AGENDA ITEM |
DECISIONS / ACTIONS / MESSAGES |
1. Welcome |
Agenda confirmed |
2. Round Table Updates |
All: committee members shared current projects or issues of interest from their organizations |
3. Updates |
Updates from previous meeting:
- Administrative Monetary Penalties
- Gazette I targeted for January 2013
- Looking forward to NEB plan for Public Awareness of changes
- Policy/implementation development – SC requests input opportunity
- LMG Newsletter
- Propose 2-3 issues per year
- Some suggest list of references at beginning, with hyperlinks; others prefer keeping content within newsletter
- Suggest providing an option for recipient to receive plain text
- LMG sub-committees
- Karine Simard outlined the proposed process for closing out sub-committees 1.1 and 4.4.
- Pipeline Abandonment Research Steering Committee
- Alan Pentney provided update of committee status
- Participants reminded CEPA and NEB representatives of June LMGSC recommendation that there be similar non-industry representation on the research committee as there had been on 4.4
- It is important to have transparency of the research committee documentation
- There is a need for clear and timely comment mechanism on committee decisions
- In terms of inviting non-industry participants, request that CEPA reconsider the make-up of the committee and clearly communicate importance that they reconsider their decision as to the composition of the committee
- Important that PTAC studies be seen to be credible by non-industry too
|
ACTION |
- Have PTAC communicate rationale + re-consider decision;
- Jamie to request CEPA/PTAC reconsider LMGSC’s recommendation and report outcome to LMGSC
- Jamie, Ziad, Philippe, Alan to meet and discuss approach
|
4. NEB response to Public Involvement Recommendations
|
- Could develop guidelines and timelines for notification of public meetings;
- Request more details about how the NEB will implement more verification (i.e. how will NEB ensure consultation is appropriate?)
- Request that NEB expectations be clearer – easier to know whether the expectations are being met;
- Would some “prescriptive” elements improve clarity and outcome?
- GAP: there is a need for quicker access to NEB processes when there is an issue with consultation early in process (rather than after application is filed).
- Suggest a consultation “guide” be developed to raise NEB and industry awareness around regional or association group “best practice” experience; perhaps a role for a new LMG subcommittee to develop the guide (similar to guidelines that some Aboriginal groups have developed).
- Provide “consultation plan” to NEB prior to submitting project description
- NEB Consultation guidelines need to have milestones, minimum threshold of information that proponents must provide to public (minimum de base respectueux et minimum d’information).
- ERCB provides guidance to landowners that aligns with expectations for proponents – subsequent to the meeting, Deborah provided the following:
- Here is the link to Directive 56 – our application requirements. Within it, Section 2 contains the PI requirements.
- Also, this is the link to the PI FAQs for Directive 56.
- And finally, this is our Landowner's Guide to Proposed Oil and Gas Development. This document contains the hyperlinked table of contents that Greg was suggesting. It also has a PDF version that you can select which makes it easier to download.
- NEB to update Filing Manual requirements based on Board’s October reply correspondence.
|
|
- Land Agent Conduct:
- CEPA (land issues working group) is surveying training for land agents best practices and existing company codes of conduct; plans to be able to share findings within 3-4 months.
|
5. Damage prevention |
- NEB to issue Discussion Paper in 2-4 weeks (includes management system, 1-call and call before you dig requirements); a 45 day comment period is expected.
- Participants stressed that effective communication of DP requirements is paramount.
|
6. 2012 Review |
Suggestions included:
- Need stronger engagement of SC membership
- Could use stronger terms of reference
- we need to have clear expectations (avoid lofty broad goals), with more focus on specific goals
- include long-term projects and short-term projects
- More focus on building consensus at a group level and on individual files
On the positive side:
- Appreciate the commitment to initiative so far
- Good sharing of perspectives, common understanding
- getting to know each other; opportunity for candid conversations
- unique group; willing to be open, which might benefit the NEB; can develop solutions together
- international perspective is positive
- helps to understand federal and provincial expectations
|
7. 2013 Planning |
- Overview of Provincial expectations
- Alberta pipeline safety review: guest presenter
- Outcome – moving towards common expectations
- Notifications – develop better guidance
- Land agent conduct – Guidance needed
- Physical issues of abandonment
- Focus on specific deliverables
- Aboriginal issues: describe how the NEB has crown consultation covered
- How do we move our ideas to practice/implementation?
- Improve communication on the role of the LMGSC through Newsletter and Synergy Groups
- New regulations: AMPs; Damage Prevention
- Language issues: engaging francophones in the regulatory process
- Aboriginal Involvement: Important to involve/offer participation
- Aboriginal issues might be very different: seek feedback from Aboriginal participants on LMGSC process
- Suggest inviting Aboriginal communities with pipelines within traditional territories
|
ACTION |
- Review Terms of Reference and provide suggested revisions
- Approved LMGSC meeting notes to be posted on NEB website
- Prepare a review of 2012
- Prepare a draft workplan for 2013
|
8. LMGSC Evaluation: Possible Criteria |
Possible elements:
- Has it been positive for me?
- Has it been positive for the NEB?
- Have we achieved our purpose?
- Bring together knowledge/expertise
- Further participation of members in community discussions
- Are we preventing problems (proactive)
- Ongoing score card tied to the mandate of the LMGSC
|
9. Adjournment |
|
