18 records – page 1 of 1.

Decision 78-05

https://had.aer.ca/link/decision2115
Applicant
Energy Resources Conservation Board
Application Number
9750X
Title
Decision on proceeding on spacing and target area requirements for oil and gas wells drilled in the province of Alberta, 1978
Date
1978
Title
Decision on proceeding on spacing and target area requirements for oil and gas wells drilled in the province of Alberta, 1978
Date
1978
Applicant
Energy Resources Conservation Board
Application Number
9750X
Hearing Panel
Craig DR
Millard V
DeSorcy GJ
Hearing Type
Board
Category
Spacing
Descriptors
Drilling spacing unit
Land use
Target area
Well spacing
Agricultural land
Alberta
Citizen participation
Communication
Community relations
Economic analysis
Environmental impact
Gas well
History
Oil well
Procedure
Regulation
Legal References
Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations S4.030
Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations S15.060
Notes
Decision on proceeding No. 9750X to consider representations from agricultural groups on the need to amend the present well spacing and target area requirements
Less detail

Decision 82-15|82-15 Addendum

https://had.aer.ca/link/decision2063
Applicant
Canterra Energy Ltd.
Gulf Canada Resources Inc.
Application Number
810650
810849
Title
Decision on application by Canterra Energy Ltd. and Gulf Canada Resources Inc., 1982 (Ram River gas processing plant and Strachan gas processing plant) (and addendum)
Date
1982
Title
Decision on application by Canterra Energy Ltd. and Gulf Canada Resources Inc., 1982 (Ram River gas processing plant and Strachan gas processing plant) (and addendum)
Date
1982
Applicant
Canterra Energy Ltd.
Gulf Canada Resources Inc.
Application Number
810650
810849
Hearing Panel
Millard V
Strom NA
Evans RG
Hearing Type
Board
Category
Gas processing
Descriptors
Blackstone field
Brazeau River field
Chedderville field
Gas processing plant
Hanlan field
Ricinus field
Sour gas
Stolberg field
Strachan field
Capacity
Citizen participation
Design criteria
Desulphurization
Emission
Energy development
Environmental impact
IL-80-24
Expansion
NTS 82O
NTS 83B
NTS 83C
Revision
Sulfreen process
Sulphur dioxide
Sulphur recovery
Legal References
Oil and Gas Conservation Act S26
Notes
Decision 82-15 and addendum on application No. 810650 by Canterra (formerly Aquitaine) to amend approval No. 2820 to include additional fields and increase sulphur recovery for its Ram River gas plant located in section 2-37-10 W5M and on application No. 810849 by Gulf to amend approval No. 3351 to include additional fields and increase sulphur recovery for its Strachan gas plant located in section 35-37-9 W5M; Board hearing 1982-04-26/27 & 1982-05-03/04/05/06; see Decision D82-2 for related pipeline applications
Interveners
Rocky Veterinary Clinic Ltd.
Federation of Alberta Naturalists
The Alberta Fish and Game Association
Public Advisory Committee to the Environment Council of Alberta
Red Deer Fish and Game Association
Less detail

Decision 87-09

https://had.aer.ca/link/decision208
Applicant
Norcen Energy Resources Ltd.
Application Number
861041
Title
Decision on application by Norcen Energy Resources Ltd., 1987 (approval of a gas processing plant in the Campbell-Namao field)
Date
1987
Title
Decision on application by Norcen Energy Resources Ltd., 1987 (approval of a gas processing plant in the Campbell-Namao field)
Date
1987
Applicant
Norcen Energy Resources Ltd.
Application Number
861041
Hearing Panel
Goodman CJ
Mink FJ
Bruni MJ
Hearing Type
Board
Category
Gas processing
Descriptors
Campbell Namao field
Gas processing plant
Sour gas
Air pollution
Air quality
Citizen participation
Emission
Environmental impact
Health
Locating
Negotiation
Noise (sound)
NTS 73H
Safety
Soil analysis
Sulphur dioxide
Sulphur recovery
Water quality
Legal References
Oil and Gas Conservation Act S26
Notes
Decision D87-9 on application No. 861041 to construct a gas processing plant in LSD 1-55-25 W4M to process non-associate and solution gas from wells in several fields in the general area; Board hearing 1987-03-17/18/19
Interveners
Rose Ridge Citizens Committee
Blach, W.
Bocock, J.
Pasay, I.
Silito, S.
Sinkovics, A.
Zuidema, P.
Councillor in the Municipal District of Sturgeon #90
MLA for Consistuency of Westlock-Sturgeon
Location
##-01-055-25W4
Less detail

Decision 88-22

https://had.aer.ca/link/decision146
Applicant
Norcen Energy Resources Ltd.
Application Number
861041
Title
Decision on application by Norcen Energy Resources Ltd., 1988 (approval of a gas processing facility in the Campbell-Namao field)
Date
1988
Title
Decision on application by Norcen Energy Resources Ltd., 1988 (approval of a gas processing facility in the Campbell-Namao field)
Date
1988
Applicant
Norcen Energy Resources Ltd.
Application Number
861041
Hearing Panel
Mink FJ
Bruni MJ
Hearing Type
Board
Category
Gas processing
Descriptors
Campbell Namao field
Gas processing plant
Sour gas
Air pollution
Air quality
Citizen participation
Emission
Environmental impact
Health
Locating
Negotiation
Noise (sound)
NTS 73H
Safety
Soil analysis
Sulphur dioxide
Sulphur recovery
Water quality
Legal References
Oil and Gas Conservation Act S26
Notes
Decision D88-22 on application No. 861041 to construct a gas processing plant in LSD 1-55-25 W4M to process non-associate and solution gas from well in several fields in the general area; pre-hearing meeting held 1988-09-08.
Interveners
A Group of Area Residents
Blach, W.
Bocok, J.
Mackay, G.
Sinkovics, A.
Councillor in the Municipal District of Sturgeon # 90
MLA for Constitutuency of Westlock- Sturgeon
Location
##-01-055-25W4
Less detail

Decision 91-01

https://had.aer.ca/link/decision65
Applicant
Polaris Petroleums Ltd.
Application Number
910018
Title
Decision 91-01 : Polaris Petroleums Ltd.: Application for a well licence
Date
1991
Title
Decision 91-01 : Polaris Petroleums Ltd.: Application for a well licence
Date
1991
Applicant
Polaris Petroleums Ltd.
Application Number
910018
Hearing Panel
Mink FJ
Bietz BF
Berndtsson NG
Hearing Type
Board
Category
Well licence
Descriptors
Provost field
Well licence
Air quality
Battery
Citizen participation
Community relations
Dina member
Directional well
Environmental impact
Exploratory well
Groundwater
Land reclamation
Oil producing
NTS 73D
Surface rights
Well site
Well spacing
Legal References
Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations S2.020
Notes
Decision D91-1 on application No. 910018 for a licence to drill a well from a surface location in Lsd 5 Sec 31 Twp 37 Rge 3 W4M to obtain oil production from the Dina FM.
Interveners
Nelson, W.P.
Location
05-31-037-03W4
Less detail

Decision 94-02

https://had.aer.ca/link/decision2507
Applicant
Husky Oil Operations Ltd.
Application Number
931689
931696
931746
931747
931748
Title
Decision 94-02: Husky Oil Operations Ltd.: Application for well licences, Moose Mountain area
Date
1994
Title
Decision 94-02: Husky Oil Operations Ltd.: Application for well licences, Moose Mountain area
Date
1994
Applicant
Husky Oil Operations Ltd.
Application Number
931689
931696
931746
931747
931748
Hearing Panel
Bietz BF
Berndtsson NG
Evans RG
Hearing Type
Board
Category
Well licence
Descriptors
Citizen participation
Environmental impact
IL-93-09
Kananaskis area
Moose Mt area
Public relations
Safety
Sour crude
Sour gas
Well licence
Well testing
NTS 87J
Legal References
Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations S2.020
Notes
Decision on applications for licences for five wells all to be drilled from surface locations in Tp.23, R.7 W5M to obtain production from the Turner Valley Formation
Interveners
Rigel Oil & Gas Ltd.
Old Sarcee Band,
Uterus Clan
Bragg Creek Environmental Coalition
Tsuu T'ina Nation
Green Peace Climate Change Campaign
Western Canada Wilderness Committee
The Wildlife Foundation
Rocky Mountain Ecosystem Coalition
Less detail

Decision 94-08

https://had.aer.ca/link/decision2523
Applicant
Amoco Canada Petroleum Company Limited
Application Number
931598
Title
Decision 94-08 : Amoco Canada Petroleum Company Limited : Application for an exploratory well, Whaleback Ridge area
Date
1994
Title
Decision 94-08 : Amoco Canada Petroleum Company Limited : Application for an exploratory well, Whaleback Ridge area
Date
1994
Applicant
Amoco Canada Petroleum Company Limited
Application Number
931598
Hearing Panel
Mink FJ
Bietz BF
Evans RG
Hearing Type
Board
Category
Well licence
Descriptors
Citizen participation
Eastern Slopes area
Environmental impact
IL-93-09
Hunter Creek area
Land use
Natural area
NTS 82G
Public interest
Safety
Sour gas
Well licence
Whaleback Ridge area
Legal References
Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations S2.020
Notes
Decision for a licence to drill a well in Lsd 9 Sec 18 Twp 11 Rge 2 W5M (to be known as Amoco Hunter Creek 10-18-11-2) for the purpose of exploring the production potential from the Mississippian system; Board hearing started 1994-05-16 and concluded on 1994-05-30
Interveners
Hunter Creek Coalition
Smith, T.
Huntley, J.
Smith, H.
Mcall, M.
Nelson, E.
Nelson, J.
Molson, T.
Nelson, R.
Nelson, P.
Thiesson, H.W.
Wishart, W.D.
Ross, W.A.
McMillan, W.
Eickmeier, J.R.
Whaleback Coalition
Tweedie, J.A.
Wallis, C.
Pachal, D.L.
Van Tighem, K.
Gerrand, M.
Francis, W.
Longair, R.
Peigan Nation
Antelope Butte Ranch
Sheppard, D.
Marty, S.
Jericho, K.
Hoff, R.
Squair, E.
W.C. Ranching
Top Hand Industrial Services
Diamond Hitch Outfitters
Pincher Creek Chamber of Commerce
McFarland, J.
Location
09-18-011-02W5
Less detail

Decision 95-04

https://had.aer.ca/link/decision2537
Applicant
Unocal Canada Management Limited
Application Number
931526
941508
Title
Decision 95-04 : Unocal Canada Management Limited : Application for an approved sour gas plant by Unocal Canada Management Limited Slave field (Lubicon Lake area)
Date
1995
Title
Decision 95-04 : Unocal Canada Management Limited : Application for an approved sour gas plant by Unocal Canada Management Limited Slave field (Lubicon Lake area)
Date
1995
Applicant
Unocal Canada Management Limited
Application Number
931526
941508
Hearing Panel
Mink FJ
Evans RG
Berndtsson NG
Hearing Type
Board
Category
Gas processing
Descriptors
Gas processing plant
Sour gas
Lubicon Lake area
Government hearing
Jurisdiction
Citizen participation
Native land claims
Air quality
Health
Safety
NTS 84C
Legal References
Energy Resources Conservation Act S42
Energy Resources Conservation Act S29
Notes
Decision 95-4 regarding the review (Proceeding No. 941508) of a gas plant approval for Unocal's sour gas plant in the Slave Field (Lubicon Lake area). The proceeding resulted from an objection received from the Lubicon Lake Indian Nation indicating that they were not fully informed of this project at the time of the original approval and had concerns with safety, health, environmental, and social impacts of the plant. The plant, located at Lsd 9 Sec 15 Twp 84 Rge 14 W5M, was about 75% constructed at the time of the objection.
A public hearing was held from November 8 to December 2 1994. After review, the Board decided not to revoke the approval on February 23, 1995.
Decisions D95-4 and D95-5 are bound together in one volume, library has 2 copies. Executive summary is stapled inside front cover.
Interveners
Lubicon Lake Indian Nation
Group for Research and Education in Human Rights
Committee Against Racism
Edmonton Friends of the North
Environmental Society
Taiga Rescue Network
Friends of the Lubicon
Canadians for Responsible Northern Development
Aboriginal Rights Coalition
Leader of the New Democrats in Alberta
Mennonite Central Committee
Lubicons Settlement Commission of Review
Liberal Opposition in Alberta
Edmonton Indigenous Coalition
Wilde, R.
Smith Environmental Association
Location
09-15-084-14W5
Less detail

Decision 95-05

https://had.aer.ca/link/decision2539
Applicant
Alberta Power Limited
Application Number
940704
Title
Decision 95-5 : Alberta Power Limited : Application for a 144/25-kV substation, Slave Field (Lubicon Lake area)
Date
1995
Title
Decision 95-5 : Alberta Power Limited : Application for a 144/25-kV substation, Slave Field (Lubicon Lake area)
Date
1995
Applicant
Alberta Power Limited
Application Number
940704
Hearing Panel
Mink FJ
Evans RG
Berndtsson NG
Hearing Type
Board
Utilities
Category
Electric power
Descriptors
Electric power plant
Lubicon Lake area
Government hearing
Citizen participation
Native land claims
NTS 84C
Legal References
Hydro and Electric Energy Act S12
Hydro and Electric Energy Act S14
Hydro and Electric Energy Act S17
Notes
Decision 95-5 respecting Alberta Power Limited's application 940704 to construct and operate an electric substation (Seal Lake AP 869S) and to alter existing 144-kV electric transmission line (AP 7L12) to tap into the proposed substation. This would supply electric power to the Unocal sour gas plant being constructed in the Lubicon Lake area as well as to other operators. Objected to by the Lubicon Lake Indian Nation with respect to their objections regarding the Unocal plant (see Decision 95-4).
A public hearing was held December 2 1994. The application was approved on February 23, 1995.
Decisions D95-4 and D95-5 are bound together in one volume, library has 2 copies. An executive summary is stapled inside the front cover.
Approval
Approved
Less detail

Decision 98-11

https://had.aer.ca/link/decision2946
Applicant
Caprice Holdings Inc.
Application Number
970378
Title
Decision 98-11 : Caprice Holdings Inc.: Application to construct and operate an oilfield waste management facility, Brazeau/Elk River area
Date
1998
Title
Decision 98-11 : Caprice Holdings Inc.: Application to construct and operate an oilfield waste management facility, Brazeau/Elk River area
Date
1998
Applicant
Caprice Holdings Inc.
Application Number
970378
Hearing Panel
Dilay JD
Mink FJ
Shirley EA
Hearing Type
Board
Category
Waste management
Descriptors
Air pollution
Brazeau River area
Citizen participation
Elk River area
Environmental impact assessment
Environmental impact
Flare
Guide 58
Groundwater
Hydrogeology
Locating
Organic compound
Regulation
Waste disposal
Waste treatment
NTS 83B
Legal References
Energy Resources Conservation Act S29
Oil and Gas Conservation Act S26
Notes
EUB Decision D98-14 on application no. 970378 by Caprice Holdings to construct and operate an oilfield waste management facility at Lsd 11, Section 3, Township 47, Range 11 W5M to process solids, produced water, and oily waste. Issues considered included the need for the facility, the location and impact, adequacy of public consultation, and issues surrounding the Board application process such as completeness and accuracy, need for an EIA, initiation of facility construction proir to approval, and the role of interveners.
Interveners
Byram Industrial Services Ltd.
Kalita P
Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development
Approval
Approved
Approved with conditions
Conditions
Groundwater monitoring and submission of a re-evaluation of the geology and hydrogeology of the site prior to operation
Solids storage pit: to contain solids defined in Guide 58 only, and to be cleaned and inspected annually
Surface runoff containment: management system is appropriate
Location
11-03-047-11W5
Less detail

Decision 2002-55

https://had.aer.ca/link/decision3511
Applicant
Canadian Crude Separators Inc.
Application Number
2000343
1242258
1096927
1096321
Title
Decision 2002-55: Canadian Crude Separators Inc. applications to construct and operate an oilfield waste management facility, drill a disposal well, construct and operate a pipeline, and operate a disposal scheme Edson field
Date
2002
Title
Decision 2002-55: Canadian Crude Separators Inc. applications to construct and operate an oilfield waste management facility, drill a disposal well, construct and operate a pipeline, and operate a disposal scheme Edson field
Date
2002
Applicant
Canadian Crude Separators Inc.
Application Number
2000343
1242258
1096927
1096321
Hearing Panel
Bietz BF
Nichol JR
Railton JB
Hearing Type
Board
Category
Waste management
Descriptors
Air pollution
Citizen participation
Edson field
Environmental impact assessment
Flare
Guide 51
Guide 55
Guide 58
Injection well
Leduc Fm
Locating
NTS 83F
Pipeline construction
Pipeline route
Waste disposal
Waste treatment
Notes
CCS INc. applied to the Board to construct an oilfield waste management facility at LSD 7-18-53-18W5M; to drill a well at LSD 12-16-53-19W5M; to construct and operate 7.8 km of pipeline and to inject class 1b fluids into the Leduc Fm.
Interveners
West Edson Landlords Coalition
Armstrong J
Bugg H
Bugg J
Chapman N
Crawford C
Crawford D
Knutson E
Makowecki F
Secord RC
Thebeau B
Thebeau D
Thompson C
Approval
Approved with conditions
Conditions
EUB hereby approves the applications subject to the applicant's strict adherence to the commitments and conditions summarized in the Appendix. Application No. 1096321 is approved subject to the drilling and evaluation of the proposed well and to adherence with the wellbore integrity requirements of Guide 51 : Injection and Disposal Wells.
Location
07-18-053-18W5
12-16-053-19W5
Less detail

Decision 2007-03

https://had.aer.ca/link/decision4192
Applicant
Husky Oil Operations Ltd.
Application Number
1464044
Title
Decision D2007-003: Examiner report respecting Husky Oil Operations Ltd. application to amend facility licence No. 32659, Elnora Field
Date
2007
Title
Decision D2007-003: Examiner report respecting Husky Oil Operations Ltd. application to amend facility licence No. 32659, Elnora Field
Date
2007
Applicant
Husky Oil Operations Ltd.
Application Number
1464044
Hearing Panel
Paulson RL
Hubbard BC
Eastlick BK
Hearing Type
Examiners
Category
Well licence
Descriptors
Citizen participation
Environmental impact
EUB DIR 038
Noise (Sound)
Pollution
Legal References
Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations S7.001
Interveners
McQuillan R
Roberts R
Approval
Approved
Location
06-07-035-22W4
Less detail

Decision 2013-14

https://had.aer.ca/link/decision4511
Applicant
Dover Operating Corp.
Application Number
1673682
Title
Decision 2013-014 : Dover Operating Corp.: Application for bitumen recovery scheme Athabasca oil sands area
Date
2013
Title
Decision 2013-014 : Dover Operating Corp.: Application for bitumen recovery scheme Athabasca oil sands area
Date
2013
Applicant
Dover Operating Corp.
Application Number
1673682
Hearing Panel
Engen TC
McManus RC
Eynon G
Hearing Type
Board
Category
Land use
Gas/Bitumen
Sulphur
Descriptors
Law and legislation
Oil Sands Conservation Act
Oil sands
Environment protection - citizen participation
Environment protection - Law and Legislation
Recovery
Environmental impact assessment
Wildlife
Athabasca area
Reclamation
Sulphur recovery
Emission
Air quality
Land use
Economic analysis
Transportation
Development
Legal References
Responsible Energy Development Act (REDA)
Energy Resources Conservation Act
Oil Sands Conservation Act
Transition Regulation
Energy Resources Conservation Act S3
Energy Resources Conservation Act S10(3)
REDA General Regulation D3
Responsible Energy Development Act (REDA) D15
Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act S53
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
Oil and Gas Conservation Act S10
Water Act
Constitution Act S91(24)
Indian Act
Natural Resources Transfer Agreement
Administrative Procedures and Jurisdiction Act S12
Responsible Energy Development Act (REDA) D2
Oil Sands Conservation Act S10
Oil Sands Conservation Act S3
Decision Makers Regulation
Responsible Energy Development Act D20
Responsible Energy Development Act D21
Alberta Land Stewardship Act
Notes
Change to legal citation effective January 2011
Dover Operating Corp. has changed its name to Brion Energy Corporation.
Interveners
Fort McKay First Nation
Fort McKay Metis Community Association
Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo
Approval
Approved with conditions
Conditions
Conditions generally are requirements in addition to or otherwise expanding upon existing regulations and guidelines. An applicant must comply with conditions or it is in breach of its approval and subject to enforcement action by the AER. Enforcement of an approval includes enforcement of the conditions attached to that licence. Sanctions imposed for the breach of such conditions can include the suspension of the approval, resulting in the shut-in of a facility. The conditions imposed on the licence are summarized below. The Panel notes that Dover has made certain promises and commitments (collectively referred to as commitments) to parties involving activities or operations that are not strictly required under AER requirements. These commitments are separate arrangements between the parties and do not constitute conditions of the AER’s approval of the application. The commitments that have been given some weight by the Panel are summarized below. The Panel expects the applicant to comply with commitments made to all parties. However, while the Panel has considered these commitments in arriving at its decision, the Panel cannot enforce them. If the applicant does not comply with commitments made, affected parties can request a review of the original approval. At that time, the AER will assess whether the circumstances of any failed commitment warrant a review of the original approval. CONDITIONS The Panel notes the following commitments made by Dover, which the Panel has decided to make conditions of the approval [see paragraph 131]:
Plant-wide fugitive emissions will be identified and controlled using the protocol recommended by the Environmental Code of Practice for the Measurement and Control of Fugitive Emissions from Equipment Leaks (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 1993).
A leak detection and repair system will be implemented.
A program will be developed and implemented to detect and repair leaks, and that program must meet or exceed the CAPP Best Management Practice for Fugitive Emissions Management.
A low oxides of nitrogen emissions technology will be selected as required by the Alberta Interim Emission Guidelines for Oxides of Nitrogen for New Boilers, Heaters and Turbines using Gaseous Fuels for the Oil Sands Region (Alberta Environment, 2007).
VRU will be used to reduce hydrocarbon emissions.
There will be no continuous flaring other than of pilot and purge gas.
Odour indicator species will be continuously monitored.
A protocol must developed for responding to odours, including investigating the source of the odour, notifying communities near the Project, addressing the odour source, and monitoring to verify that the source of the odour has been addressed. The Panel also requires the following:
Dover must provide a plan to mitigate SO2 emissions and meet AER Interim Directive 2001-03 on a project-wide basis. The plan must be submitted to the AER for review. [See paragraph 129.]
The scheme approval must include directional and motion-sensitive lighting at the plant sites, well pads, and associated facilities. [See paragraph 137.] COMMITMENTS BY DOVER
Dover committed to a coordinated approach to wildlife monitoring in the region and to a deer and wolf management program in collaboration with ESRD and other in situ operators. To reduce effects on caribou habitat, Dover proposed on-site mitigations that reflect standard industry practices, as well as an off-site caribou habitat enhancement program. [See paragraph 72.]
Dover indicated that it would manage access to its Project at a gate located about 30 km southwest of Fort McKay IR174. Dover noted that there will be control gates at each of its processing plants, but that these plant sites are only small areas of the Project. Dover also committed to restricting access to its operations and prohibiting workers residing in its camp from using all-terrain vehicles for recreational use while on site. [See paragraph 84.]
Dover committed to accommodating Fort McKay members who wish to access their traditional lands through the Project area. [See paragraph 150.]
Location
00-00-093-16W4
00-00-094-17W4
00-00-095-17W4
00-13-092-15W4
Less detail

Decision 2018-005

https://had.aer.ca/link/decision4561
Applicant
Prosper Petroleum Ltd.
Application Number
1778538
001-341659
00370772-001
Title
Decision 2018-005 : Prosper Petroleum Ltd. Rigel project
Date
2018
Title
Decision 2018-005 : Prosper Petroleum Ltd. Rigel project
Date
2018
Applicant
Prosper Petroleum Ltd.
Application Number
1778538
001-341659
00370772-001
Hearing Panel
Low CA
Macken C
Engen T
Hearing Type
Board
Category
Oil sands
Descriptors
Law and legislation
Oil Sands Conservation Act
Oil sands
Environment protection - citizen participation
Environment protection - Law and Legislation
Recovery
Environmental impact assessment
Wildlife
Athabasca area
Reclamation
Emission
Air quality
Land use
Economic analysis
Transportation
Development
Legal References
Responsible Energy Development Act (REDA)
Energy Resources Conservation Act
Oil Sands Conservation Act
Water Act
Notes
Change to legal citation effective January 2011
Interveners
Fort McKay First Nation
Approval
Approved with conditions
Conditions
1) Prosper will place coarse woody debris to restrict access to existing linear disturbances that intersect its access road. 2) Prosper will prohibit firearms, fishing gear, pets and personal ATVs in Prosper’s Rigel project camps and worksites throughout the construction and operation phases of the Rigel project. 3) Prosper will install pumps at well pads and the CPF in buildings to reduce their noise contribution. 4) Prosper will notify Fort McKay First Nation, Fort McKay Métis and any other group Prosper chooses about planned events that may generate more noise than usual. 5) Prosper will establish a toll free line so anyone can access information on daily activities for the Rigel project and register any complaint or concern. 6) If Fort McKay Métis or Fort McKay First Nation shares with Prosper the specific location of a trail or traditional use site located within the Prosper lease, Prosper will work with the relevant community to avoid or mitigate any impacts to that site.
Location
##-20-096-17W4
##-21-096-17W4
Less detail

Decision Memorandum of Decision 1987-01-12

https://had.aer.ca/link/decision234
Applicant
Canadian Occidental Petroleum Ltd.
Application Number
860544
Title
Memorandum of Decision on request for postponement of a hearing by Canadian Occidental Petroleum Ltd., 1987
Date
1987
Title
Memorandum of Decision on request for postponement of a hearing by Canadian Occidental Petroleum Ltd., 1987
Date
1987
Applicant
Canadian Occidental Petroleum Ltd.
Application Number
860544
Hearing Type
Prehearing
Category
Gas processing
Descriptors
Gas processing plant
Pembina field
Sour gas
Citizen participation
Ellerslie member
Environmental impact
Expansion
Mediation
Negotiation
NTS 83B
Sulphur dioxide
Notes
Application submitted April 1986 for approval to process sour gas at an existing sweet gas plant located in LSD 5-35-48-4 W5M
Meeting held 1987-01-12 to set date for rescheduled hearing to be held 1987-02-24
Interveners
Keystone Concerned Citizens
Appelt AG
Location
05-35-048-04W5
Less detail

Decision Memorandum of Decision 1987-09-11

https://had.aer.ca/link/decision205
Applicant
Energy Resources Conservation Board
Application Number
871318
Title
Memorandum of Decision on planning meeting on ethane policy implementation, 1987
Date
1987
Title
Memorandum of Decision on planning meeting on ethane policy implementation, 1987
Date
1987
Applicant
Energy Resources Conservation Board
Application Number
871318
Hearing Type
Prehearing
Category
Ethane
Descriptors
Ethane
Government hearing
Alberta
Citizen participation
Government policy
Regulation
Notes
Memorandum of Decision on proceeding No. 871318 to determine, at a public meeting held 1987-09-01, the most effective way for the ERCB to consider and report on the policy statement on ethane issued 1987-08-21; public meeting held 1987-09-01
Interveners
Alberta Gas Ethylene Company Ltd.
Alberta Natural Gas Company
Alberta and Southern Gas Co. Ltd.
Amerada Minerals Corporation of Canada Ltd.
Amoco Canada Petroleum Company Ltd.
Anderson Exploration Ltd.
Canadian Hunter Exploration Ltd.
CanStates Energy
Chevron Canada Resources Limited
Conoco Canada Limited
Dome Petroleum Limited
Dow Chemical Canada Inc.
Esso Resources Canada Limited
Gulf Canada Resources Limited
Home Oil Company Limited
PanCanadian Petroleum Limited
Petro-Canada Inc.
Shell Canada Limited
Sulpetro Ltd.
Texaco Canada Resources
Williamson HD
Putnam MA
Meghani MA
Mustard RW
Williamson AH
Booth RT
Robb CJ
Pashelka RA
Dachis D
McLarty AL
Neufeld RA
Henry DJ
Caffrey JT
Hooker HL
Murray PR
Hope-Ross WJ
Riegert RW
Lane RR
Muscoby W
Less detail

Decision Memorandum of Decision 1988-09-19

https://had.aer.ca/link/decision159
Applicant
Norcen Energy Resources Ltd.
Application Number
861041
Title
Memorandum of Decision on application by Norcen Energy Resources Ltd., 1988 (Campbell-Namao gas processing plant)
Date
1988
Title
Memorandum of Decision on application by Norcen Energy Resources Ltd., 1988 (Campbell-Namao gas processing plant)
Date
1988
Applicant
Norcen Energy Resources Ltd.
Application Number
861041
Hearing Type
Prehearing
Category
Gas processing
Descriptors
Campbell Namao field
Gas processing plant
Sour gas
Agricultural land
Air quality
Citizen participation
Emission
Encroachment
Environmental impact
Locating
NTS 73H
Sulphur dioxide
Sulphur recovery
Urban development
Notes
Memorandum of Decision on application No. 861041 to amend the application for a gas processing plant, heard and recommended for approval in March 1987 (D87-9); amendment would provide for installation of facilities for the complete removal and recovery of sulphurous compounds; hearing to be reopened 1988-11-08/09; pre-hearing meeting held 1988-09-19
Less detail

Decision Memorandum of Decision 2000-05-09

https://had.aer.ca/link/decision3198
Applicant
Ludwig
Boonstra
Schilthuis
Wright
Bryzgorni
Johnstone
Scott WO
Title
Memorandum of Decision 2000-05-09 : Response to Inquiry request from the Ludwig, Schilthuis, Boonstra, Wraight, Bryzgorni, and Johnstone families and Dr. W.O. Scott
Date
2000
Title
Memorandum of Decision 2000-05-09 : Response to Inquiry request from the Ludwig, Schilthuis, Boonstra, Wraight, Bryzgorni, and Johnstone families and Dr. W.O. Scott
Date
2000
Applicant
Ludwig
Boonstra
Schilthuis
Wright
Bryzgorni
Johnstone
Scott WO
Hearing Type
Prehearing
Category
Inquiry
Descriptors
Air pollution
Agricultural land
Citizen participation
Gas flaring
Health
Inquiry
NTS 83M
Safety
Sour gas
Sulphur recovery
Water pollution
Legal References
Energy Resources Conservation Act S22
Notes
Letter received on behalf Ludwig, Schilthuis, Boonstra, Wraight, Bryzgorni, and Johnstone families and Dr. W.O. Scott requesting that the EUB hold an inquiry into oil and gas activity in the Hythe and Beaverlodge areas pursuant to Section 22 of the Energy Resources Conservation Act; letter expressed health and environmental complaints about emissions from petroleum operations in the area, as well as concern about increasing community frustration and intentional damage to petroleum facilities
No Board hearing
Approval
Denied
Less detail

18 records – page 1 of 1.