Projet de forage intercalaire de puits de gaz peu profonds dans la réserve de faune de Suffield par EnCana

Attachment Comments (From Stewart Shields to Joint Review Panel)

• Projet de forage intercalaire de puits de gaz peu profonds dans la réserve de faune de Suffield par EnCana
• Auteur : Administration
• Numéro de référence : 879
• Présenté : 2008-10-31
• Phase du projet : S.O.
• Avis de participation : S.O.
• Comments (From Stewart Shields to Joint Review Panel)
• Inclus pièce jointe
• De : lagran <address removed> Envoyé : 31 octobre 2008 11:21 À : Therrien,Marie-France [CEAA]; comments@suffieldreview.ca Cc : <address removed> Objet : I drove to Calgary and attended the EnCana hearing with respect to "Carpet-Bomb" drilling the NWA on Suffield. Part of the reason for the trip was to ground-truth the idea that the Provincial ERCB building in Calgary was a very poor choice as a venue for a Federal Environmental Review. Up-town Calgary has become one of the most expensive places in North America to park an automobile! Although I lucked out on parking, I am very aware how daunting driving, parking etc.has become for the average public person,not familiar with the business area of Calgary. Surely without going any further, this is proof of the troubled ERCB trying to keep both the public and the press from having easy access to this very closed Federal issue, handled very strangely by the Provincial ERCB!! This same stunt of using Govier Hall was ...

Attachment Comments (From Stewart Shields to Joint Review Panel)

• Projet de forage intercalaire de puits de gaz peu profonds dans la réserve de faune de Suffield par EnCana
• Auteur : Administration
• Numéro de référence : 871
• Présenté : 2008-10-29
• Phase du projet : S.O.
• Avis de participation : S.O.
• Comments (From Stewart Shields to Joint Review Panel)
• Inclus pièce jointe
• De : lagran <address removed> Envoyé : 29 octobre 2008 14:03 À : comments@suffieldreview.ca Cc : <addresses removed> Objet : Why JOINT-Panel??? Would you please inform for public benefit, when the Federal Panel to hear argument on the 1275 infill wells within the Wildlife Refuge at Suffield became temporary Provincial ERCB members? Indeed is this JOINT Panel still temporary ERCB members, and will they remain so until recommendations are presented to the Federal Minister of Environment? Why do CEAA still refer to the Panel, as JOINT Panel members when indeed they are all members of the Alberta Provincial ERCB, temporary or other wise? What indeed is JOINT about: 1) 3-appointed persons sitting as ERCB members to hear arguments on 1275 gas wells 2) Using ERCB "rules of practice" to come to that decision 3) Having an ERCB employee as Counsel to the temporary ERCB board members for this Federal review 4) Holding the Federal Suffield hearing in up-town Calgary at the ...

Attachment Comments (From Stewart Shields to Joint Review Panel)

• Projet de forage intercalaire de puits de gaz peu profonds dans la réserve de faune de Suffield par EnCana
• Auteur : Administration
• Numéro de référence : 869
• Présenté : 2008-10-28
• Phase du projet : S.O.
• Avis de participation : S.O.
• Comments (From Stewart Shields to Joint Review Panel)
• Inclus pièce jointe
• De : lagran <address removed> Envoyé : 28 octobre 2008 17:16 À : comments@suffieldreview.ca Cc : <address removed> Objet : # 620---or --003b-004 I would like to make reference to CEAA remarks contained within public registry# 861 {page 9] and enter as exhibit # 003b-004. Firstly with respect to the privacy act, I will challenge that anything I had advanced to CEAA violated either the Canadian or the Alberta Privacy laws!! I will repeat that I am the very same Stewart Shields that took the Alberta Commissioner to Queen's Bench on a decision he rendered with respect to AEUB conduct toward myself and had the Commissioner's ruling quashed!! I indeed do have experience with both the privacy laws and the AEUB as shown by Shields V. information and Privacy Commissioner,2004 ABQB 353!! Further when Federal members nominated to the Federal Environmental Review agreed to become temporary ERCB[AUB] members and use the ERCB "rules of practice" as a direction in the ...

Attachment Comments (From Stewart Shields to Joint Review Panel)

• Projet de forage intercalaire de puits de gaz peu profonds dans la réserve de faune de Suffield par EnCana
• Auteur : Administration
• Numéro de référence : 868
• Présenté : 2008-10-26
• Phase du projet : S.O.
• Avis de participation : S.O.
• Comments (From Stewart Shields to Joint Review Panel)
• Inclus pièce jointe
• De : lagran Envoyé : 26 octobre 2008 19:02 À : Therrien,Marie-France [CEAA]; comments@suffieldreview.ca Cc : <removed> Objet : Deny,Delay,Deter,Deflect!! I must salute the Alberta ERCB for their abilities to hold a complete Federal Environmental Hearing with Canada wide implications, without public input or proper press coverage of the events! The use of Govier Hall contained within the ERCB building in Calgary afforded the general public or the public press little opportunity to take an active part in the hearing! The informal sections held were a real joke! Evidence is evidence, regardless of it's gathering by formal or informal setting. An informal setting simply allows a kangaroo court to exist, where the panel chairman may hinder admissible evidence from coming foreword. Something the chairperson a formal setting would think twice about!! I was unable to locate any worthwhile information from the proceedings in the daily press, something I had warned ...

Attachment Comments (From Jessica Ernst to Joint Review Panel)

• Projet de forage intercalaire de puits de gaz peu profonds dans la réserve de faune de Suffield par EnCana
• Auteur : Administration
• Numéro de référence : 860
• Présenté : 2008-10-23
• Phase du projet : S.O.
• Avis de participation : S.O.
• Comments (From Jessica Ernst to Joint Review Panel)

Attachment Comments (From Dwight Knapik to Joint Review Panel)

• Projet de forage intercalaire de puits de gaz peu profonds dans la réserve de faune de Suffield par EnCana
• Auteur : Administration
• Numéro de référence : 813
• Présenté : 2008-10-22
• Phase du projet : S.O.
• Avis de participation : S.O.
• Comments (From Dwight Knapik to Joint Review Panel)
• Inclus pièce jointe
• De : Dwight Knapik <address removed> Envoyé : 22 octobre 2008 06:01 À : comments@suffieldreview.ca Objet : Please Protect Canada's National Wildife Areas Against Further Oil/Gas Development Dear Sir or Madam: I am writing to you to regarding EnCana's proposal to drill over 1200 more gas wells in the federally protected Suffield National Wildlife Area, near Medicine Hat, Alberta. I am someone who grew up on the prairies of southeastern Alberta, not too far away from the Suffield area, and the prairies are very near and dear to my heart. Over the years I have had many wonderful experiences on the prairies, and would not trade them for anything. Unfortunately, over the years, I have seen many patches of native prairie disappear forever, whether they be under the plow, or for a variety of other human developments. Native prairie habitat is Canada's most endangered ecosystem and as a country we have protected precious little of it for future generations of humans ...

Attachment Comments (From Don Hagen to Joint Review Panel)

• Projet de forage intercalaire de puits de gaz peu profonds dans la réserve de faune de Suffield par EnCana
• Auteur : Administration
• Numéro de référence : 808
• Présenté : 2008-10-21
• Phase du projet : S.O.
• Avis de participation : S.O.
• Comments (From Don Hagen to Joint Review Panel)
• Inclus pièce jointe
• De : Tina Regehr <address removed> Envoyé : 21 octobre 2008 16:17 À : comments@suffieldreview.ca Objet : EnCana's proposal to drill 1275 wells in Suffield NWA To the Joint Review Panel, As a retired petroleum geologist who worked in Canada for 21 years, I observed the recent public hearing on EnCana's proposed Shallow Gas Infill Development Project with interest. I am strongly opposed to EnCana's proposal to drill 1275 more wells in the Suffield National Wildlife Area at this time. My objections to this project going forward are threefold: 1. EnCana may make more profit by producing the existing wells for as long as they are profitable. By then they will know more precisely how far out each well has recovered gas and therefore also know how much is left to be recovered by infill drilling. (Most likely fewer infill wells would be needed.) Drilling for that gas later should also make more profit, as the price should be much higher due to increased demand and ...

Attachment Comments (From Lisa Bracken to Joint Review Panel)

• Projet de forage intercalaire de puits de gaz peu profonds dans la réserve de faune de Suffield par EnCana
• Auteur : Administration
• Numéro de référence : 807
• Présenté : 2008-10-19
• Phase du projet : S.O.
• Avis de participation : S.O.
• Comments (From Lisa Bracken to Joint Review Panel)
• Inclus pièce jointe
• De : L Bracken <address removed> Envoyé : 19 octobre 2008 14:24 À : comments@SuffieldReview.ca Objet : Registered opposition to "EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project in the Suffield National Wildlife Area" Lisa Bracken <contact information removed> October 19, 2008 I am writing to respectfully ask the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s Suffield Review Panel to please reconsider allowing EnCana to in-fill develop Canada’s Suffield Wildlife Area. This letter is intended to register my opposition to the “EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project in the Suffield National Wildlife Area”, as well as share some of our experiences with this company and its destructive environmental practices. I am writing as an American, from Colorado. I am a landowner, a mineral owner and an Independent voter – tending toward a moderate blend of both liberal and conservative viewpoints. I also consider myself a conservationist. I live on 60 acres dedicated to ...

Attachment Comments (From Martha Munz Gue to Joint Review Panel)

• Projet de forage intercalaire de puits de gaz peu profonds dans la réserve de faune de Suffield par EnCana
• Auteur : Administration
• Numéro de référence : 780
• Présenté : 2008-10-17
• Phase du projet : S.O.
• Avis de participation : S.O.
• Comments (From Martha Munz Gue to Joint Review Panel)
• Inclus pièce jointe
• De : Martha Munz Gue <address removed> Envoyé : 17 octobre 2008 23:24 À : comments@suffieldreview.ca Objet : Suffield National Wildlife Area To the Suffield Review Panel and our MLA, This is to register my opposition to further industrial development .i.e. petroleum activity, happening on the National Wildlife Area at Suffield. Some reasons that this area should be left as is: 1. The area hugs the major river in SE Alberta. All areas that are adjacent to major rivers and their tributaries ought to be treated with a great deal of respect. The natural vegetation there helps to preserve the stream banks, clean the run off from snow and rain before it enters the river, and provides shelter and food for a high proportion of the animal species that exist in Alberta. It is estimated that 80 percent of Alberta’s wildlife live within easy reach of the rivers and lakes of Alberta. Any activity that compromises the land and vegetation in that area, also compromises the ...

Attachment Comments (From Stewart Shields to Joint Review Panel)

• Projet de forage intercalaire de puits de gaz peu profonds dans la réserve de faune de Suffield par EnCana
• Auteur : Administration
• Numéro de référence : 862
• Présenté : 2008-10-17
• Phase du projet : S.O.
• Avis de participation : S.O.
• Comments (From Stewart Shields to Joint Review Panel)
• Inclus pièce jointe
• ----- Original Message ----- From: lagran To: comments@suffieldreview.ca Cc: Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 1:36 PM Subject: Emailing: 29428E I certainly cannot understand why this attached letter containing exhibit # 003A-032 and listed on public information # 758 would indicate it came from both Alberta Environment and Alberta Energy and Utilities Board?? Any similarities between the two supposedly Alberta Tribunals are very slight to say the least!! Alberta Environment work directly under the control of the Alberta Minister of the Environment, Alberta Energy and Utilities Board work without the need or direction of the Alberta Minister of Energy!! Nothing points this out more directly than the then EUB chairman signing a document involving the Alberta public with costs, associated with a Federal Environment Review?? The Minister of Alberta energy was nowhere in site, while it indeed was the Federal Minister of the Environment's signature that involved ...

Attachment Comments (From Herman Bender to Joint Review Panel)

• Projet de forage intercalaire de puits de gaz peu profonds dans la réserve de faune de Suffield par EnCana
• Auteur : Administration
• Numéro de référence : 757
• Présenté : 2008-10-15
• Phase du projet : S.O.
• Avis de participation : S.O.
• Comments (From Herman Bender to Joint Review Panel)
• Inclus pièce jointe
• De : Alberta Activism Envoyé : 15 octobre 2008 14:26 À : comments@suffieldreview.ca Cc : <removed> Objet : Conflict Of Interest I must add my voice to those that have indicated the Counsel for the ERCB is in a definite "conflict of interest" with respect to letter # 551 and dealing at any level with the 3-well drilling application! Explaining how an ERCB employee is not in conflict may be a better way of stating, what has happened here! The now ERCB were responsible for bringing the 3-well application forward, and turning, what started as a Environmental Review, into a dual question that was not sanctioned by the Federal Minister of Environment!! Since many public members have either been aware, or made aware, of this ambitious ERCB activity, those who want to question the panel on these facts, find replies to their concerns being addressed by an ERCB employee acting as Panel Counsel, in a definite "conflict of interest"!!! Not withstanding the consultant acting, ...

Attachment Comments (From Jessica Ernst to Joint Review Panel)

• Projet de forage intercalaire de puits de gaz peu profonds dans la réserve de faune de Suffield par EnCana
• Auteur : Administration
• Numéro de référence : 756
• Présenté : 2008-10-15
• Phase du projet : S.O.
• Avis de participation : S.O.
• Comments (From Jessica Ernst to Joint Review Panel)
• Inclus pièce jointe
• De : albertawater1 <address removed> Envoyé : 15 octobre 2008 13:14 À : Thompson, Chris; comments@suffieldreview.ca; Dan McFadyen Cc : <addresses removed> Objet : STILL no response from EnCana re Downspacing Application Ernst Environmental Services & Jessica Ernst <address information removed> To: Mr. Chris Thompson, EnCana Mr. Dan McFadyen, ERCB Chair The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Re: EnCana Carpet Bombing Application Number: 475-9: Hussar/Redland Lands: Sections 11-16, 21 to 27, 35 & 36 in 27-22-W4M Attention: Chris Thompson, the ERCB (I protest this downspacing application because EnCana, year after year, refuses to address my valid and reasonable questions and concerns) and the CEAA (FOR POSTING) When is EnCana going to respond to my questions and concerns of 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008? EnCana refuses responsibility, stewardship, transparency, and accountability on private land, does not know if it is one corporation or ...

Attachment Comments (From Tina Regehr to Joint Review Panel)

• Projet de forage intercalaire de puits de gaz peu profonds dans la réserve de faune de Suffield par EnCana
• Auteur : Administration
• Numéro de référence : 727
• Présenté : 2008-10-14
• Phase du projet : S.O.
• Avis de participation : S.O.
• Comments (From Tina Regehr to Joint Review Panel)
• Inclus pièce jointe
• De : Tina Regehr Envoyé : 14 octobre 2008 13:58 À : comments@suffieldreview.ca Objet : EnCana's request to drill more wells in Suffield NWA To: Suffield Review Panel I request that EnCana is denied its request to drill any more wells in the Suffield National Wildlife Area. Why should Canadians pay so that EnCana can break its promise? The Suffield National Wildlife Area was created for a purpose, and when it was created, EnCana agreed not to drill any more wells there. EnCana wanting to break its promise not to drill any more wells in the National Wildlife Area, indicates to me that the company wants it all, leaving nothing for Alberta’s wildlife and the people who value it. It appears that the “public interest” is going to lose at Suffield in more ways than one while EnCana only gains. It has been estimated that the panel’s proposed royalties for natural gas will actually result in an economic loss of $1 billion at current prices and not a gain. How much ...

Attachment Comments (From Stewart Shields to Joint Review Panel)

• Projet de forage intercalaire de puits de gaz peu profonds dans la réserve de faune de Suffield par EnCana
• Auteur : Administration
• Numéro de référence : 728
• Présenté : 2008-10-12
• Phase du projet : S.O.
• Avis de participation : S.O.
• Comments (From Stewart Shields to Joint Review Panel)
• Inclus pièce jointe
• De : lagran <address removed> Envoyé : 12 octobre 2008 15:53 À : comments@suffieldreview.ca Cc : <removed> Objet : Government Tribunal or Company Agent?? I believe the rights of both Albertans and Canadians were violated when the Chairman of the then Alberta EUB, signed for Albertans, a Federal/Provincial agreement, allowing the EUB as a partner with Canada {signed by the Minister Of the Environment} to review drilling on the NWA situated on the Suffield range!! The caption below, taken from EnCana's supplied material is not at all accurate. The Minister of Energy in Alberta regulates the oil and gas sector pursuant to the [1] Alberta Energy and Utilities Board Act [2] The Oil and Gas Conservation Act and Regulations {3} The Pipeline Act and Regulations [4] The Energy Resources Conservation Act. The caption below simple ignores the fact it is indeed Alberta Energy, not the AEUB that controls Crown Mineral Rights, through of course the Alberta Minister of Energy!! ...

Attachment Comments (From Liz Fricke to Joint Review Panel)

• Projet de forage intercalaire de puits de gaz peu profonds dans la réserve de faune de Suffield par EnCana
• Auteur : Administration
• Numéro de référence : 725
• Présenté : 2008-10-11
• Phase du projet : S.O.
• Avis de participation : S.O.
• Comments (From Liz Fricke to Joint Review Panel)
• Inclus pièce jointe
• De : Tony Fricke Envoyé : 11 octobre 2008 14:19 À : comments@suffieldreview.ca Cc : <Prime Minister and Minister of Environment> Objet : Suffield National Wildlife Area Re: The EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project To the Joint Review Panel: I urge you not to approve this project. The Suffield NWA is a precious, rare, big block of prairie, recognized as an important place for numerous species of plants, mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians, many endangered and at risk. It is a highly significant area, correctly acknowledged as such by the Government. We cannot afford to lose it to any further industrial development. Please protect it for the sake of Alberta's future. The project concerned will not significantly benefit anyone, but once allowed, the further fragmentation and destruction of this valuable natural area will proceed irreversibly. The project is yet another example of corporate greed taking precedent over the future of Alberta ...

Attachment Comments (From Tony Fricke to Joint Review Panel)

• Projet de forage intercalaire de puits de gaz peu profonds dans la réserve de faune de Suffield par EnCana
• Auteur : Administration
• Numéro de référence : 726
• Présenté : 2008-10-11
• Phase du projet : S.O.
• Avis de participation : S.O.
• Comments (From Tony Fricke to Joint Review Panel)
• Inclus pièce jointe
• De : Tony Fricke Envoyé : 11 octobre 2008 23:15 À : comments@suffieldreview.ca Cc : <Prime Minister and Minister of Environment> Objet : Suffield National Wildlife Area Re: The EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project To the Joint Review Panel: It is appalling that Encana, which does not even know if it is one company or two, would contemplate such rapacious behaviour. It is incumbent on you not to approve this project. It simply allows Encana to raid the same source of gas as it already has but faster. To what purpose and for whose benefit? Not even the shareholders of Encana will benefit. And who will clean up all the mess when the gas is gone. Encana is not even looking after our land properly now when they do have money. Later, when they have nothing left, they will walk away and plead poverty. The Suffield NWA does not need to be ruined and I beg you not to let it happen. Remember companies are amoral. They will try for maximum profit and damn the ...

Attachment Comments (From Sue Teucher to Joint Review Panel)

• Projet de forage intercalaire de puits de gaz peu profonds dans la réserve de faune de Suffield par EnCana
• Auteur : Administration
• Numéro de référence : 714
• Présenté : 2008-10-09
• Phase du projet : S.O.
• Avis de participation : S.O.
• Comments (From Sue Teucher to Joint Review Panel)
• Inclus pièce jointe
• De : Nigel & Sue Teucher Envoyé : 9 octobre 2008 18:01 À : comments@suffieldreview.ca Cc : pm@pm.gc.ca; Baird,John [NCR] Objet : *****SPAM***** Proposed gas wells for Encana at Suffield To Whom it May Concern It has come to my attention that Encana is proposing to drill 1275 shallow gas wells in the Suffield National Wildlife Area. I am aware that Encana already has a number of wells in this protected area and as a result there has been enough degradation of the area to be able to anticipate what a further 1275 wells would do to the habitat. The mixed grass prairie is one of the few remaining prairie areas left, and the sand dune ecology is particularly fragile and vulnerable to compaction by vehicular traffic and the creation of roads and drill sites. I have no doubt you have been given many arguments against the proposal based on scientific evidence. My argument is that this area's name, the Suffield National Wildlife Area, implies protection by the ...

Attachment Comments (From Russell Varnam to Joint Review Panel)

• Projet de forage intercalaire de puits de gaz peu profonds dans la réserve de faune de Suffield par EnCana
• Auteur : Administration
• Numéro de référence : 710
• Présenté : 2008-10-08
• Phase du projet : S.O.
• Avis de participation : S.O.
• Comments (From Russell Varnam to Joint Review Panel)
• Inclus pièce jointe
• -----Message d'origine----- De : Varnam Envoyé : 8 octobre 2008 19:56 À : comments@suffieldreview.ca Cc : pm@pm.gc.ca Objet : Encana's gas project in Suffield NWA The only purpose of this increase in roads, well sites and pipelines is to get the gas out faster. This will improve the cosmetics of the quarterly results, but will not increase the wealth of Alberta and Canada overall. This will destroy more of a limited, threatened environment, and put at risk many already threatened and endangered species of plants, mammals, birds and reptiles. The havoc will be wrought by increased area of surface disturbance, fragmentation of habitat, more invasive plant species, and destruction of surface water features. Canada, Encana and Alberta are rich enough that we can afford to draw a line and say "No More" in this area. No more drilling and roads, no more sloppy rehabilitation with foreign grasses, no more slack oversight by the federal government. ...

Attachment Comments (From Andy Teucher to Joint Review Panel)

• Projet de forage intercalaire de puits de gaz peu profonds dans la réserve de faune de Suffield par EnCana
• Auteur : Administration
• Numéro de référence : 702
• Présenté : 2008-10-08
• Phase du projet : S.O.
• Avis de participation : S.O.
• Comments (From Andy Teucher to Joint Review Panel)
• Inclus pièce jointe
• De : Andy Teucher Envoyé : 8 octobre 2008 19:10 À : comments@suffieldreview.ca Cc : <removed> Objet : Opposition to EnCana's proposal to drill in SNWA Dear panel members, I am writing to voice my strong opposition to, and urge the panel to reject, EnCana's proposal to drill 1275 shallow gas wells in the Suffield National Wildlife Area (SNWA) at Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Suffield. This is a protected area of global significance, containing one of the largest and last undisturbed vestiges of mixed-grass prairie in Canada. It also contains a large proportion of the Middle Sand Hills, a rare and unique ecosystem that supports an amazing array of species, including many that are at risk of extinction, several of which are found almost no-where else in Canada. Several federally listed species at risk are afforded habitat protection in SNWA, and some of them benefit from this protection almost nowhere else. These include Tiny Cryptanthe, Ord's Kangaroo Rat, Small-flowered sand verbena, ...

Attachment Comments (From Linde Turner to Joint Review Panel)

• Projet de forage intercalaire de puits de gaz peu profonds dans la réserve de faune de Suffield par EnCana
• Auteur : Administration
• Numéro de référence : 692
• Présenté : 2008-10-07
• Phase du projet : S.O.
• Avis de participation : S.O.
• Comments (From Linde Turner to Joint Review Panel)
• Inclus pièce jointe
• -----Message d'origine----- De : Linde Turner Envoyé : 7 octobre 2008 11:31 À : comments@suffieldreview.ca Objet : The October 2008 hearing re drilling in Suffield "Where there is no vision, the people perish." Drilling in Suffield, as proposed, will damage the landscape, the wildlife, and our descendants' inheritance of the land. Encana is not a responsible steward of the land. I strongly protest Encana's application and encourage its rejection. Linde Turner

Attachment Comments (From Fiona Lauridsen to Joint Review Panel)

• Projet de forage intercalaire de puits de gaz peu profonds dans la réserve de faune de Suffield par EnCana
• Auteur : Administration
• Numéro de référence : 693
• Présenté : 2008-10-07
• Phase du projet : S.O.
• Avis de participation : S.O.
• Comments (From Fiona Lauridsen to Joint Review Panel)
• Inclus pièce jointe
• De : Fiona Lauridsen Envoyé : 7 octobre 2008 23:46 À : comments@suffieldreview.ca Objet : Please halt this development I am writing to express my gravest concern that the ERCB would even entertain the idea of permitting drilling for resources on a wildlife sanctuary. Responsible development requires the understanding that as a people and a province there are things more valuable than gas: Life is precious and must be preserved and protected. There are places and resources (drinking water for example) that cannot be sacrificed for economic development. It does not make anthropological sense to destroy that which we require for survival. Our self indulgent comforts are not that important in the grand scheme of life. Please, I implore you, halt any further development at Suffield. Prevent any further industrial invasions on drinking water aquifers, for example, the fracturing conducted by EnCana at Rosebud. EnCana may have mineral rights but it should not have the right to contaminate ...

Attachment Comments (From Stewart Shields to DND)

• Projet de forage intercalaire de puits de gaz peu profonds dans la réserve de faune de Suffield par EnCana
• Auteur : Administration
• Numéro de référence : 678
• Présenté : 2008-10-05
• Phase du projet : S.O.
• Avis de participation : S.O.
• Comments (From Stewart Shields to DND)
• Inclus pièce jointe
• De : lagran Envoyé : 5 octobre 2008 18:45 À : <DND – Chief Warrant Officer, A. Trepanier> Cc : <removed CEAR> Objet : Why Carpet-Bomb Drill?? Or indeed with respect to Suffield, Why Not?? As long as the need to pay lease, road, and pipeline right-away rights are grand-fathered, indeed, why not?? If indeed EnCana and others were held to the same surface rights agreements as Ranchers and Farmers demand, would this change the "Carpet -Bomb" Approach, chosen as the sole method to develop Suffield?? As such, should there not be a review of the present practice of setting lease, road, and pipeline land usage agreements on Suffield that would bring sober second thought to unparallel drilling as the only means of resource development? All Suffield wells should be reviewed with the question, does land use cost allow for greater density of wells on Suffield? Is this harmful to the Ranchers and farmers that surround Suffield? No study should be required of NWA as no further drilling should ...

Attachment Comments - news article (From Stewart Shields to Joint Review Panel)

• Projet de forage intercalaire de puits de gaz peu profonds dans la réserve de faune de Suffield par EnCana
• Auteur : Administration
• Numéro de référence : 676
• Présenté : 2008-10-05
• Phase du projet : S.O.
• Avis de participation : S.O.
• Comments - news article (From Stewart Shields to Joint Review Panel)
• Inclus pièce jointe
• De : lagran Envoyé : 5 octobre 2008 12:11 À : barr@reddeeradvovcate.com Cc : mel.knight@gov.ab.ca; hugh.macdonald@assembly.ab.ca; comments@suffieldreview.ca Objet : This well blow-out on the Suffield range has added interest!!! The very same EnCana are making application for 1275 new wells on the National Wildlife Refuge located on Suffield!! The Federal Environmental Review that are about to hear argument on this Proposal has the Alberta ERCB with a deciding member on the 3-member panel?? To top this a ERCB member is acting council for the deciding panel?? The non-ERCB members are to be made temporary Members of the ERCB while sitting on the Federal Hearing?? The Federal hearing is to progress using the ERCB "Rules Of Practice ?? And the Federal hearing is to be held in the ERCB's Govier Hall?? Remember this is indeed a Federal Hearing?? Since this very strange proposal is set to be heard on Monday the 6th, and the "blow-out" happened on Thursday ...

Attachment Comments (From Stewart Shields to Joint Review Panel)

• Projet de forage intercalaire de puits de gaz peu profonds dans la réserve de faune de Suffield par EnCana
• Auteur : Administration
• Numéro de référence : 677
• Présenté : 2008-10-05
• Phase du projet : S.O.
• Avis de participation : S.O.
• Comments (From Stewart Shields to Joint Review Panel)
• Inclus pièce jointe
• De : lagran Envoyé : 5 octobre 2008 14:26 À : comments@suffieldreview.ca; Prime Minister/Premier ministre; BAIRDJ@PARL.GC.CA Cc : <removed CEAR> Objet : Control-Control, and Control !! Attn. Robert Connelly: Since we have had the new dimension of a well "Blow-Out" by the proponent EnCana, on Suffield Acreage, it seems only right, the present hearing into 1275 more wells on the National Wildlife Area, contained on the same Suffield range be delayed!! Although this could mean further cost to the lawyers who are finally ready to proceed due to a delay at EnCana request, the price with respect to the value involved would be minuscule, and easily covered by the system, who seem to spend on "public Relations" like a sailor!! Many of us that have worked for nothing would again approve further delay, this time to closer examine how this "Blow-Out" came about, and how a remedy can be found {if any] for it's prevention!! Also the fact that press releases were not ...

Attachment Comments and newspaper articles (From Jessica Ernst to Joint Review Panel)

• Projet de forage intercalaire de puits de gaz peu profonds dans la réserve de faune de Suffield par EnCana
• Auteur : Administration
• Numéro de référence : 680
• Présenté : 2008-10-05
• Phase du projet : S.O.
• Avis de participation : S.O.
• Comments and newspaper articles (From Jessica Ernst to Joint Review Panel)
• Inclus pièce jointe
• From: ernstj Sent: 5 octobre 2008 14:27 To: <JRP> Cc: <removed CEAR> Subject: EnCana fined again for violating legislation <address of recipient removed, CEAR> To the CEAA, ERCB, Joint Review Panel, and Alberta Justice, Re: EnCana fined again for violating legislation, for posting. EnCana's recent gas well blow out at Suffield and the articles below provide more reasons to refuse EnCana's application to speed up profits and risk listed species in the National Wildlife area. I find it suspicious and protest that the CEAA did not send out an information release to interested parties about EnCana's blow out, notably given that the hearing begins on Monday and this EnCana statement (highlighted in green below) in Submission Vol. 1, Section 2: Project Description, 2.2.5.3 Blowouts and Surface Casing Vent Flow: "In over 30 years of operations at CFB Suffield, there has never been a gas well blowout." Why did the CEAA not notify interested parties before the hearing that EnCana's no ...

Attachment comment (From Stewart Shields to Joint Review Panel)

• Projet de forage intercalaire de puits de gaz peu profonds dans la réserve de faune de Suffield par EnCana
• Auteur : Administration
• Numéro de référence : 662
• Présenté : 2008-09-29
• Phase du projet : S.O.
• Avis de participation : S.O.
• comment (From Stewart Shields to Joint Review Panel)
• Inclus pièce jointe
• De : lagran Envoyé : 28 septembre 2008 14:21 À : comments@suffieldreview.ca Cc : dnd_mdn@forces.gc.ca; MacDonald,Keith [CEAA]; mel.knight@gov.ab.ca; Mueller, Doreen; Pineau,Maryse [CEAA]; Therrien,Marie-France [CEAA]; mackay.p@parl.gc.ca; trepanier.ep@forces.gc.ca; CEAA, Prairies [CEAA] Objet : A review of the Joint Panel's documentation has shown ALBERTA ENERGY were not an invite to this process?? This is a giant mistake, since NEED is always the first consideration of well applications debated at a hearing!! Without Alberta Energy to explain and defend the current and future royalty rates for these 1275 Suffield wells, their need, based on public value cannot be determined!! Without public value able to be clearly defined license # 1435381 certainly cannot be heard at this time!! The concern with the royalty situation on Suffield wells was introduced very early in this proposal, and is indeed of such concern it is hard to understand the oversight of leaving the ...