Rosebud and many other frac’d communities in Alberta and BC are surrounded by dozens of frac’d gas compressor stations, many of them Encana’s: polluting, invading, weedy, disrespectful, ugly pieces of shit noise-makers.
For an excellent article on Encana’s nasty compressor impact tricks, read Andrew Nikiforuk’s excellent 2005 article in Report on Business: Life in a Science Project
MUST READ Conclusion, most important part, the second paragraph:
To be clear, if true, it is admirable that the Compressor Station “has more stringent requirements than any similar compressor station anywhere in the United States,” J.A. 2920, and that residents of Union Hill “will be breathing cleaner air than the vast majority of Virginia residents even after the Compressor Station goes into operation,” ACP Br. 49. But these mantras do not carry the day. What matters is whether the Board has performed its statutory duty to determine whether this facility is suitable for this site, in light of EJ and potential health risks for the people of Union Hill. It has not.
BREAKING: Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Vacates Permit for Atlantic Coast Pipeline Compressor Station in Union Hill by lowkell, January 7, 2020, Blue Virgina USA
“environmental justice is not merely a box to be checked, and the Board’s failure to consider the disproportionate impact on those closest to the Compressor Station resulted in a flawed analysis” [Sounds just like how AER/ERCB/EUB operates. It enabled Encana’s endless compressor law violations, including fraudulent noise studies by the company that the regulator altered data on! A few of Encana’s compressors in Ernst’s community:
That’s a lot of public/landowner health-harming chemical and noise pollution, enabled by Alberta’s law-violating “regulator,” which is enabled by our lying charter-damaging courts]
“As Justice Douglas pointed out nearly [fifty] years ago, ‘[a]s often happens with interstate highways, the route selected was through the poor area of town, not through the area where the politically powerful people live.’”
“…because DEQ relied on a nonexistent redefining the source doctrine, DEQ effectively relieved the Board from even considering the alternative energy source at all, so the Board could not have sufficiently and independently considered the impacts of electric turbines. As a result, we have no idea how much of an impact the Board thinks the electric turbines would make.”
“…the Board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious and unsupported by substantial evidence.” [Ha, sounds just like AER/ERCB/EUB too]
“We conclude that the Board thrice erred in performing its statutory duty under sections 10.1–1307(E)(1) and (E)(3): (1) it failed to make any findings regarding the character of the local population at Union Hill, in the face of conflicting evidence; (2) it failed to individually consider the potential degree of injury to the local population independent of NAAQS and state emission standards; and (3) DEQ’s final permit analysis, ostensibly adopted by the Board, relied on evidence in the record that was incomplete or discounted by subsequent evidence.”