National Energy Board

www.neb-one.gc.ca

Common menu bar

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

Breadcrumb

LMCI Meeting Summary - Maritimes Aboriginal Peoples Council and Native Council of Nova Scotia - 16 April 2008

16 April 2008
Truro, Nova Scotia

Key Messages from Participants:

• Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board (CNSOPB) requires proponents to post a bond for abandonment costs.

Stream 1 - Company Interactions with Landowners

• NEB could provide an incentive for companies to establish non-adversarial relations with communities - positive, long-term, mutually beneficial relationships.
• Companies should have consultation plans for specific groups, i.e. Aboriginal groups, agricultural associations and their project plans should be shared upfront.
• Consultation programs should be about educating the pubic of the project and how the community can be involved (i.e. monitoring).
• Consultation must be a dialogue to determine what is best for everyone.
• Companies should not fear talking with Aboriginal groups. Aboriginal people what progress but also want to ensure environment is protected.
• Consistency of staff and participants is essential in relationship building.
• NEB should develop courses for land agents or get involved in land agent training programs.
• NEB needs to develop enforcement mechanisms that reprimands for bad behaviour.
• Encourage the model of companies hiring a local Aboriginal person as the company's Aboriginal liaison representative.
• Companies need an “open-door” policy to deal with ongoing issues in the community.
• Consultation with the company should be a regulated process, so there is a genuine exchange of information and so that solutions are sough by both sides.
• The NEB needs to raise its profile in this area through public meetings etc. Raise the public's awareness of the regulator.

Stream 2 - Improving Access of NEB Processes

• Public access to NEB staff to ask questions about the NEB's review process has been important for the Maritimes Aboriginal People's Council when participating in NEB processes.
• There is an opportunity for the NEB to partner with other federal and provincial agencies to provide information to the public regarding review panels - what are the different panel structures and what does this mean in terms of public participation in a hearing?
• In order to participate more effectively in an NEB process, the public needs to understand the process, the rules, and the opportunities for participation.
• The NEB could take 2 more weeks in its hearing schedule to ask for input into the hearing procedures, the timelines, and the terms of reference/list of issues (i.e., after the Hearing Order is released).
• Pre-hearing conferences (i.e., face-to-face) have been very useful, but some type of conference/information session needs to be offered early enough so that people can understand the process and the options to participate (i.e., before the deadline to become an intervenor). Could be the mechanism to gather public input on the hearing procedures and timelines.
• NEB could develop an "intervenor guide" and templates (e.g., affidavit template) to assist intervenors in more effectively participating.
• When a need is identified, the NEB could deliver pre-hearing workshops to assist intervenors with the process.
• In the past, when the Panel has interacted with intervenors and the public at the hearing during breaks (i.e., not on issues related to the application), this helped participants feel more at ease with the formal hearing setting.
• With respect to the set-up of the hearing room, allow for a table for intervenors to spread out their documents (i.e., before and during cross-examination) - much like the desks provided for NEB staff at the hearing.

Stream 4 - Pipeline Abandonment - Physical Issues

• Third party monitoring of pipelines - what happens when a pipeline is abandoned? Who monitors it? It would be important to keep a record of the pipe left in the ground in perpetuity as land uses can change.
• A principle to consider when abandoning a pipeline is to minimize its footprint - how is its footprint affected by leaving the pipe in the ground vs. removing the pipe?
• If the pipe is left in the ground, how does it affect the environment and limit future land use?
• It is important to consider the cumulative effect of leaving the pipe in the ground - how many pipes can you leave in the ground in one area before it becomes too much?
• If a company removes pipe when abandoned and does a good job at reclaiming/restoring the right-of-way, could it get “credit” when it applies to install new pipe?
• NEB will need to monitor and track pipelines abandoned in situ. Liability for pipe left in the ground cannot be left to the landowner or the public.
• Abandonment plans should be prepared at the beginning of a project.
• Is there an opportunity to salvage the steel left over from pipelines - who would regulate this, if the pipe is left in the ground and sometime in the future another party wants to salvage the pipe?
• Is there a potential that existing pipeline/power line corridors could serve as corridors for other utilities once the pipe is abandoned (removed or otherwise)?

Primary navigation (left column)

Date Modified:

2011-10-28