Bill 2; Alberta Ag/Landowners were in the way of 'progress'... AGAIN!

[TOM4CWB]

Dear Charlie et.el;

Very interesting radio show on AB Gov. Bill 2.

On the face of the legislation... the GOA is targeting our AB AG communities, who are the primary private property holders...

Farmers are; 'on top' of 80 percent of the GOA's avaliable energy...(big new O/G developments comming...[thousands upon thousands of wells]) in the settled private Agricultural areas of Alberta.
Freedomtalk.ca

This is a download and takes a few minutes to load. Perhaps the Agriville.com folks could provide a link if possible.

https://www.yousendit.com/download/WUJaeFVTZ2dwaFNxV2NUQw

[TOM4CWB]

..."November 4, 2012

Re: Bill 2 – Responsible Energy Development Act

– Breach of the Social Contract, Elimination of the Public Interest and Appeal Rights

Impacts on Landowners and Energy Industry Relationship


Ever since Alberta began regulating energy production in the 1930s, there has been a social contract between landowners, energy companies, and the Alberta government.
An often overlooked but important fact is that the vast majority of energy activities in Alberta occur on private lands. Oil and gas wells, pipelines, processing plants, etc., are not
constructed and operated on lands owned by energy companies. These high-impact
developments are put on people’s own farms and ranches, their recreational property, their homesteads—their land.

The social contract that has maintained a relative peaceful and cooperative relationship between landowners and energy companies has been enshrined in Alberta’s laws.
On the one hand, government has given energy companies right of entry powers to force their way onto private lands for building well sites, pipelines, and other energy projects through the
Surface Rights Act—that Act gives energy companies much broader rights than existed at common law for entry.

On the other hand, the government has always had laws that gave landowners who are directly and adversely affected by energy developments the right to bring any concerns about a proposed energy project before the energy regulator prior to issuance of approvals.
Bill 2 breaches that social contract. It will frustrate landowners and result in increased conflict between landowners and energy companies. This is not in anyone’s interest. It is avoidable.
Bill 2 is grossly defective and needs to be fixed.
Landowners’ Right to Participate
Section 26 of the Energy Resources Conservation Act is the legal foundation in Alberta law
that recognizes that energy projects impact landowners. It creates a positive legal duty on the
regulator (the ERCB) to give that landowner an opportunity to be heard and other important
substantive rights. Because sec. 26 is founded in statute law, the ERCB can’t ignore the landowner. The Board is required by law to listen and consider landowners’ concerns. If the Board fails to do so, it commits an error of law or jurisdiction. The Board can be held accountable by the Alberta Court of Appeal.
This social contract has worked fairly well over the decades. If a landowner feels that an energy company is not being responsive to reasonable concerns or requests with respect to the location of the well or pipeline on the landowner’s property; or if the landowner feels what is being proposed is just too dangerous for his or her family and their children; or if there are serious environmental or community impact concerns, sec. 26 of the Energy Resources Conservation Act has provided landowners with a mechanism to have these concerns addressed.

Surprisingly, Bill 2 repeals these important rights in their entirety. And Bill 2 does not replace these rights with anything substantive. A side-by-side comparison of the rights under existing law and that proposed under Bill 2 illustrates the problem:
Landowner Rights Today Landowner Rights under Bill 2
s. 26(2) . . . if it appears to the Board that its decision on
an application may directly and adversely affect the
rights of a person, the Board shall give the person
(a) notice of the application,
(b) a reasonable opportunity of learning the facts bearing
on the application and presented to the Board by the applicant and other parties to the application,
(c) a reasonable opportunity to furnish evidence relevant to the application or in contradiction or explanation of
the facts or allegations in the application,
(d) if the person will not have a fair opportunity to contradict or explain the facts or allegations in the
application without cross-examination of the person presenting the application, an opportunity of crossexamination in the presence of the Board or its examiners, and
(e) an adequate opportunity of making representations by way of argument to the Board or its examiners.

Notice of application
31 The Regulator shall on receiving an application ensure that notice of the application is provided in accordance with the rules.

Hearing on application
34(1) Subject to subsection (2), the Regulator may make a decision on an application with or without conducting a hearing.
(2) The Regulator shall conduct a hearing on an application
(a) where the Regulator is required to conduct a hearing pursuant to an energy resource enactment,
(b) when required to do so under the rules, or
(c) under the circumstances prescribed by the regulations.
(3) A hearing on an application must be conducted in accordance with the rules.


It is and has always been fundamentally important that the foundational rights of landowners vis-à-vis energy projects be set out in statute and not merely left to regulations nor undefined
‘rules’ made by the regulator.

Removing these foundational rights from the statute is a breach of the social contract. These rights must be restored. The contract needs to be honoured.
Importantly, restoring these rights will not cause delays in energy project approvals. The ERCB’s own hearing statistics for 2011 show that despite issuing tens of thousands of
approvals, only 39 hearings were scheduled and only 10 hearings actually went ahead.

It’s in no one’s interest for a regulatory process to be long and complex.
Landowners don’t want the process delayed anymore than energy companies or the government do. But the notion that the process will be more speedy by removing landowners from it—by stripping landowners of their rights—is wrong. It undermines a continued peaceful relationship between the energy industry and landowners.

Elimination of “Public Interest”

Another aspect of the long-standing social contract is the mandate of the regulator as the overseer of what the energy industry is allowed to do on people’s private lands.
The legal provisions that set out this mandate of the regulator are found in sec. 3 of the Energy
Resources Conservation Act:

Consideration of public interest

3 Where by any other enactment the Board is charged with the conduct of a hearing, inquiry or other investigation in respect of a proposed energy resource project or carbon capture and
storage project, it shall, in addition to any other matters it may or must consider in conducting the hearing, inquiry or investigation, give consideration to whether the project is in the public interest, having regard to the social and economic effects of the project and the effects of the
project on the environment.

Bill 2 repeals this critical section. But Bill 2 it goes much further. Bill 2 removes every reference that exists in the current statutory framework relating to public interest. It carries
none of the public interest provisions forward into the Bill.
Bill 2 effectively declares that the public interest no longer applies when it comes to energy industry development in Alberta.
The public interest provisions in the current law—the ones being repealed by Bill 2—are the legal provisions that direct that the regulator is to exercise wisdom and judgment in its overall decision-making. A public interest mandate is a hallmark of substantive regulatory boards and
commissions in modern democratic countries.
The government’s decision to abandon public interest decision-making for energy projects is truly troubling.
Right to Appeal to the Environmental Appeals Board Removed Currently, landowners whose land is contaminated or otherwise environmentally harmed or
threatened by energy developments, can appeal environmental decisions affecting their own land to the independent Environmental Appeals Board (EAB). The Board came into existence
in 1993 and has been providing landowners with an appeal of last resort for 19 years.
Bill 2 brings that to an end. No more independent appeals to the EAB for landowners whose land is contaminated by oil and gas activities.

Bill 2 proposes that the new energy regulator will make all of the environmental decisions relating to a landowner’s land. Under Bill 2, if a landowner thinks the energy regulator missed something, or got something wrong, his or her only remedy is to ask the regulator to review its own decision. There will be no independent review.
History shows that regulators almost always decide that they got it right the first time when they are asked to review their own decisions. That is why we have independent appeal processes in modern democratic countries.
Interestingly, under the current system, when a landowner appeals to the EAB a decision of Alberta Environment that the landowner thinks was inadequate, Alberta Environment will take the position at the EAB hearing that Alberta Environment got it right and there is no need to change its own decision. Often, the EAB will rule against Alberta Environment. There have
been cases where the EAB finds that something was missed and that additional steps need to be taken to deal with the environmental concerns. The system works. It should be restored. ..."

..."Landowners are the most affected group in our society by energy projects.

Remember—
These energy projects (well sites, pipelines and related infrastructure) mostly occur on a landowner’s own land, not the energy company’s lands. And landowners can’t say no to an
energy project. The energy companies can get a right of entry order under the Surface Rights Act and force their way onto his or her land.
Streamlining energy regulatory processes makes sense. However, streamlining does not need to—and should not—occur at the expense of landowners, communities, or the
environment. Bill 2 as currently drafted strips those most affected by energy projects of their legal rights, abandons public interest decision-making, and removes existing environment
appeal rights.
Under Bill 2, landowners appear to be the sacrificial lambs of the government’s attempt at
regulatory streamlining. The real and immediate impacts of energy developments on landowners must be recognized in any new statute law and not left merely to the whims of the
Board’s new ‘rules’. The long-standing social contract needs to be respected.
Thank you for your consideration of these concerns.

Yours truly,

KEITH WILSON
IKW/sc"

EXCERPT FROM LETTER

kwilson@wilsonlawoffices.ca
November 4,
2012 Suite 195, 3-11 Bellerose Drive
St. Albert, Alberta
Canada • T8N 5C9
VIA EMAIL & FAX

TO OPPOSITION LEADERS OF ALBERTA

freedomtalk.ca "Alberta's Bill 2 As It Stands Will Wipe Out Long-standing Landowner Rights' pdf THAT CAN BE DOWNLOADED.

[ASRG]

TOM: You are exactly right on what is coming! The shales and tight sands in Alberta hold huge amounts of light sweet crude and liquid rich natural gas.
Bill 24 the "Carbon capture bill" was the first step.....it was never about "capturing C02".....it was really all about stealing your pore space... therfore no underground trespass when they horizontally drill and frack every square inch of Alberta.
This Bill 2 the "Responsible Energy Developement Act" removes your ability to negotiate a fair contract, no ability to have a hearing if you object, and no appeal for an environmental disaster! Further more water will now be tied to all energy projects.....and subject to the same "super regulator".......therefore when they destroy your water well, you will have no avenue for redress! You can't sue them. You have lost your right to due process and the rule of law.
In the 2013 spring session the intention is to open up the Surface Rights Act. The provision where you negotiated "loss of use" on your property will be simplified. All land will recieve a "set compensation" based on soil type. For example Number two soil would recieve the same price regardless of what is grown on it.....it will be one price whether in Taber or Manning. This price will be set by the cabinet appointed "super regulator". At the same time a set price will be established for adverse effect. As an added bonus the entry fee will probably be eliminated to bring Alberta into a more competitive position with Saskatchewan and BC.

Heres how it will work: The landman will come to your door and say heres the contract for the lease we want to put in on your south quarter. The price is set by the law, theres nothing I can do to change the price. Sign it.
You say NO WAY. He reaches back into his briefcase and pulls out the presigned right of entry order from the regulator and informs you they'll be coming in tommorrow!

You will have no option, no right to challenge the project or compensation in court,.....nothing.

Farmers don't seem to care. The ones who do ask their PC MLAs will get the old lies and BS....there, there everything is okay....you need to do your part...we'll be there for you...we care....this will actually improve things!

And that's just how it is.

[food4u]

This sounds very much like Sask. where
crown corps do as they please because they
can.Public good, you know...

[mcfarms]

So what can we do? Rural Elected Wild Rose so we really have no voice. Civil disobiedence, widespread barring or energy companies from private land, Do we all have to go militant? Whats the solution here?

[rockpile]

That's a good question, Mcfarms. Class action? Just
refuse to sign anything. It's the CPA convention in
Calgary this weekend so I'm hoping there are enough
informed bumpkins there to put a pause on this Bill.
But I have my doubts. First thought that popped into
my head was 'let's be proactive rather than reactive'.
Crickies, the least cost component of exploration and
production for a resource company is access and
annual rental. The guy who puts a fence up around a
well site gets paid more than we do. WTF?

[ASRG]

When they really gear up to exploit the shales, there will be environmental problems. The amount of water needed to do multi stage horizontal hydro fracks is going to be a disaster. A lot of the shales (the fish scale shales) are quite radiactive. Data from the massive shale plays in BC show that there is a lot of "communication" between wells (the frack blasts into another zones/wells). Or check what happened near Glennifer lake in January/2010....where a frack in the Cardium blew into a well in the Viking zone and blew it out? Many others have happened in Alberta.....reports pending some from 5 years ago!
Can they do multi stage hydro fracks safely? Will they compensate you if they destroy your water? Check out what happened at Pavillion, Wyoming, where the EPA says a Canadian company poisoned a large aquifer. Those people who are sick with cancer aren't getting any money.

There are literally hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars to be made inthe shales and tight sands under Alberta. To get that money the companies don't want any pesky farmers holding them up, so they needed a new set of laws.....and hey while we're destroying their livelyhood, why not screw them on the price too!

And so they wrote up a new "Responsible Energy Developement Act"......walked it across the hall at the Bow Tower to their employee, the Alberta Energy Ministry.....and congratulated themselves for buying the government!

Is there anything you can do? Phone, email, write a letter to your MLA telling him/her you expect them to protect your rights and freedoms. For now that's about as good as it gets!

Maybe later we'll have to set up a guillotine! LOL

[TOM4CWB]

Winning in the 'Court of Public Opinion' by exposing these laws for what they are... will likely cause sober second thought.

We can hope Alison sees what the reflection of Ed could look like... when she realises what could happen.

It is hard to believe she, or the majority of her rural ministers... get it yet. They have not proven to be fast learners.

Who writes their legislation?

[ASRG]

CAPP (Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers).

[ASRG]

TOM: I think most people don't understand that legislation like this isn't just a dumb government not getting it right? It is part of an overall agenda to strip you of your property rights and your right to the rule of law?

I was involved in a court case last year, Kelly et al vs Grizzly Resources & the ERCB. It was at the Appeal Court and basically it revolved around the rights of who was affected when a sour gas well was drilled. The lawyer for the ERCB was a hotshot brought in from Bennett-Jones(the ERCB has a full house of lawyers...but they have to hire an outsider?) and he tried to lecture the three judges on how the government was getting pretty sick of impediments thrown up by citizens who didn't want to get gassed by sour gas!

That didn't go over too well with the Appeal court judges....and in their ruling they gave the government a pretty good lecture!

Incidently Kelly et al won that case and were awarded full costs (as were our group...as court approved intervenors). Our lawyer, Shawn Fluker, did a superb job. He is one of the premier property rights lawyers in the province.

The truth about just how evil this legislation is will come out. Just about every property rights lawyer in the province is screaming their heads off about just how bad this legislation is!

This is the start of the "end game" these skunks in the Alberta government have been planning for quite awhile. All the land theft bills were a part of this scheme. This little gem is another step. When they open up and change the Surface Rights Act and bring in legislation to create a Water Market act(both coming within the year), they will pretty much have achieved their goal of stripping you of every property right you thought you ever had!

[TOM4CWB]

ASRG,

Just the beginning...

You know who's water it is once it falls onto the our land/crops??? GOA.

Attended at the Agri-Environmental Partnership of Alberta (AEPA) 'Forum' meeting on Thursday Nov 8 in Red Deer.

One of the 'Environmental' areas of interest I have been working on the 'Environmental Goods and Services, 'Wetland Policy'.

Inside the Nov 2012 brochure it says in part this:

Under
'Relevance to Agriculture'...

"About two-thirds of the wetlands in the White or settled area of Alberta are estimated to have been lost,...

RESTORATION:
The re-establishment of a wetland as a functioning natural ecosystem whose characteristics are as close as possible to pre-disturbance conditions.

As producers are significant landowners, wetland protection, conservation and restoration opportunities are often avaliable on agricultural land. ...By partnering with restoration agencies, municipalities and the Government of Alberta, the agriculture industry can play a key role in ensuring wetlands are available to offer social, economic and environmental benefits, while ensuring this is not the agriculture industry's cost to bear alone."

We were told (by AB Gov)... the 3 to 1 policy is here now. For every acre of wetland lost, it must be replaced by 3 acres. Water took half the day. Andy Ridge the new super dept, Environment Sustainable Resourse Dev. (AESRD) was a speaker.

Half the day was talking about Land Use Framework regulations that will put in place new rules for 'development' (ie. Transferable Development Credits) to "create" a 'Market Based' trading system to create a new controling land development scheme here in Alberta.

CLAIM:

These new regulations will create 'Voluntary' 'Market Driven' systems of management that no one can object to as being unfair to private property holders nor or 'UnDemocratic' because the GOA told us it is coming.

So...

If you put a shovel in the ground, move some dirt... and water flows into the hole you made... you have diverted the GOA's water. Oh... didn't you know...Water after it has fallen on the ground... belongs to the Government of Alberta.

I can't help but think Water IS where this is headed... because it leads to unlimited control of private lands.

Standards based on AB CCME or US EPA guidelines. (Scott Milligan and Brian Hills GOA)

We all know the term "Million Dollar Rain"... well guess what... the next time you get a nice 2 inch soaker... on a beautiful crop... (to be one of the 'Market Based projects?' Glen Sallard ADM AESRD was hinting at)???

In the end... the AB Gov controls what happens UNDER and Over top our private land... Now new moves on Water...

Are WE just the pesky farmers and private land holders that get in the way... and if we didn't vote PC... we don't matter cause we are only 3 percent of the population anyway!

[ASRG]

Thanks for that info Tom. We've long suspected the Alberta government was REALLY interested in water!
Just like their role model in Oregon!
I've forwarded this on to our water guy.

[TOM4CWB]

Dear ASRG,

Looks like I should do up my meeting notes and post them.

interesting times ahead... NO DOUBT!!!

Cheers!

[jyali]

I wonder if there is anyone who would be willing to write a short blog post about this issue for my blog? I am not knowledgeable about this bill and I always thought this was a rural issue but I now understand the reason why southern Alberta voted the way it did.

Is there someone who is willing to write a short piece?

My blog is here:

http://readingchildrensbooks.blogspot.ca/
I would do it but I have other pieces that I want to write first such as the FRESH public hearings at City Hall where citizen request for agricultural land in the city was shot down for the sake of overdevelopment and builder/developer profits.

Julie