Re: “Citizen Encana,” by Adrian Morrow, Cover, July 10-16, 2008.
Fast Forward Weekly’s front-page story on EnCana Corporation paints a two-sided characterization of the company. It notes some of EnCana’s efforts towards becoming a leading provider of sustainable energy resources for use by North Americans in their daily lives. It also covers a broad spectrum of complex events and issues, most predominantly the concerns of a handful of rural residents that EnCana has dealt with over many years. Fast Forward summer intern Adrian Morrow first approached us about writing a story that covered EnCana’s history, which he said was prompted by our announcement in May to split into two independent companies. We met with Mr. Morrow and presented him with extensive documentation outlining EnCana’s history. Then on July 3, one week before publishing, Mr. Morrow sent us an e-mail outlining specific and detailed questions about the concerns of individual rural residents. However, before we were able to address these specific and complex events, the story was published, with a prime focus on the concerns of these rural residents.
The story contains numerous errors in fact and misleading descriptions of events, a list that is far too long and detailed to cover in this letter. However, some of the content requires a response:
The story starts by detailing a Vulcan Alberta farm family’s concern about natural gas well operations in the spring of 2006. A search of our operations records indicates that EnCana did not do any work of the nature described on any well near the family’s quarter section during that period. In late 2006, EnCana received licences from the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (EUB, now the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board) to drill two natural gas wells near the farm. The family members objected to the EUB issuing a well licence because of sensitivity to chemicals. Throughout a series of exchanges with the regulator, family members were asked by the EUB to present medical evidence of how they were adversely affected and, as is standard regulatory procedure, to also agree that their evidence be made public. However, they failed to do that, or apply to the regulator under its provisions for keeping evidence confidential. The EUB denied the family’s claim. A subsequent appeal by the family to the Alberta Court of Appeal was also dismissed. The ruling by a panel of three judges said, “It was not unreasonable for the Board to require the parties requesting the review, on the basis that they suffered from an unusual sensitivity to natural gas wells, to provide more than a mere assertion of that sensitivity. The appellants (the Vulcan farm family) failed to do so.” The two EnCana wells closest to the residents’ property were dry holes so no gas was produced from them. Those wells were abandoned. The locations are currently under cultivation by other Vulcan-area landowners.
The story also detailed the complaints of a few Rosebud, Alberta residents who say coalbed methane (CBM) development has adversely affected their water wells. In response to their concerns, Alberta Environment contracted the Alberta Research Council to conduct an independent review of wells in the area. The study, publicly released in January 2008, said water wells that intersect coal seams often contain methane gas, and that historic well water information recorded prior to any CBM activity began in Alberta demonstrates that methane gas can naturally occur in the shallow groundwater. The Alberta Research Council review concluded that “energy development projects in the areas (Rosebud and Wetaskawin) most likely have not adversely affected the complainant water wells.”
Throughout the story it states that EnCana’s predecessor companies – Alberta Energy Company Ltd. and PanCanadian Energy Corporation – were “handed” or “donated” land and assets from the governments of Alberta and Canada. In fact, AEC purchased its founding assets in 1975, most notably paying $75 million for the drilling rights to the lands on Canadian Forces Base Suffield. This founding capital was raised by selling shares for $10 each to Albertans. Also, EnCana owns mineral rights, called fee simple title, on millions of acres of lands across southern Alberta, including extensive lands around Rosebud. Title to these lands was partial payment to the Canadian Pacific Railway, a predecessor of PanCanadian, for construction of the trans-national railway in the 1880s. These were both business transactions as a result of government economic policy of the day. No land was donated or given to EnCana or its predecessor companies.
The story spoke of two deaths that occurred in connection with a protest against an oil pipeline in the Ecuador village of El Reventador. OCP Ecuador S.A. is the majority owner and operator of the pipeline and at the time EnCana was a minority shareholder of OCP. The protest about a community’s access to water did take place, but there were no deaths. Once OCP learned of the community’s water concerns, its engineers helped to secure water access for the village and the protest ended. The Ecuador government approved and regulates the OCP pipeline. During the time EnCana operated in Ecuador, our company received awards for its environmental work. As part of the company’s efforts towards narrowing its strategic focus to North America, EnCana sold all of its Ecuador interests in 2006.
The story describes allegations from two Rifle, Colorado residents who suggested a connection between EnCana’s activities and their cancer diagnosis. In one case, the chemical alleged to have caused one resident’s illness was not in use at the time of the resident’s diagnosis. The other resident’s allegations against EnCana were, upon investigation, found to be aimed at two different companies, not EnCana. None of this was mentioned in the story.
EnCana has about 47,000 wells in western North America and the company drills 3,000 to 5,000 wells per year. Except for the occasional well where EnCana owns the surface land, all wells have a surface access agreement between the landowner and the company. Of those 47,000 wells, a relative few result in irreconcilable differences between EnCana and the landowner.
That is not to say there are not problems from time to time. We are very aware that on rare occasions accidents occur, disputes arise with stakeholders, equipment and procedures fail. The safety of our employees, contractors and the residents of the communities where we operate is paramount. We’ve initiated a number of programs such as Courtesy Matters, which encourages our workers to take extra care to be respectful of residents. This includes dust reduction practices and paying special attention to speed limits. We’ve also implemented policies such as banning the use of cellphones by employees while driving on the job. An integrity hotline is available for residents, employees and anyone else who has a concern about EnCana’s actions.
EnCana has built a successful business from operations that stretch back decades. Like any endeavour, there have been some missteps and unprofitable investments. But there have also been notable successes. Our company and the people who work for EnCana strive to be trusted contributors to the communities where we work and live. We continuously work to ensure our business is conducted in an ethical and socially responsible manner.
Journalism is built on the tenet of reporting that is fair, accurate and balanced. We believe this Fast Forward story falls well short of that.
Alan Boras
Manager, Media Relations
EnCana Corporation
