By Darlene Casten, staff reporter

http://www.westernwheel.com/news-oil.htm

A Millarville-area ranching family said although its legal battle with a Calgary-based oil company is over, the damage has been done.

Agnes Ball and her family were awarded close to $200,000 last week in their battle against Imperial Oil to cover the costs for their legal and consulting fees resulting from a lawsuit they filed against the oil company. Imperial Oil was found to be negligent in its handling of a leaky sour gas pipeline where the Balls pastured cattle.
Justice Bruce McDonald ruled that the Ball family should have most of its legal and expert costs paid by the oil company.

Susan Graham, Agnes’ daughter, who also lives on the family’s cattle ranch, said the ruling was not unexpected.

“I’m not surprised that we were able to get our costs because when you are successful at trial that is normal,” she said. “I am glad we were able to recoup the costs we put out.”

Lawyers for Imperial Oil argued that the Balls’ cost request should be reduced because of what they called mixed success at trial and asked that some legal and expert fees be reduced. McDonald agreed to cut the payment for the Balls’ second lawyer and a bill for Dr. Joanne Ball, also Agnes’ daughter, who testified at the trial. The Balls will only receive 50 per cent of the cost for a secondary lawyer and will receive only 65 per cent of the cost billed for Dr. Ball’s expert testimony.

Graham said the reductions will only add up to a few thousand dollars.

“We are going to get our costs as we feel we should,” she said.

In December McDonald awarded the Ball family approximately $65,000 for its loss of cattle and the spin-off effects it had on their cattle operation. The problem started in the summer of 2002 when Imperial Oil workers detected the leaky pipeline. Repair work began without the Balls’ knowledge and contaminated soil was piled up on the pasture land and water laced with hydrocarbons was also pumped on to the land.
The next spring the Balls said they had a difficult calving season and many of their cows became infertile.

Justice McDonald found that the tie to the Imperial Oil pipeline cleanup and the health of the animals was strong enough to deem the company negligent.
Graham said although the court case is done, there are lasting effects for themselves and others.

“It breaks your trust and faith that people will do the right thing,” she said. “You become a skeptic that people are going to tell you the truth.”

Others who have found themselves in the same situation are hopeful this case will create a precedent.

“You wouldn’t believe the number of calls we have received from complete strangers who have been fighting with oil and gas companies for years who have thanked us for taking this all the way,” she said. “They said it will help the next person.”

dcasten@okotoks.greatwest.ca

February 19, 2009

Calgary… The Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) is engaging an independent third party to assist in the investigation of an ERCB employee involved in the ERCB hearing on Petro-Canada’s Sullivan Field applications. The ERCB hearing is now on hold, pending the outcome of the investigation. The purpose of these steps is to ensure that the integrity of the ERCB hearing is upheld.

On February 17, 2009, an ERCB employee disclosed that the employee had recently commenced a personal relationship with a Petro-Canada employee. The ERCB employee is not a decision maker in the hearing. However, both parties have been involved in the hearing on behalf of their organizations.

The ERCB employee has been removed from the file and has been placed on administrative leave from employment with the ERCB, pending the investigation into this matter.

As the integrity of the ERCB hearing needs to be upheld and the potential impact of this matter on the hearing needs to be understood, the ERCB is in the process of engaging an independent third party to assist in the investigation of the matter. The investigation will include an analysis of what impact, if any, this matter may have on the hearing and the ERCB Panel’s ability to fulfill its adjudicative function objectively and impartially.

The ERCB hearing began on November 12, 2008 in High River and pertains to a series of Petro-Canada applications to drill eleven sour gas wells, construct and operate one multi-well battery, and construct and operate two sour gas pipelines in Southern Alberta’s eastern slopes.

-30-

For more information, contact:

Bob Curran, ERCB Communications

Phone: (403) 297-3392

Email: bob.curran@ercb.ca

Alberta Government | Newsroom | Ministries Listing | Energy Resources Conservation Board Home Page | News Releases | Top of Page |

Climate change expected to decrease Alberta’s water supply Energy sector must reduce its reliance on water

Edmonton, February 9, 2009 — With available fresh water resources expected to decrease as a result of climate change, Alberta faces the challenge of meeting its growing demand for water in asustainable manner, according to a new report by the Pembina Institute.

“We need to plan ahead and consider the impact that climate change is likely to have on fresh water resources in Alberta,” says Mary Griffiths, the lead author of the report, Heating Up in Alberta: Climate Change, Energy Development and Water.

The report draws attention to the decline of summer river flows, the future effects of climate change on water supply and the projected growth in demand for water for energy production and to meet the needs of a growing population. It also documents Alberta’s contribution to climate change through growing greenhouse gas emissions, which the Government of Alberta will allow to continue to increase through 2020.

“This report should encourage efforts to reduce water use for energy production,” says Griffiths. “It may also motivate greater action in Alberta to address climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

Griffiths says new ways must be found to reduce water consumption for the production and upgrading of bitumen from the oil sands. “Reducing water consumption is especially important when developing new, large-scale projects for electricity generation and bitumen extraction, which are likely to be in operation for 40 years or more.”

Water use for electricity can be reduced by increasing the proportion generated by wind or solar sources. Coal-fired power plants, which produce 60 per cent of Alberta’s electricity, consume a lot of water compared with most other types of electricity generation. They are also the largest contributor to Alberta’s greenhouse gas emissions. The report also recommends charging for water used by the energy sector.

“Putting a price on water for energy use serves two purposes,” says Griffiths. “It would encourage conservation and also provide funds for better monitoring and management of surface and groundwater resources, as well as research.”

Download the report from http://www.pembina.org/pub/1779.

For more information contact:
Mary Griffiths
Senior Policy Analyst
The Pembina Institute
780-433-6675

For those who are interested in seeing what was said on W-5 on Saturday, February 7th, 2009 please check out their online synopsis of the show. There are some video clips as well, runtime is about 20 minutes or so. Spread the word, pass it on, and be sure to sign the petition if you get a chance.

The W-FIVE program on the proposed Petro-Canada pipeline and the opposition it is encountering from numerous stakeholders will air on CTV this Saturday, February 7, at 7 pm, MST and ET.

(Francis Gardner’s notes from Bartlett’s testimony at ERCB hearing)

Curtis Bartlett, Southern Alberta rancher and oil company owner, presented to the Energy Research and Conservation Board on January 29, 2009 a comparison of the pipeline routes that Petro-Canada has examined, concluding with the rejection of Petro-Canada’s chosen K-Country route.

In a seven-hour testimony including cross-examination, Mr. Bartlett spoke to 45 points on the pipeline routes based on the Petro-Canada Environmental Assessment.  He compared the pipeline route proposed by Petro-Canada (the K -Country route) and an alternative route under consideration that travels parallel to Hwy 940.

Mr Bartlett said that the K-Country route travels through areas that are grown and that have no wheel traffic. It is an area that is least disturbed. In contrast, the industrial route along Hwy 940 is used for logging as well as oil and gas pipelines. The rancher and oilman reviewed 45 points to consider in the decision of which route to use and ranked them as supporting the K-Country route or supporting the Highway 940 route. Included in the categories were fragmentation, mitigation, cleaning required, reclamation costs, land owners and stakeholder, wildlife habitat and water course crossings. He stated that 31 bridges through valuable water courses could be avoided by using Highway 940. He also noted that Petro-Canada failed to consider fisheries as a factor and did not even acknowledge the existence and inherent danger to the threatened West Slope Cutthroat Trout in the Headwater region.

Speaking to the visibility (Category 23) of the project Mr. Bartlett stated that Petro-Canada seemed to say that if the pipeline and construction can not be seen, it must be better. Mr. Bartlett also observed that the corporate reputation of Petro-Canada will be damaged by constructing the pipeline through K-Country as opposed to hwy 940. He felt it would damage the reputation of the oil industry generally. Further, he said that when residents of the area had previously shown their opposition to the K-Country route, Petro-Canada would give the residents a lecture that K-Country was the only route. He concluded with the comment that if Petro-Canada had asked residents where to construct the pipeline, instead of the other way around, maybe no hearing would have been needed.

During the presentation, Mr. Bartlett read the current statistics from the Petrocant website.  When a member of the ERCB panel asked Mr. Bartlett if there was any merit in those numbers, he replied that the ERCB should listen to those numbers as Crown land or public land was involved.

In conclusion Mr. Bartlett ranked the 45 points that had been presented in terms of favouring the route of Hwy 940 or K-Country using solid research based on the Petro-Canada Environmental Assessment. The following results were found: 32 points favoured Hwy 940, none favoured K-Country, seven points were equal and six points had insufficient data.

The area south and west of Longview is ranching country, but industry argues that it has also been used by the oilpatch, lumber operations and recreational users for decades.

“It is far from untouched by human hands,” Petro-Canada’s lawyers told the Energy Resources Conservation Board panel on Nov. 13.

Numerous opponents have lined up to challenge the company’s plans for this natural gas field.

Read more at:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/Technology/life+trial+oilpatch+hearing/1241170/story.html