National Energy Board

www.neb-one.gc.ca

Common menu bar

• Français
• Home
• Contact Us
• Help
• Search
• canada.gc.ca

Breadcrumb

LMCI Information Session - Members of the Public - 7 April 2008

7 April 2008
6:30 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.
Community: Coldstream, Ontario
Number of Attendees: 80+

Stream 1 - Interactions between Companies

• The NEB should have Agricultural Specialists on staff to prepare land assessments of applications.
• Farmers with practical experience from different regions could be consultants on applications.
• Rules and regulations have changed and impacted the easement. Original agreement had no restrictions on normal farming practices.
• There should be no restrictions on normal farming practices and regulations should state this.
• Landowners would like S. 112 removed.
• A definition of "heavy equipment" is needed.
• Consistency between companies re: crossings. Blanket agreements work well.
• Service standards are needed for responses to questions and requests.
• Need an annual fee to compensate for crop loss - price fluctuations can be large and should be reviewed regularly.
• Land agents can be disrespectful and intimidating.
• No leave to construct should be given until all issues including compensation are dealt with.
• Concerns about impact of land (drainage) off of the right of way but is caused by the existence of the pipeline.
• Experience where landowner was required to pay for contractor to dig in the area of pipeline to investigate tile damage. The company said they would reimburse, but it has taken time to get money.
• Transparency is required during negotiations.
• Landowners are looking to be treated fairly.
• Landowners need to be involved throughout the lifecycle and associations should be used in this regard. Individuals get nowhere.
• Landowners wonder how many NEB staff and Board members are from farming backgrounds.
• Landowner associations should be used to gain the landowner perspective by the NEB directly.
• Landowners currently have no trust in the NEB to support or understand landowner perspective.
• National Farmers Union surface rights policy provides guidance on compensation and other dealings with land rights.
• The pipeline lifecycle should be expanded beyond the pipeline company or project perspective.
• Need more sessions like this to get direct input from landowners.

Stream 2 - Access to NEB Processes

• Pre and post-construction inspections of rights of way through agricultural lands focusing on crop productivity. i.e., to document decreases/increases in productivity. Currently, the onus is on landowners to prove damages and crop loss. There is a role for the NEB to look at land before and after construction to document potential damages. Opportunity to work with landowner associations on this issue.
• Linked to above - more interaction is needed post-construction between NEB and landowners and landowner associations to resolve issues.
• Service standards needed for responses by the Board. The NEB needs to respond faster when landowners are experiencing problems.
• Establish an ombuds-person role to take LMCI issues and develop a way forward. Feeling that a neutral third party is needed to make these changes due to lack of trust issues. The ombuds-person could act on behalf of landowners and interact with Parliament.
• LMCI discussion documents - don't make changes, ask for input on decisions.
• Intervenor funding is required to be provided to landowners and landowner associations.
  • Intervening in NEB processes - too costly (need money and funding) and also too time consuming (can't intervene and farm at the same time).
  • Concern about preparing evidence if there is no funding.
  • Funding would lower company intimidation of landowners because experts could be hired to push back and the landowner could be represented.
• Transparency of Board processes, including LMCI is important.
• Landowners need to be informed about regulatory change. For example, the 30 meter zone was put in place without input from landowners.
• Companies should have environmental plans in place to protect landowner lands. They should have the same standards as the Environmental Farm Plans.
• Companies do not take landowners' concerns seriously until they are threatened by participation of landowner associations in NEB processes.
• The NEB should pay for input by landowners, i.e., the CAPLA LMCI documents and should also pay for experts for filing evidence, etc.
• The CEA Act (Canadian Environmental Assessment Act) process allows for participant funding for Comprehensive Studies and Review Panels, but not for screening-level environmental assessments.
• Landowners need to see results from input they provide to the Board, such as LMCI. Past experience is that other priorities take over.

Stream 4 - Physical Pipeline Abandonment

• All pipelines should come out of the ground. For example, oil coming out of a pipeline is a liability to the landowner and future generations.
• How would landowners know that pipelines are clean if they are abandoned in the ground? What if there was an earlier leak? Ongoing monitoring required.
• Under the Environmental Farm Plan, there cannot be even a 2" line left in the ground.
• Pipeline users should pay for abandonment.
• Question around how pipeline coating would affect the soil if the pipelines were left in place.
• Environmental assessment of land after pipeline removal is required as contamination could be 30 ft. deep. This is similar to gas tank removal for Environmental Farm Plan.
• What landowner input has been a part of the Yukon and Manitou abandonment files? Landowners need to be involved.
• How do pipes left in place affect use of farming equipment? Even a 2” line can cause damage to ploughs.
• It is important to identify site-specific concerns.
• Timeline to monitor right of way after pipe is removed - up to 6 or 7 years post-disturbance
• Regional studies are required as there are different conditions in each region.
• Funding is required for studies to prepare abandonment plans - input from landowners and landowner associations.
• Consider filling smaller lines with cement.
• Be aware of the possibility/risk of pipelines left in ground due to moving water.
• Clear decisions are needed so that farmers have certainty - can't sell the land if abandonment is pending.
• Issue of repairing damages to land when removing pipelines, eg. Loss of soil productivity. How can this be avoided and/or repaired? There needs to be funding to support the repairs or correcting damages.
• Landowner involvement through each stage of abandonment is critical.
• The NEB needs to consider the pipeline lifecycle from the landowner perspective.
• Potential for subsidence/ditching of pipes which are left in the ground.
  • Subsidence causes problem for drainage on crop land
  • Especially a problem during wet weather.
  • The issue can compound and get worse over time if not fixed
• How does leaving pipelines in the ground affect the Environmental Farm Plan ie. The liability of what is left in the land. Can a landowner continue to farm into the future? What about future regulations which might be even more stringent?

Primary navigation (left column)

Date Modified:

2011-10-28