Download Report

Regulatory Appeal Request – Appeal No. 1849417, 1859627, 1879309, etc. – Dismissed

In this decision, the AER considered a request for regulatory appeal by Mike and Faye Partsch (the “Partschs”) of a number of licences and approvals (the “Approvals”) issued to Tidewater Midstream and Infrastructure Ltd. (“Tidewater”) related to gas injection and storage facilities.

The AER found that the Partschs were not directly and adversely affected by a decision made under an energy resource enactment and were therefore not eligible to request a regulatory appeal. The AER therefore dismissed the requests for a regulatory appeal of the Approvals.

Reasons for Decision

The AER found that the primary concerns raised by the Partschs regarding the pipeline related to safety in the event of an incident. In coming to its decision, the AER noted that it considered the following:

(a) Tidewater was obligated to comply with a number of operational requirements and technical specifications in the design, construction, and operation of its pipeline;

(b) Tidewater would also use Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition equipment to provide 24 hour a day monitoring of the pipeline for possible leaks or ruptures;

(c) the pipeline would have emergency shutdown valves and pressure control devices which would activate in the event of a change in pressure; and

(d) the distance of the nearest boundary of the Partschs’ land to the pipeline was approximately 450 meters.

Given the above, and the fact that the pipeline would transport sweet natural gas, the AER found the Partschs’ had not demonstrated that they were or might be directly and adversely affected by the Approvals.

With respect to the gas storage and injection facilities, the AER noted that the following concerns raised by the Partschs:

• the potential for a leak or explosion and the Partschs had cited examples of gas leaks and fires that occurred at facilities in other jurisdictions;

• gas injection into the reservoir could cause earthquakes which could break the well casings used to inject natural gas; and

• other concerns related to drinking water, odours, and noise.

The AER found that the examples of incidents cited by the Partschs were not relevant to the AER’s consideration of whether the Partschs might be impacted by Tidewater’s storage scheme and related facilities because the cited incidents related to different operators in separate jurisdictions, operating under different requirements.

With respect to induced seismicity, the AER stated that it was not aware of any instances of induced seismic events occurring in the Dimsdale Paddy A reservoir, or that same formation elsewhere in Alberta. The AER noted that the reservoir pressure is very low, and that Tidewater’s operations would not result in an exceedance of the initial reservoir pressure. The AER found that it was exceedingly unlikely that gas injection and storage in the Paddy Dimsdale A at or below original reservoir pressure would result in an earthquake.

With respect to other concerns related to drinking water, odours, and noise, the AER found that such concerns had previously been addressed in the AER’s decision on the Partschs statement of concern.

The AER found that the Partschs failed to demonstrate that they were or might be directly and adversely affected by the Approvals. The AER therefore concluded that the Partschs were not an eligible person for the purposes of section 38(1) of REDA and dismissed the request for a regulatory appeal.