EnCana pipeline called into question

Source: Alex Mccuaig and Medicine Hat News

"There was nothing filed for that particular piece of construction," said Garry Trottier, the Canadian Wildlife Services official who first came across the pipeline site located within CFB Suffield.

His 2005 investigation concluded there were a number of shortcomings about the pipeline, including lack of permits, planning or applications concerning its construction.  "There was no permission asked... That's what I established before Environment Canada made the complaint."

Suffield NWA is a federally protected nature reserve established in 2003 within the boundaries of CFB Suffield and managed by the military.

Charges that EnCana breached the Canada Wildlife Act were filed in 2007 by the Public Prosecution Service in response to Trottier's documentation of the construction of three hundred metres of gas pipeline in the NWA sometime prior to April 2005.

After the announcement of the charges in 2007, EnCana spokesperson Alan Boras told the News, "the pipeline was inadvertently and unknowingly placed within the wildlife area."

He went on to say when the contractor realized the pipeline's path was going to infringe on a wetlands area, it was redirected without knowing it would put it within the NWA.

"The crew exercised due diligence with respect to their environmental responsibilities but were unaware the new path strayed into the national wildlife area," said Boras.

A preliminary hearing was held in April 2009 and found there was enough evidence to proceed to trial on charges the company breached the National Wildlife Act.
That trial was scheduled for March 2010 but charges were stayed for one year on Dec. 18, 2009.

With that period now expired without the Crown pursuing the charges, the case is considered closed and Trottier — a key witnesses during the preliminary hearing — can now comment publicly.

Trottier was conducting a wildlife survey in April 2005 around the location of an EnCana infill project when he says he discovered new industrial activity that straddled the NWA boundary.

He said the fence used to mark the boundaries of the preserve — which also had signs on it indicating the restricted area — was breached.

"The fence had been opened up obviously to allow equipment in there to put in the pipeline," said Trottier. "But it was obvious to me that they used that point of access to move their equipment to drill (a) well."

The employee of the Canadian Wildlife Service who worked for the federal agency for 35 years said that all oil and gas development at the base had to go through an application procedure. EnCana, the main oil and gas tenant at the base, would have been well aware of the process, said Trottier.

"Everybody should have known what the rules are out there," said Trottier.
"They are there to prevent wrecks. And we had a wreck."  And now he questions the legitimacy of that pipeline. If there wasn't approval for the pipeline, Trottier said there are two questions that should be posed: "Is this installation — both the well and the pipeline — are they legal?"

And, "If they have been licenced, how could they possibly be licenced if the development wasn't approved by the process in place?"

The pipeline has since become the property of EnCana splinter company Cenovus.
Cenovus spokesperson Reg Curran said Monday legal arguments raised during the preliminary hearing regarding EnCana's right to conduct industrial activity under previous agreements with the base were part of the trial process.

"On the basis of all those arguments that were raised by the company at that time and subsequent conversations with the Crown, the Crown concluded they could not achieve a conviction," he said.

Curran reiterated comments made previously by EnCana spokespeople that contractors accidentally entered the NWA while avoiding a wetland.
Curran said he couldn't at this time comment as to whose decision it was to relocate the pipeline or answer questions as to how contractors could not have seen signs marking the NWA boundaries, nor whether an application was filed for the pipeline in question.

In an email response to questions surrounding the dropping of charges against EnCana, Public Prosecution spokesperson Sujata Raisinghani wrote the matter failed to meet the legal tests for prosecution.

"The status of the case has not changed in the intervening year and the proceedings have not been re-commenced," the email read.
"Therefore, pursuant to section 579(2) of the Criminal Code the proceedings are deemed never to have been commenced."
Citing staff on leave over the Christmas break, the Canadian Forces weren't available for comment.