Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Bearcat (BEA-C) & Stampede (STF-C) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (2020)	12/14/1999 5:06:00 PM
From: Thomas F. Radcliffe	Respond to of 2306

Bob, There is a lot stacked up on the bid side, but sparse on the asked side. This just confirms what I said, unless a lot of people come out of the wood work on a rally, that want to sell, the price could run up in a hurry! Look at the guy asking $1.30 cdn. He's really scared the price will run by him, huh. Tom

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (2020)	12/15/1999 11:42:00 PM
From: TANTRAMAR	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2306

Hi Bob: Read it and weep. Looks like another well license application will have to be made. Who knows how long that will take. News Release 15 December 1999 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE EUB DENIES SOUR GAS WELL IN PRIDDIS-MILLARVILLE AREA Calgary, Alberta (15 December 1999) The Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (EUB) has denied an application (Decision 99-30) by Stampede Oils Inc. (Stampede) for a licence to drill a level 1 sour gas well from a surface location at Legal Subdivision (LSD) 15-15-21-3-W5M in the Priddis-Millarville area southwest of Calgary. The application and interventions were considered at a public hearing in Priddis, Alberta commencing 6 July 1999. At the hearing, the Board considered the issues respecting the application to be: need for the well, the proposed surface and bottom hole locations, surface impacts, potential H2S release rates, risk of an uncontrolled release, public consultation, emergency response planning, and the capability of Stampede to drill and maintain the well. With respect to these issues, the Board believes there is a need for the well, the proposed surface and bottom hole locations are reasonable and the surface impacts from a well site access road can be mitigated. The Board concluded that the maximum potential H2S release rate used by Stampede for planning purposes is appropriate, and that the risk of an uncontrolled release would be extremely small and well within levels of risk accepted by society. The Board also concluded that Stampede had the financial and technical capability to drill, complete and operate the well safely. However, the Board is not satisfied that Stampede appreciated the unique situation that exists in the area of the proposed well relative to emergency response planning. It is apparent to the Board from the evidence provided at the hearing that Stampede failed to address the site-specific concerns and special needs of the community that were identified, including, but not limited to, a riding facility for children with cerebral palsy and their families, and the evacuation of people and animals. The Board expects industry to respond to public concerns, to take those concerns seriously and to establish reasonable response procedures in consultation with the public. In addition, the Board believes that, due largely to the manner in which Stampede conducted its public consultation process, the residents who appeared at the hearing do not have trust and confidence in Stampede that it can drill the well safely and with acceptable impacts. Further, the Board believes that Stampede's decision to conduct its public consultation process on the basis of a gas well application without disclosing its expectations for a potential oil development was misguided. The Board is concerned that it heard the residents were confused and angered by inconsistency in the information, and believes that this polarized the views of the parties with respect to the proposed well. The Board appreciates that well licence applications may identify zones that may not subsequently be encountered, however, this does not absolve the applicant from disclosing the associated impacts for any production scenario to the public. Industry cannot expect the public to make an informed decision without having received the proper information in advance. In this case, the Board believes that Stampede failed to recognize that proper consultation is based on providing information, listening to concerns, and then trying to resolve those concerns in a respectful and meaningful manner. Accordingly, the Board concludes that there are substantial issues of public consultation and emergency response planning that need to be addressed by Stampede before its well could proceed. Having regard for this evidence, the Board denies Application No. 1031511 without prejudice to any future application. This news release and Decision 99-30 are also available on the EUB web site at www.eub.gov.ab.ca For further information please contact: Greg Gilbertson, Senior Advisor EUB Communications Tel: (403) 297-3648 Fax: (403) 297-3757 NR 99-27