Confkicted?

[oneoff]

Only got a minute this time so this will be short.

The petitioners (and council members) do (I believe) know that there must be strict focus on one issue at a time in this case. Not one sentence posted so far would necessarily meet with any disagreement from anyone except that the oil industry doesn't have options as alternatives in isolated cases.

With those few setbacks that are done at some neighbors expense...maybe that's just too damn bad.


But reread that RM condition that's posted above. It NEVER applies off some leased area on quarters where the landowner may be willing to give his rights and options away.

It only protects neighbors who were never consulted or negotiated with.

It only applies for new applications and as lifetimes of old facilities come to the abandonment and decommissioning stages...it provides an opportunity to not make the same mistakes that have been made in the past.

Its a START; ITS Deliberately LIMITED IN SCOPE; AND MAYBE IT CAN BE and has been SOLD TO THE REGULATORS AND THE GOVERNMENT.. TRUST ME. TRUST MY PREVIOUS "enemies" ON COUNCIL WHICH EVEN A COUPLE NIGHTS AGO WISHED ME A "happy crokinole evening" as I departed the meeting on terms never expected in this lifetime.

The petitioners, supporters AND "top dogs" on 15th floor buildings in Regina have been approached from a half dozen angles in the past couple weeks.


"Half a plane load" of top executives from the big players flew in specifically for that meeting from Calgary. Two licensed surveyors added their frustrations; 3 Sask Land companies; 6 RM's, Sask Energy and not a one of them saying anything worse than they "need clarity".

Please give this a chance. SARM get involved like I'm told their initial response was basically "We're willing to help in any way we can". Same with APAS.

It is an important issue; its a beginning and won't be helped with negativity or attempts to create an "omnibus bill" where everyone tries to attach what their priority concerns are.


My "trigger finger is ready for the crokinole table again and have to go.

Hope this thread is onto the next page when I get back. You want to get other things done....Get some critical mass to this little start and you don't even realize what further progress might flow from a simple well thought out beginning.

No time for even the simplest correction right now. Thanks

[grassfarmer]

Chuck chuck, you are woefully uninformed about the AER. Like a lot of stuff in Alberta it reads a good story but isn't true. Contrary to your belief it is in fact a bodyguard for the oil industry as my friend Diana Daunheimer would say. Watch her presentation and tell me how well the "independent" AER works to protect the public interest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGtv2La40ec http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGtv2La40ec

[chuckChuck]

Only got a minute this time so this will be short.

The petitioners (and council members) do (I believe) know that there must be strict focus on one issue at a time in this case. Not one sentence posted so far would necessarily meet with any disagreement from anyone except that the oil industry doesn't have options as alternatives in isolated cases.

With those few setbacks that are done at some neighbors expense...maybe that's just too damn bad.


But reread that RM condition that's posted above. It NEVER applies off some leased area on quarters where the landowner may be willing to give his rights and options away.

It only protects neighbors who were never consulted or negotiated with.

It only applies for new applications and as lifetimes of old facilities come to the abandonment and decommissioning stages...it provides an opportunity to not make the same mistakes that have been made in the past.

Its a START; ITS Deliberately LIMITED IN SCOPE; AND MAYBE IT CAN BE and has been SOLD TO THE REGULATORS AND THE GOVERNMENT.. TRUST ME. TRUST MY PREVIOUS "enemies" ON COUNCIL WHICH EVEN A COUPLE NIGHTS AGO WISHED ME A "happy crokinole evening" as I departed the meeting on terms never expected in this lifetime.

The petitioners, supporters AND "top dogs" on 15th floor buildings in Regina have been approached from a half dozen angles in the past couple weeks.


"Half a plane load" of top executives from the big players flew in specifically for that meeting from Calgary. Two licensed surveyors added their frustrations; 3 Sask Land companies; 6 RM's, Sask Energy and not a one of them saying anything worse than they "need clarity".

Please give this a chance. SARM get involved like I'm told their initial response was basically "We're willing to help in any way we can". Same with APAS.

It is an important issue; its a beginning and won't be helped with negativity or attempts to create an "omnibus bill" where everyone tries to attach what their priority concerns are.


My "trigger finger is ready for the crokinole table again and have to go.

Hope this thread is onto the next page when I get back. You want to get other things done....Get some critical mass to this little start and you don't even realize what further progress might flow from a simple well thought out beginning.

No time for even the simplest correction right now. Thanks

I am in agreement. It is important to make small incremental changes and avoid trying to do to much at once. Good work!

[chuckChuck]

Chuck chuck, you are woefully uninformed about the AER. Like a lot of stuff in Alberta it reads a good story but isn't true. Contrary to your belief it is in fact a bodyguard for the oil industry as my friend Diana Daunheimer would say. Watch her presentation and tell me how well the "independent" AER works to protect the public interest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGtv2La40ec http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGtv2La40ec

I was hoping someone with Alberta experience would speak up. I realize that Alberta's experience has been also negative on many oil and gas issues. There have been numerous complaints from ranchers and farmers in the media. It is my understanding that on the issue of flaring and fugitive emissions Alberta has stricter standards and enforcement than Saskatchewan. I may be wrong on that. And you are correct I don't really know much about the AER except that structurally it appears to be more independent than Saskatchewan's Ministry of Energy regulatory model.

[grassfarmer]

Alberta claims to have the highest standards/tightest regulations but there is no enforcement at best, sheer dishonesty at worst. AER have been caught cheating on more than one occasion where they had posted well testing results on the internet and subsequently went back in and changed them to more favourable readings at a later date! - I've seen the screenshots of the before and after results. I believe it was Jessica Ernst who documented this. This is not the energy companies this is the "Alberta Energy Regulator" that is supposedly the independent guardian of the public interest!

[oneoff]

Still waiting for SARM, APAS and other council's positions and even oil industry positions on this narrow condition being considered.


Don't wait too long or it will pass you by.

[oneoff]

Now what has happened in less than the last week are the following:

Not one public peep out of the other 5 or even 6 RM's present at that public meeting.


They all will however ALL present at the SARM mid term convention in Saskatoon...at this very hour. That gathering is to specifically debate resolutions.


Resolutions such as the one referred to specifically in this thread (posted above).


Will it reach the floor as some "emerging" or emergency resolution that missed the deadline? How will it be handled...who even has it on their mind besides maybe a couple local guys who have very first hand experience about the current situation.


Are hurting heads and supposedly other areas interests and other issues all that is important?

Does anyone really give a shit about general issues all tied in with everyone's eventual implications?

We will see or not...because Saskatoon is just too far away to attend; even if WE pride ourselves at not charging a registration fee; and even if "guests" are truly welcomed at these gatherings.

Those elected representatives are meant to be accountable and approachable by those whom they serve.


Those elected representatives didn't do any of that on this forum in the last week; and we should all know that there are some pretty proud Rural Municipal councillors and reeves who at least in the past did follow this agriville forum.

Poor showing so far boys; and I didn't say leaders.

A few are watching.

[oneoff]

Now that the SARM mid term convention has wound up...can we expect those who were there on our dimes to at least give a summary report.

Or is that just not in the job description.

What about two reports, One for debate on saved seed issue and another on setbacks on neigbors lands as mandated by various government departments and pipelines for example.

[oneoff]

Now what has happened in less than the last week are the following:

Not one public peep out of the other 5 or even 6 RM's present at that public meeting.


They all will however ALL present at the SARM mid term convention in Saskatoon...at this very hour. That gathering is to specifically debate resolutions.


Resolutions such as the one referred to specifically in this thread (posted above).


Will it reach the floor as some "emerging" or emergency resolution that missed the deadline? How will it be handled...who even has it on their mind besides maybe a couple local guys who have very first hand experience about the current situation.


Are hurting heads and supposedly other areas interests and other issues all that is important?

Does anyone really give a shit about general issues all tied in with everyone's eventual implications?

We will see or not...because Saskatoon is just too far away to attend; even if WE pride ourselves at not charging a registration fee; and even if "guests" are truly welcomed at these gatherings.

Those elected representatives are meant to be accountable and approachable by those whom they serve.


Those elected representatives didn't do any of that on this forum in the last week; and we should all know that there are some pretty proud Rural Municipal councillors and reeves who at least in the past did follow this agriville forum.

Poor showing so far boys; and I didn't say leaders.

A few are watching.

The adopted minutes are now available to all those who should be interested in this very important topic demonstrating how "land control" has been taken with no thought of repercussions to adjoining and affected landowners. Think interests of hunters; trespassers; oil companies, maybe pipelines; mineral interests; industrial users; imminent domain to some extent and compare to treatment of river dwellers and any landowning group, or environmental/cultural/heritage interests unilaterally claimed from property owners for another group's purposes; BUT NOT PROPERLY ACQUIRED
Skip down to section 9.1 (below) for the adopted resolution.

And why not get your RM and SARM thinking along the same lines. Better yet get Energy and Mines to include this principle in their Standard Conditions for Application Approvals. If YOU don't see the importance; then just say so and maybe I could forward a "word for word" transcript of that Public meeting held at Glen Ewen SK in early November. In fact reread this whole post to start to get up to speed. Thanks

R.M. of Enniskillen #3
Meeting Minutes
08/11/2018 - First Meeting of 2018/2019 - 6:00 P.M.

Head Notes & Attendance
The first regular meeting of the Council of the Rural Municipality of Enniskillen No. 3 was held at the Municipal Office on Thursday, November 8, 2018.

Reeve Trevor Walls called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. with the following members of Council present:
DIVISION I - Absent DIVISION IV - Shane Boyes
DIVISION II - Cameron Nordin DIVISION V - Absent
DIVISION III - Ryan Nielsen DIVISION VI - Trina Randall

1. Call to order



2. Delegations


2.1 Murray Johnson 6:00 p.m.

To discuss setback distances and amendments to the Proximity Policy.


2.2 Bruce Dodds - APAS 6:45 p.m.

APAS accomplishments for 2018.



3. Visitors

None



4. Oaths of Office - Division 2, 4, 6

Oaths of Office were reviewed and signed by Councillor Nordin, Councillor Boyes, and newly elected Councillor Randall.



5. Office Bond to be Circulated

Resolution No: 2018-0519

Moved By: Cameron Nordin


That Council acknowledges the presentation of the bond for office staff, and furthermore that Council authorizes bonding coverage in the amount of $200,000.00 for the year 2019.

Carried



6. Public Disclosure Statements

Public Disclosure Statements were reviewed, signed/amended by the Councillors who were present.



7. Declaration of Conflict of Interest

Can any member of Council identify a conflict of interest with any item on this agenda?

Councillor Nielsen - Vermilion Oil and Gas
Councillor Randall - Employees hours and wage discussion



8. Upcoming Meetings

October 25th, 2018 - EMO
October 23rd and December 11th - MCRP
November 7th - Public Meeting Oil & Gas
SARM Convention:
2018 Councillors Seminar - Tuesday, November 13th at TCU Place 12:30 p.m.
Convention - Wednesday, November 14th and Thursday, November 15th, 2018

Wage/employee meeting - December 4th, 2018. Supper at 5:00 p.m. with the employees. The regular Council meeting will follow.



9. Council Reports


9.1 Proximity Policy for Facilities

Resolution No: 2018-0520 Shane Boyes


That any setbacks onto the neighboring lands that are required by Energy and Resource's most recent directives, currently (PNG-001 and S-01) shall be proven through land control documentation in the facility application submitted to the R.M. for approval, and furthermore this land control must continue to be kept in place by future facility owners to meet the most current Energy and Resources provincial regulatory setback requirements.

Land Control is defined as Land control refers to ownership or interest in lands. In the context of drainage, land control is the right of the approval holder to drain from his or her own land, across, or onto a parcel of land owned by another, or through ditches downstream. There are various forms of land control that are relevant to impacting lands from drainage. From highest to the lowest degree of control, the range is 1. ownership of land, 2. an easement registered on title to the land, 3. joint application, 4. a written agreement between landowners.

Carried

[oneoff]

Ok I get it...very few see the significance of setbacks, enchroachments onto private property and how simple and easy it is to lose what should be rights.

There's an old saying something like "All it takes for evil to prevail is to do nothing."