30 records – page 1 of 2.

Decision 97-02

https://had.aer.ca/link/decision2852
Applicant
Crestar Energy Inc.
Application Number
1002908
Title
Examiner report on application by Crestar Energy Inc., 1997 (permits to increase the hydrogen sulphide concentration of an existing pipeline and construct sour natural gas pipelines in the Vulcan area)
Date
1997
Title
Examiner report on application by Crestar Energy Inc., 1997 (permits to increase the hydrogen sulphide concentration of an existing pipeline and construct sour natural gas pipelines in the Vulcan area)
Date
1997
Applicant
Crestar Energy Inc.
Application Number
1002908
Hearing Panel
Schnitzler WJ
Pesta TJ
Creasey JR
Hearing Type
Board
Category
Pipelines
Descriptors
CSA Standard (Z662)
ID-81-03
Gas pipeline
Hydrogen sulphide
NTS 82I
Pipeline relicensing
Public consultation
Vulcan area
Risk
Safety
Sour gas
Legal References
Pipeline Act Part 4
Notes
EUB Examiner's Report E97-2 on application no. 1002908 by Crestar Energy for approval to increase hydrogen sulphide concentration to 18 moles per kilomole in an existing pipeline (Kircaldy) which transports natural gas to Crestar's Vulcan gas plant at Sec 24 Twp 15 Rge 22, W4M; and an application to construct five sour gas pipelines to a tie-in point at Lsd 16 Sec 16 Twp 16 Rge 24 W4M.
Interveners
Adams P
Stretch D
Roebuck W
Mueller G
Approval
Denied
Location
##-24-015-22W4
16-16-016-24W4
Less detail

Decision 98-02

https://had.aer.ca/link/decision2913
Applicant
Numac Energy Inc.
Application Number
1006527
Title
Decision 98-02 : Numac Energy Inc.: Application to amend approval no. 7936 for reduced spacing in the Wolf Lake and Bonnyville sectors
Date
1998
Title
Decision 98-02 : Numac Energy Inc.: Application to amend approval no. 7936 for reduced spacing in the Wolf Lake and Bonnyville sectors
Date
1998
Applicant
Numac Energy Inc.
Application Number
1006527
Hearing Panel
McManus BT
Miller GJ
Houlihan RN
Hearing Type
Board
Category
Oil sands
Descriptors
Bonnyville area
Drilling spacing unit
Energy development
Environmental impact
Health
IL 85-12
NTS 73L
Public consultation
Safety
Wolf Lake area
Legal References
Energy Resources Conservation Act S22
Oil Sands Conservation Act S12
Oil Sands Conservation Act S14
Notes
EUB Decision D98-02 on application no. 1006527 to amend Primary Recovery Scheme Approval no. 7936 to allow for a reduction in the drilling spacing unit from 64 hectares to 4 ha over 50.25 sections of land in the Bonnyville and Wolf Lake sectors; Board hearing 1997-09-30, 1997-10-01/02/03
Interveners
Ell A
Ell B
Friedel B
Prosser L
Hammond M
Approval
Approved
Approved with conditions
Conditions
Lieutenant Governor in Council
Numac must submit a report on existing well spacing and ultimate recovery potential
Numac to relocate several pads and construct sight barriers
Numac required to submit a report regadring trucking issues
Numac to conduct feasibility of bitumen pipelining
Numac to submit a report regarding vent gas collection and recovery
Less detail

Decision 98-05

https://had.aer.ca/link/decision2914
Applicant
Canadian Natural Resources Limited
Application Number
1007817
Title
Decision 98-05 : Canadian Natural Resources Limited : Application for a primary recovery scheme for reduced spacing in the Wolf Lake and Bonnyville sectors
Date
1998
Title
Decision 98-05 : Canadian Natural Resources Limited : Application for a primary recovery scheme for reduced spacing in the Wolf Lake and Bonnyville sectors
Date
1998
Applicant
Canadian Natural Resources Limited
Application Number
1007817
Hearing Panel
McManus BT
Miller GJ
Houlihan RN
Hearing Type
Board
Category
Oil sands
Descriptors
Bonnyville area
Drilling spacing unit
Energy development
Environmental impact
Health
IL 85-12
NTS 73L
Public consultation
Safety
Wolf Lake area
Legal References
Energy Resources Conservation Act S22
Oil Sands Conservation Act S10
Oil Sands Conservation Act S14
Notes
EUB Decision D98-02 on application no. 1007817 for a Primary Recovery Scheme Approval no. 7936 to allow for a reduction in the drilling spacing unit from 64 hectares to 4 ha over 50.25 sections of land in the Bonnyville and Wolf Lake sectors; Board hearing 1997-10-29/30
Interveners
Ell A
Ell B
Friedel B
Hammond M
Prosser L
Solowoniuk W
Sabatier K
Sabatier C
Approval
Approved
Approved with conditions
Conditions
CNRL shall provide full disclosure of any future development in SE 31-62-6 W4M to landowners
CNRL shall submit findings of trucking issues report
CNRL shall submit findings on feasibility of bitumen pipelining in the Bonnyville area
CNRL will conduct review of vent gas collection and recovery
Less detail

Decision 98-08

https://had.aer.ca/link/decision2928
Applicant
Cabre Exploration Ltd
Application Number
970459
1010982
Title
Decision 98-08 : Cabre Exploration Ltd,: Application for well licences and reduced oil well spacing, Provost Field
Date
1998
Title
Decision 98-08 : Cabre Exploration Ltd,: Application for well licences and reduced oil well spacing, Provost Field
Date
1998
Applicant
Cabre Exploration Ltd
Application Number
970459
1010982
Hearing Panel
Belanger C
Schnitzler WJ
Asgar-Deen ML
Hearing Type
Board
Category
Well licence
Spacing
Descriptors
Environmental impact
Groundwater
NTS 73D
Oil producing
Public consultation
Water pollution
Well licence
Well spacing
Legal References
Oil and Gas Conservation Act S71
Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations S2.020
Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations S4.030
Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations S5.190
Notes
EUB Decision on application no 970459 and no. 1010982 for licences to drill five wells (all in Twp 38 Rge 3 W4M) and to establish one legal subdivision drilling spacing units;
Board hearing 1997-12-09/11
Interveners
L.H. Ranching Limited
Hanson R
Hanson T
Eastview Farms Limited
Nelson P.
Dzurko D
Alberta Surface Rights Federation
Approval
Approved
Less detail

Decision 99-05

https://had.aer.ca/link/decision3046
Applicant
Post Energy Corporation
Application Number
1031434
Title
Decision 99-05: Post Energy Corporation application for a sweet well Armisie Field, 11-30-51-25 W4M
Date
1999
Title
Decision 99-05: Post Energy Corporation application for a sweet well Armisie Field, 11-30-51-25 W4M
Date
1999
Applicant
Post Energy Corporation
Application Number
1031434
Hearing Panel
Mink FJ
McGee TM
Bruni MJ
Hearing Type
Board
Category
Well licence
Descriptors
Armisie field
Edmonton area
Environmental impact
Guide 56
Hydrogen sulphide
ID 94-04
ID 97-06
IL 89-04
Land value
NTS 83H
Public consultation
Decision D1983 F
Risk
Sour gas
Well licence
Legal References
Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations S2.020
Notes
EUB Decision D99-05 on application 1031434 by Post Energy for a license for a sweet well in lsd 11 Sec 30 Twp 51 Rge 25 W4M to obtain gas production from the Basal Quartz Fm;
Interveners
Yau, Man-Yee
Location
11-30-051-25W4
Less detail

Decision 99-09

https://had.aer.ca/link/decision3049
Applicant
Rio Alto Exploration Ltd.
Application Number
1030648
Title
Decision 99-09: Rio Alto Exploration Ltd. application to modify a sweet gas processing facility McLeod Field
Date
1999
Title
Decision 99-09: Rio Alto Exploration Ltd. application to modify a sweet gas processing facility McLeod Field
Date
1999
Applicant
Rio Alto Exploration Ltd.
Application Number
1030648
Hearing Panel
Bietz BF
Berg AJ
Hurst TM
Hearing Type
Board
Category
Gas processing
Descriptors
Environmental impact
Expansion
Gas processing plant
Guide 56
ID 94-04
McLeod Field
Noise (sound)
NTS 83F
Public consultation
Legal References
Energy Resources Conservation Act S29
Oil and Gas Conservation Act S26
Notes
EUB Decision D99-09 on application 1030648 by Rio Alto Exploration to modify a sweet gas processing plant (Lsd 16 Sec 36 Twp 55 Rge15 W5M) by installing 3 additional gas compressors in order to fully utilize the plant's existing processing capacity
Interveners
McLeod Coalition
King L
King W
Ficht J
Ficht B
See J
Approval
Denied
Location
16-36-055-15W5
Less detail

Decision 99-19

https://had.aer.ca/link/decision3088
Applicant
Fletcher Challenge Energy Canada Inc.
Application Number
1033164
1033789
Title
Decision 99-19 : Fletcher Challenge Energy Canada Inc. application for an approval to construct a sweet multiwell battery Leduc area
Date
1999
Title
Decision 99-19 : Fletcher Challenge Energy Canada Inc. application for an approval to construct a sweet multiwell battery Leduc area
Date
1999
Applicant
Fletcher Challenge Energy Canada Inc.
Application Number
1033164
1033789
Hearing Panel
Miller GJ
Dunn GC
Houlihan RN
Hearing Type
Board
Category
Oil production
Descriptors
Battery
Environmental impact
Guide 60
Leduc area
NTS 83H
Locating
Gas flaring
Groundwater
Public consultation
Legal References
Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations S7.001
Notes
EUB decision D99-19 on applications no. 1033164 and 1033789 by Fletcher Challenge Energy Canada Inc. to construct a sweet multiwell battery located at 11-26-48-26 W4M
Interveners
Loose G
Loose C
Bucsis L
Peter E
Balzer D
Beck B
Capital Health Authority
Dupierry R
Knull G
Faulkner G
Langert H
Labrecque A
Benfeld C
Peden I
Jasper M
Approval
Approved
Approved with conditions
Conditions
Battery design will include vapour recovery unit
Fletcher will finalize agreement with Probe to receive and treat oil emulsion at Probe facility at 13-8-49-25- W4M when ATCO Watelet plant is unable
Lease site will be bermed to prevent surface runoff
Fletcher will test the water wells of residents if requested
Fletcher will address the adequacy of culverts on access road
Fletcher will use electric drive compressors to reduce noise from theh battery
Fletcher will establish committee to address commitments, including the development of an air monitoring program
Location
11-26-048-26W4
Less detail

Decision 99-23

https://had.aer.ca/link/decision3101
Applicant
Corridor Pipeline Limited
Application Number
1029060
1033210
Title
Decision 99-23: Corridor Pipeline Limited application to construct and operate crude oil and hydrocarbon diluent pipelines and associated facilities from Muskeg River mine plant to Sherwood Park
Date
1999
Title
Decision 99-23: Corridor Pipeline Limited application to construct and operate crude oil and hydrocarbon diluent pipelines and associated facilities from Muskeg River mine plant to Sherwood Park
Date
1999
Applicant
Corridor Pipeline Limited
Application Number
1029060
1033210
Hearing Panel
Mink FJ
Dilay JD
Lillo HO
Hearing Type
Board
Category
Pipelines
Descriptors
Muskeg River mine project
Shell Scotford upgrader
Oil pipeline
Bitumen
Conservation
Decision D1999-02
Decision D1999-08
ID 94-04
IL 80-11
IL 89-04
IL 98-06
Noise (sound)
NTS 74E
NTS 83H
Pipeline construction permit
Pipeline route
Public consultation
Route selection
Right of way
Safety
Strathcona county
Urban development
Legal References
Pipeline Act Part 4
Notes
EUB Decision D99-23 on application no. 1029060 for an approval to construct and operate 453 km of 610-mm outside diameter pipeline carrying diluted bitumen from Shell Muskeg River mine plant at Lsd 2 Sec 23 Twp 95 Rge 10 W4M to Shell Scotford upgrader at Lsd 10 Sec 31 Twp 55 Rge 21 W4M, and a 323.9 mm OD pipeline carring diluent from the upgrader to the plant. The application also called for four electrically powered pump stations on the bitumen line, and two on the diluent line.
Application no. 1033210 to construct and operate 43 km of 508 OD pipeline to transport synthetic crude oil from upgrader to Lsd 5-53-23 W4M and a 406.4 mm OD pipeline to transport feedstock
Board hearing 1999-03-09/11
Interveners
Shell Canada Limited
Mobil Oil Canada Properties
Schroter R
Schroter M
Slater G
Shirvell C
Simmons H
Wright A
Metis Regional Council Zone IV of the Metis Nation of Alberta
Trueman D
Dupre T
Group of 23 Landowners
Demeule N
Schotte E
Dzurny AM
289332 Alberta Ltd.
Taylor R
Park Lane Farms
Trenholm D
Approval
Approved
Approved with conditions
Conditions
Relative to the delivery lines, Corridor is requested to conduct additional public consultation regarding reduction of its right of way
Relative to the main lines, Corridor is requested to consult with Mobil to re-examine routing alternatives in the vicinity of Lease 37
Location
02-23-095-10W4
10-31-055-21W4
##-05-053-23W4
Less detail

Decision 99-24

https://had.aer.ca/link/decision3110
Applicant
Shell Canada Limited
Application Number
980058 (Proceeding number)
Title
Decision 99-24: Public inquiry, operational review of the Shell Carbondale Pipeline System, Licence 23800, Waterton Field, Shell Canada Limited
Date
1999
Title
Decision 99-24: Public inquiry, operational review of the Shell Carbondale Pipeline System, Licence 23800, Waterton Field, Shell Canada Limited
Date
1999
Applicant
Shell Canada Limited
Application Number
980058 (Proceeding number)
Hearing Panel
Mink FJ
Bietz BF
Sharp KG
Hearing Type
Board
Category
Inquiry - Pipelines
Descriptors
Carbondale pipeline
Decision D1995-06
Decision D1998-16
Environment protection
Hydrogen sulphide
Pipeline leak
Public consultation
Legal References
Energy Resources Conservation Act S22
Pipeline Act S5
Pipeline Act S29
Notes
EUB Decision D99-24 on proceeding no. 980058 re the operational efficiency of the Carbondale pipeline system at Lsd 1-07-06-02 W5M (Junction J) and the Board's subsequent ruling that Shell repair corrosion induced leaks in said system in order to prevent any further hydrogen sulphide release.
Board hearing 1999-03-30 - 1999-04-23
Interveners
Shell Canada Limited
Sheppard D
Sheppard J
Fitch G
Kilgour I
Hart A
Welte K
Goertz K
Szklarz K
Holmes-Smith R
Davies D
Mulzet G
Howorko R
Bich N
Byrne M
Kuppe M
Duncan C
New E
Approval
Approved
Less detail

Decision 99-28

https://had.aer.ca/link/decision3137
Applicant
Mobil Oil Canada Ltd.
Mobil Resources Ltd.
Application Number
1037560
Title
Decision 99-28: Mobil Oil Canada Ltd. and Mobil Resources Ltd. application for a well licence to drill a critical sour gas well, Crossfield field
Date
1999
Title
Decision 99-28: Mobil Oil Canada Ltd. and Mobil Resources Ltd. application for a well licence to drill a critical sour gas well, Crossfield field
Date
1999
Applicant
Mobil Oil Canada Ltd.
Mobil Resources Ltd.
Application Number
1037560
Hearing Panel
McGee TM
Bruni MJ
Nichol JR
Hearing Type
Board
Category
Well licence
Descriptors
Well licence
Emergency procedure
Environmental impact
Groundwater
Hydrogen sulphide
Horizontal well
ID 97-6
Land use
Locating
Public consultation
Safety
Risk
Sour gas
Legal References
Energy Resources Conservation Act S43
Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations S2.020
Notes
Decision on application for a well licence to drill a critical sour gas well at Lsd 4 Sec 36 Twp27 Rge28 W4M to obtain gas production from the Crossfiled member
Section 43 objection to well licence no. 221575
Interveners
Dowler G
Sandau S
Gunoff J
Luft SK
Harnack L
Rockyview Wapitit Farms Ltd.
Pagenkopf
Approval
Approved
Location
04-36-027-28W4
Less detail

Decision 99-30

https://had.aer.ca/link/decision3133
Applicant
Stampede Oils Inc.
Application Number
1031511
Title
Decision 99-30: Stampede Oils Inc.application for a well licence, Turner Valley Field
Date
1999
Title
Decision 99-30: Stampede Oils Inc.application for a well licence, Turner Valley Field
Date
1999
Applicant
Stampede Oils Inc.
Application Number
1031511
Hearing Panel
Dilay JD
McGee TM
Waisman DD
Hearing Type
Board
Category
Environment/Pollution
Descriptors
NTS 82J
Public consultation
Sour gas
Turner Valley Fm
Well licence
Legal References
Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations S2.020
Notes
EUB Decision D99-30 on application no. 1031511 re Stampede's request for a well licence to drill a level 1 sour gas well in the Turner Valley Formation at Lsd 15-15-21-3-W5M
Interveners
McLeod J
Leahey DM
Farries JK
Adams RW
Vader E
Cones Panel
Fitch GS
Fisher Panel
Secord R
Whiskey Hills Owners Alliance Panel (WHOA)
Wolff WH
Wrigley RB
Rudolph RC
Cones R
MacDonald D
Hicks A
McEwen K
McEwen L
Fisher R
Fisher T
Dudley W
Howorko S
Steen S
Kerluke J
Kerluke S
Brueckner EA
Honey G
Jacobson H
Approval
Denied
Location
15-15-021-03W5
Less detail

Decision 99-31

https://had.aer.ca/link/decision3136
Applicant
Northrock Resources Ltd.
Application Number
1039083
1040394
1040831
1039502
Title
Decision 99-31: Northrock Resources Ltd. application to construct and operate a sour gas processing facility, associated pipelines, wellsite facilities, and an acid gas disposal scheme, Pembina field
Date
1999
Title
Decision 99-31: Northrock Resources Ltd. application to construct and operate a sour gas processing facility, associated pipelines, wellsite facilities, and an acid gas disposal scheme, Pembina field
Date
1999
Applicant
Northrock Resources Ltd.
Application Number
1039083
1040394
1040831
1039502
Hearing Panel
Langlo CA
Remmer WG
Houlihan RN
Hearing Type
Board
Category
Gas processing
Pipelines
Descriptors
Disposal system
Environmental impact
Gas flaring
Gas pipeline
Gas processing plant
NTS 83G
Noise (sound)
Pembina field
Pipeline construction permit
Proliferation
Public consultation
Safety
Sour gas
Sulphur dioxide
Legal References
Pipeline Act Part 4
Notes
EUB Decision 99-31 on applications no. 1039083, 1040394, 1040831, and 1039502 by Northrock Resources to construct and operate a sour gas processing plant and related facilities in the Pembina Field (Lsd 11 Sec 14 Twp 50 Rge 8 W5M)
Board hearing: 1999-08-31 and 1999-09-01/03
Interveners
Pembina Landowners Association
Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development
Elk Point Resources
Penn West Petroleum Ltd.
Approval
Approved
Approved with conditions
Conditions
Plant will be shut-in during outages of the acid gas injection system. Acid gas will not be continuously flared
acid gas injection line will be installed in a closed utilidor that will be equipped with H2S detection every 30m
all potentially odorous vents at the gas plant site will be connected to the flare system
a meter will be installed on the acid gas flare line
sour fluids will be transported in pressurized trucks to prevent odours
gas plant facilities will meet a maximum nighttime PSL of 38 dBA
during initial start-up, the plant will be staffed 24 hours per day
Location
11-14-050-08W5
Less detail

Decision 2000-20

https://had.aer.ca/link/decision3170
Applicant
Dynegy Canada Inc.
Pinon Oil and Gas Ltd.
Application Number
1034767
1034762
Title
Decision 2000-20: Dynegy Canada Inc. application for pipeline licence amendments Okotoks field; Pinon Oil and Gas Ltd. application for a sour gas compressor station and pipeline licence Crossfield field
Date
2000
Title
Decision 2000-20: Dynegy Canada Inc. application for pipeline licence amendments Okotoks field; Pinon Oil and Gas Ltd. application for a sour gas compressor station and pipeline licence Crossfield field
Date
2000
Applicant
Dynegy Canada Inc.
Pinon Oil and Gas Ltd.
Application Number
1034767
1034762
Hearing Panel
Remmer WG
Dunn GC
Berndtsson NG
Hearing Type
Board
Category
Pipelines
Descriptors
Gas pipeline
Decision D1984-7
Community relations
Emergency procedure
Energy development
Hydrogen sulphide
Pipeline construction permit
Pipeline route
Public consultation
Route selection
Right of way
Risk
Safety
Sour gas
Urban development
Dispute resolution
Legal References
Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations S7.001
Pipeline Act Part 4
Notes
EUB Decision D2000-20 on application no. 1034767 by Dynegy Canada Inc. requesting approval to extend the operating term of its sour gas pipeline (licence no. 21027), originating at Lsd 12 Sec 20 Twp 22 Rge 28 W4M and carrying 374.9 mol/kmol of H2S, referred to as the Dynegy Chestermere pipeline; and its sweet fuel gas pipeline (licence no. 17711) which connects at Lsd 10 Sec 2 Twp 22 Rge 29 W4M.
EUB decision 2000-20 on application no. 1034762 by Pinon Oil and Gas Ltd. to construct and operate a sour gas compressor station at Lsd 10 Sec 21 Twp 23 Rge28 W4M and a 11.3 km pipeline carrying 20 mol/kmol H2S from the compressor station to Dynegy's sour gas pipeline at Lsd 12 Sec 20 Twp 22 Rge 28 W4M
Board requested submission of "Land-use and Resource Development Agreement" by October 1, 2000, and as such extended interim operating approval of Dynegy's pipelines until November 1, 2000
Board hearing 1999-08-18 - 27 and 1999-11-22 - 30
Interveners
Bearspaw Petroleum Ltd.
The Soutzo Family
Soutzo, A.
Giovanetto, R.
Ollerenshaw Ranch Limited
The White Families
van Olm, M.
White, F.
White, G.
Hindson, H.
Calgary-Chestermere Landowners and Residents
Nelson, S.
Ryder, L.
Belzberg, H.
Laycock, L.
Singh, N.
Hodgson, J.
Taylor, T.
Haymour, E.
The Shields Family
Shields, R.
The Southeast-Loop Residents and other local interveners
Oloman, N.
Christensen, M
Hennessey, J.
Sutherland, G.
Pearson, D.
Marshall, G.
Evans, B.
Agar, D.
Taylor, T.J.
Approval
Deferred
Approved with conditions
Conditions
Dynegy to conduct full pipeline internal inspection within three months and present results to the Board by July 1, 2000
Dynegy to update emergency response plan in consultation with affected parties
Dynegy to develop a plan to address urban growth in area
Dynegy to work with Shields (interveners) in regards to subdivision plans
Less detail

Decision 2000-20 Addendum

https://had.aer.ca/link/decision3342
Applicant
Dynegy Canada Inc.
Pinon Oil and Gas Ltd.
Application Number
1034767
1034762
Title
Decision 2000-20 Addendum : Dynegy Canada Inc. application for pipeline licence amendments Okotoks field; Pinon Oil and Gas Ltd. application for a sour gas compressor station and pipeline licence Crossfield field
Date
2001
Title
Decision 2000-20 Addendum : Dynegy Canada Inc. application for pipeline licence amendments Okotoks field; Pinon Oil and Gas Ltd. application for a sour gas compressor station and pipeline licence Crossfield field
Date
2001
Applicant
Dynegy Canada Inc.
Pinon Oil and Gas Ltd.
Application Number
1034767
1034762
Hearing Panel
Remmer WG
Dunn GC
Berndtsson NG
Hearing Type
Board
Category
Pipelines
Descriptors
Gas pipeline
Decision D1984-7
Community relations
Emergency procedure
Energy development
Hydrogen sulphide
NTS 82O
Pipeline construction permit
Pipeline route
Public consultation
Route selection
Right of way
Risk
Safety
Sour gas
Urban development
Legal References
Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations S7.001
Pipeline Act Part 4
Notes
EUB Decision D2000-20 addendum on application no. 1034767 by Dynegy Canada Inc. requesting approval to extend the operating term of its sour gas pipeline (licence no. 21027), addendum incorporates land-use and resource development agreement (LRD) with landowners
Interveners
Bearspaw Petroleum Ltd.
The Soutzo Family
Soutzo, A.
Giovanetto, R.
Ollerenshaw Ranch Limited
The White Families
van Olm, M.
White, F.
White, G.
Hindson, H.
Calgary-Chestermere Landowners and Residents
Nelson, S.
Ryder, L.
Belzberg, H.
Laycock, L.
Singh, N.
Hodgson, J.
Taylor, T.
Haymour, E.
The Shields Family
Shields, R.
The Southeast-Loop Residents and other local interveners
Oloman, N.
Christensen, M
Hennessey, J.
Sutherland, G.
Pearson, D.
Marshall, G.
Evans, B.
Agar, D.
Taylor, T.J.
Approval
Approved
Approved with conditions
Conditions
Dynegy must submit amendment to its emergency reponse plan prior ro installation of valves
Less detail

Decision 2000-20 Default Addendum

https://had.aer.ca/link/decision4117
Applicant
Dynegy Canada Inc.
Pinon Oil and Gas Ltd.
Application Number
1034767
1034762
Title
Decision 2000-20 Default Addendum : Dynegy Canada Inc. application for pipeline licence amendments Okotoks field; Pinon Oil and Gas Ltd. application for a sour gas compressor station and pipeline licence Crossfield field
Date
2000
Title
Decision 2000-20 Default Addendum : Dynegy Canada Inc. application for pipeline licence amendments Okotoks field; Pinon Oil and Gas Ltd. application for a sour gas compressor station and pipeline licence Crossfield field
Date
2000
Applicant
Dynegy Canada Inc.
Pinon Oil and Gas Ltd.
Application Number
1034767
1034762
Hearing Panel
Remmer WG
Dunn GC
Berndtsson NG
Hearing Type
Board
Category
Pipelines
Descriptors
Gas pipeline
Decision D1984-7
Community relations
Emergency procedure
Energy development
Hydrogen sulphide
NTS 82O
Pipeline construction permit
Pipeline route
Public consultation
Route selection
Right of way
Risk
Safety
Sour gas
Urban development
Legal References
Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations S7.001
Pipeline Act Part 4
Notes
EUB Decision D2000-20 addendum on application no. 1034767 by Dynegy Canada Inc. requesting approval to extend the operating term of its sour gas pipeline (licence no. 21027), addendum incorporates land-use and resource development agreement (LRD) with landowners
Default addendum released January 31, 2006
Interveners
Bearspaw Petroleum Ltd.
The Soutzo Family
Soutzo, A.
Giovanetto, R.
Ollerenshaw Ranch Limited
The White Families
van Olm, M.
White, F.
White, G.
Hindson, H.
Calgary-Chestermere Landowners and Residents
Nelson, S.
Ryder, L.
Belzberg, H.
Laycock, L.
Singh, N.
Hodgson, J.
Taylor, T.
Haymour, E.
The Shields Family
Shields, R.
The Southeast-Loop Residents and other local interveners
Oloman, N.
Christensen, M
Hennessey, J.
Sutherland, G.
Pearson, D.
Marshall, G.
Evans, B.
Agar, D.
Taylor, T.J.
Approval
Approved
Approved with conditions
Conditions
Dynegy must submit amendment to its emergency reponse plan prior ro installation of valves
Less detail

Decision 2001-101

https://had.aer.ca/link/decision3489
Applicant
AES Calgary ULC
Application Number
20011113
Title
Decision 2001-101: AES Calgary ULC 525-MW power plant
Date
2001
Title
Decision 2001-101: AES Calgary ULC 525-MW power plant
Date
2001
Applicant
AES Calgary ULC
Application Number
20011113
Hearing Panel
McCrank MN
McManus BT
McGee TM
Hearing Type
Board
Utilities
Category
Electric power
Descriptors
Electric power
Electric power generation
Intervener status
Memorandum of decision 2001-06-25
Public consultation
Interveners
Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd.
Brown & Associates
ENMAX Power Corporation
ESBI Alberta Ltd.
Glen Eagles Investments Ltd
The Hurst Group
Louson Investments Ltd.
MD of Rocky View
The Patricia Matthews Group
The Pon Taylor Group
RDWI Group
RDWI West Inc.
Town of Chestermere
The Ziegler Group
Almadi K
Atkins F
Belland G
Berrien R
Bleile J
Bradford J
Brown G
Chesterman D
Chicoine C
Chicoine M
Chin-Quee D
Collins J
Cusano L
Damji Ms
Davies M
Gaskarth B
Gillespie L
Green F (Dr)
Hansford R
Hawkins J
Hawkins M
Hinton A
Hodgson J
Horvath G
Hurst C
Laycock J
Lorne E
Mathews P
McElroy M
O'Ferrall BK
Pon D
Ryder L
Schwartzenberger S
Sokolan G
Taylor T
Wakeford B
Warrack K
White J
Ziegler G
Zinkhofer F
Approval
Approved
Conditions
1. AES will include all the recommendations contained in sections 7.3 and 7.5 of Dr. Bercha’s report into the design and operation of its power plant. In addition, AES will consider including the recommendations contained in section 7.4 of Dr. Bercha’s report into the final design and operation of its power plant (Page 37). 2. AES will design and implement a monitoring program to determine the extent to which the cooling tower drift may contain biochemical contaminants and will report the results of the monitoring program to the Board at semiannual intervals until the Board determines such monitoring is no longer required (Page 29). 3. AES shall provide continuous ambient monitoring for NO2, wind speed and wind direction. Monitoring shall be conducted in accordance with Alberta Environment's Air Monitoring Directive. AES shall suggest an appropriate monitor location; this location must receive approval from Alberta Environment. Monitoring data must be reported monthly. A minimum of 6 months of background data must be gathered prior to start-up of the facility. An additional 3 years of data must be gathered during and after the start-up of the facility, for the purpose of confirming resulting ambient concentrations. AES shall also observe any monitoring requirements defined by Alberta Environment (Page 24). 4. The Board directs AES to work with local residents and EUB staff to design and conduct an appropriate noise validation survey once the plant is operating at full capacity to confirm PSLs are being met. Should the PSLs be exceeded an appropriate enforcement action, including possible suspension of operations, would be initiated by the EUB (Page 33).5. AES will submit the draft ERP to the EUB Operations and Compliance Branch for review and approval in conjunction with the MD’s review (Page 34). 6. Beginning immediately, AES will provide quarterly reports to the Board detailing its progress for each quarter (Page 23 and 29). 7. To verify that the performance of the new technologies meets the guaranteed emission limits at various operating conditions, such as start-up, full load etc., AES shall file with the Board, in addition to the quarterly progress report, the following information: - Acceptance test reports for: - Gas turbine-generator, - Selective Catalytic Reduction or other post-combustion method for reducing NOx emissions, - Water Treatment Plant, and - Cooling tower Should any design changes be required, details of the original design problem and subsequent modifications to rectify the problem should be filed with the Board immediately after the decision to implement the modifications is made. As well, if certifying bodies are involved, their reviews of the test results must also be included. When performance tests are conducted for the purpose of verifying guaranteed performance, performance codes and parameters required to be established prior to the tests must comply with standards commonly used in North America, such as The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) standards for gas turbines, and ASME or Cooling Technology Institute (CTI) standards for cooling towers (Pages 23 & 29). 8. Should AES desire to make any material changes to the plant or vary the design, the construction, and/or specifications of the plant from what is described in its application, evidence given at the hearing, or what the Board has approved, AES must acquire Board approval prior to proceeding with any such changes (Page 23 & 29). 9. Prior to commencing construction of the power plant, AES shall prepare and file with the Board, for its approval, a report, which identifies the nature of the future decommissioning of the power plant, its probable cost, and the means of securing the funds required to complete the decommissioning (Page 48). 10. Prior to commencing construction of the power plant, AES Calgary ULC shall provide to the Board, for its approval, an analysis of appropriate level of insurance coverage regarding the risk of significant public liability. In addition and also prior to commencing construction of the power plant, AES shall file a copy of its public liability insurance policy with the Board for its approval and shall file a commitment from the insurer that it will notify the Board of any modifications to said policy. Should AES, at any time, allow the policy to lapse or be deemed by the EUB to be inadequate, the plant shall cease to operate until such time as the policy is reinstated, replaced, or returned to a level of adequacy. Board approval of both the decommissioning and liability insurance reports will be a condition of any facility approval granted by the Board (Page 48).
Less detail

Decision 2001-109

https://had.aer.ca/link/decision3484
Applicant
Stampede Oils Inc.
Application Number
1064455
1237635
1242414
Title
Decision 2001-109: Stampede Oils Inc Sectin 42 review of well licence no.0239741 and applications for associated pipelines Turner Valley field
Date
2001
Title
Decision 2001-109: Stampede Oils Inc Sectin 42 review of well licence no.0239741 and applications for associated pipelines Turner Valley field
Date
2001
Applicant
Stampede Oils Inc.
Application Number
1064455
1237635
1242414
Hearing Panel
Lillo HO
Atkins GA
Berndtsson NG
Hearing Type
Board
Category
Well licence
Descriptors
Memorandum of Decision 2001-09-06
NTS 82J
Confidential
Public consultation
Pipeline
Well licence
Sour gas
Turner Valley Fm
Legal References
Energy Resources Conservation Act S42
Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations S2.020
Notes
See Memorandum of Decision 2001-09-06
Interveners
Cactus Hil Resources Ltd.
Curfew Lake Resources
Local Residents Intervener Group
Opus Petroleum Engineering Ltd.
Outrim Szabo Associates Ltd.
Pure Energy Services Ltd.
Shareholders of Stampede Oils Inc.
Brockelsby S
Brueckner E
Christie DS
Dawson S
Hawthorne JE
Johnson S
Kerluke J
Luft SK
Miller D
Miller L
New ER
Outrim CP
Schmaus L
Van Nus R
Wyler A
Approval
Approved with conditions
Conditions
On the basis of the overall findings, the Board concludes that it is in the public interest to continue the 2-34 well licence. The Board also provides for the approval of the pipeline with certain conditions. In the course of the hearing, the Board identified three areas of concern about which it had referred investigations back to the appropriate EUB work groups to determine if regulatory requirements were met. The issues were the sump and drilling waste materials on the 2-34 well site, the apparent incompatibility in the H2S content of the Stampede production versus the Anderson system, and the inconsistencies when comparing various documents on production reported for the 2-34 well. In each instance, the Board expects the appropriate work group at the EUB to gather the required information and complete a review on the matters identified. The Board asks that the results of those investigations be shared with interested hearing participants to ensure a transparent process. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 42 of the ERCA, the Board hereby varies Well Licence 0239741 by attaching the following conditions:
Prior to commencing operations at the well, Stampede must submit to the Board for approval a strategic and tactical plan outlining its public consultation/community relations program, as described in Section 10.3, and obtain the Board’s approval of the program.
Within four months of the date of this report, Stampede must submit to the Board for approval a terms of reference for its operations and compliance management plan, as discussed in Section 11.3. Further, Stampede must develop and then submit an appropriate operations and compliance management plan developed from the terms of reference within one year of the date of this report, as well as an independent third-party audit of its management system and the regulatory compliance of its facilities. The Board is prepared to approve Application No. 1242414 for a licence to construct and operate a sour oil effluent pipeline from the 2-34 well subject to the following conditions:
Anderson must obtain the appropriate approvals to accommodate Stampede’s production into its system, or either party must make appropriate facility or system modifications toensure compliance with the H2S limits of the pipeline system.
Prior to the construction or operation of the pipeline, Stampede must submit to the Board a strategic and tactical plan outlining its public consultation/community relations program, as described in Section 10.3, and obtain approval of the program.
Less detail

Decision 2002-30

https://had.aer.ca/link/decision3464
Applicant
Bearspaw Petroleum Ltd.
Application Number
1094603
Title
Decision report D2002-30 : Examiner report respecting Bearspaw Petroleum Ltd. application for a sweet oil well licence, West Drumheller field
Date
2002
Title
Decision report D2002-30 : Examiner report respecting Bearspaw Petroleum Ltd. application for a sweet oil well licence, West Drumheller field
Date
2002
Applicant
Bearspaw Petroleum Ltd.
Application Number
1094603
Hearing Panel
Rahnama F
Boyler DK
Hill CD
Hearing Type
Examiners
Category
Well licence
Descriptors
Drumheller field
Locating
NTS 82P
Public consultation
Banff fm
Well licence
Well site
Legal References
Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations S2.020
Notes
EUB Decision 2002-30 on application no. 1094603 by Bearspaw Petroleum Ltd. to drill a sweet oil well at Lsd 6-36-29-21 W4M
Interveners
Dunn B
Gruber J
Luft K
McGregor R
McNally N
Merkel L
O'Brien S
Ostermann D
Platt O
Tian D
Approval
Approved
Location
06-36-029-21W4
Less detail

Decision 2002-39

https://had.aer.ca/link/decision3473
Applicant
Ultima Ventures Corp.
Application Number
1087676
Title
Decision 2002-39: Examiner report respecting Ultima Ventures Corp. application for a sweet multiwell oil battery, Ferrybank field
Date
2002
Title
Decision 2002-39: Examiner report respecting Ultima Ventures Corp. application for a sweet multiwell oil battery, Ferrybank field
Date
2002
Applicant
Ultima Ventures Corp.
Application Number
1087676
Hearing Panel
Remmer WG
Vandenbeld MP
Willard RJ
Hearing Type
Examiners
Category
Oil production
Descriptors
Battery
Environmental impact
Ferrybank field
NTS 83A
Public consultation
Legal References
Oil and Gas Conservation Regulations S7.001
Approval
Approved
Less detail

Decision 2002-40

https://had.aer.ca/link/decision3474
Applicant
Centrica Canada Limited
Application Number
1247777
Title
Decision 2002-40: Prehearing meeting Centrica Canada Limited application to construct and operate a sweet gas pipeline and sweet oil effluent pipeline Bruderheim area
Date
2002
Title
Decision 2002-40: Prehearing meeting Centrica Canada Limited application to construct and operate a sweet gas pipeline and sweet oil effluent pipeline Bruderheim area
Date
2002
Applicant
Centrica Canada Limited
Application Number
1247777
Hearing Panel
Berg AJ
Nichol JR
Miller GJ
Hearing Type
Prehearing
Category
Pipelines
Descriptors
Bruderheim area
NTS 83F
Pipeline route
Public consultation
Legal References
Pipeline Act Part 4
Interveners
Cholowski T
Guenette A
Hull A
Prochnau R
Less detail

30 records – page 1 of 2.