Appeal No. 99-002

Date of Discontinuance of Proceedings - February 19, 1999

 

IN THE MATTER OF Sections 84, 85, and 87 of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, (S.A. 1992, ch. E-13.3 as amended);

-and-

IN THE MATTER OF Section 84 of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, S.A. 1992 c.E-13.3 and in the matter filed by Paramount Resources, in respect to Approval No. 69571-00-00, issued to Nova Gas Transmission Ltd. (NGTL) on January 18, 1999 by the Director of the Bow Region, Alberta Environmental Protection.

Cite as: Paramount Resources Ltd. v. Director, Bow Region, Alberta Environmental Protection.

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BACKGROUND 1
DECISION 3

 

BACKGROUND

[1] On January 18, 1999, the Director of the Bow Region, Alberta Environmental Protection, issued Approval No. 69571-00-00 to Nova Gas Transmission Ltd. (NTGL), approving the application for a sales gas pipeline known as the Marlow Creek Lateral.

[2] On January 19, 1999, the Environmental Appeal Board (Board) received a Notice of Appeal from Mr. Bernard J. Roth of Fraser Milner, on behalf of Paramount Resources Ltd. (Appellant) advising that he objected to the issuance of Approval No. 69571-00-00, pursuant to Section 84(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act ("EPEA"), and sought a Stay of the Approval. Their appeal stated:

"TAKE NOTICE that Paramount Resources Ltd. ("Paramount") hereby makes appeal pursuant to Section 84(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act ("EPEA") from the decision of Peter Watson, Director of the Bow Region, approving the application of NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. ("NGTL") for a sales gas pipeline known as the Marlow Creek Lateral.

AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that the grounds of the appeal are: (1) that the proposed sour gas processing plant of Gulf Canada Resources Limited ("Gulf") that the pipeline is being constructed to serve, has not yet been approved pursuant to EPEA, nor does Paramount believe that such plant should be approved after consideration of relevant evidence by Mr. Park Powell, the Regional Director of the Northwest Boreal Region, who is responsible for considering that application, and (2) that in any event, the Director was without jurisdiction to issue an approval until considering the written decision of the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board pursuant to Section 65(4)(a)

AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that the relief requested by Paramount is either the immediate stay of the impugned approval or the conditioning of such approval on the final determination of whether the sour gas plant is to be approved under EPEA."

 

[3] The Board wrote to Mr. Bernard Roth on January 25, 1999, acknowledging receipt of the appeal and request for a Stay.

[4] In a previous letter dated January 13, 1999, from Mr. Hugh Williamson, Q.C., counsel for NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd., (Approval Holder) wrote to the Board and to the Department, urging the Board to reject any application by Paramount for an appeal of a Department approval or for any Stay or conditions in respect of such approval.

[5] In a letter dated January 18, 1999, from Mr. Brian K. O'Ferrall, counsel for Gulf Canada Resources Limited, stated that Gulf had entered into a contract with NGTL for the construction of this pipeline to transport processed gas from Gulf's approved Steen River Sour Gas Plant to the NOVA Mainline.

[6] On January 19, 1999, the Appellant wrote to the Board that "the circumstances of this appeal are rather urgent. In a very short time the appeal will be rendered moot if NGTL is allowed to commence and continue with construction." They requested that the Board arrange an expedited hearing for all parties. On the following day, January 20, 1999, the Appellant sent in a partial submission to the Board.

[7] In the Board's letter to the Appellant, the Board asked for Paramount to provide a written statement of how, in their view, Paramount satisfies the "directly affected" test. He was asked to also "...explain how Paramount is "affected"; whether that effect results "directly" from the Director's Approval decision; and, whether Paramount's underlying interest is within the "zone of interests" which EPEA is intended to protect. The Appellant was asked to provide a written response by January 29, 1999, which they did.

[8] On February 17, 1999 the Board sent a letter to all the parties seeking a written status report.

[9] On February 19, 1999, the Board received a letter from A.L. McLarty, on behalf of the Appellant, withdrawing the appeal. He stated:

"The issue which is the subject of this appeal has been settled by the parties.

In accordance with the terms of the settlement we hereby give notice, as solicitors for Paramount Resources Limited, that this appeal is withdrawn in its entirety.

. . ."

[10] On February 19, 1999, the Board also received a letter from Bernard J. Roth stating:

"Further to your letter of February 17, 1999, we are writing to advise that this matter has been settled as between the parties. As indicated in Mr. McLarty's letter to you of February 12, 1999, Paramount Resources Ltd. has withdrawn its appeal in its entirety.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact us.

. . ."

 

DECISION

[11] Pursuant to Section 87(7) of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, and based on Mr. A.L. McLarty's and Mr. Roth's letters, the Board hereby discontinues its proceedings in Appeal No. 99-002 and will be closing its file.

Dated February 19, 1999 at Edmonton, Alberta

Dr. William A. Tilleman

home back to decisions