Enbridge Northern Gateway Project

[ASRG]

parsley: I hope you don't think I was trashing oil....because I wasn't. In fact a good portion of my income comes from oil.....and no I don't work for the oil company....and yes I do have a good relationship with the companies on my land.
I do have a problem with the government and the so called Alberta government regulators!
I am the secretary of a landowners group "Alberta Surface Rights Group" (thus the name ASRG) that represents about 1400 members mostly in central Alberta. We are not anti industry in any way, but our mission statement is "to educate, inform, assist, landowners with negotiating surface leases and pipeline right of ways". We have been fairly successful in raising the bar for all landowners in our area.

[parsley]

You posted for me before, so I cut and pasted
your post and retained it, and visited the website
you provided a link for. I was very impressed
with, and interested in your work, and in your
liaisons with other groups with commonality. You
must be a sweet talker. ;=D Pars.

[jackspratwhynot]

There have been some hints that Canadian energy "security" hinges on selling raw feedstocks to foreign purchasers refining facilities. The thought process appears to be that this best guarantees markets for our raw materials. And that Canadians are best served with that marketing plan.
This logic is related to the "hewers of wood and drawers of water" syndrome. The benefits received by apologists and supposed friends of CEO's just don't often trickle down to ordinary people; and processing and value added is where the real benefits lie.
Lets examine the first paragraph that was used to introduce this topic to agrivillers. " Going to submit a short letter tommorow. Saying
the project should proceed so our energy supply
is secure and supplies by our abundant
resources, existing infrastructure and pipelines.
And expertise. We need jobs. We need
development. And our communities need tax
dollars. "
The desire is to keep the process local; no outside input from foreigners. We'll take the prosperity from outside dollars as we rely on the export sales of our scarce raw resources. The core debate should be at what rate and over what time scale, and for which purposes; and by whom those scarce resources are used up.
Do we need additional jobs when there are job openings that are already not able to be filled.
Whose secure energy supply is being talked about? Do we allow companies such as the CPR to dictate how they utilize their property when it impacts their neighbors in places like the middle of the city of Estevan. Or is everyone obliged to support a clearly poor plan?
Just who has any idea what 500,000 barrels of crude per day amounts to? Well according to 2010 Sask Energy and Mine figures; its a couple of times more volume than all SE Sask production (including the Bakken production). Figures are a now over a year old; and some would argue now out of date. I would say tell me the rate of growth; and then go back to the undeniable argument that this rat race is unsustainable; and can not possibly have a soft landing.

[SADIE]

Already a very long thread.

The Enbridge Alberta Clipper was just built from Hardisty, through Saskatchewaan and Manitoba to the US. This is now the 6th pipeline by this company built along this 1100km corridor. Enbridge or IPL over the 50 plus years of pipelines through these lands have not treated landowners fairly nor were they built properly so that "normal farmiing" practices can be maintained over the pipelines. The pipes were too shallow, construction practices were very substandard and the pipes were put through as cheap as possible and the National Energy Board allowed this to happen.

Landowners are now burdened with the issue of Section 112 under the NEB act which means you have to get permission each time you cross the pipes with modern machinery, Abandonment issues of the old and rotten steel left is the lands is also a continual concern.

Under the direction of CAPLA (NOW CAEPLA) --which is "pro-energy Development" with the understanding of proper and safe construction and concern for land Stewardship issues. Helped organize MPLA Manitoba (180 landowners) & SAPL 270 landowners) a huge landowner group Intervened at the certificate hearing for the Alberta Clipper Project. Before the certificat hearing to begin on Nov 1 2007 SAPL/MPLA ENBRIDGE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT was signed on Oct 12 2007.

Many issues were achieved with this agreement:
1)deeper depth of cover
2)Leave to cross the pipe without liability.
3)Abandonment consideration on new and all old pipes (Members only)
4)Proper construction practices--seperating the topsoil from subsoil
5)Proper integrity DIg agreement
6)Compensation package of 6 years crop damage paid in advance, Linear trenching fee (first in Canadian History).
7)constructionn monitors during construction, Joint committee overseeing the whole construction of the pipeline.

To AGrivillers---Before the settlement agreement was signed SAPL/MPLA landowner members had so many statements against Enbridge on Bullying tactics, mistreatment of landowners, Poor past construction practices ---this was all going to be exposed at the certificate hearing for this pipeline project.

Conclusion----Landowners have to be involved unitedly to get proper constuction/ compensation or satisfaction with any pipeline company.

I now own Enbridge shares and attend the annual shareholders meetings. Enbridge after huge confrontation has turned and realized it is better to WORK WITH LANDOWNERS (WHO ARE NOT STAKEHOLDERS) than to continually Stamp on them.

The National Energy Board is where the problem is not the pipeline company. They are not "watch Dogs" but Lap dogs to facilitate putting the pipelines in the ground. ALL SMOKE AND MIRRORS.

Recent Fall and Winter 2011-2012 CAEPLA JOURNAL--The biggest issue is ABANDONMENT to leave landowners with "0" Risk at the end of the day. Landowners need total removeal of rotten steel from agriculture lands or they will be proud owners of rotten pipelines on their properties.

as an Enbridge Shareholder:

Build the GATEWAY---Build the gateway but build it right.

Only those along the corridor should be allowed to Intervene.

[ASRG]

I would whole heartedly agree with Sadie on this one.
CAEPLA does some really good work and all landowners should consider supporting them.
The issue of abandoned pipeline removal should always be dealt with in the original contract. I realize there is a different process with the NEB, but our group and the Pembina Warburg Surface Rights Group have been writing a removal clause into ERCB contracts for quite a while now. People need to realize that somewhere down the line that pipeline will be abandoned and without a removal clause you are left holding the bag.
We are seeing this right now east of the City of Red Deer, where landowners are paying to have old pipelines taken out and cleaning up the old underground spills before they can sell the land to developers. The clean up costs are considerably more than they ever got for the pipelines.

[SADIE]

ASRG
Thankyou for the comment of support. The National Energy Board as a regulator is a whole new "Ball" to play with.

Since the Settlement agreement of 2007 the National Energy Board Launched the LMCI Process Land Matters Consultation INITIATIVE which contains 4 streams.

1)THE NEB PROCESS---Totally unreacheable system for individuals to participate in. Oral statements, Written statements at the end of the day mean "SQUARE ROOT OF F ALL" .One has to intervene with expert witness in a Quasi-jurisdical setting against the lawyers and $$$ of powerfull energy companies.
2)Stream 2--Who companies deal with landowners.---The brutal tactics they used under the "FORCED INTRUSION" of RIght of entry orders on your property.

3)Stream 3--The financial costs of pipeline maintanence or removal.

4)The methodolgy of pipeline abandonment

1)Abandonment in place

2)Cathotic protection of pipelines into perpetuity.

3)Total removal of the contaminated soils and pipelines from the lands.

I attended some of those hearing in Calgary as president of SAPL, CAEPLA was there and the only party to participate spending huge $$$ with expert witnesses "engineers on corrosion" to testify. THe National ENergy Board told CAEPLA (Landowners) that they should bear "O" Risk but allowing the pipeline companies to only agree and to set aside $$$ for minimal pipeline removeal from lands.

CAEPLA pulled out of the NEB hearings because the NEB refused to pay the Costs
(OVer $500,000.00).

THE NEB put out an order to Transcanada and ENBRIDGE that they got to talk to landowners about abandoment proceedures.
Because the NEB couldn't talk to landowners anymore it told the major companies to do that.

Workshops were last summer. I attended the Enbridge Workshop in Edmonton. AGain at the end of the day the two major companies made submissions to the NEB they are only going to set aside minimal $$ for less than 1% of pipeline removal.

THE NEB at the end of the day as it stands will issue an abandonment hearing and landowners will be forced with 0 to gain raise money to intervene and try and protect their interests. AFTER the abandonment hearings the NEB will totally remove regulation over these abandoned pipelines. THe companies will have made billions and againg pull out leaving the landowners, or grandchildren of landowners with the environmental cleanup and responsiblity on their lands.

[jackspratwhynot]

Now this debate is getting some traction. Some persons and landowner groups are telling it like it is. Isn't this awhole lot better than hearing someone say "I know the CEO of Enbridge and he's a nice guy. Why don't you get off his back and let this company do their job"
Doesn't that remind you of examples of some RM Councils who just don't get it; and the local ratepayers who don't hold Enbridge and their local RM leadership to responsibility and accountability. Its all a matter of how you define community building; and how much vision and direction will be tolerated from citizens. But then again; that stems from how much input the citizens are willing to demand and provide.

[jackspratwhynot]

Don't ever be forced into signing an "Easement" agreement. Take that word out of your vocabulary and refuse to ever discuss or negotiate an "Easement"
Offer intead a "Right of way" agreement and negotiate from there. This tactic works in 100% of the cases; and even if you don't know what you are talking about; pipeline companies all the way up to the size of Alliance pipeline do. And I guarantee they will sign just as quickly as any other "Easement" agreement that almost everyone else has ever signed.

[ASRG]

jack: You are right an "easement" is a whole other ball game than a "right of way".
I've never had to deal with an NEB pipeline, only Alberta ERCB regulated lines...but that might change as the idiots in the Alberta government let Transalta/Nova lines go over to the NEB jurisdiction! I believe CAEPLA fought that one as well? Sadie?

[jackspratwhynot]

I know for a personal fact that even Alliance Pipelines willingly signed a "Right of Way Agreement" not only once but maybe even three or four times. Why not push for the reverse set of figures on the next pipeline. It would also send a clear mesage that landowners can easily change the title of pipeline agreements; without even so much as a fuss.

[bduke]

JackSpratetc.... You asked for a name from Enbridge.

I don't know your location, but regardless call 403 231 3900 and request
Pat Daniel's email.

I don't know if you will be given this addy, but you should be provided
with someone's e-address.

Sadie... I appreciate your input. I agree the regulator's are often the
problem.

Seems regs don't keep up with the times and adjudications are technically
based. Challenges are abhorrently expensive, and very high risk.

I argue for some "principles" to be included in regulatory codes.

Principles are almost timeless, and long tails of responsibility should
help drive accountability.

My understanding is the Enbridge Clipper set new values for pipeline
compensation, long overdue IMHO.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

ASRG.... I much prefer piping to trucking.

I don't agree with saving substitutable resources for the future when a
growing sector of entitled voters is deciding our governance.

When people contributing far less to society than they receive drive our
policies, I question our sustainability.

BTW here are the percentages of the following President's Cabinets
who had business experience before being sworn in:



T. Roosevelt.................... 38%

Taft.................................. 40%

Wilson ........................... 52%

Harding........................... 49%

Coolidge......................... 48%

Hoover............................ 42%

F. Roosevelt................... 50%

Truman........................... 50%

Eisenhower................ .... 57%

Kennedy......................... 30%

Johnson.......................... 47%

Nixon.............................. 53%

Ford................................ 42%

Carter............................. 32%

Reagan........................... 56%

GH Bush......................... 51%

Clinton .......................... 39%

GW Bush........................ 55%

Obama.............................8%


Cheers... Bill

[jackspratwhynot]

All good points Bill. Thanks for the telephone lead. Enbridge has had an attitude in the past; and its about time they changed it a bit.

The ultimate responsibility for everything comes back to ordinary citizens who get the treatment from business interests and the leaders they put up with.