On Friday, Petro-Canada submitted it's final rebuttal to the ERCB in regards to the Sullivan project. It's hard to believe that we -- stakeholders and Petro-Canada employees alike -- have spent the better part of nine months engaged in a formal regulatory process that was capped with a retort to intervener arguments. If this were pro hockey, someone would be skating around with the Cup!
But this isn't hockey and the process isn't a game. Petro-Canada presented a project that it felt (and continues to feel) was in the best interest of Albertans to develop. A project that we believe can be constructed and operated in a safe and environmentally responsible manner. This hasn't changed.
The Company faced opposition from a group of local land-owners and interest groups who thought otherwise and questioned the merits of any development in the region. This also remains true.
What we don't know is how the Board will respond. It's now in their hands to determine what's fair. There will be no score... after nine months we must now be patient and await the Board's decision.
The end of the beginning shouldn't be confused with the beginning of the end.
Those of you who've been following this blog -- or the Sullivan hearing for that matter -- have no doubt been anticipating the arrival of Friday, June 26. Previously known as the date that Petro-Canada was to submit its final reply with the Board; this was the submission that would bring us one step closer towards a resolution.
But certainties, as we've learned, are often a rarity.
"Out of an abundance of fairness and process," an extension of the filing deadlines for Argument has been granted by the Board. Schedules set out in the Panel's letters of April 30 and May 11, 2009 have been amended to the following:
Interested Parties' Written Argument to be filed with the Board and provided to Petro-Canada and all other Interested Parties by 4:00 p.m. on Friday, June 26.
Petro-Canada's Final Reply to be filed with the Board and provided to all other Interested Parties by 4:00 p.m. on Friday, July 17.
Stay tuned!
On a related note, Kelly Cryderman recently penned an article in the Calgary Herald that focussed on a request to appeal the Board's decision that a relationship earlier in the year did not compromise the Sullivan hearing process.
It’s important to note that the application for leave to appeal put forward by the Big Loop Group relates to the ERCB’s decision on the independent investigation into a relationship between an ERCB and Petro-Canada employee and is not an appeal of the Sullivan project itself.
That said, we’re confident in the Board's decision on the matter of the investigation and believe that it took the appropriate steps to ensure that the integrity of the hearing wasn’t compromised.
There's more to come, but until then, enjoy the summer!
As I alluded to in my last post, the Sullivan team submitted its final argument to the Board and intervening parties on Friday (May 22). I've posted it here (broken down into three smaller files) for those who have been following the hearing and might find it of interest:
Petro-Canada Final Argument - Part 1 Petro-Canada Final Argument - Part 2 Petro-Canada Final Argument - Part 3
Despite the timing, this post isn’t meant as an "April Fools" joke nor is it meant to discuss the furry weather prognosticator we turn to for signs of spring… What I wanted to talk about is the movie starring Bill Murray – I’m sure many of you have seen it – where the main character wakes up every morning only to live through the same day (over and over again). No matter what Bill’s character does he knows he’ll wake up the next morning to the same thing… no consequence, nothing changed. So you’re thinking: "What does this have to do with the Sullivan project?" Well, a recent article penned in the Calgary Herald had me feeling like Bill. As I opened the paper on Sunday morning a sense of déjà vu set in as I read a piece that’s been a recurring theme over the past several months (although the pictures were new). The article did an accurate job reporting the concerns of area interveners and the differing opinions of Petro-Canada and some local stakeholders (specifically around routing options); however, what was missing was any mention of the information that’s been covered during the ERCB’s recent regulatory hearing, the witness testimony provided by both sides discussing the relevancy of an alternate route, or any of the reasoning that Petro-Canada has publicly made available as to why the Eden Valley route was submitted as the preferred route. It’s like none of this dialogue ever happened. Did I miss something? Were we back in November 2008? The process deserves better than this. Suggesting one alternative (Highway 940 in this case) without consideration of its consequences is an unfortunate oversimplification – it’s like comparing grade school math to advanced calculus. Many folks (me included) would agree that at first glance, it would make more sense to propose a pipeline along an area of existing disturbance when one is available; but it’s fair to say that we’re not all pipeline and environmental experts and that decisions made in this arena are clearly not black and white. For those interested, I encourage you to visit this link to a previous blog post for some additional content on Sullivan project routing. What I’ve found in the two years that I’ve been working on this project is that everyone who has an interest tends to be polarized on their position. There’s not much of a grey area. It’s sort of like opera – you either love it or you hate it. There are groups who are for the environment and against any development and those who struggle with the decision to support our deep-rooted ranching history or the oil and gas industry. But from what I’ve seen, there’s nothing to suggest that there isn’t room for both. What’s important is that we find the right balance.
The ERCB released the results of its third-party investigation today – a decision that concludes that the Sullivan hearing can "continue as constituted:" Viewing all of the foregoing facts practically and realistically, the Panel finds that no reasonable, well informed, neutral person would perceive that the Panel has been biased by the events or that these facts would prevent the Panel from making a fair, impartial and independent decision in relation to the Applications. I’ve included a link to the ERCB’s letter which summarizes the rationale behind the Board’s decision along with a document that was provided to the Board from Mr. Perry Mack – the independent third-party tasked with investigating this issue – that highlights his findings. Suffice to say that today’s announcement confirms the integrity of the hearing process and we’re pleased with the result. Now with this matter addressed we can turn our attention to the conclusion of the hearing process; something that I’m sure all parties are eager to move forward! According to today’s letter, the Panel will now proceed to decide the motions currently before it. Once these motions have been ruled on, both Petro-Canada and legal counsel for intervening parties will submit final written arguments for the Board to consider. These statements will be reviewed along with all other materials for roughly 90 days before the Board delivers it's final decision on the Project.
You may have read in today’s news that the Sullivan hearing process has been put on hold. Late yesterday the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) announced that it is engaging an independent third party to assist in the investigation of an ERCB employee involved in the hearing. According to the ERCB, the purpose of these steps is to ensure that the integrity of the ERCB process is upheld. Obviously, Petro-Canada is concerned about this latest development. Yesterday’s announcement has spawned today's rumour and speculation -- a mix that has alot of people asking questions. Questions are good... but let me say that perception is not the most accurate form of reality.
Our interest, like those of the other hearing participants, is to ensure the fairness of the process; specifically, one that is open and transparent. Petro-Canada supports all of its employees involved on this Project and is satisfied that they have conducted themselves with the utmost integrity.
Under the circumstances it’s important that we continue to be patient. As we await the results of the Board’s investigation into its internal practices, we believe the results will demonstrate that the process has not been jeopardized in any way.
Until then all we can do is hurry up and wait. We need to let the investigation process run its course.
I’ve been giving a lot of thought to the recent W5 piece that ran on the weekend; especially how much more comfortable the Cartwrights looked on horseback than I ever will! Those of you who’ve seen it would likely agree that aside from bookend references to our proposed East Slopes development, the bulk of the content focussed on specific cases that Petro-Canada had no involvement in; a story presented under the guise of a regulatory authority tasked with monitoring and addressing development concerns. Neither topic is one that anybody outside of these circumstances could responsibly comment on. That said, there was one event highlighted whose importance I want to underscore because it changed the way the industry operates ... The worst sour gas incident in Canada occurred in 1982 in a relatively unpopulated area of west-central Alberta near the hamlet of Lodgepole (highlighted here by the National Film Board). As noted in the W5 video, the high-pressure gas well blew out of control for 68 days. What wasn’t mentioned was that the Lodgepole incident led to a comprehensive review of sour gas drilling regulations and contributed to the development of national standards for emergency response. Lodgepole was a significant turning point in both the regulation and management of sour gas wells. From what I’ve read and seen, it was a horrible incident, yet one that sparked a fervent need for change. The Lodgepole incident spawned a generation of safety regulations that require the industry to designate hazardous drilling targets as "critical wells" and to use elaborate safety precautions at the drill site. The new regulations imposed more stringent drilling procedures at critical wells, required specialized safety features on drilling and other equipment, and forced companies to develop detailed emergency response plans before beginning to drill. A lot has changed since 1982 – for example, TIME magazine's Man of the Year in ’82 was for the first time given to a non-human; the personal computer. To put things into perspective… blogs and the Web (common features in today’s lexicon of communication) didn’t even exist! In the wake of the Lodgepole incident, two decades of innovation, technology and best practice have rightfully molded the circumstances under which today’s companies operate. Today is not yesterday, and at least in this sense, we’re the better for it.