| Re: "Sour gas stories ignored positive EUB changes," by Tom Neufeld. Letters, May 20 to May 26, 2004.
I would have expected a much more balanced response from the EUB (Alberta Energy and Utilities Board) to demonstrate that it really does have public safety as its No.1 priority. Mr. Neufeld provides a list of assurances, but does not convince me that he is working for the public interest when he repeatedly talks about ongoing sour gas developments, as if all sour gas applications are OK. I'm sure he didn't want us to think that the EUB rubber stamps the applications. That's certainly the impression I get from his letter.
Nowhere does he even mention the possibility of not approving sour gas applications (perhaps this was one of the 87 recommendations?); he only describes the paperwork describing mitigation procedures that has to be in place before plans are approved, not addressing outright refusal of applications, or whether he believes there are any health effects of low levels of exposure to sour gas, nor the efforts required to warn and possibly move some of the citizens of Calgary and neighbouring towns after a sour gas leak.
P.S. What is a blue ribbon committee?
Frank O'Donnell
Via e-mail
|
Copyright ©2004 FFWD. All rights reserved.