Regulatory Appeal Request – Request Denied
In this decision, the AER considered Mr. Cowles’ requests under section 38 of the Responsible Energy Development Act (“REDA”) for regulatory appeals of the AER’s decisions to approve certain well licences (the “Licences”) issued to Jupiter Resources Inc. (“Jupiter”). The Licences were issued in December 2015, allowing Jupiter to drill and produce fourteen natural gas wells.
For the reasons summarized below, the AER determined that: (1) Mr. Cowles did not file a statement of concern in relation to the applications for which the Licences were issued; and (2) in any case, the record does not indicate that Mr. Cowles was directly and adversely affected by the AER’s decisions to issue the Licences.
The AER therefore dismissed the requests for regulatory appeals.
AER Reasons
Mr. Cowles not filing a Statement of Concern
Mr. Cowles submitted that he was either not aware that Jupiter had filed the Applications, or that he needed to file a statement of concern.
The AER found that:
(a) Jupiter notified Mr. Cowles of its intention to file the Applications and waited at least 14 days before filing the Applications as routine; and
(b) Jupiter had reason to believe Mr. Cowles’ unresolved concerns only related to compensation, and that he preferred to discuss that issue directly with Jupiter rather than by filing a statement of concern, as per the AER process.
Mr. Cowles was not directly and adversely affected by decision to issue Licences
The AER explained that for Mr. Cowles to be granted a regulatory appeal, he must demonstrate that the particular Jupiter wells subject to the Licences were the activities responsible for the impacts that he is concerned about, namely: damage to his trapping trails and lines, property theft and vandalism, hazardous use of roadways, and the disappearance of fur-bearing wildlife.
The AER found that Mr. Coals was not directly and adversely affected by the AER’s decisions, based on its findings that:
(a) Mr. Cowles’ concerns with the Applications were stated in a general way, without reference to a particular location that was some ascertainable distance from his trapping activities or assets; and
(b) the requests failed to provide information to demonstrate a degree of location or connection between one or more of the wells and impacts on Mr. Cowles or his trapping activities.
The AER found that there was insufficient reliable information to show that a reasonable potential or probability existed that the impacts alleged by Mr. Cowles would occur.
As a result, the AER found that it could not conclude that any of Jupiter’s wells would directly and adversely affect Mr. Cowles.
Decision
For this reason, and the fact that Mr. Cowles did not file statements of concern in relation to the applications, the AER decided not to grant the requests for regulatory appeals.
