Follow @naturecanada

75 Albert St, Suite 300 Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5E7, Canada Phone: 1-800-267-4088 or 613-562-3447 Fax: 613-562-3371

Contact Us

To protect and conserve wildlife and habitats in Canada by engaging people and advocating on behalf of nature.

Nature Canada Raises Questions
at EnCana Shareholders Meeting

Related Links Listen to a webcast of the meeting. Take Action! Send a Letter Demanding Suffield and its Wildlife be Protected! Species at Risk in Suffield NWA What Does EnCana Have Planned for Suffield? Carla’s Handout to Shareholders

Nature Canada conservation programs manager Carla Sbert traveled to Toronto to confront EnCana executives at their annual shareholders meeting on April 22.

Read Carla’s statement questioning the merits of expanding operations inside the federally protected Suffield National Wildlife Area.

Carla's Statement to EnCana

My name is Carla Sbert and I am here on behalf of Nature Canada, a national conservation organization and EnCana shareholder.

My question is about EnCana’s plans to expand operations in the Suffield National Wildlife Area in Alberta.

The purpose of that National Wildlife Area is to protect endangered native prairie and 18 different species of animals and plants threatened with extinction. The area is a military base that had seen oil and gas exploitation since the mid 1970s. The Department of National Defense established the wildlife refuge in Suffield in 2003. But instead of winding down their operations, EnCana has decided to almost double the density of wells in the National Wildlife Area.

EnCana claims the drilling project would have insignificant impacts on the protected area. But conservation experts and the Government of Canada have presented evidence to the contrary.

This is generating criticism in the press and a reputational risk for the corporation.

EnCana has a responsibility to provide shareholders with assessment of risk information. However, there is no discussion of this project in the annual report and there is no sign that the implications for the company’s image have been seriously considered.

Or for that matter, that the win-win alternative has been considered; which would be to forego the exploitation of resources in this protected area, seize the potential fiscal advantages, and boost, rather than damage, the company’s reputation. EnCana has many other places to go, but Suffield’s endangered species don’t.

So my question is:

When EnCana’s Committee on Corporate Responsibility, Environment, Health and Safety approved this proposal, how did they deal with the ethical and environmental issues of drilling in a protected area? How did EnCana determine that the profits of expanding operations in this relatively small area are worth the potential damage to the company’s reputation? And has EnCana studied the potential benefits, both fiscal and to its reputation, of foregoing those profits? And if not, then why not?

I would appreciate supporting documentation with your answers.
Thank you very much for your attention. Again my name is Carla Sbert. If anyone is interested in learning more about the Suffield NWA, please see me for an information package.