linear footprint of about 3 kilometre per kilometre
3 squared which will increase to 5 kilometres per
4 kilometres squared should the Project proceed. These
5 are well above the cautionary "highly developed"
6 threshold of the Great Sand Hills study.
7 The EIS provides little insight into trends
8 and disturbance footprint and that's disturbance in
9 the broad sense in the NWA. Introduction of
10 non-native species through human activity in and
11 around the Suffield NWA and subsequent invasion of
12 native plant communities is arguably the biggest
13 threat to native vegetation. Many studies have shown
14 that linear disturbances such as roads, vehicle trails
15 and pipelines act as conduits for the dispersal of
16 non-native plants into grassland environments. For
17 example, in the Great Sand Hills there is an increased
18 presence of Crested Wheatgrass and Smooth Brome along
19 roads and trails associated with gas development.
20 EnCana's EIA acknowledges that vehicles act as a
21 vector for non-native plants. It was just not
22 measured.
23 Experts with substantial field experience
24 conclude that invasion of non-native species occurs
25 even with the use of minimal disturbance techniques in
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1630
1 semi-arid grasslands. In a background report for the
2 Southern Alberta Sustainability Strategy, rates of
3 invasion of invasive agronomics such as Crested
4 Wheatgrass into dry mixed grassland, upland grasslands
5 are conservatively estimated, and I won't go through
6 the numbers there but it ranges from as low as .08
7 metres per year along small trails and small pipelines
8 to 0.3 metres per year from roads. And this is for
9 linear disturbances constructed after 1995 using
10 minimal disturbance techniques. Higher rates of
11 invasion are estimated as ongoing for land use
12 footprints prior to 1995 when native vegetation and
13 top soil were removed and agronomic species such as
14 Crested Wheatgrass were seeded during reclamation.
15 These are values, are the ones being used in
16 cumulative effects modelling for regional planning in
17 southern Alberta.
18 The paired pipeline sampling conducted as
19 part of EnCana's EIS was not designed to test
20 non-native plant species encroachment into native
21 prairie, a shortcoming of the sampling design.
22 The paired pipeline study attempted to test
23 restoration of native plant community on disturbed
24 pipelines. Data collected purports to demonstrate a
25 trend towards native community on older pipelines
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1631
1 reclaimed after 1980; however, most of the data did
2 not withstand the test of power analysis.
3 Results of the vegetation triangling sampling
4 effort to assess native prairie grassland integrity
5 are also cited in the EIS as a reason for assessing
6 cumulative effects on native prairie integrity as
7 insignificant. The effort was confined to upland
8 grasslands and ignored consideration of wetlands and
9 other less common vegetation cover types in the NWA.
10 An objective of the vegetation triangle
11 sampling effort was to measure the effects of
12 different well densities, 16 wells per section versus
13 8 wells per section versus 4 wells per section on
14 native prairie grassland integrity. A pre-development
15 baseline was not considered.
16 Considering that well densities of 16 wells
17 per section did not occur in the NWA until 2001, it is
18 premature to anticipate the technical differences from
19 8 wells per section at a landscape level, particularly
20 with respect to encroachment by non-native species
21 into native habitats.
22 EnCana's field study design is not at the
23 appropriate level of detail. Ecological variability
24 across the landscape, in topographic position, for
25 example, confounds any associations of ecological
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1632
1 integrity measures with disturbance. It is well
2 known, for example, that mesic plant communities tend
3 to have greater numbers and higher frequencies of
4 alien plants than do dryer communities.
5 Regardless, power analysis of the vegetation
6 triangle sampling results shows that a less -- less
7 than a third of comparisons of integrity measures
8 between 8 and 16 wells per section met the test of
9 true significance. Power analysis is not provided for
10 the comparison of integrity measures between 4 and 8
11 wells per section. Hence, there is inadequate
12 information from the vegetation triangle sampling
13 effort to draw conclusions about the significance of
14 the effects of gas well density on native prairie
15 integrity.
16 A key underpinning of the conclusions of the
17 EIS is the assertion that mitigation measures will
18 result in insignificant residual effects on soils and
19 vegetation. Several of these mitigation measures were
20 the subject of the Coalition's cross-examination of
21 EnCana. Responses with respect to the feasibility of
22 fully implementing well-intended measures such as
23 avoidance of steep slopes and wetlands, shutdown in
24 wet weather, use of SpiderPlow, vehicle cleaning and
25 access management are a matter of record already.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1633
1 Experience suggests that many mitigation
2 measures are not found to be practically feasible for
3 the oil and gas industry. The predicted reduction of
4 adverse effects is not fully realized. Audits of
5 industry activity on CFB Suffield over the last few
6 years by DND staff, SEAC and environmental consultants
7 have found numerous examples of excessive well site
8 clearing, multiple vehicle tracks or multiple access
9 routes to well sites, soil vehicle ruts indicating
10 access in wet weather, erosion issues along access
11 trails and pipelines, sites with discarded mud,
12 garbage and cement as well as hydrocarbon spills.
13 One of the most comprehensive studies of
14 industry compliance with minimal disturbance measures
15 is contained in an audit of land spraying while
16 drilling on CFB Suffield and public lands elsewhere in
17 Alberta. The review included examination of hundreds
18 of case files and field inspection records, a field
19 audit of land spraying while drilling sites at CFB
20 Suffield and other, other aspects. This review
21 revealed a number of major issues including activity
22 occurring outside of approved areas, no final field
23 report, field plans of poor quality, heavy loading
24 rates and siting problems. The survey of sites within
25 CFB Suffield reveal poor distribution of residual
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1634
1 solids resulting in skins and mud packs which smother
2 grassland vegetation, rutting of soft soils and
3 application on sensitive sites including sand dunes,
4 watercourses, wetlands and steep slopes. Land
5 spraying while drilling is no longer allowed on other
6 public lands in southern Alberta, but the practice
7 continues on CFB Suffield.
8 The heavy reliance on unproven
9 pre-development assessments to mitigate potential
10 adverse effects is also of concern. Attempts by the
11 Base Commander to implement environmental overviews
12 starting just about three years ago met with
13 resistance from industry. According to documents
14 obtained under the Access to Information Act, concerns
15 were expressed by managers of CFB Suffield beginning
16 in June, 2005 that these environmental overviews were
17 rather superficial, simply a site-by-site inspection
18 for avoidance of species at risk and sensitive
19 habitat, failing to address cumulative effects, being
20 done too late to detect species at risk and being
21 completed by biologists who were under unreasonable
22 pressure by industry. I observed similar problems
23 with the three PDA's provided for this hearing.
24 EnCana is proposing to do much of its work
25 such as soils assessments, range health assessments,
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1635
1 rare plant community and rare plant surveys and
2 mitigation planning after the approval is granted.
3 It would be better environmental planning if these
4 results are available to inform the Panel's decision.
5 And I'll, finally, address some reclamation/
6 restoration matters. EnCana considers its obligation
7 to be to reclaim to "equivalent capability" as defined
8 in Alberta's Environmental Protection and Enhancement
9 Act. And that is the ability of the land, I'm quoting
10 here:
11 "The ability of the land to support
12 various land uses after reclamation
13 is similar to the ability that
14 existed prior to an activity being
15 conducted on the land, but the
16 ability to support individual land
17 uses will not necessarily be equal
18 after reclamation."
19 The "equivalent capability" goal is reflected in
20 statements in the EIS. EnCana's reclamation planning
21 is focused on maintaining soil and site stability and
22 hydrologic function and places little value on
23 restoring native plant community.
24 The Rangeland Reclamation Success Assessment
25 Protocol for the Environmental Effects Monitoring
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1636
1 states:
2 "With the rangeland functionality
3 protocol, plant community
4 composition does not play the same
5 important role it did for both the
6 previous method of assessing range
7 status with regard to grazing
8 capacity or to some other methods
9 of assessing reclamation success."
10 That is, put it back the way it was.
11 This "equivalent capability" goal appears to
12 be out of step with the direction of the provincial
13 Reclamation Criteria Advisory Group currently revising
14 its criteria pertaining to grasslands reclamation.
15 In a protected area such as the Suffield NWA
16 where the mandate is to protect ecological integrity,
17 the reclamation goal is better reflected by the
18 definition of restoration, a term that is becoming
19 more widely used among reclamation specialists. And
20 I quote:
21 "Restoration is defined as the
22 process of returning a disturbed
23 site to the ecosystem
24 characteristics that existed prior
25 to surface disturbance, usually
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1637
1 based on the characteristics of an
2 adjacent reference or control
3 site."
4 This definition implies that restoring a site to
5 pre-disturbance condition is a process, often a
6 long-term one, that requires addressing not only the
7 effects of a current project but also the effects of
8 previous disturbances on the native ecosystem.
9 Success is measured through reference to
10 characteristics occurring on a site typical of the
11 ecosystem which has not been impacted by the Project
12 or by previous anthropogenic disturbance.
13 There are many challenges to doing
14 reclamation in the Suffield NWA. Several of the gaps
15 in revegetation strategies for the grassland natural
16 region generally, and specifically the dry mixed grass
17 subregion, are identified in a recent report regarding
18 reclamation prepared for Alberta Sustainable Resource
19 Development. They relate to the need for clear
20 definitions for industrial disturbance-related
21 activity including criteria for field-based assessment
22 of suitably dry or frozen ground conditions; more
23 precise definition and evaluation of minimal
24 disturbance procedures; understanding the implications
25 of decreased well spacing for reclamation; addressing
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1638
1 interactions of industrial disturbance and grazing
2 practices; addressing difficulty in re-claiming steep
3 slopes, choppy sandhills and solonetzic or saline
4 soils and how reclamation strategies affect species at
5 risk. And I refer the Panel to my submission of
6 February 15th as well as the original Alberta
7 Sustainable Resource Development report for more
8 insight into that.
9 It would be better to address these issues
10 outside of a protected area which is intended to be
11 an ecological benchmark just in case we fail.
12 There also are issues regarding reclamation
13 of existing disturbances in the Suffield NWA. It
14 would appear there is a legacy of poor practice with
15 respect to reclamation of industrial disturbances.
16 A precautionary approach would be to address these
17 legacy issues before any consideration is given to
18 contemplating new industrial disturbances that would
19 need to be reclaimed in the Suffield National Wildlife
20 Area, a protected area. It is clear that the existing
21 footprint is on a negative trend.
22 Thank you.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Bradley. I
24 know it is getting late, but we do have just one more
25 presentation I understand, Ms. Klimek, and, if so, I
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1639
1 would prefer to continue.
2 MS. KLIMEK: Yes, and I have about ten
3 minutes of questions, but we could start the morning
4 with those, if that would work.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: I think that would be best to
6 do, but we -- I think it would be good if we could
7 continue to hear from the Panel this evening.
8 MS. KLIMEK: Okay, so we'll finish with
9 Mr. Wershler then for today then?
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, thank you.
11 A. MR. WERSHLER: How is this level? Good?
12 Mr. Chairman, Panel Members, I'm going to try not
13 to fall asleep. Maybe I'll have to talk too fast, I
14 don't know. This, this presentation is a summary and
15 highlights of my submission on rare plants and rare
16 ecological communities, wetlands, wildlife and
17 biodiversity, and it will reinforce a lot of the
18 concepts that we've heard already this afternoon.
19 1. Vegetation.
20 Rare Plant Species and Plant Communities.
21 At least 29 provincially rare and federally
22 listed plant species have been recorded in the NWA
23 including three SARA species and there is high
24 potential for other federally listed species and
25 provincially rare species in the area.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1640
1 However, no rare plant or rare plant
2 community surveys have been conducted by EnCana and
3 there is reliance on PDAs for this information, which
4 is a recurring theme.
5 Locations of rare plants and rare plant
6 communities should have been surveyed and mapped as
7 accurately as possible (as described in the EIS
8 guidelines) so that they could have been used with
9 other rare and sensitive features in environmental
10 constraints mapping.
11 The quote "avoiding known occurrences of rare
12 plant species and rare ecological communities whenever
13 possible" implies a low level of commitment and this
14 kind of statement represents another recurring theme.
15 Under cross-examination it was evident that
16 EnCana will not be meeting even the minimum
17 requirements for rare plant surveys as per ANPC
18 guidelines.
19 Another quote:
20 "It is possible that in exceptional
21 circumstances additional mitigation
22 measures, (transplanting), may be
23 required if avoidance is not
24 feasible."
25 This approach is unproven for most native species of
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1641
1 concern that occur in the National Wildlife Area.
2 The residual impact on rare plants is
3 assessed as insignificant. There is no basis for
4 this, given the preceding and, unlike the faunal VECs,
5 no scientific information is provided in the EIS on
6 the three federally listed species that would allow a
7 determination of "insignificant" or "negligible"
8 effect.
9 In the case of the endangered Tiny
10 Cryptanthe, EnCana's lack of concern does not follow
11 two urgent recovery strategies as outlined in the
12 National Recovery Strategy: One, to survey and
13 monitor populations and, two, develop plant
14 species-at-risk guidelines for setback distances from
15 industrial activity. EnCana's novel proposal for
16 dealing with mitigation for these species (ploughing
17 through a population and hoping the plants will
18 reseed) runs counter to the recovery strategy.
19 Wetlands.
20 A variety of wetland types occur in the
21 National Wildlife Area, but no original wetland
22 surveys were conducted. Ephemeral and temporary types
23 have not been identified and mapped as required by the
24 EIS guidelines, even though these provide critical
25 habitats for amphibians at risk and rare plants.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1642
1 There is reliance on the PDAs to provide
2 site-specific information on wetlands. These habitats
3 should have been identified and mapped with buffers,
4 as without -- without this information overall
5 constraints of the Project cannot be evaluated in
6 concert with the other constraints.
7 EnCana indicates wetlands will be avoided
8 where appropriate and, if unavoidable, ephemeral
9 drainages will be crossed perpendicular to the flow.
10 Wetlands will be avoided whenever possible
11 during construction of pipelines. A setback distance
12 of 100 metres from the centre of the well will be used
13 as a buffer, but this distance may be reduced in
14 exceptional circumstances where a resource extraction
15 would be severely compromised and effects on the
16 environment would be more adverse if the buffer was
17 adhered to.
18 EnCana has demonstrated in the PDAs for three
19 well application (sic) that it will apply for
20 a relaxation of setbacks where avoidance is not
21 possible. These statements and actions contravene the
22 accepted 100 metre setback for all wetlands in
23 Environment Canada and Alberta Fish and Wildlife
24 guidelines and, potentially, the no net loss of
25 wetland function under federal policy.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1643
1 There will be use of water from spring-fed
2 dugouts in the Military Training Area and this
3 represents a cumulative impact of the proposed
4 development that was not considered by EnCana.
5 EnCana assesses residual environmental
6 effects on wetlands as negligible and, therefore, did
7 not undertake a cumulative effects analysis. This is
8 absurd, given EnCana's stated option of reducing
9 wetland buffers where it is deemed necessary.
10 Wildlife.
11 Of the SARA (Species At Risk Act) listed
12 wildlife species that occur in the National Wildlife
13 Area, three particularly stand out as being at risk
14 from the proposed development and for which EnCana did
15 not adequately consider the effects as required in the
16 EIS guidelines.
17 Burrowing Owl (Endangered)
18 The National Recovery Strategy lists, among
19 other key steps in the recovery of this species,
20 documentation of the location of occupied and
21 unoccupied nesting sites, which EnCana has not
22 undertaken. In addition, the proposed Project would
23 further fragment native grassland habitat and increase
24 traffic on roads, (raising the risk of mortality),
25 both of which are contrary to recommendations in the
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1644
1 National Recovery Strategy. It simply defies the
2 available science that EnCana assesses residual
3 environmental effects on this species as
4 "insignificant" and "negligible", given its precarious
5 status.
6 Recent population trend monitoring surveys
7 in a 16 quarter section area in the Kininvie area,
8 west of CFB Suffield, re-confirm and extend a
9 significant downward population trend in this area.
10 2007 numbers of Burrowing Owls represent a decline of
11 greater than 80 percent over the last ten years and a
12 60 percent decline since 2004. This is Stevens and
13 Todd, 2008. These authors state that habitat change
14 and cumulative effects from land uses, including oil
15 and gas activities, (that is, increased vehicular
16 traffic and sensory disturbance from drilling
17 operations), could be playing a role in the decline by
18 affecting adult survival or nesting success.
19 It is a major deficiency of the EIS not to
20 have made a concerted effort to locate nesting birds
21 in 2006 using protocols recommended by Alberta
22 Sustainable Resource Development.
23 Sprague's Pipit.
24 Threatened, and a bird species endemic to the
25 Great Plains. The National Recovery Strategy for this
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1645
1 species lists linear development, for example, roads
2 and pipelines and resource extraction as reducing
3 interior habitat and increasing edge, thereby
4 resulting in reduced resource availability for this
5 species.
6 Sprague's Pipits are relatively intolerant of
7 non-native vegetation and native habitat loss is
8 considered a major threat for this species. Habitat
9 degradation, including fragmentation, typically
10 reduces the population but can lead to local
11 extirpation if the magnitude, frequency and duration
12 of these threats are great enough.
13 Linear development and stretches of broken
14 land are typically associated with invasion by exotic
15 plants that reduce habitat suitability.
16 In a study of the effects of minimal
17 disturbance shallow gas activity on grassland birds in
18 Saskatchewan, it was concluded that minimal
19 disturbance well sites and trails may contribute to
20 decreased territory establishment in Sprague's Pipits
21 and Lark Buntings.
22 Reduced (sic) research in the National
23 Wildlife Area indicated that Sprague's Pipit
24 territories rarely crossed trails, roads and
25 pipelines. EnCana fails to recognize the
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1646
1 deterioration of the grassland ecosystem in the
2 National Wildlife Area through cumulative
3 fragmentation including linear disturbances; the
4 presence of non-native vegetation in and around the
5 existing gas development and the proposed planting of
6 a mixture of grasses including non-native forms of
7 native species that will create a plant community that
8 is different in structure and species composition to
9 native grassland. Given the preceding analysis, this
10 is an ongoing threat to Sprague's Pipits.
11 Sprague's Pipits are widely distributed and
12 very -- and relatively common in the National Wildlife
13 Area. While winter construction will avoid
14 destruction of nests and young, it will not prevent
15 destruction of nesting habitat. There would be little
16 chance to site wells, pipelines and roads if a buffer
17 were applied to every nesting territory used over a
18 multiple of years of occupation and that is high
19 potential habitat.
20 EnCana's assessment of residual environmental
21 effects of the Project on Sprague's Pipits as
22 "insignificant" and "negligible" is inappropriate and
23 it contradicts the best science available.
24 Ord's Kangaroo Rat - Endangered.
25 The COSEWIC (2006) status report indicates
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1647
1 the trend toward increasing use of anthropogenic
2 habitats (specifically roads in the National Wildlife
3 Area), appears to be a threat to this species by
4 providing low quality "sink" habitats in which
5 mortality exceeds recruitment. In spite of this
6 concern, this red flag, EnCana assesses residual
7 effects of the Project including the existing and
8 proposed footprint that contain these habitats as
9 "insignificant".
10 The updated status report for this species
11 states that the trend towards increasing use of
12 anthropogenic habitats, roads, trails, fireguards and
13 bare ground associated with oil and gas fixtures and
14 the margins of cultivated agricultural lands also
15 appears to be a threat to Kangaroo Rats in Canada. It
16 appears that anthropogenic habitats are low quality
17 "sink" habitats in which mortality exceeds
18 recruitment.
19 EnCana's assessment of residual effects of
20 the Project on Ord's Kangaroo Rat as being
21 "insignificant" contradicts the best available
22 scientific evidence.
23 Now, for some other species. The
24 Sharp-Tailed Grouse is listed as a sensitive species
25 in Alberta. Sharp-Tailed Grouse are vulnerable to
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1648
1 human disturbance in the breeding complex which
2 includes the lek or dancing ground and surrounding
3 nesting grounds. The breeding complex includes all
4 lands within a 2-kilometre radius of lek sites.
5 The following is a summary of disturbance
6 factors including impacts that relate specifically to
7 the oil and gas industry from across the North
8 American range and stricter timing and setback
9 guidelines provided for this species in other
10 jurisdictions.
11 Disturbance on leks appears to limit
12 reproductive opportunities and may result in regional
13 population declines. Females appear to be more
14 susceptible to various kinds of disturbance and if
15 females are flushed frequently during the early stages
16 of egg laying, this may cause nest abandonment.
17 Excessive disturbance to wintering birds may impair
18 their ability to cope with unfavourable winter
19 conditions.
20 Additional impacts include increased
21 mortality due to collisions with vehicles.
22 In Colorado and adjacent states, oil and gas
23 development has only recently been considered a threat
24 to Sharp-Tailed Grouse as increased oil and gas
25 activity has spread into the core of the species
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1649
1 range. If oil and gas resources in the region are
2 developed to their fullest potential, it is feared the
3 outcome could be devastating to populations. While
4 the amount of habitat directly affected is relatively
5 small, avoidance and stress responses of wildlife may
6 extend the influence from well pads, roads, pipelines,
7 power lines and other facilities to over 1 kilometre
8 in open country, affecting use of habitats that
9 otherwise appear undisturbed. These impacts can be
10 especially problematic when they occur in wintering
11 and reproductive areas.
12 The following have been recommended in
13 Colorado as standard management practices to reduce
14 wildlife impacts associated with oil and gas
15 development, and these impacts or these guidelines are
16 specific to Sharp Tails: No development activity
17 between the 1st of March and 30th of June within 2
18 kilometres of active lek sites; no development
19 activity in winter habitat between the 1st of December
20 and the 15th of March; no surface occupancy in areas
21 within 0.64 kilometres of any leks. These recommended
22 guidelines are in contrast to more liberal timing and
23 setback guidelines for oil and gas activity
24 recommended by Alberta Fish and Wildlife that appear
25 to be -- they appear to be inadequate especially for
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1650
1 a protected area like the National Wildlife Area where
2 the highest standards should be applied for the
3 protection of sensitive species.
4 In Section 5.8.3.2 EnCana states:
5 "Disturbance within 2 kilometres of
6 a lek during the breeding season,
7 (March through June), may be
8 harmful. Although leks may appear
9 to remain active after disturbance
10 because of male tenacity, females
11 avoid such leks and thus
12 reproductive capacity may be
13 inhibited."
14 End of quote. In spite of this statement, a
15 buffer from leks of only 500 metres is being adopted
16 by EnCana and this demonstrates the lowest level of
17 commitment to protection for this species, that is,
18 nothing that exceeds the statutory compliance even
19 where there is evidence of harmful effects at greater
20 distances.
21 EnCana fails to consider the effects of
22 disturbance to Sharp-Tailed Grouse in critical
23 wintering habitats.
24 Based on the preceding, EnCana's assessment
25 of residual environmental effects from the Project on
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1651
1 Sharp-Tailed Grouse as insignificant and negligible is
2 unreasonable and not supported by the best available
3 scientific documentation and management approaches.
4 Northern Pocket Gopher.
5 Like the Richardson's Ground Squirrel, this
6 species is very significant in the grassland
7 ecosystem, but unlike the Richardson's Ground Squirrel
8 it is common in the National Wildlife Area. The
9 failure to recognize this species as a VEC is a
10 shortcoming of the EIS given this species importance
11 in parts of the Suffield National Wildlife Area.
12 Pronghorn.
13 The Pronghorn is another listed Sensitive
14 species in Alberta and the extent and quality of the
15 winter range is the most limiting factor for Alberta
16 Pronghorns.
17 On average, the Canadian Forces Base Suffield
18 provides habitat for approximately 15 percent of the
19 total provincial Pronghorn population. The area
20 classified, is classified as "key" winter range and is
21 used extensively by a large number of Alberta and
22 Saskatchewan Pronghorn, and I would suggest probably
23 some Montana ones as well.
24 Traditionally, the most important Pronghorn
25 habitat on CFB Suffield has been found within the
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1652
1 National Wildlife Area. Based on aerial surveys in
2 the second week of January, 2008, it was estimated
3 that at least 12 percent of the total Alberta
4 Pronghorn population was in the National Wildlife
5 Area. The western portion of the Base may have
6 contained equal numbers which would have raised the
7 total wintering population to a maximum of one quarter
8 of the provincial population.
9 CFB Suffield, which includes the National
10 Wildlife Area and the Military Training Area, are part
11 of a significant migration corridor for Pronghorn,
12 sometimes -- travelling sometimes long distances
13 between winter and summer range and this has only
14 recently come to light.
15 Oil and gas activities and associated
16 developments constitute a potential threat to
17 Pronghorn in winter by impeding or causing delays in
18 movement to alternate critical winter range resulting
19 in increased energetic costs, increased exposure to
20 natural or human-related hazards and ultimately to
21 increased mortality or reduced reproductive rates.
22 Severe winter conditions can result in high
23 mortality. For example, up to half of the provincial
24 population has died off during winter conditions that
25 caused forced movements.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1653
1 North Dakota Game and Fish Department
2 reports -- in 2006 reports that winter ranges,
3 seasonal movement corridors and fawning areas require
4 special management attention. To reduce stress from
5 oil and gas activities on Pronghorn in these critical
6 habitats, land managers have used seasonal use
7 restrictions and buffers to prohibit fluid mineral
8 exploration and development activities.
9 By assessing the residual environmental
10 effects of the Project on Pronghorn as "insignificant"
11 and "negligible", EnCana contradicts the best current
12 knowledge for Pronghorn as well as the application of
13 conservation in a broader ecosystem concept.
14 Mule deer.
15 This species is not identified by EnCana as
16 a VEC for the Project but given its abundance in the
17 National Wildlife Area, especially on the winter
18 counts, and its sensitivity to human disturbance in
19 the winter, the proposed development does present a
20 risk to this species.
21 Prairie Rattlesnake.
22 May be at risk in Alberta. Populations of
23 this species have declined in recent years and
24 numerous snakes are killed on the road each year with
25 rattlesnake mortalities being the most numerous.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1654
1 Increased road traffic associated with the proposed
2 Project would logically lead to an increase in
3 mortality. Even with the proposed mitigation of speed
4 limit reduction, there will still be some snake
5 mortality on roads and trails.
6 The assessment of residual environmental
7 effects on the Project on Prairie Rattlesnakes in this
8 light as insignificant and negligible is, therefore,
9 not credible.
10 Western Hognose Snake.
11 May be at risk in Alberta. Like other snake
12 species, it is vulnerable to roadkill mortality and
13 being a little smaller and cryptic, I would say very
14 vulnerable in certain cases.
15 Since they may be dependent on Pocket Gopher
16 burrows for over-wintering, they may also be
17 susceptible to disturbance during pipeline
18 construction. These risks are not reflected in
19 EnCana's insignificant and negligible assessment of
20 residual environmental effects and EnCana provides
21 no scientific documentation that would support their
22 conclusion.
23 Great Plains Toad.
24 Of special concern in Canada. The Alberta
25 status report states that numerous activities
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1655
1 associated with oil and gas development may impact
2 Great Plains Toads. Since this species burrows in
3 sand to over-winter at unknown distances from breeding
4 ponds, it is vulnerable to winter surface disturbance
5 including pipeline construction. Also, breeding ponds
6 are very inconspicuous and difficult to identify when
7 dry, often very inconspicuous.
8 EnCana's assessment of its impacts as
9 insignificant and negligible is inadequate to address
10 these concerns especially since EnCana may apply for a
11 relaxation of the 100-metre wetland buffers.
12 Furthermore, calling surveys to detect this species
13 must be carried out during wet conditions at the
14 appropriate time of year and there may be very limited
15 or no breeding or calling activity during dry years.
16 And this could go on for a number of years. This is
17 noteworthy since EnCana is relying heavily on these
18 surveys and PDA assessments in mitigation for this
19 species.
20 Inadequate sampling for amphibians in 2006
21 is admitted by EnCana and the poor data set for
22 amphibians represents a major deficiency of the EIS.
23 Another amphibian, Plains Spadefoot, is
24 listed as "may be at risk" in Alberta and, like the
25 Western Hognose Snake, this species may be dependent
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1656
1 on Northern Pocket Gopher burrows for over-wintering
2 and, therefore, could potentially be disturbed by
3 pipeline disturbance in the vicinity of breeding
4 sites.
5 Biodiversity/Environmental Significance.
6 Let's move on to biodiversity and
7 environmental significance. A major deficiency of the
8 EIS is EnCana's failure to recognize and document the
9 overall environmental significance of the National
10 Wildlife Area and its major role in the conservation
11 of the mixed grass ecosystem. This understanding has
12 implications as to how additional gas development and
13 associated changes to habitat should be assessed.
14 The following are examples of significance
15 rankings given to the Suffield National Wildlife Area
16 either on its own or as part of a larger contiguous
17 area of habitat. Through various studies and
18 initiatives by government agencies, conservation
19 groups and these would be at provincial, national and
20 international levels. These rankings place the area
21 in the upper echelon of the remaining native mixed
22 grass habitats.
23 It's classed as a Global 200 Site. World
24 Wildlife Fund identified the Northern Great Plains as
25 one of approximately 200 of the most significant
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1657
1 natural regions on the planet for biodiversity. Many
2 of these, like the Northern Great Plains, are also
3 some of the most threatened.
4 An environmentally significant area, CFB
5 Suffield including the Suffield National Wildlife Area
6 has been identified as an internationally significant,
7 environmentally significant area or ESA.
8 Representative features include its unique combination
9 of badlands river valley, sand dunes and upland
10 grassland.
11 A priority area for conservation, CFB
12 Suffield is rated as very high in a selection of
13 grassland priority conservation areas within North
14 America's central grasslands through an international
15 co-operative initiative.
16 An important large intact remnant block. In
17 a World Wildlife Fund Canada study, CFB Suffield is a
18 component of one of six large remaining blocks greater
19 than 5,000 square kilometres of native prairie in the
20 Northern Glaciated Plains of North America. These
21 larger remnants of grassland habitat are also
22 extremely important as control areas against which we
23 can measure change in smaller, more fragmented
24 grassland areas.
25 An important habitat for endemic grassland
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1658
1 birds, the Suffield National Wildlife Area has some of
2 the best breeding habitat globally for endemic
3 grassland birds and is one of two major centres, two
4 major centres of grassland bird species richness in
5 North America. When you see these on a map, they just
6 glow at you. They stand out.
7 An important bird area, part of a network of
8 sites that conserve the natural diversity of bird
9 species in Canada and around the world, these areas
10 are critical for the long-term viability of naturally
11 occurring bird populations.
12 An important habitat for species at risk.
13 A good concentration of SARA-listed species of plants
14 and animals occurs in the Suffield National Wildlife
15 Area including numerous rare species and uncommon
16 species.
17 Part of a major wildlife movement corridor.
18 Recent studies are revealing significant landscape
19 level movements of Pronghorn through the Military
20 Training Area and National Wildlife Area indicating
21 the extreme importance of retaining contiguous large
22 blocks of habitat on the Northern Great Plains,
23 including habitat connections that cross political
24 boundaries.
25 Summary and conclusions.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1659
1 Based on the points outlined in this
2 submission, evidence is clear for the following: A
3 recurrent theme of EnCana's in the EIS is a language
4 that allows for, in special cases, reduction of
5 buffers or the lack of avoidance of sensitive
6 features. In their assessment of the effects of the
7 Project on Valued Ecosystem Components or VECs, EnCana
8 has consistently arrived at "negligible" or
9 "insignificant" for residual environmental effects
10 which often does not agree with information documented
11 in federal and provincial species status reports and
12 recovery strategies, also, peer-reviewed reports or
13 the opinions of experts in the field.
14 EnCana fails to recognize the significance
15 of linear disturbances as a contributor to habitat
16 fragmentation and a reducer of habitat effectiveness.
17 While terms like "grassland integrity" and
18 "Valued Ecosystem Components" are incorporated into
19 the assessment, a general lack of understanding,
20 knowledge or appreciation is displayed for ecosystem
21 processes and the overall significance of the National
22 Wildlife Area and contiguous lands in the -- in
23 ecosystem conservation.
24 Some of what EnCana is proposing may be
25 considered appropriate by some for a landscape zoned
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1660
1 for industrial management priorities, but it is
2 clearly inappropriate for a National Wildlife Area.
3 Information that could have been collected
4 and should have been collected in 2006 fieldwork is
5 proposed for the pre-development assessment or PDA
6 phase after the project has been approved. As much
7 information as possible should have been collected on
8 sensitive features and traditionally used key wildlife
9 habitats in 2006. This, in turn, should have been
10 mapped along with setbacks or buffers to show
11 environmental constraints.
12 This kind of information is required for a
13 proper evaluation of the Project and would also add
14 more tangible analysis and presentation of key
15 information. Mapped information should have included
16 the following but did not: wetlands of all classes;
17 stream valleys and coulees; seasonal drainages plus
18 setbacks, Great Plains Toad and Plains Spadefoot
19 breeding ponds plus setbacks from wetlands;
20 Sharp-Tailed Grouse leks and in critical wintering
21 habitat, plus setbacks -- (the setback distance for
22 leks should be increased to accommodate nesting
23 habitat); Burrowing Owl burrows plus buffers; critical
24 ungulate including Pronghorn wintering range and key
25 movement corridors; rare plant locations and rare
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1661
1 plant communities.
2 Timing restrictions should also include
3 winter restrictions to avoid Pronghorn and
4 Sharp-Tailed Grouse in critical wintering areas. For
5 the portion of land that remains after the mapping of
6 these constraints, there would still be potential
7 effects of fragmentation and loss of habitat
8 effectiveness caused by new developments and increased
9 activity on existing roads and in currently
10 undeveloped areas. The effects of these VECs has been
11 shown in my submission to cause undue risk to some of
12 the Valued Ecosystem Components.
13 Thank you.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Wershler.
15 Ms. Klimek?
16 MS. KLIMEK: I think that is it for
17 presentations. I have about five, ten minutes of
18 questions, but I think it would be appropriate to
19 start with them in the morning, given the time.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: I think that's fair.
21 Tomorrow we would continue with this Panel sitting for
22 cross-examination. That is the plan in the morning.
23 Mr. Denstedt?
24 MR. DENSTEDT: That was my question, sir.
25 What is the plan for tomorrow because Mr. Protti will
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1662
1 be here tomorrow?
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Our, our assumption is -- or
3 at least our plan, I'm sorry, is that we will continue
4 with the cross-examination of the Coalition's
5 witnesses and then proceed to resit the EnCana Panel
6 with Mr. Protti.
7 MR. DENSTEDT: Okay. I'm, I'm curious then
8 as to the expectation of when we will be completed
9 with the cross-examination. I will likely go longer
10 now than anticipated, certainly more than half a day
11 probably.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I guess we'll have to
13 see how that unfolds. It, it has been difficult to
14 predict with precision, I guess, how some of the
15 presentations -- how long they would take and of
16 course the length of the cross-examination. But I
17 would think that we might get to the EnCana Panel
18 later in the afternoon tomorrow.
19 MR. DENSTEDT: Okay, thanks, Mr. Chairman.
20 Two things I would like to raise. One is, I need
21 Mr. Sedgwick's resume, it's not -- or CV, it's not on
22 the record or we weren't able to detect it on the
23 record, if it is.
24 MS. KLIMEK: I thought it had been
25 submitted but we'll track it down for you.
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1663
1 MR. DENSTEDT: And the other thing, just, I
2 think it might be worthwhile if we all thought about
3 the schedule in the next couple of days and how that's
4 going to unfold. And I only raise it for a couple of
5 reasons: one, there is a need to prepare in the
6 evenings and it's making for some pretty long days and
7 I do want to be sensitive to the, the human side of
8 this equation; and, and the second thing is that I
9 think in order for the witness to have a fair chance
10 to perform at their best they should be allowed the
11 ability to be fresh, too.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: I note that comment,
13 Mr. Denstedt. We, we certainly also find it is a long
14 day, but we have a lot of information to, to get
15 through and a lot of presentations to hear and
16 opportunities to question that information. So we'll
17 have to continue as best we can.
18 MS. KLIMEK: Mr. Chair, I just have one
19 more comment. I've, I've talked this over with my
20 friends and I just want to get the Panel's views or, I
21 guess, agreement or okay to it. I would like to spend
22 tonight to prepare for cross for the Canada Panel and
23 I've talked to Mr. Denstedt and Mr. Mousseau about
24 being able to talk to my witnesses, understanding I
25 cannot talk about their evidence but to assist -- them
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1664
1 to assist me in preparing for cross so we can be ready
2 for Friday if we need and I just want to check if
3 that's okay with the Panel. Mr. Denstedt and
4 Mr. Mousseau were made aware of that request and said
5 they had no concerns about it.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Denstedt?
7 MR. DENSTEDT: That's, that's standard
8 practice in board proceedings.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I, I think it's
10 important, Ms. Klimek, to raise this on the record and
11 I think with the comment from Mr. Denstedt -- and
12 Mr. Mousseau, you wish to add to this? No? Obviously
13 no objections to it so, in that case, we will accept
14 your proposal, Ms. Klimek.
15 MR. MOUSSEAU: I just wanted to raise one
16 other matter, sir, and that was the, the motion by the
17 Environmental Coalition with respect to Alberta
18 Environment and, and just -- I discussed this with
19 Ms. Klimek but I think we should put on the record
20 the, the revised plan to deal with that motion.
21 MS. KLIMEK: Do you want me to go ahead?
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, please do.
23 MS. KLIMEK: Seeing that is my motion, I
24 am prepared to argue it but I thought it was important
25 to get our Panel up and on their way. So any time
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1665
1 after that I'm -- you know, I've got -- I'm ready, so
2 if you want to do it before Mr. Protti or after him, I
3 would be more than prepared. It won't be long. It
4 will be ten minutes tops, but -- my response, but I
5 leave that to your discretion. I am ready at any
6 time, but preferably not right now because I'm going
7 to fall asleep.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: I think what we would -- what
9 I would propose is that we deal with that after we
10 have finished the cross-examination of your Panel
11 tomorrow, okay? Thank you. We will close now and
12 reconvene at 8:30 tomorrow morning. Good night.
13 (THE PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 7:07 P.M.)
14 (PROCEEDINGS TO RECONVENE AT 8:30 A.M. ON
15 THURSDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2008)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected] 1666
1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION
2
3 I, Tambi Balchen, CRR, CSR No. 9166, Official
4 Realtime Reporter in the Provinces of British Columbia
5 and Alberta, Canada, do hereby certify:
6
7 That the proceedings were taken down by me in
8 shorthand at the time and place herein set forth and
9 thereafter transcribed, and the same is a true and
10 correct and complete transcript of said proceedings to
11 the best of my skill and ability.
12
13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my
14 name this 16th day of October, 2008.
15
16
17
18 ______
19 Tambi Balchen, CRR, CSR No. 9166
20 Official Realtime Reporter
21
22
23
24
25
Mainland Reporting Services Inc. [email protected]