Confkicted?

[the big wheel]

Nothing will come of this unless people get down and dirty when dealing with the current government. When I see something concrete in writing I ll believe that our government will stand up for individuals over big industry.

If there was a law passed what would happen to all the current infringements already in place? Who will pay for that, the minute government realizes they will be on the hook for the past and in this instance the oil industry will be in the hook for things now nothing will happen at all it will go on and on and on. There will be some ceremony where some phoney law will be celebrated that will do absolutely nothing except fool the media and lawyers that there is nothing to see here.
Their oil industry alone owes tens of billions to individual people, towns cities and all governments.

The only way any progress will happen is if enough royalties are collected to separately handle the costs of these developments. Which in the last boom we never even collected enough to maintain roads that get destroyed never mind people s property.

The only good part was that people finally are waking up to the fact that there is a cost to the boom! Who's going to pay for it though? Oil says they'll go somewhere else which is a bunch of baloney. They want governments they can control and they have it.

[chuckChuck]

I think we should support any individuals or RMs that take steps to support the property rights of the RM and individual land owners and adjacent landowners when it comes to industrial developments of any kind. Oil just happens to be the biggest development in many RMs with widespread impacts.

As Big Wheel has correctly identified the current government is very biased in favour of the oil industry.
Acknowledging the negative impacts of oil development and protecting the surface rights and property rights of adjacent property owners is a good first step.

Most governments of every stripe in Western Canada are caught between a rock and a hard place because the oil industry provides a lot of jobs and revenue. But compared to Alberta, Saskatchewan has always treated oil development like the poor cousin who wants oil development regardless of the negative impacts.

For a long time most farmers were relatively poor and welcomed every bit of extra oil revenue from surface or royalties. But times have changed and a lot of the bigger farms have less interest in oil revenue because the revenue is often small in comparison to the amount of farm revenue and the nuisance and loss of farm land is often substantial.

There are many issues to address concerning the oil industry, rural residents, landowners and how the provincial government regulates. Setbacks that stop other types of developments is one. Air quality and fugitive emissions, especially H2S are another. Flaring of associated gases is another poorly regulated issue. Abandoned and suspended facilities and who is going to pay for their clean up is a fourth issue. There are more.

According to the Auditor General of Sask., there are over 24,000 abandoned and suspended oil wells with a liability of $4 Billion. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/inactive-wells-liability-auditor-1.4695882

Who is going to pay for cleaning up all these facilities? The oil companies or taxpayers?

There have been numerous incidents of oil facilities leaking H2S and contaminating the air in many communities in SE Saskatchewan. The South East Airshed Association has an air quality monitoring stations at several communities in SE Saskatchewan. They have a website at http://sesaa.ca/

There are several chronic problems with H2S reported at these stations. Localized problems at vulnerable farms and communities could be significantly worse depending on location and adjacent oil facilities. In many cases these problems are exceeding the provincial air quality standards. H2S should not be release into the environment.

Flaring of associated gas is another questionable practice as it affects air quality and is a waste of a valuable product that could be used to generate electricity or heat buildings. It only continues because governments let it continue.

The crux of the problem stems from the way the industry is regulated or in many cases the regulations are not adequate.

The Ministry of Energy and Resources is responsible for both regulation and promotion. "The Ministry of Energy and Resources develops, co-ordinates, and implements policies and programs to promote the growth and responsible development of the province's natural resources industries." Notice they say growth first.

In Alberta the regulator is independent from the promotion of the industry. https://www.aer.ca/protecting-what-matters/holding-industry-accountable/how-does-the-AER-regulate-energy-development-in-alberta

An independent regulator such as the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) can do a better job of enforcing regulations and holding industry accountable without the conflict of interest that comes from promotion.

Saskatchewan's Ministry of Energy is underfunded when it comes to the monitoring and enforcement of regulations. Many players in the oil industry are doing a better job of cleaning up fugitive emissions but there are still significant problems and the Government must be getting a lot of push back from the industry, otherwise this could have been fixed already

Unfortunately Saskatchewan is prone to political interference in the regulatory role of the Ministry of Energy. There does not seem to be the political will to tighten the regulations and enforcement as has been done in Alberta.

It will be interesting to see how the industry and the provincial government respond to the issue of setbacks and adjacent property development. This will be a good test case of the government's attitudes towards property owners and some of the important issues that need to be dealt with.

[oneoff]

Only got a minute this time so this will be short.

The petitioners (and council members) do (I believe) know that there must be strict focus on one issue at a time in this case. Not one sentence posted so far would necessarily meet with any disagreement from anyone except that the oil industry doesn't have options as alternatives in isolated cases.

With those few setbacks that are done at some neighbors expense...maybe that's just too damn bad.


But reread that RM condition that's posted above. It NEVER applies off some leased area on quarters where the landowner may be willing to give his rights and options away.

It only protects neighbors who were never consulted or negotiated with.

It only applies for new applications and as lifetimes of old facilities come to the abandonment and decommissioning stages...it provides an opportunity to not make the same mistakes that have been made in the past.

Its a START; ITS Deliberately LIMITED IN SCOPE; AND MAYBE IT CAN BE and has been SOLD TO THE REGULATORS AND THE GOVERNMENT.. TRUST ME. TRUST MY PREVIOUS "enemies" ON COUNCIL WHICH EVEN A COUPLE NIGHTS AGO WISHED ME A "happy crokinole evening" as I departed the meeting on terms never expected in this lifetime.

The petitioners, supporters AND "top dogs" on 15th floor buildings in Regina have been approached from a half dozen angles in the past couple weeks.


"Half a plane load" of top executives from the big players flew in specifically for that meeting from Calgary. Two licensed surveyors added their frustrations; 3 Sask Land companies; 6 RM's, Sask Energy and not a one of them saying anything worse than they "need clarity".

Please give this a chance. SARM get involved like I'm told their initial response was basically "We're willing to help in any way we can". Same with APAS.

It is an important issue; its a beginning and won't be helped with negativity or attempts to create an "omnibus bill" where everyone tries to attach what their priority concerns are.


My "trigger finger is ready for the crokinole table again and have to go.

Hope this thread is onto the next page when I get back. You want to get other things done....Get some critical mass to this little start and you don't even realize what further progress might flow from a simple well thought out beginning.

No time for even the simplest correction right now. Thanks

[grassfarmer]

Chuck chuck, you are woefully uninformed about the AER. Like a lot of stuff in Alberta it reads a good story but isn't true. Contrary to your belief it is in fact a bodyguard for the oil industry as my friend Diana Daunheimer would say. Watch her presentation and tell me how well the "independent" AER works to protect the public interest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGtv2La40ec http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGtv2La40ec

[chuckChuck]

Only got a minute this time so this will be short.

The petitioners (and council members) do (I believe) know that there must be strict focus on one issue at a time in this case. Not one sentence posted so far would necessarily meet with any disagreement from anyone except that the oil industry doesn't have options as alternatives in isolated cases.

With those few setbacks that are done at some neighbors expense...maybe that's just too damn bad.


But reread that RM condition that's posted above. It NEVER applies off some leased area on quarters where the landowner may be willing to give his rights and options away.

It only protects neighbors who were never consulted or negotiated with.

It only applies for new applications and as lifetimes of old facilities come to the abandonment and decommissioning stages...it provides an opportunity to not make the same mistakes that have been made in the past.

Its a START; ITS Deliberately LIMITED IN SCOPE; AND MAYBE IT CAN BE and has been SOLD TO THE REGULATORS AND THE GOVERNMENT.. TRUST ME. TRUST MY PREVIOUS "enemies" ON COUNCIL WHICH EVEN A COUPLE NIGHTS AGO WISHED ME A "happy crokinole evening" as I departed the meeting on terms never expected in this lifetime.

The petitioners, supporters AND "top dogs" on 15th floor buildings in Regina have been approached from a half dozen angles in the past couple weeks.


"Half a plane load" of top executives from the big players flew in specifically for that meeting from Calgary. Two licensed surveyors added their frustrations; 3 Sask Land companies; 6 RM's, Sask Energy and not a one of them saying anything worse than they "need clarity".

Please give this a chance. SARM get involved like I'm told their initial response was basically "We're willing to help in any way we can". Same with APAS.

It is an important issue; its a beginning and won't be helped with negativity or attempts to create an "omnibus bill" where everyone tries to attach what their priority concerns are.


My "trigger finger is ready for the crokinole table again and have to go.

Hope this thread is onto the next page when I get back. You want to get other things done....Get some critical mass to this little start and you don't even realize what further progress might flow from a simple well thought out beginning.

No time for even the simplest correction right now. Thanks

I am in agreement. It is important to make small incremental changes and avoid trying to do to much at once. Good work!

[chuckChuck]

Chuck chuck, you are woefully uninformed about the AER. Like a lot of stuff in Alberta it reads a good story but isn't true. Contrary to your belief it is in fact a bodyguard for the oil industry as my friend Diana Daunheimer would say. Watch her presentation and tell me how well the "independent" AER works to protect the public interest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGtv2La40ec http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGtv2La40ec

I was hoping someone with Alberta experience would speak up. I realize that Alberta's experience has been also negative on many oil and gas issues. There have been numerous complaints from ranchers and farmers in the media. It is my understanding that on the issue of flaring and fugitive emissions Alberta has stricter standards and enforcement than Saskatchewan. I may be wrong on that. And you are correct I don't really know much about the AER except that structurally it appears to be more independent than Saskatchewan's Ministry of Energy regulatory model.

[grassfarmer]

Alberta claims to have the highest standards/tightest regulations but there is no enforcement at best, sheer dishonesty at worst. AER have been caught cheating on more than one occasion where they had posted well testing results on the internet and subsequently went back in and changed them to more favourable readings at a later date! - I've seen the screenshots of the before and after results. I believe it was Jessica Ernst who documented this. This is not the energy companies this is the "Alberta Energy Regulator" that is supposedly the independent guardian of the public interest!

[oneoff]

Still waiting for SARM, APAS and other council's positions and even oil industry positions on this narrow condition being considered.


Don't wait too long or it will pass you by.

[oneoff]

Now what has happened in less than the last week are the following:

Not one public peep out of the other 5 or even 6 RM's present at that public meeting.


They all will however ALL present at the SARM mid term convention in Saskatoon...at this very hour. That gathering is to specifically debate resolutions.


Resolutions such as the one referred to specifically in this thread (posted above).


Will it reach the floor as some "emerging" or emergency resolution that missed the deadline? How will it be handled...who even has it on their mind besides maybe a couple local guys who have very first hand experience about the current situation.


Are hurting heads and supposedly other areas interests and other issues all that is important?

Does anyone really give a shit about general issues all tied in with everyone's eventual implications?

We will see or not...because Saskatoon is just too far away to attend; even if WE pride ourselves at not charging a registration fee; and even if "guests" are truly welcomed at these gatherings.

Those elected representatives are meant to be accountable and approachable by those whom they serve.


Those elected representatives didn't do any of that on this forum in the last week; and we should all know that there are some pretty proud Rural Municipal councillors and reeves who at least in the past did follow this agriville forum.

Poor showing so far boys; and I didn't say leaders.

A few are watching.

[oneoff]

Now that the SARM mid term convention has wound up...can we expect those who were there on our dimes to at least give a summary report.

Or is that just not in the job description.

What about two reports, One for debate on saved seed issue and another on setbacks on neigbors lands as mandated by various government departments and pipelines for example.