When my colleague Kyle began this blog, it was November 2008 and the company was preparing to attend an ERCB hearing on the Sullivan project. In his first blog post, Kyle noted, “discussions during the hearing will ultimately lead to a decision by the Energy Resources Conservation Board as to whether or not this development [the Sullivan project] is in the interest of all Albertans.”

And discussions there were. Eventually, a decision too (see my June 9 post below).

In short, a lot has happened over the last year and a half. But one of Kyle’s other comments from the first post has also remained true. He wrote, “throughout this project, I’ve heard a lot of good questions from people about our plans. Since not everyone can attend the hearing, I thought I would tackle some of those questions here.”

Kyle used the blog to provide a lot of great information over the course of subsequent months. And once he changed jobs and we continued to wait for a regulatory decision, I tried my best to keep you up to date as well.

All in all, I think the blog fulfilled its original purpose.

But what’s next? As I mentioned last month, the Natural Gas business at Suncor is experiencing some change this year.

While we sort that out, I don’t think there will be much to blog about – not regularly, anyway. So…this is farewell.

We’ll continue to keep Sullivan Field Notes live for a period of time – there’s a lot of material on here and we see sense in keeping those materials accessible, as an archive. 

But as for new posts and updates – if you’ll permit me to quote the belated Michael Jackson – this is it.

To both our faithful readers and to those who found us by chance (or Google!), thank you for perusing this site.

Please remember that blog or no blog, we expect to continue getting questions about the project. We’re always open to them, and will do our best to respond.

Well, the time estimates in my last post were a bit off. We didn’t receive the ERCB’s decision while I was on vacation last month, and we didn’t receive summer either. Ask me how thrilled I was to get on the plane home and hear that it was snowing in Calgary on May 29!

But despite having visited the UK for part of my trip -- where the British are known for their talk about weather – I’ll put that conversation aside and get to the matter at hand. 

Yesterday, the ERCB issued a conditional approval for the Sullivan project. Their news release can be found here, and the entire decision report is here.

We’ve already received some media interest – stories are available online from the Calgary Herald and Calgary Sun.

Obviously, we’re pleased with the approval, but it’s still early days. We’re studying the conditions and we’ll see where best to go from there. In the short-term, our focus in the company’s Natural Gas business is still on streamlinining our portfolio (you may have heard that we’ve been selling some natural gas assets this year) and further developing our longer-term strategy for the business.

But if and when we move ahead on Sullivan, you can be sure we’re still committed to developing this long-life resource in a responsible way. Nothing else would be acceptable, as demonstrated by the ERCB’s 15 conditions of approval, and their reference to the 300+ commitments made by Petro-Canada (now Suncor) during the regulatory hearing.

(The ERCB’s conditions and a summary of our commitments are available via the link above to the full decision report.)

It’s been two months since I posted to the blog, and time has flown by. I actually have no idea where those 60ish days have gone.

But aside from getting caught up in the day-to-day, I’ve actually been holding off on writing a post, thinking it would be great to discuss the imminent (at least, I think it’s imminent) decision from the ERCB on our Sullivan project.

But I’m about to go off on holiday, and I didn’t want to leave the blog in complete silence. If we’ve received the ERCB’s word by the time I come back in early June, I’ll certainly use the blog to discuss it then.

In the meantime, enjoy the start of spring/summer – I think that’s imminent too!

I don’t have a specific update on Sullivan, but there is something that’s been on my mind that’s relevant from an industry standpoint.

Here’s the thing. Some words, even if they’re very short, can pack a lot of punch. “No” is a powerful word. And “not” turns things into their opposite (just ask any kid from the early ‘90s, or Borat).

Here’s where I’m going with this. You may have heard about the well blowout that occurred near Hythe, Alberta. On Friday, the ERCB issued a news release saying that well-control specialists have regained control and ended the blowout.

I‘m sure this is a great relief to the company involved, and the industry as a whole. Incidents like this are rare, but extremely serious.

I can certainly see why residents near the well site were concerned. But I can’t see why some people (not necessarily the residents) tried to inject more concern into an already sombre situation.

When air monitoring consistently shows that sour gas is not present (or to use words like the ERCB, “there have been no readings of sour gas”), the words “not” and “no” are key.

And that’s why I can’t understand why some blogs and Twitter users would assert/imply that sour gas (hydrogen sulphide) emissions were widespread. That’s a serious claim! And as someone who grew up near sour gas facilities, and someone who works in a company that develops sour gas fields, I can’t appreciate why anyone would make that claim lightly.

The important thing right now is that the blowout has ended, and no one was hurt. Those words are definitely important. But looking back, I also wanted to point out the importance of the other “little” words.

I recently wrote about a request that some interveners made to the Energy Resources Conservation Board, asking for a re-hearing of the Sullivan applications.

About a week ago, the ERCB responded to all parties involved, explaining that they are denying the motions to rehear the application.

In providing this notice, the Board commented that it is not in the practice of anticipating the impact of natural gas prices and associated economics on business decisions of companies; they said these matters are best left to the companies.

With regard to the other issue in the request for rehearing, the ERCB noted that mergers are common to the oil and gas industry, and that merged entities are subject to the same extensive regulation as other companies. The Board added that the merger between Suncor and Petro-Canada involved two large, sophisticated companies with considerable experience in the industry.

More importantly, the Board said it expects Suncor to honour the commitments made by Petro-Canada during our hearing. And we agree that’s important – after all, the commitments weren’t made lightly.

So what’s next? An ERCB decision on the applications. Stay tuned…

What I’m about to write isn’t directly related to the Sullivan project or regulatory process, but I’m posting it anyway because I think it’s important to our work and our stakeholders.

Our top priority is safety – for our people and those around us, and the focus on safety in our workplaces is evident in a variety of ways.

There’s taking time for a “safety moment” before meetings, wearing the proper personal protective equipment, ensuring that appropriate work procedures and emergency preparedness plans are in place (wow, that was a mouthful of “p”s), and so on.

We also make sure that staff are trained in first aid and other relevant courses.

When most people take first aid, they hope never to use it. Unfortunately, in the last couple of weeks, we’ve had employees at both ends of the province who had to put their training into action. In both instances, our staff came across non-Suncor vehicle accidents. Arriving on the scene, they obviously pitched in and did their best to help.

These employees aren’t looking for recognition or a pat on the back. They simply did what anyone would have. But their experiences are a sobering reminder to us all; the need to keep safety at the top of our personal priority lists is ever-present.

So please, remember to be safe out there. Especially in this season of questionable road quality, please drive safely.

My trip to Bali was amazing, but that’s not really what I’m here to talk about. And you probably don’t want to hear about my Christmas either (but just for the record, it was really good – hectic and busy, but good).

In my last post, I said we were due to hand in a submission to the ERCB in late November. And while I was on vacation, that submission was made. As a reminder, the subject at hand was pipeline routing. A couple of months earlier, the ERCB had requested clarification on information we provided before and during the hearing about our chosen pipeline route, which had been selected from a number of possible corridors. We provided the requested information in October, and then interveners had a chance to respond. The November submission was to be our final reply on this matter.

To give some insight regarding our overall stance, here’s an excerpt from our response. “Petro-Canada, in evaluating route options and conducting stakeholder consultations, faced the challenge of balancing varied, and sometimes competing, interests…Petro-Canada understands that from any particular individual perspective, the resulting decision may not appear to be in the public interest. However, what best addresses the public interest cannot be all things to all people. Petro-Canada undertook the task of route selection with the primary focus on addressing the wider public interest.”

So that’s the latest on that issue. But wait. There’s more.

(For some reason, whenever I say that phrase, I picture a grandfather telling his grandkids an elaborate story. I’m not sure why, as I can’t remember my own grandpa ever using the phrase. But I’m off track again. Let’s move on.)

In early December, we received notice from the ERCB that two interveners had requested a re-opening of the Sullivan hearing. Their basis for these requests was, essentially (and to paraphrase), that a) changes in the natural gas industry and economy have negatively affected the viability of the Sullivan project and b) that the Suncor / Petro-Canada merger has also affected the project.

The ERCB asked us to submit a response to these assertions, and once we did (in mid-December), the interveners were to provide the Board with a final reply just before Christmas. 

I can’t speak to what the interveners said in that last submission, but our basic response to the above to points was as follows.

Regarding the contention that our industry has been negatively affected by the economic downturn and lower commodity prices, we don’t disagree. But we don’t really see the relevance of this situation to the regulatory approval process. Economic factors are always considered when a company decides when/whether to proceed with a project like Sullivan, but such factors are considered not in the context of the present year, but within the context of the project’s entire lifespan.

And if the ERCB is concerned that we may not proceed, they are able to write a development deadline into the conditions of approval (if approval is granted). These sorts of regulatory deadlines are quite common.

Regarding the merger, we don’t see that it has an impact on Sullivan. The new Suncor has the same level of technical expertise as the former Petro-Canada, and the company continues to place high importance on environmental stewardship and safety.

Some people have argued that because Suncor is an oil sands-centric company, it has no interest in pursuing natural gas projects like Sullivan. That is not the case. While Suncor’s primary focus is the oil sands industry, the company continues to have a business unit actively dedicated to natural gas exploration and production (as well as other non-oil sands businesses). 

To sum up – as you’ve probably figured out by now – we made an argument in December that the merger and economy do not justify a reopening of the hearing. We’re now waiting for the next step.

While this post is a bit lengthy, I hope it’s gone some way to explaining events of the last month or so. And now we’ll just have to see what the next month or so brings! 

Keeping in mind what I said about not waiting to delay so long between posts, I thought it would only be fitting to sign in before I head out of the office for a couple of weeks.

While it’s only getting chillier in Alberta, I’ll be enjoying the sun from Bali and a couple of other Indonesian islands. (Sorry, I just can’t get enough of telling people that – what can I say? I’m excited.)

Anyway, during the time I’m away, Suncor is scheduled to provide its final reply regarding the ERCB’s request for more information about pipeline routing options that Petro-Canada proposed for the Sullivan field.

In my last post, I mentioned the final submission was due by November 17. But the schedule for this latest requirement in the regulatory proceedings was since revised, and Suncor’s due date was moved to November 23 (the other due dates, including the one for interveners, were also moved accordingly).

In other words, this was just a quick post to touch base and provide a (small) update. Until next time!

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.