This story is a follow-up to “Group calls for changes to oil and gas consultation regulations,” which was published in the Feb. 25 edition of the Northeast News.

By Matthew Bains

 PEACE REGION – Paul Jeakins, deputy commissioner with the Oil and Gas Commission, offered the following responses to concerns and recommendations raised by land-based groups in the Peace about the Consultation and Notification regulation being drafted under the Oil and Gas Activities Act.

 Jeakins said the distinction between “consultation” and “notification,” and the distances that determine that distinction, are based on well established practices, external consultation and review of other jurisdictions. He said the regulation, based on input and current practices, contemplates different populations (i.e. landowners, tenure holders, municipal governments) in determining where full consultation or notification is appropriate. He added notification involves awareness of proposed activities, and provides an opportunity for input regarding potential impacts to “quality of life”, but is not connected to technical or safety related compliance and enforcement activities.

 Jeakins said factors such as topography and air movements are taken in to account for emergency management planning, but not in determining consultation and notification distances. He said those factors could be added into the regulation after it is implemented if the OGC feels that’s necessary. He added safety related issues such as risk to health are part of the Emergency Management Planning process and outside of the scope of the regulation. However, he said the regulation would not limit the kind of input from landowners made to either the OGC or to the company during consultation, and the only limitation is that the submission must be made before the application is granted.

 Jeakins said currently companies disclose their emergency response plans once it knows specifically with what it is dealing with (sour or sweet gas) which is after permit approval. However, he said the recommendation to have them disclose those plans prior to approval is under consideration.
 He said they left out the concept of requiring applicants to make “bona fide attempts”  to address landowners’ concerns because of the difficulty of defining in it in a legally-binding way for all parties. However, he said that language will be included in the OGC’s guidance documentation and they retain the ability to apply greater expectations in the regulation.

 “As the statutory decision maker, the Commission is authorized to determine if the applicant has attempted to address concerns,” he said. “The landowner or tenure holder’s submission will be a powerful component of the decision maker’s rationale in approving, modifying or rejection of an application.”

 Jeakins said the timelines included in the regulation apply to the landowner signaling they want to engage with the company directly in consultation, but a response to the OGC can be made anytime prior to the application becoming a permit. He added compensating landowners for their time or expanse during the application process is not authorized under the OGAA and cannot be included in the regulation.

 As for the consultation around the Consultation and Notification regulation, Jeakins said the Commission sought and have received a wide range of input. He said they did extend the original input deadline by three weeks to allow time for more consideration of draft materials. He said the timeline for implementation was not set by the OGC, but once implemented, they will review and analyze how the regulation is working, and continue to seek input if changes are warranted. He added any significant changes would be subject to OGC board approval, which can be a fairly quick process.
 Jeakins said it’s important to note the regulation has not been approved by the OGC Board and thus is still subject to change and the Commission is still actively discussing the content of the regulation with external parties.