I don't know him at all, but I think having someone from industry in the role helps a lot. I do think that his record would stand for itself and if there were any questionable business practices from his past he wouldn't have been considered.
It isn't like someone from industry is going to make the AER ignore all the regulations. I would be more concerned about him being to close to the current UCP. The AER is supposed to be arms length from the government and I think even the recent premiers report said that the government needs to simmer down. I think that will be the the test whether he can/will support the technical decisions made that may differ from Brian Jean and the UCPs.
Maybe he’s a really nice guy. I’m not in a position to say. But I do know his old company is sitting on an awful lot of orphan wells. I know the UCP isn’t keen on compelling such companies to do the remediation work, and has (along with the federal government) considered using tax dollars, yours and mine, to fund the work instead. I know the AER doesn’t exactly have a reputation for being forthcoming, hence the recent $500M lawsuit brought by the Athabaska Chipewyan First Nation. I also know the AER hasn’t been especially good at monitoring. Not to mention that the UCP has a habit of exerting control over agencies that previously had some degree of independence. Not to mention that the UCP seems to see itself as the champion and ambassador of fossil fuel industries (not energy, just fossil fuels). So for me this isn’t speculation. It’s about patterns of behaviour. At this point I’m not willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to mogg For This Useful Post:
The administrator and interim CEO of Alberta Heath Services changed AHS's official rules to declare that only the deputy health minister could be named CEO of the health agency — a change made while he was serving as deputy health minister.
That all had to change days later, after Premier Danielle Smith temporarily removed Andre Tremblay from his ministry job and appointed a new acting deputy health minister during ongoing investigations into AHS contracting.
When CBC News asked last week if Tremblay's term as CEO was contrary to the corporate bylaw he'd just enacted, Health Minister Adriana LaGrange's office said she's ordered Tremblay to revise the AHS bylaws once again — to declare that the administrator could serve as CEO during this period of major reform in the provincial health system.
The revised bylaw will allow Tremblay to remain the sole person in charge of AHS, serving as both CEO and as a one-man board of directors, something that is "problematic," according to an expert in public administration.
OK, this is just ridiculous. Why do they even need to change rules if they are the ones with all the power? Just do whatever the #### you are going to do, and stop pretending you have guardrails. ####in' clown show.
Smith is working overtime to try to get us to believe AHS isnt part of the same government she runs.
She is also currently casting doubt on the AHS surgical cost numbers weve all seen vs what her buddies private surgeries are getting paid.
Maybe he’s a really nice guy. I’m not in a position to say. But I do know his old company is sitting on an awful lot of orphan wells. I know the UCP isn’t keen on compelling such companies to do the remediation work, and has (along with the federal government) considered using tax dollars, yours and mine, to fund the work instead. I know the AER doesn’t exactly have a reputation for being forthcoming, hence the recent $500M lawsuit brought by the Athabaska Chipewyan First Nation. I also know the AER hasn’t been especially good at monitoring. Not to mention that the UCP has a habit of exerting control over agencies that previously had some degree of independence. Not to mention that the UCP seems to see itself as the champion and ambassador of fossil fuel industries (not energy, just fossil fuels). So for me this isn’t speculation. It’s about patterns of behaviour. At this point I’m not willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah fair, I think this is all super reasonable. I do think Albertans have every right to wonder wtf is going on with orphan wells. When you buy multiple companies, which Strathcona did, you end up with a pile of all these old sites that have been not cleaned up yet rolling forward from all the acquisitions over time. People should actually be relatively happy that Strathcona did this because they are financially viable and healthy, capable of long term clean up efforts. Better than say other companies that are still able to pass the LLR test but maybe not as strong.
I’m not an expert, but I think the AER prioritizes the high and medium risk wells and those have clear criteria on when to stabilize / abandon and set in motion the clean up efforts but as you can imagine there’s tons of well sites that are deemed “low risk” (because they are).
I think Alberta is getting better at enforcement and over time should be on a path to catch up theoretically but could take awhile and I totally get why people would be leery of the AER and whether or not to trust it as a regulator. People should keep in mind that if the AER went full tilt then businesses would go belly up immediately and then things really won’t be cleaned up as companies liquidate and go insolvent. That’s a good way to solidify Albertans having to pay for the cleanup if things aren’t reasonably measured in application.
Last edited by Mr.Coffee; 02-24-2025 at 06:37 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mr.Coffee For This Useful Post:
Maybe he’s a really nice guy. I’m not in a position to say. But I do know his old company is sitting on an awful lot of orphan wells. I know the UCP isn’t keen on compelling such companies to do the remediation work, and has (along with the federal government) considered using tax dollars, yours and mine, to fund the work instead. I know the AER doesn’t exactly have a reputation for being forthcoming, hence the recent $500M lawsuit brought by the Athabaska Chipewyan First Nation. I also know the AER hasn’t been especially good at monitoring. Not to mention that the UCP has a habit of exerting control over agencies that previously had some degree of independence. Not to mention that the UCP seems to see itself as the champion and ambassador of fossil fuel industries (not energy, just fossil fuels). So for me this isn’t speculation. It’s about patterns of behaviour. At this point I’m not willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt.
When you say such incorrect things why even bother posting about a subject? It’s clear you don’t even know what an orphan well is.
The Following User Says Thank You to Weitz For This Useful Post:
I know Rob, he’s a pretty good dude and anecdotally based on what I know about him, I think he actually will be very impartial running the AER. He’s actually a great person and has a very high ethical standard from what I know about him and from the limited interactions I’ve had with him. I wouldn’t be too worried about this one.
My experience with him goes back a long way but he was very high integrity, and very well respected back then. I get the optics, but I don’t think he’s any kind of partisan and has strong ethics. There an outside chance they didn’t screw this one up.
When you say such incorrect things why even bother posting about a subject? It’s clear you don’t even know what an orphan well is.
You’re right that doesn’t make sense. My bad. I was referring to Strathcona’s 500+ inactive wells. I understand many have not been capped and sealed or reclaimed. But you’re right they are not by definition orphan.
The UCP government says it will build two involuntary drug treatment facilities, one in Calgary and one in Edmonton, in its war against opioid addiction and death.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Roughneck For This Useful Post:
Except they don't work. Unless you plan to detain people indefinitely. Maybe that's their plan.
Why do you say they don’t work?
I think any different strategy should be welcomed for this problem. Didn’t this concept work for Portugal? I think the key is that after compulsory treatment you have to further invest in these people and help get them some skills in some kind of field they could get a job in and as well probably pay for like a year or so of housing, linked to continued treatment.
I just assume that anyone on drugs and not sober is unable to make sound judgement decisions for themselves so in some cases you have to force them to get clean and then couple that with giving people some hope.
This is one the few areas where the UCP isn't wrong, compulsory drug treatment facilities have been long overdue
I've spent a lot of time litigating the homelessness/addiction file. My views have evolved a lot. And I agree with you: I think we, as a society, need to try involuntary treatment when a person's addiction is so strong that they are a danger to themselves (by using fentanyl or rejecting shelter). With good intentions, we've turned sidewalks and parks into the asylums of the 21st century. It hasn't worked. Its cruel. I think we need to try something else.
EDIT: And obviously, I'm in the same boat as you. It feels strange to agree with the Smith government on something, but this is one where I very much do (and indeed recognize that her government appears to be a leader in Canada on this issue).
That said, the hypocrisy of their anti-vaccine rhetoric is now overwhelming and fair game for criticism.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Last edited by Makarov; 02-25-2025 at 09:03 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
I dunno... my wife works in mental health and addictions and she is very much opposed to involuntary treatment (says that it isn't effective and leads to higher rates of overdose and suicide). She's the type of person who is generally in favor of something if it works so I take her word on it.
