Ernst Environmental Services Box 753 Rosebud AB T0J 2T0 1-403-677-2074
September 8, 2008
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) And Joint Review Panel
For posting, re: bias, repetition and carpet-bombing
Dear Ms. Therrien, CEAA and Joint Review Panel,
We already know that the ERCB (aka EUB) was found guilty of apprehension of bias and illegally spying on citizens (and lying about it when caught). To the shock and horror of many, the guilty and biased agency sits on this very Joint Review Panel. A name change and firing a few sacrificial goats does not remove bias from this scourging agency.
Mr. Stewart Shields duly diligently prepared his August 17, 2008 submission entitled "Rebuttals" (included below). A decision has been made to not post his submission. The reasons the CEAA gives (August 25, 2008, included below) are:
1) Repetition and 2) Offensive and inappropriate language.
Yes, there is repetition in Mr. Shields’ submission, most likely because the biased ERCB still sits on the Joint Review Panel. If the CEAA and Joint Review Panel are censoring Mr. Shields’ submission because of repetition, then the CEAA and Joint Review Panel – ifU they are unbiased U - must say no to EnCana’s request to repetitively drill more wells (i.e. carpet-bomb) in the Suffield National Wildlife Area. Repetition is still repetition, whether by citizen or EnCana.
The attached July 2005 National Geographic article “All Fired Up” provides an excellent overview of carpet- bombing. EnCana’s website says: “The Jonah Field is one of EnCana’s key resource plays”. How much more carpet-bombing can the National Wildlife Area, indeed Alberta, our groundwater, listed species, sensitive and rare native grasslands, and citizens take? No one knows! Repetitive carpet-bombing’s cumulative affects have not been appropriately assessed anywhere, never mind in a National Wildlife Area and refuge for listed species.
Review the attached article “Petroleum industry cries foul” in the Star-Tribune. It appears that American regulators are more responsible to the “public interest” than Canadian regulators. Why? The Suffield National Wildlife Area was created for a purpose, and when it was created, EnCana agreed not to drill any more wells there. EnCana is already repetitively carpet-bombing many lands in Alberta. The Star-Tribune article states: “IPAMPS wants it all, leaving nothing for Wyoming’s wildlife and the people who value it.” EnCana wanting to break its promise not to drill any more wells in the National Wildlife Area, indicates to me that the company wants it all, leaving nothing for Alberta’s wildlife and the people who value it.
And what of the economic losses in the National Wildlife Area? Why should Canadians pay so that EnCana can break its promise? Review the attached article in Alberta Venture by Andrew Nikiforuk entitled: “Exile in the Oilpatch: Alberta’s oil and gas royalty mess”. It states: “Roy predicts that the panel’s proposed royalties for natural gas will actually result in a loss of $1 billion at current prices and not a gain.” It appears that the “public interest” is going to lose at Suffield in more ways than one while EnCana only gains. How responsible is that? How “fair” and “unbiased” is that? Can the “public interest” trust EnCana and the ERCB? In my experience, the answer is no.
Colorado Public Radio held an interview this morning with an auditor hired by some counties to audit energy companies. One of the companies audited was EnCana. EnCana was also interviewed and said they always intend to pay what they owe. This brings to mind the old saying “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions”, and indeed the interview brings this to light:
Monday, Sep. 08 CountiesHTU Order Oil and Gas Audits UTH
The oil and gas industry is booming and several Colorado counties want to make sure they are getting their fair share back in taxes - so they’re hiring outside auditors to check the books of energy companies. Dan Meyers talks with oil and gas audit specialist Pat Martindale.
http://www.kcfr.org/index.php?optHTU ion=content&task=view&id=94UTH
EnCana is repetitive, year after year, in ignoring my valid and reasonable questions and concerns; so are the regulators (see below for a few examples). Since 2003, EnCana repetitively violates my legal right to quiet enjoyment of my property. EnCana repetitively proclaims to take the protection of groundwater seriously even after secretly and scandalously operating directly in my community's drinking water supply.
How will my community get their safe water back if EnCana refuses to provide the required gas well data and repetitively carpet-bombs near where the company fractured our fresh water aquifers? What about aquifer drawdown, contamination and other irreparable repetitive and cumulative impacts to the groundwater in my community, the Suffield National Wildlife Area and others?
EnCana secretly diverted fresh water for coalbed methane (CBM) from the aquifer that supplies my well. The company did this without the required permit and without the required baseline data collection and groundwater protection assessment. For one CBM well, EnCana operated in multiple fresh water aquifers in my community - this is prohibited under the Water (Ministerial) Regulation. Is EnCana above the law? Why does EnCana repetitively invade public resources and lands without the required permits, and when caught, refuse to cooperate or take responsibility for the invasions? What of EnCana’s repetitive secrets that were in direct violation of ERCB consultation requirements?
Is the “public interest” to be condemned to eternal punishment by EnCana? It seems so because the panel chose EnCana over the public interest by granting the company its secrecy request before consulting with interested parties and the public. Review the attached copy of the article “‘The Public Interest’: Can It Provide Guidance For the ERCB and NRCB?” as published in the latest volume of the Journal of Environmental Law and Practice (JELP).
EnCana has repetitively disrespected my questions about their downspacing plans in my community, including on my land. I expect to be repetitively ignored again when I send questions in response to EnCana’s third announcement to downspace here. The ERCB states publicly that it is my responsibility to make EnCana answer my questions. If the Canadian Military cannot get EnCana to adhere to the law, how am I supposed to make the company answer my questions?
Please detail and post how there is no apprehension of bias by censoring a citizen’s repetitive submissions while giving the repetitive EnCana prompt service (e.g. the Joint Review Panel granting EnCana’s secrecy request in seven days).
I do not see any offensive or inappropriate language in Mr. Shield’s “Rebuttals” submission. Please specify and post the words that are offensive and inappropriate so that interested parties can learn from this. If words were used that are offensive and inappropriate, why not ask Mr. Shields to simply remove them instead of boycotting his entire submission? For example, you could direct Mr. Shields to replace “trash” with “garbage” or replace “horrid” with “unacceptable”, etc.
In my opinion, Mr. Shields has intelligently contributed with generosity, courage, and truth to the process. Indeed, it appears that he has worked harder to protect the public interest than the ERCB, Joint Review Panel and CEAA combined. Time freely given for the public good in today's selfish world is invaluable. To see government staff waste and disrespect such time is in my view reprehensible – worse even than Mr. Harper slithering out of his law for fixed-date elections.
The CEAA, Joint Review Panel and EnCana are well paid for their work in this process. Many citizens are not paid at all and put significant wear and tear on personal time, family and friendships, home computers, fax machines, vehicles etc. ERCB bias against citizens questioning the regulator’s protection of industry is fierce. I know - the ERCB judged me a criminal without a trial after I presented them with documentation showing the ERCB falsely reporting EnCana’s non compliant noise levels at my property; I was not given a phone call first or even access by Canada Post (evidence of my mail refused by the ERCB is included below). They did not read me my rights, and my 2006 request for Appropriate Dispute Resolution to fix the mess remains ignored.
I think Mr. Shields’ “Rebuttals” submission that the CEAA is censoring is brilliant; I second it. The ERCB has no business hearing EnCana’s broken promise project. The ERCB (with help from EnCana’s past CEO Gwyn Morgan and the RCMP) destroyed its credibility during the tragic Wiebo Ludwig years. (A must read is the Governor General’s Award winning Saboteurs: Wiebo Ludwig's War Against Big Oil by Andrew Nikiforuk.) The ERCB has been going down the biased hill ever since. In 2005, the ERCB apparently violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when it banished me without a trial. Last year, the ERCB buried itself in lies, spies, bias and unfair and unlawful proceedings. If not for dedicated, hard working citizens repeatedly taking the ERCB to the Alberta Court of Appeal, I doubt the ERCB would have admitted bias in their steal-from-the-people-to-give-to-industry hearing.
The ERCB working for or being on the Joint Review Panel marks the proceedings at Suffield with bias – refusing to post Mr. Shields’ submission ices the biased cake. I have experienced repetitive problems with the CEAA inappropriately posting my submissions, or not at all without questioning them first.
Please detail how many submissions by citizens and EnCana have not been posted, for what reasons, and who submitted them. Please also detail how I can access copies of all submissions that have not been posted.
I respectfully request complete, honest, non-deflective, accountable and integral answers to my questions and concerns.
I request that Mr. Shields' Aug. 17 submission and the CEAA's Aug. 25 reasons for refusing to post it are posted.
I repeat my request that EnCana is denied its request to drill any more wells in the National Wildlife Area, especially as it is now evident that repetition is not allowed.
EnCana has pleaded “not guilty” for constructing a pipeline in the National Wildlife Area without a permit. At the very least, to protect the public interest, the CEAA and Joint Review Panel must postpone the Proceedings until after the courts have decided whether or not EnCana is guilty, and all appeals have taken place.
How effectively does a law-violating regulator regulate a law-violating corporation?
I repeat my request that the ERCB member is taken off the Joint Review Panel to remove apprehension of bias and unfair proceeding. I request that a publicly agreed upon representative from an Alberta NGO is put on the panel instead (and paid the same as the ERCB member is now being paid). Then, we might begin a "fair" process.
Sincerely,
Jessica Ernst Ernst Environmental Services
Copied as in the email
Supporting documents below: 1) “Wildlife pipeliners plead not guilty” in The Edmonton Sun, August 27 2008; 2) Letters sent and received and associated documents, and comments.
Supporting documents attached: 1) a supporting article in the July 2005 National Geographic entitled "All Fired Up"; 2) a supporting article in the Wyoming Star-Tribune entitled "Petroleum industry cries foul"; 3) a supporting article in Alberta Venture entitled: “Exile in the Oilpatch: Alberta’s oil and gas royalty mess”; 4) a supporting article in the latest volume of the Journal of Environmental Law and Practice “‘The Public Interest’: Can It Provide Guidance For the ERCB and NRCB?”.
From: Therrien,Marie-FranceHTU [CEAA] UTH
Cc: JodieHTU Smith UTH Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 1:32 PM Subject: RE: Rebuttals!!
Mr. Shields,
The CanadianT Environmental Assessment Act T provides some discretion to the Agency on what is posted on the public registry. Note that all records are not required to be posted on the Internet site or on the project file. A decision has been made not to post your message on the public registry for the following reasons:
• You have made your views known on several occasions regarding the participation of the Energy Resources Conservation Board in this joint review. Responses have been provided to you on this issue by the Joint Review Panel and your views on this subject are well documented already on the public registry. • Your e-mail contains offensive and inappropriate language directed to one of the staff of the Joint Panel Secretariat.
Any further comments that you may wish to provide which directly relate to the environmental impact assessment of the EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project will be posted on the project public registry
Marie-France Therrien Panel Manager | Gestionnaire de commissions Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency | Agence canadienne d’évaluation environnementale 160 Elgin St. Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 | 160, rue Elgin, Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 [email protected] UTH Telephone | Téléphone : 613-957-0324 Facsimile | Télécopieur: 613-957-0941 Government of Canada | Government of Canada
To: [email protected] UTH
Cc: [email protected] UTH ; [email protected] UTH Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 11:58 AM Subject: Rebuttals!!
It actually is pleasing to notice EnCana are offering rebuttals to submissions presented to the joint panel in item # 561. How unfortunate it was to have J.P.Mousseau, the ERCB lawyer, and legal council for the joint panel trash both Jennifer Klimek and Garry Trottier's submissions before any possible rebuttals were possible!! Since Mr. Mousseau's horrid trash letter appeared on item # 551 with his signature indicating himself as the council for the Joint Review Panel, we can assume he was not acting as a agent for EnCana!
As such we have another ERCB member employed by the Joint Review Panel who has problems with correct behavior with respect to this Federal Environmental review!! I see this every bit as serious as Mr. Nichols behavior, that Mr. Baird, Minister of the Federal Environment sat chilly threw out.
This second behavior problem should bring both the Minister of Defense and the Minister of Environment together to bring this review process mess back on track as a Federal Environmental Review!!
Having one member of the troubled ERCB as a sitting Panel member is one thing. But to have the council for the Joint Panel an ERCB member and all Panel members made ERCB member to sit at the hearing is quite another. Then to top this by having the ERCB "rules of Practice" as the guide to going forward simply leaves this total affair an ERCB venture!! What indeed is Federal about any of the aforementioned??
To leave Mr.Mousseau as the legal council for the panel is to OK these outbursts toward prepared submissions by the deciding body before the set hearing date!! And indeed, before rebuttal is even possible by the applicant!!
Is this sanctioned by the Joint Review Panel? More important is this going to be allowed as standard procedure for Federal Environmental Reviews, by the Federal Minister of Environment?? For Posting
Stewart Shields
Ernst Environmental Services Box 753 Rosebud AB T0J 2T0
May 30, 2007
Mr. Stacy Knull, EnCana
Re: Outstanding concerns, questions, and missing consultation in EnCana's Chinook Business Unit
Dear Mr. Knull,
I was very surprised to see two EnCana staff appear as CSUG representatives a few days after EnCana cancelled its scheduled witnessing to the Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in Ottawa. I lost what little respect I have for you, EnCana and CSUG.
I have three concerns to bring to your attention:
A. The compressor noise has become increasingly annoying again.
B. I have waited patiently many months for EnCana to address my many valid questions and concerns, but only one or two of my questions have been answered. I have many more questions, and also need to object in writing to a number of matters sent to me by EnCana, but I need these many outstanding questions and concerns below addressed first. Please respond ASAP so that I may file informed objection regarding these matters.
C. Please forward this email, notably my concerns listed below, to Ms. Debbie Smith of EnCana. She does not provide her title, or email in her May 8, 2007 letter to me. Is this to make it more challenging for landowners to communicate with her?
Re Ms. Debbie Smith's Letter dated May 8th, 2007, Edmonton to the fish scale (Shales??) formation.
My initial questions and requests, please:
1. List with full names, and depths, all formations to be perforated and fractured for all wells in the "special gas well spacing" 2. Define "special gas well spacing" 3. Do landowners have the right to object to special gas well spacings? 4. Will EnCana postpone its application, and provide complete, honest, and appropriate town hall meetings, with question periods to last as long as it takes, before applying for the special gas well spacing? 5. Will EnCana extend the time to object for three months, until all affected communities have been appropriately consulted with, honestly, openly, and until all concerned citizens have had their questions and concerns completely addressed to the satisfaction of the citizens (instead of just AEUB and EnCana staff)? 6. How wide spread is the special gas well spacing application? Please provide detailed maps with the boundaries, if applicable, beyond the County of Wheatland. 7. What special gas well spacing will come next? 8. What is the maximum expected density of wells per section in Wheatland County that EnCana expects - in other words, at what concentration of wells per section will EnCana quit? 9. How many Jonah Fields is EnCana planning for its holdings in Alberta? 10. Will water be used for fracturing these formations? How much water will be produced and how will it be disposed of? 11. List all chemicals to be used in drilling, lost circulation, servicing, perforating, fracturing, etc of these formations. 12. Will EnCana provide all MSDS's for all products used for all wells in this spacing? 13. What practices above and beyond those at the AEUB and AENV will EnCana employ for this special gas well spacing? 14. Is the "special gas well spacing" going to replace the cancelled applications that citzens have objected to in the past, some even with very time consuming Appropriate Dispute Resolutions that were suddenly cancelled by EnCana? 15. I request that the deadline (May 30, 2007) for responding to EnCana's special gas well spacing is extended for a minimum of three months, so that all concerned citizens, including myself, may fully and responsibly review the missing information. It is the agricultural industry's busy seeding time of year - Ms. Smith's letter provides no relief for conditions that may complicate work for farmers. Why does EnCana disrespect rural citizens, other industries and businesses? 16. What date did I receive the special gas well spacing letter from Ms. Smith? 17. Please send a copy of the complete environmental and socio-economic impact assessments and cumulative impact assessments completed for this special gas well spacing. The existing adverse cumulative impacts facing the land, water, air, other businesses, and people are already significant. If the company has not completed any such assessments, please detail why not, and when these will be prepared. 18. Will this special gas well spacing result in an increase in compression required? Will existing compressors and other facilities be upgraded to handle the increased volume in gas from this special gas well spacing? 19. How will EnCana mitigate this noise, if it will not mitigate the noise problems the company is already creating? 20. EnCana has been violating my legal right to quiet enjoyment of my home and land off and on now for four years. Detail all the cumulative noise (all rigs, venting, flaring, traffic, compressors, mainenance, trespassers on quads and dirt bikes, etc) and duration of those noise impacts that will occur for activities to fulfill the wells under this special gas well spacing application. How will EnCana mitigate the cumulative violations to my legal right to quiet enjoyment of my home and land from this special gas well spacing? 21. What is the gas composition of wells expected in this application? 22. Will EnCana provide representative gas samples from all perf and frac depths in this application for isotopic fingerprinting? 23. Is shale gas biogenic? 24. Will EnCana only use treated water for all activities related to this special gas well spacing to prevent bacterial contamination of aquifers? If not, why not? 25. Where will EnCana get its water supply for all activities related to this special gas well spacing application? 26. How much water per well is needed on average for drilling, fracturing and servicing each well in this special gas well spacing? 27. Will EnCana provide comprehensive baseline testing for water wells and springs, including dissolved methane, isotopic fingerprinting of gases from representative perf and frac depths as the gas wells are drilled (ie before commingling), BTEX F1-4, metals, etc for all gas wells under this special gas well spacing application? 28. Will EnCana be commingling the formations in this special gas well spacing with conventional gas, tight gas, and CBM? 29. I have other questions, but I do not have time this week to prepare them.
Mr. Mark Taylor neglected to address most of the following (by the way, I did not alter the colours selected by Mr. Taylor in his emails). Please recitify his unprofessional conduct and respond appropriately and fully to all my questions and concerns included in the various emails below:
Scientific Evidence Required; Mon, 04 Sep 2006 jessica wrote:
Jessica Ernst Box 753 Rosebud AB T0J 2T0 Landowner P/O SE13-27-22-W4M
Dear Mark,
Thank you for your email in red dated September 7, 2006 (included below for your convenience).
Your email came without the required scientific evidence, published in peer reviewed journals, to prove that EnCana's many new drilling, recompleting, perforating, fracturing and commingling activities of gas wells in Sections 14 and 13 have not and will not, in any way, alter conditions vital to the investigation of natural gas migration into area groundwater and water wells. Evidence did not arrive on September 8, 2006 either, thus it appears EnCana and the regulators have none. On Saturday, September 9, 2006, frac trucks were back.
An honest, accurate investigation here seems to have vanished from sight.
Why, of the many sections in Alberta that EnCana has mineral rights in, is EnCana so busy in or near the very section where, in 2004, the company perforated and fractured into fresh water aquifers? Is EnCana busy commingling these gas wells (that are likely critical to this investigation) to ensure that accurate isotopic fingerprinting of gases sampled from them will be impossible? Is it duly diligent for a company to alter conditions of its gas wells during a serious groundwater contamination investigation? What if the Alberta Research Council needs to collect its own gas samples from area gas and water wells to send to the U of A for isotopic analysis, but finds that all the critical gas wells have been commingled?
It was recently reported in the Strathmore paper, that EnCana had offered to Wheatland County to collect "baseline data" on the hamlet of Rosebud water wells. Please explain EnCana's scientific reasoning for collecting "baseline data" years after perforating and fracturing into fresh water aquifers and drilling so many gas wells in the area.
Would you please advise me when EnCana is going to send the signed letter assuring that EnCana is willing to fully cooperate in a scientifically complete, and honest investigation here, without potential tampering of evidence (see below for more details). There remains a contradiction between what your emails say, and what Mr. Cam Kline stated in public. What you emailed me in red, is not what I asked for. Mr. Leo Touchette of the AEUB ordered me to never believe any promises or assurances any petroleum company makes me, unless they are obtained in writing on paper with a signature and written precisely as required to be able to hold the company accountable in the event the the company breaks a promise or if it is proven that the company's assurances turn out to untrue or unfounded.
I have included my email to you dated Sept. 4, 2006 below. In it I underlined my questions you did not answer and my requests and concerns that you did not respond to.
I have a few questions about your request that you sent to me in an email dated August 29, 2006 (for your convenience, I also included it below). In order for me to respond to EnCana's request, I need appropriate response and documentation from EnCana in a timely manner please. After I have received the information I respectfully requested of EnCana, and have had time to review it, I will be able to respond responsibly.
Please answer these additional questions below, as well as my past questions, on paper, with a signature and EnCana letter head. Thank you. My questions are as listed:
Re – EnCana's recompletion of the 7-13-27-22-W4M gas well and surveying and testing of my water well What depths will EnCana be perforating and fracturing at?
Will EnCana provide gas samples for composition and isotopic fingerprinting before commingling the 7-13 gas well?
Will EnCana allow me to choose the consultants to test my well? If yes, thank you; if not, why not?
When does EnCana anticipate doing the perforating and fracturing?
Will EnCana wait until after the natural gas contamination investigation is complete? If yes, thank you, if no, why not?
Will EnCana send me EnCana’s gas sampling protocol (including safety requirements) for testing water wells contaminated with natural gas?
Will EnCana also send me EnCana’s third party consultant’s natural gas sampling protocol (including safety requirements) for testing water wells contaminated with natural gas?
Will EnCana send me the company's safety protocol for surveying property that might have natural gas migrating to surface, and in the water well to be surveyed?
Will EnCana send me a letter from Occupational Health and Safety, approving EnCana's safety protocol for surveying and testing my water well?
Will EnCana assume legal responsibility in the event of a fire, explosion, injury or fatality during the surveying and testing of my well?
Who will complete the survey and will I get a copy of the survey when it is complete?
Would you please send me the survey company’s contact information so that I may discuss the details of the survey with them and their safety protocol?
When will the new and recompleted gas wells in Sections 13 and 14 be tested? Will any venting take place? How much? How long will each of the new gas wells be tested for? How will EnCana deal with the extensive noise that this cumulative testing will cause at my property? Will all the gas wells be tested at the same time? How will EnCana ensure the testing noise does not violate my legal right to quiet enjoyment of my property and home and will not disrupt my sleep?
Is EnCana going to tie in these recompleted and new wells into the K101 compressor? If EnCana ties in these many new wells to the compressors neighbouring my property, how is EnCana going to mitigate the increased K101 compressor noise? Keep in mind that the AEUB acceptable noise levels are only the barest of expected minimums. Due diligence requires that EnCana mitigates affects, and respects my legal rights. Please detail how EnCana plans to respect my legal rights.
Please refer to the underlines in my email included below - these are items you neglected to respond to in your September 7, 2006 email. I respectfully request appropriate response. Thank you. Sincerely,
Jessica Ernst
Taylor, Mark wrote:
Good morning Jessica,
I would like to reiterate that EnCana has cooperated fully with all of the regulatory agencies investigating ground water complaints in the Rosebud area. EnCana supports these investigations 100% and has complied with all requests from the regulators. As such, all of the regulatory agencies have had complete access to EnCana's well files, and to our wells and well sites.
EnCana is not privy to the details or progress of the investigations, and we respectfully request that you contact the regulatory agencies for any information we may have provided as part of the investigation process.
Sincerely,
Mark Taylor
underlined areas require appropriate response and documentation.
Dear Mark,
Thank you for your email dated August 31, 2006.
I am pleased that EnCana is confident that its current activities in section 14 will have no possible affect on the regulator's groundwater contamination investigation here because this must mean that EnCana has the scientific evidence, published in peer reviewed journals, to back up its claim. Please send this scientific evidence to me. You can email the evidence, or send it by post. Thanks Mark. If I do not receive this evidence by Sept 8, 2006 I will have to assume there is none. If you do not have the authority to send this evidence to me, I respectfully ask Mr. Knull, Ms. Yee and Mr. Mckee to find someone who does.
It is interesting to read from your words (attached below) that EnCana has been and is cooperating fully in this investigation. Mr. Cam Cline of EnCana stated publicly a few months ago that EnCana does not have to and will not cooperate fully in this investigation. To clarify this confusion, please send me a signed letter from EnCana stating that the company is willing to cooperate fully in this investigation, will allow the regulator to test area gas wells to find the ones that might be leaking gas to surface and thereby possibly into our aquifers, and provide Dr. Muehlenbachs samples from any leaking gas wells, as well as gas samples from all frac depths for all types of gas wells in the area - conventional and non, including the 5-14-27-22- W4M gas well. If EnCana has already provided these samples to the University of Alberta, then just include a list of the legal land descriptions for all the gas wells that EnCana provided gas samples for with your letter. If I do not receive this clarification letter by Sept 8, 2006, it would appear that Mr. Cline stated EnCana's position accurately and that the company is not willing to cooperate fully in this investigation. Please send me the tower reports for the gas wells drilled in sections 14, 12 and 13, new and old, and a summary of proposed activities in these sections. If EnCana has nothing to hide [about the recompletion of 7-13], EnCana will happily send me this information. Since you say that EnCana tested all the water wells within the testing distance of its drilling operations, please send me the legal land descriptions of the water wells EnCana tested for the re-completion and fracturing of the 8-14 gas well.
Please let me know when I can expect the above requested documentation. Once I have reviewed this documentation, I will be able to get back to you with a response regarding your request to survey in my water well.
One of your statements on August 31 was:
"EnCana is committed to responsible development of Alberta's natural gas resources and takes the protection of groundwater very seriously."
In my experience of working in the patch, taking something "very seriously" means always erring on the side of caution, notably if hydrocarbon contamination is involved. If EnCana takes groundwater protection “very seriously” why did the company fracture into fresh water aquifers? Why not err on the side of caution and wait until the investigation is over before being active with so many wells near the hamlet water wells, and mine?
The stress of losing one's water is bad enough; to deal with EnCana's busy activities in the middle of an investigation adds undue stress that EnCana could easily have prevented. Why would EnCana not want to prove to us that the company takes ground water protection “very seriously” and show full and open cooperation in this investigation instead of potentially tampering with it?
Sincerely,
Jessica Ernst
Taylor, Mark wrote:
Good afternoon Jessica,
I want to confirm that we received your email of August 30th.
EnCana is aware of ongoing investigations of water wells in the Rosebud area. EnCana has been cooperating fully and regularly with the various agencies that are investigating claims of natural gas contamination and we are confident none of our activities will affect the outcome of these investigations. EnCana is committed to responsible development of Alberta's natural gas resources and takes the protection of groundwater very seriously. Our operating practices are continually reviewed to ensure we do not have a negative impact on groundwater.
The fracturing of the dry Horseshoe Canyon CBM zones to recomplete the existing 8- 14-27-22 W4M well occurred as scheduled this morning. As per our operating procedures there were no coal seams shallower than 200m fractured in this well. The fracturing operation involved pumping pure nitrogen into the coal seams. EnCana has completed all of the required water well testing in the vicinity of this well and we are confident that completion of this well will not impact the groundwater in this area. The four wells that EnCana drilled in section 14 last month are targeting conventional sand formations between 1100m and 1400m below ground.
Respectfully yours,
Mark Taylor
From: jessica [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 11:28 AM To: Taylor, Mark; Knull, Stacy Cc: [email protected]; Hon Guy Boutilier; Bev Yee; Brenda Austin; Curtis Evans; Rick McKee Subject: Urgent request
Dear Mark and Stacy,
Thank you for your email Mark. I will get back to you regarding your request soon. I have a request for you both that is much more urgent.
Perhaps EnCana is not aware that there are currently a number of area water wells, including those supplying the hamlet of Rosebud (we are still awaiting the U of A's isotopic fingerprinting results for the hamlet's water supply), under investigation by the regulator for natural gas contamination.
I respectfully request that EnCana postpone the fracturing of its wells that is about to take place in section 14-027-22-W4M (this is the section where EnCana fractured into our aquifers) and in any other sections around the community until after the regulator's investigation is complete here. The drilling, perforating and fracturing of additional wells, including the 07-13 well recompletion you write about below, might alter evidence critical to the regulator's investigation.
Representative and accurate data collection and analysis on water wells here might protect groundwater elsewhere. I am sure that EnCana wants to cooperate with the landowners and regulators in Alberta to protect groundwater and ensure that representative, accurate data is collected. We cannot take back EnCana's unfortunate fracturing into our fresh water aquifers, but we can move forward and learn from it. The Trican trucks are on site in section 14 and appear prepared to fracture today. EnCana agreed not to conduct new activities on one landowner's property here until after the regulator's investigation is complete; it seems inconsistent for EnCana to drill and fracture so many new wells in the very section where the company fractured into our fresh water aquifers in 2004. Please take prompt action to protect the investigation here and our opportunity to learn and move foward cooperatively.
Perhaps the regulators neglected to tell EnCana about the serious, community wide, water well contamination investigation underway here. To verify that this investigation is indeed taking place, please contact our Honourable Minister of Environment. I have cc'd him this email for your convenience. We have requested, in writing, to the regulators that they request a postponement on activities by EnCana in our area, including the wells about to be frac'd, until the investigation is appropriately complete.
Sincerely trusting you will take responsible action to respect and protect the regulator's investigation here, and postpone activities until after the investigation is accurately complete. Thank you.
Respectfully yours,
Jessica Ernst
Taylor, Mark wrote:
Good afternoon Jessica, my team is currently evaluating the potential of recompleting one of our Viking gas wells (100/07-13-027-22W4) for Horseshoe Canyon CBM. As you are very likely aware the current regulations for water well testing prior to CBM drilling or recompletions calls for testing all water wells with 600m and if there are no water wells within 600m then to test any wells within 800m.
At present we have not identified any water wells within 600m of the 07-13 location. It appears from our County map that your residence/water well may be within 800m of the 07-13 well.
EnCana would like to request your permission to survey the location of your water well to determine its distance from the 07-13 well.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss this request please call me at 645-6718.
Thank you for your time,
Mark
Please acknowledge receipt of this email, and advise when you will be sending the information I have requested.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jessica Ernst Ernst Environmental Services Jessica Ernst Ernst Environmental Services Box 753 Rosebud, AB T0J 2T0
May 31, 2007
Mr. Peter Watson Deputy Minister, Alberta Environment 10th Floor, Petroleum Plaza South Tower 9915-108 Street Edmonton, AB T5K 2G8
Sent by Email as PDF
Dear Mr. Watson,
Thank you for your letters dated April 19, 2007 and May 17, 2007.
You wrote in your May 17, 2007 letter:
“Thank you for your letter dated May 10, 2007, regarding the concerns raised about EnCana’s level of compliance with the Baseline Water Well Testing Standard. Alberta Environment has met with the Energy and Utilities Board (EUB) to discuss this issue.
Upon the EUB’s review, it was determined that EnCana has met the Baseline Water Well Testing Requirements of EUB Directives 35 and 36, specifically that the offer to test was made. EnCana made considerable effort to ensure that your water well was surveyed, that the offer to test was made and has documented your refusal in both regards. Alberta Environment and the EUB agree that when a company has made the offer to survey and test a water well on multiple occasions, as EnCana has, and the landowner repeatedly does not indicate their willingness for surveying or testing, the landowner has refused.”
And in your April 19, 2007 letter:
“Alberta Environment (AENV) is committed to the successful implementation of the April 2006 Standard for Baseline Water-Well Testing for Coalbed Methane/Natural Gas in Coal Operations (the Baseline Standard). For the Baseline Standard to be successful we need coalbed methane developers to adhere to the landowner permission/refusal requirements. Alberta Environment will work with the Energy and Utilities Board (EUB) to develop guidance documents or protocols and to ensure the requirements of the Baseline Standard are enforced.
The EUB has assured me they are investigating Encana's compliance with the landowner Permission/refusal requirements. I will await the findings of the EUB's investigation prior to assessing AENV's next steps, but I have been assured by the EUB that the Encana letter you sent me is only the last step in a multi-step process to acquire landowner direction.”
I have a few questions and requests. I have numbered them to ensure that none get overlooked.
1. In regards to your April 19, 2007 statement above, on what page of the Standard are “last step” actions outlined and where are permissible methods of “implied refusal” listed?
2. Who at the EUB advised you of the “last step” actions being taken in my case?
3. You state in your May 17 2007 letter (refer above for the quote) that EnCana has documented my refusal to allow the company to survey and test my water well. Please send my documented refusal ASAP.
4. Are proponents allowed to create “implied refusal” conditions that are impossible for the landowner to deal with (e.g. sending offers to test long after they have expired)?
5. You write in your May 17, 2007 letter that AENV met with the AEUB to discuss my concerns about EnCana’s non-compliance. Please send a copy of the list of attendees and the date, time and location of the meeting. If EnCana staff were present, either as EnCana staff or members of CAPP or CSUG or any other organization, please include them on the list. Please send the contact information for all attendees.
6. Please send a copy of the meeting notes.
7. Which letters by EnCana that I sent to the Honourable Environment Minister Boutilier on November 1, 2006 and resent to the Honourable Environment Minister Renner on February 23, 2007, did you review with the AEUB in this meeting?
8. Did you review the postal tracker that I included with the EnCana letter sent to me?
9. Did the AEUB, you or your staff review the refusal documentation provided by EnCana to the AEUB?
10. The AEUB states that a survey plan or map is to be included in the application for CBM wells above the Base of groundwater protection, but does not state that a survey is required. I am confused by what EnCana and the regulators are playing at. The AEUB recently presented in writing (March 2007) that for completions and re-completions, industry must meet AENV Water Well Testing Standard. You are now writing that the AEUB and AENV have changed the requirements. Please send me links to the Directive or AEUB or AENV Bulletin or Information letter sent out indicating this change.
11. My question is whether or not EnCana was compliant with AENV’s Baseline Testing Standard (not AEUB Directives). I know that EnCana made an offer to test. I question how EnCana made the offer. I question EnCana’s ability to use “implied refusal” instead of obtaining my refusal in writing. I question this not only for my water well, but also for those of other landowners in the province. Please respect my questions and refrain from altering them to avoid regulatory responsibility.
12. Please review the many unaddressed questions and concerns that I wrote Mr. Mark Taylor of EnCana in 2006 (attached below for your convenience), notably:
“I have a few questions about your request that you sent to me in an email dated August 29, 2006 (for your convenience, I also included it below). In order for me to respond to EnCana's request, I need appropriate response and documentation from EnCana in a timely manner please. After I have received the information I respectfully requested of EnCana, and have had time to review it, I will be able to respond responsibly.”
You state in your May 17, 2007 letter that I have repeatedly not indicated my willingness to allow testing. Please send the documented evidence wherein I take back my statements I wrote to Mr. Mark Taylor above.
13. Are the AEUB and AENV suggesting that I respond irresponsibly, without the required information from EnCana that I need to make an informed decision?
14. How do I protect my water supply and that of my neighbours, indeed the Crown, if I am uninformed about EnCana’s intentions with my well, and property?
15. Why would the regulators even allow the company to test any area water wells in the middle of such a serious groundwater contamination investigation, and after the company put our aquifers at risk and violated the Water Act?
16. AENV’s Baseline Testing Standard states:
“If a landowner/occupant does not want his/her water well tested, the company must obtain written confirmation from the landowner/occupant that testing is not required. If written confirmation is refused, a company representative must diarize landowner/occupant’s refusal and the CBM developer must deliver to the landowner/occupant, and retain a copy of, a notice describing this protocol.”
Please send me ASAP copies of:
• The written confirmation signed by me stating that the testing by EnCana was not required; • EnCana’s diary notes summarizing my statement to the company that I refused testing and refused to sign the company’s written refusal confirmation offered to me by the company representative; and • EnCana’s notice describing to me the company’s protocol for this that was provided to me by the company at the time that EnCana documented me refusing the testing and refusing to sign the confirmation of testing.
Thank you for your prompt, cooperative and complete responses and for mailing me the support documentation to support your claims.
Sincerely, jessica ernst
Jessica Ernst Ernst Environmental Services
Cc Premier Stelmach MLA Dr. Lyle Oberg And others as on the email list
ATTACHMENT: CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN ERNST AND ENCANA RE SURVEY AND OFFER TO TEST, AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2006
Subject: Re: Your September 4th email Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:04:42 -0600 From: jessica
Jessica Ernst Box 753 Rosebud AB T0J 2T0 Landowner P/O SE13-27-22-W4M
Dear Mark,
Thank you for your email in red dated September 7, 2006 (included below for your convenience). Your email came without the required scientific evidence, published in peer reviewed journals, to prove that EnCana's many new drilling, recompleting, perforating, fracturing and commingling activities of gas wells in Sections 14 and 13 have not and will not, in any way, alter conditions vital to the investigation of natural gas migration into area groundwater and water wells. Evidence did not arrive on September 8, 2006 either, thus it appears EnCana and the regulators have none. On Saturday, September 9, 2006, frac trucks were back.
An honest, accurate investigation here seems to have vanished from sight.
Why, of the many sections in Alberta that EnCana has mineral rights in, is EnCana so busy in or near the very section where, in 2004, the company perforated and fractured into fresh water aquifers? Is EnCana busy commingling these gas wells (that are likely critical to this investigation) to ensure that accurate isotopic fingerprinting of gases sampled from them will be impossible? Is it duly diligent for a company to alter conditions of its gas wells during a serious groundwater contamination investigation? What if the Alberta Research Council needs to collect its own gas samples from area gas and water wells to send to the U of A for isotopic analysis, but finds that all the critical gas wells have been commingled?
It was recently reported in the Strathmore paper, that EnCana had offered to Wheatland County to collect "baseline data" on the hamlet of Rosebud water wells. Please explain EnCana's scientific reasoning for collecting "baseline data" years after perforating and fracturing into fresh water aquifers and drilling so many gas wells in the area.
Would you please advise me when EnCana is going to send the signed letter assuring that EnCana is willing to fully cooperate in a scientifically complete, and honest investigation here, without potential tampering of evidence (see below for more details). There remains a contradiction between what your emails say, and what Mr. Cam Kline stated in public. What you emailed me in red, is not what I asked for. Mr. Leo Touchette of the AEUB ordered me to never believe any promises or assurances any petroleum company makes me, unless they are obtained in writing on paper with a signature and written precisely as required to be able to hold the company accountable in the event the the company breaks a promise or if it is proven that the company's assurances turn out to untrue or unfounded.
I have included my email to you dated Sept. 4, 2006 below. In it I underlined my questions you did not answer and my requests and concerns that you did not respond to.
I have a few questions about your request that you sent to me in an email dated August 29, 2006 (for your convenience, I also included it below). In order for me to respond to EnCana's request, I need appropriate response and documentation from EnCana in a timely manner please. After I have received the information I respectfully requested of EnCana, and have had time to review it, I will be able to respond responsibly.
Please answer these additional questions below, as well as my past questions, on paper, with a signature and EnCana letter head. Thank you. My questions are as listed:
Re – EnCana's recompletion of the 7-13-27-22-W4M gas well and surveying and testing of my water well
What depths will EnCana be perforating and fracturing at?
Will EnCana provide gas samples for composition and isotopic fingerprinting before commingling the 7-13 gas well?
Will EnCana allow me to choose the consultants to test my well? If yes, thank you; if not, why not?
When does EnCana anticipate doing the perforating and fracturing?
Will EnCana wait until after the natural gas contamination investigation is complete? If yes, thank you, if no, why not?
Will EnCana send me EnCana’s gas sampling protocol (including safety requirements) for testing water wells contaminated with natural gas?
Will EnCana also send me EnCana’s third party consultant’s natural gas sampling protocol (including safety requirements) for testing water wells contaminated with natural gas?
Will EnCana send me the company's safety protocol for surveying property that might have natural gas migrating to surface, and in the water well to be surveyed?
Will EnCana send me a letter from Occupational Health and Safety, approving EnCana's safety protocol for surveying and testing my water well?
Will EnCana assume legal responsibility in the event of a fire, explosion, injury or fatality during the surveying and testing of my well?
Who will complete the survey and will I get a copy of the survey when it is complete?
Would you please send me the survey company’s contact information so that I may discuss the details of the survey with them and their safety protocol? Would you please send me the survey company’s contact information so that I may discuss the details of the survey with them and their safety protocol?
When will the new and recompleted gas wells in Sections 13 and 14 be tested? Will any venting take place? How much? How long will each of the new gas wells be tested for? How will EnCana deal with the extensive noise that this cumulative testing will cause at my property? Will all the gas wells be tested at the same time? How will EnCana ensure the testing noise does not violate my legal right to quiet enjoyment of my property and home and will not disrupt my sleep?
Is EnCana going to tie in these recompleted and new wells into the K101 compressor? If EnCana ties in these many new wells to the compressors neighbouring my property, how is EnCana going to mitigate the increased K101 compressor noise? Keep in mind that the AEUB acceptable noise levels are only the barest of expected minimums. Due diligence requires that EnCana mitigates affects, and respects my legal rights. Please detail how EnCana plans to respect my legal rights.
Please refer to the underlines in my email included below - these are items you neglected to respond to in your September 7, 2006 email. I respectfully request appropriate response. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jessica Ernst
Taylor, Mark wrote: Good morning Jessica,
I would like to reiterate that EnCana has cooperated fully with all of the regulatory agencies investigating ground water complaints in the Rosebud area. EnCana supports these investigations 100% and has complied with all requests from the regulators. As such, all of the regulatory agencies have had complete access to EnCana's well files, and to our wells and well sites.
EnCana is not privy to the details or progress of the investigations, and we respectfully request that you contact the regulatory agencies for any information we may have provided as part of the investigation process.
Sincerely, Mark Taylor underlined areas require appropriate response and documentation.
Dear Mark,
Thank you for your email dated August 31, 2006.
I am pleased that EnCana is confident that its current activities in section 14 will have no possible affect on the regulator's groundwater contamination investigation here because this must mean that EnCana has the scientific evidence, published in peer reviewed journals, to back up its claim. Please send this scientific evidence to me. You can email the evidence, or send it by post. Thanks Mark. If I do not receive this evidence by Sept 8, 2006 I will have to assume there is none. If you do not have the authority to send this evidence to me, I respectfully ask Mr. Knull, Ms. Yee and Mr. Mckee to find someone who does.
It is interesting to read from your words (attached below) that EnCana has been and is cooperating fully in this investigation. Mr. Cam Cline of EnCana stated publicly a few months ago that EnCana does not have to and will not cooperate fully in this investigation. To clarify this confusion, please send me a signed letter from EnCana stating that the company is willing to cooperate fully in this investigation, will allow the regulator to test area gas wells to find the ones that might be leaking gas to surface and thereby possibly into our aquifers, and provide Dr. Muehlenbachs samples from any leaking gas wells, as well as gas samples from all frac depths for all types of gas wells in the area - conventional and non, including the 5-14-27-22-W4M gas well. If EnCana has already provided these samples to the University of Alberta, then just include a list of the legal land descriptions for all the gas wells that EnCana provided gas samples for with your letter. If I do not receive this clarification letter by Sept 8, 2006, it would appear that Mr. Cline stated EnCana's position accurately and that the company is not willing to cooperate fully in this investigation.
Please send me the tower reports for the gas wells drilled in sections 14, 12 and 13, new and old, and a summary of proposed activities in these sections. If EnCana has nothing to hide [about the recompletion of 7-13], EnCana will happily send me this information. Since you say that EnCana tested all the water wells within the testing distance of its drilling operations, please send me the legal land descriptions of the water wells EnCana tested for the re-completion and fracturing of the 8-14 gas well.
Please let me know when I can expect the above requested documentation. Once I have reviewed this documentation, I will be able to get back to you with a response regarding your request to survey in my water well.
One of your statements on August 31 was:
"EnCana is committed to responsible development of Alberta's natural gas resources and takes the protection of groundwater very seriously."
The stress of losing one's water is bad enough; to deal with EnCana's busy activities in the middle of an investigation adds undue stress that EnCana could easily have prevented. Why would EnCana not want to prove to us that the company takes ground water protection “very seriously” and show full and open cooperation in this investigation instead of potentially tampering with it?
Sincerely,
Jessica Ernst
Taylor, Mark wrote:
Good afternoon Jessica,
I want to confirm that we received your email of August 30th.
EnCana is aware of ongoing investigations of water wells in the Rosebud area. EnCana has been cooperating fully and regularly with the various agencies that are investigating claims of natural gas contamination and we are confident none of our activities will affect the outcome of these investigations. EnCana is committed to responsible development of Alberta's natural gas resources and takes the protection of groundwater very seriously. Our operating practices are continually reviewed to ensure we do not have a negative impact on groundwater. The fracturing of the dry Horseshoe Canyon CBM zones to recomplete the existing 8- 14-27-22 W4M well occurred as scheduled this morning. As per our operating procedures there were no coal seams shallower than 200m fractured in this well. The fracturing operation involved pumping pure nitrogen into the coal seams. EnCana has completed all of the required water well testing in the vicinity of this well and we are confident that completion of this well will not impact the groundwater in this area. The four wells that EnCana drilled in section 14 last month are targeting conventional sand formations between 1100m and 1400m below ground.
Respectfully yours,
Mark Taylor
-----Original Message----- From: jessica [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 11:28 AM To: Taylor, Mark; Knull, Stacy Cc: [email protected]; Hon Guy Boutilier; Bev Yee; Brenda Austin; Curtis Evans; Rick McKee Subject: Urgent request
Dear Mark and Stacy,
Thank you for your email Mark. I will get back to you regarding your request soon. I have a request for you both that is much more urgent.
Perhaps EnCana is not aware that there are currently a number of area water wells, including those supplying the hamlet of Rosebud (we are still awaiting the U of A's isotopic fingerprinting results for the hamlet's water supply), under investigation by the regulator for natural gas contamination.
I respectfully request that EnCana postpone the fracturing of its wells that is about to take place in section 14-027-22-W4M (this is the section where EnCana fractured into our aquifers) and in any other sections around the community until after the regulator's investigation is complete here. The drilling, perforating and fracturing of additional wells, including the 07-13 well recompletion you write about below, might alter evidence critical to the regulator's investigation.
Representative and accurate data collection and analysis on water wells here might protect groundwater elsewhere. I am sure that EnCana wants to cooperate with the landowners and regulators in Alberta to protect groundwater and ensure that representative, accurate data is collected. We cannot take back EnCana's unfortunate fracturing into our fresh water aquifers, but we can move forward and learn from it. The Trican trucks are on site in section 14 and appear prepared to fracture today. EnCana agreed not to conduct new activities on one landowner's property here until after the regulator's investigation is complete; it seems inconsistent for EnCana to drill and fracture so many new wells in the very section where the company fractured into our fresh water aquifers in 2004. Please take prompt action to protect the investigation here and our opportunity to learn and move foward cooperatively.
Perhaps the regulators neglected to tell EnCana about the serious, community wide, water well contamination investigation underway here. To verify that this investigation is indeed taking place, please contact our Honourable Minister of Environment. I have cc'd him this email for your convenience. We have requested, in writing, to the regulators that they request a postponement on activities by EnCana in our area, including the wells about to be frac'd, until the investigation is appropriately complete.
Sincerely trusting you will take responsible action to respect and protect the regulator's investigation here, and postpone activities until after the investigation is accurately complete. Thank you.
Respectfully yours,
Jessica Ernst
Taylor, Mark wrote: Good afternoon Jessica, my team is currently evaluating the potential of recompleting one of our Viking gas wells (100/07-13-027-22W4) for Horseshoe Canyon CBM. As you are very likely aware the current regulations for water well testing prior to CBM drilling or recompletions calls for testing all water wells with 600m and if there are no water wells within 600m then to test any wells within 800m.
At present we have not identified any water wells within 600m of the 07-13 location. It appears from our County map that your residence/water well may be within 800m of the 07-13 well.
EnCana would like to request your permission to survey the location of your water well to determine its distance from the 07-13 well.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss this request please call me at 645-6718.
Thank you for your time,
Mark ------Original Message ------Subject: EnCana compliance with AENVs Baseline Testing Standard Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:37:16 -0700 From: jessica
Jessica Ernst Ernst Environmental Services Box 753 Rosebud AB T0J 2T0
February 23, 2007
Hon. Minister of Environment
Re: Compliance with Alberta Environment's Baseline Testing Standard
Dear Honourable Renner,
Congratulations to you on your new position. I am hoping that you have had opportunity to become aware of ongoing concerns regarding water contamination in the Rosebud/Redland area.
I have many outstanding questions awaiting response from the staff of your ministry. I trust that the Honourable Boutilier has passed along my file. I enclose below my correspondence intended for Mr. Boutilier and the receipt tag showing that he deleted, without reading, my email. It contains very important questions. The responsibility of a reply and dealing with EnCana’s use of “implied refusal” now rests with you.
Subject: EnCana's Compliance with the Baseline Testing Standard Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 23:09:11 -0700 From: jessica
Jessica Ernst, President Ernst Environmental Services (611640 Alberta Inc.) Box 753 Rosebud AB T0J 2T0
Nov 1, 2006
Hon. Minister of Environment
Re: EnCana's Compliance with Alberta Environment's Baseline Testing Standard.
Dear Honourable Minister,
I trust all is well with you and yours.
Thank you for your letter responding to my queries about the Jack water well explosion. Please let me know the outcome of the regulator's investigation there when it is complete. I am very interested to see the isotopic fingerprinting results and your Ministry's conclusions. I am even more interested to know which area petroleum wells around the Jacks the regulator is sampling to use in the fingerprinting analysis and to test for possible leaks, and whether the regulator is choosing these industrial wells or the area proponents are (it's the old robber caught in the bank question again).
Please review the attached letters by EnCana and advise me if they are compliant with your Ministry's Baseline Testing Standard. If not, please detail in writing how they are not, and what punishment EnCana will receive, if any.
The September 12 letter was left in an EnCana plastic bag on a landowner's outside door knob on a tremendously windy day.
The September 22 letter was taken to the post office on October 30 - the postal tracker is included for your convenience. This letter had the Baseline Testing Standard attached in full, so i would expect that EnCana knows what it says.
Thank you for attending to my requests promptly and with accountability.
Sincerely,
jessica ernst Ernst Environmental Services (611640 Alberta Inc.)
Your message To:Fort McMurray-Wood Buffalo Cc:Neil McCrank; Leo Touchette; Walter Ceroici; Bev Yee; Darren Bourget; Leslie Miller; Curtis Evans; [email protected]; Rick McKee; Mary Griffiths; Jennifer Deak
Subject: EnCana's Compliance with the Baseline Testing Standard
Sent: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 23:09:11 -0700 was deleted without being read on Sun, 5 Nov 2006 21:06:26 -0700
AEUB staff acknowledged receipt of the above email; AENV staff did not. When our Honourable Boutilier deleted my email without reading it, I resent my concerns about EnCana's violation of the Standard to Ms. Leslie Miller with AENV on November 7, 2006. She responded in writing on November 10, 2006, advising me that the AEUB enforces the Standard. I wrote the Chairman of the AEUB on December 8, 2006 asking him who is responsible for compliance with the Standard. Mr. Rick McKee, lawyer with the AEUB, responded in writing on January 19, 2007 advising me that the AEUB takes compliance action if AENV forwards concerns to the Board. Mr. Darin Barter, AEUB communications, was reported by Enviroline (EnviroLine Vol. 17 No. 1 & 2 pg. 6) saying that the AEUB will do something if citizens forward concerns to the AEUB.
I have written three letters of concern to AENV about EnCana's actions that are in direct contravention of AENV's Baseline Testing Standard; this is my fourth. More than three months have passed. Meanwhile it has been reported to me that EnCana continues to use "implied refusal" in direct contravention of AENV’s Standard. Why have both regulators avoided dealing with this serious problem? Please detail how deflecting concerns of non compliance protects the public interest, our groundwater and public health and safety.
Please show Albertans that our Honourable Stelmach has selected wisely when he put you in charge of our environment. Please carefully address my concerns and questions in this email. Please take responsible action, and copy me what you forward to the AEUB.
One last question: If evidence of non compliance forwarded by citizens is not accepted by the regulators or Alberta Ministers, where is the citizen to forward that evidence?
Sincerely,
Jessica Ernst Ernst Environmental Services
Help Exit
Item Number: 0432644000188013 Product Type: Xpresspost Service Standard Delivery Date: 2006/10/31
Date of Time of Retail Signatory Location Description Event Event Location Name CALGARY, Item accepted at the 2006/10/30 11:05 AB Post office
Request Delivery Notification email Remove Delivery Notification email Email This Page
Legal, Copyright, Privacy & Security © 2003 Canada Post
Jessica Ernst Box 753 Rosebud AB T0J 2T0
December 16, 2005 Page 1 of 15
To the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board 640-5th Avenue SW Calgary, AB T2P 3G4
SENT BY FAX TO: The Alberta Energy and Utilities Board @ 403-297-7336
OBJECTION TO AND CONCERNS REGARDING EnCana’s Application No. ENC08_353_01
The “EUB’s Information Handouts Package #1” included in the downspacing information package from EnCana with cover letter dated November 25, 2005 states:
“In Alberta, both the landowner and the company have rights.”
I am an Alberta landowner with legal rights and provide for you in this letter some of my objections and concerns regarding the above down spacing application by EnCana. I am Ms. Jessica Ernst of Box 753, Rosebud Alberta, T0J 2T0, who owns land legally described as Plan 9813427, Block 2 located in SE 13-27-22-W4M.
I can not provide you all of my objections and concerns, because EnCana has not publicly or privately consulted with me regarding this specific application, as required under EUB Guide 56. I am missing much information regarding this application, especially information about how I will be able to protect myself from possible dangers that might be caused by activities related to the application.
MY LEGAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY – I have been waiting for answers from EnCana’s Senior Legal Counsel in response to some very important questions I have regarding a privacy document entitled “EnCana’s Personal Information Protection Commitment”. It was attached to the “EUB Informational Handouts Package #1”. Today is my deadline for submitting my objections and concerns regarding this application to the EUB, and I have still not yet heard from EnCana’s Senior Legal Counsel, thus, I provide my concerns without any clarification or information from EnCana.
I have attached the document for your review. Please answer this question: Because this document was attached to the “EUB Informational Handouts Package #1” was this document sanctioned and approved by the EUB?
Please note, the personal information protection document arrived so badly reproduced that some parts are illegible. I asked EnCana for legible copies so that I could attach one
1 OBJECTION TO AND CONCERNS REGARDING EnCana’s Application No. ENC08_353_01
for your review, for my files and to provide copies to members of my community in case they received illegible copies too but, I have not received legible copies yet. I believe this to be a serious consultation violation – how am I to understand potential human rights violations that might affect me if I can not read this very important document?!
I am quite alarmed by what I can read in this document. My alarm raises serious questions and concerns about EnCana’s downspacing application. In my experience, EnCana violated my right to privacy already last year – I informed Mr. Stephen Smith of the EUB about that violation last year. For EnCana, using a document attached to the “EUB Informational Handouts Package #1”, to try to violate my right to privacy again is unacceptable. I also think it is unacceptable for the EUB to enable such an attempt to violate my right to privacy by having this questionable and alarming document attached to its “EUB Informational Handouts Package #1”. Please explain the EUB’s opinion of this document.
On December 5, 2005, immediately upon reading the document, I called the contact number for information and clarification because I could not believe what I was reading. I thought Canadians had rights I asked myself. How can EnCana access my private health and financial information without my written consent? Is EnCana trying to make it “OK” to violate my right to privacy with this document? Is the EUB? I can not allow this downspacing application to proceed without much more information, serious legal review of that information, joint meetings with EnCana, the EUB and Federal and provincial privacy commissioners and our Ombudsman. EnCana’s document, its purpose, the EUB’s involvement and EnCana not answering my questions or providing legible copies must be investigated. I believe that this is a matter of possible human rights violation and it must be investigated by the appropriate agencies and our Ombudsman.
I will not allow EnCana to use a downspacing application to violate my legal right to privacy. I will not allow the EUB to enable such a violation by attaching said EnCana document to its “EUB Informational Handouts Package #1”.
EnCana is already violating my legal right to quiet enjoyment of my property and home with its compressor noise. How can a Canadian company have the right to access my private health and financial information without my written consent? Is it acceptable for a company applying for down spacing to try to get away with the serious implication within the document without any consultation about how our rights might be violated with it? How can a Canadian company try to make it “OK” by hiding the serious nature of the contents of the document with illegibility?
As soon as I had read the document on December 5, 2005, I called the contact number to ask questions and get more information because I could not believe what I had read. There was only a voice mail. I left a message for a call back. I received no call back. I called again on December 7, 2005, expressing that the matter was urgent, that I have already called once, and again I requested please call me back ASAP. I received no call back. Only at the end of the next working day, did I receive an email from Ms. Carmelle Hunka.
2 OBJECTION TO AND CONCERNS REGARDING EnCana’s Application No. ENC08_353_01
I would like to express my dismay at only having so few working days to prepare my objection letter – I work out of town, and was away from November 26, to December 3, 2005. This subtracted five working days from the deadline EnCana provided me. It does not appear that EnCana or the EUB provide any allowance or flexibility for Albertans who work in the petroleum industry away from home in the field, often out of province.
I lost four working days waiting for EnCana to respond to my urgent phone calls asking for a call back about the attached privacy document. I have lost another five days, waiting for Ms. Hunka to answer my many questions regarding the document. I am still waiting for those answers, and am forced to prepare my objection without adequate information about how I am to protect a basic human right.
I object to how little time I was provided to comment and how much time was taken away from me by EnCana choosing not to respond in a timely manner, and choosing not to answer, yet again, vital questions that I have written the company.
Please refer below to my questions and comments to Ms. Hunka, dated December 9, 2005 as some of my reasons for protesting to this application.
MY QUESTIONS TO ENCANA THAT REMAIN UNANSWERED REGARDING ENCANA'S PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION COMMITMENT THAT WAS ATTACHED TO THE EUB’s “Information Handouts Package #1.”
I sent this via email to Ms. Hunka on December 9, 2005 at 10:40 AM
Jessica Ernst Box 753 Rosebud AB T0J 2T0
December 9, 2005
Ms Carmelle Hunka Senior Legal Counsel for EnCana
Dear Ms. Hunka,
RE: DOCUMENT ENTITLED: ENCANA'S PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION COMMITMENT
Thank you for your email, I was relieved to finally receive a response to my messages that I left on EnCana's Integrity Hotline.
I received the above mentioned document in a downspacing information package from EnCana. According to the document, (See Contact Us on page 1 top Left corner) "if you have further questions or if you refuse or withdraw your consent to our collection, use,
3 OBJECTION TO AND CONCERNS REGARDING EnCana’s Application No. ENC08_353_01
and disclosure of your personal information you can contact us toll free at 877-445- 3222." Then the document goes on to state (See Collection on page 2 top Left corner) "In the course of conducting our business Encana may collect information from or about you that includes: Financial, Property, and Health”. The document also states, (See Page 2 Consent) "If you do not contact us we will assume you have consented to our collection, use, and disclosure practices as set out in this Personal Information protection Commitment." According to these statements it is first apparently up to the landowner to explicitly tell Encana not to collect, transfer, distribute and disclose personal financial and health information. Why is it the responsibility of the landowner to provide refusal rather than incumbent upon Encana to obtain permission? By whose authority is Encana permitted to collect financial and personal health info on its neighbours? And how does EnCana access this private info? Is it from financial institutions and the Alberta Government?
As this document implies that if the recipient does not contact Encana, Encana will go ahead and collect personal financial and health information, has this document been approved or sanctioned by the Minister of Energy, Health, and the Privacy Commissioner of Alberta and Canada? Moreover, are the aforementioned aware that Encana regularly collects this information on landowners if the said landowners do not categorically withdraw permission?
How is this information stored and kept secure? Who can access it? What parties is this info specifically forwarded too? Under what circumstances?
Why does Encana need personal financial information of landowners? Why does Encana collect it? Why does Encana need health info of landowners? Why does Encana collect this?
Why hasn't Encana verbally disclosed that this document exists within its notification package? In my experience, it was buried in the the lengthy documents I received.
Why was such an important document so poorly reproduced that it is almost impossible to read?
Why does Encana insist that the landowner contact them in order to refuse permission, rather than require a written confirmation from the recipient allowing them to access the aforementioned info?
What if this information package from EnCana had been lost in the post or not delivered as regularly happens with rural postal delivery? Would lack of delivery grant "implied consent" for EnCana to gather private information about me or any of my neighbours?
How can Encana access health records without formal consent from the recipient?
Please explain the following statement within the aforementioned Encana Document: "If you do not provide consent or if you withdraw your consent this may affect certain
4 OBJECTION TO AND CONCERNS REGARDING EnCana’s Application No. ENC08_353_01
aspects of our relationship, including limiting your eligibility for certain payments, benefits, goods or services provided by us."
With respect to the above quotation, is Encana stating that if they are refused access to personal financial and health info that Encana will withhold agreed upon surface lease payments or pay less? Or, will not provide compensation or accept liability of any kind in the event of an unplanned incident, like a spill or explosion?
Is this "Personal Information Protection Agreement" used in other provinces by Encana? Is this document used in Encana's operations in the USA? Has EnCana sent this document to all persons who were sent downspacing information packages?
Please explain any and all circumstances whereby Encana will use, distribute, or disclose information collected by Encana without an individuals' explicit consent?
Is the recipient informed of all transfers of the information Encana has collected to other parties, such as subsidiaries, or in the event of a business transaction with another company?
Why is the Integrity Hotline phone number the same as that for EnCana's Privacy Officer?
I am often in the field out of province. Please provide answers to each of my above questions in writing please - promptly.
Also, please mail me 100 copies of the said document in regular sized font and reproduced clearly so that all parts of the document are legible.
I waited for your call from 9 AM - 10 AM and kept the phone free; I was disappointed not to hear from you.
I look forward to your answers. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jessica Ernst
I received this from Ms. Carmelle Hunka by email on December 8, 2005 at 3:24 PM:
Ms. Ernst,
Your calls to the Integrity Hotline inquiring into EnCana's Personal Information Protection Commitment have been referred to me for response. I provide legal support on privacy issues for EnCana and have regular discussions with the EnCana Privacy Officer, Don Smallwood.
5 OBJECTION TO AND CONCERNS REGARDING EnCana’s Application No. ENC08_353_01
I am out of town today but would be available to speak with you tomorrow morning at 9 am if that would be convenient for you. If that time is not convenient, please let me know when you are available alternatively.
I do understand you spoke with Don Smallwood last year and if you have some particular questions you could provide me by email in anticipation of a call tomorrow, it would be appreciated.
Thank you.
Carmelle Hunka Senior Legal Counsel EnCana Corporation
OTHER CONCERNS Consultation I am concerned because there has not been public consultation especially regarding the above mentioned down spacing application; I am concerned because my questions have not been addressed; I am concerned because there was no public consultation from EnCana or the EUB especially regarding “EnCana’s Personal Information Protection Commitment” that was attached to the “EUB Information Handouts Package #1”. I am extremely concerned because the EUB did not disclose to me its involvement with that document and its purposes. I provide for the EUB some details regarding the above concerns. First, Encana did not conduct public consultation in accordance with Section 6 of Guide 56 for this application:
“The applicant is expected to communicate with local residents and other operators and to develop an effective participant involvement program engaging both potentially directly and adversely affected and interested parties at an early stage of planning.”
This alone does not qualify as public consultation. Moreover, as a potentially directly and adversely affected and interested party, EnCana has yet to consult me regarding the aforementioned application. Furthermore, EnCana has not answered my many vital questions regarding adverse impacts from EnCana activities that might already be endangering my safety and causing harm to my health.
I have yet to see EnCana consult with me in accordance with Section 6, of Guide 56:
”develop an effective participant involvement program engaging both potentially directly and adversely affected and interested parties at an early stage of planning.”
6 OBJECTION TO AND CONCERNS REGARDING EnCana’s Application No. ENC08_353_01
And what about Section 7 of Guide 56 where it states:
“The applicant is expected to consult with or to notify other parties that express an interest in the proposed development, whether located inside or outside the minimum radius outlined in Tables 5.1, 5.2, 6.1, 6.2, and 7.1 and to allow them the opportunity to obtain information specific to the proposed energy development and to understand its possible impacts.”
Encana did not consult with me about this specific application even though EnCana knows that I am already adversely affected by many EnCana activities and facilities.
I have expressed my concerns and asked vital questions in writing to various EnCana staff on more than one occasion.
Third, Encana is still not adequately assessing or mitigating many of its cumulative impacts that I am must live with every day. In accordance with Section 10, Guide 56 EnCana did not actively apply or inform myself of any planning practices (good or otherwise) that respected and or addressed my potential concerns regarding this particular downspacing application. Section 10, Guide 56 states:
“The applicant is expected to minimize the cumulative impacts of energy development and to show that they have applied good planning practices with respect to the public and the environment.”
Fourth, according to Section 11, Guide 56, EnCana is expected to discuss its entire project with me as part of its public consultation, yet this did not occur prior to sending me this information package or announcing that it has applied to the EUB for this downspacing application. Section 11, Guide 56 states:
“If the proposed development is part of a larger project, the applicant is expected to discuss the entire project and explain how it complements other energy development in the area.”
Since Encana’s reduced spacing application is likely related to a larger proposed development and might connect with EnCana facilities that are already causing me adverse health and safety impacts and given that Encana has not consulted with me regarding the entire project including full disclosure of the shallow fracturing risks and the chemicals that were/are used in the experimental process around me, and how the impacts will be appropriately mitigated to ensure protection of public health and safety I object to this application.
Encana has also not consulted us prior to determining the location of its wells and facilities. According to Guide 56, Section 2.2.1, subsection 6:
7 OBJECTION TO AND CONCERNS REGARDING EnCana’s Application No. ENC08_353_01
“The applicant is expected to communicate with local residents and other operators and to develop an effective participant involvement program engaging both potentially directly and adversely affected and interested parties at an early stage of planning.” As the applicant did not discuss locations, and provide lost circulation details and fracturing chemicals used in the area around me, I object to this application because I have not been provided an “effective participant involvement program”. Effective participation is impossible with secrecy, withholding important information that might cause risks to public health and safety, providing misleading and sometimes even false information and providing repeat false promises. To date, I have only received vague notification of Encana’s plans. The “EUB Informational Handouts Package #1” states:
In many instances it is appropriate for a company to complete public consultation and notification beyond the minimum requirement stated in EUB “Guide 56: Energy Development Application and Schedules”.
If the proponent withholds information from me, how can I get involved in the way that the “EUB Informational Handouts Package #1” recommends:
“Landowners … should become involved as early as possible in the development planning process.”
What happens if the company does not even provide the minimum requirements stated in Guide 56? There is much information that is missing from EnCana in its application package – notably, where is the scientific evidence that proves my water is not at risk from repeat and cumulatively multiple shallow fracturing, perforating and questionable chemical injection into or below our aquifers. Where is the scientific evidence that gas migration has never occurred in Alberta, will never occur and does not cause any risk to public health and safety, regardless of cumulative shallow fracturing impacts underground and mistakes that might be made by workers. Where is the evidence that overburden pressure will not cause problems to aquifers? How can EnCana control and prevent vertical fractures? There is not sufficient, if any, information regarding these serious cumulative impacts and their potential health and safety hazards in the mailout provided by EnCana or the regulator. Let’s put it another way – there is more documentation about how the EUB and EnCana might try to get away with violating citizen rights to privacy than there is about protecting our lives, families, properties, livestock, and water.
The “EUB Information Handouts Packages #1” states:
“Ongoing dialogue also builds trust and is one way for you to have greater influence on energy development.”
I ask the EUB, how can I participate in an “ongoing dialogue” first, if EnCana keeps its experimental processes secret from me even though I might be adversely impacted by
8 OBJECTION TO AND CONCERNS REGARDING EnCana’s Application No. ENC08_353_01
them, in fact, possibly to the extreme where my life might be endangered and second, EnCana continues to refuse to answer my many valid questions regarding activities and chemicals that might have put my health at risk?
Would the EUB please explain to me this statement in the “EUB Information Handouts Packages #1”:
“Note, though, that you have the right to expect any reasonable concerns to be promptly addressed at any point during this process and at any time during the life of the project.”
I must object to this application by EnCana, until I am provided clarification of the above statement. I also need the EUB to explain to me how my “right to expect reasonable concerns to be promptly addressed” if EnCana, AENV and the EUB do not assess cumulative impacts of repeat shallow fracturing and perforating in coal seams near or into our aquifers. What if the proponent does not measure methane concentrations when water tests are requested before activities? What if EnCana refuses to monitor methane concentrations after citizens report strange water changes to the company? Also please explain how my right will be fulfilled if pre-experimental base line data on methane concentrations in potable water is not gathered and monitored? Science requires that pre- experimental conditions are established before conducting the experiment. Please explain to me how the EUB, AENV and the Ministry of Energy can condone industry experimenting with public health and safety without first establishing base line conditions – notably if it is known that methane gas migration can happen – even if it only rarely. If there is no base line data gathered before the experimenting begins, how can the EUB resolve problems with methane migrating?
The MAC report recommendations have not yet been put into force and there remain an incredible number of uncertainties regarding shallow fracturing and perforating into or near aquifers, notably those in coal seams.
Cumulative Environmental Impacts I am concerned about cumulative impacts not being adequately assessed or mitigated from activities that come with the downspacing application. The impacts are numerous, and many remain as unknowns. I object to letting so much downspacing occur in such a sensitive and unique ecosystem as the Badlands without unbiased proof that the system will not be irreversibly compromised. There are already many wells per section on the lands proposed for the said development. Until cumulative impacts underground and potential affects to our health and safety are appropriately, and scientifically assessed, without bias, I strongly object to any more wells being permitted on the lands that surround me. There is no information from EnCana on technical details regarding this application. More information must be provided for my review.
9 OBJECTION TO AND CONCERNS REGARDING EnCana’s Application No. ENC08_353_01
Cumulative Impacts to me personally – Many cumulative impacts are already currently unbearable with significant health and safety consequences including: Compressor noise causing disrupted sleep that over the past two years is cumulatively harming my health and potentially causing safety concerns because of my mounting exhaustion. I have read in numerous documents that the cumulative impacts of noise cause serious health consequences. I have also evidence of the EUB not dealing with reports of non compliance in matters regarding EnCana’s noise and its noise studies. In the revisions of the noise control directive it is clear that the EUB is not using the recommendations by the World Health Organization correctly or appropriately. I object to this application until the EUB deals with the past reports of non compliance appropriately and fairly instead of by trying to set up a third noise study to be conducted under non representative environmental conditions. Air emissions and pollution – dust and fumes from increased industrial traffic; EnCana has distributed flaring notices that show only incineration will be used, but, EnCana just advised me that they are venting with the incinerators. I am concerned because I will also be cumulatively adversely impacted by increased Nitrous oxide emissions, ground level ozone, and other contaminants from the multitude of compressors running 24/7 with two more planned. I am concerned because I will be subjected and adversely impacted by increased annoyance and stress from increased noise from facility, drilling, traffic (often disrespectful and speeding), construction crews with incessant back up safety beepers echoing loudly into the natural amphitheatre on my property, venting, flaring and incinerating noise. The noise I currently live with is already unbearable and is causing significant negative impacts including disrupted sleep, reduced concentration, depression, anxiety, and stress. The World Health Organization has stated that background noise of 30 dB while sleeping can harm human health. Loss of time – In my experience, EnCana does not plan or adhere to EUB rules well, and in some cases, not at all – policing EnCana consumes an incredible amount of time. Misleading, sometimes false information wastes an incredible amount of my time – trying to get honest and real information from EnCana consumes hours and days of time, with in my experience, culminating in limited if any answers from EnCana. I am concerned that this application will consume even more of my time – time I do not have to waste – take for example EnCana not responding to my urgent messages for almost a week, and EnCana not answering my questions, as listed above, or providing legible documentation when I requested it. Loss of my legal right to quiet enjoyment of my home and property – noise including construction noise that has been incessant the past few years, engine retarder brakes rattling my basement and walls because workers are too disrespectful to slow down for the coulees that surround my place, compressor noise, incinerators and flares and venting, drilling noise – the cumulative impacts of the multitude of wells being drilled results in
10 OBJECTION TO AND CONCERNS REGARDING EnCana’s Application No. ENC08_353_01
drilling noise heard inside my home often throughout the year, year after year because the coulees here and natural amphitheatre on my land magnifies noise from many miles – the compressor noise is also magnified. Disrespect - I am concerned by the disrespect EnCana has shown me – EnCana falsified two out of two noise studies in response to my noise complaint; EnCana has not followed EUB protocol for dealing with my noise compliant. EnCana gathered falsified data that it then used to add attenuation that was completely inadequate to deal with the noise problem at hand – thus, I, my family and dogs are still suffering. A few weeks ago, my nephew was kept awake by the compressor noise. I know of citizens with noise complaints in my neighbourhood who were not subjected to even one noise study, never mind two falsified ones – those complainants had their concerns resolved quickly. I have stood beside compressors with best available attenuation – I could not hear them even about 100 m away. The compressors near my home produce a high pitched tone that is insanity making – I am extremely concerned that this downspacing application will result in more wells that will be tied in to the compressors and that more compressors will be added and cause increased noise on top of the already insufferable noise. An EnCana staff advised me that the reason the high pitched tone is so annoying is because of the type of compressors EnCana is installing around my home. I protest this downspacing application because EnCana is not attending to adverse noise impacts. The noise is already at intolerable levels – more EnCana noise in any form around my home is not acceptable. My legal right to quiet enjoyment is being violated by EnCana badly enough as it is. False promises – EnCana provides many false promises – these waste time and cause undue stress. They also create the anxiety that comes with the domestic cycle of violence – promise – break the promise – make up – promise to fix and repair and never do it again only to break the promise again and again. Health and safety – there are serious adverse affects that need to be addressed before any further downspacing or drilling is permitted around my property. Methane gas migration – I requested that EnCana conduct a pre drilling water well test on my water well a few years ago because I was concerned about an EnCana well being drilled near my land – EnCana did not consult as required under Guide 56 and did not tell me that coal bed methane was being drilled on the coulee tops around my home – the elevation differences have resulted in EnCana perforating into our aquifers and there has been lost circulation with some wells. There is also suspected water production from some of these wells – I asked EnCana on November 21, 2005 for details regarding water production at a near by gas well – I have not yet received any information in response to that question either. In summation – EnCana provided me an incomplete water well test – they did not test for methane even though they knew they were experimenting with coal bed methane around my place, nor did they tell me about their chemicals or fracturing around my place – had EnCana followed the EUB requirements in Guide 56 – I would have insisted on a methane test and ongoing monitoring before the risky shallow fracturing began. My water now pours white, and fizzes horrifically. It also stinks. My water was fine, even during the entire time of the drought, until CBM was initiated in my
11 OBJECTION TO AND CONCERNS REGARDING EnCana’s Application No. ENC08_353_01
area. CBM came; my water went bad. Is there a connection? I will find out if I get some cooperation from the regulator. I reported problems with my water well to EnCana in August. There has yet to be any action. I have asked EnCana for their fracturing chemicals used during their experimental years here, other water well problems they might have had to investigate in my area, if they have had any events of lost circulation, etc. EnCana will not answer these very important questions. Because EnCana will not answer my very simple questions, I must express serious protest to this downspacing application until the matter of the recent changes to my water well have been satisfactorily investigated and corrected. I have already suffered adverse impacts to my water that might be related to coal bed methane or other drilling and fracturing activities and experimentation or mistakes or because of cumulative affects of multiple and repeat fracturing resulting in vertical methane release.. Where is the required appropriate and scientifically sound base line water and aquifer monitoring by the EUB and AENV – notably in the areas where experimental coal bed methane fracturing occurred – in order to mitigate the potential cumulative risks? There is no unbiased data that I know of that proves, without a doubt, that shallow fracturing does not alter methane concentrations in potable water that comes from coal seams, thus, I have no choice but to object to this downspacing application until it has been scientifically proven that it is impossible for shallow fracturing to cause gas migration in aquifers that are in coal. Loss of night sky – mitigation of the numerous facilities and their lights destroying the magnificent Alberta night sky is an impact that is ignored by Encana. There are ways to mitigate this serious negative impact. I am concerned that this application will further adversely affect our night sky. Possible contamination of aquifers with experimental fracturing chemicals – until there is full disclosure of all ingredients in all agents used during all phases of all fracturing events, including experimental, and until it is proven with unbiased science that there is no possible chance of perforations or lost circulation introducing toxic chemicals into area aquifers, I must protest to this application – if EnCana willingly answered my questions about their experimental fracturing ingredients, perhaps I would then trust that no toxic chemicals had been introduced into our aquifers. Because EnCana appears intent on keeping their fracturing chemicals secret from those who might have their health seriously compromised by those chemicals, I can not help but see nefarious intent with EnCana’s need for secrecy. I am concerned that the downspacing application will result in more mistakes, events of lost circulation, with risk of aquifer contamination resulting in water well contamination. Again, AENV and EUB have not conducted any baseline monitoring of these experimental regimes to prove, without a doubt, that when lost circulation occurs, or unexpected turns in fracture direction, there will be no chance of any fracturing or drilling chemicals entering citizen water wells. Loss of water quantity and methane gas increase – if EnCana is unwilling to disclose the water it produces, promptly, and honestly, how am I to trust that there will not be methane increasing in my water caused by dewatering – even small amounts of dewatering will most likely have serious cumulative impact if one cumulatively counts the multitude of wells, and the many days that water is produced. Until it is proven with
12 OBJECTION TO AND CONCERNS REGARDING EnCana’s Application No. ENC08_353_01
unbiased science that dewatering for coal bed methane does not cause water loss from water wells or methane gas migration, I object to this downspacing application. Cumulative increases in EnCana roads and access – I object to the downspacing application because more wells will likely cause more roads – EnCana is already negligent about access management. Trespassers and hunters use EnCana’s unmanaged access, leases and roads to get to where they couldn’t go before – I witnessed a trespassing hunter last year, and another this year, on an EnCana lease road adjoining my land who was not only trespassing but he was pointing his gun in the direction of my home. Perhaps he was only scoping me or my place, or perhaps he had a deer in his sights beyond my place. None the less, pointing a gun at someone or their home is terribly dangerous, scoping or not. This is a serious risk that EnCana is not mitigating – it is a serious adverse impact that might result in injury to myself, my friends, family or dogs. On October 12, 2005 I asked EnCana for their road information – I am still waiting for that information. I also asked EnCana last year for access management to mitigate the dangerous trespassing hunters. I waited a year with no results. I asked again on Oct 12, 2005 – I have not had time to go and see if access management has been put into place. Native grass and weeds – I am concerned this downspacing application will cause adverse impacts to the native grasses on my land. I have worked hard to bring back the native grasses on my 50 acres – portions of my property became invaded with foxtail – this dreadful weed has invaded many EnCana leases and roads, and invaded neighbouring lands – the consequences of the foxtail and other weeds brought in by EnCana vehicles is serious and is not being addressed with sufficient management or care. Evidence of a petroleum industry regulator who looks the other way when events of non compliance are reported – there have been a number of reports of non compliance that I have questioned the EUB on – over a year later, some of my questions remain unanswered – some are: 1. “Is a proponent compliant conducting a noise study in response to a noise complaint with the noisiest facility turned off? 2. Is a proponent compliant measuring noise 600 metres away from a complainant’s residence when the directive states the location of measurement must be 15 metres away? The EUB has stated, in writing, this response to my above questions: “The EUB staff concluded that the survey, while technically acceptable, did not have optimum representative atmospheric conditions for noise propagation from the facility towards y our residence and as such dismissed those results.” Would you trust the EUB after that? I do not, thus I must object this application until I have been shown by the EUB that it is trustworthy, and capable of doing its job. Perhaps EUB staff are so overworked that they can not adequately fulfill their responsibilities. I object to this application until sufficient staff have been trained and hired at the EUB to mitigate the cumulative and exponential increase in developments and activities of recent years.
13 OBJECTION TO AND CONCERNS REGARDING EnCana’s Application No. ENC08_353_01
There are many other questionable actions by the proponent that I have explained patiently, respectfully and carefully to the EUB, with clear requests for answers in writing. I am still waiting many months later.
Interestingly, a noise consultant advised me last fall, that after EnCana’s attempt to falsify the noise in response to my noise compliant, he and other consultants were told by the EUB that when assessing noise, the noise making machine must be turned on. Why did the EUB not answer my question about this very serious matter but was willing to tell industry not to do it?
How can I be assured that the EUB will regulate these additional wells per pool and the consequences and adverse impacts that come with it? To numerous persons, the EUB has proven itself untrustworthy. Who will regulate these additional wells if the EUB will not?
I protest this application also because instead of dealing with my many unanswered questions about health and safety and oil and gas industry compliance, I recently received from the EUB a letter dated November 24, 2005 stating:
“I have instructed my staff to avoid any further contact with you”.
A week or so after receiving that letter, I received the final lab analysis report where it was stated that my well water has 44,800 mg/l of methane in it – CAPP has warned that 1 mg/l can be dangerous.
I have been informed in writing, by the EUB that I have no regulator.
I wrote a letter dated December 6, 2005 to the EUB respectfully requesting clarification for the above statement and various other matters.
The EUB “refused” my letter and Canada Post returned it. It sits here unopened.
I can only conclude that I am now faced with an incredibly serious danger that might have been caused by cumulative impacts from repeat and multiple perforating and shallow fracturing and I have no regulator.
I might have had my health seriously impacted by toxic chemicals that might have contaminated aquifers during experimentation and lost circulation events and I have no regulator.
I am tired of living with the suffering that nightly facility noise causes; I am tired of the new metallic stench that fills the air on still mornings. I am tired of the risks and other impacts I have lived with for so long, I am even more tired of the EUB apparently only doing half its job i.e. protecting industry. Is the EUB not responsible to also protect citizens from industry activities and dangers? I am now living in a potentially dangerous situation and the EUB has “instructed” that I have no regulator.
14 OBJECTION TO AND CONCERNS REGARDING EnCana’s Application No. ENC08_353_01
I ask the EUB this:
Under what authority can the safety of Alberta citizens be so irresponsibly put a risk?
If I have been banished from the EUB, please advise me in writing how am I to report possible hydrocarbon contamination to my water?
I ask you, why is it ok for the EUB to privately tell industry and its consultants when they have broken the rules, but the EUB will not answer a complainant’s questions regarding the very same broken rules? Human defecation – I am concerned that this downspacing application will cause this vile and disrespectful health hazard on my or neighbouring lands – I have already seen this hazard cumulatively increase. Would you like to walk in your back yard and dodge piles of human waste left by your postal worker every day? Other – there are other objections, but, I have run out of time. Please accept my apology for not having time to edit this document. I realize it repetitive. This downspacing application must not be permitted to proceed. I object for many valid reasons. I have serious concerns about adverse impacts not being mitigated. The cumulative adverse impacts have caused dire consequences to me already. More will be impossible to live with without serious harm to my health and well being, never mind violation of my legal right to quiet enjoyment of my property. Sincerely,
Jessica Ernst, B.Sc., M.Sc.,
15 OBJECTION TO AND CONCERNS REGARDING EnCana’s Application No. ENC08_353_01
This document below has been scanned exactly from the copy EnCana sent to me.
I have a good scanner – EnCana sent copies that were not legible to me, and others in my community.
I requested a review by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of EnCana’s use of implied consent in the document below and the illegible quality of EnCana’s documents, notably on such an important matter as privacy rights.
The Commissioner made EnCana correct their inappropriate document, and requested that the company send legible copies.
Believe it or not, there is type on the left hand side of the page immediately following this one. The illegible part explains EnCana’s use of implied consent to disclose private citizen information to other parties.
ALBERTA OMBUDSMAK Por~fscdon !:(1i171css
January 3 1,2006 Our File #05-33 172
JESSICA ERNST BOX 753 ROSEBUD AB TOJ 2T0
Dear Ms. Ernst:
Further to my letter of January 5,2006 concerning your letter of complaint, I would like to advise you that the Ombudsman has had the opportunity to review your request for an investigation.
Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (AEUB) policy indicates that any unresolved matter or objection by persons and organizations who are potentiaIly directly and adversely affected by an application may proceed to AEUB's hearing process. It is the Ombudsman's understanding that you have included the issue of industrial compressor noise in your letter of objection to the AEUB in relation to the EnCana application, and while you indicate that you have yet to receive a response from Mr. Knox, the issue may now become part of AEUB's process in dealing with your objections to EnCana's application. The Ombudsrwan Act states that all avenues of appeal must be exhausted before the Ombudsman can commence an investigation.
If you continue to believe that you have been treated unfairly by the AEUB after exhausting any available appeals or reviews such as the hearing process noted above, you may then write to the Ombudsman to provide details of the outcome and request an investigation at that time.
The Ombudsman has also rzoted yom comments with respect to the privacy concerns you have under the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA). As the Ombudsman does not have the authority to investigate access to information and privacy issues under PIPA, he suggests that you contact the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner directly for advice.
Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (Edmonton) # 41 0, 9925 - 109 Street Edmonton, Alberta T5K 258 Phone: (780) 422-6860 Toll Free: 1-888-878-4044 Fax: (780) 422-5682 Email: ~;eneralinfo@,oipc.ab.ca
10303 Ja~pcr.$venue SW Suitc 2800 Edmonton, Albcrra T.iJ SC3 Phonc (780)427-2756 Fax: (780) 427-2753 JESSICA ERIVST Our File #05-33172 Page 2 . ...
I note that in my January 5,2006 letter, I have already provided you with a pamphlet about our office for your information and trust that it mill be of assistance to you.
Any materials, such as memoranda and correspondence relating to a complaint submitted to the Ombudsman, and any material produced by the Ombudsman such as this letter, cannot be used in any other proceedings including before a board or a court. This applies whether you or the Ombudsman have possession of any of these materials.
Yours very Wy, f--
Deputy Ombudsman
COMMENTS TO CEAA AND THE JOINT REVIEW PANEL
Note that the EUB (ERCB) misrepresented the “highest CSL (Comprehensive Sound Level) of the noise from EnCana’s many compressors measured at my place (at a location selected by EnCana’s noise experts that was not compliant with the EUB’s Noise Control Directive 38).
To be compliant with EUB noise control requirements, EnCana needed to measure over a 24-hour period the ambient sound level (the sound level without EnCana’s compressors running). EnCana measured for 12 hours, and with 11 of its 13 compressors running. How ambient is that?
The highest CSL measured by EnCana near my home was 50.5 dBA. An Alberta noise expert advised me that living in a quiet rural location with such a loud noise level at night would be intolerable. What noise levels will EnCana force listed species at Suffield to endure?
This was EnCana’s second non-compliant noise study in response to my noise complaint. To resolve EnCana’s non-compliance, the EUB offered a “blind” third noise study – blind meaning that EnCana was not to be informed. Shortly after promising me this (in front of witnesses), the EUB informed EnCana in writing.
It was after I questioned the EUB for misrepresenting EnCana’s non-compliant noise levels at my property that the EUB judged me – without a trial or hearing - making “criminal threats”. The EUB banished me from energy regulation, copied the RCMP, refused my mail (see below), refused to answer my valid and respectful questions, and refused to resolve their banishment of me.
At the time of the banishment and the EUB refusing my mail, I had not yet found out that EnCana had already (in 2004) fractured and diverted fresh water from the aquifer that supplies my water well. Why banish an adversely affected citizen? Isn’t the mandate of the EUB to regulate industry?
I requested ADR (Appropriate Dispute Resolution), as suggested by the EUB to me in a number of their letters. I offered to pay for half of the mediation costs and expenses. The EUB didn’t respond, not even to say “No. Thank you, we take back our suggestion”.
EnCana and the EUB continue to ignore my questions and concerns (I have written many more letters than included in this submission).
What is the EUB doing on the Joint Review Panel for EnCana’s broken promise project at Suffield?
What is the Joint Review Panel doing even considering EnCana’s broken promise request?
Is the Suffield process fair and unbiased? How can it be with the EUB involved?
Jessica Ernst Box 753 Rosebud AB T0J 2T0
December 6, 2005
Mr. Jim Reid Manager Operations Group, Compliance and Operations Branch Alberta and Energy Utilities Board 640 – 6 Avenue SW Calgary AB T2P 3G4
Dear Mr. Reid,
I am in receipt of your letter dated November 24, 2005. You have raised a number of matters that require clarification.
First, are you alleging that by quoting what someone said to me in my email dated November 1, 2005, I have somehow made a criminal threat?
Second, as a result of that allegation are you now stating that the EUB “will avoid any further contact with” me regardless of the issue?
Third, by what authority have you made this decision? And under whose instruction was this statement and decision made?
It seems very clear that your statements are merely an excuse for the EUB to ignore me, and thus not deal with my valid concerns regarding ongoing questions of oil and gas industry compliance and my personal health and safety. Although I have been patient and waited for the EUB to address my concerns, the EUB has declined to rectify the situation. Case in point, I wrote Mr. Hal Knox on August 24, 2005 requesting: “Please contact me as soon as possible to further discuss my requests in detail.” To date, I have yet to receive a response, let alone an acknowledgement from Mr. Knox regarding my simple request.
Please answer, in writing, the following questions:
1. Is a proponent compliant conducting a noise study in response to a noise complaint with the noisiest facility turned off?
2. Is a proponent compliant measuring noise 600 metres away from a complainant’s residence when the directive states the location of measurement must be 15 metres away?
3. Is a proponent compliant reporting comprehensive sound levels that are louder than EUB permissible sound levels?
4. Are EUB staff allowed to edit third party reports?
5. Have you scrutinized the wording of the current revisions to the noise control directive and compared it to the operative directive?
6. Yes Jim, the EUB offered me a third noise study; Mr. David Degagne (Sr. Public Safety Advisor for the EUB Compliance and Operations Branch) proclaimed in front of witnesses that the EUB would not inform EnCana and assured me in writing “This will ensure that the survey is blind as EnCana will not be party to our plans”. I have however evidence to the contrary. In reply to my written concern about the EUB wanting to do their study during non “representative” environmental conditions (e.g. when temperatures are well above zero degrees Celsius and convection currents cause sound to rise with them), Mr. Degagne wrote twice: “It is recommended that the survey take place prior to the end of August”. Please explain how I am supposed to trust the EUB after that.
Please take responsible action and advise EnCana, in writing and copy me, to turn off its impacting machines until they are adjusted to operate without violating my legal right to quiet enjoyment of my property.
Sincerely,
Jessica Ernst, B.Sc, M.Sc. Environmental Specialist