Pipeline Reclamation Certification Standards – a Capability Assessment Approach

Author(s)
Al Fedkenheuer
Jim Burke
Resource Date:
1999
Page Length
15

Development of Alberta’s oil and gas industry has led to a proliferation of pipelines in the province. All Alberta pipelines require a reclamation certificate before the proponent is released of reclamation liabilities. This has led to much discussion of how to assess oil and gas wellsites and pipeline reclamation success since the early 1980s. The requirement for reclamation certification is that land have equivalent capability to that which existed prior to the disturbance. The approach that has been used for wellsite reclamation success evaluation is a parameter by parameter comparison and pass/fail system. In this case each parameter must pass or the site fails. NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. undertook, in late 1996, to put together a group of government regulatory and nonregulatory personnel, industry and third party individuals to develop a more integrated capability based evaluation system. Various approaches were field tested in 1997 and 1998. This paper reports on the process used, the field results and current status of the project.

The NGTL External Advisory Board has concluded that:

  • The general concept of a land capability based, relatively rapid Phase 1 “screening” assessment and an “as required” more detailed Phase 2 soil evaluation is workable and appears to address the proper concerns and issues,
  • The weaknesses identified thus far in the process are manageable and are currently undergoing revision,
  • Landowners are willing to participate, there is generally good agreement between the landowner and consultant ratings, and the landowner evaluation form can be a useful first evaluation of pipeline reclamation, and
  • Some form of orientation (training) sessions will likely increase the level of agreement among the consultant ratings.

The Board is continuing to pursue this approach and will likely recommend it be used on a trial basis for a year. If this approach is implemented, it will be important to review and revise the process, if necessary, based on its use and input by a wide variety of users, including members of the public.