Update On Site Rehabilitation Programs In Alberta, British Columbia And Saskatchewan

Written by Anna Fitz and JoAnn Jamieson, McLennan Ross LLP

On April 17, 2020, the federal government announced $1.7 billion in funding to clean up oil and gas sites in Alberta, British Columbia, and Saskatchewan. The goal of the federal funding was to create immediate jobs in the three provinces while helping companies avoid bankruptcy during the COVID-19 pandemic.

All three provinces were quick to announce programs in the hopes of creating jobs and getting people back to work. This article provides an update on the programs in each province.

Alberta

Alberta received $1.2 billion, the bulk of the federal funding. On April 24, 2020, the Government of Alberta announced its “Site Rehabilitation Program,” which provides up to $1 billion in grants to oil field service contractors to perform well, pipeline, and oil and gas site closure and reclamation work.

The goals of the program are to:

  • immediately get Alberta’s specialized oil field workforce back to work,
  • accelerate site abandonment and closure efforts, and
  • quickly complete a high volume of environmentally-significant work.

Inactive oil and gas sites may be nominated by landowners and Indigenous communities. Landowners can nominate inactive sites by emailing the required information (including the legal description of the land, landowners on the land title, and contact information) to the government. Indigenous communities can also nominate inactive sites by email; required information includes the name of the First Nation or Métis settlement, the legal description of the site, and the licensee information sign at the site. A detailed overview of the nomination process can be found here.

In order to be eligible for funding to do the work, service contractors must be located in Alberta and must offer jobs to Albertans. Eligible work includes closure on inactive wells and pipelines, Phases 1 and 2 environmental Site Assessments, remediation, and reclamation. Interested parties can apply on the Site Rehabilitation Program website.

The Alberta government will provide funding for the Site Rehabilitation Program in multiple increments. The first increment, which has now ended, reportedly received significant interest. The second increment is currently on-going, and will close for applications on June 18, 2020. Third and later increments will also become available.

In addition to the Site Rehabilitation Program, the government of Canada has extended a $200 million repayable loan to the existing Orphan Well Association (“OWA”). Under the OWA, an orphan site is “a well, pipeline, facility or associated site that does not have a legally responsible and/or financially viable party to deal with its decommissioning and reclamation responsibilities.”

The OWA has a procurement process through which it selects from a list of prime contractors, who are then normally responsible for choosing their own subcontractors. However, with the new federal funding, the OWA is planning to collaborate with its prime contractors to select subcontractors (interested parties will be able to apply) for the additional work. The OWA anticipates allocating the new funding through a “staged process.” After further planning, OWA will be providing information about the process on its website.

British Columbia

On May 13, 2020, the Government of British Columbia (“BC”) announced its “Dormant Sites Reclamation Program” with which it is channeling its $100 million in federal funding toward cleaning up dormant sites. In BC, well sites are deemed “dormant” if they do not reach a threshold of activity for five years consecutively, or if they have failed to produce for at least 720 hours yearly.

The program is specifically for B.C. companies and contractors with experience in environmental contracting and/or oil and gas infrastructure abandonment. Applicants must have a valid contract with a BC-based oil and gas activity permit holder for a dormant site.

Eligible applicants can apply online, where the information they will need to provide includes the company details, permit holder name, well authorization number, and estimated cost of each work component.

The B.C. government will provide its funding in two increments, the first from May 25, 2020 to October 31, 2020. Funding for this first increment is up to $50 million. The second increment will commence on November 1, 2020 and run to May 31, 2021.

In both funding increments, the B.C. government will provide financial contribution up to 50% of the total estimated or actual costs (whichever is less), up to a total of $100,000 per application and per closure activity. The program has already received significant interest; in a news release, the province noted it received over 1,100 applications on the first day, which means the program was nearly fully subscribed.

B.C. landowners, local governments, and Indigenous communities can nominate dormant oil or gas sites on their land through an online process beginning June 15, 2020. The BC government noted that such nominations will be a priority in the second increment of funding.

Saskatchewan

On May 22, 2020, the Government of Saskatchewan initiated the “Accelerated Site Closure Program” (“ASCP”). Through this program, the Ministry of Energy and Resources will manage $400 million from the federal government for the abandonment and reclamation of inactive oil and gas wells and facilities.

The ASCP involves multiple phases, the first for up to $100 million (the future funding and applicable phases have not yet been announced). In order to be eligible, licensees must be in good standing regarding debts owed to the Crown as of March 1, 2020 (e.g. the Oil and Gas Administrative Levy, the Orphan Well Levy, etc.). Eligible licensees will receive a minimum of $50,000 toward their abandonment and reclamation projects.

The program provides that licensees nominate their wells and facilities through the IRIS system (Integrated Resource Information System). Service companies, interested in performing the work, must apply through SaskTenders beginning in the first week of June 2020. Further details on the application process, and who to contact with questions, can be found in the following bulletin.

The Saskatchewan government anticipates that up to 8,000 wells and facilities will be abandoned and reclaimed through the ASCP, which in turn will support approximately 2,100 full-time jobs. Saskatchewan plans to develop an Indigenous procurement strategy further into the program.

The first phase of the ASCP is now complete, and eligible licensees have received notice of their allocation.

Moving Forward

The federal funding is a welcome boost to cleaning up inactive oil and gas sites in Western Canada. This is a significant step to subsidize old, inactive sites and lower the associated environmental risks. As the three programs also create jobs and contracting opportunities for local parties, the federal funding appears to be a big win for both the energy industry and the environment in all three provinces during these difficult times.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.


About the Authors

JoAnn P. Jamieson’s practice is dedicated to environmental, regulatory and Aboriginal law matters. With over 20 years of experience, she has worked on major resource development throughout western and northern Canada including oil sands, oil and gas, coalbed methane, pipelines, co-generation, hydro, petrochemical, diamond and uranium mining, in situ coal gasification, power, renewables and clean energy technology. JoAnn has extensive experience in environmental impact assessment, land and water regulation, municipal planning, climate change, species at risk, corporate social responsibility and regulatory compliance issues.

Anna Fitz is a student-at-law in the Edmonton office of McLennan Ross LLP.  Anna completed her Juris Doctor at the University of Ottawa, where she graduated cum laude. She also received her Bachelor of Arts in English Literature at McGill University and graduated with distinction.

A guide to the four levels of Hazardous Materials (HazMat) response

Written by Bryan W Sommers – SGM U.S. Army, Ret. , Argon Electronics

Hazardous materials that are mishandled, incorrectly transported or used with malicious intent, can pose a substantial risk to human health and the environment.

How effectively hazardous materials (HazMat) incidents are managed and resolved hinges on the knowledge, training and skill of those charged with response.

In this article we examine the roles and responsibilities of the four HazMat response levels and we discuss how simulator detector technology can be used to enhance HazMat training outcomes.

Awareness Level

For responders working in awareness level roles, the chance of encountering the presence of a hazardous material in the course of their normal daily duties is relatively small.

In many cases though, it is awareness level personnel who will be “first on the scene” of a HazMat incident – and it is they who will be responsible for taking charge of the initial protective actions (isolating or evacuating the area, calling for specialist assistance etc) that will minimize the impact on people and the environment.

Among the expected competencies of an awareness level responder are:

  • An understanding of what hazardous materials are and the situations and locations in which they are most likely to be present
  • The ability to recognize markings, placards or labels that indicate the presence of hazardous materials
  • Familiarity with the documentation / resources used to identify hazardous materials (such as the Emergency Response Guidebook (ERG) or its equivalent)

Operations Level

Responders working at the operations level play a hands-on and defensive role in initial HazMat response.

It is expected however that they will do as much as is possible to mitigate the incident without having to set foot inside the Hot Zone.

The mission-specific responsibilities of operations level responders include:

  • Assisting in controlling, and minimizing the spread, of the HazMat release
  • Knowledge of defensive HazMat techniques such as absorption, damming, diverting, vapour dispersion and suppression
  • Experience in basic air monitoring
  • Technical and mass decontamination
  • Assisting with evacuation and victim rescue
  • The establishing of hazard zones
  • The preserving of evidence

Technician Level

Responders operating at technician level are highly specialized HazMat personnel who take an offensive-action role when responding to known or suspected releases of hazardous materials.

While HazMat technicians may not be expected to be experts in science, it is assumed that they will have a robust understanding of chemistry, biology and/or nuclear physics. Many also have a substantial CBRN training background.

A HazMat Technician’s primary responsibilities include:

  • The performing of advanced risk-based hazard assessments in order to analyse the scope of HazMat incidents
  • Experience in the selection and operation of advanced detection, monitoring and testing equipment
  • The ability to select and use specialized Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
  • Selection of decontamination procedures and control equipment

Depending on their level of training and the scope of the incident, HazMat Technicians may also be required respond to specialized incidents involving flammable gases or flammable liquids and/or to have knowledge of radiological dosimetry and recording procedures.

Specialist Level

The Specialist responder is the highest level of responder for HazMat incidents, with an in-depth and highly advanced level of scientific knowledge.

In many cases they may be required to provide a more observational, trouble-shooting role – observing Technicians and watching out for potential complications. In other cases they may take a more hands-on approach, working alongside HazMat Technicians within the Hot Zone.

Specialist level responders may also be expected to work with the Incident Commander (IC) from within a command post.

Importance of Training

The real-world demands of a responder’s day-to-day role, together with the ongoing challenges of limited time and resources, means it is crucial that the HazMat training they receive is relevant to their work and tailored to their expected duties and tasks.

Equally too, it is important that they are provided with the opportunity to demonstrate their HazMat response skills and knowledge in both a classroom setting and in the context of a real-life environment.

The provision of realistic and engaging hands-on training can have a vital role to play in ensuring responders are equipped for the challenges of managing live HazMat incidents.

Integrating the use of simulator detector equipment into training scenarios can also be beneficial in enabling trainees to experience hands-on training that is rigorous, compelling and repeatable, but where there is no health and safety or environmental risk.

If you are interested to explore how the use of simulator detectors can enhance your HazMat training outcomes then please get in touch with one of our experts today.


About the Author

Sergeant Major Bryan W Sommers has forged a distinguished career in the fields of CBRNe and HazMat training. He recently retired after twenty-two years service in the US Army, with fourteen years spent operating specifically in Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) environments. In 2020 he was appointed as Argon Electronics’ North American business development manager.

How to ensure optimum response to nuclear and radiological incidents

Written by Steven Pike, Argon Electronics

Whenever there is the need to respond to an incident that involves the release of an uncontrolled source of radiation, a critical objective will be to minimise the risk of unnecessary exposure.

Radiological incidents where there is the potential for a significant release of radionuclides are many and varied – whether it be a transportation accident, a fire within a nuclear fuel manufacturing plant, or a terrorist act that involves the use of a radiological dispersal device (RDD) or improvised nuclear device (IND).

Assessing the radiological risk

The danger that any specific radiological incident will pose to human and environmental safety will depend on a variety of factors:

  • The type of radionuclides that are involved
  • The size, scope and complexity of the incident
  • The feasibility of proposed protective actions
  • The timing of notification and response
  • The efficiency with which protective actions are implemented

A guide to initial protective actions

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Protection Action Guide (PAG) for Radiological Incidents 2017 provides an invaluable framework to aid public officials in their planning for emergency response to radiological incidents.

The PAG defines a radiological incident as an event or series of events – whether deliberate or accidental – that leads to the release of radioactive materials into the environment in sufficient levels to warrant protective actions.

Additionally, the Radiological/Nuclear Incident Annex to the Response and Recovery Federal Interagency Operations Plans 2016 provides a useful frame of reference by setting out the three key operational phases that can guide radiological response and recovery.

Phase 1 of the plan is termed Primarily Pre-Incident and comprises three categories; 1a – during which where there are normal operations; 1b – where there is an increased likelihood or elevated risk of threat and 1c – where there is evidence of a near certain or credible threat.

The second phase pertains to either when a radiological or nuclear incident first occurs or when notification of that incident is received.

Once again, there are three distinct stages within this phase: 2a – which is concerned with activation, situational assessment and movement; 2b – which relates to the employment of resources and the stabilisation of the incident and 3b – which begins with the commencement of intermediate operations.

Phase 3 of the federal radiological plan focuses on the tasks that pertain to sustained, long-term recovery operations – beginning with the recovery actions that will be put in place to reduce radiation in the environment to acceptable levels and ending when all recovery actions have been completed.

The phases of the EPA’s Protection Action Guide take into account the fact that the priorities that are set – and the decisions that are made early in the response – can often have a cascading effect on future actions and on the nature and efficiency of recovery.

In addition, the guidelines also recognise that radiological/nuclear response activities can often be concurrent and interdependent.

Realistic training for radiological events

The locations in which radiation incidents may occur can often be difficult to predict – and particularly in the case of acts of radiological terrorism.

In the case of the detonation of an RDD for example, the incident could feasibly take place in any location, with the potential for radiological contaminants to disperse over a wide variety of terrain and surfaces.

Training for the unpredictable nature of radiological events can present some unique and complex challenges.

High-fidelity field training exercises can often be expensive and impractical to carry out with any degree of frequency.

In some cases too, essential hands-on learning opportunities such as the understanding of shielding or inverse square law can be diminished or overlooked altogether.

It is crucial that students have access to the most realistic learning experience possible – but at the same time it is also imperative that there is zero risk to personal safety, the safety of the wider community, the environment, equipment or infrastructure.

The use of intelligent simulator training systems provide CBRN and HazMat response personnel with the opportunity to train for actual radiological scenarios in real-life settings – and to gain practical hands-on experience using true-to-life equipment.

An even greater level of hands-on authenticity can now also be achieved through the use of innovative new training systems such as the Radiation Field Training Simulator (RaFTS) which enables trainees to safely train against a diverse variety of radiological hazards whilst using their own actual detector equipment.

The delivery of effective radiation training relies on a careful balance between authenticity and safety.

RaFTS’ merging of virtual and real-world capability makes it possible for instructors to replace the use of individual simulators with a singular, universal training solution that can be connected to a vast array of real detector equipment.


About the Author

Steven Pike is the Founder and Managing Director of Argon Electronics, a leader in the development and manufacture of Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) and hazardous material (HazMat) detector simulators. He is interested in liaising with CBRN professionals and detector manufacturers to develop training simulators as well as CBRN trainers and exercise planners to enhance their capability and improve the quality of CBRN and Hazmat training.

Environmental Indemnity And The Costs Of Regulatory Compliance

Written by by Michael Chernos, Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer LLP

Resolute FP v Ontario, 2019 SCC 60

On December 6, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) held two forest products companies liable for the costs of remediating and maintaining a waste disposal site at the Dryden paper mill in northern Ontario. The decision reinforces that parties must use caution and diligence when drafting environmental indemnities.

Background: the Dryden paper mill

In the 1960’s, the Dryden pulp and paper mill operators dumped waste product from the paper bleaching process into nearby rivers. The harmful discharges caused mercury poisoning in residents of the Grassy Narrows and Islington First Nations living downstream. In response to the harmful pollution, the Government of Ontario required the owner of the mill to construct a Waste Disposal Site (WDS) to contain toxic waste from the plant to prevent future release into the environment.

The Grassy Narrows and Islington First Nations sued the owner of the plant, Reed Ltd. (Reed), for mercury contamination and associated injuries. The future of the plant was in question. Great Lakes Forest Products Limited (Great Lakes) expressed interest in buying the pulp and paper mill but was concerned about assuming any liabilities relating to the prior mercury discharges. To incentivise a sale, the Crown agreed to indemnify Reed and Great Lakes against pollution claims against the mill. In exchange, Great Lakes agreed to purchase the mill and spend roughly $200 million on upgrades.

The First Nations’ lawsuit settled in 1985, and as part of the settlement, the government granted Great Lakes and Reed a new indemnity that covered all claims relating to previous pollution damage. The indemnity applied to any subsequent mill owners.

The scope of the indemnity was broad, providing relief “against any obligation… costs or expenses incurred… as a result of any claim, action or proceeding, whether statutory or otherwise… because of the discharge or presence of any pollutant”.

The parties

In 1998, Weyerhaeuser purchased some of the Dryden paper mill assets from Bowater Canadian Forest Products Inc. (Bowater), a corporate successor of Great Lakes. Weyerhaeuser was concerned about environmental liabilities tied to the WDS, but couldn’t sever the WDS from title before the transaction closed. In 2000, Weyerhaeuser transferred title to the WDS back to Bowater.

Resolute FP Canada Inc. (Resolute) is the current corporate successor to Great Lakes.

The Ontario Ministry of the Environment Director’s Order

The WDS was eventually abandoned through bankruptcy proceedings and in August 2011 the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (the MOE) issued a Director’s Order (the MOE order) to several parties, including the last owners of the WDS, Weyerhaeuser, and Resolute. The order imposed three main obligations on the parties:

  1. repair site erosion and perform certain groundwater testing;
  2. deliver financial assurance $273,063 to cover future costs of maintaining the WDS; and
  3. take reasonable measures to prevent a future discharge of contaminant.

Challenge to the MOE order

Weyerhaeuser and Resolute challenged the MOE order, arguing that they were protected by the government indemnity, and were successful at trial. The Crown appealed, and the trial decision was reversed in part. The majority at the Ontario Court of Appeal found that although the indemnity applied to the MOE order only one party could benefit at a time, and Resolute had assigned the benefit of the indemnity to Weyerhaeuser.

An important distinction – the cost of regulatory compliance vs environmental liability

The SCC overturned the lower court decisions, largely adopting the reasons of the dissenting Justice Laskin from the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Court’s reasoning hinges on an important distinction. The indemnity applies to “pollution claims” relating to the release of harmful waste into the environment, while the MOE order is properly characterized as a cost of regulatory compliance.

In arriving at this distinction, the SCC emphasized that the trial judge made a critical error in finding that the WDS continued to discharge waste into the surrounding ecosystem. The WDS was actually designed to contain waste from the Dryden paper mill and prevent pollution. The obligations in the MOE order relate to maintaining the WDS rather than compensating for the harmful discharge of pollutants. Therefore, Weyerhaeuser and Resolute could not benefit from the indemnity.

As a secondary issue, the Court considered whether the original indemnity could apply to first parties (i.e. the Crown), or whether it applied strictly to third party claims. Despite language in the indemnity referring to “statutory claims”, the SCC found that the nature of the indemnity was against third party claims, and did not apply to claims made by the indemnitor (the Ontario Government), and specifically, did not apply to regulatory compliance orders from the Ontario Government.

Caution when drafting

This case provides a caution for parties that enter into environmental indemnities. The indemnity granted by the Crown to Great Lakes was broadly worded, and yet the courts construed it in a way as to carve out the costs of environmental and regulatory compliance. This result reinforces the need to use explicit and clear language when drafting indemnities and provides an example of the principle “polluter pays”.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.


About the Author

Michael Chernos is a Student-at-Law at Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer LLP, a leading, independent Canadian law firm of over 115 lawyers with a reputation for providing premier legal service in all areas of business law.  He earned his law degree at the University of Calgary. Whttps://www.bdplaw.com/about-us/hile at law school, Michael took on a leadership role with the Environmental Law Society, organizing events for the club that included career development opportunities for students,  and speaker series.

 

How can a wide-area instrumented system boost radiation hazard training?

Written by Steven Pike, Argon Electronics

In the event of a known or suspected radiation accident or incident, the speed of response will be a critical factor in maximising the safety and wellbeing of people and the environment.

Understanding the nature and the significance of the radiation threat is key.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) International Nuclear and Radiological Event Severity Scale (INES) provides an invaluable reference for radiological personnel by prioritising radiological incidents or accidents according to seven levels of severity.

The International Nuclear and Radiological Event Severity Scale (INES)

At the least severe end of the INES scale is what is termed a Level 1 Anomaly – which can include events such as the radiological exposure of a member of the public in excess of statutory annual limits, a minor problem with safety components or the loss or theft of a low-activity radioactive source.

Incident levels 2 and 3 on the scale cover such events as a significant failure in the provision of radiological safety, the inadequate packaging or misdelivery of a highly radioactive sealed source or the loss or theft of a highly radioactive sealed source.

An accident where there is a high probability of significant public exposure (such as a release of a significant quantity of radioactive material) is classed as a Level 4 Accident with Local Consequences.

The release of a large quantity of radioactive material (such as a fire within a nuclear reactor) is termed to be an INES Level 5 Accident with Wider Consequences.

A Level 6 Serious Accident refers to the significant release of radioactive material where there is the likelihood of the need for planned countermeasures.

A Major Accident (Level 7) is typified by a major release of radioactive material where there is the risk of widespread health and environmental effects. The 1986 Chernobyl nuclear reactor incident and the 200 Fukushima Nuclear Accident were both deemed to be level 7 incidents on the INES scale.

Enhancing radiological preparedness

Providing the opportunity for realistic hands-on training is a key factor in ensuring that personnel both achieve and maintain the required level of radiological preparedness.

Finding practical and affordable ways to deliver this desired authenticity of training however, can often prove challenging.

Radiological instructors have become well accustomed to juggling a multitude of environmental, health and safety regulations and budgetary considerations.

Often training decisions can come down to one of two choices: to enlist the services of a radiation control technician (RCT) who can oversee the safe execution of the exercise – or to opt for the use of a smaller button source which emits a vastly reduced amount of radiation activity but which can compromise the realism of the exercise.

Simulator detectors, which replicate the look and feel of actual detectors, have proven to be an invaluable asset in the training in the fundamentals of radiation.

But if an instructor wishes to take things further and plan out a whole scenario then it may be desirable to consider other options.

Wide-area instrumented training in real time

Integrated wide-area instrumented simulator training systems such as Argon Electronics’ PlumeSIM and PlumeSIM-SMART, are providing radiological instructors with the ability to deliver even more realistic, rigorous and repeatable radiation training experiences.

Incorporating the use of a simulator training system into radiological exercises has been shown to offer substantial advantages, both for trainee and trainer.

Radiation scenarios can be staged in an unlimited variety of locations including public areas, community institutions, government buildings or enclosed spaces such as an aircraft or armoured vehicle.

When recreating the conditions of a radiological plume, the instructor has the power to predetermine every detail – be it the specific nuclide, the release time, latitude and longitude, the release rate, the source height, the source radius and the release duration.

Depending on the objectives of the exercise, and/or the availability of resources, scenarios can also be conducted live or virtually – with the option for trainers to test their trainees’ skills both in table-top mode or in a field exercise.

Instructors can select the equipment that they wish to be used in the scenario – and they can allocate specific items of equipment to individual team members. In addition it is also easy to simulate all the possible errors that the trainee could make when using their equipment.

The addition of an instructor remote ensures that the trainer retains total control throughout the duration of the exercise, with the option to manage and manipulate a wide range of environmental factors such as the level of remaining contamination, persistency, and changes in wind and weather conditions.

Powerful after action review (AAR) provides an invaluable resource which enables trainer and trainee to replay and scrutinise the key events of an exercise and to verify each student’s performance.

Integrated live training systems such as PlumeSIM enable radiological safety instructors to ramp up the level of realism of their exercises by simulating lethal threat levels and testing their trainees’ multi-threat training capability.

When budgets are tight, the use of a subscription-based training option such as Argon’s Plume-SIM Smart can also offer a viable alternative to purchasing a training system outright – by removing the need for expensive equipment or consumables, and with no requirement for calibration, maintenance or repair.


About the Author

Steven Pike is the Founder and Managing Director of Argon Electronics, a leader in the development and manufacture of Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) and hazardous material (HazMat) detector simulators. He is interested in liaising with CBRN professionals and detector manufacturers to develop training simulators as well as CBRN trainers and exercise planners to enhance their capability and improve the quality of CBRN and Hazmat training.

Saskatchewan’s Accelerated Site Closure Program Announces New Details

Written by Brad Gilmour, Keely Cameron, Stephanie Ridge, and Kassandra Devolin, Bennett Jones

On June 26, 2020, the Saskatchewan Ministry of Energy and Resources (the Ministry) released new details regarding its Accelerated Site Closure Program (ASCP). The ASCP will administer $400 million in funds from the federal government’s COVID-19 Economic Response Plan for Canada’s Energy Sector. The ASCP will distribute funds to Saskatchewan-based service companies completing abandonment and reclamation work in the province.

The June 26, 2020 update was included within the Ministry’s ASCP Questions and Answers document, which is updated regularly and provides key instructions on the operation of the ASCP.

Phase 1 Funding Allocation Complete

As of May 29, 2020, the $100 million available in Phase 1 had been completely allocated. Licensees were notified of their allocated funding amount via email on June 1, 2020.

Licensee Nomination Process Opens

With funding allocation amounts in hand, licensees can now proceed to nominating wells and facilities through the Integrated Resource Information System (IRIS). On June 26, 2020, the Ministry provided further guidance regarding the nomination process, including a supplemental guide and online training module. The Ministry recommends these resources are reviewed prior to completing applications on IRIS.

Notably, the ASCP does not require licensees to nominate their projects on a first come, first serve basis. The funding allocated to licensees in Phase 1 will remain with the licensees until the amount is used or the program ends in December 2022.

The Ministry has also provided templates which can be uploaded into IRIS during this process, including a preferred vendor and site nomination template. The site nomination template is intended to be used on a project basis, allowing licensees to nominate specific stages of work within a project. Licensees can also substitute, remove or add wells during the nomination process. With regards to preferred vendors, licensees are able to select service companies on a project basis.

Eligible Service Company Pre-Qualification is Ongoing

Eligible service companies may pre-qualify to bid on area-based work packages once procurement contracts tendered to nominated sites have been released. The Ministry will issue a Business Associate (BA) code to all prequalified service companies. Licensees will be able select their preferred vendors within the system on the condition they have a BA code. Service company codes will be updated throughout the process, and a current listing is available on the ASCP website.

There are three additional updates of note with regard to eligible service companies.

  1. Contractors have not yet been selected for the ASCP. Contractors can apply through SaskTenders and their eligibility will be determined based on the program’s criteria. The Ministry also clarified that companies and vendors listed on the Saskatchewan Industrial & Mining Suppliers Association Inc. website are not prequalified for the ASCP by virtue of being included on that list. Similarly, the vendor pre-qualification process for the orphan fund program is applicable only to the orphan fund program. Contractors will need to apply for the ASCP separately.
  2. Pre-qualification period opened on June 15, 2020. Service companies may now apply for ASCP eligibility by completing a Request for Service Qualifications (RFSQ) on SaskTenders.
  3. Generally, only bidders require pre-qualification. The Ministry has confirmed that businesses supporting ASCP activities, such as subcontractors or small, individually staffed companies that do not intend to bid on area-based work packages offered for bid, are not required to apply for pre-qualification or complete the RFSQ. However, companies must still be Saskatchewan based and otherwise eligible to receive ASCP funds.

Notwithstanding, the Ministry has identified that companies delivering services (as opposed to supporting their delivery) in the following major service areas are expected to prequalify for the RFSQ:

  • well decommissioning activities, including service rig operations, wellsite supervision, coil tubing, wireline, fluid hauling and disposal, cut and cap, pressure testing, cementation and service maintenance, downhole tools; and
  • remediation and reclamation activities, such as initial environmental assessment (i.e., Phase 1), detailed site assessment, environmental contracting (i.e., heavy equipment, transport and waste disposal).

Licensee Responsibilities Elaborated

The Ministry has also provided further information regarding the role of licensees in the ASCP. Notably, licensees are encouraged, to the greatest extent possible, to nominate routine wells. This is defined as projects which are routine from a regulatory perspective, with the overall intent being to decrease the time spent processing applications. Where non-routine projects are nominated, licensees are advised to submit infrastructure projects where there are no known or foreseeable issues which could increase costs or project duration. A general expectation of the ASCP is that nominated projects may be completed in a timely manner and in accordance with expected costs.

As part of the ASCP, licensees will also be expected to follow applicable regulations and directives with regard to abandonment and reclamation. Licensees will be responsible for updating IRIS with all relevant reporting requirements.

Moving Forward

At this time, the Ministry has not announced its plans for next phases, including criteria for distribution or the funds available. The Questions and Answers indicates additional details will depend on the execution and initial results of Phase 1 of the ASCP.


About the Authors

Brad Gilmour is head of the firm’s regulatory department and co-head of the environmental department. His practice focuses primarily on environmental, energy, regulatory and aboriginal law.

Keely Cameron is an experienced legal counsel with a solid business background. She has a proven track record for finding innovative solutions and generating value. Keely helps clients on both commercial litigation, insolvency and regulatory matters.

Stephanie Ridge has a general regulatory law practice with an emphasis on environmental, Aboriginal, and regulatory law. She has experience with matters and proceedings before the National Energy Board, Alberta Energy Regulator, and Alberta Utilities Commission.

Kassandra Devolin is a Summer Student a Bennett Jones.

 

What are the key innovations transforming CBRNe simulator training?

Written by Steven Pike, Argon Electronics

The use of simulators and simulations to deliver CBRNe training is recognised as being a highly effective way to immerse trainees in environments that are as close as possible to those that they will experience in real life.

Simulator training provides a safe way for CBRNe personnel to test their knowledge and skills in the context of real-world examples.

Crucially too, trainees are able to make mistakes, and to learn from those mistakes, without risk to their own personal health, the environment or infrastructure.

As the threat posed by CBRNe materials continues to expand and evolve, the demand for hyper-realistic live-training capability is ever-growing.

The technology that underpins the provision of simulator training is also constantly expanding, as CBRNe instructors demand an even deeper level of authenticity.

In this blog post we explore some of the newest capabilities that are transforming the CBRNe training landscape.

Live-training capability

The highly practical nature of live-training offers benefits across a wide array of CBRNe disciplines – from Special Forces and border security to civilian emergency preparedness, the provision of medical services and law enforcement.

Gaining familiarity with CBRNe materials and their respective properties – and understanding the measures that must be taken to protect oneself and others – are core elements of CBRNe general awareness.

Building confidence in the handling of detection technologies is also crucial – whether it be to better understand the capabilities or limitations of currently available detection equipment, to explore newly emerging detector technologies or to put that equipment to the test in realistic, hands-on detection exercises.

Live-training provides the opportunity to develop and apply a broad range of CBRNe incident response practices under the most realistically challenging conditions possible.

Till recently, however, the practicalities of offering live-training have been limited by the need to comply with a host of essential safety, environmental, regulatory and administrative considerations.

One new training system that has taken on the live-training challenge is the Saab Gamer CBRN interface which integrates Saab’s Gamer live firing capability with Argon’s PlumeSIM technology.

The newly enhanced PlumeSIM system supports the simulation of chemical and radiological agents and enables the use of simulated portable survey meters such as the Mirion / CanberraAN/VDR-2,AN/PDR-77/RDS100 and simulated personal dosimeters such as the Mirion / Canberra UDR13 and UDR14.

For trainees there is the advantage of being able to experience the full functionality of their equipment and their PPE in highly realistic environments. While for trainers, there is the benefit of retaining full control of every aspect of the exercise from set-up to After Action Review (AAR.)

Integration with actual detector equipment

Working with real detector equipment can be invaluable in helping trainees gain greater confidence in the operation of their devices, and a deeper level of trust in the reliability of the measurements that they obtain.

At the same time though, it is important that any training that includes the use of actual equipment can be done without compromising operational readiness. Avoiding costly and time-consuming routine maintenance, calibration, running repairs or replacement of damaged items is key.

Recently however there have been developments in the technology that underpins radiological training which makes it possible for CBRNe instructors to deliver highly realistic radiation exercises that use actual detector equipment but with zero risk to the functionality or the integrity of those devices.

One such example is the Radiation Field Training Simulator (RaFTS).

At the heart of the RaFTS patented technology is an intelligent external device that is mounted directly onto a trainee’s own radiological detection system and that interacts directly with the detector’s internal circuitry.

The highly-realistic output, the quality of the data and the level statistical randomness is as life-like as it gets – enabling trainees to test their knowledge and skills in identifying a radioactive source, measuring its intensity and determining its location.

Crucially too, RaFTS universal capability can be applied across a diverse range of hazards and instrument types – including chemical warfare agents (CWAs) and explosives – making it possible for instructors to deliver an all-in-one CBRNe training solution for multiple devices.


About the Author

Steven Pike is the Founder and Managing Director of Argon Electronics, a leader in the development and manufacture of Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) and hazardous material (HazMat) detector simulators. He is interested in liaising with CBRN professionals and detector manufacturers to develop training simulators as well as CBRN trainers and exercise planners to enhance their capability and improve the quality of CBRN and Hazmat training.

Effective Communication: Environmental Site Assessments

Written by Bill Leedham, P. Geo., CESA

I recently spent time dealing with the frustration of really poor communication from a variety of service providers.  In contrast I also recently attended a post-report meeting with a new client, whose first comment was how pleased they were with the level of communication.  From my viewpoint, I was also quite happy with the speedy and effective responses I received from this client throughout the project.  These vastly different experiences led me to consider some suggestions for improving and maintaining good communication between clients and consultants.

 You can’t tell the players without a program ….

In transactional due diligence work, there can be many stakeholders from vendors, buyers and agents, to lawyers, banks and regulators.  Each stakeholder may have their own unique objectives which can sometimes oppose those of other players in the transaction; often leaving the consultant in the middle.  This can be counterproductive and lead to potentially serious misunderstanding and miscommunication.  Consultants owe a legal and ethical duty of care to their client, and must know who their client is (individual, company, consortium), what their objectives and timeframe are, and whether other stakeholders are involved. If second or third parties are to be involved, this must be clearly defined at the start of the project, to ensure the necessary information can be shared where appropriate, and a letter of reliance can be prepared if necessary.  Establishing a clear channel of communication between client, consultant and other parties is also important.  Any requirements for confidentiality or legal privilege should also be set out in advance.  Repetitive ‘reply all’ e-mail chains and getting caught in a lengthy multi-party decision making process should be avoided.

Timely communication is key

On any project timely communication is paramount, and even more so when due diligence deadlines are present.  Information presented by a consultant after the closing of a real estate transaction may be important, but if received too late it may be un-useable.  If the consultant was aware of the data, but failed to deliver in time, they could be negligent or in breach of contract and subject to litigation.  Similarly, delays in responses or project approval from client to consultant can result in cost over-runs, duplication of work, and failure to meet established deadlines.  Both parties need to set clear timelines for project milestones and to prepare contingency plans for unforeseen obstacles. Some unplanned events can be accounted for (such as delays in utility locates), others come out of left field and we have to adjust as best we can (such as a pandemic lock-down). It’s equally important to state at the time of proposal/award a clearly defined scope of work, budget and contingency allowances, a mutually-agreed approval procedure for project extras, and all payment terms.

Say what you mean, and mean what you say!

Environmental reporting can be complex and full of scientific data and technical jargon. As a consultant, ensure you are speaking plainly so that your target audience can understand.  Some stakeholders are interested primarily in the ‘big picture’, while others are very detail-oriented. I have some clients who had never heard the term Environmental Site Assessment until they purchased a commercial property; and others that could fully describe all the required protocols to complete a Modified Generic Risk Assessment. Know your audience and tailor your approach to their level of technical comprehension.  Clients must also clearly communicate their goals, objectives, timeframes and required comfort level to their consultant.  Both sides should ask questions when needed, and request a detailed explanation when things are unclear.  It helps to have everything in writing to avoid future discrepancies, especially for project changes or extra work items. For any client, if your service provider isn’t giving you answers, or doesn’t explain things to your satisfaction; perhaps it’s time to find one that does.


About the Author

Bill Leedham is the Head Instructor and Course Developer for the Associated Environmental Site Assessors of Canada (www.aesac.ca); and the founder and President of Down 2 Earth Environmental Services Inc. You can contact Bill at [email protected]

Scientific advancements in oil spill containment

The United States Coast Guard recently reported that an innovative sub surface oil containment and recovery system, installed in April 2019 over a damaged oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico, is successfully preventing more than 1,000 gallons of oil per day from entering the environment. Scientific research and lessons learned following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill have allowed the development of unique oil spill response systems such as this to help protect the maritime environment from future threats.

In 2004 during Hurricane Ivan the Taylor Energy Mississippi Canyon 20 (MC20) oil platform toppled creating an ongoing flow of oil into the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Scientists from multiple government agencies and academic institutions, conducted cutting-edge studies that determined the location, source, and amount of oil and gas emitting from the site.

Utilizing remote sensing technologies such as drones, satellites, and underwater vehicles in combination with on-site in-situ sampling and chemical analysis, scientists were better able to characterize the oil release.

Two separate studies conducted in 2017 determined that the oil and gas were discharging from multiple plumes in a discrete location rather than over a wide area. In 2018, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration undertook a follow-up study to determine the chemical characterization of the release, and to generate a flowrate (amount of oil and gas spilling in a given period of time) estimate for the site.

These studies helped determine that oil was leaking from the damaged infrastructure and could be contained, and that more than 1,000 gallons of oil per day was being released. This was substantially greater than the previously asserted 3-5 gallons per day.

The United States Coast Guard assumed partial control of the Taylor Energy oil spill response after repeated past attempts failed to stop, or contain, the flow of oil in the years since the platform with 25 producing wells were toppled and buried in sediment.

The Coast Guard, with support from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, oversaw the design, installation and operation of a Rapid Response Solution (RRS) subsurface system designed by the Louisiana based Couvillon Group.

The containment and collection system was developed and implemented in only 5 months in order to quickly stem the flow of oil. The system has recovered more than 375,000 gallons of oil since it was installed. Environmental protection continues, with the Coast Guard overseeing continuous oil collection and containment system maintenance.

These scientific research was a collaborative efforts of the inter-agency team of oil spill responders and scientific experts. The Coast Guard and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will continue to support the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement efforts to ensure that the Taylor Energy wells are properly plugged and a permanent solution is reached.

Dangerous Goods Online Training: How to Choose the Best Provider

Written by Hazmat University

Dangerous goods training is required for anyone who handles or ships dangerous goods by ground, air, or ocean. You have to be trained in IATA/ICAO regulations (if you ship by air), 49 CFR (if you ship by ground), or IMDG regulations (if you ship by vessel).

Choosing the right dangerous goods online training provider is critical if you want to be adequately trained in the applicable federal and international regulations related to the safe transportation of dangerous goods.

The factors you need to consider while choosing a dangerous goods online training provider are listed below.

Training Programs Offered

Does the dangerous goods training provider offer initial training as well as recurrent training programs? Do their training programs thoroughly cover all relevant regulations? These are the first questions you need to ask while choosing a hazmat training provider.

It is also advisable to choose a training provider who offers function-specific training programs for each mode of transportation (IATA programs for air, IMDG programs for  ocean, and 49 CFR programs for ground). If you ship by more than one mode of transportation, then you would likely choose a dangerous goods training provider that offers multimodal training programs. These in-depth courses cover the dangerous goods regulations pertaining to two or three modes of transportation, depending on the course.

By proactively seeking a reputable and knowledgeable training provider that offers the exact services you need, you can attend a dangerous goods training program that is tailored to your business needs. For instance, if you ship dangerous goods by ground and air, you can sign up for a multimodal training program which covers 49 CFR and IATA regulations.

Dangerous Goods Online Course Material

The quality of a dangerous goods online training program depends to a great extent on the course material it covers. Ideally, the course material should cover a minimum of the following information:

  • Identification and classification of dangerous goods based on the risks the materials present and the criteria of the 9 hazard classes
  • The regulatory requirements pertaining to packing, marking, and labeling dangerous goods
  • Dangerous goods placarding and segregation requirements for transport vehicles
  • The regulatory requirements related to loading/unloading of dangerous goods
  • Completion of the various forms of shipping paperwork that are required to ship dangerous goods by ground, air, and ocean
  • The regulations pertaining to prohibited and restricted dangerous goods
  • Regulatory exceptions and the circumstances under which they are applicable
  • The most common security hazards associated with shipping dangerous goods and applicable safety measures to take

Dangerous Goods Training Methodologies

What methods of presentation does the dangerous goods training provider offer? Do they provide in-person, instructor-led webinars, as well as online training programs? This is something you need to consider, especially if you have budgetary and/or time constraints to contend with.

Dangerous Good Classroom Training and Instructor-led Webinars

Classroom and webinar training programs are instructor-led and are conducted at a specific location at a specific time. Such training sessions are often held at a centralized location that is convenient to a wide range of attendees.  Participants are required to physically attend the classroom presentation or webinar and these training sessions are most often designed to provide general information that is common to a wide-array of shippers. This is often an economical option to receive interactive face-to-face training but this option still requires planning and budgeting from a travel standpoint.

Dangerous Goods Onsite Training

Onsite training programs, on the other hand, are usually highly personalized and are held at your specific place of business. The course material is tailored to the specific needs of your organization, which provides many advantages. However, similar to classroom and webinar training programs, onsite training still requires participants to physically attend the course at the determined place and time. These types of training courses also usually come at a premium cost.

Dangerous Goods Online Training

On the contrary, Dangerous goods online training programs, do not require your physical presence at all. You can access the course material using your tablet or computer at any time or any place with an internet connection. As such, this is perhaps the most convenient and cost-effective method of obtaining required dangerous goods training. Online dangerous goods training sessions can save you a lot of time and money, since they do not involve any travel costs, instructor fees, or scheduling commitments.

Choose the Best Dangerous Goods Online Training Program Provider

Even amidst the COVID-19 crisis, dangerous goods online training options are available for hazmat employees on the frontlines of the supply chain.


About the Author

Hazmat University provides online hazmat training to help you satisfy hazardous materials training requirements for all modes of transportation.