| Compton Petroleum’s application to drill six sour gas wells 1.1 kilometres outside Calgary’s southeast city limits was criticized by three oil and gas experts this week at the EUB public hearing on the wells.
The experts say Compton didn’t properly consult with residents who could be affected by the wells, and that its emergency response plan is inadequate. As well, evidence was presented that the company’s application for a reduced emergency planning zone (EPZ) of four kilometres would be unsafe. The experts presented evidence on behalf of the Front Line Residents Group, which represents more than 100 residents living near the proposed wells.
Ian Dowsett, a senior specialist in risk management and assessment with RWDI West Inc., testified that the EPZ should be 10.4 kilometres around the wells during drilling and 12.8 kilometres during servicing and completion to ensure public safety. He says if a major accident occurred while Compton drilled, lethal hydrogen sulphide could spew into the air for 6.3 kilometres around the proposed wells, where thousands of people are living. Compton president Ernest Sapieha has stated that his copmany won’t proceed with its application if the EUB doesn’t approve a reduced EPZ because a larger EPZ would be "impractical" and therefore "irresponsible."
John Hemstock, an expert on emergency response planning for sour gas accidents, says after reviewing Compton’s emergency response plan he is concerned that the company hasn’t given the City of Calgary enough information to ensure it could handle an emergency outside the four-kilometre zone that Compton would be responsible for. He says Compton refused to provide the city with information on the potential hazards if hydrogen sulphide were released in a well blow-out.
"If the city doesn’t know how large an area it would be responsible for, or how many households it may have to contact or evacuate, it is difficult to understand how Compton could state that the City of Calgary can ensure the response could be provided," says Hemlock.
Hemlock says the city ended discussions with Compton because the company didn’t provide requested information.
Robert McManus, an oil and gas regulatory expert, says Compton’s public consultation process "failed to meet minimum regulatory requirements, regulatory expectations and industry accepted approaches."
McManus says the company didn’t ensure that people outside the requested EPZ, who could be adversely impacted by the wells, were informed about its plans.
"In my opinion, there are potentially adversely affected parties beyond a four-kilometre distance…. Based on the geographical extent of potential exposure to hydrogen sulphide or sulphur dioxide from a release from these wells, I believe that the geographic area of focus (primarily four kilometres) defined by personal consultation visits is inadequate….
"It seems to have been arbitrarily defined by the needs of the emergency response plan rather than the needs of the community," says McManus.
He adds that the Compton consultation was lacking compared to consultations done by Shell or Nexen on recent sour gas well proposals.
"Basically (the evidence) encapsulated everything we’ve been saying over the last four years," says Marilynn Christensen, spokesperson for the Frontline Residents Group. "(Compton) is the lowest industry member on the list for public consultation and community relations."
Her husband Bud adds, "The company is giving no one, not even the board, assurance this could be done safely."
Sapieha testified on the first day of the public hearing that "if Compton was not absolutely convinced that these wells could be completed and produced safely, we would not ever think about proceeding with this project." |
Copyright ©2005 FFWD. All rights reserved.