1882
1 2 3 4 5 6 ALBERTA ENERGY AND UTILITIES BOARD 7 HEARING, COMPTON 8 PETROLEUM CORPORATION 9 APPLICATION NOS. 1276857,1276858, 10 1276859, 1276860, 1307759, 1307760, 11 1278265 and 1310361 12 13 14 15 Board: Mr. Arden Berg, Chairperson 16 Mr. John Nichol, Board Member 17 Mr. Gordon Miller, Board Member 18 19 20 21 Held: Calgary, Alberta 22 23 January 21st, 2005 24 25
1883
1 APPEARANCES 2 J.R. McKee ) Board Counsel 3 Barbara Kapel Holden ) 4 5 Allan McLarty ) Compton Petroleum Corp. 6 Lars Olthafer ) 7 8 Stan Carscallen (np) ) AG, Sandy Soutzo and 9 Brent Robinson ) Ollerenshaw Ranch 10 Student-at-law 11 12 Gavin Fitch Front Line Residents Group 13 14 Richard Secord White Family 15 16 Lewis Manning Calgary Health Region 17 18 Shawn Munro (np) Adjacent East Owners 19 20 Leila J. Gosselin City Of Calgary 21 22 Craig Tomalty MD of Rocky View 23 Daron Naffin (Np) ) Evans Development Ltd 24 Brian O' Ferrall, Q.C. (np) ) Brian and Joan Evans 25 Andrew G. Kay )
1884
1 APPEARANCES (cont'd) 2 3 Don Edie Carma Developers Ltd. 4 5 James Laycraft Richard and Sue Pearson 6 7 David Brett (np) Coalition of Concerned 8 Communities 9 10 Nick Baiton Joyce Newton 11 12 Harald Thimm (np) Private Citizen 13 14 Michael Queenan (np) Private Citizen 15 16 Patricia Brown (np) Calgary Friends Of Medicare 17 18 Brian Pincott (np) Sierra Club 19 20 Jeff Burns (np) ) Burns West Corp 21 Tracy Clark ) 22 23 24 25
1885
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page No. 3 List of Exhibits 1886 4 List of Undertakings 1898 5 6 Compton's Panel 3: 7 GARY FOLLENSBEE, Resumed; 8 WADE MROCHUK, Resumed; 9 RUSSELL BROWN, Resumed; 10 JOSEPH KENNY, Resumed; 11 GREGORY CROOKS, Resumed; 12 RICHARD BISSETT, Resumed; 13 DEREK LONGFIELD, Resumed; 14 15 Continued Cross-Examination by 16 Mr. Gavin Fitch 1910 17 Cross-Examination by Mr. Richard Secord 1201 18 19 20 21 Reporter's Certificate 2073 22 23 24 25
1886
1 LIST OF EXHIBITS 2 No. Description Page No. 3 039-001 Compton- Report on Corporate 4 Governance (see Undertaking No. 1 5 page 62, line 21 given to Mr. Fitch) 62 6 039-002 Compton - 2003 Annual Report (see 7 Undertaking No. 2, page 171 give to 8 Mr. Brett) 171 9 039-003 Compton - Information Compton Board 10 had when making the determination 11 to proceed with the applications. 12 (See Undertaking No. 3, page 176, 13 line 16, given to Mr. Brett) 176 14 39-004(a)(b) Copy of LRD Agreement February 15, 15 (c) 2001 and Amending Agreement May 31, 16 2002 and Amending Agreement May 14 17 2004 301 18 39-005 Application by Burns West 19 Corporation, dated January 12, 20 2005, for Intervenor Status. 367 21 39-006 Response to Undertaking 4 22 regarding drilling timing 23 and scenarios.(Given to Mr. Secord, 24 page 525, line 20) 572 25
1887
1 EXHIBITS (cont'd) 2 Exhibit No. Description Page No. 3 39-007 Mr. Longfield's calculation of 4 spare capacity for Mr. Richard 5 Secord - (see Undertaking 6 No. 5, page 530, line 19) 575 7 39-008(a)(b) Responses to Undertaking 7 8 and 8 re material data sheets. 9 (Given to Mr. Secord at page 578 10 line 16 and page 579, line 5) 579 11 39-009 Answer to Undertaking No. 9 12 - revised Completions Plan Program. 13 (Given to Mr. Secord at page 582, 14 line 23) 583 15 39-010 Response to Undertaking 10 - 16 spec sheet on the high stage 17 separator (Given to Mr. Secord at 18 page 614, line 11) 615 19 39-011(a) Response to Undertakings 11 re 20 (b) provide MSDS for Greencide; 21 Undertaking 12 provide MSDS for 22 Amine. (Given to Mr. Secord at 23 page 623, line 1 and page 624 24 line 5) 626 25
1888
1 LIST OF EXHIBITS (cont'd) 2 Exhibit No. Description Page No. 3 39-011(c) Response to Undertaking 13 re 4 Provide Compton's specs for 5 compressor that is now part of 6 Appendix IV. (Given to Mr. Secord 7 page 645, line 8) 645 8 39-011(d) Response to Undertaking 14- 9 specifications of additional 10 Tank on Well site.(Given to Mr. 11 Secord, page 666, line 23) 667 12 39-011(e) Response to Undertaking No. 15 13 - Schematic Flow Process 14 (Given to Mr. Secord page 668, line 1 668 15 39-011(f) Specification sheet for the 16 Questor 5000 Incinerator. (Given to 17 Mr. Secord page 549, line 18 763 18 39-012 Excerpt of transcript of 19 October 30, 1997. 640 20 21 22 23 24 25
1889
1 LISTS OF EXHIBITS (cont'd) 2 EXHIBIT No. Description Page No. 3 39-013 Response to Undertaking 16 - 4 Give some thought to, if relief 5 wells were required, what would 6 be the location of those, what you 7 would consider to be the quote 8 "ideal" or the sort of the 9 reasonable location for them, also 10 the minimum distance from the 11 existing wells that you think might 12 be practical and do it for drilling 13 and completion scenarios separately. 748 14 (Given to the Chair, page 745, line 24) 15 39-013(a) Schematic of Compton pad site 16 10 of 13-23-29 with a hand-drawn 17 revision on it and some 764 18 information. (Given to the Chair, 19 page 745, line 24) 20 39-013(b) Document entitled ARP-1 21 Review 1993. (Given to the Chair, page 22 745, line 24) 765 23 24 25
1890
1 LIST OF EXHIBITS (cont'd) 2 Exhibit No. Description Page No. 3 39-013(c) Compton, North Okotoks's 4 Horizontal Well Program, 5 hypothetical events leading 6 to a blowout condition. (Given to the 7 Chair, page 745, line 24 765 8 39-014 Response to Undertaking Number 17 9 - A document which speaks to the 10 hypothetical events leading to 11 a blowout on servicing. (Given to 12 Mr. Manning, page 808, line 17 809 13 39-015 Response to Undertaking No. 18 14 - Document setting out insurance 15 coverage that is in place, and 16 the option to increase. (Given to 17 Mr. McKee, Page 884, line 8) 884 18 039-016 Compton's Engineering Environmental 19 Health and Safety Committee Charter 1026 20 039-017 Confirmation of whether production 21 testing will include a line heater 22 (Given to Mr. Secord, Undertaking No. 23 19 page 1040, line 4) 1040 24 25
1891
1 LIST OF EXHIBITS (Cont'd) 2 Exhibit No. Description Page No. 3 039-018(a) Clarification from Grant Testing 4 on equipment specifications 5 (Given to Mr. Secord, Undertaking 6 No. 20, page 1044, line 24) 1045 7 039-018(b) Request specifications from 8 Grant Production Testing Services 9 for the 740 Frac Separator.(Given 10 to Mr. Secord, Undertaking No. 21, 11 page 1048, line 5) 1048 12 39-019(a) List of commitments made by Compton 13 during the Hearing (Given to 14 Chairperson as Undertaking No. 22, 15 page 1209 Line 12 1210 16 39-019(b) Compliance and Inspection Record 17 for drilling and completions for 18 the last five years (Given to 19 Chairperson as Undertaking No. 23, 20 page 1232, Line 1) 1232 21 39-019(c) Compliance and Inspection Record for 22 production operations for the last 23 five years (Given to Chairperson as 24 Undertaking No. 24, page 1232, Line 16) 1232 25
1892
1 List of Exhibits (cont'd) 2 Exhibit No. Description Page No. 3 39-019(d) Analysis conducted by Compton 4 of relationship between length 5 of horizontal wellbore and H2S 6 release rate. (Given to 7 Chairperson as Undertaking 8 No. 25, page 1245, Line 17) 1246 9 39-020 List of EUB Pre-filed Exhibits 1353 10 39-021(a) Compton's verification from 11 Firefly that the one (1) minute 12 ignition is achievable.(Given to Mr. 13 Gavin Fitch as Undertaking No. 26, 14 page 1410, line 13) 1410 15 39-021(b) Compton's update of the 5.2 Ignition 16 Procedure in the Emergency Response 17 Plan (Given to Mr. Gavin Fitch as 18 Undertaking No. 27, page 1414 line 21) 1415 19 39-021(c) (a) All documentation in Compton's or 20 and (d) its consultants' possession which 21 describes or reports the success 22 or failure of ignition drills 23 conducted on previous critical sour 24 wells in the last two (2) years; 25 describe what Compton has learned
1893
1 LIST OF EXHIBITS (cont'd) 2 EXHIBIT NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. 3 and how they have incorporated this 4 information into their drilling and/or 5 emergency response plans. (Board 6 order/Undertaking No. 28, page 1495, 7 line 15) 1496 8 39-022 Package of two (2) letters. One 9 (1), a letter dated April 29th, 10 2002 from Mr. Fitch to Mr. Longfield 11 and a response of May 21st, 2002 12 from Mr. Longfield to Mr. Fitch on 13 the matter of the Jacques Whitford 14 report. 1528 15 39-023 Excerpts from EUB model sour well EPZ 16 calculation spread sheet Volume 2, 17 User's Guide (Draft) December 2003. 1605 18 39-021(e) Jacques Whitford Environment Limited to 19 provide results of H2S modeling using 20 alternate parameters to those used in 21 Exhibit 002-004E (Given to 22 Mr. Gavin Fitch as Undertaking 23 No. 30, page 1667 line 9) 1667 24 25
1894
1 LIST OF EXHIBITS (cont'd) 2 Exhibit No. Description Page No. 3 39-021(f) Compton's framework for ERP 4 training and information program 5 dated July 12th, 2004 (Given to 6 Mr. Gavin Fitch as Undertaking 7 No. 31, page 1730 line 10) 1730 8 39-024 Paper presented by Mr. Brown 9 entitled, "How to Design and 10 Establish Site-Specific Emergency 11 Plans" presented at the Dealing 12 with New Gas Flaring Rules, 13 September 25th, 26th, 2001. 1844 14 39-025 Mr. Bissett to review and provide 15 comment on EUB General Bulletin 16 2003-23, "Revised Guide 56: Energy 17 Development Applications and 18 Schedules," June 27, 2003 (Given to 19 Chairperson as Undertaking No. 32, 20 page 1846 line 23) 1847 21 39-026 Appendix 1 of the October 2000 22 version of EUB Guide 56 entitled, 23 EUB Policy and Technical 24 Guidelines. 1915 25
1895
1 LIST OF EXHIBITS (cont'd) 2 Exhibit No. Description Page No. 3 39-021(g) Provide the date when the 4 Compton North Okotoks Project 5 video was removed from Compton's 6 web site 1969 7 39-027 Excerpt from EUB Decision Report 8 2002-041, Compton Petroleum 9 Corporation Applications for A 10 Sour Gas Well, Batteries, and 11 Associated Pipelines, Vulcan Field; 12 pages 1, 18 and 19. 1985 13 39-028 Article from the Daily Oil Bulletin 14 July 12, 2001 titled "Alberta Well 15 Blowouts Brought Under Control" 16 as well as a two (2) page printout 17 from the web. 1987 18 39-29(a) Compton to provide a document 19 addressing the integrity of the 20 North Mazeppa pipeline. (Undertaking 21 No. 38 given to Mr. Secord at 22 page 2042, line 20) 2045 23 24 25
1896
1 LIST OF EXHIBITS (cont'd) 2 Exhibit No. Description Page No. 3 39-029(b) Compton to provide a letter 4 from EUB confirming the EUB's 5 satisfaction with Compton's 6 current corrosion mitigation 7 program for the North Mazeppa 8 pipeline. 2048 9 39-029(c) Compton to produce the six month 10 reviews with the EUB Pipeline 11 Department since 2000. (Given to 12 Mr. Secord as Undertaking No. 40, 13 page 2047 line 12) 2049 14 39-030 Package containing: 1. A letter 15 from D. Patterson of the Mazeppa 16 Processing Partnership to D. Grzyb 17 of the EUB regarding a pipeline 18 integrity program review request, 19 Oct 29, 2003; 2. Excerpts from 20 Baker Hughes report dated June 2003 2054 21 22 23 24 25
1897
1 LIST OF EXHIBITS (cont'd) 2 Exhibit No. Description Page No. 3 039-031 Package containing three (3) 4 reports prepared by Baker 5 Hughes: 1. "Mazeppa Processing 6 Partnership, North Section, 7 Corrosion Mitigation Program 8 Changes," Oct. 24, 2003; 2. 9 "Mazeppa Processing Partnership, 10 11-24-22-29 to 10-13-22-29 Line 11 Mitigation Proposal," Oct 24, 12 2003; 3. "Mazeppa Monitoring 13 Recommendations," Oct. 27, 2003. 2055 14 039-032 File of information contained 15 in Ex. 039-030 and Ex. 039-031 2056 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1898
1 LIST OF UNDERTAKINGS 2 No. Description Page No. 3 33 For Compton to advise as to 4 whether or how the current and 5 old editions of Guide 56 are 6 different. (Objected to by 7 Mr. McLarty - Decision reserved 1922 8 PAGE 1962 - DECISION DENIED REQUEST 9 34 Mr. Derek Longfield to advise 10 when Compton North Okotoks Project 11 video was removed from Compton's 12 website 1969 13 35 Mr. Crooks to perform additional 14 dispersion modeling using a drag 15 coefficient of 2 for 15-minute 16 and 30-minute time-to-ignition cases. 17 (Board decision reserved) (Board 18 granted request at page 2063 - 19 Reserved Exhibit No. 039-021(h) 1985 20 36 To produce a copy of the Compton/MPP 21 management agreement 22 (Taken under advisement) 2039 23 37 To produce a copy of the contract 24 operating agreement between Dynegy 25 and Compton (Taken Under Advisement) 2041
1899
1 LIST OF UNDERTAKINGS (Cont'd) 2 NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. 3 38 Compton to provide a document 4 addressing the integrity of the 5 North Mazeppa pipeline. 6 (Reserved Exhibit 39-029(a) given 7 to Mr. Secord page 2044, line 20) 2044 8 39 Compton to produce the letter 9 from the EUB which confirms that 10 it is satisfied that the corrosion 11 mitigation program is being managed 12 in accordance with Canadian 13 Standard Association, Standard 14 Z-662 and the Alberta Pipeline Act 15 and Pipeline Regulation (Reserved 16 Exhibit No. 39-029)(Given to Mr. 17 Secord at page 2047 line 23) 2047 18 40 Compton to produce the six month 19 reviews with the EUB Pipeline 20 Department since 2000. (Reserved 21 Exhibit No. 39-029(c)(Given to Mr. 22 Secord at page 2049 line 12) 2049 23 24 25
1900
1 LIST OF UNDERTAKINGS (cont'd) 2 No. Description Page No. 3 41 Compton to calculate Emergency 4 Planning Zone distances for 5 the H2S release rates, 6 associated with horizontal well 7 bore lengths of five hundred 8 (500) metres and a thousand 9 (1,000) metres, for both the 10 drilling and completion scenarios. 11 Also for comparative purposes, 12 present the EPZ distances calculated 13 with the current Guide 71 equations 14 Reserved Exhibit No. 39-033)(Given to 15 Chairperson at page 2067 line 17) 2067 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1901
1 --- Upon commencing at 8:56 a.m. 2 3 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. Yes, 4 good morning, Mr. McLarty. 5 MR. ALLAN MCLARTY: Good morning, sir. 6 It seems my standing here and apologizing for being late 7 is becoming a bit habit forming, and I guess all I can do 8 is apologize again for that. 9 The only explanation I'm afraid I can 10 offer is that we do have some additional responses to 11 Information Requests and the responses relate to a couple 12 of matters that Mr. Fitch requested yesterday and I have 13 to take responsibility, sir, for thinking that it was 14 probably important that we get those to him at the 15 earliest possible time. So, I think we can now do that. 16 So, let me then respond -- or file a 17 couple of matters. The first matter, sir, is an 18 undertaking given by Mr. Crooks to provide the results of 19 H2S modelling using alternate parameters to those that he 20 had initially used, Exhibit Number 39-021(e) was reserved 21 for that and we now have that document to file, but I 22 must say in the hurry to put this together this morning 23 the hard copy that you will have in front of you is 24 actually marked, 21(f), and that should be -- actually be 25 changed to read, 21(e).
1902
1 Secondly, the -- there's a response to, 2 again, a request by Mr. Fitch to produce Compton's 3 document regarding Framing for ERP Training and 4 Information Program. That was set out transcript page 5 1667, line 9. That document has now been made available 6 and marked as Exhibit 39-021(f), but again, I was in a 7 rush to put these things together this morning, it was 8 inadvertently marked as Document 21(e), so I would just 9 urge people to correct that on the copy they -- hard copy 10 they have. 11 I'm told some people even have copies that 12 don't have the number on it at all. If they have a copy, 13 it should be marked as, 21(f). 14 And the last item that I have to address 15 this morning, sir, is a response to an undertaking given 16 by you -- given to you, Mr. Berg, by Mr. Bissett and 17 that was to have Mr. Bissett look at Bulletin 2003-23 18 issued June 27th, 2003 and to give his views about the 19 transition measures that were discussed. Exhibit Number 20 39-025 was reserved for that response. 21 What we have done is simply attached the 22 bulletin in itself to that exhibit and filed it and 23 perhaps what I can do is then have Mr. Bissett respond to 24 that matter orally on the transcript. Mr. Bissett...? 25 THE CHAIRPERSON: Just to make sure I
1903
1 haven't misheard you, so for the transcript to Mr. Fitch, 2 which was the Emergency Response Training and Information 3 Program at page 1730, that is 21(f)? 4 MR. ALLAN MCLARTY: F. 5 THE CHAIRPERSON: Right. I've got it. 6 MR. ALLAN MCLARTY: Thank you. Mr. 7 Bissett...? 8 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Yes, sir? 9 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, Mr. 10 Bissett. 11 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Morning, Mr. 12 Chairman. In keeping with your request of yesterday, I 13 am happy to report that I did, indeed, go home and do my 14 homework. You asked that I take a look at General 15 Bulletin 2003-23, which I did, and report back to you of 16 my views with respect to the transition period. 17 Quickly, the -- the -- the document was 18 issued on June the 27th, 2003. The title is, A Revised - 19 - excuse me -- Revised Guide 56 Energy Development 20 Applications and Schedules. It basically introduces the 21 June 2003 addition of Guide 56 which becomes effective, 22 or is effective, October the 1st, 2003. 23 On the first page, we'll find documents 24 that were rescinded and it lists eight (8) or nine (9) 25 bullets that talks about ILs and IDs and guides that are
1904
1 -- that are rescinded. The -- following that is -- is 2 key changes to 2003 Guide 56 and again, six (6) or seven 3 (7) bullets that explains the key changes that -- that 4 are coming forth with Guide 56. 5 It goes on to say that -- that this 6 document is being released right now in order to allow 7 applicants time to fully understand and incorporate the 8 new requirements into their processes. 9 It also says that as of October 1, 2003 10 applications must be compliant with the requirements in 11 the June 2003 edition of Guide 56. The Board is 12 providing a transition period from October 1st, 2003 to 13 March 31st, 2004 in recognition of the fact that it may 14 take some time for applicants to become familiar with 15 this document. 16 On page 2 of the document the -- it says 17 that the Board has provided the following transition 18 measures, there are four (4) bullets there and I will 19 read into the record what -- what it says. First bullet 20 is from October the 1st, 2003 to March 31st, 2004. 21 "The facilities applications group 22 will, number 1, assist applicants by 23 clarifying changes and explaining new 24 requirements. Now, secondly, provide 25 applicants with a one-time feedback for
1905
1 unsatisfactory events associated with 2 new requirements and thirdly, initiate 3 enforcement action for a second 4 subsequent failure associated with new 5 requirements in the same 6 audit/inspection category." 7 And the second bullet says that: 8 "Current participant involvement 9 programs will be grandfathered until 10 December 31st, 2003. After December 11 31st, 2003 applicants must update their 12 participant involvement program to 13 reflect the Guide 56, June 2003 14 Edition." 15 The third bullet states: 16 "Commencing April 1st, 2004 enforcement 17 action will be initiated on all 18 unsatisfactory events associated with 19 Guide 56 applications in accordance 20 with IL99-04. EUB enforcement process, 21 genetic enforcement ladder and field 22 survey enforcement ladder and Guide 56, 23 Table 4.1." 24 The last bullet: 25 "For existing requirements, the current
1906
1 enforcement and assistant measures 2 remain in place." 3 It goes on to say that the EUB will hold 4 Guide 56 informational sessions commencing in September. 5 I found that there were two (2) attachments to the 6 general bulletin or the GB. 7 Attachment Number 1 is a summary of 8 changes, and this is to the June 2004 Edition and there's 9 one pages -- one page of changes. 10 Attachment Number 2 talks about complying 11 with informational letter IL99-04 in Guide 56 June 2003 12 Edition. A second bullet in there is -- the compliance 13 date, again, is October the 1st, 2003. 14 On the second page of Attachment 2 the 15 participant -- or it details participant involvement and 16 grandfathering provision. As with previous editions of 17 Guide 56, the EUB has provided for a grandfathering 18 provision when reviewing participant involvement 19 requirements. 20 This means that participant involvement 21 programs meeting Guide 56, specifically October 2000 22 Edition, requirements initiated within the six (6) months 23 prior to October 1st, 2003 will be accepted for 24 applications filed after October of 2003 through December 25 31st, 2003.
1907
1 After December the 31st, 2003 applicants 2 must update their participant involvement program to 3 reflect the application requirements of Guide 56, June 4 2003 Edition. 5 That's -- that's a thumbnail sketch, if 6 you will, of GB-2003-23. My view on this, Mr. Chairman, 7 can be summarized as this: The Participant Involvement 8 Program conducted by Compton, was rightfully and 9 appropriately completed under requirements of Guide 56, 10 October 2000 Edition. 11 And that's my view with respect to this 12 document. 13 THE CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, could you just 14 repeat that again, please? 15 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Yes, sir, I will. 16 The Participant Involvement Program conducted by Compton 17 Petroleum with respect to this Application, was 18 rightfully and appropriately conducted under the 19 requirements of Guide 56, October 2000 Edition. 20 THE CHAIRPERSON: And how do you -- how 21 do see that this -- do you see that the transition 22 measures in this bulletin have any implication for your 23 Application? 24 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: No, sir, we have -- 25 we have complied with 2000 -- and the 2000 -- October
1908
1 2000 Edition. I think -- I'm -- I'm not sure what 2 implications it may have, but -- but we definitely did 3 comply with Guide 56. 4 Would you mind restating that for me, Mr. 5 Chairman, to make sure I understood that? 6 THE CHAIRPERSON: Sure. My -- my 7 question was do you think this bulletin and the -- what 8 was stated here. Do you think that it has any 9 implication for your Application? 10 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: I would say that, 11 yes, that -- that we -- we fall under the grandfathering 12 clause of the general bulletin, yes, sir. 13 THE CHAIRPERSON: And so is your view 14 that under this bulletin, that you do need to update your 15 participant involvement, or you do not need to update 16 your participant involvement? What is your view? 17 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: My view would be 18 that we do not update the participant involvement, we 19 continue to operate under October -- I'm sorry, October 20 2000 Edition, and attempt to address all of the 21 outstanding issues that -- that may arise. 22 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you, for 23 your views. 24 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: You're welcome. 25 THE CHAIRPERSON: I appreciate it. Mr.
1909
1 McLarty, do you have any other things you want to raise 2 up before we turn it over to Mr. Fitch? 3 MR. ALLAN MCLARTY: I do not, sir, thank 4 you very much. 5 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr. Fitch, 6 would you continue please? 7 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Thank you, Mr. 8 Chairman. Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I want to 9 express my appreciation to Mr. McLarty for providing me 10 with the responses to the undertakings, which have now 11 been filed as Exhibit Numbers 39-21(e), and 39-25. 12 But I should say, or sorry, and also 13 Exhibit 39-21(f). I should say though, that I am not 14 going to be prepared to -- before the end of my cross- 15 examination of this Panel, deal with the Exhibits 39- 16 21(e), which is the alternate modelling results, and 17 21(f), which is the draft framework for Emergency 18 Response Planning, Training and Information Program, as 19 these I think are somewhat significant new documents that 20 I'm going to need some time to review and digest and -- 21 and discuss with -- with consultants and that sort of 22 thing, so. 23 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you. 24 25 GARY FOLLENSBEE, Resumed;
1910
1 WADE MROCHUK, Resumed; 2 RUSSELL BROWN, Resumed; 3 JOSEPH KENNY, Resumed; 4 GREGORY CROOKS, Resumed; 5 RICHARD BISSETT, Resumed; 6 DEREK LONGFIELD, Resumed; 7 8 CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GAVIN FITCH: 9 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Good morning, 10 gentlemen. 11 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Good morning. 12 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: Good morning. 13 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Mr. Bissett, I am 14 though, going to discuss Exhibit 39-25 with you and this 15 whole business of guide -- of the October 2000 edition of 16 Guide 56 versus the current version. 17 I think Compton's position is clear that 18 it believes that the -- that its public consultation 19 program in this case should be judged against the October 20 2000 edition, right? 21 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Yes, sir, that's 22 correct. 23 MR. GAVIN FITCH: So, what I want you to 24 do, seeing again as you're the expert on Guide 56, is to 25 tell me what, in your view, are the substantive
1911
1 differences in terms of public consultation and 2 participant involvement between the two (2) editions. 3 How are they different? 4 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: I'm not -- I'm not 5 sure that I could summarize that in -- in -- okay -- that 6 I could summarize it appropriately, but it -- the 7 differences can be found in Attachment Number 1 to GB- 8 2003-23, is a summary of the major changes in Guide 56. 9 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Okay. So, if we look, 10 then, at Attachment 1, the table you have just been 11 discussing, I believe -- 12 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Yes, sir. 13 MR. GAVIN FITCH: -- we see the second 14 row. It appears to be a summary of the major changes to 15 the participant involvement process. Do you see that? 16 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Yes, sir, I do. 17 MR. GAVIN FITCH: And when you were 18 considering your response to the undertaking you gave to 19 the Chairman, did you give some thought to the content of 20 what's in Attachment 1? 21 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: I did read that and 22 -- and yes, I did give, you know, thought to it. 23 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Okay. So, I -- I see 24 that there are a number of bullets and the first one is 25 that -- the first major change is that the new or current
1912
1 -- now current edition of Guide 56 represents a general 2 clarification of the participant involvement program 3 requirements. Do you see that? 4 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Yes, sir, that's 5 what it states. 6 MR. GAVIN FITCH: And you see -- is that 7 a major substantive change in your view? 8 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: That's -- that's 9 what's listed on the pages, that that's a major change to 10 Guide 56. 11 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Right. But what I 12 want, sir, is your opinion. I mean, I can read, the 13 Chairman can read. What's your opinion on the 14 substantive differences between the two (2) editions? 15 Do you have any idea? 16 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: I would have to 17 compare the two (2) of them in order to be able to 18 discuss it in specific terms with you. 19 MR. GAVIN FITCH: You haven't done that 20 to-date, I guess? 21 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: No, sir, I have 22 not. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25
1913
1 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Then, let's have a 2 look, sir, at the October 2000 edition of Guide 56. Can 3 you -- can you -- 4 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Yes, sir, I have 5 it. 6 MR. GAVIN FITCH: -- turn that up? Okay. 7 So, and Mr. Chairman, I don't know if -- if this document 8 -- if the old edition of Guide 56 is available to the 9 Board on its disc that has the legislation or not. I 10 suspect it may not be. Probably should have had some 11 copies of -- of it made. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 MR. GAVIN FITCH: If I might suggest, Mr. 16 Chairman, perhaps what I should do -- and probably what I 17 should have done -- is have copies made of Appendix 1 of 18 the old Guide 56, which is the part of the old Guide 56 19 that includes the public involvement guidelines and then 20 we've all got it. 21 MR. J.R. MCKEE: Mr. Chairman, I -- first 22 of all I can confirm that it's not in the -- the 23 materials. If Mr. Fitch has a -- that hard copy we can 24 certainly arrange to have it photocopied while we're 25 moving along here this morning and then carry on.
1914
1 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Okay. Logistically I 2 guess the question is, should I proceed and ask questions 3 or do we really need this? I -- I have one (1) copy 4 that, unfortunately, I'm going to need in front of me 5 while I ask my questions. 6 So, I guess I'm asking you is it worth 7 taking a very brief adjournment to have a few copies made 8 or should we forge ahead? 9 MR. J.R. MCKEE: Why don't we take a one 10 (1) minute break. We'll make one (1) copy, hand you your 11 copy back and then quickly make copies for everyone 12 else -- 13 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Okay. And I have to 14 apologize there's some orange highlighting and pink 15 highlighting which probably will show up as, kind of, 16 dark shade but... 17 THE CHAIRPERSON: And so the Witness 18 Panel does have the 2000 version of Guide 56; is that 19 right, Mr. Brown? 20 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: Yes, sir. 21 THE CHAIRPERSON: But it's not in the 22 evidence; is that right? In one of your many appendices? 23 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: I'm sorry. 24 THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you know if the 2000 25 version was included in one of your many appendices?
1915
1 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: I'm going -- I'm 2 going to say, no, it wasn't, Mr. Chairman. 3 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 4 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: You're welcome. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 MR. J.R. MCKEE: Mr. -- Mr. Fitch, the 9 Panel now has copies. Mr. Bissett, I believe has copies. 10 There's more coming for the rest of the group but I think 11 we're, kind of, ready to move ahead. 12 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Thank you to Board 13 staff for you help. And perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we 14 should, just while I'm thinking of it, mark the excerpt 15 from the October 2000 Edition of Guide 56 as the next 16 exhibit? 17 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that would be 18 Exhibit 39-026 which is Appendix 1 of the October 2000 19 version of EUB Guide 56 entitled, EUB Policy and 20 Technical Guidelines. 21 22 --- EXHIBIT NO. 39-026: Appendix 1 of the October 23 2000 version of EUB Guide 56 24 entitled, EUB Policy and 25 Technical Guidelines.
1916
1 2 CONTINUED BY MR. GAVIN FITCH: 3 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Mr. Bissett...? 4 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Yes, sir. 5 MR. GAVIN FITCH: So, the public 6 involvement guidelines from the October 2000 version of 7 Guide 56, you would agree are contained in Appendix 1, 8 and that's the document you have in front of you? 9 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Yes, sir, that's 10 correct. 11 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Okay. 12 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Some -- I guess 13 some of them would be -- would be contained in there, but 14 -- but that's -- Appendix 1 is the Public Involvement 15 Guidelines, yes, sir. 16 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Thank you. 17 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: You're welcome. 18 MR. GAVIN FITCH: So, you'll see that the 19 Board states that it's providing the Guidelines as 20 minimum expectations. You see that? Third line? 21 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Oh, yes, oh -- yes, 22 sir, I do. 23 MR. GAVIN FITCH: So, you'd agree that 24 there's no difference in that regard between the current 25 and the old versions of Guide 56; both set forth minimum
1917
1 expectations? 2 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Yes, I would say 3 that -- that's -- that's a fair assessment. 4 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Okay. If you carry 5 down to the second paragraph, the document states that: 6 "The EUB expects you as the proponent, 7 to assume your responsibilities for 8 involving the public, and to be alert 9 to and recognize circumstances or 10 applications where your public 11 disclosure and consultation program, 12 should exceed the minimum requirements 13 and recommendations of these 14 Guidelines." 15 Do you see that? 16 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Yes, sir, that's 17 paragraph 2. 18 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Yeah. And then if you 19 turn over, sir, to page 2, of the Public Involvement 20 Guidelines, I'd ask you to look at the lefthand column, 21 first full paragraph. You'll see that there's a 22 statement that: 23 "The EUB does not precisely define the 24 scope of your public disclosure and 25 consultation program, however, it does
1918
1 expect that the level of public 2 involvement will reflect the complexity 3 of the project, the minimum 4 requirements prescribed vary with the 5 type of well, facility or pipeline, and 6 reflect an attempt to define a 7 reasonably -- a reasonable distance to 8 identify potentially affected parties." 9 Do you see that? 10 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Yes, sir, I do. 11 MR. GAVIN FITCH: So, we discussed 12 yesterday the fact that the current edition of Guide 56 13 sets forth an expectation from the Board, that the level 14 of participant involvement or public involvement, will 15 depend on the complexity of the project. 16 Do you recall that? 17 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Yes, sir, I do. 18 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Yeah. And you'd agree 19 that there's really no difference between the two (2) 20 versions of Guide 56, in that regard? 21 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: I would have to 22 look at the other one, but Mr. Brown is chomping at the 23 bit. He would like to reply to this, if you don't mind? 24 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: Yeah, I think just 25 that the written evidence states it for itself.
1919
1 MR. GAVIN FITCH: You were chomping at 2 the bit to tell me that, were you? 3 Okay, Mr. Bissett, carry over to the right 4 hand column on page 2, under the title, Disclosure and 5 Consultation Responsibilities of the Proponent. 6 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Yes, sir. 7 MR. GAVIN FITCH: And you'll see there 8 that it says: 9 "In planning your Public Disclosure and 10 Consultation Program, you will need to 11 complete the following prior to 12 submitting an application." 13 And then there's a number of bullets that 14 carry on to the next page, and the first is: 15 "Identify parties whose rights may be 16 directly and adversely affected --" 17 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Hmm hmm. 18 MR. GAVIN FITCH: "-- in your project 19 area." 20 Do you see that? 21 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Yes, sir, I do. 22 MR. GAVIN FITCH: You'd agree that 23 there's no substantive difference there, when compared to 24 the current edition of Guide 56? 25 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: I'd -- I'd have to
1920
1 look at the current one (1), but for all practical 2 purposes, I don't think there's a whole lot of 3 difference -- 4 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Right. 5 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: -- between that. 6 MR. GAVIN FITCH: And if you carry down 7 to the bottom there, the third bullet, which is the last 8 bullet on page 2, it says that you are to identify 9 special sensitivities that exist in the area, do you see 10 that? 11 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Special 12 sensitivities, yes, sir, that's right. 13 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Right. 14 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Now, just backing 15 up one (1) step, the -- the only comment I'd make in 16 respect to that first one, is to identify parties whose 17 rights may be directly and adversely impacted. 18 And I'm assuming there, that that would be 19 the people that would have an issue or a concern that 20 would come forward. Then we would identify that person 21 or persons, as being directly and adversely impacted, 22 because they did come forward and voice -- voice a issue 23 or a problem. 24 MR. GAVIN FITCH: All right. 25 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: You know, I'm not
1921
1 sure -- yesterday I was -- I was wondering, how do you 2 identify who could be directly and adversely impacted, 3 and I'm not certain until you throw your hat in the door, 4 and if it comes back out, then there's probably somebody 5 there that is indeed directly and adversely impacted. 6 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Thank you, sir. 7 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: You're welcome. 8 MR. GAVIN FITCH: If you turn over then 9 to page 3, you'll see the -- the second bullet on page 3 10 states that, and again, this -- the introduction is on 11 the previous page saying, You will need to do this. And 12 the second bullet on page 3 is: 13 "Provide sufficient information to the 14 public for them to assess the impact of 15 the proposed development and to 16 participate meaningfully in the 17 decision-making process concerning the 18 proposed development." 19 Do you see that? 20 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Yes, sir, I do. 21 MR. GAVIN FITCH: All right. And -- and 22 do you think that there's been any substantive change in 23 the current edition of Guide 56 with respect to that 24 point? 25 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Again, I'd have to
1922
1 -- I would have to go and look and see what Guide 2000 -- 2 2003 says, but no, I would say that that's -- that's 3 probably stated properly -- 4 MR. GAVIN FITCH: All right. 5 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: -- in 2003 and 6 2000. Here, I don't see any -- any changes at all. 7 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Well seeing, sir, as 8 you have not, evidently, conducted this analysis of 9 whether or how the current and the old editions of Guide 10 56 are different, could I ask you to undertake to do that 11 and to report back to me? 12 13 --- UNDERTAKING NO. 33: For Compton to advise as to 14 whether or how the current and old 15 editions of Guide 56 are different. 16 (Objected to by Mr. McLarty - Decision 17 reserved) PAGE 1959 - DECISION DENIED 18 REQUEST 19 20 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: I -- I think -- 21 MR. ALLAN MCLARTY: Excuse me, sir. That 22 -- that's a homework assignment that I -- I think is not 23 reasonably required, nor is it one that's fair to impose 24 on the Witnesses. 25 My Friend has all of that information. He
1923
1 can do that himself, he can wander through it, and if he 2 wants to put in front of the Board what the differences 3 are or -- between those two (2) guides, he has every 4 opportunity to do it. To ask the Witness to go on 5 another exercise of doing that when they've enough to do 6 already, isn't right. It's not necessary. 7 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Well, Mr. Chairman, 8 what seems to be happening here is, the Applicant in this 9 case is saying, We're not obligated -- or our participant 10 involvement program should not be judged against the 11 current version of Guide 56, but rather the October 2000 12 version and all -- I -- I think it's a matter of interest 13 to this Board as to, well, are you saying there's a 14 difference? Because if there isn't a difference then it 15 doesn't matter, does it, Mr. Bissett? 16 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Well, firstly there 17 are differences between the -- the two (2). If you go in 18 and look at the extent of participant involvement 19 required under the 2003 edition, you'll find that it's -- 20 that there's -- there's quite a bit of difference; what 21 is expected, what is -- what is required. 22 And what I don't want to do is get caught 23 -- caught in -- in the vice of saying that we did not 24 comply with Guide 56 when we did comply with Guide 56. 25 There are a lot of subtle differences and -- and --
1924
1 between the two (2) of them. 2 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Well, sir, I've given 3 you several opportunities to tell me how you think the 4 two (2) versions substantively differ and perhaps I ought 5 to have used that word in my last question and you 6 haven't been able to tell me and I think it is a matter 7 of some importance so I am going to repeat my -- or, I -- 8 I suppose say that my request for the undertaking stands. 9 MR. ALLAN MCLARTY: And now that Mr. 10 Fitch has repeated his request for the undertaking, I am 11 again going to voice my objection. Mr. Fitch is not 12 asking for anything other than to read the documents and 13 do a word comparison. That's something he can do. 14 He has a consultant that's retained. They 15 can read the document as well as anybody else can. So, 16 to ask this Witness to go through and identify what the 17 word changes are between two (2) different documents is 18 not a reasonable request. 19 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Mr. Chairman, I'm not 20 asking for a word-by-word parsing of the documents. I'm 21 asking this expert on Guide 56 to tell us, in his 22 professional opinion, whether there are substantive 23 differences because there seems to be -- there seems to 24 be an issue that Compton doesn't want its participant 25 involvement program judged against the current version of
1925
1 Guide 56. 2 MR. ALLAN MCLARTY: And that, sir, is a 3 new undertaking now to have him identify what are the 4 substantive changes and I'm going to voice a second 5 objection to that one. Mr. Bissett is not in a position 6 to determine what the substantive differences are between 7 those two (2). 8 Like Mr. Fitch, he can go through and tell 9 you what the changes are. The characterizations of 10 those, sir, are a matter of debate for anybody that wants 11 to debate it. 12 If it's a legal issue I'm happy to debate 13 it with Mr. Fitch. But to ask Mr. Bissett to 14 characterize what those wording changes are as whether 15 they are substantive or otherwise is -- is not within his 16 realm. 17 He'll talk to you about what they did, 18 what they didn't do and what the words are. 19 THE CHAIRPERSON: Can I just ask, Mr. 20 McLarty, a question? Let's just take a scenario that, 21 let's say, if the Board were to determine, for whatever 22 reason, that the current version of Guide 56 is the one 23 that applies, what impact would that have on your 24 Application, if it was found to be not-compliant with 25 that?
1926
1 MR. ALLAN MCLARTY: I -- my suspicion, 2 sir, is if Compton has not complied with anything, it's 3 within this Board's discretion to decide whether that is 4 significant. 5 And if it is significant, I expect you 6 would make a decision that would correspond with that. 7 But, at the same time, you can decide that it may not be 8 particularly significant. 9 Far more important is the question of what 10 does or does not apply. And I think we're open to debate 11 and to hear argument on that. And I suspect that Mr. 12 Fitch may ultimately want to advance to you and argument 13 to say that he thinks some particular provision should 14 apply. 15 And that you should consider those to be 16 significant and I respect his right to do that. My only 17 objection is to put to these Witnesses an exercise in 18 saying, you go through the exercise, show me what the 19 wording changes are and then I want to characterize that 20 as whether you think that's significant or not. 21 And I'm simply objecting to that. He can 22 do that exercise and -- and he can characterize it as 23 whether he thinks it's significant and he can tell the 24 Board that. 25 THE CHAIRPERSON: I think the Board's
1927
1 going to reserve on -- on this matter. The one (1) thing 2 I would point out is that in the current version of Guide 3 56 there is an Appendix 1 which is the summary of changes 4 which is more expansive than the -- or the Attachment 1 5 in GB-2003-23. 6 And you might also find it convenient to 7 use the electronic version of Guide 56 rather than the 8 paper version because, on the electronic version, 9 including Appendix 1, it has hyperlinks so that when you 10 -- when it lists all the individual signif -- major 11 changes, it also has the reference to the section and it 12 also has the hyperlink that pop right to that particular 13 section. 14 So, there's a number of, sort of, 15 conveniences, if you would, to assist in using the 16 electronic reading -- a version which are not evident in 17 the paper version. 18 Anyways, we'll reserve our judgment on 19 that and I assume it's not going to interfere with your 20 examination because it was an undertaking in any event? 21 MR. GAVIN FITCH: That's right, sir. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. GAVIN FITCH: 24 MR. GAVIN FITCH: All right, let's then 25 get back to what happened. We, at the end of the day
1928
1 yesterday, had -- were reviewing the Phase 1 public 2 consultation program, namely the consultation that was 3 carried out in respect of the Application for a Reduced 4 Planning Zone; you remember that, Mr. Bissett? 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: Mr. Fitch, I'll ask - 9 - answer this question if that's okay? In ID2001-5, 10 Section 3.2, it talks -- when we're talking about 11 communicating with the public in reference to a reduced 12 emergency planning zone the Board uses the word, "public 13 notification". 14 It does not use the word "consultation." 15 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Well, the question just 16 was: Do you remember that we got up to where we got to 17 yesterday, Mr. Brown? That was the question. 18 Okay, so I -- it was just to orient 19 everyone that we're back on the Phase 1 program. But I 20 guess what you're saying is it was never intended to be 21 consultation, only notification; is that right? 22 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: It was intended to 23 meet the requirements of Section 3.2 of ID-2001-5. 24 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Well -- so, are you 25 saying that Compton's program, participant -- well I
1929
1 don't know how to describe it, let me back -- strike 2 that. Let me try to come at this another way. 3 Are you saying that in October and 4 November 2001, it was Compton's view that it did not have 5 to carry out personal -- public consultation, but rather 6 only notification of its Application for Reduced Planning 7 Zone? 8 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: If I can just 9 hopefully get this to a short answer for you. It's very 10 clear on the record that we did undertake notification 11 and public consultation, and you know, alluding to some 12 of your previous lines of questioning, I think that 13 Compton very consciously, very consciously underwent an 14 extensive public notification and information program, as 15 early as the fall of 2001. 16 You will recall that in October of 2001, 17 we produced a very informative video that was available 18 at the open houses. As a result of continuing public 19 consultation, that video was updated in June of 2002. 20 So, I've slipped into the second phase, so 21 forgive me for that. But I just want to -- while I'm on 22 the topic of video, say that. 23 We set up a website, the website had 24 considerable information on it. It had the information 25 for residents package that was prepared and distributed
1930
1 at the open houses. It also had obviously, all the 2 corporate information of Compton that you could link to 3 from the website as well. More importantly, it had a 4 public feedback forum that we did receive some feedback 5 from. 6 So, without getting into the specifics, 7 which clearly is Mr. Brown and Mr. Bissett's area, I do 8 want to make it clear on the record that we first 9 approached this public notification and consultation 10 process through ID-2001-5, which you correctly note does 11 also refer to the then current Guide 56. 12 I think it's clear from GB-2003-23, that 13 there is a grandfathering provision there. I'm not going 14 to make a legal opinion, but it appeared pretty clear to 15 me when Mr. Bissett read it out, what -- what the 16 provisions of that were. 17 We then proceeded into Phase 2, which was 18 of course, the public consultation and notification, was 19 conducted in accordance with the then current October 20 2000 Guide 56. 21 Little wordy answer. I know you want to 22 get into specifics. We are happy to get into specifics 23 of any part of our public consultation that is either 24 felt to be of concern or inadequate. We're happy to 25 address that. We believe we have had full public
1931
1 consultation, adequate public consultation, and in fact, 2 more than adequate public consultation. 3 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Thank you, sir. So, 4 let -- let's indeed get into it then. 5 Yesterday we left off with the discussion 6 about the notice that had been given for the November 21 7 and 28, 2001 open houses. Do you recall that Mr. 8 Longfield? 9 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: Yes, I do. 10 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Okay. So, turn to -- I 11 kept calling it yesterday page 7, because of the number 12 in the corner, but I guess it's really page 6 of the 13 cover letter. So, we're -- we're back in the Reduced 14 Planning Zone Application, this is the letter dated 15 December 20, 2001, to the Board. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 MR. GAVIN FITCH: So, at the top of page 20 6, there is a discussion about how the notices were hand 21 delivered to residences and businesses located within the 22 modified Reduced Planning Zone, on November 16 and 17, 23 2001. Do you see that, Mr. Bissett? 24 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Yes, sir. 25 MR. GAVIN FITCH: And then it says:
1932
1 "Compton has reviewed the attendance 2 list from the two (2) open houses and 3 has determined that of the two hundred 4 and one (201) notices that were hand 5 delivered within the proposed four (4) 6 km emergency planning zone, only twenty 7 (20) people from fourteen (14) of the 8 households that received the hand 9 delivered notices attended." 10 Do you see that? 11 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Yes, sir. 12 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: Yes, sir. 13 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Okay. And then -- I'd 14 like you to then go down to the first bullet below the 15 intervening paragraph there and you can confirm that at 16 these open houses public consultation forms were -- were 17 there for people to fill out? 18 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Yes, sir, that's 19 correct. 20 MR. GAVIN FITCH: And so, in the first 21 bullet under that intervening paragraph, it's stated that 22 some seventy-five (75) public consultation feedback forms 23 were distributed to the public and local authorities. 24 The public returned two (2) completed forms, both of 25 which listed no concerns about the reduced Emergency
1933
1 Planning Zone application. 2 And then the next bullet says five (5) 3 forms were received from the MD of Rockyview along with a 4 request for additional information and a comment 5 regarding the development of the site specific reduced 6 Emergency Response Plan and then there's this statement: 7 "Based on this response, it does not 8 appear the general public objects going 9 forward with this project." 10 Do you see that, Mr. Bissett? 11 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Yes, sir, that's -- 12 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Okay. So, we -- we 13 discussed yesterday the amount of notice that was 14 actually given to people. So, you have two (2) open 15 houses and you have twenty (20) people from fourteen (14) 16 households within the planning zone show up. 17 Out of all the members of the public that 18 attended both open houses, you get two (2) forms back -- 19 two (2) public feedback forms back -- and I take it, 20 based on the last sentence I read from page 6, that 21 Compton concluded based on that evidence, that there was 22 no concern among members of the public. 23 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: No, I don't think 24 we believe that there was no concern from the members of 25 the public, we're just saying that based on that response
1934
1 -- there is a qualifier that says based on that response. 2 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Right. Did -- did it 3 occur to you that perhaps the response, namely a poor 4 turnout at the open houses and very few public feedback 5 forms, was indicative of the fact that people hadn't 6 given -- hadn't known about the open houses; there hadn't 7 been a lot of notice and so no one showed up? 8 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: Well, to be clear, 9 we do have the exact numbers attached of attendance at 10 the open houses and, of course, twenty (20) people was a 11 portion of the total attendance. I believe it was in the 12 range of forty (40) or forty-two (42) or something at the 13 Indus open house, if we're focussing on that open house. 14 And interestingly, just looking at the 15 record last night, the advice we had got from Bissett and 16 Associates was if you advised beyond one (1) week of 17 having an open house, your attendance is likely to be 18 less. 19 In fact, the attendance was less at the 20 second set of public consultation open houses when we 21 notified two (2) weeks in advance and one (1) week in 22 advance of -- I believe you can help me out here, Mr. 23 Brown, but that was the June 2002 open house at Indus; 24 when we were into the application open house? It seems 25 to me that Bissett was giving us good advice. The
1935
1 numbers went down when we notified for a longer period. 2 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Well, notice was 3 published in the newspapers, the Calgary Herald and the 4 Calgary Sun, as we've discussed, right? 5 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: That's correct. 6 MR. GAVIN FITCH: So, the -- I don't know 7 what the combined readership of the Sun and the Herald 8 is, but let's say certainly over -- in the hundreds of 9 thousands, so out of all of those people that would have 10 read the Herald and the Sun, you got out about forty (40) 11 or fifty (50)? 12 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: Yes, plus the hand 13 delivered two hundred and ten (210) or so hand delivered 14 notices of the open houses. And I will say that in my 15 personal discussions with both the Herald and the Sun, we 16 asked for their highest -- highest circulation days to 17 put the notices in. We weren't trying to sneak them in 18 on a Tuesday or something. No, they were put on the 19 highest circulation days. 20 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Sorry, the notices were 21 on which days? 22 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: The highest 23 circulation days of each paper. I believe Sunday for The 24 Sun and I believe Saturday for The Herald. 25 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Okay.
1936
1 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: I mean, you can go 2 to the record and see what days those were. 3 MR. GAVIN FITCH: At the time, was 4 Compton disappointed with the turnout at the open houses? 5 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: Absolutely. We had 6 gone to considerable effort to prepare what we thought 7 was full and complete documents that recognized our 8 knowledge of the area, our -- our history of knowing what 9 the concerns were in the area. 10 We -- we had people available from each of 11 our disciplines in the company at the open houses at 12 various tables. We were absolutely disappointed. We 13 would have liked to see higher turnouts for sure. 14 MR. GAVIN FITCH: All right. And I'd 15 like you to turn back to Appendix 10 which is the 16 appendix we found the emails at yesterday that we talked 17 about. And I -- I'd ask you to turn three (3) pages in 18 to Appendix 10 and I want to revisit your email to Nancy 19 Oloman of November 16th which is right down at the bottom 20 there. 21 And I want to revisit your statement that: 22 "While it is not desirable that we were 23 advertising in the local paper so late, 24 we felt it was important to get as much 25 print out as possible. If there is a
1937
1 need for another open house, we will 2 certainly have one." 3 So, my question is, sir, you have told me 4 you were disappointed in the turnout at the open houses, 5 why didn't you have another one? 6 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: We did have another 7 one in Douglasdale which is not very far from Indus. 8 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Well, okay, let's be 9 clear here. When I asked you previously were you 10 disappointed with the turnout at the open houses, I think 11 I used the plural, I was meaning both, the November 21 12 and the 28 open house? 13 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: From -- from what 14 we, of course, were reading in the media, we expected far 15 greater turnouts. And I will say that our preference 16 was, as we went on the -- on the second set of open 17 houses, the June 2002, we did do two (2) weeks before, 18 one (1) weeks before -- one (1) week before. 19 And I did say, you're right. I said: 20 "while it's not desirable that we are 21 advertising in the local paper so late" 22 And, of course, by -- by that I'm meaning 23 that we only got the one (1) set of notifications out. 24 As I have mentioned, I was the person in charge of 25 coordinating the newspaper advertisements.
1938
1 I was, and I'm not being dramatic here, 2 but close to death when I would have had to get the two 3 (2) weeks' prior notice out. 4 MR. GAVIN FITCH: No, and I -- 5 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: We simply couldn't 6 get it out. 7 MR. GAVIN FITCH: And I -- 8 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: And so, that's why 9 I said, it wasn't desirable. We wanted to do the two (2) 10 and one (1). In fact, -- in point of fact, when we did 11 do two (2) week's and one (1) week, we got less people 12 out. 13 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Right. And we've 14 talked about the length of notice. I'm more interested 15 now in the statement that: 16 "If there is a need for another open 17 house, we will certainly have one." 18 And my question, again, is: If you were 19 disappointed, as you have told me you were, in the 20 turnout at those two (2) open houses on November 21 and 21 28, why didn't you have another open house? 22 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: We've had several 23 telephone conversations with various people that, you 24 know, they see the ad in the paper, there was my direct 25 line. It wasn't to a switchboard or anything, my direct
1939
1 line. 2 Several telephone conversations. When we 3 explained the program to these people most of them 4 appeared to be satisfied. We expected to get more people 5 in Douglasdale. 6 We didn't get more. I forget the number; 7 Mr. Bissett or Brown could probably provide that. But, 8 at that point in time -- and similar to a previous 9 comment I made about the length of time it's taken for 10 these Application, I was -- believe it was in response to 11 your question as well, if we're guilty of anything it's 12 naivety. 13 We thought, well, maybe people don't have 14 as much concern with this Application outside of the 15 people with -- that we were very familiar with that we 16 have identified. You know, the Indus group clearly had a 17 problem with the Applications. We identified that in our 18 Application for a Reduced EPZ. 19 We included emails. We were very open 20 about it. 21 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Let's stay on the page 22 that we're at. we've talked about your email of November 23 16th, to Ms. Oloman. 24 And then there's one (1) e-mail though 25 above that, which is Ms. Oloman's reply to you. And you
1940
1 would agree that Ms. Oloman said that she was sorry to 2 hear you were -- were in hospital, but that it was at 3 least her view that that should not have had an impact on 4 whether people received proper notification on an issue 5 of this importance. 6 And then she carries on down and says: 7 "I would request that there be another 8 open house at Indus, with appropriate 9 notice." 10 Ms. Olaman told you that on November 18th, 11 right? 12 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: Yes, that's what 13 she said, yeah. 14 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Yeah. Right. 15 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: Yeah. 16 MR. GAVIN FITCH: I guess you decided it 17 wasn't necessary? 18 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: We decided that in 19 the context of our Application under 2001-5, that we had 20 complied with the requirements of that Application, that 21 there would be continuing open houses and consultation 22 over the period that would ensue with the Well License 23 Applications. 24 So, it was a suggestion considered, but to 25 our way of thinking, we had more than complied. In fact,
1941
1 there was a suggestion that maybe we should only have one 2 (1) open house, period. We thought, no, let's make it 3 available on two (2) nights, in case someone's A: busy on 4 one (1) night, B: doesn't want to drive out to Indus. We 5 made one (1) available in the city, one (1) available in 6 Indus. 7 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Thank you. Mr. 8 Longfield, I'd now like you to turn to Volume I of the 9 Well License Applications, which is Exhibit 002-001B. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 MR. GAVIN FITCH: And, Mr. Chairman, I'm 14 going to ask the Witness to turn to Section 2, the blue 15 tab in the hard copy, I assume it's just Section 2 in the 16 electronic copy. 17 And to look at the document which appears 18 about six (6) pages from the back of that section, and 19 this is a letter dated January 18, 2002 from Ken Hunt of 20 the EUB to yourself, Mr. Longfield. 21 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: Yes, I have it, 22 thank you. 23 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Mr. Chairman, have you 24 got that? 25 THE CHAIRPERSON: I have not yet, but
1942
1 I... 2 That's the January 18th, 2002? 3 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Yes. 4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. GAVIN FITCH: 7 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Okay. So, Mr. 8 Longfield, this letter is from Mr. Hunt to, it seems to 9 have been, at least one (1) of the people at the Board 10 that was reviewing Compton's Application for a reduced 11 planning zone. And the letter speaks for itself. 12 My question is -- and I'm really, I guess, 13 just having you confirm an answer you gave to my client, 14 in response to a -- an Information Request. 15 My question is: In light of the -- the 16 statement in this letter, that the EUB is not prepared to 17 formally approve the use of the reduced EPZ at this time, 18 but then went on to say, We, that is the Board, has no 19 objection to you proceeding, that is Compton proceeding 20 with its complete ERP public consultation process. 21 The question is, you interpreted it, this 22 letter, that is Compton interpreted the letter to mean 23 that you would, on a go forward basis, conduct personal 24 consultation only within your reduced modified planning 25 zone. Correct? Sorry, that was a very inelegant
1943
1 question. 2 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: Well, if I've 3 missed part of the question, feel free to come back at 4 me. It's -- it's just because it was a long question. 5 Obviously when we received this letter, 6 Mr. Fitch, you know, we had some concern about how to 7 proceed from here. And especially when it said in the 8 second paragraph: 9 "Based on the information submitted, it 10 appears that the use of the proposed 11 modified four (4) kilometre reduced 12 EPZ, in conjunction with mandatory ERP 13 requirements outlined in Section 3.3 of 14 ID 2005, would normally be acceptable." 15 And you will recognize that, as we've said 16 previously, this was one (1) of the first applications 17 for a sour gas well under -- with a reduced EPZ under 18 2001-5. 19 So, we did conduct meetings with the Board 20 as to what the appropriate way to proceed from that point 21 on is. And I think Mr. Bissett and Mr. Brown can confirm 22 that. And our entire public consultation program from 23 thereon in was -- was done, directed by Compton as I've 24 said before, but not in a vacuum. 25 We looked to the expertise of Board staff
1944
1 to advise us as to the next procedures under 2001-5 and 2 Guide 56. 3 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: If I might just add 4 to that, Mr. Longfield, I think this is a -- a tremendous 5 example of how the EUB system, when employed properly, 6 works because the applications were made appropriately. 7 There was -- it doesn't matter whether there was one (1) 8 or one thousand (1,000) concerns; that concern was 9 documented, forwarded to the Board. 10 And the system works. It's -- it's a 11 compliment to the system we have in this province of 12 Alberta. 13 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Another admirable 14 sentiment. All right. Let's move to Section 4, Mr. 15 Brown and Mr. Bissett and Mr. Longfield, of the Well 16 License Application. 17 So, as I read it in Section 4.1, Compton 18 provides a summary of its notification and consultation 19 program in relation to this project; is that right? 20 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: I -- I believe it's 21 a little more than a summary. There's -- there's 22 certainly some details of the consultation program that 23 was affected. 24 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Okay, well I was only 25 talking about Section 4.1, which is one (1) page long,
1945
1 but that's fine. So, in Section 4.1, Compton describes 2 how it has had ongoing discussions with local authorities 3 and developers. 4 Do you see that? That's in the second 5 paragraph? You're talking now in the second paragraph 6 about the second phase of your public consultation 7 program, which was directed at the well licence 8 applications. Correct? 9 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: Yes, that was 10 ongoing. We did that through the first phase of the 11 public consultation program as -- as defined here as 12 well. 13 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Okay. So you had -- 14 and -- and I want to focus now on Phase 2, which is the 15 public consultation with respect to the Well Licence 16 Applications. 17 So you had ongoing discussions with local 18 authorities and land development companies and you had 19 two (2) public open houses; right? 20 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: In that phase, yes, 21 Mr. Fitch. 22 MR. GAVIN FITCH: And -- and Compton 23 visited residents living within a modified four (4) 24 kilometre planning zone? 25 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: Compton, as stated in
1946
1 the direct evidence that I gave, started with a four (4) 2 kilometre radius centred on the 10 of 13 wellsite. And 3 then visited residents out and - and -- and expanded the 4 modified reduced emergency planning zone for 5 topographical features, population density, access egress 6 out as far as five point eight (5.8) kilometres and 7 included -- and I can't remember the exact number so 8 don't quote me on this, forty-nine (49) more houses. 9 It was not four (4) kilometres. 10 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Well, I was really 11 quoting from your document there, Mr. Brown. The 12 modified four (4) kilometre radius. 13 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: I believe Mr Brown 14 was just confirming, for the record, what the modified 15 four (4) kilometres means. 16 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Yeah, and -- 17 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: I know you've heard 18 it. 19 MR. GAVIN FITCH: We've heard it, Mr. 20 Brown. So, generally speaking then, the Phase 2 program 21 was a continuation of these ongoing discussions with 22 local authorities and developers, two (2) open houses and 23 visits with residents living within the modified planning 24 zone; is that right? 25 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: I think that's,
1947
1 again, a paraphrasing. Visits, no. Consultations, yes. 2 Plus everything else that detailed -- is detailed there. 3 The streaming video, the website, the information for 4 residents handouts, some of which were mailed out. 5 Videos were mailed out. 6 So a lot more extensive than what you just 7 said. 8 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Now, Mr. Chairman, this 9 part of the binder is a little confusing because there's 10 no hard tabs, at least in the hard copy. But Section 4 11 of Volume I of the Well License Application has twenty- 12 eight (28) attachments and they're all marked, as I say, 13 in the same hard copy. 14 They're all differentiated in the hard 15 copy by blue pages, but I'm just trying to find which 16 attachment I want to go to here. Attachment 3, Mr. 17 Bissett and Mr. Brown, is titled "public disclosure and 18 consultation program details"? 19 And what I would like to do is, I'd like 20 you to go past the August 13 letter and past the 21 information for residents package dated June 2002 and go 22 to the thirty-nine (39) page table titled, "Compton North 23 Okotoks Horizontal Well Program, Public Disclosure and 24 Consultation Summary"? 25 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Yes, sir.
1948
1 MR. GAVIN FITCH: All right. So, Mr. 2 Bissett, is this document, this thirty-nine (39) page 3 document, an accurate record of the contacts that were 4 made with residents and businesses within the modified 5 planning zone? 6 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Before -- before I 7 answer, could I get the date on the bottom left-hand 8 corner of the public disclosure and consultation summary 9 that's -- that's in yours. 10 Because there are revisions to it and 11 depending upon whether or not you have the original 12 document that was submitted or you're looking at the 13 revisions it could -- could be different. 14 MR. GAVIN FITCH: I'm looking at Revision 15 4. 16 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: That's the most 17 current one then. 18 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Okay. Good. So then, 19 do you remember what my question was? 20 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Yes, sir, were 21 these the -- the stakeholders that were contacted during 22 the public disclosure and consultation efforts done 23 during July of 2002? 24 MR. GAVIN FITCH: And the answer is? 25 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: And the answer
1949
1 would be, yes. 2 MR. GAVIN FITCH: All right. Thank you. 3 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: I believe that's -- 4 I believe that's correct. 5 MR. GAVIN FITCH: And so you've already 6 answered, in part, my first question which was, 7 basically, if we looked at, say, the first page of the 8 document and then flipped right to the back, we would see 9 that these contacts occurred, essentially, in the months 10 of July and August 2002; is that right? 11 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Yeah. And there's 12 -- there's the odd September one -- 13 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Right. 14 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: -- that shows up in 15 there as well as we continued. People on holidays, 16 vacations out of town were -- were continually chased 17 down. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Just for your 22 information, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Olthafer and I were just 23 having a brief discussion about where Revision 4 of this 24 document can be found. 25 Are you able -- are you looking at
1950
1 Revision 4, sir? Because Mr. Olthafer felt that actually 2 Revision 4 -- 3 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I -- 4 MR. GAVIN FITCH: -- was in Volume II. 5 THE CHAIRPERSON: -- yes, my -- my copy 6 is all updated and consolidated. 7 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Okay, then we're all on 8 the same page. I'm sorry. Mr. Olthafer felt it was -- 9 Revision 4 was only in the revised version of Volume I, 10 but it looks like we've all got Revision 4. So, let's 11 just move on. 12 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: Mr. Fitch -- 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. GAVIN FITCH: 15 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Yes? 16 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: -- if I may? It's 17 over here. 18 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Oh. 19 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: I thought you'd 20 know this voice by now. 21 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Yeah. 22 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: If I may say 23 something that's popped into my head here as we're 24 looking at this, and it went back to a question from 25 Panel 2, where we were exploring the reasons why Compton
1951
1 did not file our Well License Applications by July 31st, 2 2002. This was clearly the discussions that we had with 3 Counsel for the LR -- other LRD people. 4 We embarked upon public consultation and 5 we weren't completed. It came to the point in August, 6 where we only had a few more to pick up. We advised them 7 that we were substantially complete, and we'd continue 8 that process, even as the Well License Applications were 9 submitted. 10 So, it's extremely clear to me, it's a 11 long time ago, and sometimes these things take a while to 12 come back, but I -- I thought I should clarify that for 13 you. 14 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Thank you. Now, Mr. 15 Bissett, so the first contacts seem to have been made on 16 July 2nd, 2002, right? 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Yes, sir, that's 21 correct. 22 MR. GAVIN FITCH: And the open houses 23 though were held in June, weren't they? 24 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Yes, sir, that's 25 correct --
1952
1 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Right. 2 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: -- as well. 3 MR. GAVIN FITCH: So, my question is in 4 phase 1, when you were providing notice of the open 5 houses, you hand delivered notices within the modified 6 Planning Zone. 7 Did you hand deliver notices of the June 8 open houses within the modified Planning Zone? 9 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Let us just check 10 on that. That one I'll have to verify. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Mr. Fitch, I'm 15 going to say no, that -- that there were no hand 16 delivered notices on the second go around of open houses. 17 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Thank you. 18 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: You're welcome. 19 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Now, let's return to -- 20 or -- or stay on the public disclosure and consultation 21 summary. When I reviewed it, Mr. Bissett, I was struck 22 by three (3) things and let me tell you what the first is 23 and I'll ask you to comment on it. 24 The first is, you apparently received non- 25 objections from virtually every person that you
1953
1 contacted. You see, there -- there's a -- there's a 2 column -- fourth column from the left that says, "Date of 3 Contact" and then the next column to the right says, 4 "Date of Non-Objection". And you must have been very 5 happy because virtually everyone apparently provided a 6 non-objection. 7 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Okay, sure, go 8 ahead. 9 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: I think those 10 consultation forms clearly show the record. Bissett is 11 either -- neither happy or unhappy when we visit a 12 household and gain confirmation of non-objection. 13 Our -- our job is to go into the 14 residences, businesses, public facilities, explain the 15 project appropriately, document the concerns and document 16 the objection, confirmation of non-objection or the 17 inability to give that commitment at this time. These -- 18 these clearly show that. 19 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Oh, I see. Well, why 20 don't you turn, sir, to page 19, just as an example of 21 the document? 22 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Okay. 23 MR. GAVIN FITCH: And I'd like you to 24 look at the entry for Mr. Rick Smith. Do you see that? 25 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Yes, sir.
1954
1 MR. GAVIN FITCH: And if you're familiar 2 with our submissions you would know that Rick Smith is a 3 member of the Front Line Residents Group? Maybe you 4 don't. 5 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: No, I don't. 6 MR. GAVIN FITCH: All right. If I tell 7 you that he is, do you accept that? 8 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Yes, sir. 9 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Okay. And I see that 10 Mr. Smith is recorded as having provided a non-objection 11 on the day he was contacted. 12 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Yes, sir, that's 13 correct. 14 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Okay. And if -- 15 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Then -- 16 MR. GAVIN FITCH: -- I told you that 17 about ten (10) other members of the Front Line Residents 18 Group are similarly indicated in your record as having 19 provided non-objections on the date they were contacted? 20 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Yes, sir, and -- 21 and basically what that tells me is that Mr. Smith was -- 22 was contacted on July the 12th. And the person that 23 contacted him went through the handout, explained the 24 project and so forth. 25 When he left -- when he or she left --
1955
1 they were of the opinion that Mr. Smith did not have an 2 objection. There's -- there's no reason or reason to 3 believe that a week or a month or two (2) months later 4 that Mr. Smith or any other member of the public could 5 not or would not change their mind. 6 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Well, let's just stay 7 on Mr. Smith as an example. If we go to the right hand 8 column, which this comments, we see, "none". 9 So, on what basis could anyone reasonably 10 conclude that a person objected or not if there were not 11 comments? 12 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: I think we would 13 have to -- have to -- to go to Mr. -- Mr. Smith's 14 residence sheet and -- and check on -- and check on the 15 comments and if you don't mind, let me -- let us do that. 16 Then we'll get right back to you. 17 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: Yes, I -- I can 18 confirm that on July 12th, 2002, a representative of 19 Bissett Resource Consultants called Greg Provost, met 20 with Rick and Jane Smith from 2:00 p.m. until 2:35 p.m. 21 He spent thirty-five (35) minutes in the residence with 22 these two (2) folks and he documented concerns, 23 questions, and comments about the project. 24 At that time, Mr. Provost indicated that 25 they did not object to the well and as any individual
1956
1 does, once Mr. -- once any public consultation person 2 leaves a house, every member of this Province has the 3 right to change their mind and object. 4 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Well, the document you 5 filed with the Board says, there were no comments. 6 Are you saying that the document you're 7 looking at says something different? 8 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: No. 9 MR. GAVIN FITCH: No. So, there were no 10 comments? 11 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: To Mr. Provost. 12 MR. GAVIN FITCH: And on that basis Mr. 13 Provost, in his view, felt there was a non-objection? 14 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: In his twelve (12) 15 years of experiences of doing this -- twelve (12) years 16 of experience with doing this with Bissett, yes. 17 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Did -- did Mr. Provost 18 or -- or Bissett ever obtain, you know, forms where 19 people signed it and confirmed that they did not object? 20 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: No, sir. 21 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: Okay. I can tell you 22 that Bissett Resource Consultants does not ever recommend 23 directing a public consultation program and getting 24 confirmation of non-objections in signature from 25 residents inside the emergency planning zone.
1957
1 It is a practice of ours. We have been 2 doing it for years. It is not required by the Energy and 3 Utilities Board and our philosophy has always been when 4 we go to a residence, we give open, honest and factual 5 information. 6 We document the concerns from the 7 residents. And it's a relationship-building exercise, 8 much like my talk about Peter Sandman, it's a 9 relationship-building exercise and we have found that 10 nothing deteriorates a relationship more than spending 11 thirty-five (35) minutes with a member of the household 12 and then saying, Oh, by the way, can you sign this? 13 That's -- that's not the way we've ever 14 done it. And I can guarantee to you that each 15 representative of Bissett Resource Consultants has been 16 trained to take this sheet and when finished the 17 consultation put it in front of the resident for their 18 review. 19 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: And if I could -- 20 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Well, now, Mr. 21 Chairman, we have yet another sheet that has been 22 extensively testified to by the Witness that's not in 23 evidence and, you know, I get -- there's nothing probably 24 turns on it, but you know, now -- now, how are we going 25 to understand the record when we're all looking at the
1958
1 transcripts when Mr. Brown waves around a sheet and says, 2 "this sheet" and "this sheet", so -- 3 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: Mr. Fitch, I'm sure 4 you can appreciate, by the Privacy Act, these papers 5 cannot be put in the public record. 6 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Without the consent of, 7 for example, my client. So if I were to -- if I were to 8 obtain Mr. Smith's consent then there would be no issue, 9 correct? 10 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: We're definitely 11 getting into your area here. But they cannot, from our 12 understanding, be put in the public record. We're not 13 hiding them from the record. 14 MR. ALLAN MCLARTY: Sir, let me say, if 15 Mr. Fitch wants to obtain the consent of -- of Mr. Smith 16 and he wants that information and that document put into 17 the public record, then I think Mr. Fitch should get that 18 consent, give it to me, we'll sit down and look at that 19 in the context of the legal requirements and whether we 20 are then able to produce it and if there's not a legal 21 issue, we'll be happy to consider it. 22 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: And if I can add to 23 it, I do have to correct one (1) statement. Virtually 24 all of the people are not listed as non-objectors. There 25 are many specific instances in here that are listed as
1959
1 objectors. And I don't have the revised document in 2 front of me. 3 But one of them is Mr. Ken Crebbin. We've 4 got a list there and maybe, Mr. Brown, you can provide 5 for Mr. Fitch what his concerns were -- were. 6 Because I know at the end of it, it says, 7 that a Compton representative would contact Mr. Crebbin. 8 I was that representative. I know I called him. 9 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: That's -- 10 MR. GAVIN FITCH: So, Mr. Brown, we can 11 leave it on the basis, I take it, that Mr. Smith never 12 advised Mr. Provost that he did not object to the 13 project, either in writing or verbally? 14 Do you understand my question? 15 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: I'm not sure. Can 16 you -- can you answer the question again? 17 MR. GAVIN FITCH: No, I'm not going to 18 answer it, but I will pose it. 19 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: Sorry. Sorry. 20 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Can you conform -- can 21 you confirm for me, Mr. Brown, that Mr. Smith -- Mr. Rick 22 Smith, never advised Compton or Bissett, either in 23 writing or verbally, that he did not object to the 24 project? 25 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: I can say that he was
1960
1 met with for thirty-five (35) minutes, the project 2 documentation package was reviewed with Mr. Smith, the 3 information, as required by the Emergency Res -- to -- to 4 start the process to develop the Emergency Response Plan 5 is confidential information, was collected and at that 6 time, no comments or concerns about his objection to the 7 project, were expressed by Mr. Smith. 8 MR. GAVIN FITCH: I don't consider the 9 answer responsive. Let me just ask it one (1) more time, 10 Mr. Brown. 11 Can you please confirm for me that Mr. 12 Smith never indicated to Mr. Provost, either in writing 13 or verbally, that he did not object to the project? 14 Please confirm that for me? 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: I can confirm that 19 it's Mr. Provost's experience of twelve (12) years of 20 doing public consultation full time, that when he left 21 that residence, he had no concerns or objections from Mr. 22 Smith. 23 If you're asking, did Mr. Smith come out 24 and say, I do not object to this project, then -- then 25 that -- those statements were not uttered by Mr. Smith.
1961
1 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Thank you. Mr. 2 Chairman, I see it's almost time for our morning break, 3 and I'm basically done, everyone will be pleased to hear. 4 But I would like to just maybe take the time over the 5 break to review where I'm at and to see if I need a 6 couple of clean-up questions. 7 In fact, I -- now that I think about it, I 8 know that I do have one (1) small line of questioning for 9 Mr. Bissett, but I am almost done. 10 So, it might be most efficient if we just 11 broke now and I could ensure that whatever other 12 questions I want to ask I can ask right after break, with 13 the caveat again, Mr. Chairman, that there are 14 undertaking answers that I am going to need to -- or 15 undertaking responses, that I am going to have to review 16 somewhat carefully, and I certainly reserve the right to 17 come back and question Panel 3 on those undertaking 18 responses. 19 THE CHAIRPERSON: That would -- that 20 would be fine. Is any other matters? If not, we will 21 take our twenty (20) minute break and return at quarter 22 to 11:00. Thank you. 23 24 --- Upon recessing at 10:24 a.m. 25 --- Upon resuming at 11:00 a.m.
1962
1 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Please be 2 seated. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Fitch, the Board 7 has considered your request for a ruling, and the Board 8 is not persuaded that the undertaking is necessary; that 9 Guide 56 does provide a substantial comparison in there. 10 So, before you step down, do you have any 11 more questions for this Panel? 12 MR. GAVIN FITCH: I -- I do have more 13 questions, but I certainly accept the Board's ruling, and 14 as you say, there -- the -- as an attachment or Appendix 15 1, which sets out the differences is a matter of public 16 record, it speaks for itself, and we can certainly argue 17 off that. So, that's fine, Mr. Chairman. 18 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. GAVIN FITCH: 21 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Good morning again, 22 gentlemen. 23 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: Good morning. 24 MR. GAVIN FITCH: I do -- unfortunately, 25 I am not finished. I realized there's a few more things
1963
1 I want to cover. And -- and the first thing I do before 2 I leave this document we have been reviewing, which is 3 the Public Disclosure and Consultation Summary, I -- I 4 just want to close the loop, if you will, on that. 5 And -- and so, Mr. Brown, I -- I guess I 6 just want to ask you, isn't this column that is titled, 7 "Date of Non-Objection" essentially meaningless? 8 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: No, sir. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Mr. Brown, can you turn 13 to page 22 please, of that document? And look down at 14 the -- the final row, which is, the Calgary Fire 15 Department, a first responder. I see the City is listed 16 as having provided a non-objection on July 15, 2002. 17 Do you see that? 18 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Yes, sir, we do. 19 Yes sir, we do. 20 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Is that really an 21 accurate portrayal of the City's position, either then or 22 now? 23 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Then, in -- in -- 24 in our judgment, the City did not object to the well 25 based upon our meetings and ongoing conversations with
1964
1 Disaster Services. Our opinion was at the time that they 2 would -- would not object -- 3 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Okay. 4 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: -- to the well. 5 Now -- 6 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Turn back to page 1. 7 And let's look at the very first entry, which is the lead 8 agency of the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and 9 apparently the Board provided a -- a non-objection on 10 July 2nd, 2002, which seems somewhat curious to me. 11 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Okay. 12 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Do you think it's 13 curious that the Board, the quasi-judicial agency that's 14 considering your Application at this Hearing would have 15 been listed as having provided a non-objection on July 16 2nd, 2002? 17 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: The field 18 representatives that do this work on behalf of our 19 clients have been browbeaten so bad over the years that 20 they will fill in every blank and that includes the 21 Board. They will ask the Board if there are any 22 objections or outstanding issues. That -- that may be a 23 -- a moot point, but nevertheless, they will ask that. 24 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Okay. I'd now like to 25 just have one (1) point confirmed. We have been looking
1965
1 at Attachment 3, I believe, if I've got that right, to 2 Section 4 of Volume 1 of the Well Licence Application. 3 And what I'd like you to do is look at Attachment 2. So 4 it's actually the first document in front of the August 5 13, 2002 letter, which is at the front of Attachment 3, 6 if that makes any sense. 7 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Okay, we're looking 8 at Attachment 2 and that's the Open House Notice that -- 9 placed in local newspapers. 10 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Right. And this, now, 11 is for the June open houses. Right? 12 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: I'm sorry, Mr. 13 Fitch, I missed that. 14 MR. GAVIN FITCH: This notice was for the 15 June 2002 open houses? 16 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: That is correct. 17 MR. GAVIN FITCH: All right. 18 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: That notice -- 19 that's right. 20 MR. GAVIN FITCH: And would it be fair to 21 say that it is -- it's the same notice in substance as 22 was provided for the November 2001 open houses? There's 23 no difference really? Other than the dates? 24 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: Actually, I think 25 there's a fair bit of difference in the explanation
1966
1 below, invites you to an open house, so if you can go to 2 the other one, I'm just going to open it up side-by-side 3 Mr. Fitch. 4 MR. GAVIN FITCH: That's fine. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: You're not the only 9 one who has their -- has their prose corrected sometimes. 10 When we put out the -- and I did recall 11 this, when we put out the November open house we started 12 off by saying: 13 "Representatives from Compton and the 14 Alberta Energy and Utilities Board will 15 be on hand to provide details and 16 answer your questions." 17 You'll see now that we, at the request of 18 the EUB, separated them into a separate sentence saying: 19 "Representatives of the EUB will also 20 be available to answer questions 21 regarding regulatory matters." 22 I wasn't clear enough in how I wrote that 23 first one. So they are a little different. 24 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Okay. But in terms of 25 the map, you'll agree with me that as in the November
1967
1 2001 notice, the notice sent out for the June 2002 open 2 houses doesn't contain your modified reduced planning 3 zone boundary? 4 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Yes, sir. It does 5 not -- it does not contain it and nor was it approved at 6 that time or -- 7 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Right. It doesn't 8 contain the eight (8) kilometre emergency awareness zone 9 boundary; right? 10 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: That's correct. 11 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Thank you. 12 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: It does not contain 13 the eight (8) either. 14 MR. GAVIN FITCH: And it doesn't contain 15 the twelve (12) or the fifteen (15) kilometre calculated 16 planning zone boundaries either; does it? 17 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: No, sir. That's 18 correct. 19 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: If I could just add 20 to these notices, Mr. Longfield, if we do notice both 21 open house invitations in the bottom left-hand corner, we 22 do have direct contact with Derek Longfield if he has any 23 questions. 24 As well as, if you would turn to Exhibit 25 002-064, Section 6, and I do believe it's the last page
1968
1 of the information for residents handout, there's just 2 several statements in there that -- that I'd like to 3 read. And I quote: 4 "Please telephone a Compton 5 representative if you have any 6 questions." 7 That's one (1) time. 8 "If you have any questions about the 9 proposed drilling, completion, testing, 10 or production operations or Compton's 11 emergency response program, please call 12 us collect. We welcome and encourage 13 you to speak up so that any concern can 14 be properly resolved." 15 Compton is attempting to consult with the 16 public in an open and meaningful manner. They encourage 17 it. They're asking the public -- encouraging the public 18 to speak up if they have any concerns. 19 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Thank you for that 20 explanation, Mr. Brown. 21 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: You're welcome. 22 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Mr. Longfield, you've 23 talked several times about the video that was prepared by 24 Compton and that was posted on Compton's website? 25 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: Yes, I have.
1969
1 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Is the video on your 2 website now? 3 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: No, the video has 4 been removed from the website. 5 MR. GAVIN FITCH: When was it removed 6 from the website. 7 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: I can't recall the 8 exact date. It was a licensing agreement with the 9 company that prepared the video and it was sometime after 10 the initial -- the first date of the Hearing; is that 11 March 31st, 2004, or whatever it was. 12 I believe it was sometime after that, Mr. 13 Fitch. 14 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Could you undertake to 15 advise exactly when that occurred. 16 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: Yeah, I should -- I 17 should be able to find that information for you, Mr. 18 Fitch. 19 20 --- UNDERTAKING NO. 34: Mr. Derek Longfield to advise 21 when Compton North Okotoks 22 Project video was removed 23 from Compton's website. 24 25 --- EXHIBIT NO. 39-021(g): Provide the date when the
1970
1 Compton North Okotoks Project 2 video was removed from 3 Compton's web site. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. GAVIN FITCH: 6 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Thank you. And when 7 you say it was a question of licensing with the company 8 that made the video, I take it you're saying that your 9 right to publicly show the video expired at some point? 10 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: We're -- we're into 11 a legal -- a legal definition here. I -- I know it's 12 something to do with it was provided to us for a period 13 of time by the -- by the producer of the video; that's 14 the best I can tell you. 15 We still have copies of the video that we 16 could distribute. 17 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Right. My -- my -- I 18 guess my -- just my last question on it is: Do you know 19 whether if you felt it was a good idea to keep the video 20 on your website you could have simply gone back to the 21 company and negotiated some sort of an extension or 22 something like that? 23 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: Yes, we could. And 24 then to be even more clear on this, it was a June 2002 25 video. And as the record shows, and I think -- I know
1971
1 you don't want Mr. Brown to go on excruciating detail of 2 how many changes to the -- to the program there were 3 since June 2002, including the addition of the triple 4 ignition system. 5 There were just several areas of that 6 video that weren't exactly correct with the Applications 7 as filed and amendments. So, the other option was to 8 completely redo the video, and we simply at that point in 9 time felt that we were already in the Hearing process, 10 the IR process and the video served its purpose for 11 initial public consultation. It was a good video and we 12 didn't think it added much to the knowledge base to 13 completely revamp it for the second time. 14 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Thank you. 15 THE CHAIRPERSON: Before you go on, Mr. 16 Fitch, the court reporter asked for our assistance with 17 respect to undertakings. And one (1) of the items was to 18 be clear if there's an undertaking given, that we just 19 say we'll include that under Exhibit, you know, 39-021, 20 and I -- so I'll try to do that. 21 But one (1) thing that both the Witness 22 Panel and the cross-examining lawyer could do is to -- is 23 to just use the word undertake, because I know that's the 24 key that the court reporters benefit. So, if you could 25 say, I undertake to do that, rather than I'll get back to
1972
1 you, it just simplifies their work I think. 2 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: Yes, I -- I 3 understand, Mr. Chairman, because I see you can search 4 for the words very quickly through the document 5 electronically, so we will make every effort to do that. 6 THE CHAIRPERSON: It actually helps you 7 too when you're searching for it. 8 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: Yes, it does, if we 9 look for keywords, that's right. 10 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you. 11 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Thank you, MR. 12 Chairman. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. GAVIN FITCH: 15 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Mr. Longfield, would 16 you say generally speaking, the public consultation 17 program conducted for the North Okotoks Project, has been 18 consistent with the sorts of approaches that a public 19 consultation Compton always takes on any project? 20 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: I would have to 21 think that to the extent that it is a critical sour well 22 that's being applied for under a reduced emergency 23 planning zone, there were certain aspects of this public 24 consultation program that are unique. 25 And from a perspective of approach to the
1973
1 public consultation which Mr. Brown has clearly stated, 2 that being -- providing information, encouraging 3 feedback, attempt to resolve concerns through the 4 process, yes, that part of it is fairly -- very 5 consistent with Compton's public consultation mandate. 6 And as I say, with a caveat, there are 7 certainly many unique features of this public 8 consultation that are the result of applying under 2001- 9 5. 10 MR. GAVIN FITCH: And -- and I take it 11 that a key element to Compton's public consultation for 12 any project is building and sustaining constructive 13 community and stakeholder relations, by providing 14 information and listening to concerns, and then trying to 15 resolve those concerns in a respectful and meaningful 16 manner? 17 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: That would 18 certainly be part of it. I think you know, our -- our 19 current document that we have referred to, to the extent 20 that it's Compton's current policies, it goes into 21 considerably more detail than that, but, yes. 22 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Sure. And has Compton 23 ever fallen short of that standard, in your view? 24 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: Not knowingly, I'm 25 sure. You always set your standards extremely high and
1974
1 you make every effort to meet those standards that you've 2 set. 3 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Mr. Longfield, I'm not 4 sure if you're familiar, but in April 2002, Mr. Olthafer 5 and I were in a hearing down in Vulcan where Mr. Olthafer 6 was representing Compton and I was representing the 7 Kettenbach family. 8 Do you know anything about that? 9 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: Only to the extent 10 I've heard about the -- the hearing -- 11 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Right. 12 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: -- in the office. 13 I know the individuals that were involved. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 MR. GAVIN FITCH: If I could ask you to 18 turn to the second page of the document which is actually 19 page 18 of the Decision. It sets forth the views of the 20 Board in relation to an argument made by my clients. The 21 public consultation conducted by Compton in that case had 22 not been adequate and you'll see that at the bottom of 23 page 18, the Board says: 24 "In the Board's view Compton failed to 25 recognize that a key element to
1975
1 building and sustaining constructive 2 community and stakeholder relations is 3 providing information, listening to 4 concerns and then trying to resolve 5 those concerns in a respectful manner." 6 Do you see that? 7 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: Yes, I do. 8 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Right. So, sir, what 9 learnings, if I can use that phrase, did Compton take 10 from its experience down in Vulcan? 11 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: I think that's a 12 good question. As I mentioned to you, I was not directly 13 involved in either that development or that Application, 14 but as luck would have it, I believe Bissett Resource 15 Consultants was. 16 MR. GAVIN FITCH: I don't think they 17 were. At least they certainly weren't at the Hearing. 18 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: Maybe Mr. Brown can 19 clarify for me. He had -- seemed to have more knowledge 20 of it than I do, so if we're -- in an attempt to get some 21 knowledge on the record, we'd be happy to try to here. 22 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: Yes, Mr. Longfield, I 23 think I just -- Bissett was not involved in the 24 consultation for that particular project. Bissett was 25 contracted by Compton afterwards to meet some of the --
1976
1 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Conditions. 2 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: -- conditions of the 3 well licence and I think if we want to use this term that 4 -- that you used when you first started out, Mr. Fitch, 5 this participant involvement term, I think the record 6 clearly shows -- and participant involvement is between 7 communication to the individual and the individual to the 8 company and -- and I think the Energy Utilities Board has 9 the documentation on all of these proceedings. 10 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Thank you, Mr. Brown. 11 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: You're welcome. 12 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Lastly, to you, Mr. 13 Bissett. 14 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Yes, sir? 15 MR. GAVIN FITCH: I want to return to 16 your strongly held view that a blowout at this site under 17 Compton's plan is unimaginable. 18 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Yes, sir, that's -- 19 that is indeed my -- 20 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Yeah. 21 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: -- my opinion or 22 view. 23 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Would -- do you think 24 it would be unimaginable if there were, say within a one 25 (1) month period, four (4) different blowouts in the
1977
1 Province of Alberta? Does that sound really surprising 2 to you? 3 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: It -- it would if 4 they were critical sour wells, yes, sir. Blowouts with - 5 - with sweet wells and other wells, why, I -- I don't 6 know if -- if four (4) in the one (1) month would be 7 unimaginable or not. I -- I think you're probably going 8 to tell me there was four (4) and -- and I -- I'm aware 9 of -- of two (2) of them, anyway, so -- 10 MR. GAVIN FITCH: All right. 11 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: -- so -- but -- but 12 nevertheless, let's be clear that -- that four (4) 13 critical sour wells blowing out of control would be a 14 surprise. Yes, sir. 15 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Okay. 16 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Good. Thank you. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 MR. GAVIN FITCH: So, last night, as I 21 was reflecting on all this, I was curious about how 22 unimaginable well blowouts are so I did a -- did the -- 23 do what we all do now which is do a Google search and I - 24 - I found this report from the Daily Oil Bulletin from 25 July 12th, 2001.
1978
1 It was a report on how there had been 2 three (3) well blowouts, all at the same time, including 3 a month old potentially deadly sour gas well. 4 And the -- the headline of the story was, 5 "Thankfully The Wells Had Been Snuffed Out". 6 And you'll see in the second paragraph 7 there, and I apologize I -- I hate when this happens, but 8 when I printed it out the far right hand margin of the -- 9 of the website text didn't appear on the document. 10 But you'll see that it says: 11 "Including Husky Energy Inc.'s ten (10) 12 day Ferrier blowout near Rockymountain 13 House in June there had been four (4) 14 blow outs in less than a month." 15 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Which -- which -- 16 which paragraph is that, Mr. Fitch. 17 MR. GAVIN FITCH: The second paragraph. 18 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: I'm sorry. 19 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Second paragraph. 20 "Including Husky Energy Inc.'s ten (10) 21 day Ferrier blowout near Rockymountain 22 House in June there have been four (4) 23 blowouts in less than a month." 24 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Yes, sir. That's 25 what it says.
1979
1 MR. GAVIN FITCH: And so, I'm going to 2 ask you again, do you think -- could you have imagined 3 that would happen? 4 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: I -- I would have 5 to step back and say, well, shoot this is a fact. There 6 were four (4) blow outs in the Province at this time. 7 And, again, I'll return back to, I don't believe any of 8 these were critical sour wells. 9 That's the -- that's the difficulty I have 10 is believing that -- that a critical sour well would get 11 out of control. Given the conditions of the Wabamun 12 Reservoir, and let me state again, the pressure that we 13 have there, the knowledge, the fact that five hundred and 14 sixty-seven (567) some odd wells were drilled over the -- 15 over the past fifty (50) years without any problems, then 16 that's what I find unimaginable, Mr. Fitch. 17 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Thank you, sir. 18 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: You're welcome. 19 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Mr. Chairman, that 20 concludes my questions for Panel 3, subject to some 21 undertakings that I -- I'm going to have to review and in 22 that regard, I just want to raise one (1) matter now 23 which is Exhibit 39-21(e). 24 And that is the response to the 25 undertaking given yesterday by Mr. Crooks. And I think -
1980
1 - I guess the short message is, I don't think the 2 document provided is fully responsive to what I was 3 asking. 4 So, I've had a look at the transcript and 5 -- and, in particular, at page 1664, I was asking about 6 drag coefficients and if you turn then over to -- there's 7 a discussion that it really starts at page 1664. 8 Over on page 1666, line 17, I asked: 9 "If you used, sir, the current 10 endpoint, the one that's actually in 11 your Table 2, and you used a drag 12 coefficient of two (2), you would get 13 planning zones substantially larger 14 than what is reflected in your Table, 15 would you not?" 16 The answer was: 17 "You would get larger zones, yes." 18 I then asked: 19 "Did you actually do this, or do that? 20 Did you do that modelling run?" 21 And the answer was: 22 "We did a couple of those runs, and I 23 don't -- they were quite a bit larger. 24 I'm -- I'd have to dig out the numbers 25 to give you an exact number."
1981
1 And I said: 2 "Would you please undertake to do 3 that?" 4 The answer was: 5 "Sure." 6 The reason I'm concerned that the answer 7 isn't fully responsive to my undertaking is that when I 8 look at Exhibit 39-21(e), I note that the only ignition 9 time case that was provided, was the eight (8) minute 10 case. 11 And maybe I wasn't clear, Mr. Crooks, but 12 what I was interested in is really -- you recall we were 13 talking about that bottom third of Table 2, and I was 14 really interested in the -- what results you'd get for 15 the various release scenarios, if you used a drag 16 coefficient of two (2). 17 So, maybe I just better ask you. Did you 18 only do a modelling run using a drag coefficient of two 19 (2) for an eight (8) minute release or did you also do it 20 for the other releases? 21 MR. GREGORY CROOKS: We did that just for 22 an eight (8) minute release, sir, as that was the time 23 given to us by Compton as their time to ignition. 24 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Okay. So, then you -- 25 you did not do a modelling run using a drag coefficient
1982
1 of two (2), for the fifteen (15) minute release case? 2 MR. GREGORY CROOKS: No, sir. 3 MR. GAVIN FITCH: All right. And you did 4 not do a modelling run for the -- using the drag 5 coefficient of two (2) for the thirty (30) minute 6 release? 7 MR. GREGORY CROOKS: No, sir. 8 MR. GAVIN FITCH: All right. Would you 9 undertake to do that? 10 MR. GREGORY CROOKS: I'm sorry? 11 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Would you undertake to 12 do that, to -- to run a model -- do a modelling run using 13 a drag coefficient of two (2), for the fifteen (15) 14 minute and the thirty (30) minute releases? 15 MR. ALLAN MCLARTY: If I could just 16 interject, can I just ask the Witness a question. You 17 know, first, is that something that you can do? 18 MR. GREGORY CROOKS: Yes, sir, that is 19 something we can do. 20 MR. ALLAN MCLARTY: Okay. And I guess, 21 sir, if the Board thinks it would be helpful, then we 22 could ask Mr. Crooks to run the model. I'm not sure 23 that -- 24 THE CHAIRPERSON: I didn't -- 25 MR. ALLAN MCLARTY: -- I'm going to add
1983
1 anything that Mr. Fitch doesn't already have, but -- 2 THE CHAIRPERSON: I didn't think the 3 Board was being asked for a ruling at this point. I 4 think -- I thought Mr. Fitch was just asking the Panel, 5 and I'll -- 6 MR. GAVIN FITCH: That's right. 7 THE CHAIRPERSON: -- leave it at that. 8 Let them respond before I get involved. 9 MR. ALLAN MCLARTY: Well, I think, sir, 10 if there is information out there that Compton has, and 11 we're asked to undertake it -- undertake to produce 12 existing information, then clearly they're -- they're 13 happy to do that. 14 If, in fact, they have to go out and 15 produce something and create something new, I don't think 16 they're interested in going out there and -- and going to 17 a lot of work and effort if -- unless somebody thinks 18 it's certainly a worthwhile exercise to go through and do 19 that. 20 This is one (1) of those exercises where 21 it's going to take some time, somebody has to go through 22 the exercise of actually creating something that's new, 23 it's being asked for. And if the Board feels it's 24 helpful, then I'm simply saying, yes, we'll undertake to 25 do it.
1984
1 MR. GAVIN FITCH: It appears we may be 2 getting to a point where the Board has to issue a ruling, 3 because my request for the undertaking stands, if I could 4 put it that way. 5 And what I think I'm hearing Mr. McLarty 6 saying is, no, unless the Board tells us to. 7 THE CHAIRPERSON: Just -- you said it's 8 something you can do. How much effort is it, and how 9 much effort and expense is it to do something that was 10 requested? 11 MR. GREGORY CROOKS: I would estimate it 12 would take on the order of several hours to produce those 13 results, sir. 14 THE CHAIRPERSON: And what do you think 15 the cost might be? 16 MR. GREGORY CROOKS: I'm not sure I want 17 to tell everybody what my charge out rate would be, 18 because that is a little bit of a -- something between 19 our company and our clients, but that would be probably 20 on the order of something less than a thousand dollars 21 ($1,000). 22 THE CHAIRPERSON: I see. 23 MR. GREGORY CROOKS: Somewhere between 24 five hundred (500) and a thousand dollars ($1,000), I 25 would say.
1985
1 THE CHAIRPERSON: Just about got a 2 weekend special reduction there, Mr. McLarty. I don't 3 know, we'll -- we'll consider it. I guess Mr. McLarty 4 would like us to make a ruling on it, I guess we will. 5 6 --- UNDERTAKING NO. 35: Mr. Crooks to perform 7 additional dispersion 8 modeling using a drag 9 coefficient of 2 for 15- 10 minute and 30-minute time-to- 11 ignition cases. (Board 12 decision reserved) (Board 13 granted request at page 2063, 14 Reserved Exhibit No. 039- 15 021(h) 16 17 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Thank you, Mr. 18 Chairman. Finally, I should request that we mark the 19 final two (2) documents that we've been discussing as the 20 next two (2) exhibits. 21 So, I'm not sure which exhibit number 22 we're at, but there is the excerpt from Decision 2002-041 23 by the Energy Utilities Board with respect to 24 applications for a sour gas well, batteries and 25 associated pipelines by Compton Petroleum in the Vulcan
1986
1 Field and that would be the first of the new exhibits. 2 THE CHAIRPERSON: So, that's excerpts 3 pages one (1), eighteen (18), and nineteen (19)? 4 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Right. 5 6 --- EXHIBIT NO. 39-027: Excerpt from EUB Decision 7 Report 2002-041, Compton 8 Petroleum Corporation 9 Applications for A Sour Gas 10 Well, Batteries, and 11 Associated Pipelines, Vulcan 12 Field; pages 1, 18 and 19. 13 14 MR. GAVIN FITCH: And then -- and I'm 15 sorry, so that would be Exhibit which, sir? 16 THE CHAIRPERSON: 39-027. 17 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Thank you. 18 THE CHAIRPERSON: I suppose it's not 19 absolutely necessary to mark a Board decision as an 20 exhibit, but since it's just a couple of pages of 21 excerpts -- 22 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Sure. 23 THE CHAIRPERSON: -- it's probably more 24 convenient to. 25 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Sure. And I just
1987
1 think, given that, you know, it was the basis for some 2 examination, it -- it probably is most convenient. 3 And then lastly, Mr. Chairman, I guess 4 Exhibit 39-028 would be Daily Oil Bulletin from July 12, 5 2001 titled "Alberta Well Blowouts Brought Under 6 Control." 7 THE CHAIRPERSON: And we might add a two 8 (2) page printout from the web. 9 MR. GAVIN FITCH: That's fine, sir. 10 THE CHAIRPERSON: That would be thirty- 11 nine oh two eight (39028). 12 13 --- EXHIBIT NO. 39-028: Article from the Daily Oil 14 Bulletin July 12, 2001 titled 15 "Alberta Well Blowouts 16 Brought Under Control", 17 a two (2) page printout from 18 the web. 19 20 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Thank you. Members of 21 Panel 3, we will meet again when we talk about 22 undertakings, but thank you very much for answering all 23 of my questions these last few days. 24 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: You're welcome. 25 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Yes, sir.
1988
1 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: Thank you very 2 much, Mr. Fitch. 3 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: You're welcome. 4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Fitch. 5 Just -- just to clarify the record on 6 something while it's current in my mind, Mr. Longfield, 7 when you were being asked if you were familiar with 8 Decision 2002-041 -- and if you might want to pull that 9 up. Do you have that? 10 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: Yeah, sorry. Yes, 11 I have it. 12 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. And did you say 13 that you were or were not familiar with the -- some of 14 the conclusions from this decision? 15 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: Can I just check 16 the date on it, please? 17 THE CHAIRPERSON: Certainly. 18 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: Yes, I did qualify 19 that -- that I -- I was not aware of that decision in 20 detail. At that time I was a consultant to Compton and 21 by April of 2002, my main consulting duties to Compton 22 were, in fact, with respect to this project. 23 So, to the extent that we knew that we 24 needed to review Board decisions with our go-forward 25 plan, certainly yes, I was aware of this, but that
1989
1 expertise, of course, and why I passed the buck down the 2 table, I did know that it was something that Mr. Bissett 3 and Mr. Brown took into account when they developed a 4 public consultation program for Phase 2 of -- of this 5 particular licence hearing. 6 So, I -- I wasn't paid to sit around the 7 halls and talk in specifics regarding that Application 8 with members of Compton's staff. I did say I know who 9 was involved in it and I am quite certain that those 10 individuals also talked with Mr. Bissett and Mr. Brown in 11 their ongoing undertakings to -- oh, used the wrong word, 12 but -- their ongoing work with respect to the conditions 13 on that Application. 14 THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand. Did -- 15 Mr. Longfield, did anybody come down the hall to you and 16 say, you know, Have a look at this decision? 17 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: I recall that we 18 had a meeting. In fact it wasn't "come down the hall", I 19 recall that we had a meeting discussing that decision and 20 at least Mr. Bissett was present. 21 And, again, they could help me out with 22 this, with the individuals that were involved in that -- 23 in that hearing. And, of course, as Mr. Fitch said, Mr. 24 Olthafer was involved in that hearing. 25 So, obviously, it was -- it was one of
1990
1 these things that was pretty fresh in our minds. I was 2 asking, me personally -- me personally, I didn't have a 3 lot to do with -- with that decision, the conditions 4 following. 5 But how it impacted this application, 6 certainly it was Compton's most recent hearing and, you 7 know, the -- the learnings from that certainly were 8 incorporated in our plan for the North Okotoks 9 consultation. 10 THE CHAIRPERSON: And prior to you coming 11 in your current position, who would have been responsible 12 for this kind of matter on a corporate basis, would that 13 have been Mr. Mrochuk? 14 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: Oh no. I -- maybe 15 -- maybe Mr. Mrochuk could answer. I honestly -- I 16 honestly couldn't answer who was the lead on the Vulcan 17 Project and hearing. 18 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Now, in your 19 current position, let's say -- let's fast forward this 20 that this decision was April 16th of 2004, in your 21 current position would you have been aware of this 22 decision? 23 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: Most likely, I 24 think that -- that falls into the special projects 25 category as far as being outside of ordinary business
1991
1 and -- 2 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, let me get right 3 to the question I was just going to ask because the 4 answers you're giving are a little longer than I had 5 expected, to be honest. 6 If you go to page 19 and the first -- last 7 sentence of the first paragraph it says: 8 "The Board believes that in order to be 9 successful, Compton must demonstrate 10 its corporate commitment to deal with 11 issues and concerns of the community it 12 operates in." 13 And I assume the authors of this decision, 14 you know, when they make those kind of statements they -- 15 they don't do it casually and presumably they expect a 16 corporate response. 17 And I just wondered, does the corporation 18 actually discuss it at the executive level and say, hey, 19 you should be aware that this -- this decision contained 20 this language. There was a very direct comment there. 21 You know, heads up guys? 22 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: I'll attempt to 23 keep my answer briefer. Definitely. We're drilling, as 24 we said, a hundred and eighty-six (186) wells last year. 25 Well over two hundred (200) wells this year. We -- we
1992
1 are well aware of any decisions that have happened on a 2 corporate level for sure. 3 And, in particular, the decision to retain 4 Bissett Resource Consultants to assist us to do full and 5 complete consultation on this project back -- you know, 6 way back in 2001, even at that time, there was a 7 sensitivity. 8 And as I said in my answer to Mr. Fitch, 9 you always look to improve. So it's -- it's paramount in 10 the minds of the executive that in order to complete our 11 proposed budget program of drilling that many wells, 12 public consultation's an integral part of that. 13 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Mrochuk, were you 14 aware of this decision and the Board's comments? 15 MR. WADE MROCHUK: What was that, sorry? 16 THE CHAIRPERSON: I -- were you aware of 17 this decision and the Board's comments that I've just 18 been discussing with Mr. Longfield? 19 MR. WADE MROCHUK: It's the Vulcan 20 decision? 21 THE CHAIRPERSON: That's the one we've 22 been discussing. 23 MR. WADE MROCHUK: I was with Compton at 24 the time of that process but I was not directly involved 25 with it.
1993
1 THE CHAIRPERSON: And were you a VP at 2 that time? 3 MR. WADE MROCHUK: No, and I am not a VP 4 at this time either -- 5 THE CHAIRPERSON: So you wouldn't be part 6 of the executive family then? 7 MR. WADE MROCHUK: As a manager I would 8 be -- I would participate at the management level but not 9 at the -- the VP level. 10 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Anyways, I don't 11 want to drag this out. Thanks very much. The other 12 question, this is for Mr. Brown, when we go through this 13 thirty-nine (39) page summary here, what would be, if you 14 came and visited me in my home and we spent a half an 15 hour talking about things and so on. 16 What would be your -- what would be your 17 wind up question to me, before you -- as you're -- you 18 know, before you say, thanks very much for your time and 19 talk to you later? 20 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: I think the wind up 21 question that we would teach our public consultation 22 people, is to -- is to take -- we go with -- we go with 23 the confidential resident questionnaire, which is used 24 for emergency planning purposes, and also used to 25 document comments about the -- I'm going to use the word
1994
1 project, whether it's a well or a pipeline or -- or a 2 compressor station. 3 And we go with the information handout, 4 and the accompanying EUB documentation, plus we always go 5 with the Petroleum Communication Foundation Sour Gas 6 Booklet, and the Petroleum Communication Flaring Booklet. 7 And what we want to teach our people is to 8 at the -- at the end of the meeting, is to turn the -- 9 the piece of paper to the -- to the residents, to the 10 business, to the manager of the public facility. And 11 first of all, we would like them to review the factual 12 data, their name, their telephone number, their address, 13 their -- their ages, so review the factual data. 14 And then the bottom third of the 15 landscaped pages is more the subjective comments, you 16 know, if you do require evacuation assistance, why do you 17 -- why do you, or if you're asking for evacuation 18 assistance, you know, what are the reasons? 19 And then there's about three (3) or four 20 (4) lines that the comments, questions or concerns about 21 the project. And we turn that to them, to ensure that 22 any comment, question or concern that we have heard or 23 was expressed, is documented correctly. 24 We have found the most effective way to -- 25 one (1) of the most effective means to reduce outrage, is
1995
1 to ensure that we document what the member of the public 2 says correctly. It's something Mr. Bissett taught me 3 very young and very early, and -- and I've never forgot, 4 and -- and during open houses we do it, and we certainly 5 have the value, have learned the value. 6 So it's openness and we turn in the 7 questionnaire, and ensure that the member of the public 8 reviews it. There's -- there's nothing worse than -- I'm 9 asking you questions and I'm doing this, and you're 10 trying to read upside down. It's -- it's not openness, 11 so this would be. Have -- first, have I got the factual 12 information correctly, second, have I documented your 13 questions, concerns, comments about this well. 14 Does that answer your question, sir? 15 THE CHAIRPERSON: Comprehensively, yes. 16 The -- let me give you an analogy. Do -- do you have 17 cable t.v.? 18 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: Yes, I do. 19 THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you remember there 20 was an issue some time ago about cable t.v. companies 21 adding new services onto your service, and then if you 22 didn't like it you could let them know and they would 23 remove the services from the bill. 24 Are you familiar with that? 25 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: Negative billing,
1996
1 sir, yes -- 2 THE CHAIRPERSON: But you've heard of 3 that? 4 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: Oh absolutely I have. 5 THE CHAIRPERSON: What's your opinion of 6 negative billing? 7 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: My opinion of 8 negative billing would be if it -- if it came in the mail 9 and I had to read it, I would be -- I'll use my term, 10 outraged by it. If the cable company chose to come to my 11 door with -- with the -- and explain the negative 12 billing process to me, then I would respond appropriate 13 at that time, and -- and I would give my comment very 14 forcefully. 15 So, the method of delivery would impact my 16 reaction. 17 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. So, let's go 18 back to my original point. If you came and visited with 19 me and you explained all the stuff, we had a nice little 20 chat -- 21 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: Yes. 22 THE CHAIRPERSON: -- and a cup of coffee, 23 and the wife gave you a cookie, or whatever the case 24 might be. Had a nice friendly chat. 25 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: Yes.
1997
1 THE CHAIRPERSON: And -- and I said, 2 Thanks very much. We'll talk to you later. What would 3 you put on the form? 4 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: Well, we would have 5 asked you if you have any questions, comments or concerns 6 about the project. 7 THE CHAIRPERSON: I'll get back to you. 8 I'm not sure. 9 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: Oh, if we -- if you 10 said, Not sure, then we would leave the blank -- the -- 11 the column would be the "Date of Contact" and the next 12 column is the "Date of Non-Objection". 13 That would be left with a dash and then we 14 would say, When can we call you back to -- to further 15 talk about the project or talk to you about -- about your 16 conclusion and then there would be a dotted line with a 17 second date of contact and to the right would be the 18 outcome of that second contact, either non-committal or - 19 - or objection. 20 THE CHAIRPERSON: Where would you put 21 "none" in there -- for the comments, would you put 22 "none?" 23 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: We would -- in the 24 comments? 25 THE CHAIRPERSON: In Comments column.
1998
1 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: In the Comments 2 column we would probably -- I'm going to say that I would 3 -- would not give confirmation of non-objection at this 4 time and then there'd be a dash in the Comments column. 5 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: And it would show 6 up in the thirty-nine (39) sheets as unknown until we 7 find it -- until we determine and talk to the people 8 eventually. 9 THE CHAIRPERSON: So, your experience 10 then that most people are very decisive when you come and 11 have that first visit and you would find that your 12 experience with them is that they're prepared to make a 13 decision right on the spot and may not take time to talk 14 to their spouse or anybody else? 15 They're willing just to make a statement 16 right then and there that they don't have any objections 17 and off you go? 18 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: Would you like -- Mr. 19 Bissett would like to -- 20 THE CHAIRPERSON: I'd like Mr. Brown to 21 respond. 22 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Oh, okay. 23 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: Okay. Again, I think 24 when we go into or approach a residence, business or 25 public facility, we always drive up in a vehicle that is
1999
1 marked. 2 THE CHAIRPERSON: Could you -- 3 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: Speed it up? 4 THE CHAIRPERSON: -- speed it up; you're 5 a little too comprehensive at times, sir. 6 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: Sorry. The first 7 thing we always offer every visit, we must start it, Is 8 this a good time or is there a better time to -- 9 THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you remember the 10 question I asked you? 11 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: Yes. 12 THE CHAIRPERSON: What was the question? 13 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: The question was, if 14 the spouse wasn't home and do you -- would you give time 15 for them to not object? 16 THE CHAIRPERSON: That wasn't my 17 question. 18 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: I'm sorry. Could you 19 repeat it? 20 THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to think 21 about it again? Consult with your colleague what my 22 question was? 23 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: I'm -- I'm sorry, I 24 -- I'm sorry, I missed that, Mr. Chairman, I was -- 25 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, maybe ask Mr.
2000
1 Mrochuk what my question was. He's paying attention, I'm 2 sure. 3 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: Would you give the 4 time -- if the -- would you give the time if the spouse 5 was not home -- do most people take the time to -- to 6 give their opinion immediately or if their spouse wasn't 7 home would you give them time to talk about it with their 8 spouse? Was -- is that more the question? 9 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, it's not the 10 question. I said the question was: In your experience, 11 do most people -- are they willing to make a decision as 12 to -- that they're willing to give non-objection right 13 there without taking the time to talk to their spouse or 14 their family? 15 Is your experience they're willing to make 16 a decision right then and there? 17 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: The majority? Yes. 18 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: May -- may I add to 19 that, Mr. Chairman? 20 THE CHAIRPERSON: No. 21 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Okay. 22 THE CHAIRPERSON: I don't think it's 23 necessary. I think we should move on. 24 Mr. Secord -- oh, before we do, we do have 25 a spare time assignment for Compton, but I think I'll
2001
1 wait before I give it. Mr. Secord, why don't you 2 proceed? 3 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Mr. Chairman, I have 4 to move some books here, so if you want to use this 5 moment -- 6 THE CHAIRPERSON: Sure. 7 MR. RICHARD SECORD: -- I can -- 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: Take your time. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Thank you, Mr. 13 Chairman. 14 15 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. RICHARD SECORD: 16 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Panel, I'd like to 17 read you from the transcript of these proceedings on 18 January 13, 2005 and I don't think you need to turn to 19 it. I think it's pretty straightforward, but at page 20 497, line 18 Panel 2 was asked a number of questions by 21 Mr. Berg. 22 And at page 498, line 17 he asked you 23 this: 24 "If you, for instance, if you got 25 enough production from the first two
2002
1 (2) wells to fill the pipeline 2 capacity; do you stop then?" Now, 3 again, we're making the assumption that 4 you get approval for all six (6) wells 5 otherwise the question is rather 6 academic. 7 But so in that -- in that context, what 8 are your real plans? Are you going to 9 drill all six (6) and then come back 10 and ask for more pipeline capacity? Or 11 are you just going to stop at two (2) 12 if that's all you need to fill up the 13 pipe? Or are you going to want to 14 drill them two (2) years later? 15 But we want to really understand what 16 your true plans are." 17 And then at page 501, line 25 Mr. 18 Longfield, you were in the process of answering Mr. 19 Berg's questions and, Mr. Longfield, you said, and I 20 quote: 21 "Your question about the pipeline 22 capacity then, if we were to have wells 23 that were capable of a full license 24 pipeline -- remaining license pipeline 25 capacity and they were to sustain those
2003
1 kind of rates, I did some calculations 2 last night and we would produce well in 3 excess of even our upside remaining 4 reserve estimates in the fifteen (15) 5 year period." 6 And then this is what I'm interested in, 7 you said at page 501, line 7: 8 "So clearly there would be, even if we 9 have capabilities in excess of the 10 licensed pipeline capacity, we, of 11 course, can restrict the wells to 12 pipeline capacity and then allow them 13 to decline in their productivity to the 14 point where they would produce at 15 pipeline capacity for a certain amount 16 of time and then just decline." 17 You recall giving that evidence, Mr. 18 Longfield? 19 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: Yes. I -- I 20 believe it was the subject of an undertaking, Mr. Secord. 21 MR. RICHARD SECORD: What I'd like to do 22 now is hand out a portion from the Baker Petrolite -- or 23 Baker Hughes Report of October 29, 2003. I have already 24 given, Mr. Follensbee a copy of that document but I'll 25 give it to Mr. Longfield as well.
2004
1 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: Thank you. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Now, this document, 6 Mr. Chairman, I submitted through the Internet yesterday 7 so there is a PDF version. And what I've done is on the 8 bottom right-hand corner of this I have listed the page 9 numbers from the electronic version that was emailed 10 yesterday. 11 And if you turn to -- to page 1 of 244, 12 you'll see there's a letter from Dave Patterson to Mr. 13 Grzyb of the EUB, correct? 14 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: That's what it is 15 on my copy. 16 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And then if we turn 17 to the page 6 of 244 on the electronic copy, you have a - 18 - a heading, the Baker Petrolite Current Batch Program, 19 correct? 20 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: Yes. 21 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And then if you turn 22 to page 13 of 244 on the electronic version, there is a 23 document entitled, Corrosion and Flows, dated June 2003, 24 correct? 25 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: Yes.
2005
1 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And then if you go 2 to the top of that document, you see the north Mazeppa 3 flowline from 10 of 21-23-28, through to the Mazeppa 4 Plant, correct? 5 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: Yes. 6 MR. RICHARD SECORD: You have to say yes, 7 Mr. Follensbee -- 8 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Yes. 9 MR. RICHARD SECORD: -- because the -- 10 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Yes. 11 MR. RICHARD SECORD: -- they can't take a 12 nod on the transcript. 13 So, if we look then at the North Mazeppa 14 line, it runs from 10 of 21 to 12 of 20, then from 12 of 15 20 to 7 of 19, then from 7 of 19 to 11 of 24, which is 16 near my client's -- Gerald and Florence White's 17 residence. Are you aware of that? 18 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Yes. 19 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And then from 11 of 20 24, it flows to 10 of 13, which is where Compton proposes 21 to drill these six (6) horizontal wells, correct? 22 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Correct. 23 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And then from 10 of 24 13 it flows to A of 10, of 2 and so on, right? 25 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Correct.
2006
1 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And what I'm 2 particularly interested, and what I believe the Board is 3 interested in, in terms of the issues in these 4 Proceedings, is the integrity of the existing flowlines. 5 And I thought I would just confirm with 6 you, the areas that are of most interest to my clients 7 are the flowline from 11 of 24 to 10 of 13 and then from 8 10 of 13 to A 10 of 2. It would appear that the pipeline 9 license for those two (2) lines are both pipeline License 10 21027? 11 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Correct. 12 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And the -- we see 13 the length of line from 11 of 24 to 10 of 13 is eighteen 14 hundred and sixty (1860) metres, correct? 15 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Correct. 16 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And the length from 17 10 of 13 to A 10 of 02 is forty-six hundred (4600) 18 metres? 19 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Correct. 20 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And we have an 21 outside diameter of one six eight point three (168.3) 22 millimetres, which from someone who started off his 23 education in -- using Imperial measurements, is six point 24 six two five (6.625) inches? 25 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: That's correct.
2007
1 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And you can confirm 2 that the inside diameter of the pipe is six (6) inches, 3 assuming that it, I guess give or take the corrosion that 4 has occurred over the past thirty (30) years or so? 5 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Well, the inside 6 diameter would be the -- the OD, less the wall thickness 7 of the pipe. 8 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Which would be 9 approximately six (6) inches? That's in the -- well, I 10 can take you there in the Tuboscope document 11 in a minute -- 12 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Okay. 13 MR. RICHARD SECORD: -- but I'm putting 14 it to you that the inside diameter is six (6) inches, 15 give or take the corrosion that's occurred. 16 And then what I was interested in, Mr. 17 Follensbee, was the operating pressure. And I see that 18 the operating pressure for the 11 of 24 to 10 of 13 flow 19 line is four twenty-eight (428) psi? 20 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Yes. 21 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And the operating 22 pressure for the 10 of 13 to A 10 of 02 is four hundred 23 and thirteen (413)? 24 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Yes. 25 MR. RICHARD SECORD: If we could then
2008
1 turn to Exhibit 007-07. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Excuse me, what was 6 that exhibit again? 7 MR. RICHARD SECORD: This is the White 8 Submission; it's a binder, you'll need that. And I'm 9 referring you to Tab 18 of the submission. For those of 10 you following on the electronic copy, it is page -- it 11 starts at page 288 of 463. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: You referenced Tab 16 18? 17 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Yes. 18 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Unfortunately my 19 book has the White Submissions all under Tab 16. Is 20 there a specific -- 21 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Right -- 22 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: -- document again 23 you're going to look at? 24 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Yes. I'm going to 25 refer you to the document that is -- for those of you
2009
1 using the electronic edition, it starts at page 304, of 2 463. This is the Tuboscope Pipeline Service inspection 3 survey report. And I'm particularly interested -- on the 4 electronic copy and what I'll do is I'll just hand you my 5 -- i's page 318 of 463. It's the Section 1.4.1, Pipeline 6 Specification. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 MR. RICHARD SECORD: So looking at the -- 11 I'll just pull it up for a second. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 MR. RICHARD SECORD: So, you have in 16 front of you the Section 1.4.1 Pipeline Specifications? 17 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Yes. 18 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Which is Page 318 of 19 463 of the Exhibit 007-07. And this -- can you confirm 20 that this shows the -- the segment of pipe from 10 of 13- 21 22-29, west of the fifth meridian to A-10-02-29 -- sorry, 22 A-10-02-22-29 W5M? 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25
2010
1 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Well, actually this 2 particular I have doesn't reference any locations. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 MR. RICHARD SECORD: I appreciate that, 7 sir, but the Tuboscope inspection survey report deals 8 with -- if you look at page -- the first page, it deals 9 with an inspection summary for the 10 of 13 to A-10 of 02 10 line. That's found on Page 305 of 463; that would be at 11 the front portion of -- 12 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Okay. I have it. 13 MR. RICHARD SECORD: So, are you 14 satisfied that -- 15 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Yes. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And if -- I look at 20 then the pipeline specifications, this shows the nominal 21 diameter as -- of six point six two five (6.625) inches, 22 correct? 23 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: That's what it 24 says, correct. 25 MR. RICHARD SECORD: It shows the inside
2011
1 diameter of six (6) inches, or one fifty-two point four 2 (152.4) millimetres? 3 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: That's what this 4 document says. 5 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And then, what I was 6 interested in, Mr. Follensbee, was the line which says: 7 "maximum allowable operating pressure 8 one hundred (100) psi run pressure.". 9 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: That would refer to 10 the pressure that they're limiting to during the -- the 11 inline pigging operation. I don't believe that's the 12 licensed pressure of the line. 13 MR. RICHARD SECORD: So, what is the 14 licensed pressure of the line? 15 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Excuse me for -- 16 excuse me for a minute. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: The -- the -- the 21 MOP of the line would be one thousand, forty-nine point 22 eight (1,049.8) PSIG. 23 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Sorry? 24 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: One zero four nine 25 point eight (1049.8) PSIG.
2012
1 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And where -- where 2 do you obtain that information from? 3 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: I have a -- a card 4 here of the EUB approved conditions for that particular 5 line. 6 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Okay. Would you 7 undertake to produce that to Mr. McLarty and provide a 8 copy of that for the record? 9 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Yes, I have it 10 right here. 11 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Thank you. 12 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: It's also in -- 13 referenced in our ERP as well, but I just chose to pull 14 it from this card. 15 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Fair enough. 16 THE CHAIRPERSON: So, we'll assign a 17 series of -- an exhibit -- sorry? 18 MR. ALLAN MCLARTY: If you could just 19 clarify it, I think Mr. Follensbee, if I understood him, 20 said it's already in an existing document, sir? 21 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Yes. Yes, it -- 22 MR. ALLAN MCLARTY: And maybe you'd just 23 elaborate as to where that is so we don't start 24 duplicating? 25
2013
1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 THE CHAIRPERSON: While they're looking 4 that up, we'll just reserve Exhibit 39-029 as 5 undertakings to Mr. Secord on his cross-examination of 6 Panel 3 and then we'll leave it to Mr. McLarty's 7 discretion as to which ones get answered orally or in 8 written manner, whatever seems to be the most efficient 9 way, Mr. McLarty, for you to handle that. 10 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Thank you, Mr. 11 Chairman. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. RICHARD SECORD: 14 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Mr. Follensbee, just 15 to save time, we could maybe work on that offline, if 16 that's okay, given that time is precious? 17 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Okay. Well, it's 18 in the ERP document which is attached, it's Document CCC 19 -- it's in Exhibit 002-03 and it was attached to C -- one 20 of the CCC information requests. 21 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Which Response was 22 it attached to? 23 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: 3C. CCC -- 3C. 24 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Thank you. 25 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: And it provides the
2014
1 same information. 2 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And then, Mr. 3 Follensbee if we turn -- if we now go back to the Baker 4 Petrolite block flow diagrams in the handout that I gave 5 you on page 21 of 244, on the PDF version, you'll see 6 that heading, correct? 7 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Correct. 8 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And then if we turn 9 over the page we see the Mazeppa north leg and the size 10 of pipeline that exists from the far northern portion of 11 the Mazeppa north leg through the Mazeppa Gas Plant -- 12 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Correct. 13 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And that's set -- 14 set out on pages 23 and 24? 15 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Correct. 16 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And, again, if we 17 look at the areas of interest to my clients, in 18 particular, we see, again, six (6) inch pipe running from 19 11 of 24 to 10 of 13 to A 10 of 2? 20 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: That's correct. 21 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And it continues to 22 be six (6) inch pipe for -- until it gets to the 10-25- 23 21-29 junction? 24 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Correct. The -- 25 just to be clear, the OD diameter is six point six two
2015
1 five (6.625) inches. People tend to generalize rather 2 than using decimals. They will say six (6) inch pipe. 3 And the six (6) inch doesn't necessarily 4 deal with the internal diameter; that's a function of the 5 wall thickness of the pipe. 6 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Okay. Well, the 7 Tuboscope inspection survey report that we looked at, 8 that shows the inside diameter as six (6) inches for the 9 10 of 13 to the A 10-02 for that segment, correct? 10 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Just -- if you 11 could just give me a minute. 12 MR. RICHARD SECORD: That was the piece 13 of paper I handed to you. 14 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Yeah, I -- I guess 15 that's what they said it was. I -- I don't agree that's 16 what the internal diameter is. 17 Just hold on a minute. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: The internal 22 diameter of the pipe is six point two four five (6.245), 23 and I arrived at that from the licensed parameters of a 24 six point six two five (6.625) outside diameter and a 25 point one nine (.19) wall thickness -- point one nine
2016
1 (.19) inch wall thickness. That would give you a 2 calculated internal diameter of six point two four five 3 (6.245) inches. 4 I tend to find a lot of service companies 5 don't take the time to actually get the data totally 6 correct and they generalize. 7 MR. RICHARD SECORD: So you're saying 8 that the Tuboscope inspection survey report that is part 9 of Tab 18 of Exhibit 007-07, which was submitted to the 10 Board, that that information is not accurate? 11 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: I would say, yes. 12 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Okay. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: In fact, excuse me, 17 nominal diameter is normally referred to as six (6) 18 inches, the terminology. 19 MR. RICHARD SECORD: All right. Now, Mr. 20 Follensbee, you read into the record an opening 21 statement, correct? 22 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Correct. 23 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And do you have that 24 in front of you? 25 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Yes.
2017
1 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And you say as 2 manager -- at page 1, line 27, you say: 3 "As manager of the Mazeppa Processing 4 Partnership, I will be responsible for 5 all of the contract operations 6 undertaken by the Mazeppa Processing 7 Partnership, which includes production 8 and safety of the producing wells, and 9 operation and maintenance of the 10 Mazeppa gas gathering system." 11 Correct? 12 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: That's correct. 13 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And I'd like to hand 14 out now, another portion of the Baker Hughes Report, 15 which I gave to you earlier. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And, Mr. Chairman, 20 if you're following along in the electronic version of 21 this document, it begins at page 31 of 244. 22 And the way it was provided to us from -- 23 from the Board, it begins with the let -- a letter from 24 Dave Patterson of the -- the Mazeppa/Gladys Processing 25 Systems, on the letterhead of the Mazeppa Processing
2018
1 Partnership, a letter dated October 29, 2003. And then 2 it proceeds to have attached, two hundred and forty-four 3 (244) pages. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. RICHARD SECORD: 6 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And I've -- I'm just 7 putting before the Panel the -- the page 31 of the 8 document. 9 So, turning to your opening statement, Mr. 10 Follensbee, I take it that this Baker Petrolite report 11 was one (1) of the contract operations undertaken by the 12 Mazeppa Processing Partnership? 13 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: No, the contract 14 operations we were referring to in -- in line 28 was the 15 contract operations of the wells that Mazeppa Processing 16 Partnership operates for Compton. 17 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Well, it says the 18 Mazeppa Gas Gathering System. The last time I looked, a 19 gathering system involved pipelines, Mr. Follensbee? 20 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Oh, yes. I'm just 21 saying that in this document, line 28, Contract 22 Operations, there means contract operating the wells. 23 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Well, it doesn't say 24 that. 25 "Which includes production and safety
2019
1 of the producing wells and the 2 operation and maintenance of the 3 Mazeppa Gas gathering system." 4 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Yeah. Right. And 5 Mazeppa Partnership owns the pipelines and, so, yes, we 6 are responsible for the operation and maintenance. 7 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Okay. And this is - 8 - this would be one of the contracts that you would be 9 responsible for? 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Yes. 14 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Okay. So if we 15 could then turn to the first page, which is the Mazeppa 16 Processing Partnership North Section Corrosion Mitigation 17 Program Changes; the date is October 24, 2003. 18 Do you see that? 19 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Yes. 20 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And then I'd like to 21 turn you to the next page which is page 32 of 244 on the 22 electronic version, and it states: 23 "Inline inspections performed on the 24 ten (10) inch mainline of the north 25 Mazeppa field in September 2003
2020
1 revealed four (4) areas of internal 2 corrosion damage. Metallurgical 3 testing on these anomalies determined 4 the major corrosion mechanism to be 5 under deposit pitting corrosion due to 6 the presence of", 7 Capital E, 8 "Elemental", 9 Capital S, 10 "Sulphur and calcium carbonate [in 11 brackets] (calcite)". 12 Do you see that? 13 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Yes. 14 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And in -- 15 interestingly enough, Mr. Follensbee, I had the privilege 16 of cross-examining the Compton reserves panel consisting 17 of Peter Coldham,(phonetic) Kim Davies and Atillo -- 18 Atillo Szabo on August 26th, 1999. 19 And I asked them questions at that time 20 about Compton and its acquisition of the pipeline and in 21 the -- in your CV, if we could turn to that -- 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 MR. RICHARD SECORD: -- which is part of
2021
1 Exhibit 002-70, it indicated that you were the manager of 2 Acquisitions and Divestitures from 1999 to 2003, correct? 3 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: That's correct. 4 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And do I take it, 5 then, that the -- that Compton had sold the Mazeppa 6 pipeline to Dynegy prior to you taking over that 7 position? 8 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: That's correct. 9 MR. RICHARD SECORD: But then, I take it, 10 you would have been involved in the acquisition of the 11 pipeline from Border Midstream in 2003? 12 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Yes, I was involved 13 in -- not the decision to purchase it or the analysis to 14 purchase it, but some subsequent work that involved the 15 paperwork in -- after the decision was made to acquire 16 the property, yes. 17 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And would it be fair 18 to say, Mr. Follensbee, that in terms of Compton's 19 history with the North Mazeppa gathering system, that it 20 is -- October of 2003 is the first time that mention is 21 made of elemental sulphur being present in the North 22 Mazeppa Pipeline? 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25
2022
1 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: It's probably the 2 first time that it would have showed up in print. It's 3 not the first time that it was recognized. 4 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Okay. And in the 5 next paragraph of the Baker Hughes Report, the writer 6 state: 7 "One other area of particular concern 8 about MPP and Baker Petrolite is the 9 section of flowline that runs under 10 the Sheep River from 07-31-20-28 to 07- 11 34-19-28. This portion of the ten (10) 12 inch group line contains anomalies that 13 were not removed during turnaround. 14 There is also no information 15 discriminating these anomalies as 16 internal or external. Based on these 17 conditions, the assumption that this 18 system is operating under 'worst case' 19 conditions must be applied." 20 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: That's what it 21 says. 22 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And: 23 "These discoveries warrant several 24 changes to the current mitigation and 25 monitoring programs. The recommended
2023
1 changes will provide MPP with long-term 2 protection of the Mazeppa asset." 3 Correct? 4 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Correct. 5 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And then underneath 6 that there is something called process review and in the 7 third sentence the writers state: 8 "With the identification of elemental 9 sulfur contamination the rules have 10 changed!" 11 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Right. 12 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And can you tell me 13 what does MPP, and is it satisfactory if -- if we refer 14 to the Mazeppa Processing Partnership as MPP? 15 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Yes. 16 MR. RICHARD SECORD: What did MPP 17 understand by these words: 18 "With the identification of elemental 19 sulfur contamination the rules have 20 changed"? 21 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: That we need to be 22 sure that our corrosion mitigation program is adjusted, 23 if necessary, to take that particular fact into -- into 24 the program. 25 MR. RICHARD SECORD: What do you mean "if
2024
1 necessary"? I -- 2 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Well -- 3 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Had the rules 4 changed or hadn't they? 5 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: I guess, if we are 6 not already using the chemical, for example, a sulfur 7 dispersant that we should be. And, I guess, if we get 8 into this further we'll find that we did change our 9 program to accommodate the -- the news that we had sulfur 10 deposition. 11 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Now, the authors go 12 on to state: 13 "The picture below shows a more 14 complete process that MPP should 15 strongly consider on a go forward 16 basis. At present there are some gaps 17 in the first stage that should be 18 addressed." 19 What -- what gaps were there in the first 20 stage? 21 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Well, and this is a 22 -- a nice pictorial on -- on how people, I guess, should 23 proceed. It was Baker Petrolite's chart on how we should 24 go. I -- I take a gap meaning that -- that what you're 25 doing and what you should be doing might be different.
2025
1 And I think the -- the rules have changed 2 on elemental sulfur might be an example of that. 3 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Now, on the next 4 page, which is page 33 of 244 on the electronic version, 5 it states: 6 "Baker Petrolite is concerned that the 7 current provider of engineering 8 services is not utilizing the best 9 tools available for the Mazeppa 10 system." 11 Who was the current provider of 12 engineering services as of October 2003? 13 MR. ALLAN MCLARTY: Can I just interrupt 14 a moment please? Sir, I -- I'm more than happy to accord 15 Mr. Secord some reasonable latitude to eventually get to 16 his point. 17 I do though, hope that he is not taking 18 advantage of and going beyond what he knows very clearly 19 is a ruling of this Board that was sought with respect to 20 the issue of the integrity of the pipeline. 21 I think as everyone is well aware, the 22 integrity of that pipeline was the subject of another 23 proceeding and was dealt with at very great length. And, 24 as a result of that, an issue was raised in this 25 proceeding as to what should be dealt with here.
2026
1 And the Board ruled specifically on 2 September 7th, 2004 that the Board will only hear 3 evidence on the pipeline integrity issue as it relates 4 specifically to the additional throughput volumes of gas 5 that would be attributed to the proposed wells. 6 This evidence would be heard for the 7 specific purpose of assisting the Board with respect to 8 its assessment of the proposed wells. 9 And as I say, I'm prepared to accord Mr. 10 Secord a wide latitude as long as he is getting to the 11 point of what the relationship is to the existing wells 12 and that we are not going back on an exercise of looking 13 at the integrity of the pipeline itself. 14 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Thank you, Mr. 15 McLarty. Mr. Chairman, I intend to continue on with my 16 cross-examination. And if at any time Mr. McLarty wants 17 to attempt to put a stop to it, then we will deal with 18 it. 19 But I would point out to the Board two (2) 20 things. First of all, the extensive opening statement of 21 Mr. Follensbee, which raises all of these issues. And... 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And, Mr. McLarty's
2027
1 letter marked Exhibit 01 -- 001-0 -- sorry... 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 MR. RICHARD SECORD: I'm not sure of the 6 reference, but in any event, it's a letter from Mr. 7 McLarty, which -- which says that we will be entitled to 8 assess the veracity of the information presented. 9 So, I can get you that reference in a 10 minute. But -- but that's on part of the record. 11 MR. ALLAN MCLARTY: And I'm not debating 12 that with Mr. Secord, I'm simply suggesting, sir -- 13 THE CHAIRPERSON: Hmm hmm. 14 MR. ALLAN MCLARTY: -- that the scope of 15 this Hearing has been set by this Board after hearing 16 both sides extensively, in terms of what should be 17 considered. 18 And I'm simply putting it to -- to Mr. 19 Secord, that to stay within the confines of the Board's 20 ruling, all he needs to do is to explain to us how his 21 questions relate to the specific purpose of assisting the 22 Board with respect to its assessment of the proposed 23 wells. 24 And if he's able to do that, then I have 25 no objection. If he's not able or prepared to do that,
2028
1 then I object to his questions. 2 MR. RICHARD SECORD: It seems to me, Mr. 3 Chairman, that we are -- it's -- it's unusual, is Mr. 4 McLarty objecting to the questions that I am asking? Is 5 he looking for an explanation now? 6 MR. ALLAN MCLARTY: Yes. 7 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Okay. Because it 8 wasn't clear. 9 Mr. Chairman, I think that it is self 10 evident why this matter is important. The Board in 11 previous cases has looked at situations where pipelines 12 have failed in the past, and one (1) of the issues that 13 was raised, for instance, even at the Carbondale Hearing, 14 was what impact does additional volumes of gas have on 15 pipeline systems, that may have corrosion problems. 16 And this is surely the area that the Board 17 set out in its pre-Hearing decision as being of interest 18 to it. 19 So, one (1) of the -- the things that the 20 Board has to look at is, and -- and as you asked at the 21 beginning, on the 13th of January is, how is this 22 pipeline going to operate with these additional 23 pressures? Are we going to see these pipelines now 24 suddenly, for the first time, in thirty (30) years, 25 operating at their maximum pressures?
2029
1 And then the question is: How will that 2 pipeline behave? What will it look like, and how will it 3 react to those additional pressures? 4 And I think the Baker Petrolite or the 5 Baker-Hughes Report, which I have put before the Board, 6 has some portions of it, which are of considerable 7 concern to my clients. 8 And -- and suggest that this pipeline may 9 in fact be -- may not be a suitable candidate for 10 sustaining these increased pressures. 11 So, this is what I'm going to explore and 12 it seems to me it falls squarely within the -- the 13 Board's ruling. 14 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well certainly the 15 Board has made its ruling already as what it's interested 16 in this proceeding, and then I guess it's a matter of -- 17 of the specific questions. 18 So I'm not -- I'm still not -- it's not 19 clear to me what -- what is being asked of the Board. 20 The Board's made its position on what it's interested in 21 quite clear and, you know, nothing's changed that I'm 22 aware of. 23 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And in -- and in 24 fact, in the -- the Board's letter, the Board clearly 25 stated that it was not about to prejudge the type of
2030
1 questions that may be useful and, ultimately, it's for 2 the Board to assess the evidence and, you know, at the 3 end of the day, determine whether that is of -- of help 4 to the Board. 5 But I can certainly tell you, Mr. 6 Chairman, I don't intend to go down a path that I do not 7 think is relevant and I believe this area is extremely 8 relevant. 9 I mean, my -- this panel, Mr. Bissett, 10 talks about what are the risks? What are the chances of 11 a well blowout? But what are the chances of pipeline 12 failure? 13 As the Board knows in its own documents 14 and as was submitted in the White exhibit, in the Board's 15 annual report, they were in excess of -- there were an 16 increase in the number of pipeline failures as a result 17 of corrosion over the previous year. 18 I believe that's at Tab 19 of Exhibit 007- 19 07. So, this Board is obviously concerned about the 20 potential for a blowout, but this Board should also be 21 concerned about the potential for pipeline leaks in the 22 event that this -- these wells are put into the six (6) 23 inch pipeline at maximum pressure. 24 I think the Board is going to have to take 25 a look at, you know, what are the risks there and that's
2031
1 why I think the Board wisely chose, as a -- as an issue 2 of concern, you know, what are the -- an identification 3 of the -- the safety of that pipeline and the integrity 4 of that pipeline under operating conditions that that 5 pipeline hasn't seen, probably since day one. 6 So that's where I'm going, Mr. Chairman 7 and I think if Mr. McLarty has -- if there's a question 8 that I ask that he thinks is improper, then he should 9 stand up and say I shouldn't be able to ask that 10 question. 11 And then we'll get a ruling. But I can't 12 see any other way than this general shot across the bow, 13 you know, I'm going to ask my questions on this report 14 and then I'd like to move on. 15 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr. McLarty...? 16 MR. ALLAN McLARTY: Well, I think we can 17 make it simple for Mr. Secord, sir. He's made it 18 patently obvious that he is either appealing or ignoring 19 the specific Board ruling. He wants to go into the 20 integrity of the pipeline and he wants to appeal to all 21 of the issues. 22 The fact is, he's made it specific that 23 what he wants to talk about is the relatively -- 24 relativity between the pipeline licence pressure and what 25 it actually operates at.
2032
1 The relevant -- the pipeline is licensed 2 to operate at a specific pressure. If the Board didn't 3 think it should be licensed at that, the Board would have 4 done something about that. 5 And, in fact, that was the exact issue 6 that was raised in the context of the Dynegy proceeding. 7 But, as I said, I'm gong to make it simple for Mr. 8 Secord. I'd just like the Court reporter to read back 9 his last question, and I'm going to say, I object, and 10 then we can have a ruling on that, sir. 11 MR. RICHARD SECORD: I think it would be 12 useful if the Board looked at Exhibit 001-039 and this is 13 the letter from Mr. McKee to Mr. McLarty on his Motion 14 and it says at the bottom of the first page: 15 "The Board provides the following 16 clarification with respect to this 17 issue." 18 Second bullet: 19 "The Board will only hear evidence on 20 the pipeline integrity issue as it 21 relates specifically to the additional 22 through-put volumes of gas that would 23 be attributed to the proposed wells. 24 This evidence would be heard for the 25 specific purpose of assisting the Board
2033
1 with respect to its assessment of the 2 proposed wells. 3 The Board is not prepared to speculate 4 on the nature and type of evidence 5 which might be relevant to its 6 consideration of this issue and leaves 7 it to the parties to submit whatever 8 evidence they feel would assist the 9 Board in its deliberations. While at 10 all times being mindful that the Board 11 will ultimately determine the relevance 12 of evidence submitted." 13 Now, in relation to this question of 14 additional throughput volumes of gas, surely, Mr. 15 Chairman, the pressure, the operating pressure of the 16 pipeline is relevant and how the pipeline is currently 17 operating is relevant. 18 How will it handle those additional 19 throughput volumes? The question you asked on January 20 13th to Mr. Longfield, will they be restricting the 21 volumes of gas? How long will it operate at maximum 22 pressure? What is that going to do to the line? 23 It seems to me all of these things are 24 related to pipeline integrity. 25 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, I mean, I think
2034
1 it's simply restated what the Board's ruling is and it's 2 going to be on the nature of individual questions and/or 3 individual line of questioning. 4 I don't know what more I can say. The 5 Board was pretty clear on its ruling that it's not 6 prepared to speculate on the nature and type of evidence. 7 So, so I guess, what's the question? The 8 last question I heard was: Who is the current, when that 9 report was written, who was the current provider of 10 engineering services? That's the question I heard. 11 Am I missing something? 12 MR. RICHARD SECORD: No, that's -- you 13 heard it very well, sir. 14 THE CHAIRPERSON: And that was the top of 15 page 3 of that report. 16 MR. ALLAN MCLARTY: And my objection, 17 sir, was that that question was not a proper question, 18 not within the scope of the hearing and I object to it 19 because My Friend, -- for the very reason that My Friend 20 is attempting to expand the scope of the questioning in 21 the hearing and the evidence beyond the express Ruling 22 that the Board has made. 23 And I don't know how many times you have 24 to hear it from him, he keeps telling that he wants to 25 examine the integrity of the pipeline; that is
2035
1 specifically what the Board said would not be part of 2 this Hearing. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, I think we're 7 getting close to our break time for the day. And so I 8 think we're going to -- if we're going to have a lot of 9 questions about this, I think that'll be the end of the 10 questions for today. 11 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Well, Mr. Chairman, 12 what I'd like to do if I could, there's a few requests 13 that I have by way of undertaking, that I'd like to get 14 on the record. 15 But just in relation to Mr. McLarty's 16 comment, please -- the decision 2003-088, I just refer to 17 the Board's identification of the issues, integrity of 18 existing pipelines and facilities. 19 And you know, if you look at the 20 transcript and listen to Mr. McLarty, he's saying, 21 integrity of the existing pipelines. Mr. Secord can't 22 explore that. Well, it's right in the pre-Hearing 23 Decision. So, I invite you to, when you make your Ruling 24 on Monday, to look at what Mr. McLarty said. 25 And all the Board did in Mr. McKee's
2036
1 letter was clarify that, but it doesn't change the area 2 that the Board has allowed Intervenors to explore. 3 And -- and as a further point, the 4 evidence establishes that these pipelines have been 5 operating at well under half of their licensed MOP. And 6 the issues that this Board has to wrestle with is, what 7 happens when you put the six (6) wells into this six (6) 8 inch pipeline, with a 35.6 percent sour gas and which 9 will increase the rate of corrosion, and that is 10 something the Board should be very concerned about. 11 Now, to -- to conclude the day, I'd like 12 to -- 13 MR. ALLAN MCLARTY: Excuse me, could I -- 14 MR RICHARD SECORD: -- just put some 15 undertakings to the Panel which -- 16 MR. ALLAN MCLARTY: -- can I just 17 interrupt for a moment please, sir. 18 I'm a bit disconcerted by -- by the 19 additional argument that Mr. Secord just led you through, 20 and I've got to say that I'm concerned that it really 21 does seriously misrepresent what actually happened. 22 He took you back to the pre-Hearing 23 decision and -- and made reference to what pipeline 24 integrity meant. And now he wants you to look at that, 25 and look at that discussion for making a -- a ruling,
2037
1 presumably, on Monday. 2 What Mr. Secord didn't tell you is it was 3 that very debate, that exact issue, that resulted in the 4 ruling made by the Board on September the 7th. Mr. 5 Secord and I and others got into a question as to what 6 pipeline integrity issues were to be examined in this 7 particular Proceeding, that the Board had identified in 8 that pre-Hearing meeting. 9 And the purpose of this ruling that I 10 sought from the Board, and that is reflected in the 11 Board's September 7th letter, addresses exactly that; to 12 clarify what would be open for discussion in this 13 particular Proceeding. 14 And I am going to suggest to you, although 15 the Board's letter speaks quite nicely for itself, the 16 letter says, quite nicely, if the matters in issue touch 17 upon whether the licenses for the wells should be granted 18 or not, that's relevant and you can pursue that. 19 If the matters that he wants to pursue 20 relate to whether this pipeline is a good pipeline, a bad 21 pipeline or one that should be operated at all or under a 22 different operating pressure, that is not relevant. It's 23 not material to this proceeding; because that's not a 24 matter that's before this Board. 25 And, quite frankly, that is a matter that
2038
1 has been decided in another proceeding. It's a matter 2 that this Board operates -- audits on quite a regular 3 basis. 4 And the fact that My Friend wants to 5 extend the scope of the proceeding into that is not 6 proper and I would hope you'd tell him that. 7 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Mr. Chairman, I 8 think you indicated that I could request some 9 undertakings from the Panel, to use up the last ten (10) 10 minutes or so; is that agreeable? 11 THE CHAIRPERSON: That's fine with me. 12 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Thank you. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. RICHARD SECORD: 15 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Mr. Follensbee in 16 your opening -- your direct evidence on page 2 at line 3 17 you say: 18 "While MPP is a separate entity from 19 Compton, Compton provides management 20 services to MPP pursuant to a 21 management agreement." 22 Has that management agreement been 23 produced in these proceedings? 24 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: No. 25 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Would you undertake
2039
1 to produce a copy of that management agreement? 2 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: I guess, I'd have 3 to seek some counsel as to whether or not we can disclose 4 that agreement publicly. 5 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Okay, so you'll -- 6 you'll let me know through -- you'll take that under 7 advisement and let me know on Monday? 8 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: I will. 9 10 --- UNDERTAKING NO. 36: To produce a copy of the 11 Compton/MPP management 12 agreement (Taken under 13 advisement) 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. RICHARD SECORD: 16 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Next, at line 5 it 17 says: 18 "Furthermore, the directors and 19 officers of MPP Ltd., which is the 20 general partner of MPP, are all senior 21 management of Compton." 22 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Yes. 23 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Lastly: 24 "MPP is the administrator ..." 25 Okay, I see. Actually, going up above
2040
1 there, you have the management agreement. But if you 2 begin at line 1 it says: 3 "The Mazeppa Processing Partnership, or 4 MPP, will be responsible for the day- 5 to-day operation of the proposed wells 6 and facilities in accordance with a 7 contract operating agreement between 8 MPP and Compton." 9 I take it, is this a separate agreement 10 from the management agreement? 11 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Yes. And that 12 agreement has been in place since Dynegy days. It's 13 between -- it was between Dynegy and Compton and has been 14 assigned forward with each sale of the facility. 15 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And is that a 16 contract operating agreement -- has that been produced in 17 these proceedings? 18 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: I haven't seen it. 19 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Would you undertake 20 to produce a copy of that contract operating agreement? 21 MR. ALLAN MCLARTY: Can I address? 22 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Sure. 23 MR. ALLAN MCLARTY: Again, sir, if it is 24 relevant and if it's material then we're happy to 25 consider it. I haven't heard anything from My Friend, as
2041
1 of yet, to indicate or suggest that it is relevant and it 2 is material information. 3 Now, if all he's on is another fishing 4 expedition, I object to that too. So -- 5 MR. RICHARD SECORD: That's a fascinating 6 proposition, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McLarty puts in an 7 opening statement and has Mr. Follensbee refer to an 8 operating -- contract operating agreement and a 9 management agreement. 10 And he has the nerve to stand up and say 11 to you how is it relevant? Well, if it wasn't relevant 12 why did Mr. McLarty have those words put into the opening 13 statement? It is clearly relevant. And should be 14 produced. 15 So if Mr. McLarty wants to take that under 16 advisement and give the Board a rational explanation as 17 to why it's not relevant when it's been read into the 18 record, I'd be pleased to receive that on Monday. But 19 that request stands. 20 21 --- UNDERTAKING NO. 37: To produce a copy of the 22 contract operating agreement 23 between Dynegy and Compton 24 (Taken Under Advisement) 25
2042
1 CONTINUED BY MR. RICHARD SECORD: 2 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Page 3, -- page 2, 3 line 22, Mr. Follensbee, you said: 4 "Second, there is a rigorous corrosion 5 control program implemented for this 6 pipeline system." 7 Is that rigorous corrosion control program 8 in a operations manual? And if so, I would like it 9 produced. 10 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: It's not in a 11 specific manual. There are, I guess, elements -- I don't 12 know how to describe it. We have a book, we have all the 13 elements of that program, what we're doing -- excuse me 14 for a minute. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: It's probably in a 19 rather large book that describes the mitigation program, 20 the frequency of pigging, the batch in addition program, 21 the chemicals, the continuous injection program and the 22 chemicals that are using, the monitoring, the probes, the 23 coupons, the scaling, all the analysis of scaling, liquid 24 samples, inline inspection tools; it's a conglomeration 25 of everything we do.
2043
1 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And is that located 2 in one (1) document? 3 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: I think it's 4 probably a fairly large book of -- it can be records of 5 analysis, various pieces of paper. 6 MR. RICHARD SECORD: So, do you have -- 7 do you have an operations manual, then, that deals with 8 the integrity of the North Mazeppa Pipeline? 9 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Yes, I think we do 10 and I say that because, you know, when folks refer to 11 manuals and companies, it's generally a document that 12 attempts to -- to have some consistency across an 13 organization, the -- from different managers, different 14 field people, different everything. 15 Mazeppa Partnership owns one (1) gas plant 16 and one (1) set of pipelines and has the same people 17 looking after those and so our manual is -- is our 18 working -- it's a -- it's -- it's a working document, 19 because, as you can appreciate, responding to the -- the 20 program with -- with all our monitoring, we -- we changed 21 things as need be. 22 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Do you have a 23 document that deals with the integrity of the North 24 Mazeppa Pipe -- Pipeline? 25 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: I would think so,
2044
1 yes. That's -- we've done inline inspection tools, we do 2 monitoring as I've described in the corrosion spools, 3 monitoring the liquids, monitoring the -- 4 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Would you undertake 5 to produce that document that relates to the integrity of 6 the North Mazeppa Pipeline? 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Well, you're asking 11 for all our material on our corrosion program? 12 MR. RICHARD SECORD: No, I'm -- I'm 13 saying, Mr. Follensbee, you said -- second -- there is a 14 rigorous corrosion control program implemented for the 15 pipeline system. You've indicated to me that this -- the 16 rigorous corrosion control program has some written 17 component to it. It'd like to see the written component 18 produced. 19 20 --- UNDERTAKING NO. 38: Compton to provide a document 21 addressing the integrity of 22 the North Mazeppa pipeline. 23 (Reserved Exhibit 39-029(a) 24 given to Mr. Secord page 25 2044, line 20)
2045
1 2 --- EXHIBIT NO. 39-29(a): Compton to provide a document 3 addressing the integrity of 4 the North Mazeppa pipeline. 5 (Undertaking No. 38 given to 6 Mr. Secord at page 2044, line 7 20) 8 9 MR. ALLAN McLARTY: Mr. Chairman, can I 10 just perhaps help here. I take Mr. Secord's point and -- 11 and acknowledge that in adducing the direct evidence, I 12 suppose in trying to be helpful in providing background, 13 I inadvertently -- maybe we have opened the door to Mr. 14 Secord to obtain some additional information. 15 Rather than he asking for an undertaking, 16 maybe he could just go through his list now, identify all 17 of the documents that he believes are identified by that 18 opening statement that he needs to have produced to 19 assist him, and we will advise on Monday as to the extent 20 that we're able to comply or satisfy those undertakings. 21 But I would ask, sir, that he confine 22 himself to the documents that are referred to in the 23 opening statements and we'll be happy to respond to that. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. RICHARD SECORD:
2046
1 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Mr. Follensbee, in 2 your opening statement you go on to say that this 3 rigorous corrosion control program is administered by the 4 MPP staff who operate the Mazeppa area sour gas wells and 5 pipelines. 6 Who are those staff? 7 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: That -- the staff 8 would be David Patterson who is the production foreman 9 and three (3) operators that he has on his staff. 10 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And where do you 11 reside, Mr. Follensbee? Are you at the Mazeppa plant? 12 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: No, I'm in Calgary. 13 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And is there any 14 reporting relationship between Mr. Patterson and 15 yourself? 16 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Yes. Mr. Patterson 17 reports to David Voroney who is the plant manager 18 responsible for the plant and the pipelines. He reports 19 to me. 20 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Okay. And then you 21 went on to say that -- that the program utilizes the 22 expertise of experienced consultants and chemical 23 providers; one (1) of those chemical providers is Baker 24 Hughes, correct? 25 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Yeah, Baker
2047
1 Petrolite, that's correct. 2 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And that was the 3 report -- the October 29 -- the -- the document that we 4 were looking at under cover of the letter from Mr. 5 Patterson of October 29, 2003; that's Baker Petrolite or 6 Baker Hughes, one (1) of these people you identified in 7 this opening statement? 8 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: That's correct. 9 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And then finally you 10 say the program has been regularly audited by Alberta 11 Energy and Utilities Board, which has again recently 12 confirmed that it is satisfied that the corrosion 13 mitigation program is being managed in accordance with 14 Canadian Standard Association, Standard Z-662 and the 15 Alberta Pipeline Act and Pipeline Regulation, correct? 16 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: That's correct. 17 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And would you 18 undertake to produce to me the letter that you received 19 from the EUB, which confirmed? 20 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: I would be happy to 21 do that. 22 23 --- UNDERTAKING NO. 39: Compton to produce the letter 24 from the EUB which confirms 25 that it is satisfied that the
2048
1 corrosion mitigation program 2 is being managed in 3 accordance with Canadian 4 Standard Association, 5 Standard Z-662 and the 6 Alberta Pipeline Act and 7 Pipeline Regulation (Reserved 8 Exhibit No. 39-029)(Given to 9 Mr. Secord at page 2045 line 10 23) 11 12 --- EXHIBIT NO. 39-029(b): Compton to provide a letter 13 from EUB confirming the EUB's 14 satisfaction with Compton's 15 current corrosion mitigation 16 program for the North Mazeppa 17 pipeline. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. RICHARD SECORD: 20 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And are there other 21 letters that are in the -- in the possession of MPP that 22 precede this most recent letter? 23 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: There might be, I'm 24 -- I haven't seen them directly. But obviously -- 25 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Would you undertake
2049
1 -- would you undertake to produce -- 2 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: We've -- we've had 3 six (6) months reviews with the EUB Pipeline Department 4 since 2000. 5 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Okay, I'd appreciate 6 it if you would produce those other -- 7 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Yes. 8 MR. RICHARD SECORD: -- letters as well. 9 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: If they exist. 10 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Okay. 11 12 --- UNDERTAKING NO. 40: Compton to produce the six 13 month reviews with the EUB 14 Pipeline Department since 15 2000. (Reserved Exhibit No. 16 39-030)(Given to Mr. Secord 17 at page 2047 line 12) 18 19 --- EXHIBIT NO. 39-029(c): Compton to produce the six 20 month reviews with the EUB 21 Pipeline Department since 22 2000. (Given to Mr. Secord as 23 Undertaking No. 40, page 2047 24 line 12) 25
2050
1 CONTINUED BY MR. RICHARD SECORD: 2 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Thank you very much, 3 Panel. I'll adjourn my cross-examination until 1:30 on 4 Monday afternoon. 5 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr. Secord, 6 before you go, could you just assist the Board on this 7 one (1) specific question that we have to give a ruling 8 on. 9 Could you just tell -- tell the Board what 10 the relevancy of knowing the name of that specific 11 engineering firm, when that report was done? 12 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Mr. Chairman, I 13 suspect that it's still being utilized by MPP. 14 THE CHAIRPERSON: So you -- if the Board 15 -- is that part of the question then? Is it the same 16 provider then; is that really your question? 17 MR. RICHARD SECORD: That's right. And 18 if you go on to read, it states that: 19 "The high -- high level of qualitative 20 risk assessment component of the 21 process is being performed as a 22 secondary function outside the day-to- 23 day functions of the field teams." 24 I wanted to ask Mr. Follensbee who the 25 field teams were. Then it goes on to say:
2051
1 "During the recent risk assessment that 2 has been commissioned, Baker Petrolite 3 has not been asked to provide any 4 specific information, which is very 5 unusual in our experience." 6 And if you go on to read this document, as 7 I have done, it is, you know, of concern to both me and 8 my clients, in terms of the capability of the six (6) 9 inch flowline, to receive increased volumes of H2S gas, 10 and elemental sulphur. 11 So, that's the road that I want to go 12 down, and I would think that that is something the Board 13 would balance, when it comes time to decide whether these 14 Well Licenses should be issued. 15 THE CHAIRPERSON: Why don't -- just to 16 make it simple for the Board, why don't you ask that 17 question now, and so that we know if Mr. McLarty is going 18 to object to that question, and whether that's an issue. 19 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And which question 20 is that, sir? 21 THE CHAIRPERSON: Whether the -- the 22 current provider that was referred to in this report, is 23 still the -- the current one (1) as of today's date. 24 That's what I understood you to be asking. 25 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Right, I'm assuming
2052
1 it's AIE Engineering, Mr. Follensbee; is that correct? 2 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: Yes, that's 3 correct. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. RICHARD SECORD: 6 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And you're still 7 using AIE? 8 MR. GARY FOLLENSBEE: That's correct. 9 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Yeah. So I -- I 10 don't think anything that I'm going to deal with -- 11 THE CHAIRPERSON: So -- 12 MR. RICHARD SECORD: -- is -- is rocket 13 science, sir, it's all -- 14 THE CHAIRPERSON: I didn't see Mr. 15 McLarty getting up to object on that question, so I don't 16 know what there is to -- 17 MR. ALLAN MCLARTY: Well, we're just -- 18 we're just going to go continually down the road, and I'm 19 going to object to the next question, because it's not 20 relevant. 21 Just because he was able to answer the 22 question doesn't make it -- 23 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, I was waiting to 24 see if you -- my question to Mr. Secord was whether 25 you're going to object because I wanted to know if I have
2053
1 two (2) questions to deal with or only one (1). 2 But you didn't object, so I guess the 3 question is moot now. Can we say that we don't have an - 4 - a spare time activity for the Board now -- 5 MR. ALLAN MCLARTY: Well, you could -- 6 THE CHAIRPERSON: -- on that question? 7 MR. ALLAN MCLARTY: You could certainly 8 do that and we could reserve this whole debate to start 9 over again on Monday at 1:30, I suppose. I guess, I 10 would say to you, sir, it's got to be pretty obvious, I 11 think, to the Board at this point in time that -- 12 THE CHAIRPERSON: We know what the issues 13 are. 14 MR. ALLAN MCLARTY: Yes, sir -- 15 THE CHAIRPERSON: Sure. 16 MR. ALLAN MCLARTY: -- and -- and, you 17 know, and Mr. Secord is going to push the limit and we 18 need to figure out whether you're going to allow him to 19 do that again. 20 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Let me just say, Mr. 21 Chairman, I do not intend to waste the Board's time. And 22 if you say to me that this is not something that is of 23 value to the Board, then, you know, I would like to hear 24 that and -- and not -- and not waste your time or mine. 25 But I did not -- I do -- I do not believe
2054
1 that this area is -- I believe this area is fundamental 2 to this Hearing. I've looked at previous Board decisions 3 where the Board has opined on increasing pressures on 4 lines that have had problems in the past. 5 So I think it falls squarely within the 6 Board's issues that it's identified. I leave it at that. 7 I have one (1) point, though, sir, and I think it would 8 be useful if we could mark the documents that I handed 9 out as -- as an exhibit before we conclude. 10 The first extract dealing with the -- the 11 letter of October 29th, 2003 and pages 6, 13, 21, 23 and 12 24; is that agreeable. 13 THE CHAIRPERSON: That would be Exhibit 14 39-030. 15 16 --- EXHIBIT NO. 39-030: Package containing: 1. A 17 letter from D. Patterson of 18 the Mazeppa Processing 19 Partnership to D. Grzyb of 20 the EUB regarding a pipeline 21 integrity program review 22 request, Oct 29, 2003; 2. 23 Excerpts from Baker Hughes 24 report dated June 2003 25
2055
1 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And then the Baker 2 Petrolite Report which is the extract which is pages 31 3 of 244 to page 65 of 244; if that could be Exhibit 039- 4 031? 5 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 6 7 --- EXHIBIT NO. 039-031: Package containing three (3) 8 reports prepared by Baker 9 Hughes: 1. "Mazeppa 10 Processing Partnership, North 11 Section, Corrosion Mitigation 12 Program Changes," Oct. 24, 13 2003; 2. "Mazeppa Processing 14 Partnership, 11-24-22-29 to 15 10-13-22-29 Line Mitigation 16 Proposal," Oct 24, 2003; 3. 17 "Mazeppa Monitoring 18 Recommendations," Oct. 27, 19 2003. 20 21 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And, sir, would it 22 be useful to have the electronic version marked as an 23 exhibit? 24 THE CHAIRPERSON: It would be more 25 convenient if you just resubmitted it, I think.
2056
1 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Okay. And so should 2 we give that a number -- a number then as zero (0) -- the 3 full electronic document as 039-032? 4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 5 6 --- EXHIBIT NO. 039-032: File of information contained 7 in Ex. 039-030 and Ex. 039- 8 031. 9 10 MR. RICHARD SECORD: And if, perhaps, I 11 could ask, given the apparent limitations of my computer, 12 the document is fairly large, it doesn't seem that I can 13 send it out, so if -- if I believe Board staff does have 14 the electronic copy, so if I could ask if Board staff 15 could have that posted to the website directly; is that 16 agreeable? And just for the -- just for the record. 17 THE CHAIRPERSON: So is it an issue then 18 that -- that the CD should be brought for the -- for 19 Monday with some of these larger documents then? 20 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Right. Just for the 21 record, sir, the -- the PDF file name is Baker Hughes 22 Mazeppa Corrosion Program Update October 29, 2003 pdf. 23 And -- 24 THE CHAIRPERSON: So just to clarify, 25 who's bringing the CDs on Monday?
2057
1 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Okay. I have a CD 2 here with -- with all of the documents that were listed 3 in Mr. Duncan's report. Full electronic versions. But 4 this one was specifically -- this was sent out yesterday, 5 the Baker Hughes. So that one I think we've marked as 6 Exhibit 39-032. 7 And I would just ask if Board staff could 8 post that to the website. 9 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Sure. I'm sure 10 they can handle that. Mr. McKee, did you have a comment? 11 MR. J.R. MCKEE: Yes. Board staff have 12 advised that they -- the Board will have CDs with the 13 documentation on it. 14 THE CHAIRPERSON: Oh, okay. That's -- I 15 just want to clarify if you were asking us but they 16 volunteered so it didn't matter. 17 MR. RICHARD SECORD: Okay. And, in fact, 18 my understanding, sir, is all of the documents that Mr. - 19 - Mr. Duncan referred to in his report are on a CD and it 20 may be more convenient, what he did was just took -- he 21 took some bits and pieces out of it but it might be 22 useful to have the full electronic version eventually 23 entered as an exhibit so that we've got the complete 24 documents. 25 But we can deal with that on Monday.
2058
1 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. The Board has 2 got a couple of matters to go through but I see Mr. Edie 3 is waiting to say something here. 4 MR. DON EDIE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 5 Yesterday I indicated that I would be in a position to 6 distribute copies of the maps to which we propose Mr. 7 Clark will speak and I have those now and am prepared to 8 distribute them, sir. 9 THE CHAIRPERSON: Sure. So do we need an 10 exhibit number for those? 11 MR. DON EDIE: I don't believe we do, sir. 12 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. 13 MR. DON EDIE: I would suggest that 14 simply -- 15 THE CHAIRPERSON: Wait until -- 16 MR. DON EDIE: Wait until it's -- 17 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 18 MR. DON EDIE: -- presented by the 19 witness. 20 THE CHAIRPERSON: That's more 21 appropriate, thank you. 22 MR. DON EDIE: Thank you. I will put -- 23 I'll distribute to the parties as well as staff and leave 24 copies on the table outside the room. 25 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good. Thank you, Mr.
2059
1 Edie. Has anybody else have any things you want to 2 raise? Mr. Bissett...? 3 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Yes, sir. 4 THE CHAIRPERSON: You had offered to make 5 a comment which I declined at the time. Did -- was there 6 something that you wanted to assist -- comment that you 7 want to assist the Board with? 8 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: The -- the comment 9 that I was going -- going to comment on was your question 10 with respect to the procedure or the protocol that we go 11 through or that our field representatives go through, 12 when they meet with the residents and what that final 13 question is -- is -- is liable to be out there. I guess 14 the point I wanted to make was -- was your question was - 15 - was asked in a general sense. 16 And the comment I wanted to make was, from 17 across this province when -- when we start a public 18 consultation program, we will move into areas like 19 Lodgepole, for example. We'll move into other areas like 20 Maycroft or parts of the province where there is or 21 there's very little oil and gas activity. 22 Depending upon which part of the province 23 we're in depends on a large degree how much time is spent 24 with the people explaining the project. 25 There are areas of the province that are
2060
1 not familiar with oil and gas industry and therefore we 2 spend considerably more time communicating with the 3 public about the project and doing, for all practical 4 purpose, a lot of training, a lot of -- of information 5 passing on to these people. 6 In the Lodgepole area, for example, very 7 little time is probably spent with the people because 8 they see so many oil and gas company coming around. They 9 -- they know what you're there for, they understand the 10 issues, their comments and -- and so forth. 11 But getting down to the very last question 12 and it's liable to be asked as Mr. Brown alluded to, the 13 confidential resident questionnaire is indeed presented 14 to those individuals. They're asked to -- to make sure 15 that what they have is, indeed, what they told us. 16 But more importantly, the -- that last 17 question is: do you have any concerns, issues, 18 information requests or -- or anything of that nature? 19 And if they do have, it will be recorded. 20 If they don't have, that'll be recorded or whatever the - 21 - the situation might be. 22 And our -- not only this disclosure 23 program, but all of our -- all our public disclosure 24 sheets on there is, and I want to make sure that -- that 25 everybody understands this, that that is a judgment call
2061
1 by the individual that conducted that consultation 2 process that there are no issues, there are unknown 3 issues or there's a potential objector and I think if you 4 go through the thirty-nine (39) sheets, you'll probably 5 find comments to the fact, unknown, potential objector, 6 is objecting and so forth and so on. 7 So, whether or not that will -- 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yeah, I think -- 9 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: -- provide any 10 clarification, why -- 11 THE CHAIRPERSON: I think the record is 12 quite clear that if -- if somebody says, I'm not sure, 13 that you don't use a negative billing approach and -- and 14 say that you've received a statement of non-objection. 15 And so you're just very fortunate to have 16 a very decisive group of people to have contacted. 17 MR. RICHARD BISSETT: Yes, sir and we 18 reach an endpoint there where there are two (2) issues. 19 It gets boiled down to if you do have a problem or a 20 concern, we will address all issues to do with procedure, 21 safety, educating, providing information, explaining 22 situations, explaining operations, and -- and so forth. 23 Situation 2. As soon as a resident or a 24 member of the public asks our people a policy question, 25 for example, does your client pay compensation, and how
2062
1 much, during an emergency situation? 2 We will not address issues of that nature. 3 We will say, I'm -- I'm sorry, you do not want to hear 4 that from us. We will make sure that one (1) of our -- 5 that a representative from our client will contact you 6 and address any issues of -- of that nature. 7 THE CHAIRPERSON: And, Mr. Brown, I'll 8 give you an opportunity if you have any closing, or any - 9 - I did cut you off, I acknowledge, but I will ask you to 10 reflect on my previous comments the other morning, is 11 that we're asking people to be focussed and on target. 12 But if you've -- if you -- I give you an 13 opportunity if you do want to, you know, provide -- I 14 didn't mean to cut you off unnecessarily. 15 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: No, I'll work harder 16 to keep my answers shorter. 17 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, or you know, you 18 know what I'm getting at, it's not necessarily short, I'm 19 not trying to cut somebody off, it's just... 20 MR. RUSSELL BROWN: No, I have no -- no 21 concerns. 22 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you. Mr. 23 Longfield, are you in a good mood today? 24 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: I am always in a 25 good mood.
2063
1 THE CHAIRPERSON: Oh good. Well, I've 2 got a request for you to consider, and wanted to ask you 3 if you'd be willing to undertake to do this piece of 4 work. Actually it'll -- might increase Mr. Crooks' 5 billing, but I won't ask him how much. 6 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: I do appreciate the 7 fact that you were sensitive to that part, although you 8 did ask Mr. McLarty, I'm not sure you asked the right 9 person, but that -- that's fine. 10 A request from the Panel I treat very 11 similar to a request from my spouse to possibly go and 12 take the garbage out, or possibly repaint, you know, a 13 room that was painted two (2) -- 14 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well -- 15 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: -- months ago, or 16 something. So, I'm happy to listen to your question. 17 THE CHAIRPERSON: But I'm sure if -- if 18 there's any issue of the relevancy, Mr. McLarty is -- is 19 usually not bashful about earning his hourly rate in 20 protecting his client, and doing the service that he's 21 expected to do. 22 Anyways, enough on the -- on the lighter 23 side here. 24 But -- and just to tell you why the -- the 25 relevancy of the reason I'm asking the question. And as
2064
1 you know, the difference between -- there's a significant 2 difference between relevancy and the weight that the 3 Board will ultimately assign to -- a lot of matters may 4 have relevancy, but may be given no weight in the final 5 decision. 6 So, just so you understand that part. 7 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: Certainly. 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: But anyways, one (1) of 9 the -- the matters we had discussed with you in the 10 previous Panel was the Board has got a variety of 11 decisions it has to make here, including to approve it or 12 not approve it, or to approve it, and if so, under what 13 conditions. 14 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: Hmm hmm. 15 THE CHAIRPERSON: So one (1) of the items 16 that we discussed was whether an option that the Board 17 might consider is -- is specifying a maximum horizontal 18 length to the -- to the wells, and we all recognize 19 that's -- you stated your position on that, and so on. 20 So, the -- the request for the undertaking 21 is this. In light of the evidence submitted by Compton 22 and my notes say here it was Exhibit 39-019(d), as in 23 Donald, the Board Panel requests the following 24 undertaking. 25 We would like Compton to calculate
2065
1 Emergency Plan -- Planning Zone distances for the H2S 2 release rates, associated with horizontal well bore 3 lengths of five hundred (500) metres and a thousand 4 (1,000) metres, for both the drilling and completion 5 scenarios. 6 We would expect the methodology used would 7 allow direct comparison of the results to the calculated 8 EPZ distances for the maximum H2S release rates. Please 9 present this data in tabular form, along with the EPZ 10 distances calculated for the maximum H2S release rates, 11 and present the important parameters used in the 12 modelling in easily comparable format. 13 For comparative purposes, also present the 14 EPZ distances calculated with the current Guide 71 15 equations. 16 Now, you're the only Panel that's on the - 17 - of course on the stand, so I can't really request the 18 Intervenors to do the same, but I -- what I can say is I 19 would invite the Intervenors, if they choose to do so, to 20 submit their own assessment of the same information. 21 So, what do you think, Mr. Longfield, is 22 that an undertaking you're willing to undertake? 23 MR. DEREK LONGFIELD: I am willing to 24 undertake anything that's helpful, that is obviously 25 relevant, and that is within the scope of things we can
2066
1 do. 2 Now unfortunately, approximately 40 3 percent of what you said to me is not in my realm of 4 expertise, so to the -- I'm happy to give Mr. Crooks the 5 go ahead to do that type of work, and I believe Mr. 6 Kenny's done his part already. 7 But if Mr. -- if you'd allow Mr. Crooks 8 just to respond as to whether it's something he thinks he 9 can do, and if he says, yes, we're on board. 10 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, Mr. Crooks, what 11 do you think? This is something that is in -- within 12 your ability to do? 13 MR. GREGORY CROOKS: Yes, sir, it is. 14 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. And, Mr. 15 McLarty, do you have any objections to that, sir? 16 MR. ALLAN MCLARTY: Well, sir, I 17 certainly wouldn't object if my client has said that 18 they're prepared to do it. But I would like to just 19 obtain a small clarification, if I can. 20 I think in the request that you gave to 21 these folks, you referred to a calculation. Would I be 22 correct in assuming that what you are seeking is actually 23 the modelling results that would correspond to those 24 horizontal well bore lengths as well as the calculations 25 under the old guide? Is that what you were looking for?
2067
1 THE CHAIRPERSON: We're -- we're looking 2 for the summary results, and I think if there's -- if 3 there's some sort of detail type questions, you can 4 probably work with Board staff to sort of flush that out. 5 But what we're interested in is seeing the 6 sort of -- you know, the -- the summary results of this 7 information. 8 MR. ALLAN MCLARTY: Yeah, I -- we'll 9 pursue it through Mr. McKee, to make sure we've got a 10 complete and adequate understanding of what it is that 11 you are looking for. Thank you, sir. 12 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. And, Mr. 13 Fitch, did you have a comment? Oh, by the way, I should 14 -- let's reserve Exhibit 39-033 for that undertaking from 15 the Board Panel. 16 17 --- UNDERTAKING NO. 41: Compton to calculate 18 Emergency Planning Zone 19 distances for the H2S release 20 rates, associated with 21 horizontal well bore lengths 22 of five hundred (500) metres 23 and a thousand (1,000) 24 metres, for both the drilling 25 and completion scenarios.
2068
1 Also for comparative 2 purposes, present the EPZ 3 distances calculated with the 4 current Guide 71 equations 5 Reserved Exhibit No. 39- 6 033)(Given to Chairperson at 7 page 2066 line 17) 8 9 --- EXHIBIT NO. 39-033: Compton to calculate 10 Emergency Planning Zone radii 11 based on release rate results 12 contained in Exhibit 039- 13 021(e) (Given to 14 Chairperson as Undertaking 15 No. 41, page 2066 line 17) 16 17 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr. Fitch...? 18 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Thank you, Mr. 19 Chairman. In relation to your heads up, if I can call it 20 that, that you might want the Intervenors to do similar 21 modelling. Obviously I will seek instructions from my 22 client in that regard, and when I have those instructions 23 I will obviously advise the Board. 24 But I guess I do share a concern about the 25 need for clarity around what's being requested, and I
2069
1 don't think there's any mystery about the fact that we 2 have some modelling results that have been already put in 3 evidence by the Applicant, and we have modelling results 4 that have been put into evidence by my client, the 5 Frontline Residents Group, and they're not the same. 6 And the reason they're not the same, and 7 again, I don't think there's any mystery about this, 8 relates to some inputs into those models. At least we're 9 not arguing about the models, it seems to be narrowed 10 down to a couple of inputs. So, I'm not sure this has 11 turned into the sort of type of long drawn out dispersion 12 modelling exercise that we've seen in some previous 13 Hearings, which I'm sure we're all grateful for. 14 But what it does raise in my mind is some 15 uncertainty about are you asking Compton to have its 16 dispersion modeller use exactly the same assumptions as 17 was used in the work that's been done to date and the 18 Front Line Residents' Groups dispersion modeller to do 19 exactly what they've done already, i.e., they using the 20 same input parameters and all of that, and work up new 21 numbers based on these horizontal well bore lengths or 22 are we trying to come to some common ground on what the 23 input parameters are to work up? 24 THE CHAIRPERSON: This undertaking is the 25 way you first described it.
2070
1 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Okay. 2 THE CHAIRPERSON: But certainly the Board 3 would not object if parties and their professional 4 experts wanted to discuss and -- and narrow the 5 differences. The Board is always appreciative if -- if 6 parties can assist the Board in -- in reducing the 7 matters under debate, so. 8 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Sure. 9 THE CHAIRPERSON: Don't feel constrained. 10 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Okay. Well, I'm going 11 to use this opportunity to make a comment that perhaps I 12 should have made earlier when I was discussing the 13 response to the undertaking and whether it fully 14 responded to the undertaking that I had requested, 15 relating to -- or which resulted in the creation of 16 Exhibit 39-21(e). 17 And -- and that is that Compton has done 18 more, actually, in one sense than what we asked. What 19 they've done is they've introduced new evidence. They 20 have taken what they have called EUBMODELS Draft 2 and 21 worked up modelling runs based on this apparent draft to 22 present it at a workshop in November and presented 23 results which not, coincidentally, I'm sure, result in 24 lower predicted planning or smaller planning zones than 25 is otherwise the case.
2071
1 So I want to go on record as expressing 2 concern about the submission of new evidence. We didn't 3 ask for Mr. Crooks to: (a) make a judgment on whether 4 there is a new draft of the EUBMODELS and, (b) even if 5 there was, to provide new modelling based on that. 6 So I raise it now because I'm getting 7 concerned about the submission of a whole bunch of new 8 dispersion modelling evidence in this Hearing. 9 I -- I just want to make sure that -- 10 that, you know, at the end of the day, the record is -- 11 is clear about what information is being relied on by 12 both parties. 13 And I am concerned that, you know, 14 depending on the day, we're just going to keep getting 15 new modelling runs which always seem to indicate smaller 16 planning zones from Compton. 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 THE CHAIRPERSON: So you're just advising 21 the Board, you're not asking us to do anything at this 22 particular time. Is that correct? 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25
2072
1 MR. GAVIN FITCH: That's correct, Mr. 2 Chairman. I'm sorry if I went off on a bit of a tangent 3 but in relation to your specific request, I will seek 4 instructions from my client. I now have some 5 clarification from you as to what it is you're seeking, 6 so I will discuss this matter with my clients and with 7 Mr. Dowsett and we will endeavour to advise the Board as 8 soon as we can whether we would get a similar 9 undertaking. 10 THE CHAIRPERSON: Certainly. 11 MR. GAVIN FITCH: Thank you. 12 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Manning, are you 13 standing because you have something to say or are you 14 just stretching? 15 MR. LEWIS MANNING: I'm just standing. 16 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Any other 17 matters? Mr. McKee, do you have any matters? 18 MR. J.R. McKEE: Nothing, sir. 19 THE CHAIRPERSON: It looks like we're 20 adjourned then, until 1:30 on Monday afternoon. Thank 21 you to all parties for your assistance, and have a good 22 weekend. Thank you. 23 24 --- Upon adjourning at 1:26 p.m. 25
2073
1 Certified Correct, 2 3 4 5 6 7 ___________________ 8 Dustin Warnock 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25