Alberta family, the Daunheimers near Didsbury, are suing Angle Energy Incorporated for $13 million for harm to health, property and water by Dan Singleton, December 17, 2013, Mountain View Gazette
A Didsbury-area family is suing Angle Energy Incorporated for more than $13,000,000, according to court documents. The 11-page statement of claim filed on Dec. 6 contends that on ‘numerous occasions throughout the company’s five year operating history, occurring in close proximity to the Daunheimer residence, reasonable care was not exercised by Angle’s employees and executives alike, resulting in chronic and acute operations that have harmed the plaintiff’s property, personal health, mental well being, financial status, personal safety and compromised the environment they rely on to exist.
“Any reasonable person in our situation would have been damaged by Angle Energy’s breach in duty. Angle Energy continues to breach this duty by causing and continuing to allow hazardous chemicals to remain in the ground surrounding and beneath the plaintiff’s property and in the Daunheimer residence water supply and allow the continual emissions from venting and instrument operations.”
The statement outlines particular allegations of company negligence, including the following:
• failure to comply with the directives pertaining to public notifications and concerns.
• shoddy, incomplete or entirely absent record keeping that violates the minimum data requirements and other numerous mandates set out in the regulatory directives.
• non-compliant venting that put the health and safety of the plaintiff and her family at risk.
• non-compliant incineration of waste gases that put the health and safety of the Daunheimer family at risk.
• refusal to provide public documentation and request for meetings when the plaintiff frequently requested.
• not using reasonable care during operations to prevent contamination of the source aquifer for the Daunheimer property.
• Not using reasonable care in protecting well sites and associated above ground piping from strikes.
• failure to conduct reasonably diligent daily inspections and take appropriate measures to mitigate deficiencies on various well sites.
• failure to report known releases to the environment.
The suit also contends that ‘in most of the dealings the plaintiff had with Angle they demonstrated disgraceful conduct and engaged in reckless and intentional acts of exclusion and transgressions when interacting with the plaintiff. Company executives and employees operated outside of the natural boundary of civilized decency and this caused distress and emotional harm to the Daunheimer family. [Emphasis added]