EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project in the Suffield National Wildlife Area

Attachment Comments (From Stewart Shields to Joint Review Panel)

• EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project in the Suffield National Wildlife Area
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 879
• Submitted: 2008-10-31
• Comments (From Stewart Shields to Joint Review Panel)
• Attachment included
• De : lagran <address removed> Envoyé : 31 octobre 2008 11:21 À : Therrien,Marie-France [CEAA]; comments@suffieldreview.ca Cc : <address removed> Objet : I drove to Calgary and attended the EnCana hearing with respect to "Carpet-Bomb" drilling the NWA on Suffield. Part of the reason for the trip was to ground-truth the idea that the Provincial ERCB building in Calgary was a very poor choice as a venue for a Federal Environmental Review. Up-town Calgary has become one of the most expensive places in North America to park an automobile! Although I lucked out on parking, I am very aware how daunting driving, parking etc.has become for the average public person,not familiar with the business area of Calgary. Surely without going any further, this is proof of the troubled ERCB trying to keep both the public and the press from having easy access to this very closed Federal issue, handled very strangely by the Provincial ERCB!! This same stunt of using Govier Hall was attempted by the ERCB with respect to the Compton hearing, prior to it ending up at the Calgary Zoo, a much more suitable site for the ERCB!! Will EnCana be paying like other industry members for the venue to have their application #1435831 with respect to drilling 3-only wells heard by the ERCB? Who paid for the supply of refreshments during the hearing? Will Guide 31 be used with respect to cost claims for application # 1435831 for incurred cost? And will these costs be forwarded to the proponent EnCana as is the case with other drilling application that require a hearing for a determination? Well do I remember Shell- Canada members complaining during the famous Farrier 7-7 hearing, while Board members lined the wall on the ...

Attachment Comments (From Stewart Shields to Joint Review Panel)

• EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project in the Suffield National Wildlife Area
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 871
• Submitted: 2008-10-29
• Comments (From Stewart Shields to Joint Review Panel)
• Attachment included
• De : lagran <address removed> Envoyé : 29 octobre 2008 14:03 À : comments@suffieldreview.ca Cc : <addresses removed> Objet : Why JOINT-Panel??? Would you please inform for public benefit, when the Federal Panel to hear argument on the 1275 infill wells within the Wildlife Refuge at Suffield became temporary Provincial ERCB members? Indeed is this JOINT Panel still temporary ERCB members, and will they remain so until recommendations are presented to the Federal Minister of Environment? Why do CEAA still refer to the Panel, as JOINT Panel members when indeed they are all members of the Alberta Provincial ERCB, temporary or other wise? What indeed is JOINT about: 1) 3-appointed persons sitting as ERCB members to hear arguments on 1275 gas wells 2) Using ERCB "rules of practice" to come to that decision 3) Having an ERCB employee as Counsel to the temporary ERCB board members for this Federal review 4) Holding the Federal Suffield hearing in up-town Calgary at the ERCB stronghold known as Govier-Hall 6) Having 17 ERCB employee's in attendance at the daily hearings as support for the three temporary ERCB members tasked with making recommendation to the Federal Environment Minister. Also what indeed became of the 3-only drilling licenses advanced by the ERCB as number 1435831? How are these three wells to differ from the other 1275 wells presented strangely as a Federal Environmental Review to be handled even more strangely by the troubled Alberta Provincial ERCB? What is the total costs including wages and venue to be incurred by the Alberta public, for this Federal matter?---For Posting Stewart Shields <address and contact information removed>

Attachment Comments (From Stewart Shields to Joint Review Panel)

• EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project in the Suffield National Wildlife Area
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 869
• Submitted: 2008-10-28
• Comments (From Stewart Shields to Joint Review Panel)
• Attachment included
• De : lagran <address removed> Envoyé : 28 octobre 2008 17:16 À : comments@suffieldreview.ca Cc : <address removed> Objet : # 620---or --003b-004 I would like to make reference to CEAA remarks contained within public registry# 861 {page 9] and enter as exhibit # 003b-004. Firstly with respect to the privacy act, I will challenge that anything I had advanced to CEAA violated either the Canadian or the Alberta Privacy laws!! I will repeat that I am the very same Stewart Shields that took the Alberta Commissioner to Queen's Bench on a decision he rendered with respect to AEUB conduct toward myself and had the Commissioner's ruling quashed!! I indeed do have experience with both the privacy laws and the AEUB as shown by Shields V. information and Privacy Commissioner,2004 ABQB 353!! Further when Federal members nominated to the Federal Environmental Review agreed to become temporary ERCB[AUB] members and use the ERCB "rules of practice" as a direction in the hearing, hold the hearing in the ERCB controlled Govier Hall with a former chairman of the ERCB on the Panel member and Counsel for the Panel a ERCB a ERCB employee, what the he- - is JOINT about anything here?---who indeed is CEAA, and who indeed is the ERCB, with respect to the EnCana, Suffield Environmental Review? When would one know if he was communicating to a independent officer of a Federal Environmental Review or a member of the troubled ERCB?? When Marie-France Therrien responded to questions posed about comments to be posted---I quote---"thank you for your submission. your letter has been forwarded to The Joint Review Panel for their review and should soon be posted on the project public registry". Please compare this to ...

Attachment Comments (From Stewart Shields to Joint Review Panel)

• EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project in the Suffield National Wildlife Area
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 868
• Submitted: 2008-10-26
• Comments (From Stewart Shields to Joint Review Panel)
• Attachment included
• De : lagran Envoyé : 26 octobre 2008 19:02 À : Therrien,Marie-France [CEAA]; comments@suffieldreview.ca Cc : <removed> Objet : Deny,Delay,Deter,Deflect!! I must salute the Alberta ERCB for their abilities to hold a complete Federal Environmental Hearing with Canada wide implications, without public input or proper press coverage of the events! The use of Govier Hall contained within the ERCB building in Calgary afforded the general public or the public press little opportunity to take an active part in the hearing! The informal sections held were a real joke! Evidence is evidence, regardless of it's gathering by formal or informal setting. An informal setting simply allows a kangaroo court to exist, where the panel chairman may hinder admissible evidence from coming foreword. Something the chairperson a formal setting would think twice about!! I was unable to locate any worthwhile information from the proceedings in the daily press, something I had warned about, with respect to using the ERCB's Govier Hall as a venue for this important federal hearing. I indeed hold CEAA totally at fault for trying to "Deny,Delay,Deter,Defect" all that was possible, with respect to this Federal Hearing. Never have I seen a Federal Environmental Review that will cost the Canadian public billions in lost royalties and lease, pipeline, and road use rentals kept as secret as this. EnCana and the ERCB would be happy few public members were in attendance to view images of EnCana's environmental stewardship or hear their refusal to co-operate with our armed forces in protecting Suffield!! What was evident from the start is EnCana's desire to diminish the power of the Base-Commander, and their "operational ...

Attachment Comments (From Jessica Ernst to Joint Review Panel)

• EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project in the Suffield National Wildlife Area
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 860
• Submitted: 2008-10-23
• Comments (From Jessica Ernst to Joint Review Panel)

Attachment Comments (From Dwight Knapik to Joint Review Panel)

• EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project in the Suffield National Wildlife Area
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 813
• Submitted: 2008-10-22
• Comments (From Dwight Knapik to Joint Review Panel)
• Attachment included
• De : Dwight Knapik <address removed> Envoyé : 22 octobre 2008 06:01 À : comments@suffieldreview.ca Objet : Please Protect Canada's National Wildife Areas Against Further Oil/Gas Development Dear Sir or Madam: I am writing to you to regarding EnCana's proposal to drill over 1200 more gas wells in the federally protected Suffield National Wildlife Area, near Medicine Hat, Alberta. I am someone who grew up on the prairies of southeastern Alberta, not too far away from the Suffield area, and the prairies are very near and dear to my heart. Over the years I have had many wonderful experiences on the prairies, and would not trade them for anything. Unfortunately, over the years, I have seen many patches of native prairie disappear forever, whether they be under the plow, or for a variety of other human developments. Native prairie habitat is Canada's most endangered ecosystem and as a country we have protected precious little of it for future generations of humans or plants and animals. The Suffield National Wildlife Area is a wonderful example of the prairie grassland ecosystem, and the federal government has had the foresight to declare it a protected area for the many threatened and endangered species living there. It is the largest single block of this type of habitat left anywhere in Canada. It gives the native animals and plants that need that habitat to survive a chance to go on living their lives in a way that they have adapted to doing for thousands and thousands of years. Unfortunately, EnCana has put forth a proposal to drill more than 1200 more gas wells in this area, on top of the many wells, roads, and pipelines that they already have there. They say that there will be ...

Attachment Comments (From Don Hagen to Joint Review Panel)

• EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project in the Suffield National Wildlife Area
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 808
• Submitted: 2008-10-21
• Comments (From Don Hagen to Joint Review Panel)
• Attachment included
• De : Tina Regehr <address removed> Envoyé : 21 octobre 2008 16:17 À : comments@suffieldreview.ca Objet : EnCana's proposal to drill 1275 wells in Suffield NWA To the Joint Review Panel, As a retired petroleum geologist who worked in Canada for 21 years, I observed the recent public hearing on EnCana's proposed Shallow Gas Infill Development Project with interest. I am strongly opposed to EnCana's proposal to drill 1275 more wells in the Suffield National Wildlife Area at this time. My objections to this project going forward are threefold: 1. EnCana may make more profit by producing the existing wells for as long as they are profitable. By then they will know more precisely how far out each well has recovered gas and therefore also know how much is left to be recovered by infill drilling. (Most likely fewer infill wells would be needed.) Drilling for that gas later should also make more profit, as the price should be much higher due to increased demand and decreasing supply. Additionally, recovery techniques may improve in the future such that the existing wells could be worked over to recover most of the remaining gas. Price increase will also allow EnCana to produce existing wells longer at ever lower recovery rates and they may eventually reach out far enough to recover most remaining gas without the need for additional wells. 2. Depletion of non-renewable hydrocarbons needs to be delayed as long as possible to allow time for development of all renewable energy sources to take the place of the non- renewables. Exploiting Suffield at a slower rate with the existing wells is consistent with this necessary concept. It seems EnCana's urgency is more about the time-value of ...

Attachment Comments (From Lisa Bracken to Joint Review Panel)

• EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project in the Suffield National Wildlife Area
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 807
• Submitted: 2008-10-19
• Comments (From Lisa Bracken to Joint Review Panel)
• Attachment included
• De : L Bracken <address removed> Envoyé : 19 octobre 2008 14:24 À : comments@SuffieldReview.ca Objet : Registered opposition to "EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project in the Suffield National Wildlife Area" Lisa Bracken <contact information removed> October 19, 2008 I am writing to respectfully ask the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s Suffield Review Panel to please reconsider allowing EnCana to in-fill develop Canada’s Suffield Wildlife Area. This letter is intended to register my opposition to the “EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project in the Suffield National Wildlife Area”, as well as share some of our experiences with this company and its destructive environmental practices. I am writing as an American, from Colorado. I am a landowner, a mineral owner and an Independent voter – tending toward a moderate blend of both liberal and conservative viewpoints. I also consider myself a conservationist. I live on 60 acres dedicated to wildlife habitat – which is unfortunately, in the midst of EnCana’s pursuit of massive, aggressive natural gas development. In the six years since EnCana has been in our small neighborhood of mostly rural 35-200 acre ranch-ettes and rugged, remote, wetlands canyon country, I’ve seen rushed, irresponsible development which has contributed to fluid spills, Earth tremors, emission releases and gas seeps of various sizes in various locations. Finally – in April of 2004 – their irresponsible activities culminated in a massive blowout of an estimated (and acknowledged) 115 million cubic feet of raw natural gas as well as associated fracing fluids and CO2 gases into the fragile wetlands area of West Divide Creek and surrounding ...

Attachment Comments (From Martha Munz Gue to Joint Review Panel)

• EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project in the Suffield National Wildlife Area
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 780
• Submitted: 2008-10-17
• Comments (From Martha Munz Gue to Joint Review Panel)
• Attachment included
• De : Martha Munz Gue <address removed> Envoyé : 17 octobre 2008 23:24 À : comments@suffieldreview.ca Objet : Suffield National Wildlife Area To the Suffield Review Panel and our MLA, This is to register my opposition to further industrial development .i.e. petroleum activity, happening on the National Wildlife Area at Suffield. Some reasons that this area should be left as is: 1. The area hugs the major river in SE Alberta. All areas that are adjacent to major rivers and their tributaries ought to be treated with a great deal of respect. The natural vegetation there helps to preserve the stream banks, clean the run off from snow and rain before it enters the river, and provides shelter and food for a high proportion of the animal species that exist in Alberta. It is estimated that 80 percent of Alberta’s wildlife live within easy reach of the rivers and lakes of Alberta. Any activity that compromises the land and vegetation in that area, also compromises the animal species. 2. There are already hundreds (over a thousand?) of gas wells in that area from which the company is getting at the natural resource under the ground. Already there are spaces in the National Wildlife Area that have been compromised. Vehicular trails criss cross the area and where they are on hills and repeatedly used, the resulting erosion has stripped the land of its vegetation. The one area that has been reseeded and fenced off is not an example of exemplary reclamation. IN fact invasive species overtake the prairie species. Adjacent the service trucks have cut new trails, which in turn are eroding. The matter of service trucks scaring the prairie permanently is a serious one. 3. I understand that the ...

Attachment Comments (From Stewart Shields to Joint Review Panel)

• EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project in the Suffield National Wildlife Area
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 862
• Submitted: 2008-10-17
• Comments (From Stewart Shields to Joint Review Panel)
• Attachment included
• ----- Original Message ----- From: lagran To: comments@suffieldreview.ca Cc: Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 1:36 PM Subject: Emailing: 29428E I certainly cannot understand why this attached letter containing exhibit # 003A-032 and listed on public information # 758 would indicate it came from both Alberta Environment and Alberta Energy and Utilities Board?? Any similarities between the two supposedly Alberta Tribunals are very slight to say the least!! Alberta Environment work directly under the control of the Alberta Minister of the Environment, Alberta Energy and Utilities Board work without the need or direction of the Alberta Minister of Energy!! Nothing points this out more directly than the then EUB chairman signing a document involving the Alberta public with costs, associated with a Federal Environment Review?? The Minister of Alberta energy was nowhere in site, while it indeed was the Federal Minister of the Environment's signature that involved the small. part to be played by Federal folks?? As I has stated many times this exercise has been completely taken over by the now ERCB. With all deciding members either ERCB employees or temporary members of the ERCB! The ERCB "rules of Practice" used as the guide for the hearing!! The Panel Counsel a ERCB employee, despite being in a obvious "Conflict of Interest" with respect to {Canada-Alberta Agreement,Appendix 2,S 3.4.} This inability to meet the aforementioned criteria was anticipated, and the panel chairman warned the moment the EUB became involved!! This inability by the Chairman to take action when the EUB were exposed for exactly what the Chairman was warned about, leaves of course some doubt the judgment of the ...

Attachment Comments (From Herman Bender to Joint Review Panel)

• EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project in the Suffield National Wildlife Area
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 757
• Submitted: 2008-10-15
• Comments (From Herman Bender to Joint Review Panel)
• Attachment included
• De : Alberta Activism Envoyé : 15 octobre 2008 14:26 À : comments@suffieldreview.ca Cc : <removed> Objet : Conflict Of Interest I must add my voice to those that have indicated the Counsel for the ERCB is in a definite "conflict of interest" with respect to letter # 551 and dealing at any level with the 3-well drilling application! Explaining how an ERCB employee is not in conflict may be a better way of stating, what has happened here! The now ERCB were responsible for bringing the 3-well application forward, and turning, what started as a Environmental Review, into a dual question that was not sanctioned by the Federal Minister of Environment!! Since many public members have either been aware, or made aware, of this ambitious ERCB activity, those who want to question the panel on these facts, find replies to their concerns being addressed by an ERCB employee acting as Panel Counsel, in a definite "conflict of interest"!!! Not withstanding the consultant acting, and paid by the ERCB is in a similar position!! Would it not be easier to remove the 3-well application and the dual question than to try at this late date to replace the troubled ERCB and it's employee's from the scene!! As one observant public member has pointed out many times, the ERCB seems to be "over ambitious" in their desire to be involved in this particular Federal Exercise!! Even to the fact the hearing is being held in the ERCB building [Govier-Hall] with 16 members of the ERCB in daily attendance!! Why, one must ask, has the ERCB taken-over control of this Federal Environmental Review?? A review of Mr. Kirk Lambrecht's questions to the Proponent, brings to the surface the fact the Canadian Government are aware of the ...

Attachment Comments (From Jessica Ernst to Joint Review Panel)

• EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project in the Suffield National Wildlife Area
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 756
• Submitted: 2008-10-15
• Comments (From Jessica Ernst to Joint Review Panel)
• Attachment included
• De : albertawater1 <address removed> Envoyé : 15 octobre 2008 13:14 À : Thompson, Chris; comments@suffieldreview.ca; Dan McFadyen Cc : <addresses removed> Objet : STILL no response from EnCana re Downspacing Application Ernst Environmental Services & Jessica Ernst <address information removed> To: Mr. Chris Thompson, EnCana Mr. Dan McFadyen, ERCB Chair The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Re: EnCana Carpet Bombing Application Number: 475-9: Hussar/Redland Lands: Sections 11-16, 21 to 27, 35 & 36 in 27-22-W4M Attention: Chris Thompson, the ERCB (I protest this downspacing application because EnCana, year after year, refuses to address my valid and reasonable questions and concerns) and the CEAA (FOR POSTING) When is EnCana going to respond to my questions and concerns of 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008? EnCana refuses responsibility, stewardship, transparency, and accountability on private land, does not know if it is one corporation or two, lies to the public, and disrespects the law, guides and requirements in place to protect citizen rights, property, and environment, and must therefore be refused further drilling or facility installation in the National Wildlife Area at Suffield. For your convenience, I resend you here the contact information EnCana has on file for me: email <removed> postal address: <removed> fax <removed> Please respond promptly, respectfully and completely and without deflection to my questions and concerns. Please acknowledge receipt of my emails. Thank you. Sincerely, Jessica Ernst Ernst Environmental Services -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Downspacing Questions/Contact Information Date: Mon, 29 ...

Attachment Comments (From Tina Regehr to Joint Review Panel)

• EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project in the Suffield National Wildlife Area
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 727
• Submitted: 2008-10-14
• Comments (From Tina Regehr to Joint Review Panel)
• Attachment included
• De : Tina Regehr Envoyé : 14 octobre 2008 13:58 À : comments@suffieldreview.ca Objet : EnCana's request to drill more wells in Suffield NWA To: Suffield Review Panel I request that EnCana is denied its request to drill any more wells in the Suffield National Wildlife Area. Why should Canadians pay so that EnCana can break its promise? The Suffield National Wildlife Area was created for a purpose, and when it was created, EnCana agreed not to drill any more wells there. EnCana wanting to break its promise not to drill any more wells in the National Wildlife Area, indicates to me that the company wants it all, leaving nothing for Alberta’s wildlife and the people who value it. It appears that the “public interest” is going to lose at Suffield in more ways than one while EnCana only gains. It has been estimated that the panel’s proposed royalties for natural gas will actually result in an economic loss of $1 billion at current prices and not a gain. How much more repetitive drilling can the National Wildlife Area, indeed Alberta, our groundwater, listed species, sensitive and rare native grasslands, and citizens take? Repetitive drilling's cumulative affects have not been appropriately assessed anywhere, never mind in a National Wildlife Area and refuge for listed species! There needs to be a proper Federal Environmental Assessment done, without the bias of the ERCB involved! I strongly disagree with the fact that the Joint Review Panel chose EnCana over the public interest by granting the company its secrecy request in 7 days, before consulting with interested parties and the public. I request that the ERCB member is taken off the Joint Review Panel to remove apprehension ...

Attachment Comments (From Stewart Shields to Joint Review Panel)

• EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project in the Suffield National Wildlife Area
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 728
• Submitted: 2008-10-12
• Comments (From Stewart Shields to Joint Review Panel)
• Attachment included
• De : lagran <address removed> Envoyé : 12 octobre 2008 15:53 À : comments@suffieldreview.ca Cc : <removed> Objet : Government Tribunal or Company Agent?? I believe the rights of both Albertans and Canadians were violated when the Chairman of the then Alberta EUB, signed for Albertans, a Federal/Provincial agreement, allowing the EUB as a partner with Canada {signed by the Minister Of the Environment} to review drilling on the NWA situated on the Suffield range!! The caption below, taken from EnCana's supplied material is not at all accurate. The Minister of Energy in Alberta regulates the oil and gas sector pursuant to the [1] Alberta Energy and Utilities Board Act [2] The Oil and Gas Conservation Act and Regulations {3} The Pipeline Act and Regulations [4] The Energy Resources Conservation Act. The caption below simple ignores the fact it is indeed Alberta Energy, not the AEUB that controls Crown Mineral Rights, through of course the Alberta Minister of Energy!! The MOU between Canada/Alberta points to indeed "Deputy Ministers" both Federal and Provincial as the parties to receive notice!! Lets not overlook the fact it was indeed the elected Minister of the Environment that indeed did sign the joint agreement for Canada??? It has not gone unnoticed by many that the ERCB have become very ambitious and foreword in their efforts to completely dominate the NWA Environmental review on Suffield. One must simply undertake a cursory review of their involvement at the start of these proceedings, to the present, to understand how successful has been their attempt at a complete take-over!! Because of the manner of satisfying the ERCB yearly budget requirements many folks tend to overlook ...

Attachment Comments (From Liz Fricke to Joint Review Panel)

• EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project in the Suffield National Wildlife Area
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 725
• Submitted: 2008-10-11
• Comments (From Liz Fricke to Joint Review Panel)
• Attachment included
• De : Tony Fricke Envoyé : 11 octobre 2008 14:19 À : comments@suffieldreview.ca Cc : <Prime Minister and Minister of Environment> Objet : Suffield National Wildlife Area Re: The EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project To the Joint Review Panel: I urge you not to approve this project. The Suffield NWA is a precious, rare, big block of prairie, recognized as an important place for numerous species of plants, mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians, many endangered and at risk. It is a highly significant area, correctly acknowledged as such by the Government. We cannot afford to lose it to any further industrial development. Please protect it for the sake of Alberta's future. The project concerned will not significantly benefit anyone, but once allowed, the further fragmentation and destruction of this valuable natural area will proceed irreversibly. The project is yet another example of corporate greed taking precedent over the future of Alberta citizens. We already have far too many such projects in our province. There are already Encana wells in the Suffield NWA. Without this project, EnCana will still get its gas, only just a little more slowly, so its shareholders will have to wait a little longer for their profits. Please turn this application down. It is an inappropriate development. Thank you very much. Liz Fricke <address removed>

Attachment Comments (From Tony Fricke to Joint Review Panel)

• EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project in the Suffield National Wildlife Area
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 726
• Submitted: 2008-10-11
• Comments (From Tony Fricke to Joint Review Panel)
• Attachment included
• De : Tony Fricke Envoyé : 11 octobre 2008 23:15 À : comments@suffieldreview.ca Cc : <Prime Minister and Minister of Environment> Objet : Suffield National Wildlife Area Re: The EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project To the Joint Review Panel: It is appalling that Encana, which does not even know if it is one company or two, would contemplate such rapacious behaviour. It is incumbent on you not to approve this project. It simply allows Encana to raid the same source of gas as it already has but faster. To what purpose and for whose benefit? Not even the shareholders of Encana will benefit. And who will clean up all the mess when the gas is gone. Encana is not even looking after our land properly now when they do have money. Later, when they have nothing left, they will walk away and plead poverty. The Suffield NWA does not need to be ruined and I beg you not to let it happen. Remember companies are amoral. They will try for maximum profit and damn the torpedoes. That is fine provided the regulatory authorities make good rules and act wisely. Encana have done their bit; now it is up to you to say sorry, but no. Sincerely, Tony Fricke <address removed>

Attachment Comments (From Sue Teucher to Joint Review Panel)

• EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project in the Suffield National Wildlife Area
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 714
• Submitted: 2008-10-09
• Comments (From Sue Teucher to Joint Review Panel)
• Attachment included
• De : Nigel & Sue Teucher Envoyé : 9 octobre 2008 18:01 À : comments@suffieldreview.ca Cc : pm@pm.gc.ca; Baird,John [NCR] Objet : *****SPAM***** Proposed gas wells for Encana at Suffield To Whom it May Concern It has come to my attention that Encana is proposing to drill 1275 shallow gas wells in the Suffield National Wildlife Area. I am aware that Encana already has a number of wells in this protected area and as a result there has been enough degradation of the area to be able to anticipate what a further 1275 wells would do to the habitat. The mixed grass prairie is one of the few remaining prairie areas left, and the sand dune ecology is particularly fragile and vulnerable to compaction by vehicular traffic and the creation of roads and drill sites. I have no doubt you have been given many arguments against the proposal based on scientific evidence. My argument is that this area's name, the Suffield National Wildlife Area, implies protection by the Federal, and I would presume, also the Provincial Government. To allow further development by a powerful oil and gas company makes mockery of the laws surrounding creation of a protected area and the protection of the species within that area. The Species at Risk Act requires effective protection of the habitats that support those species listed under that act . However, without maintaining the integrity of the Wildlife Area, our ability to protect federally listed species that occur there is greatly reduced. The Ord's Kangaroo Rat and the Western Harvest Mouse are just two of the species in this area whose continued viability is dependent on enforcement of that act as well as that of the Canada Wildlife Act, which governs the ...

Attachment Comments (From Russell Varnam to Joint Review Panel)

• EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project in the Suffield National Wildlife Area
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 710
• Submitted: 2008-10-08
• Comments (From Russell Varnam to Joint Review Panel)
• Attachment included
• -----Message d'origine----- De : Varnam Envoyé : 8 octobre 2008 19:56 À : comments@suffieldreview.ca Cc : pm@pm.gc.ca Objet : Encana's gas project in Suffield NWA The only purpose of this increase in roads, well sites and pipelines is to get the gas out faster. This will improve the cosmetics of the quarterly results, but will not increase the wealth of Alberta and Canada overall. This will destroy more of a limited, threatened environment, and put at risk many already threatened and endangered species of plants, mammals, birds and reptiles. The havoc will be wrought by increased area of surface disturbance, fragmentation of habitat, more invasive plant species, and destruction of surface water features. Canada, Encana and Alberta are rich enough that we can afford to draw a line and say "No More" in this area. No more drilling and roads, no more sloppy rehabilitation with foreign grasses, no more slack oversight by the federal government. Russell Varnam

Attachment Comments (From Andy Teucher to Joint Review Panel)

• EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project in the Suffield National Wildlife Area
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 702
• Submitted: 2008-10-08
• Comments (From Andy Teucher to Joint Review Panel)
• Attachment included
• De : Andy Teucher Envoyé : 8 octobre 2008 19:10 À : comments@suffieldreview.ca Cc : <removed> Objet : Opposition to EnCana's proposal to drill in SNWA Dear panel members, I am writing to voice my strong opposition to, and urge the panel to reject, EnCana's proposal to drill 1275 shallow gas wells in the Suffield National Wildlife Area (SNWA) at Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Suffield. This is a protected area of global significance, containing one of the largest and last undisturbed vestiges of mixed-grass prairie in Canada. It also contains a large proportion of the Middle Sand Hills, a rare and unique ecosystem that supports an amazing array of species, including many that are at risk of extinction, several of which are found almost no-where else in Canada. Several federally listed species at risk are afforded habitat protection in SNWA, and some of them benefit from this protection almost nowhere else. These include Tiny Cryptanthe, Ord's Kangaroo Rat, Small-flowered sand verbena, Western harvest mouse, and Great plains toad. I also must remind the panel that the federal government is legally required under the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) to protect the critical habitat of these and other legally listed species. I have had the rare privilege of spending a lot of time in the SNWA, as it was the site of my MSc research on the federally endangered Ord's kangaroo rat. I experienced firsthand the subtle beauty and the incredibly rich biodiversity that is found there, and also saw the impacts of the little development that has occurred. Most notably among these is the introduction of aggressive alien invasive plant species, which almost inevitably occur where ever vehicles have access. Compaction of fragile sandy ...

Attachment Comments (From Linde Turner to Joint Review Panel)

• EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project in the Suffield National Wildlife Area
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 692
• Submitted: 2008-10-07
• Comments (From Linde Turner to Joint Review Panel)
• Attachment included
• -----Message d'origine----- De : Linde Turner Envoyé : 7 octobre 2008 11:31 À : comments@suffieldreview.ca Objet : The October 2008 hearing re drilling in Suffield "Where there is no vision, the people perish." Drilling in Suffield, as proposed, will damage the landscape, the wildlife, and our descendants' inheritance of the land. Encana is not a responsible steward of the land. I strongly protest Encana's application and encourage its rejection. Linde Turner

Attachment Comments (From Fiona Lauridsen to Joint Review Panel)

• EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project in the Suffield National Wildlife Area
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 693
• Submitted: 2008-10-07
• Comments (From Fiona Lauridsen to Joint Review Panel)
• Attachment included
• De : Fiona Lauridsen Envoyé : 7 octobre 2008 23:46 À : comments@suffieldreview.ca Objet : Please halt this development I am writing to express my gravest concern that the ERCB would even entertain the idea of permitting drilling for resources on a wildlife sanctuary. Responsible development requires the understanding that as a people and a province there are things more valuable than gas: Life is precious and must be preserved and protected. There are places and resources (drinking water for example) that cannot be sacrificed for economic development. It does not make anthropological sense to destroy that which we require for survival. Our self indulgent comforts are not that important in the grand scheme of life. Please, I implore you, halt any further development at Suffield. Prevent any further industrial invasions on drinking water aquifers, for example, the fracturing conducted by EnCana at Rosebud. EnCana may have mineral rights but it should not have the right to contaminate water and destroy habitat for listed species in order to obtain those minerals. sincerely, Fiona Lauridsen, Alberta

Attachment Comments (From Stewart Shields to DND)

• EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project in the Suffield National Wildlife Area
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 678
• Submitted: 2008-10-05
• Comments (From Stewart Shields to DND)
• Attachment included
• De : lagran Envoyé : 5 octobre 2008 18:45 À : <DND – Chief Warrant Officer, A. Trepanier> Cc : <removed CEAR> Objet : Why Carpet-Bomb Drill?? Or indeed with respect to Suffield, Why Not?? As long as the need to pay lease, road, and pipeline right-away rights are grand-fathered, indeed, why not?? If indeed EnCana and others were held to the same surface rights agreements as Ranchers and Farmers demand, would this change the "Carpet -Bomb" Approach, chosen as the sole method to develop Suffield?? As such, should there not be a review of the present practice of setting lease, road, and pipeline land usage agreements on Suffield that would bring sober second thought to unparallel drilling as the only means of resource development? All Suffield wells should be reviewed with the question, does land use cost allow for greater density of wells on Suffield? Is this harmful to the Ranchers and farmers that surround Suffield? No study should be required of NWA as no further drilling should be allowed on that pristine area, but has surface lease payments added to the desire for wells in that area also?? And are the Alberta Government adding to the desire of environmental damage to the area by allowing groups of wells to have royalties set on a single well basis?? If indeed groups of wells are allowed to access and drain a known zone, should provisions under the "Low Productivity Well Allowance" be made available based on a single wells production? Again are these provisions used in the spirit and intent of the act,as it was intended when brought into force? Is this another good reason to accelerate product in Suffield while these provisions are allowed, and the Alberta public being more knowledgeable with respect to ...

Attachment Comments - news article (From Stewart Shields to Joint Review Panel)

• EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project in the Suffield National Wildlife Area
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 676
• Submitted: 2008-10-05
• Comments - news article (From Stewart Shields to Joint Review Panel)
• Attachment included
• De : lagran Envoyé : 5 octobre 2008 12:11 À : barr@reddeeradvovcate.com Cc : mel.knight@gov.ab.ca; hugh.macdonald@assembly.ab.ca; comments@suffieldreview.ca Objet : This well blow-out on the Suffield range has added interest!!! The very same EnCana are making application for 1275 new wells on the National Wildlife Refuge located on Suffield!! The Federal Environmental Review that are about to hear argument on this Proposal has the Alberta ERCB with a deciding member on the 3-member panel?? To top this a ERCB member is acting council for the deciding panel?? The non-ERCB members are to be made temporary Members of the ERCB while sitting on the Federal Hearing?? The Federal hearing is to progress using the ERCB "Rules Of Practice ?? And the Federal hearing is to be held in the ERCB's Govier Hall?? Remember this is indeed a Federal Hearing?? Since this very strange proposal is set to be heard on Monday the 6th, and the "blow-out" happened on Thursday 2nd, is it not strange the ERCB issued no press release?? And indeed EnCana also has been completely mute on their misfortune? Is this what we can expect if indeed the EnCana Proposal is approved? Since Suffield has no citizens or towns are the ERCB/EnCana forces preparing an operational sanctum for Gwyn Morgan's EnCana? How much political interference was involved to have the Alberta ERCB involved in this Federal issue, after Alberta Justice informed the panel the issue was indeed federal in nature and neither ANEV or SR would be involved?? Strange to say the least is the fact, with the added interest of a huge proposal on the immediate horizon that this "Blow-Out" is being HUSHED?? This whole proposal that pays no surface ...

Attachment Comments (From Stewart Shields to Joint Review Panel)

• EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project in the Suffield National Wildlife Area
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 677
• Submitted: 2008-10-05
• Comments (From Stewart Shields to Joint Review Panel)
• Attachment included
• De : lagran Envoyé : 5 octobre 2008 14:26 À : comments@suffieldreview.ca; Prime Minister/Premier ministre; BAIRDJ@PARL.GC.CA Cc : <removed CEAR> Objet : Control-Control, and Control !! Attn. Robert Connelly: Since we have had the new dimension of a well "Blow-Out" by the proponent EnCana, on Suffield Acreage, it seems only right, the present hearing into 1275 more wells on the National Wildlife Area, contained on the same Suffield range be delayed!! Although this could mean further cost to the lawyers who are finally ready to proceed due to a delay at EnCana request, the price with respect to the value involved would be minuscule, and easily covered by the system, who seem to spend on "public Relations" like a sailor!! Many of us that have worked for nothing would again approve further delay, this time to closer examine how this "Blow-Out" came about, and how a remedy can be found {if any] for it's prevention!! Also the fact that press releases were not forth coming from the CEAA Panel, while "Public-Relations" is indeed one of the larger expenditures of the panel, according to information received from the ERCB under a Foip request!! Until a determination of both cause and remedy can be found, for exactly what many have suggested the problems with EnCana's operations, it indeed would be reckless to proceed any further down the path of approval for even further wells on this pristine range!! The delay time could be used for CEAA to locate a suitable venue for a Federal Environmental Review. The ERCB tried this same control trick with the "Compton Hearing" only to have it moved to the Calgary Zoo that is a benefit to that public institution as well as far far more suitable ...

Attachment Comments and newspaper articles (From Jessica Ernst to Joint Review Panel)

• EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project in the Suffield National Wildlife Area
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 680
• Submitted: 2008-10-05
• Comments and newspaper articles (From Jessica Ernst to Joint Review Panel)
• Attachment included
• From: ernstj Sent: 5 octobre 2008 14:27 To: <JRP> Cc: <removed CEAR> Subject: EnCana fined again for violating legislation <address of recipient removed, CEAR> To the CEAA, ERCB, Joint Review Panel, and Alberta Justice, Re: EnCana fined again for violating legislation, for posting. EnCana's recent gas well blow out at Suffield and the articles below provide more reasons to refuse EnCana's application to speed up profits and risk listed species in the National Wildlife area. I find it suspicious and protest that the CEAA did not send out an information release to interested parties about EnCana's blow out, notably given that the hearing begins on Monday and this EnCana statement (highlighted in green below) in Submission Vol. 1, Section 2: Project Description, 2.2.5.3 Blowouts and Surface Casing Vent Flow: "In over 30 years of operations at CFB Suffield, there has never been a gas well blowout." Why did the CEAA not notify interested parties before the hearing that EnCana's no blow out boast is busted? Or did EnCana and the ERCB not tell the CEAA about the blow out? If not, why the hush hush? The articles copied below report that our Prime Minister protests drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Reserve to protect listed species in Canada. Even our Prime Minister recognizes that drilling in national wildlife areas puts listed species at risk. One of the articles below reports EnCana violating - yet again - regulations that are in place to protect the environment. And again, EnCana is reported denying responsibility. Does EnCana ever admit to the company's many regulation violations? Does denial make EnCana's violations acceptable to Alberta Justice, the CEAA, ERCB, and Joint Review Panel? Do the CEAA, ...

Attachment comment (From Stewart Shields to Joint Review Panel)

• EnCana Shallow Gas Infill Development Project in the Suffield National Wildlife Area
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 662
• Submitted: 2008-09-29
• comment (From Stewart Shields to Joint Review Panel)
• Attachment included
• De : lagran Envoyé : 28 septembre 2008 14:21 À : comments@suffieldreview.ca Cc : dnd_mdn@forces.gc.ca; MacDonald,Keith [CEAA]; mel.knight@gov.ab.ca; Mueller, Doreen; Pineau,Maryse [CEAA]; Therrien,Marie-France [CEAA]; mackay.p@parl.gc.ca; trepanier.ep@forces.gc.ca; CEAA, Prairies [CEAA] Objet : A review of the Joint Panel's documentation has shown ALBERTA ENERGY were not an invite to this process?? This is a giant mistake, since NEED is always the first consideration of well applications debated at a hearing!! Without Alberta Energy to explain and defend the current and future royalty rates for these 1275 Suffield wells, their need, based on public value cannot be determined!! Without public value able to be clearly defined license # 1435381 certainly cannot be heard at this time!! The concern with the royalty situation on Suffield wells was introduced very early in this proposal, and is indeed of such concern it is hard to understand the oversight of leaving the only Alberta Governmental body needed at this determination, off the invited list!! It is also not easy as an Albertan to understand why we have not had Alberta Energy address this panel, with respect to their ability to attend and as stated previously defend and point to any new royalty systems with respect to the changes at the NWA on Suffield!! 16-wells per section have been the stated maximum the Responsible Authority [RA] are prepared to allow on the NWA within Suffield. And 16-wells per section is the proposed well density by the proponent in it's Suffield proposal. That being the case, does it not follow that well applications follow a section by section routine to allow those inspecting drilling sites etc. to not have to ...