“He (like Smith) was a lobbyist around that issue. According to the premier, he quit that position in October …But the NDP produced a registry document listing him as a director of Sustaining Alberta’s Energy Network, a non-profit.”
/2
It’s also well documented that Sustaining Alberta’s Energy Network (SAEN) raised money for UCP candidates and that Kinnear was involved in Smith’s leadership campaign.
Is this why he’s working on flarepit and abandoned well policy?
/3
I’ve previously Tweeted that the RStar pilot is focused on contaminated flare pits and sumps, which are governed by land remediation laws. There’s no evidence Kinnear has any environmental law qualifications.
/4
This is lobbyists sticking together to act for their taskmasters, as opposed to governing in the public interest and hiring qualified personnel to make policy recommendations
/5
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Rather than clarifying, instead of sticking to messaging that @PeterGuthrie99 is performing consultations with everyone except the public who will pick up the tab, the Premier adds to #RStar confusion on her Saturday morning show at 15:30.
Comments. 1/n globalnews.ca/edmonton/progr…
To begin, perhaps the Premier didn't speak to her minister or is overriding his supposed shelving of the Pilot project as reported by @EmmaLGraney? Whatever reason, the Premier gave a full steam ahead impression the next morning on the radio. 2/n
My late father was proud of a 1980 award by the courts for $7,500 for mental anguish related to drilling of an urban well. To hear the Premier publicly say that landowners suffer (compensable) stress would have pleased him. It will sure piss off industry & Tribunal members!
3/n
My comments on how the relentless @OilGasCanada lobby crossed a line - mounted inappropriate attack on the participatory and safety rights of landowners. 1/n thenarwhal.ca/capp-oil-lobby…
Decades ago mineral owners & those who acquired rights to develop subsurface petroleum & natural gas resources had the common law right to use land surfaces they did not own. This changed somewhat no later than 1947 in Alberta. The law today includes the Surface Rights Act.
2/n
The law includes the Alberta Bill of Rights, and the right to security and safety of the person is protected by the federal Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Starting point is property rights can be taken only by due process of law, but safety rights are unchallengeable.
3/n
SIGH: Danielle Smith's plan the @globeandmail argues should be abandoned is NOT an orphan well plan.
The plan is to clean up contaminated sites with responsible owners (opposite of orphans).
Other errors in this piece.
A critique 🧵 1/n
For starters, the Liability Management Incentive Plan is not a plan designed to clean up "abandoned" (meaning the owner has walked away) wells or "abandoned" wells (meaning the well bore is sealed according to AER Directive 020 rule, the official definition).
2/n
Rather then plan is to incent clean up of INACTIVE (for at least 20 years) wells and sites that still have a viable licensee that is identifiable, exists as a corporate entity, and is legally responsible (the opposite of an orphan well or an "abandoned" someone has deserted).
3/n
[1] #RStarScam (Liability Management Incentive Program) IS NOT ABOUT ORPHAN WELLS.
Let's clear up misconceptions about Alberta's complex laws on who pays for oil & gas well end of life - "closure" – costs for wells. Misconceptions include terminology misunderstandings.+
[2] “Closure” means collectively (1) wellbore plugging ; (2) soil remediation; and (3) site restoration or reclamation.
An "orphan" is a well that has no responsible owner/licensee to perform closure work or pay for it.
"Abandoned" wells are sealed (not left behind by owner).+
[3] Explained below as per Alberta law is: who covers closure & related costs (industry) for:
1. wells with a viable responsible owner/well licensee (RStar applies; versus,
2. wells that do not have a viable owner to look after them or pay for closure ("orphans”). +
No wonder folks are confused. It jumps from RStar to orphans, to compensation ordered by the Tribunal for orphans reduced, back to RStar, back to reduced orphan compensation with incorrect facts. Yikes!
A tear down. 1/n
First I agree with @KathleenGanley, the NDP energy critic. Hands off royalties to those in the Premier's office and Alberta Energy. Bureaucrats know better. This is cronyism at its worst. Now on to issues related to references to landowner representative Darryl Bennett.
2/n
Bennett is director of Action Surface Rights but not necessarily the Surface Rights Federation, which federation may be defunct and by no means speaks for landowners or their associations at large.
Regardless, Bennett would never say what is quoted below:
3/n