By Barry Robinson, Ecojustice.

The Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) is Alberta’s one-stop regulatory body for the oil and gas industry. When it was created in 2013 by the merging of the former Energy Resources Conservation Board and parts of Alberta Environment and Parks, the AER made bold claims about transparency, enforcement and becoming a “world-class” regulator.

Unfortunately, the AER has failed to live up to its promises. The AER has shown over and over again that it is either unable or unwilling to enforce its own laws, directives and orders. The AER has become a toothless regulator.

As a public interest lawyer I see first-hand how the AER’s failures affect Albertans.

Take for example two of Ecojustice’s clients. Tony and Lorraine Bruder operate a cattle ranch near Pincher Creek. A preliminary environmental site assessment conducted at an abandoned sour gas well site on their property showed that the site was potentially contaminated with drilling waste, salts, metals, and hydrocarbons, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons — all nasty things that you do not want on your property.

In September 2015, as a first step towards cleaning up this mess, the AER ordered Nomad Exploration Ltd., the licensee of the well site, to complete a more detailed environmental study by the end of November 2015.

Nomad ignored that order. Over the next few months, we repeatedly asked the AER what it was going to do about Nomad’s failure, but the AER took no action.

Finally, in May 2016, the AER ordered Nomad to prepare a plan by the end of June 2016 to complete the more detailed environmental study — that is, to prepare a plan to do the very thing the AER had already ordered Nomad to do six months earlier.

Most competent regulators escalate enforcement when an operator does not follow its orders — when you do not follow the rules, the consequences get more severe. In this case, the AER de-escalated enforcement. The penalty for not completing the detailed environmental study was just an order to “try again.”

This time, the AER said that Nomad must include in the plan a schedule to complete the detailed environmental study by the end of August 2016. After an extension of time and a couple of failed attempts, Nomad never did provide the AER with a schedule to complete the study. The AER then ordered Nomad to complete the study regardless by January 3, 2017, but then at Nomad’s request extended that date to February 15, 2017.

And guess what — Nomad again failed to meet that deadline.

Three Ways to Improve Alberta’s Toothless Energy Regulator #abpoli #abandonedwells @ecojustice_ca https://t.co/Zi2xiTuCrq

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) April 7, 2017

When we recently asked the AER what they were going to do about this continued non-compliance by Nomad, the AER’s response was “the AER is continuing to gather and assess the relevant facts and information in order to determine the most appropriate response moving forward.”

In other words, 18 months after ordering Nomad to complete the detailed environmental study, the AER still does not have a plan on how to enforce that order.

The Bruders’ case is only one example of a much broader and systemic problem of lack of enforcement by the AER. 

In July 2014, the AER announced that approximately 37,000 wells out of 80,000 inactive wells were not in compliance with the requirements for inactive wells. How does a regulator, that bills itself as “world class,” allow almost half of all inactive wells in the province to be out of compliance?

More recently, we have seen situations where the AER issued numerous warnings and orders to companies with no effect, with the end result that the only option was to transfer hundreds of wells to the Orphan Well Association, leaving financial responsibility for these sites to be borne by other industry members, the Canadian taxpayer, and eventually the Alberta public. The AER has numerous enforcement tools at its disposal but it simply refuses to use these tools to ensure compliance.

Which leads me to my response to the question, “How do you solve a problem like the AER?”  In a recent letter to Shannon Phillips, the Alberta Minister of the Environment and Parks, and Margaret McCuaig-Boyd, the Minister of Energy, we made three recommendations.

First, before drilling a well, the operator should have to deposit sufficient funds with the AER to pay for the clean-up. Then, when an operator refuses to carry out the clean-up work, or goes bankrupt, the AER would hold the necessary funds to complete the work.

Second, in 2014, the Responsible Energy Development Act stripped the Minister of Environment and Parks of her power to enforce environmental orders against energy companies and gave those powers to the AER. Given that the AER appears unwilling to use those tools, we think that those powers should be given back to the Minister.

Third, we think that it is time to consider whether the AER should continue to exist. If the AER is unwilling to enforce Alberta’s laws and its own directives and orders, perhaps the AER’s role should be transferred to the Departments of Energy and Environment and Parks.

In a recent publication, Jim Ellis, the President and CEO of the AER, said that regulators like the AER “hold a moral and ethical obligation to initiate bold and courageous action to improve the human condition.”

Perhaps before the AER embarks on the lofty goal of changing the world, they should get the simple stuff right — like enforcing the law.

Image: Pumpjack in rural Alberta. Photo: Kris Krug/DeSmog Canada

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

On June 23, the Federal Court of Appeal struck down the Harper government’s approval of the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline on account of failing to properly consult with adversely affected First Nations.

Many environmental and Indigenous groups cited the ruling as a win, but buried in the decision is a legal interpretation that upholds former Primer Minister Stephen Harper’s changes to environmental assessment law in the country.

Some argue this interpretation of the new Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) will undermine the ability for the public to challenge the legality of environmental assessment reports for future projects, such as Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline and TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline.

The precedent established through that June 23 ruling means it’s now exclusively up to the federal cabinet — rather than the courts — to determine whether an environmental assessment report was properly conducted, meaning that the public can no longer challenge reports on the grounds of perceived incompleteness or negligence.

As a result, federal cabinet may be missing key perspectives while making decisions on major resource projects.

“That cabinet is empowered to make these decisions with the public being denied any kind of role or option is, at the very least, anti-democratic and at its worst you could even look at it as creating a kind of despotic situation around these issues,” says Chris Genovali, executive director of the Raincoast Conservation Foundation.

Raincoast Conservation Foundation Applying to Supreme Court For Review of Interpretation

On September 21, Ecojustice applied on behalf of Raincoast to the Supreme Court of Canada for leave to appeal.

If leave to appeal is granted — which fewer than 10 per cent of applicants receive — the country’s highest court will proceed to determine whether the Federal Court of Appeals erred in its interpretation of Sections 29 to 31 of the new CEAA.

Barry Robinson, lawyer and national program director for Ecojustice, says that since the former CEAA was introduced in 1992, the public could challenge reports on the grounds that there were perceived errors or omissions.

In the case of the Northern Gateway, such alleged errors included the review panel not considering the impacts of the project on humpback whales and other at-risk species, as well as evidence that diluted bitumen would sink in water and seriously complicate clean-up efforts.

“Most of the cases said that what you need is a legally prepared report before you make any decision based on that report,” Robinson says. “Just in this Gateway case was the first time the court said ‘well, actually, only the governor in council [or federal cabinet] can decide whether the report was legally prepared.’ We just kind of went ‘that doesn’t sound consistent with past case law.’ ”

How Harper’s Changes to Environmental Laws Are Being Leveraged by #Pipeline Companies https://t.co/sJcCDAu7rf @james_m_wilt #cdnpoli #bcpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) October 14, 2016

Kinder Morgan Already Referenced Precedent in Attempts to Dismiss Challenges

Robinson notes that in a bit of an odd twist, the courts spent a significant chunk of time interpreting Sections 29 to 31 of the new CEAA but ended up not actually applying it to Northern Gateway as there were other transitional provisions that applied.

“In fact, throughout the whole thing, the court was analyzing the wrong section,” he says.

But Genovali says that we’ve already started to see the fallout from the setting of the precedent.

Days after the Enbridge decision was announced, Kinder Morgan introduced a motion referencing the interpretation in order to dismiss a lawsuit also filed by Ecojustice on behalf of Raincoast over the National Energy Board’s allegedly flawed final report on its Trans Mountain pipeline (specifically on whether the Species at Risk Act was violated by the NEB’s actions with regards to southern resident killer whales, a critically endangered species).

Then, last month, the Federal Court of Appeal relied on the decision to deny an application by the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation over a similar issue in regards to Kinder Morgan.

“It immediately struck us as soon as this came down that this was something that had to be challenged and if we can’t get this reversed through this appeal I think the Canadian public needs to press upon the Trudeau government that they have to rectify this,” Genovali says.

“This is a vestige of the Harper era. I think if we take the prime minister and his government’s statements at face value then they need to do something about this because this would appear to contravene all of the values that he articulated during the campaign and continues to speak to.”

Robinson says that it usually takes between four to six months for the Supreme Court to decide whether to grant leave to appeal.

Given recent history, it seems likely that pipeline companies will continue to refer to the precedent until then. If the court decides not to grant leave to appeal, the precedent will be maintained and cabinet will continue to be the sole arbiters of whether an EA report was legally prepared or not.

Image: Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline construction. Photo: Transmountain.com

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The Alberta government titled its 2016 budget “The Alberta Jobs Plan” but there’s one group in the province that’s disappointed it will not see its jobs proposal funded.   The reclamation and clean-up of abandoned oil sites was proposed as a potential job creator by the Petroleum Services Association of Canada (PSAC). With over 37,000 orphaned and inactive wells across the province and thousands of unemployed, highly-skilled workers, PSAC said the provincial government should dedicated funds to well clean-up and reclamation.   It’s a proposal similar to Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall’s ask for federal funding to clean up his province’s orphaned oil wells. His request for $156 million went unanswered in the federal budget. Wall argued the funding would have put 1,200 people back to work.   Alberta’s economic downturn has seen 40,000 jobs lost in the energy sector. PSAC argued putting money into decommissioning oil sites could reclaim some oil and gas sector jobs and get companies back to work.    “We are losing tens of thousands of workers from the oil and gas services sector and, along with them, the intellectual capital and expertise we need when the economy turns around,” Mark Salkeld, president and CEO of PSAC, said.   PSAC has advocated for several months that $500 million in funds, whether from the province or federal government, be put into a decommissioning program for orphaned and inactive wells.   But on budget day in Alberta the only funding dedicated to this issue was a $30.5 million injection into the Orphan Well Association, a group funded predominantly by industry (they received a one-time boost of $30 million from Alberta a few years ago) that cleans up sites abandoned by bankrupted companies.   The cost of reclaiming a single well starts around $10,000 but can become millions in some cases. Since its inception just over two decades ago the Orphan Well Association has reclaimed over 650 wells. Over 540 wells have been abandoned in Alberta in the last 12 months, up four times from previous years as especially junior and intermediate companies have struggled with record-low oil prices. An estimated 700 orphaned wells are the result of bankruptcy.   Brad Herald, vice president of Western Canadian Operations with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and director of the Orphan Well Association, said the group is on its way to reclaiming 160 abandonments a year, which is up from 40 to 50 per year previously.   “We’ve effectively quadrupled the wells we’re going to put to bed in just a couple years,” Herald said.   A lack of fresh funds to handle the growing number of abandoned sites means the Alberta government hopes sticking with a polluter-pays model will pan out in the long run.   “Many Albertans and Canadians alike don’t want their tax dollars going to cleaning up after someone else,” Alberta Energy Minister Marg McQuiag Boyd said in a statement to DeSmog Canada.   Don Bester, president of the Alberta Surface Rights Group, agrees. Tax-dollar subsidized reclamation creates the expectation government will simply pay for industry’s abandoned projects, which, according to Bester, removes any incentive for companies to carry out costly clean-up.   “Oil and gas companies that are not in trouble are going to just say ‘well, why not just leave them? Somewhere down the road the government will clean them up.’”   In the meantime, however, thousands of inactive wells dot the provincial landscape on at times valuable farmland, like environmental potholes left for future generations.

Barry Robinson, lawyer and National Program Director with Ecojustice, said if there was ever a time for government to step in with funds for orphaned wells, it would be now during the economic downturn when costs are low and people need jobs.   “The sooner you clean up the really old wells the less environmental risk you have,” he said.   Robinson said government investment could get clean up going in the short term while a longer-term repayment program could be put in place through royalties.   “Ultimately polluter-pays is the way to do it,” Robinson said. “We’d like to see companies post security for the abandonment and reclamation right at the time the well was drilled.”   It would avoid the current situation of companies going bankrupt and disappearing, leaving their wells to be handled by the province. For Robinson, it’s a long-term solution, which, when it comes to Alberta’s orphaned wells, have been in short supply.   Robinson says a big issue is the absence of timeline rules in oil and gas regulations. Without meaningful time limits regulators have nothing to enforce.   “Companies are not doing anything wrong or illegal by simply leaving wells inactive,” Robinson said, adding there are at times “good reasons for wells to be inactive.”     But he said there are orphaned wells dating back to the 50s and 60s that still have not been dealt with.   The longer a well sits abandoned, the higher the risk of accidental release or groundwater contamination.   For the landowners Bester works with, these legacy wells mean they’re stuck with inoperable and potentially hazardous land. 

During a major review of Alberta’s royalty structure last year, the Alberta Surface Rights Group recommended the government integrate clean up payments directly into the oil and gas regulatory structure.   Bester said he also recommended the government require companies to clean up old well before building new sites. Ultimately his group’s recommendations went nowhere.   Bester’s group has met with Environment Minister Shannon Phillips and Minister McQuiag-Boyd on the issue and is hopeful a regulatory change will come this spring during the legislative session.

Image: Chris & Lara Pawluk/Flickr.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.