June 7, 2013
Gordon R. Mitchell, President
Fraser Valley Association of Pipeline Landowners (FVAPL)
Box 1058
Logan Lake, BC
MAIL ROOM
SALLE DE COURIER
ZI3 JUN 11 A
VOK iWO
250-523-95 57
j:
33
N.8/ONE
Ms. Sheri Young
Secretary of the Board
National Energy Board
444 7th Avenue S.W.
Calgary, Alberta
T2P 0X8
-
Re: Spectra Filing ID: a39972
Westcoast Energy Inc carrying on business as
Spectra Energy Transmission (Westcoast)
Notice pursuant to section 42 of the Onshore Pipeline Regulations, 1999
30-inch Mainline Class Change Upgrade.
Dear Ms. Young,
This letter is to inform the National Energy Board of what has transpired, offering a time line regarding
the above noted proposed dig through Fraser Valley farm land in the Chilliwack area.
March 13, 2012
Spectra Energy informed NEB of their plan to upgrade the pipeline as above.
Spring of 2012
Landowners were informed of the 2013 planned upgrade.
Aug 2, 2012
Gordon Mitchell sent an email to Spectra Energy requesting we begin negotiations to arrive at a signed
agreement prior to the planned upgrade.
Aug 15, 2012
An email was received from Mr. Gary Metz of Spectra Energy stating that plans for the 2013 upgrade
had not been finalized yet.
Aug 18, 2012
An email was received informing us of preliminary work and analysis done to date, and that 2 land
agents had been hired to “work closely with you throughout the project”. “We will be contacting you
shortly to set up a time when we can discuss details about this work with you.”
Nov 29, 2012
The first meeting between Spectra Energy representatives, land agents and landowners/farmers took
place in Chilliwack. Wall sized maps were presented to the landowners showing the area Spectra was
proposing for land use outside the Easement required during construction. Each landowner provided
input and area knowledge surrounding the work areas and how the construction would affect their
ability to carry out their business as usual. We pointed out that due to the trajectory of the pipeline
easement where construction is to take place it would create acute triangles that would be impossible to
farm and would require additional crop loss compensation to allow for headlands along the
construction zone to allow farm equipment to turn safely while carrying on with normal farming
practices and farm business.
They were also informed of drainage systems and watering and irrigation systems that would have to
be cut and the need to return them to normal working and properly functioning condition. frrigation
systems which are vital to crop survival in the event of a long hot summer, are now cut off from a water
source and the logistics of providing water from source to crop with the farms cut in two during
construction.
The land agents were very attentive and promised that now armed with this new information they
would return with amended maps/plans at our next meeting.
Dec 12, 2012
I received an email from a land agent mistakenly referring to our meeting on the 29th of November as
December 5th. In this email he asked if he and I were going to meet as suggested, before Christmas. He
also stated that “the company’s consultants were working on revising the drawings to reflect the
comments made and issues discussed. I will know Thursday afternoon, (December 13th 2012) if
they will be ready for your review the week of December 17th.”
Dec 15, 2012
I informed the land agent by email that we the land owners were in consultation with other groups with
experience surrounding issues regarding R.O.W.s and pipeline companies. I postponed the planned
meeting in Logan Lake during the week of December 17th. I found out later that the revised plans
requested had not been completed so the meeting would not have gone ahead in any event.
I asked for the following before our next meeting in January 2013:
1. A copy of all documents received by Spectra from the NEB;
2. A contingency plan in the event of weather related or any other unforeseen circumstance causing a
delay in the completion of the project. (The contingency plan we received said the only time they
would shut down was if it was raining while they were stripping the topsoil. The entire soil structure in
the Fraser Valley including the subsoil are vital to crop production. Improper handling of soils is
devastating to the farming environment.) We have very recent graphic evidence of Spectra’s
indifference toward farmland and owners with their slapdash dig on our property in March 2011;
3. We asked for a commitment from Spectra, in writing, that our legal fees would be paid. We were
promised this in the past, and then later told there were conditions attached and a limit that we would
have to agree to.
Jan 8, 2013
I received an email from the land agent that there would be no contingency plan, this document would
be developed on site as work was being done. We were told he had an “agreement in principal” that our
legal expenses would be paid.
Jan 22, 2013
Landowners attended a second meeting with Spectra’s “Project Team.” Also in attendance by our
request were other landowners, not involved with this particular dig, which had very bad experiences
dealing with Spectra Energy which left them with sink holes and standing water where there never was
before.
The amended wall sized drawings we requested were not provided; instead we were shown 8.5” X 11”
satellite shots from space of our farms without the amendment we had requested. During this meeting
we again went over our concerns regarding soil handling and wet soil shutdown policy, farm land
isolated by construction, depth of cover and commitment to pay our legal expenses.
We received nothing but word-smithing. Words like “reasonable,” “discuss issues,” “develop policy on
site,” “fair compensation,” “damage to be determined after construction work completion.”
Reasonable does not mean fair to the landowner, reasonable to Spectra Energy only
Discuss Issues does not mean negotiate
Develop Policy on site Can’t stop them once the work has started. Who develops policy on site?
Fair Compensation does not mean 100% compensation for loss of income, inconvenience trying to
carry on farming business-as-usual around a project that cuts your farm in half, limiting access for
irrigation, maintenance of the crop or harvesting, through the entire growing season.
Damage to be determined after we can very clearly detail what our crop loss will be in advance of the
dig and this needs to be agreed to in a contract so that land owners are not left with a mess to clean up
and no recourse after the fact.
-
-
-
-
-
When we advised the “Project Team” that we had formed an association and we produced the
GAPLO/Union Gas IDA and informed them that this document would be the template for our own
agreement, one of the Project team said “well it is pretty hard for us to say we didn’t know about this
when our name is on it.” Another was heard to say “where the hell did they get that” and a third was
heard to say after the meeting “don’t you wish you had a pipeline going through your backyard so you
could squeeze some money out of the company” this statement very much angered the farmers that
heard it.
The meeting was very quickly adjourned by Spectra after the IDA was produced.
Jan 24. 2013
Email sent to Spectra Energy summing up the meeting on the 22nd and requesting again a commitment
from Spectra to pay our legal expenses in writing and to reach a negotiated settlement.
Jan 30, 2013
Email from Spectra Energy, Gary Metz, within which he acknowledges our association and that it is
“not uncommon for landowners to join together to address legitimate concerns about a pipeline
project.” He also acknowledges that many concerns are site specific, there are common issues that may
apply to the entire group.
He also requests a letter from BCAPL (name later changed to FVAPL) that the members agree to be
bound by agreements reached between BCAPL and Spectra. Here he seems to commit to an agreement.
But then further on in the same email he states they will not provide funds to be placed in trust account
for legal or negotiation fees. He also states, “Spectra is committed to pay fair compensation for
damages in accordance with individual right-of-way agreements and the National Energy Board Act.
These damages are generally assessed though-out the course of the project and provided to those
impacted upon completion of activities.”
More word smithing here:
Damages generally assessed (by who) throughout the course Project and provided.., upon completion
certainly does not say fair compensation
Our past very recent experience was that when construction activities are complete Spectra will make a
ridiculously low offer then tell you if you don’t like it to take your complaint to the National Energy
Board. The National Energy Board will take your complaint but “we don’t rule on matters of
compensation” This is why we must have a negotiated agreement in advance of the construction,
without it Spectra just gives you a take-it-or-leave-it offer, and walks away. We experienced this very
tactic in 2011 with the so called “emergency dig” on our property.
Feb 8, 2013
I had a meeting with the Land Agent for Spectra Energy, Greg Simmons. I again requested
comprehensive and complete wall sized maps for the entire proposed dig area. Maps must show
measurements so we farmers can calculate the land that will be required for the dig and out of
production for the landowners. (This is vital information for farmers when planning their crop
production for the year.)
Feb 15, 2013
A letter dated Feb 15, 2013 from Spectra Energy is received by Dave Core of CAEPLA. Within the
letter, signed by Gary Metz, he reiterates his desire to meet and discuss issues but will not pay cost to
our negotiators or legal advice.
Landowners have already met with Spectra Energy’s Project Team on two occasions. We expressed our
concerns and desires and have received nothing for our time and effort. A commitment to meet again is
nothing more than a waste of our very valuable time, another attempt to wear us down with no
intention of signing anything, whereas Spectra Employees get paid to be at these meetings. If our time
is paid for at the industry standard, then we can see a level of commitment from Spectra that they
intend to reach a negotiated agreement.
Spectra: “Meetings and communication will provide the opportunity to share information and discuss
ways to mitigate damages resulting from project activities.”
All of our concerns and requests were tabled at the last two meetings. We have received nothing for our
efforts.
Spectra: “With regard to the interest in having an Integrity Dig Agreement in place, we note that we do
not require additional land rights to carry out these activities.” “Our existing registered easements and
regulatory approvals grant us the authority to carry out this project.”
That may well be, and that same registered easement also states that they (Spectra) SHALL pay crop
damage which is evident every year, for which they have never paid. FVAPL members are firmly
committed to a negotiated signed agreement before any work will be allowed. Spectra Energy and the
National Energy Board, I am sure, wish to avoid the scrutiny of the National Media. To ensure this
doesn’t happen the National Energy Board should direct Spectra Energy that they simply must sit down
and negotiate an agreement that will assure our FVAPL members that their private property rights are
protected, their environment is protected and their ability to derive an income from their lands are
protected, without losses resulting from Energy Company construction, The difficult part when
determining crop loss, present and in the future, has been covered in the GAPLO/Union Gas
Agreement. The issue of soil handling, damages and crop loss should not be determined by the Energy
Company and the National Energy Board. It should be determined by the landowner/farmer and soil
Experts. In order to facilitate this determination in a manner that is fair to the landowner it must to be
done in advance of any work being done.
.
Feb 25, 2013
CAELPA letter to Spectra Energy requesting:
1. A contingency plan for wet soil shutdown;
2. Proper Wall Size plan drawings of the dig sites with accurate dimensions of land area required
outside the easement;
3. Letter of commitment to cover our costs surrounding this project.
A copy of this letter was sent to NEB.
Mar 11,2013
Spectra Energy forwarded a Wet Soil Shutdown Contingency plan that states that the only time they
will shutdown construction operations is if they are stripping topsoil.
The extremely fertile soil of the Fraser Valley could have three or more layers of soil each contributing
to the total soil structure which makes this land some of the best in the world for growing produce for
Canadians. Handling any of these layers in wet conditions will destroy the structure of the soil in its
entirety, rendering it damaged to the point that crops will suffer losses for perpetuity.
We have video of 100% of second year crop loss suffered on the Mitchell property when wet soil
conditions were completely ignored by Spectra Energy despite our objections or our
approval/permission and contrary to NEB regulations.
Spectra Energy asked where we wanted the wall sized maps sent. They went on to say that landowners
already had the current version of these plans, and that these plans are preliminary plans as they work
through the details with each of the affected landowners.
We asked for new wall sized maps back on the 29th of November. The new maps were needed to
reflect the new information that Spectra Officials received from landowners during that first meeting.
The latest versions of wall maps were not received until April 5th. They did not have the changes we
requested, they did not have any measurements so that we could calculate the acreages required. They
did not reflect the farm-work headlands identified to them where crop loss will result from farm
equipment having to turn within an acute angle to work and harvest crops.
April 2, 2013
Email was sent to Spectra explaining the need for comprehensive and complete mapping of the dig
areas before we can begin negotiations.
April 3, 2013
Email received from Spectra advising us that we already have approximate measurements, and that
they have a right to use land adjacent to the easement as reasonably required. Any damage occurring as
a result of the project would be “considered” following completion of the project and in accordance
with our existing easement agreements.
Like the last dig in 2011 damage was considered to be 50% our fault. Spectra gives you a low ball offer
and then tells you if you don’t like it take it to the NEB. But we already know that the NEB doesn’t rule
on matters of compensation so we must have a signed Integrity Dig Agreement that clearly states the
costs to Spectra for land use on private property, before any construction will be permitted.
April 5, 2013
Wall Maps were received from Spectra without any of the requested changes.
A letter was sent to Spectra from CAEPLA informing them that the Wet Soil Shutdown document that
they had prepared was not acceptable. A document prepared by our Soil Expert and Agrologist titled
“Issues for Discussion at Negotiation Meeting” outlining a comprehensive soil management plan which
will help to reduce the destruction of the very sensitive Fraser Valley soil structure.
April 11,2013
Email sent to Spectra Energy with a copy to Debbie Kuchinski of NEB, informing them that there is no
value in another meeting with “Spectra’s Project Team” because none of them have the authority to
make decisions. Offering to meet with the Project Team is merely to give the appearance of negotiating
when in fact they are just stalling the negotiations with the appearance of consultation while all the
while continuing to repeat that they have a right of entry and don’t need an agreement. We have not
heard from NEB and they have not returned my calls.
The problem here as I see it is that Spectra Energy purchased the Pipeline from Westcoast Energy,
however they didn’t factor into that equation the cost of paying for land use and crop loss because they
have managed to get away without paying in the past. Spectra Energy’s Vice President Gary Weilinger
said to me on the phone that he is “ACCOUNTABLE TO OUR SHAREHOLDERS.” Obviously not to
the landowners while we continue to shoulder costs which saves Spectra money so they can transfer
that money to their SHAREHOLDERS.
Apr 9, 2013
Email from Spectra requesting a meeting to review the project and discuss issues. Dates suggested
April 15, 16, 18, 19, 29 May 2, 3 or other suitable dates.
April 12, 2013
Second email received from Spectra now proposing a meeting on the
th
18
or
th
19
ofApril.
April 16, 2013
Letter sent from CAEPLA pointing out that farmers are now into spring planting season and absence
from their businesses is an expense that Spectra will have to pay for. No more costs to the landowners.
The Agenda for the Meeting
-
-
-
-
-
Wet Soil handling document prepared by our Agrologist;
Mapping of areas required for work space;
The GAPLO/Union Gas Integrity Dig Agreement will be the template for our own IDA;
Depth of cover;
Blanket permission to conduct normal farming practises without threat of punitive repercussions.
April 19, 2013
Letter from Spectra Energy offering $200 as an honorarium to recognize reasonable out-of-pocket
expenses. Mileage meals and one night accommodation for Mr Mitchell President of FVAPL.
Recognize, really? The second night hotel stay after a long day of negotiations would be borne by Mr.
Mitchell I assume. They will not pay to have our adviser and consultant Dave Core at the meeting.
They also would like to add to the agenda to discuss access to the right of way and the project work
schedule.
April 22, 2013
Email from Spectra Land Agent sent to one of FVAPL landowners, our Agrologist, requesting an
informal meeting between he and 2 individuals Oliver Busby (EBB environment Consultant Inc.) and
Don James (Spectra’s environmental manager from Calgary).
Again requesting our members donate their time to the Spectra Energy Shareholders the request was
denied this meeting will take place at the negotiation table.
-
April 23, 2013
Email sent to Spectra Land Agents from FVAPL explaining that when we have a negotiated IDA we
will then explore soil handling policy with input from the landowners, their presence will be mandatory
if they have concerns.
April 23, 2013
Letter to Spectra from CAEPLA quoting FVAPL position regarding expenses to take time away from
their businesses and families. Also stating in this letter that separating FVAPL members from their
adviser and consultant Dave Core by denying to pay for his travel expenses is galling. If we cannot
have Dave Core at the negotiating table then we would insist that our lawyer Paul Vogel attend. FVAPL
insists on a written commitment from Spectra to cover all cost.
Following is quoted text from this letter written by FVAPL President Gordon Mitchell:
“Mr. Metz I am having some serious doubts that you have the ability or desire to bring this dispute to a
negotiated settlement. I am quite certain that your supervisors could see the value in negotiating with
our entire negotiating team, not a fractured one. Without the entire team any progress made at the table
would then have to be discussed with and agreed upon by the remaining team away from the table. This
really would be a cumbersome way to try to come to an agreement and your time is ticking by. Your
time table not ours. The media are anxiously awaiting my call for an update on our progress, or lack
thereof.”
A budget was forwarded for less than $10,000 to cover the cost for the FVAPL members negotiating
team and Dave Core to attend one day of negotiations.
April 25, 2013
Mr. Gary Metz of Spectra called Mr. Gordon Mitchell of FVAPL and left a message requesting a
conference call with Spectra’s Vice President Gary Weilinger. Over the course of the next few days a
conference call was arranged, by Mr. Gordon Mitchell, between Mr. Gary Weilinger, Gary Metz of
Spectra and Mr. Dave Core, Mr. Gordon Mitchell and Mr. Tom Baumann for CAEPLA and FVAPL.
May 3, 2013
A conference call between the above noted took place lasting 50 minutes. Near the end of the
conference call VP Mr. Gary Weilinger agreed to pay for our lawyer Paul Vogel to be at the meeting,
but not Dave Core. “If you could draw up your budget and give us an understanding of what you would
like to do during the meeting we are happy to consider it.”
Again here we have more word smithing, they already know that we want an Integrity Dig Agreement
similar to GAPLO/Union Gas Ontario Agreement and of course they are happy to consider it doesn’t
mean they are committed to a negotiated agreement.
Mr. Weilinger also stated in that conversation, “I am more than prepared to develop an agreement
that covers the major concerns as a group if they are all prepared to get together and I am also
prepared on behalf of Spectra to commit in writing what we will do for each of those
landowners.”
Here does Mr. Weilinger conimit to a written agreement? That certainly was our understanding.
May 9, 2013
As requested a budget in the amount of $79,441.50 to cover document review and travel expenses for
Mr. Paul Vogel and his aid to travel from Ontario to attend a two day negotiation meeting was
forwarded from Cohen Highley Lawyers.
This Budget was requested by Mr. Gary Weilinger, VP Spectra Energy, during our phone conversation
on May 3rd, 2013. He agreed to pay Mr. Vogel’s expenses but not Mr. Dave Core’s expenses.
May 17, 2013
Dave Core got a call from a lawyer for Spectra, Don Davies. Davies said he had been contacted by
Spectra Energy in regards to Right of Entry to gain access to our lands. He wanted some more
information which Dave Core provided.
May 24. 2013
We received a letter from Spectra Energy offering FVAPL $25,000 to cover “past and upcoming
meetings; Mi. Mitchell’s time and effort in his capacity as President of FVAPL, an honorarium to cover
Mr. Mitchell’s travel, hotel, meals and mileage expenses; the cost of Mr. Core and CAEPLA to act as
subject matter experts; and the costs of having Cohen Highley LLP act on behalf of FVAPL as legal
counsel.
How generous of Spectra to offer us 25% of our actual costs to date. As is their normal practice,
Spectra Energy expects landowners to shoulder much of the costs of a negotiated signed agreement, so
they can be “accountable to their shareholders.”
Within this letter Spectra has agreed to “discuss elements of the Gas Pipeline Landowners of Ontario
(GAPLO) Union Gas Pipeline System Integrity Dig Agreement”
-
More word smithing Discuss does not mean negotiate and elements are very small and of their
choosing I would assume.
-
May 29, 2013
Letter to Spectra:
Explaining that in the interest of saving time, effort and being cost effective and also understanding that
negotiations need a basis to start from, we requested, “to be efficient” that Spectra Energy provide a
draft agreement based on the GAPLO precedent so that we can review the same in advance of
negotiations to develop the issues list for discussion at the proposed meeting. Perhaps there might be
agreement on some issues in advance.
We also provided a budget for one day of negotiations with three landowners and with our adviser
Dave Core, in the amount of $9,845.20. We also provided a budget for our independent legal counsel
expenses thus far in the amount of $18,850. The sum of would be more than the $25,000 offered by
Spectra.
June 5, 2013
Letter dated June 3rd 2013 received from Spectra Energy VP Mr. Weilinger. He says that his
understanding is the expectation of FVAPL continues to be that Spectra Energy will pay in excess of
$95,000 in order to negotiate access to the lands for the Replacement Project.
He goes on to say that he is “willing to meet with FVAPL members to discuss project-specific issues
pertaining to pipeline maintenance and integrity.” Then states “that should FVAPL and its members
continue to indicate that they will deny access to their lands to carry out Replacement Project,” he
threatens “regulatory and legal recourse to access the subject lands.”
Nowhere in this letter is there mention of the Signed Agreement that he agreed to in our conversation
on May 3rd. He is trying to make us appear unreasonable in our request for compensation for our time
during negotiations when in fact it is Spectra Energy which is being unreasonable. They keep moving
the goal posts; it is like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. Agree to negotiate then change it to a
discussion, agree to sign then threaten a right of entry order. My-my, is it any wonder why we must
insist on an Integrity Dig Agreement so we can remove the doubt that they have instilled. By asking
Spectra to commit something to paper prior to this proposed meeting we were able to ferret out the fact
that they have no intention of signing a negotiated agreement. Just more talk a use of our time.
When reviewing this time line of the events as they have unfolded it becomes very clear that Spectra
Energy never had any intention of negotiating a signed agreement of any kind. They have repeated over
and over that under the current easement rights and tenure that they don’t need to sign another
agreement. They say they are willing to meet to discuss issues at our cost. They say they are willing to
discuss issues regarding fair and reasonable compensation. They are willing to meet to discuss issues
surrounding handling of soil. All the issues have been tabled we don’t need to discuss them any further,
we need to negotiate an agreement. Why should we be treated differently from the landowners in
Ontario. There was an easement in place on their properties and Union Gas (Spectra Energy) signed the
IDA with them. The same agreement that we want to use as a template for our own agreement. Why not
us? We are not trying to re-invent the wheel here. The template for an agreement is there, we found it
for them (as if they didn’t know) the soil handling and wet soil shutdown procedures are clearly stated,
compensation surrounding crop loss now and in the future is clearly stated. We cannot allow them back
on to our farmland without a signed agreement.
What kind of country do we live in if we cannot protect the very farmland that feeds the people of this
country. What kind of country gives the right of land ownership and stewardship over to a maj or
corporation to do with as they wish, with only being “accountable to their shareholders”?
We are not being unreasonable, they are being unreasonable. The meetings that we attended were
elaborate affairs to inform us of their plans and give the appearance of consultation. But when they
refuse to put pen to paper landowners recognized that they had to organize to protect their investment
and their future. Spectra Energy is unreasonable, they have delayed the negotiations on this project by
refusing to negotiate, they have caused the cost to go up by not agreeing to an Integrity Dig Agreement,
they are responsible for the controversy, they have set us on a path to a confrontation. The blame lands
squarely on their shoulders.
We are asking the National Energy Board to back our commitment to a signed Integrity Dig Agreement,
by instructing Spectra Energy to negotiate an Integrity Dig Agreement with FVAPL and denying
support of a Right of Entry Order. This local story will go national and could reflect badly on the NEB
and other Pipeline Companies that are looking for support for their projects across B.C.
With a negotiated Integrity Dig Agreement in hand Spectra Energy will have the advantage of a made
in BC agreement that they can produce very early when approaching other landowners. This will help
to alleviate the anxiety and uncertainty that accompanies a letter from an Energy Company requesting
access to their land for a construction project.
As you know, in March 2011 Spectra Energy did an unauthorized dig on our property in very wet
conditions. We have enclosed a video of the total crop loss of our corn crop in 2012 which we have not
been compensated for. Is there any wonder we can’t afford to allow them back on the property without
a signed contract.
FVAPL
End. USB Flash drive
cc. CAEPLA