National Energy Board Coat of Arms
Symbol of the Government of Canada

National Energy Board

www.neb-one.gc.ca

Breadcrumb

Home > Public Participation and Land Matters > Land Matters Consultation Initiative (LMCI) > Stream 4 - Pipeline Abandonment - Physical Issues > Minutes - Pipeline Abandonment Physical Issues Committee Meeting #2

Minutes - Pipeline Abandonment Physical Issues Committee Meeting #2

1 June 2010
8:30 a.m. - 9:30 a.m.
National Energy Board 2nd Floor Hearing Room
444 Seventh Avenue SW
Calgary, Alberta
T2P 0X8

Attendees

Members

Robert Schwartz
Don Bester
Pierre Lemieux
Daniel R. Silbernagel
Tope Esan
Jim Huber
Barry Jardine
Washington Celis
Mark Kavanagh
Alan Pentney
Alan Murray

Springvale Surface Rights Association
Pine Lake Surface Rights Action Group
Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec (UPA)
Public Member (for Hans Mooij)
TransCanada PipeLines Limited
Enbridge Pipelines Inc. (for Greg Hill)
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP)
Saskatchewan Ministry of Energy and Resources
Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) (for Don Popowich)
National Energy Board (NEB)
(NEB)
Absent
Michael Peters CAPP
Alternates
David Tougas UPA
Observers
Jessica Swanson
Don Burke		 Tera Environmental
Energy Resources Conservation Board of Alberta (ERCB)
Resources
Karine Simard
Charlotte Haines		 NEB
NEB

1. Approval of minutes of Meeting #1

  • Changes and clarifications made, approved.

ACTION ITEM: Minutes to be posted on NEB Website in both French and English.
ACTION ITEM: Key Abandonment Issues Summary to be attached to Minutes.

2. Approval of Terms of Reference (TOR)

ACTION ITEM: TOR to be updated with 'Approved by committee on 1 June 2010' and to be posted on the NEB website.

3. Discussion of Pipeline Abandonment Knowledge Gaps Study Options

  • A recap of the options presented was provided:
    • Option 1: Literature Review.
    • Option 2: Specific studies to be conducted.
    • Option 3: Essentially a hybrid of the first 2 options.
  • Greg Hill had suggested in an email prior to the meeting that a literature review that included a scoping exercise for future studies was his preferred option (Option 2). Hans Mooij also forwarded comments that reflected a similar approach. Two names were suggested as having the skills to conduct the scoping exercise: Howard Heffler and Dave Webster.
  • Industry suggestions: there may be practical applications available in Edmonton/Alberta as some large diameter pipelines have been in operation for many years (Exxon), and subsequently abandoned in place. These could prove useful for study purposes; potential exists for simulations to be conducted on these abandoned-in-place sections.

ACTION ITEM: NEB to approach a consultant to conduct the literature review/scoping exercise. Other subject matter experts could be subcontracted to provide advice with estimates of costs for studies to be conducted.

4. Other Study Issues

  • Concerns were raised about whether studies could be transparent/neutral if consultants were affiliated with industry or if the funding for studies came from industry. Comments to the contrary were:
    • Experts should be required in order to provide a quality product.
    • Experts in this field may be limited; particularly those who have not worked with industry previously.
    • A consultant outside of the oil & gas industry may not be familiar with the context of the work.
    • The committee members should be able to assess if study material content is relevant, unbiased, based on science and of good quality.
  • It will be important to ensure that experts are able to address all committee concerns.
  • Funding
    • Alan Murray noted that there was a fund for studies at the University of Calgary for the purpose of pipeline abandonment.
    • The Program of Energy Research and Development (PERD) under Natural Resources Canada has denied funding for abandonment research in the past. There also are limitations in the government contracting process.
    • Discussion should take place regarding funding for each study once the scoping study is complete.

ACTION ITEM: NEB to follow up with University of Calgary regarding funding.
ACTION ITEM: NEB to fund the literature review/scoping exercise.

5. Summary

  • Combined literature review and scoping exercise to be initiated.
  • Completion of literature review and scoping exercise by end of July would be ideal.

ACTION ITEM: Alan Pentney to follow up with the committee via email as to the means of retaining the expertise required for the literature review/scoping exercise.

  • A follow-up meeting will be required to discuss studies suggested by the scoping exercise.

 

Footer

Date Modified:
2011-10-28