Confkicted?

[oneoff]

"""Shahram Heshmat Ph.D.
Science of Choice


We sometimes behave as if we had two selves, one who wants healthy lungs and long life and another who enjoys smoking, one who desires to improve himself by studying hard, and another would rather watch TV or socialize. These two selves are in continual contest for control: indulgence for the immediate self, and prudence for the future one. The classic movie Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is an excellent demonstration. Dr. Jekyll is a repressed, orderly and compliant, Mr. Hyde, on the other hand, is indulgent and aggressive."""Unquote

So what does that have to do with agriculture some would say? Or what does an oil industry setback have to do with any person who owns agricultural land or who dreams of someday building their dream home out on their chosen land location.

Well in SE Sask this last couple weeks it just so happens that 92 people attending a public petitioned meeting (Nov 7/2018 at Glen Ewen Communiplex 7:00pm) made some significant potential progress in solving a province wide dilemma.

It can't be explained fully in this introduction; but just maybe it doesn't need to be.

You see the 92 attendees at that meeting included; representatives from all 6 surrounding municipalities; and nearly half of those attendees included two land surveyors; three well known land companies; Vermilion, Crescent Point and Torc head land persons who specifically all flew in from Calgary. It included top bureaucrats from Energy and Resources from Regina as well a Community Planning official who promised personally solving one serious subdivision error that lawyers and pressure from every angle and municipal councils could't even make a dent in the policy that "past decisions will not be revisited". Those attendees included a cross section of SE Sask concerned persons with the most diverse opinions on the environment; politics; life in general and solutions for the worlds problems.

And considering the short notice to get this meeting held before the SARM convention; the competing baby sitting etc. requirements; being a few thousand miles away on holidays; week long auction sales in other provinces or states; a funeral attendance or even in some cases the legitimate sensitivity to moldiness or a hundred other commitments; forgetness; limited resources of time and sometimes even considering potential reprisals. Nothing can be perfect; despite what anyone can wishfully hope for.
That is all proven by the fact that about 20 of the 40 petitioners just could not come. And anyone who signed a petition isn't likely to not have the courage to attend the meeting if it was at all possible. Under more ideal conditions and the people who planned for upwards of 300 may very well have underestimated. In any case; quite a pleasant confirmation of people actually joining forces to attempt to accomplish something to help out others as well.

It takes critical mass for a chain reaction to control what the end result will be.

Some of agriville's readers will even recognize themselves; because I'm sure they witnessed and maybe were even pleasantly surprised at what unanimity and common sense prevailed. Even some measure of civility.

Its a good story that hasn't as yet begun to be fully reported.

Throughout the short history period of this initiative the municipal council and administrative staff; the ratepayers; the "neighbors"; the provincial government regulators; the stakeholders etc. (which subject to the opening introduction above); have all provided the required support to make this meeting happen so quickly; so effectively and so unexpectedly met the petition's objectives. Everyone involved should be fully be congratulated.

The "Proximity" resolution that originated from the meeting was an agenda item discussed at the regular council meeting less than a day later ; clarified; put out to the public and stakeholders for further comment until a scheduled decision one way or the other at the next council meeting.

And any better solution that may be advanced that better solves the petition's concern I would personally welcome; as have other people likewise indicated. Playing defence by pointing out the rare problems that surely exist with any change of policy isn't likely to prevail when a major widespread flaw in provincially mandated setbacks has existed for at least the past few years.

That flaw literally becomes permanent with a policy that continues setbacks even after abandonment; reclamation or proposing a well or facility.

Sorry about not being able to attach the proposed resolution; but when the unadopted advisement concerning this portion of the council meeting becomes available; I would certainly be willing to share this with all those interested; and certainly will try to see it is made available to the petitioners and all those who took time and interest to attend a public meeting.

In the reported words of one pretty hard nosed and confident bureaucrat who attended "This was one of the best meetings he had attended in a long time" Now that is a compliment to all concerned; and it would be useful history to contemplate on how much better that meeting even could have been had it been strictly focused to the topic meant to be discussed and questioned.

OR NOT Just maybe the moderator was a genius and took a risk at conducting what turned out to be potentially more productive than anyone could have dreamed for.

Thanks everyone. Now time for the educating of SARM and APAS etc who have apparently expressed interest in the issue. But the good news is that in days of discussing and lobbying the "top dogs" of every one of the cross section of meeting attendees (to head level of top management staff in many cases); not one person has attempted to

DEFEND the principle of "Any business is entitled to conduct their affairs at expense of another person's interests without gaining their consent and fairly negotiating for those provincially mandated setbacks "

Let further discussion begin.

There should be (and may even be) an audiotape available. The fact the meeting would be taped was at some point mentioned during the meeting process; and again providing no one is harmed by some Dr Jeckell and Mr Hyde scenario (which we should all recognize a minority might try to exploit) it would be very productive to actually listen a second time to every word spoken by each of the participants with no attention to the names. ) I'm looking forward to reviewing what I even said and what I inadvertently missed in other people's comments .

[farmaholic]

Checking might have a comment, unless you are him.

If you were instrumental in spearheading this and bringing attention to it...good job.

Grassy might even have a comment about his experiences in Alta.

Even pipelines gave some setback rules but they don't sound anything as restrictive as what Checking brought up one time.

[Wheatking]

That was well written and a good read. But all I got from it was a petition was put forward, all parties involved were able to come together on short notice and come to a resolution due to open mindedness and working together.

But with all you wrote you made no mention of what the concerns were, and what was done to alleviate those concerns. Kind of the most important part. Unless I missed it.

[oneoff]

Fortunately I am not checking. Neither of my personalities; not even the third persona.


And although Murray Mandryk once told me...The history of the world can be summarized in one sentence. I still believe that a lot of the details would have to be overlooked.

The submitted petition says:


The attached lists of petitioners (pursuant to The Municipalities Act Sec. 46(1)) call upon the reeve to promptly call a public meeting to allow ratepayers, stakeholders and government makers to discuss setback recommendations concerning sour gas facilities,wells, pipelines and test measurement sites.

The petitioners expect attendees from Community Planning, Field Services and Site Approval sections of the Ministry of Energy & Resources and any other important decision makers including the RM Council to attend.

[oneoff]

What is going to be done to alleviate any concerns is yet to be written.

RM Council appears quite onside and has wisely given a month period in which other solutions might come forward. So far the oil industry has been real quiet on what they might be thinking of proposing. They have been prodded for proposal but the response so far is apparently centered on what will be the dispute resolution process.


The answer to that should be that a facility construction application to ER (Energy& Resources) commits all applicants to the standards that all sorts of agencies provincial departments; CSA API etc AND THE Rural Municipality may stipulate. The resolution is that not abiding by every last one of those conditions can lead to revocation of license, ordered shut down and a new approval gained before getting back in operation.

Not many hours ago I was asked if intent was to have that included directly in the Standard Condition list that Facilities already have when seeking approval at provincial level. My thinking is that is a darn good idea for the rest of oil producing areas in the long run; but the same effect can be accomplished in a months time at local level approval process already in place; rather than risking months of time and maybe failing to convince the Minister that it should be approved.


But the public meeting "authorized" a resolution that is now in council's hands and I refuse to defend how it was done. In any case its a starting point and is in the hands of the RM Council for their consideration.

[oneoff]

I just received the official resolution council will entertain. There was to be a Provincial Water Security Agency definition of what "Land Control" is defined as. I understood that was to be attached as a "glossary" to this condition if and when it is authorized by council resolution. Just google water shed authority land control and its the very top link you need to get to the WSA website. Remember that all provincial government entities are committed to the same "Statement of Provincial Interest Regulations 2012" and so should not be on different pages as to what "land control" is defined as.

Just to show you that I sometimes know at least as much as someone at highest level of Community Planning....our RM and the Town of Oxbow need to know that when a bylaw isn't given 3rd and final reading within 2 years of being introduced; then it dies on the order paper. Told the "keynote" speaker that at the public meeting and that one or us ( or the other) had to be sadly mistaken.

Here's Council's exact wording

QUOTE 9th November 2018



That any setbacks onto the neighboring lands that are required by Energy and Resource most recent directives, which are currently (PNG-001 and S-01) shall be proven through land control documentation in the facility application submitted to the R.M. for approval, and furthermore this land control must continue to be kept in place by future facility owners to meet the most current Energy and Resources provincial regulatory setback requirements.

UNQUOTE

[checking]

It certainly is not me, pharma. I have a difficult time getting any pen name correct. lol

Nor could I string that few of words, that concise, to portray what that meeting involved.

I did attend. I congratulate the organizers, and the citizens that were in attendance. It may well be the best use of a couple of hours that they have had in a lifetime for themselves, for their children, for their grandchildren.

There may be hope yet for rural life in oil country. We shall see.

[grassfarmer]

Sounds promising but the devil will be in the details.

I think back to the Alberta Water Act that was written while I was there. It was a great read, really encouraging in that it gave great protection to the water resource and to landowners and set out the strict guidelines under which the oil and gas sector were allowed to operate with regard to water. Pages and pages of it all highly detailed and on the face of it giving great reassurance to landowners that our water would be protected above all other interests.........until someone noticed the little line that said something to the effect that "- unless it would strand the energy resource"
Instead of protecting our rights it was highlighting that we had none. Leopards don't change their spots.

[oneoff]

Funs over. Focus, focus, focus

What are your suggestions on protecting yourself and your neighbors from setbacks that arise on your unprotected acres due to facilities that you have no control over.

If oil isn't your thing; then just for this forum, add in intensive livestock operations; sewage or waste treatment or even anhydrous ammonia sites etc. and anything due to pipeline setbacks affecting neighboring lands. There is a lack of YOUR thoughts so far on this site.

I know there are at least a couple more agrivillers who were at that meeting because I saw your pen names on your coats in the cloak room, and one guy forgot to wash his agriville name off his forehead.

[Horse]

Funs over. Focus, focus, focus

What are your suggestions on protecting yourself and your neighbors from setbacks that arise on your unprotected acres due to facilities that you have no control over.

If oil isn't your thing; then just for this forum, add in intensive livestock operations; sewage or waste treatment or even anhydrous ammonia sites etc. and anything due to pipeline setbacks affecting neighboring lands. There is a lack of YOUR thoughts so far on this site.

I know there are at least a couple more agrivillers who were at that meeting because I saw your pen names on your coats in the cloak room, and one guy forgot to wash his agriville name off his forehead.

I ONCE POSTED THE ACROYNUM for focus, is that what you are telling us ???

[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!