From “The Abundance of Less Lessons in Simple Living from Rural Japan by Andy Couturier

From “The Abundance of Less Lessons in Simple Living from Rural Japan" by Andy Couturier

Pages 264-265

“Sooo..” I begin to ask him, a bit apprehensive, not wanting to be insulting, “Gufu-san, why write all this stuff down?”

Unperturbed, he replies simply, “To make a record. If you don’t record things, you start to lose your sense of the place. It’s also interesting when you talk to other people, or when I want to look up something later. But it’s mostly just to make a record, even if I don’t use the information.”

“Yes, but how do you decide which things to write down?”

“Whatever is possible to write down, I write. How much the bus cost. How much the movie was, or how much the hotel was.”

“But why?” I ask.

“I didn’t have any purpose in doing it.”

No purpose? Perhaps I’ve been too attached to all my own actions being done for a reason. Utilitarianism is so deep in my culture I don’t even notice it. Listening to Gufu it occurs to me that it may not be so good to be always reaching ahead in time. Sitting here with my friend in a farmhouse in the mountains of Japan, I find my way of seeing the world start to deepen and change. All these little, unlooked-at details create the fabric of memory. By writing them down, we are refusing to let the experiences of our lives get subsumed in the tsunami of time, the onrush of the next, and the next, and the next. I think of so many travelers (myself included) zipping from one location to the next, taking photos of scenery or a building. Have I been missing the beautiful in the obvious?

Gufu is showing me--not that he’s trying to show me anything--that the whole world can come alive with these tiny details, ephemera, you might call them. But not just a generalized “world,” but a specific world, an India of a particular time, and, as it happens, an India that is disappearing every day.

Friday, June 19, 2015

Mr. Shields, it is still unclear to us exactly what information you are requesting. I have provided the description that is in bolded type above to ERCB personnel who would be responding to your request and they are left with the impression that every completion event for which the ERCB has records could potentially be responsive to your request and would have to be reviewed. I have asked them to estimate the magnitude of the task that would be required to compile all the documents in the ERCB's custody or control that may contain responsive information. They have advised me that responding to such a request would require a massive undertaking on the part of the ERCB: potentially in the millions of pages of records. ----------------So I'm curious--if they aren't going to give Stewart the information --will they give this information to the Energy Minister? Will she have to pay for it? Will they tell her to FRACK OFF?

So Stewart sent a request to the AER place when it was the ERCB place-- asking for all information about fracking problems as noted here:

2013 02 19 ERCB Lawyer Mr Gary Perkins 'Millions of Pages of Records'


Now I understand that the folks at the AER place seem to be confused when ordinary citizens ask for information as we haven't been asking anything for 44 years, but surely the request that Stewart made is clear?
He wants to know of all the boo boos that have been documented by the AER and its earlier metamorphic forms.
He wants a list of mistakes made by fracking companies that resulted in say -the well water on fire in Rosebud, the poisoning of families as in Diana Daunheimer's case, the non-disclosure agreements for fracked property. That kind of thing. It seems clear enough to me what Stewart is asking. But maybe the AER needs to have a few visuals? Let me go look for some.

1) Here is a website where ordinary families yap about fracking hell:

What about the Safety of our Water?

Submitted by Rena Woss
Opposition to Golden Key Oil drilling, fracking and flaring inside my city of Lethbridge, Alberta is legitimate and cause for REAL for concern. While frackers and their few supporters try to convince us that fracking is ‘safe’ – what they ignore is that water – the essence of what allows us to live in this semi-arid climate will not be safeguarded. Millions of gallons of fresh water will be used and destroyed for every well fracked!  To compound matters, waters of our Oldman River and ground water could very well be polluted.  Why would we take such a risk?
Water is not a commodity to be used and poisoned, but a living,
life giving, sacred, precious resource.
Lethbridge is situated in one of the driest parts of the province – the Palliser Triangle. Droughts are regular here.  Records indicate that we’ve had 30 year droughts in the past; in 2007 we had a 2 year drought.  Our average annual rainfall is less than 11 inches per year.  This informs us that water is scarce and conservation hugely important.  Our main industry is agriculture and its 100% dependent on water. Unlike oil and gas, agriculture returns unused water back to the Eco system.  Agriculture also employs and plays a major role in our city’s retail, wholesale and service sectors – far more than oil and gas.
It should be noted is that Lethbridge is the Sun and Wind capital of Canada. We could be producing clean renewable energy without violating our water, polluting our air and soil and creating social and infrastructure problems for our community that are part and parcel of gas and oil operation.
In researching water and population growth, I’ve come upon reams of disturbing facts.  A few basics:  97% of all the water on earth is salt water (undrinkable); 3% is fresh but LESS than 1% is fit for human consumption (much already polluted). Up to 4% of usable groundwater is already polluted. In 1900 there were 1.65 billion people in the world; today the thirsty numbers have exploded to over 7 billion; by 2025 that figure could increase by yet another billion. To feed and water the growing masses will result in competition for resources as we cannot imagine. In the future, water could feasibly become more precious than gold and destruction of it could well be viewed as the crime that it is. The fight we have on our hands is a noble one for at the heart of it is our lifeblood – our precious water.
Rena Woss
Share Button

2) Here is a website where Jessica Ernst must spend most of her life going endlessly to court--to inform an indifferent public so that the dangers of fracking are clear to all of us.

The Lawsuit

June 12, 2015, Ernst filed with Supreme Court of Canada: Ernst Memorandum of Argument on Constitutional Questions, Response to Glenn Solomon, AER
June 5, 2015, AER filed with Supreme Court of Canada: Glenn Solomon, AER Response to Ernst Motion to State a Constitutional Question 
TAKE NOTICE that the appellant hereby applies to the Right Honourable Chief Justice of Canada or a Judge pursuant to Rule 47 and Rule 60(1)(a) for an Order to have a constitutional question stated, and any further or other order that the Court may deem appropriate:
1. Does s. 43 of Alberta's Energy Resources Conservation Act, which contains a general "protection from action" clause, bar a Charter claim for a personal remedy made pursuant s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
2. Does s. 43 of Alberta's Energy Resources Conservation Act define or constrain what remedies are available under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Background to the above constitutional questions: 
Where an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada raises a constitutional question (as here), the appellant is required to bring a Motion to State a Constitutional Question (as above).
It's the court’s preference that constitutional questions be stated on a consent basis. Ernst's lawyers asked Glenn Solomon, counsel for the AER,  if the regulator consented to the above questions. This was his response:
“We will not be able to agree on a Constitutional Question, and you will have to bring an Application in that regard.”
2015 04 30: GRANTED WITH COSTS / ACCORDÉES AVEC DÉPENS Press Release by Supreme Court of Canada
 Jessica Ernst v. Alberta Energy Regulator (Alta.) (Civil) (By Leave) (36167)
(The application for leave to appeal is granted with costs in the cause. /
[with costs in the cause means that legal costs will be awarded to the party successful in the appeal (usually a few hundred dollars - much less than Ernst's costs already paid and will have to pay for transcripts, filings and in preparation for the hearing and the hearing itself at the Supreme Court.  The costs for Ernst to continue her case against the Alberta government and Encana remain her burden, and against the AER if she wins at the Supreme Court (which would send Ernst back to Justice Wittmann who ruled against her Charter rights in Court of Queen's Bench in Alberta)
2013 09 19 Justice Neil C Wittmann ERCB AER judged Ernst a terrorist in total absence of evidence still gave ERCB complete immunity even for Charter violation
La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accueillie avec dépens selon l’issue de la cause.)
Coram: Abella / Karakatsanis / Côté
Johnny Mennillo c. Intramodal Inc. (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation) (36124)
(The application for leave to appeal is granted with costs in the cause. /
La demande d’autorisation d’appel est accueillie avec dépens selon l’issue de la cause.)
Coram: Abella / Karakatsanis / Côté
Her Majesty the Queen v. Erin Lee MacDonald (N.S.) (Criminal) (By Leave) (36238)
Coram: McLachlin / Wagner / Gascon
Martin Cousineau et autre c. Procureur général du Québec (Qc.) (Civile) (Autorisation) (36148)
Coram: Abella / Karakatsanis / Côté
Humanics Universal Inc. et al v. City of Ottawa (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave) (36199)
Coram: Abella / Karakatsanis / Côté
Ali Raza Jafri et al. v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.) (Civil) (By Leave) (36213)
(The motions for an extension of time to serve and file the applications for leave to appeal are granted. The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed. /
Les requêtes en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt des demandes d’autorisation d’appel sont accueillies. Les demandes d’autorisation d’appel sont rejetées.)
Coram: Rothstein / Cromwell / Moldaver
Procureur général du Canada c. Jean-Marc Poulin de Courval, Ès qualité de syndic de faillite de Sylvain Girard (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation) (36220)
Coram: McLachlin / Wagner / Gascon
W.P. et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen et al. (Alta.) (Civil) (By Leave) (36285)
(The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs. /
La requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt de la demande d’autorisation d’appel est accueillie. La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens.)
Coram: McLachlin / Wagner / Gascon
Louis Peter Tekavec et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia (B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave) (36269)
Coram: McLachlin / Wagner / Gascon
Ville de Lévis c. Fraternité des policiers de Lévis inc. (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation) (36106)
Coram: Abella / Karakatsanis / Côté
Catherine Leuthold v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (F.C.) (Civil) (By Leave) (36030)
(The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent. /
La requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt de la demande d’autorisation d’appel est accueillie. La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens en faveur de l’intimée.)
Coram: Abella / Karakatsanis / Côté
Jason Daoust-Crochetiere v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Natural Resources for the Province of Ontario (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave) (36240)
Coram: Abella / Karakatsanis / Côté
Conrad M. Black v. Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.) (Civil) (By Leave) (36293)
(The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs. /
La requête en prorogation du délai de signification et de dépôt de la demande d’autorisation d’appel est accueillie. La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec dépens.)
Coram: Rothstein / Cromwell / Moldaver
O.S.S. v. C.K.S.(B.) (Alta.) (Civil) (By Leave) (36299)
(The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with double Schedule B costs. /
La demande d’autorisation d’appel est rejetée avec des dépens correspondant au double du tarif prévu à l’annexe B.)
Coram: Rothstein / Cromwell / Moldaver
V. I. Fabrikant v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada et al. (F.C.) (Civil) (By Leave) (36282)
Coram: Abella / Karakatsanis / Côté
2015 01 11: Alberta courts stop publishing judgments to cut costs; Why not reduce the billions given to the oil and gas industry instead? [Some court links below may go nowhere. Time permitting, case judgements will be uploaded directly to the website.]
Que décidera la Cour Suprême? On saura après-demain si la Cour Suprême entendra l'appel de Jessica Ernst:
April 30, 2015, 9:45 AM (Ontario time), Ernst vs ERCB (now AER):
The Supreme Court of Canada will release their decision regarding Ernst's leave application.
Press Release by Supreme Court of Canada / Cour suprême du Canada
 (le français suit)
April 27, 2015
For immediate release
OTTAWA – The Supreme Court of Canada announced today that judgment in the following applications for leave to appeal will be delivered at 9:45 a.m. EDT on Thursday, April 30, 2015.  This list is subject to change.
Le 27 avril 2015
Pour diffusion immédiate 
OTTAWA – La Cour suprême du Canada annonce que jugement sera rendu dans les demandes d’autorisation d’appel suivantes le jeudi 30 avril 2015, à 9 h 45 HAE.  Cette liste est sujette à modifications.
1.       Her Majesty the Queen v. Erin Lee MacDonald (N.S.) (Criminal) (By Leave) (36238)
2.       Procureur général du Canada c. Jean-Marc Poulin de Courval, Ès qualité de syndic de faillite de Sylvain Girard (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation) (36220)
3.       W.P. et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen et al. (Alta.) (Civil) (By Leave) (36285)
4.       Louis Peter Tekavec et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia (B.C.) (Civil) (By Leave) (36269)
5.       Ali Hassan Saeed v. Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.) (Criminal) (By Leave) (36328)
6.       Joseph Ryan Lloyd v. Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.) (Criminal) (By Leave) (35982) 
7.       Jessica Ernst v. Alberta Energy Regulator (Alta.) (Civil) (By Leave) (36167)
8.       Johnny Mennillo c. Intramodal Inc. (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation) (36124)
9.       Martin Cousineau et autre c. Procureur général du Québec (Qc.) (Civile) (Autorisation) (36148) 
10.    JH Drilling v. Alberta Natural Resources Conservation Board et al. (Alta.) (Civil) (By Leave) (36254)
11.    Humanics Universal Inc. et al v. City of Ottawa (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave) (36199)
12.    Ville de Lévis c. Fraternité des policiers de Lévis inc. (Qc) (Civile) (Autorisation) (36106)
13.    Catherine Leuthold v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (F.C.) (Civil) (By Leave) (36030)
14.    Jason Daoust-Crochetiere v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Natural Resources for the Province of Ontario (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave) (36240)
15.    V. I. Fabrikant v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada et al. (F.C.) (Civil) (By Leave) (36282)
16.    Conrad M. Black v. Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.) (Civil) (By Leave) (36293)
17.    O.S.S. v. C.K.S.(B.) (Alta.) (Civil) (By Leave) (36299 
18.    Ali Raza Jafri et al. v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (F.C.) (Civil) (By Leave) (36213)
2015 03 31: PRESS RELEASE by Klippensteins (French Translation below):
2015 03 31 Quote from Klippensteins Press Release on Encana's dreadfully deficient Disclosure records
2015 03 31 Ernst Quote on from Klippensteins Press Release on Encana's dreadfully deficient Disclosure records
ROSEBUD, AB, March 31, 2015 /CNW/ - Plaintiff Jessica Ernst is raising serious concerns regarding blatant, widespread and systemic deficiencies in Encana's disclosure of records, including Encana's failure to disclose key records in a landmark lawsuit against EnCana, Alberta Environment and the Energy Resources Conservation Board (now AER) regarding water contamination caused by hydraulic fracturing.
"To be frank, EnCana's disclosure was embarrassingly pathetic – it was an incomplete, disorganized, error-laden, repetitive and insulting mess that wastes everyone's time and money, including the Court's," said Jessica Ernst. "This is yet another example of the disrespect with which Encana treats regular Albertans, and a further indication of how difficult it is for individuals to stand up to large corporations in court."
The blatantly deficient nature of the List of Records filed by EnCana will make it very difficult for the court to understand the case, and have the very real effect of causing considerable delay and increasing costs on all sides. According to the Foundational Rules of the Alberta Rules of Court, full disclosure of documents by parties named in a lawsuit "provide a means by which claims can be fairly and justly resolved in or by a court process in a timely and cost effective way."
Most concerning are key documents that are missing from EnCana's disclosure. In particular, Encana failed to disclose:
  • records regarding hundreds of gas wells fractured in drinking water zones at Rosebud;
  • the chemicals used by EnCana at hundreds of wells near Rosebud; and
  • investigations into other contaminated water wells in the Rosebud Area.
Ms. Ernst's lawyers have written to EnCana's lawyers noting that in light of Encana's "extraordinarily deficient disclosure," the only reasonable solution is for EnCana to redo its disclosure of records. A copy of the letter outlining the severe and widespread deficiencies in detail can be found here.
2015 03 31 Snap Conclusion Murray Klippenstein to Osler, re Encana's blatantly incomplete, deficient, disclosure of records
SOURCE Klippensteins
For further information:
Klippensteins Barristers & Solicitors:
Murray Klippenstein / Cory Wanless, (416) 598-0288;
Jessica Ernst: 1-403-677-2074,
2015 03 27 Murray Klippenstein Letter to Maureen Killoran, Osler - Ernst v EnCana - Disclosure of Records:
2012 11 28: Power of Attorney Calgary managing partner for Osler Hoskin Harcourt, Maureen Killoran, lawyer representing Encana in the Ernst vs Encana lawsuit:
And, to be perfectly frank, when you do energy law, as I do, or corporate litigation, you’re not dealing with life and death situations and people whose lives have been turned upside down, plaintiffs who are weeping. It’s just about money. [Emphasis added]
Communiqué de presse
Rosebud, Alberta - Le 31 mars 2015 - La plaignante Jessica Ernst soulève des préoccupations sérieuses au sujet des déficiences flagrantes, généralisées et systémiques dans la divulgation des dossiers de la part d'Encana, dont la divulgation de documents clés dans le cas de jurisprudence contre Encana, Alberta Environment et le Energy Resources Conservation Board (maintenant AER) au sujet de la contamination de l'eau causée par la fracturation hydraulique.
"Pour être bien honnête, la divulgation d'Encana est franchement pathétique - elle est incomplète, désorganisée, pleines d'erreurs, répétitive et un gâchis insultant qui fait perdre le temps et de l'argent à tout le monde, incluant la Cour," dit Jessica Ernst. "C'est un autre bel exemple du manque de respect qu'a Encana pour tous les Albertains ordinaires, et une autre signe qui illustre comment c'est difficile pour les individus de tenir tête à de larges corporations devant la cour."
La nature déficiente si évidente de la List of Records déposée par Encana rendra les choses très difficiles pour la cour de comprendre le dossier, et a comme effet très réel de causer des délais considérables et augmenter les coûts pour tous les partis. Selon le Foundational Rules of the Alberta Rules of Court, une entière divulgation de documents par les partis nommés dans un procès "fournit les moyens pour qu'un cas soit résolu de manière équitable et juste en ou selon un procès de cour en temps opportun et selon un rapport coût/efficacité raisonnable."
Les plus préoccupants sont des documents clés manquant dans la divulgation d'Encana. Notamment, Encana n'a pas dévoilé:
  • les documents au sujet des centaines de puits de gaz fracturés dans des zones d'eau potable de Rosebud;
  • les produits chimiques utilisés par Encana dans des centaines de puits près de Rosebud; et
  • les enquêtes faites sur d'autres puits d'eau potable contaminés dans la région de Rosebud.
Les avocats de Mme Ernst ont écrit aux avocats d'Encana que vu la "divulgation extraordinairement déficiente" d'Encana, la seule solution serait qu'Encana refasse sa divulgation de dossiers. Une copie de la lettre exposant les déficiences sévères et généralisées en détails peut être consultée ici.
Comment un travail si évident d'insuffisance professionnelle et de si grande portée peut même être considéré comme étant acceptable pour nous le faire parvenir est incompréhensible. Peut-être qu'il s'agit de normes de qualité de travail si faibles de la part de quiconque aurait effectué ou supervisé cette tâche, ou le mépris envers une Albertaine ordinaire qui ose défier la puissante Encana, ou un placement semi-délibéré d'un obstacle aux tentatives de Mme Ernst d'emmener cette question devant la cour, ou une indifférence cavalière envers l'entente que vous avez faite ou les besoins de la cour, ou une certaine combinaison de tout cela. Ce n'est pas facile de trouver une quelconque justification raisonnable pour  la livraison d'une version si manifestement déficiente d'une partie importante de cette poursuite. Dans tous les cas, vu la nature, le nombre et la sévérité de ces déficiences, la seule solution doit être qu'Encana refasse sa divulgation de ses documents de façon à ce qu'elle se conforme au Alberta Rules of Court et le Protocol Regarding Electronic Discovery comme il avait été convenu.
Klippensteins Barristers & Solicitors:
Murray Klippenstein / Cory Wanless, (416) 598-0288;
Jessica Ernst: 1-403-677-2074,
Keywords Canadian charter (Non-criminal) - Constitutional law, Enforcement, Remedy, Freedom of expression (s. 2(b)).
Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch) for information purposes only.
Charter of Rights – Constitutional law – Enforcement – Remedy – Freedom of expression – Statutory immunity clause held to preclude adjudication of individual’s action in damages for alleged Charter breach by the regulator – Can a general “protection from action” clause contained within legislation bar a Charter claim for a personal remedy made pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter – Can legislation constrain what is considered to be a “just and appropriate” remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter – Vancouver (City) v. Ward, 2010 SCC 27, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 28.
The applicant owns land near Rosebud, Alberta. She brought an action against: i) EnCana Corporation for damage to her water well and the Rosebud aquifer allegedly caused by its construction, drilling, hydraulic fracturing and other activities in the area; ii) Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, claiming it owes her a duty to protect her water supply and had failed to address her complaints about EnCana; and iii) the respondent regulator, for “negligent administration of a regulatory regime” related to her claims against EnCana. She brought a further claim for damages against the regulator under s. 24(1) of the Charter for alleged breaches of her s. 2(b) Charter rights. She alleges that from November, 2005 to March 2007, the Board’s Compliance Branch refused to accept further communications from her through the usual channels for public communication until she agreed to raise her concerns only with the Board and not publicly through the media or through communications with other citizens. She submits the respondent infringed her s. 2(b) Charter rights both by restricting her communication with it and by using those restrictions to punish her for past public criticisms and prevent her making future public criticisms of the respondent.
The respondent brought an application to strike paragraphs from the Statement of Claim or grant summary judgment in its favour. The Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta granted the application and struck out the applicant’s negligence and Charter claims. While the Court held that the Charter claims were not doomed to fail and did disclose a cause of action, it held that the courts were precluded from considering the claims by the statutory immunity provision in the Energy Resources Conservation Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. E-10. The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
36167 Jessica Ernst c. Alberta Energy Regulator
(Alb.) (Civile) (Sur autorisation)
Charte des droits – Droit constitutionnel – Exécution – Réparation – Liberté d’expression – Il a été jugé qu’une disposition législative accordant l’immunité empêchait de trancher une action en dommages-intérêts fondée sur une violation de la Charte censément commise par l’organisme de règlementation – Une disposition accordant une protection générale contre les actions prévue dans la loi rend-elle irrecevable une demande de réparation personnelle faite en application du par. 24(1)  de la Charte ? – Une loi peut-elle restreindre ce qui est considéré comme une réparation « convenable et juste » au sens du par. 24(1)  de la Charte ? – Vancouver (Ville) c. Ward, 2010 CSC 27, [2010] 2 R.C.S 28.
La demanderesse est propriétaire d’un bien-fonds à Rosebud (Alberta).  Elle a intenté une action contre i) EnCana Corporation, pour des dommages à son puits d’eau et à l’aquifère de Rosebud, censément causés par les activités que l’entreprise exerce dans la région, notamment ses activités de construction, de forage et de fracturation hydraulique, ii) Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, alléguant que ce ministère avait envers elle une obligation de protéger son approvisionnement en eau et qu’il avait omis de donner suite à ses plaintes au sujet d’EnCana et iii) l’organisme de réglementation intimé, pour [traduction] « négligence dans l’administration d’un régime de réglementation » en lien avec ses réclamations contre EnCana.  Elle a en outre présenté une demande en dommages-intérêts contre l’organisme de réglementation en application du par. 24(1)  de la Charte  pour de présumées atteintes aux droits que lui garantit l’al. 2b)  de la Charte .  Selon la demanderesse, de novembre 2005 à mars 2007,  la Direction de la conformité de l’organisme intimé avait refusé d’accepter d’autres communications de sa part par les canaux habituels de communication publique jusqu’à ce qu’elle accepte de ne faire part de ses préoccupations qu’à l’organisme, et non publiquement par les médias ou par des communications avec d’autres citoyens.  Elle prétend que l’intimé a porté atteinte aux droits que lui garantit l’al. 2b)  de la Charte  en restreignant ses communications avec l’organisme et en utilisant ces restrictions pour la punir de ses critiques antérieures et l’empêcher de formuler d’autres critiques publiques de l’intimé.
L’intimé a présenté une demande pour obtenir la radiation de certains paragraphes de la déclaration ou un jugement sommaire en sa faveur. La Cour du Banc de la Reine de l’Alberta a accueilli la demande et a radié les réclamations pour négligence et les réclamations fondées sur la Charte présentées par la demanderesse. Même si la Cour a statué que les réclamations fondées sur la Charte n’étaient pas vouées à l’échec et qu’elles révélaient effectivement une cause d’action, elle a statué que les tribunaux ne pouvaient connaître des réclamations en raison de la disposition législative accordant l’immunité, prévue dans l’Energy Resources Conservation Act, R.S.A. 2000, ch. E-10. La Cour d’appel de l’Alberta a rejeté l’appel.
19 septembre 2013: Cour du Banc de la Reine de l’Alberta (Juge Wittmann) 2013 ABQB 537
Décision accueillant la demande de l’intimé en radiation des réclamations en négligence portées contre lui; radiation ou rejet des réclamations de la demanderesse afin d’obtenir une réparation personnelle pour violation de la Charte
15 septembre 2014: Cour d’appel de l’Alberta (Calgary) (Juges Côté, Watson et Slatter)
2014 ABCA 285; 1301-0346-AC
Rejet de l’appel
13 novembre 2014: Cour suprême du Canada
Dépôt de la demande d’autorisation d’appel
February 9, 2015: Supreme Court of Canada Justice Rosalie Abella, Justice Andromache Karakatsanis and Justice Suzanne Côté to review Ernst's application for leave (to decide if the court will hear her case).
In Montréal, Suzanne Côté is trumpeted by several peers as being "very strong" in her commercial, insolvency, and securities practice. Côté is defending Université de Montréal, Vivendi Canada, and École Polytechnique de Montréal, and Hydro-Québec in a class action challenging pension plan and retiree benefit program amendments and calculations. ... The firm is also recognized for its blossoming Calgary office, where a "noticeably younger" team of litigators attends to matters concerning Alberta's flourishing oil and gas markets as well as technology providers, insurers and corporate officers. ... In the energy litigation capacity, Maureen Killoran is also thought of by peers as "bright, strong, and capable." Killoran's clients include EnCana, which Killoran represents in several matters, including a public prosecution by the Federal Government for an alleged breach of the Canada Wildlife Act, as well as an action brought against the client by a landowner for alleged damages caused by fracking. [Emphasis added]
2014 05 09: Ernst Argues Alberta's Energy Regulator (AER) Not Immune to Charter [Encana's Ex VP Gerard Protti  is Chair of the AER]
... Ernst's lawyer Murray Klippenstein argued yesterday that no government or province can legislate themselves out of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter of Rights, on which Ernst's claim is based. He called the Charter "the supreme law of the land."
He argued that Ernst's right to freedom of expression was breached in 2005 when the regulator sent her a letter accusing her of making "criminal threats." It informed her that regulator staff had been told "to avoid any further contact" with Ernst.
A letter by Ernst seeking clarification on that decision and what basis it was made was refused by the board and returned unopened. ...
In a taped conversation in June 2006 with ERCB lawyer Rick McKee, McKee said that "criminal threats" were never an issue, but that the board was upset with the landowner for airing her grievances in public and therefore embarrassing the regulator.*
"What you are doing is, hey, I don't want to make it sound like people are a bunch of sensitive, you know, but at the end of the day, you are, you seem to be, attempting to humiliate the organization. And if that is your intention good on you, but don't expect us to help you," McKee told Ernst.
(The Tyee has heard the recording, read the transcripts and checked with actual witnesses. The incident is detailed in the original statement of claim.)
"Jessica is fighting for the welfare of the public in general," said Shawn Campbell, a semi-retired 65-year-old rancher from Ponoka, Alberta. "To me, the issue is government transparency, and we have none of it. They're in the deepest closet they can find."
2015 02 11 snap Supreme Court Canada Docket Ernst vs AER (previously ERCB, EUB), Justices to review leave application
January 30, 2015: the Alberta Government filed their Statement of Defence:
34. Further, and in the alternative, if the Plaintiff did incur any loss or damages as
alleged in the statement of claim, or at all, which the Province does not admit but rather denies, then any such loss or damages were caused solely or substantially contributed to by the negligence of EnCana, for which the Province is not liable.
January 15, 2015, the Alberta Government suddenly announced it had other unexpected issues arise and was unable to file its Statement of Defence by mid-January, as promised in 2014.
"Triple costs" the court ordered the Alberta government to pay (works out to much less than what Ernst had to pay to fight Environment's third and "improper" attack on the case):
Fees: $ 7,500.00
Disbursements: $ 230.10
Other Charges: $ 366.00
GST: $ 408.81
TOTAL: $ 8,500.91
(On January 20, 2015, the government, with banks full of cash they do not need to account for - according to AER's lawyer Mr Glenn Solomon, finally paid Ernst these costs. The ruling was dated November 7, 2014)
COMPARE: So far, the court ordered (even though the case is clearly in the public interest) Ernst to pay industry, aka the ERCB (AER, 100% funded by industry, headed by Ex-Encana VP Gerard Protti) $21,840.79 for Mr. Solomon's costs. Ernst paid as ordered to.
69: The ERCB submits that there is no legal issue of general importance which requires further guidance from this Court nor any injustice to the Applicant to remedy.
Procès charnière du fracking: Le juge statue qu'un propriétaire terrien peut poursuivre le gouvernement translation of Nikiforuk article by Amie du Richelieu, November 11, 2014
ROSEBUD, AB, Nov 10, 2014 /CNW/ - The Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta has ruled that Alberta Environment can be sued for failing to properly investigate and remediate water contamination allegedly caused by Encana's hydraulic fracturing activities near Rosebud, Alberta.
"This is a big victory for water and for all Albertans. The decision means that landowners can stand up and hold governments and regulators to account if they fail in their duty to properly investigate environmental contamination" said Rosebud resident and plaintiff Jessica Ernst.
Alberta Environment argued in court it didn't owe a "private duty of care" to individual landowners when investigating causes of groundwater contamination that left wells so polluted with methane and other contaminants that the water could (and still can) be lit on fire. In other words, the regulator argued that individual landowners couldn't try to hold government legally responsible for negligent investigations of environmental contamination, no matter how faulty. The Court disagreed. Chief Justice Wittmann ruled that "[w]hile this is a novel claim, I find there is a reasonable prospect Ernst will succeed in establishing that Alberta owed her a prima facie duty of care."
In addition to ruling in favour of Ms. Ernst on all key points, Chief Justice Wittmann took the rare step of ordering the government to pay triple Ms. Ernst's legal costs for the improper manner in which her claim was attacked.
"Ernst was wholly successful in responding to this Application. ... These arguments could have been raised as part of Alberta's first application, but were not. Ernst was put to the time and expense of two applications, not one. ... As a result of these considerations Ernst shall have her costs against Alberta fixed at triple [the regular rate]”
SOURCE Klippensteins
For further information:
Klippensteins Barristers & Solicitors:
Murray Klippenstein, (416) 598-0288 or (416) 937-8634;
Cory Wanless, (416) 598-0288 or (647) 886-1914
Communiqué de presse
La cour statue qu'Alberta Environment peut se faire poursuivre pour n'avoir pas correctement enquêté une contamination de l'eau à Rosebud, en Alberta, et ne pas avoir pris des mesures d'assainissement.
Rosebud, Alberta (10 novembre 2014) - Le juge en chef de la Cour du Banc de la Reine en Alberta a statué qu'Environment Alberta peut se faire poursuivre pour ne pas avoir correctement fait enquête d'une contamination de l'eau, et ne pas avoir pris des mesures d'assainissement suite à une contamination présumément causée par des activités de fracturation hydraulique faites par Encana près de Rosebud, en Alberta.
"Ceci est une grande victoire pour l'eau et pour tous les Albertains. La décision veut dire que les propriétaires terriens peuvent forcer les gouvernements et les régulateurs à prendre leurs responsabilités s'ils manquent à leurs obligations d'enquêter adéquatement les contaminations environnementales" dit la résidente de Rosebud et plaignante Jessica Ernst.
Environment Alberta soutenait en cour qu'il ne devait pas de "devoir privé de protection" envers les propriétaires terriens individuels lors d'enquêtes sur les causes de contaminations d'eau souterraine qui rendaient l'eau de puits si pollués avec du méthane et d'autres contaminants que l'on pouvait (et l'on peut encore) faire brûler l'eau. En d'autres mots, le régulateur soutenait que les propriétaires terriens individuels ne pouvaient pas essayer de rendre le gouvernement légalement responsable pour des enquêtes négligentes sur des contaminations environnementales, peut importe la gravité. La Cour n'est pas d'accord. Le juge en chef Wittmann a statué que "bien que ce soit une nouvelle réclamation, je crois qu'il y a une perspective raisonnable que Ernst réussira à établir que l'Alberta lui devait à première vue un devoir de protection."
En plus de statuer en faveur de Mme Ernst sur tous les points-clés, fait rare, le juge en chef Wittmann a ordonné au gouvernement de payer les coûts légaux de Mme Ernst en triple pour la façon incorrecte qu'on a attaqué sa réclamation.
"Ernst a réussi complètement à répondre à cette Application.... Ces arguments auraient pu être soulevés lors de la première application, mais cela n'a pas été fait. On a obligé Ernst de prendre le temps et rencontrer les coûts de deux applications, pas seulement une....Suite à ces considérations, Ernst verra ses coûts contre l'Alberta triplés (du tarif régulier)."
Revisiting Regulatory Negligence, The Ernst Fracking Litigation by Martin Olszynski, October 15, 2014, comment added October 21, 2014,
2014 10 12 Thanks Giving at Rosebud, photo taken from Ernst property
Happy Thanks Giving, View from Ernst property October 10, 2014
The Alberta Court of Appeal has effectively ruled that one of the nation's most powerful regulators can violate the nation's Charter of Rights and Freedoms by banishing citizens and falsely branding them as a security threats.
Alberta fracking case could go to Supreme Court by Brenton Driedger, September 15, 2014, 630 CHED
A legal fight over contaminated water and hydraulic fracturing could wind up before the Supreme Court.
Jessica Ernst has lost an appeal to sue the Alberta energy regulator over fracking on her property northeast of Calgary. But she still says her charter rights have been violated, and she plans to take that fight to the Supreme Court. She says all Canadians should be concerned about this.
“It is our water and it is the big picture that’s being violated, it is the public interest that the fracking companies are harming,” says Ernst. “The health care costs of treating the workers alone that are getting sick will be massive, never mind the families.”
Last fall an Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench judge ruled that Ernst can’t sue the energy regulator because it is immune from private legal claims. On Monday, the Alberta Court of Appeal upheld that ruling.
Ernst says her water is so contaminated that it burns skin. She plans to continue her lawsuit against the province and Encana, claiming they are responsible for chemicals getting into her water supply, because of fracking.
“I wouldn’t be doing this lawsuit if it was just my water well,” says Ernst. “That would be a total waste of time because our legal system is so against an ordinary person with a lawsuit in this country. I’m doing it because people’s drinking water is being contaminated everywhere they’re fracking. My case isn’t the only one.”
Ernst has 60 days to file for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Her lawyers have told her maybe one in ten cases are actually heard by the Supreme Court, but she wants to go ahead. (The Canadian Press, bd)
ROSEBUD, ALBERTA--(September 15, 2014) The Alberta Court of Appeal ruled today [Ruling later removed from Alberta Courts. Click here for the ruling] that Alberta’s key energy regulator cannot be sued by citizens – even if it breaches constitutional rights. In a judgment released today in a landmark lawsuit by Jessica Ernst against EnCana, Alberta Environment and the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB, now AER) regarding water contamination caused by fracing, the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled that the Alberta government had granted complete and total legal immunity to Alberta’s key regulator, the ERCB, against all legal claims, including for violations of constitutional rights.
The Court also ruled that the ERCB does not owe any legally enforceable duties to protect individual landowners from the harmful effects of fracing, after the ERCB argued in court that it had total immunity for “not only negligence, but gross negligence, bad faith and even deliberate acts,” and therefore Albertans simply could not sue the ERCB, no matter how badly they were harmed by the ERCB’s acts or failures to act.
Ms. Ernst will seek leave to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.
“I think Albertans will be disturbed to learn that their energy regulator has total and blanket legal immunity, even in cases where the regulator has breached the fundamental and constitutional free speech rights of a landowner,” said Murray Klippenstein, lead legal counsel for Ms. Ernst.
“I'll be seeking leave to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court. These are critical issues that affect all Canadians," said Jessica Ernst. "I will continue to fight for what's right." 
The lawsuit against Alberta Environment and Encana continues.
Appeal court set to rule on ERCB’s charter immunity at centre of fracking lawsuit by Jeremy Lyle, Edmonton, AB, Canada / 630 CHED, September 15, 2014
Ernst tells 630CHED’s Brenton Driedger she’s appealing a previous court ruling that an immunity clause exempted the ERCB from claims of breaching the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. ...
In its attempt to shut down the lawsuit earlier this year, the Alberta government argued the lawsuit could expose the province to billions of dollars in litigation claims.
201409 15 CHED interviews Jessica Ernst ahead of Court of Appeal of Alberta ruling ERCB now AER
Court of Appeal of Alberta announced on September 12, 2014 that their Ernst v Alberta (Energy Resources Conservation Board), 2014 ABCA 285 (Reserved Judgment) ruling will be posted Monday September 15, 2014 at 10:05 AM
Australian Petroleum Association: Coal seam damage to water inevitable by The Sydney Morning Herald, August 3, 2011.
The coal seam gas industry has conceded that extraction will inevitably contaminate aquifers. “Drilling will, to varying degrees, impact on adjoining aquifers,” said the spokesman, Ross Dunn. “The intent of saying that is to make it clear that we have never shied away from the fact that there will be impacts on aquifers,” Mr Dunn said.
Yet CAPP’s Alex Ferguson says many worries about water quality are based on past operations involving coal-bed methane — shallow deposits in closer proximity to groundwater. These did occasionally contaminate water resources, he says. In some of the more infamous instances, affected landowners could light their well water on fire.
Alex Ferguson was appointed Commissioner and CEO of the BC Oil and Gas Commission from 2007-2011
"That’s actually fairly common."
EnCana VP, Mr. Gerard Protti (appointed Chair of the AER by the government in 2013) ina 2006 interview about Ernst’s water.
Time Tracker:
Four  months and 2 week (18 weeks) since Court of Appeal of Alberta heard arguments on May 8, 2014 regarding the Court of Queen's Bench granting the ERCB complete legal immunity, even for violating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
2012 Justice Barbara Veldhuis states - too much information; 2014 Court of Appeal of Alberta Justices state - not enough information:
April 2012: Justice Veldhuis requests a shorter Statement of Claim;
Klippenstein states in court that in his experience, courts will inevitably ask for more information. Ernst cooperates and fulfills the request for a shortened Claim.
May 2014: the Court of Appeal of Alberta Justices complain there wasn't more information in the shortened Statement of Claim, and inquire about the ERCB's Statement of Defence (to date, the ERCB has not filed one).
Seven months and one week (29 weeks) since Court of Queen's Bench heard arguments in Drumheller on April 16, 2014 on Alberta Environment's Motion to Strike (after 3 years of process already and their failed application to strike the word contamination and mention of other contaminated water wells at Rosebud), and the regulator's secret editing of Dr. Alec (Alexander) Blyth's "independent" report dismissing the contamination of Ernst's well water.
Document exchange dates ordered: On April 16, 2014, Justice Wittmann requested document exchange between Ernst and Encana, saying there is no need to wait until the matters of the other defendants are ruled on. For months, Encana wouldn't even agree to schedule a case management phone call. On July 14, 2014, Justice Wittmann ordered Ernst to give Encana her documents by October 31, 2014 and Encana to give Ernst its documents by December 19, 2014. Encana argued that it should not have to give any documents until the matters of the Alberta government and ERCB are resolved. August 2014, Encana finally agrees to cooperate with the document exchange protocol, accepting searchable, manageable, usable PDFs.
It took nearly 9 months (35 weeks) for Court of Queen's Bench to rule on the January 18, 2013 hearing: ERCB motion to strike and Alberta Environment motion to remove the word contamination and mention of other contaminated water wells in Rosebud.
It took a year to set the first hearing on April 26, 2012, where Justice Veldhuis requested a shorter statement of claim. It took 7 months to set the January 18, 2013 hearing. It took another 7 months from Justice Wittmann's September 19, 2013 ruling to get to  the third hearing, on April 16, 2014.
It took 2 years and 4 months for Encana to file statement of defence.
The ERCB and Alberta Government did not file statements of defence.
It took 4 years to get the data from the Alberta Research Council (now Alberta Innovates) on the water contamination cases under Freedom of Information legislation, ordered released by OIP Commissioner's Office after a year and half in inquiry. The public baseline water well testing data remains withheld even though it was ordered released to Ernst.
May 8, 2014, 10 AM: Appeal hearing Ernst vs ERCB (now AER) in Alberta Court of Appeal in Calgary:
2014 05 08 Ernst v. ERCB Justices Calgary Court of Appeal of Alberta
The ERCB's (now AER) Response to Ernst's Appeal Factum.
2013 12 21 Screen capture of Alberta Court of Appeal Calgary location
The ERCB (now AER) chose not to file a Notice of Cross Appeal but argues an additional and novel issue in direct opposition to the finding of Justice Wittmann, that Ernst's Charter claim is not valid because, it is argued, the ERCB did not limit the Appellant’s right to free expression. This issue was not raised in the Notice of Appeal, the Appellant’s Factum or any Notice of Cross Appeal.
2014 Alberta Court of Appeal 100 Years
April 16, 2014: Alberta Minister of Justice and Solicitor General intervenes in Ernst appeal of ERCB Charter violation
2014 04 16 Drumheller Court w Justice Wittmann
Court sketch, Ernst v. Alberta Government.
An Alberta government lawyer argued in court this week that Jessica Ernst's lawsuit on hydraulic fracturing and groundwater contamination should be struck down on the grounds that it would open a floodgate of litigation against the province.
"There could be millions or billions of dollars worth of damages," argued Crown counsel Neil Boyle.
Seven years ago, oil patch consultant Ernst sued Alberta Environment, the Energy Resources Conservation Board and Encana, one of Canada's largest shale gas drillers, over the contamination of her well water and the failure of government authorities to properly investigate the contamination.
The $33-million lawsuit alleges that Encana was negligent in the fracking of shallow coal seams; that the ERCB breached Ernst's freedoms under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that Alberta Environment performed a problem-plagued investigation in bad faith.
The case, which effectively puts the performance of the province's oil and gas regulators on trial, has drawn international attention.
The Alberta government made the application to strike the entire claim after Chief Justice Neil Wittmann ruled last fall that that lawsuit against Encana and Alberta Environment could proceed, but that the ERCB (now Alberta Energy Regulator) was exempt from civil action due to an immunity clause.
In Jan. 2013, Alberta Environment tried unsuccessfully to delete the word "contamination" as well as several clauses from the lawsuit that specifically mentioned other polluted water wells in central Alberta.
Courtroom drama
Justice Wittmann had trouble following the coherence of the government argument to strike the claim in the crowded Drumheller courtroom.
He noted that Boyle's line of reasoning, which argued that the Crown owed no private duty of care to landowners, suggested that Alberta Environment would have to be negligent all the time before it could ever be found liable.
Boyle also argued that immunity clauses in the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act and the Water Act shielded the province from any civil action. But questions from Wittman made it clear that these immunity clauses were not strong and only included actions taken "in good faith."
Justice Wittmann also questioned Ernst's lawyer Murray Klippenstein about the government's filing of a report by the Alberta Research Council that dismissed Ernst's water well case as insignificant. The government claimed the report was an independent review that proved there was no merit in the Ernst case.
Klippenstein argued that such a filing of evidence was inappropriate at this time. He also submitted a collection of Alberta Environment emails obtained through freedom of information legislation that he argued show the Alberta Research Council report was edited by Alberta Environment and not an independent review.
Justice Wittmann allowed the submissions in the event of an appeal.
French Translation by Les Ami(e)s du Richelieu with photo of the Ernst v Encana team
April 16, 2014: Drumheller Court of Queen's Bench Hearing on the Alberta Government's Application to strike out the Ernst case against them.
Duty of Care Chart presented by Klippensteins in the hearing:
2014 04 16 Cory Wanless Chart Ernst v Alberta - Key negligence cases against public authorities reguators alleging private duty of care
17. ... Similar to a criminal investigation, the province is obliged to provide information to the party being investigated (EnCana), so that this party may respond, but the complainant (similar to a victim in a crime), does not necessarily participate actively in the investigation or have any rights in this regard.
Hearing Transcripts (included in the appeal record sent in January 2014 to the Alberta Court of Appeal) of the January 18, 2013 Calgary Court of Queen's Bench arguments on Applications to Strike by the Alberta Government (Alberta Environment) and ERCB (now AER) heard by Justice Barbara Veldhuis (promoted off the case by the Harper government on February 8, 2013; Alberta Court of Queen's Bench Justice Neil Wittmann volunteered to take over; refer below for his September 19, 2013 ruling on the arguments heard by Justice Veldhuis):
The approach taken by Alberta Environment is an abuse of process; the present Application should be dismissed, and further, Alberta Environment should be sanctioned with an award of substantial indemnity costs. There is ample case law holding that, barring special circumstances, a party should be allowed only one chance to attack an opponent’s pleadings.
February 18, 2014: Alberta Government Brief filed for Application to Strike the Ernst case against the Crown, claiming no private duty of care, no proximity, and immunity. The Crown waited nearly three years to argue such and Justice Wittmann allowed it (case management phone call, January 13, 2014). The hearing is set for April 16, 2014 in Drumheller Court of Queen's Bench.
February 3, 2014: Ernst's Appeal Factum (Appeal Number 1301-0346AC) filed in the Alberta Court of Appeal in Calgary. Hearing set for May 8, 2014.
January 30, 2014: Alberta government files Application to strike out the Ernst case against the Crown.
January 13, 2014 Case management call: Justice Wittmann returned the case to where by law it belongs - in Drumheller Court.
December 19, 2013: Alberta Court of Appeal approved our proposed schedule with minor changes. The approved schedule is as follows:
January 17, 2014 – Appellant to file and serve Appeal Record
February 5, 2014 – Appellant to file and serve Appellant’s materials
March 24, 2014 – ERCB (name changed to AER) to file and serve the ERCB’s materials
May 8, 2014 - Hearing (Calgary)
December 10, 2013: Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal filed and served on the defendants.
Alberta Court of Appeal screen capture
(French translation of advisory below)
The practice of hydraulic fracturing - injecting fluids (gases or liquids, sand and toxic chemicals) under high pressure to shatter deep and shallow rock to stimulate hydrocarbons to flow - has raised serious economic, political, legal, health and environmental issues around the world.
In a judgment  recently released by the Alberta Court of Queen’s bench, Chief Justice Neil Wittmann ruled on the first skirmishes in a landmark multi-million dollar claim by Jessica Ernst against EnCana, Alberta Environment and the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) regarding water contamination caused by fraccing.
Key parts of the judgment include:
The court rejected the Government of Alberta’s attempt to attack portions of the lawsuit, thereby paving the way for the claim against the Government of Alberta to proceed.
Justice Wittmann agreed there were valid claims asserted against the ERCB for breaching Ms. Ernst’s fundamental and constitutional right to freedom of expression. The court also found "the ERCB cannot rely on its argument on the Weibo eco-terrorism claim, in the total absence of evidence. There is none." However, the court found that the Alberta government had granted complete immunity to the ERCB for all legal claims, including for breaches of constitutional rights.
Chief Justice Wittmann ruled the ERCB does not owe any legally enforceable duties to protect individual landowners from the harmful effects of fraccing, after the ERCB argued in court it had total immunity for “not only negligence, but gross negligence, bad faith and even deliberate acts,” and therefore Albertans simply could not sue the ERCB, no matter how badly they were harmed by the ERCB’s acts. Ms. Ernst was ordered to pay the ERCB's costs.
Ms. Ernst has instructed her legal counsel to appeal the decision to dismiss the lawsuit against the ERCB.
“I think Albertans will be disturbed to learn that their energy regulator has total and blanket immunity, even in cases where the regulator has breached the fundamental and constitutional free speech rights of a landowner,” said Murray Klippenstein, lead legal counsel for Ms. Ernst.
“It is very worrying that citizens are unable to hold the energy regulator accountable for failing to protect citizens from the harmful impacts of fraccing,” said Cory Wanless, co-counsel for Ms. Ernst. “If the energy regulator won’t protect citizens, who will?”
For more information, including Encana's Statement of Defence, refer below:
Klippensteins Barristers & Solicitors:
Murray Klippenstein
(416) 598-0288 or (416) 937-8634
Cory Wanless
(416) 598-0288 or (647) 886-1914
Jessica Ernst: 1-403-677-2074
Le juge en chef rejette l'attaque du gouvernement de l'Alberta dans le dossier de contamination de l'eau de Rosebud, mais écarte l'action contre le ERCB, le régulateur énergétique principal de l'Alberta.
La pratique de la fracturation hydraulique, qui consiste à injecter des fluides ( des gaz ou des liquides, du sable et des produits chimiques toxiques) sous haute pression afin de fissurer le roc profond et en surface afin de stimuler les hydrocarbures pour qu'ils se libèrent, a soulevé de sérieux questionnements économiques, politiques, légaux, environnementaux et sanitaires partout sur la planète.
Dans une décision judiciaire rendue dernièrement par la cour du banc de la Reine en Alberta, le juge en chef Neil Wittmann a statué sur les premiers accrochages dans une réclamation clé de plusieurs millions de dollars enclanchée par Jessica Ernst contre EnCana, Alberta Environment et l'agence Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB), au sujet d'une contamination de l'eau causée par le fracking.
Les éléments principaux du procès sont:
La cour a rejeté la tentative du Gouvernement de l'Alberta d'attaquer des parties du procès, ainsi ouvrant la porte à la réclamation contre le Gouvernement de l'Alberta pour qu'elle se poursuive.
Le Juge Wittmann convient qu'il y a des réclamations valides contre le ERCB pour avoir enfreint aux droits fondamentaux et constitutionnels de liberté d'expression de Mme Ernst. La cour a aussi conclu que "le ERCB ne peut pas se fier sur son argumentaire dans sa réclamation d’écoterrorisme à la Weibo, à cause de l'absence totale de preuves. Il n'y en a pas." Toutefois, la cour a constaté que le gouvernement de l'Alberta a accordé une immunité complète à l'agence ERCB de toute réclamation légale, incluant des violations aux droits constitutionnels.
Le juge en chef Wittmann a statué que le ERCB n'a pas de devoirs légalement imposables pour protéger les propriétaires terriens individuels des impacts nuisibles du fracking, après que le ERCB ait argumenté à la cour qu'il bénéficiait d'une immunité totale pour "non seulement de la négligence, mais de la négligence grave, de la mauvaise foi et même des actes délibérés," et donc les Albertains ne peuvent simplement pas poursuivre le ERCB, peu importe l'importance des dommages encourus à cause des gestes du ERCB. Mme Ernst a reçu les ordres de payer les coûts du ERCB.
Mme Ernst a demandé à ses avocats d'aller en appel de la décision de rejeter le procès contre le ERCB.
"Je crois que les Albertains seront troublés d'apprendre que leur régulateur énergétique jouit d'une immunité totale et générale, même dans des cas où le régulateur a enfreint aux droits fondamentaux et constitutionnels d'un propriétaire terrien," dit Murray Klippenstein, le conseiller juridique principal de Mme Ernst.
"C'est très préoccupant de constater que les citoyens sont incapables de forcer le régulateur énergétique de rendre des comptes pour avoir manqué à la protection des citoyens contre les impacts nocifs du fracking," dit Cory Wanless, coconseil de Mme Ernst. "Si le régulateur énergétique ne veut pas protéger les citoyens, qui le fera?"
Pour plus d'information, dont la requête de défense d'Encana:
Klippensteins Barristers & Solicitors:
Murray Klippenstein
(416) 598-0288 ou (416) 937-8634
Cory Wanless
(416) 598-0288 ou (647) 886-1914
Jessica Ernst: 1-403-677-2074
September 16, 2013 Ernst files reply to Encana's Statement of Defence
Encana's Statement of Defence 
Encana did not file their Statement of Defence by June 15, 2013 as promised because "a few of their key people are on vacation."
Mid-May, 2013, Encana promised to file their statement of defence no later than June 15, 2013.
On an April 15, 2013 case management call, Chief Justice Wittmann introduced himself to the parties, advised that he will rule on the January 18, 2013 hearing (heard by Judge Veldhuis) by reading the filed briefs and transcripts, may request a hearing if he has questions, and asked EnCana if there was any reason why the company couldn't file their statement of defence. Encana failed to come up with a good reason, so they agreed to file it right away.
On a February 20, 2013 case management call, it was decided that Chief Justice Wittmann will choose whether to read the transcripts of the arguments heard by Justice Veldhuis on January 18 and rule, or require a re-hearing which will add significant delay and costs.
On February 8, 2013, the Harper Government promoted Justice Barbara L. Veldhuis to the Court of Appeal of Alberta; she will not rule on the defendants' applications she heard in Court of Queen's Bench on January 18, 2013. Court of Queen's Bench Chief Justice Neil Wittmann volunteered to take over case management.
Ernst Statement to the Calgary Court of Queen's Bench, read by Murray Klippenstein, January 18, 2013, heard by Justice Barbara L. Veldhuis:
I wanted to attend today's hearing, but I decided not to attend because I feel strongly that my lawsuit should be heard in the judicial district of Drumheller as it is the courthouse with the closest connection to my dispute. This is where I live; this is where my water is; this is where coalbed methane wells were drilled; and this is where my water is contaminated. It seems to me that it is important to rural Albertans that disputes and harms that occur in our communities are also judged in our communities. Today's application is not a minor or merely procedural step - it will determine the core issue of whether a landowner can sue the Energy Regulator for failing to protect rural Albertans from the harmful effects of the oil and gas industry.
I have a lot of respect for the court, and because of this respect, I feel it is important to make my position known. I will continue to request that all major applications be heard in Drumheller with the closest connection to my dispute.
Jessica at Drumheller Court, 10 AM, January 18, 2013. Jessica spent the day there, with a witness. Video of the hearing in Calgary Court was not available, requested or the heart of the matter.
On January 18, 2013, in Calgary Court of Queen's Bench, Judge B. L. Veldhuis heard the defendants' applications.
Read the original full Statement of Claim filed in Drumheller Court April 21, 2011.
In the summer of 2011, Encana suggests that the case be moved to Calgary. Klippensteins respond by explaining to all defendants why it is best to proceed in the Drumheller judicial centre, which is where the harm took place.
On April 26, 2012, the first hearing took place in Drumheller Court. Rather than hear the defendants' arguments to strike out the case, Judge Veldhuis requests a shortened statement of claim.
Read the Fresh Statement of Claim filed in Drumheller Court on June 25, 2012.
On October 1, 2012, during a case management call heard by Justice B.L. Veldhuis, Encana, the ERCB and Alberta Environment (HMQ) request the case be moved to Calgary for the convenience of the defendants' lawyers despite the fact that Drumheller is clearly the court with the closest connections to the lawsuit.
Alberta Environment (HMQ): "It clearly tips in favour of the defendants' position, that it ought to be in Calgary and not in Drumheller"
Encana's Drumheller Office
Subsequently, the request to move this particular hearing to Calgary is granted by Judge Veldhuis and Alberta's Chief Justice. The Plaintiff respectfully requests that all major applications be heard in Drumheller as it is the judicial district where the harm took place.
Read the ERCB's Brief of Argument to strike the case against them, filed in Drumheller Court December 5, 2012.
Read Alberta Environment's (HMQ's) Brief of Argument on the Special Application to strike paragraphs referring to the other contaminated water wells in the Rosebud community and the word contamination, filed in Drumheller Court on December 5, 2012.
Encana did not file application to strike the case against them or any paragraphs, and argued nothing in court.
Read the Plaintiff's Brief in Response to the ERCB, filed in Drumheller Court on December 21, 2012.
Read the Plaintiff's Brief in Response to Alberta Environment (HMQ), filed in Drumheller Court on December 21, 2012.
Read the ERCB's Reply Brief and Alberta Environment's (HMQ's) Reply Brief, filed in Drumheller Court on January 3, 2013.
December 15, 2012 - Encana frac'ing above the Base of Groundwater Protection at Rosebud, Alberta
Landmark Alberta Fracking Lawsuit Resumes in Calgary Court
Alberta’s Key Regulator Argues It Has No Duty of Care to Landowners and Groundwater
Friday Jan. 18 at Court of Queen's Bench
Suite 705-N, 601 - 5th St SW, Calgary T2P 5P7
10 AM to 4 PM 
Jessica Ernst, a 55-year-old oil and gas industry consultant and scientist from Rosebud, Alberta, returns to court this Friday to continue her multi-million dollar lawsuit against EnCana, one of the continent's largest unconventional gas producers, for negligence causing water contamination.
Her landmark lawsuit also alleges that the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB), the province's energy regulator, breached her Charter Rights and failed to “exercise a reasonable standard of care, skill and diligence in taking reasonable and adequate steps to protect her well water from foreseeable contamination caused by drilling for shallow methane gas.”
Recent Court of Appeal decisions show the ERCB has a history of not upholding its own laws and even the Royal Society of Canada chided the agency for a 2007 incident in which the regulator spied on landowners and damaged “its credibility as an independent quasi-judicial board.”
In a court document filed on December 5/2012, the ERCB argues that it is exempt from liability for its actions in the Ernst case and that it owes no “duty of care” to landowners impacted by oil and gas development.
“I suspect that most Albertans will be shocked to learn that the province’s oil and gas regulator is arguing that it is totally immune from legal accountability even if there is gross negligence and incompetence,” says Murray Klippenstein, lawyer for Jessica Ernst.
Last December, an ERCB investigation found a company guilty of “accidentally” perforating above the Base of Groundwater Protection and contaminating groundwater near Grand Prairie but issued no fine saying the incident “posed an insignificant risk to drinking water resources” in a sandstone aquifer. One third of Alberta’s population is dependent on groundwater for drinking purposes.
During the last decade, EnCana intentionally perforated and fractured hundreds of gas wells above the Base of Groundwater Protection at Rosebud. The regulators continue to allow EnCana to do this.
In December 2012, only after about 171,000 energy wells were already fractured in Alberta, did the ERCB release draft regulations. Public input closes the day of this hearing on January 18, 2013.
The $33-million lawsuit effectively puts on trial the practice and regulation of hydraulic fracturing: the controversial blasting of both shallow and deep coal, tight sands, oil and shale formations with toxic chemicals, sand and water.
The poorly studied technology, which can cause earthquakes and methane leaks, has sparked moratoriums, bans, debates and regulatory investigations from New Brunswick to South Africa due to growing concerns about groundwater contamination, property devaluation, air pollution, health impacts and climate change.
Neither EnCana nor the Alberta regulators have yet filed statements of defense on incidents that took place nine years ago that resulted in scores of groundwater complaints.
EnCana, whose CEO abruptly resigned last week, has been the subject of many recent public controversies.  It remains the subject of a major US government groundwater study in Pavillion, Wyoming linking hydraulic fracturing to aquifer contamination as well as an ongoing antitrust investigation in Michigan for allegedly colluding with Chesapeake Energy to keep land prices low. A grassroots organization of mothers has also challenged the company’s aggressive fracing operations in Colorado.
EnCana received record fines from Colorado’s Oil and Gas Commission for contaminating water in 2004.
Murray Klippenstein: 1-416-937-8634
Jessica Ernst: 1-403-677-2074 (cell: 403-436-2062)
A 2008 scientific review panel report for Alberta Environment warned that “preliminary data from the Rosebud, Alberta area suggest groundwater gas concentrations are being underestimated by a factor of three.”
A 2008 presentation to the International Wellbore Intergrity Network in Paris, France, co-authored by the ERCB, admitted “high pressure fracturing” increased the potential to create pathways to groundwater, and “the likelihood that gas, due to migration through shallow zones, can accumulate in buildings.”
A 2009 paper also co-authored by the ERCB on gas migration being a chronic problem reports that “high buildup pressures may potentially force gas into underground water aquifers” and that the factors affecting gas leakage and migration “can be generalized and applied to other basins and/or jurisdictions.”
November 14, 2012 - EnCana spraying drilling waste at Rosebud
Procès marquant reprend à la cour de Calgary, en Alberta 
Un régulateur clé de l'Alberta prétend qu'il n'a pas le devoir de protection envers les propriétaires terriens et l'eau souterraine 
Vendredi le 18 janvier à la Cour du Banc de la Reine
Suite 705
-N, 601 - 5e Rue SO, Calgary T2P 5P7 
10:00 heures à 16:00 heures 
Jessica Ernst, une consultante  pour l'industrie pétrolière et gazière et scientifique de Rosebud en Alberta, âgée de 55 ans, revient devant le tribunal ce vendredi pour continuer son procès de plusieurs millions de dollars contre EnCana, l'un des plus important producteurs de gaz non conventionnel du continent, à cause de négligence qui aurait causé de la contamination de l'eau.
Son procès important prétend aussi que la commission Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) de l'Alberta, le régulateur de l'énergie de la province, aurait violé sa Charte de Droits et aurait manqué à son devoir “d'exercer une norme raisonnable de protection, compétences et diligence en prenant des mesures raisonnables et adéquates pour protéger son eau de puits de la contamination prévisible causée en forant à la recherche de gaz de méthane peu profond.”
Des décisions récentes de la cour d'appel démontrent que la ERCB a une historique de ne pas faire respecter ses propres lois et même la Société royale du Canada a réprimandé l'agence pour  un incident de 2007 durant lequel le régulateur a espionné sur des propriétaires terriens et nuit à “sa crédibilité en tant qu'une commission indépendante quasi judiciaire.”
Dans un document de la cour déposé le 5 décembre 2012, la ERCB soutient qu'elle est exemptée de toute responsabilité de ses actions dans la cause Ernst et n'a pas “le devoir de protection” envers les propriétaires terriens impactés par le développement pétrolier et gazier.
“Je pense que la plupart des Albertains seraient choqués d'apprendre que le régulateur de la province argumente qu'il est complètement exonéré de toute responsabilité légale même s'il y a eu extrême négligence et incompétence,” dit Murray Klippenstein, l'avocat de Jessica Ernst.
En décembre dernier, une enquête de la ERCB a déclaré une compagnie coupable d'avoir “accidentellement” perforé au-dessus de la base de protection de l'eau souterraine et avait contaminé l'eau souterraine près de  Grand Prairie mais n'a émis aucune amende, disant que l'incident “ne posait pas de risque important à la ressource d'eau potable” dans un aquifère de formation de grès. Un tiers de la population de l'Alberta dépend de l'eau souterraine pour son eau potable.
Pendant la dernière décennie, EnCana a intentionnellement perforé et fracturé des centaines de puits de gaz bien au-dessus de la bas de protection de l'eau souterraine à Rosebud. Les régulateurs continuent de permettre  Encana de le faire.
En décembre 2012, une fois qu'environ 171,000 puits énergétiques avaient déjà été fracturés en Alberta, et seulement à ce moment-là, la ERCB a émit son ébauche de règlements. La période pour recevoir les commentaires du public termine en cette journée de séance le 18 janvier 2013.
En réalité, le procès de $33 millions met en cause la pratique et les règlements encadrant la fracturation hydraulique: le dynamitage controversé  des formations de charbon, qu'elles soient à faible profondeur ou très creuses, des réservoirs étanches dans le sable ou le schiste, des formations  contenant du pétrole ou du gaz,  avec des produits chimiques toxiques, du sable et de l'eau.
La technologie, si peu étudiée, qui peut provoquer des séismes et des fuites de méthane, a déclenché des moratoires, des interdictions, des débats et des enquêtes régulatrices du Nouveau-Brunswick jusqu'en Afrique du Sud à cause des préoccupations grandissantes pour les contaminations de l'eau souterraine, les dévaluations des propriétés, la pollution de l'air, les impacts sur la santé et les changements climatiques.
Ni EnCana, ni les régulateurs de l'Alberta n'ont encore déposé des requêtes pour la défense à propos des incidents qui ont eu lieu il y a de cela 9 ans maintenant et qui sont la source de plusieurs plaintes de problèmes d'eau souterraine.
EnCana, dont le PDG a brusquement démissionné la semaine dernière, a été  au coeur de plusieurs controverses publiques récemment.  La compagnie est toujours impliquée dansune étude gouvernementale sur l'eau souterraine aux États-Unis à Pavillion, au Wyoming, qui fait des liens entre la fracturation hydraulique aux contaminations de l'aquifère ainsi qu'avec une enquête antitrust toujours en cour au Michigan pour une présumée collusion avec Chesapeake Energy afin de garder les valeurs des terres à la baisse. Un groupe populaire de mères a aussi mis au défi les opérations agressives de la compagnie au Colorado.
EnCana a reçu amendes qui ont battu des record de la Commission pétrolière et gazière du Colorado pour avoir contaminé l'eau en 2004.
Murray Klippenstein: 1-416-937-8634
Jessica Ernst: 1-403-677-2074 (cell: 403-436-2062)
Mise en contexte
Un rapport de 2008 d'un comité de révision scientifique pour Environnement Alberta prévenait que les “données préliminaires venant de Rosebud, en Alberta, laissait penser que les concentrations de gaz dans l'eau souterraine sont sous-estimées par un facteur de trois.”
Une présentation au groupe International Wellbore Intergrity Network en 2008 à Paris, France, dont la ERCB était un coauteur, admettait que la “fracturation à haute pression” augmentait le potentiel de créer des passages vers l'eau souterraine, et “la probabilité que le gaz, à cause de la migration à travers les zones peu profondes, peut s'accumuler dans les bâtiments.”
Un papier dont ERCB est aussi un co-auteur datant de 2009 sur la migration du gaz étant un problème chronique rapporte que “l'accumulation importante de la pression peut potentiellement forcer le gaz à pénétrer dans les aquifères d'eau souterraine” et que les facteurs affectant les fuites de gaz et la migration “peuvent être généralisés et s'appliquer à d'autres basins et/ou d'autres juridictions.”
November 2012 - EnCana's drilling waste dumped on food land at Rosebud
January 17, 2013, Bob Curran, Public Affairs Section Leader, ERCB, on GlobalTV:
"We evolve the regulations on an ongoing basis to ensure that they're protective of groundwater and public safety and that waste is disposed of properly as well."
April 19, 2011, Darin Barter, ERCB spokesman, to the Peace River Record Gazette:
The ERCB does not test drilling waste before it is deposited on fields, said Barter, nor will it inspect deposits unless contacted by the landowner, as staff is limited, and the practice is common. "It is the company's responsibility to follow the rules. We can't be there in every location throughout the province every time something is done"
“If they are not following our regulations, we should be involved in it.”
The report also found that a variety of products — including hazardous materials and lubricants — had been discarded or abandoned “with no apparent concern for the environment.”
“A lack of responsibility and supervision are evident at other sites, wherein examples of poor industry practices and lackadaisical housekeeping abound”
“Drilling fluids are transported, stored and handled in tanks. Typically, drilling fluid waste will be transported off-site for re-use and treatment/disposal…. Someadditives may be caustic, toxic, or acidic.”
2003: Alberta Landspraying While Drilling (LWD) Review by Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, released three years later, only after FOIP and public pressure.

3) Here is another mummy trying to save her family from fracking hell.
This is how it was in the beginning:

And this is how it is now:

2014 03 13 Diana Daunheimer Hydraulic Fracturing Presentation to ASRF

Ratings:  (0)|Views: 879|Likes: 
Published by yaheria
Alberta mother and owner operator of a small organic farm near Didsbury presentation to the Alberta Surface Rights Federation in Camrose on March 13, 2014. Diana Daunheimer is suing Angle Energy, now Bellatrix Exploration Ltd, for alleged health harm and more, caused by hydraulic fracturing, after the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) and Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (previously Alberta Environment) closed their files on Diana's case, failing to appropriately investigate and enforce in good faith.

Sometimes images are worth more than any piece of information. You see what is happening to these poor families and it is not right.

So these were a few of the cases I reviewed to decide for myself that there are problems being experienced by rural Albertans that are going to be coming to urban areas. The good stuff is gone. So the oil and gas companies will go wherever they can to get the hard stuff. Lethbridge has already been through the whirlwind of troubles experienced by the rural citizens of Alberta that have been largely ignored or marginalized by the PCs because --money has to be made and who cares about future cancers?
My feeling is that this emission junk is going to cause future cancers and I don't believe that the industry is 100% accident free. That would be impossible. So I believe fracking accidents have happened and that was the information that Stewart was asking for.
What did the AER do in response to his request?
They got their big shot lawyer to blow him off.
The AER is like the AHS place. At the AHS place, they have a super duper lawyer following our e-mails now and we are to understand that AHS and Alberta Health are concerned that this mummy might write the truth about them and so they want the Legal Counsel to manage the business.
In the case of poor Stewart, he doesn't blog so the AER folks send him a nasty get lost letter and that is that.

But the energy minister is now asking for all the information. So will the AER folks tell her to get lost?

At the AHS we are told to FOIP off.
At the AER, Stewart is told to FRACK off.
But at the ENERGY department, will the minister get the information citizens can't get?

I am especially interested in finding out what the basewater testing results are for the Rosebud area.
Surely the AER has these results?
And if so how can they then explain the well water on fire business?
Will the new energy minister be gutsy like Jessica Ernst or will she wimp out?
I'm betting the NDP will wimp out.
It's too bad that this is the case.
We absolutely need to have groundwater testing done--not only baseline water testing, but during fracking and after fracking. Why? We want data to prove that there has been changes in the water so that folks like Jessica Ernst are not bankrupted by the stalling tactics of big oil companies when they are taken to court for fracking contamination. We also want tracers in the fracking cocktails to prove that contamination is due to company A versus company B. Why would we not want to protect the ordinary citizens of Alberta? We absolutely must have such safeguards in place and luckily enough for the fracking companies these changes will not cost them a major chuck of cash and might actually prove their record of 100% safety through out the history of fracking. Why would they not want baseline water testing and use of the fracking tracers? It would be proof of their good record would it not be?

As for the data that the AER is going to provide the Energy minister? I do hope they don't tell the minister to FRACK OFF as they told poor Stewart.

Fracking poses political challenge to new NDP government

A worker oils a pump during a hydraulic fracturing operation at an Encana Corp. well pad in March 2014.

In opposition, the NDP described fracking in Alberta as “out of control” and demanded an independent review of its impact — especially on the province’s water supply.
Now that the NDP is in power, it’s depicting an independent review as only one option to deal with the controversial energy extraction process, even as new concerns are raised about earthquakes potentially being caused by fracking.
NDP Energy Minister Marg McCuaig-Boyd said this week she’s asked the Alberta Energy Regulator to compile and present the government all of its information on hydraulic fracturing, a technology that uses pressurized water and chemicals to fracture rock below the Earth’s surface and allow oil and gas to flow to the top.
“I’ll take that and if we maybe need to do a meta-review or a meta-analysis of what’s available, or a scientific review, we’ll go there,” she told reporters at the legislature.
“But I want to find out what we know first.”
McCuaig-Boyd said she could not say whether there is too much hydraulic fracturing in the province.
The primary concerns raised by environmentalists about fracking have surrounded the amount of water used in the process and concerns about potential contamination of groundwater.
Just over a year ago, then-NDP leader Brian Mason pointed to a freedom of information request that showed over 1,500 fracking licences approved by the Alberta Energy Regulator in 2013, describing the situation as “out of control.”
The NDP demanded an independent scientific panel review fracking, along with groundwater monitoring and a scientific assessment of river inflow needs, before more licences were granted.
In February, about three months before the provincial election that put the NDP in power under new leader Rachel Notley, Mason called for a science-based investigation to determine whether a January earthquake in the Fox Creek area had been caused by process.
There has been further seismic activity in the area this month, leading to a shutdown of fracking activity in the northwest Alberta region in accordance with new AER regulations.
McCuaig-Boyd said the government is “always concerned when there are issues like that,” but she is leaving the AER to deal with the situation.
But the government is facing calls for action from some quarters.
Liberal Leader David Swann wants the government to implement standardized baseline groundwater testing before fracking occurs to help determine whether contamination from the process is occurring, as well as investigate the seismic activity.
“I do support stronger regulations around fracking,” he said.
Bill Andrew, chairman and chief executive of Long Run Exploration Ltd., recently said he was concerned over the NDP’s signals around fracking.
The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers issued a statement Friday noting companies already follow strict regulations and have developed monitoring, mitigation and response procedures to ensure safety.
Notley said Friday that fracking is an issue that needs to be looked at, but reiterated her government won’t do anything to take the energy industry by surprise.
Statistics provided by the AER on Friday show there has been no upsurge in fracking wells over the last few years.
There were 3,395 wells fractured in 2014, an increase from 2013 but the second-lowest number in the last seven years. In 2008, more than 8,000 wells were fractured.
Dustin Kenyon of the Pembina Institute environmental organization said the current slowdown in industry activity due to low commodity prices gives the government an opportunity to “get ahead” on a number of energy policy areas, including fracking.
An independent review isn’t necessarily a bad idea, but the government’s initial focus should be directing the energy regulator to do more inspections and greater enforcement of existing rules, Kenyon said.
Mike Hudema of Greenpeace Canada said an independent review and a moratorium on fracking are both warranted.
“I would encourage the government to look not just at what the AER is giving them, but to also look at the impacts this type of technology is currently having — the warning signs we are seeing,” he said.
With files from Darcy Henton, Calgary Herald

No comments:

Post a Comment