Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
6 Tuesday June 9 2015 POLITICS REGULATORY It is Spring clean up time in Fort Smith. Take your refuse to the curb call Town Hall 872-8400 and municipal crews will come to take it away for you - for free If you want to haul loads of refuse or garbage to the dump all tipping fees have been waived. In addition to cleaning up our community this special program is offered to encourage fire abatement. We are entering another severe fire season. This is your chance to Fire Smart your yard. Remove any flammable debris Take away any brush and small trees if you are close to the forest edge Remember the hazards are extreme. Contact Town Hall to see if burning is allowed. Be careful with cigarettes butts. Help make our community safer Find details on evacuation routes procedures directions check lists and preparedness on the first page of the Town of Fort Smith website under Emergency Info. www.fortsmith.ca For more information and advice on how to Firesmart your yard so your home is safer Call ENR district Mgr Daniel Allaire at 872-6425. LETS CLEAN UP OUR ACT Committee report assesses NWT fracking regulations Though the consultation period was origi- nally set for 90 days the government has ex- tended that period to the end of August or pos- sibly beyond due to calls for additional time. While the standing committee did not take a position on the polarizing debate over fracking their report gives a clause-by-clause analysis of the proposed NWT fracking regu- lations in comparison with the existing NEB rules for fracking NEBFR in the North. What the committee found was that while there were many new inclusions in the GN- WTs rules several pieces of the NEB rules had not been mirrored in the new regulations or if they were said to appear elsewhere in the NWT regulatory system did not have the same regulatory effect. What may be considered an enhancement by one stakeholder group may not be viewed as such by another notes the committee in the reports introduction. The new NWT regulations are supposed to enhance the NEB rules based on four Northern priority areas including base- line surface and groundwater information public disclosure of chemical additives air quality and enhanced pre- and post-fracture reporting and disclosure. Though much of the content is new com- mittee points out that in some cases related NEBFR content has been excluded from the draft regulations. Most notably in the section on public dis- closure of chemical additives the committee notes that previous comments made by pe- troleum resources director Menzie McEach- ern to Northern Journal mischaracterize the differences between the two sets of rules. McEachern had said Where the new reg- ulations differ from the NEB Filing Require- ments is that the NWT regulator directly asks an operator to publicly disclose the in- formation. The NEB guidelines asked if they are willing to do so. That claim is noted as incorrect by the committee. Both the NEBFR and the draft regula- tions require the applicant to indicate their willingness to disclose the report states. That said committee acknowledges the draft regulations build upon the NEB rules by requiring signicantly expanded infor- mation including the companys annual environmental and safety reports and re- quires the applicant to state reasons for re- fusing disclosure. However it remains unclear whether or not companies may choose to release only a portion of the listed information or to do so simply post-fracture rather than prior. When it comes to enhanced reporting and disclosure committee notes the lack of clarity around how the increased information going to the NWT oil and gas regulator OROGO - such as ambient air quality reports - will be made public and on what timeframe or how all the data being collected will be marshalled to establish an effective baseline framework. Some rules not mirrored It is important to note that where NEBFR items excluded from the draft regulations are addressed elsewhere in the regulatory framework e.g. in different regulations the regulatory effect is not necessarily the same committee emphasizes in its report. For example the NEB rules require compa- nies to provide evidence that their safety plan was developed in accordance with appropri- ate regulations - a section not mirrored in the new regulations. Committee notes that while safety plan requirements are included in the territorys existing Oil and Gas Drilling and Production Regulations this is not equiva- lent to requiring applicants to le evidence that their safety plan is compliant prior to being granted an Operations Authorization. Other examples include the removal of specic mention of boreal caribou from the requirements as well as excluded clauses on waste management and well suspension abandonment none of which are mirrored in the draft regulations and which appear only partially in the regulatory system if at all. The report also criticizes the prevalence of ambiguous terminology in the draft regu- lations where words like reasonable ad- equate applicable and signicant leave the intent unclear. Theregulatoryframeworkshouldbeclear the report states emphatically. Debunking language Apart from comparing the two sets of rules the report also uses existing literature on the subject of fracking to debunk some of the language used by the government in ed- ucating the public on the proposed regula- tions and calls into question several claims by the GNWT meant to reassure the public as reported by the media. For example the assertion that hydraulic fracturing has been used in Canada for de- cades clouds the reality that there are many variations on fracking and that the most PhotoJimAntoineTwitter A GNWT panel presents the draft fracking regulations to residents of Fort Simpson on Apr. 21. concerning type - horizontal fracturing - entered the mainstream only within the last two decades and marks a serious departure from past practices. As well the claim that hydraulic fractur- ing has never been linked to contaminated water again is not quite true according to the committee which pointed out that just because there is insufcient data to evalu- ate claims of contamination does not mean it hasnt taken place. Furthermore the committee said several comments made to media by GNWT ofcials werent accurate characterizations of the regulations or the ongoing review process. During public engagement in Fort Smith assistant deputy minister Deborah Archibald toldresidentsconcernedwithvoluntarychem- ical disclosure that the GNWT and OROGO were handcuffed by federal legislation mir- rored during devolution which includes a condentiality clause within the Petroleum Resources Act. However examining the current NEB pro- cedures and as discussed above this is not necessarily the case It is unclear whether OROGO will match the NEB in expressly requesting that operators waive their privi- leges committee reported. What may be considered an enhancement by one stakeholder group may not be viewed as such by another. Standing Committee on Economic Development Infrastructure By MEAGAN WOHLBERG The newly proposed regulations for hy- draulic fracturing or fracking in the NWT have been touted by the territorial govern- ment as an enhancement of the existing regulatory framework put in place by the National Energy Board NEB based on Northern priorities. ButjudgingbyanassessmentbytheStanding CommitteeonEconomicDevelopmentandIn- frastructuretabledinthelegislaturelastweek enhancement is in the eye of the beholder. The NWT put forth its own proposed reg- ulations for companies applying to carry out fracking in the territory in May. Since then a public engagement tour has been carried out in communities across the NWT and Aboriginal consultation is now underway.