Error Alert on Government -in-Waiting - Transparent Governance

I believe I misunderstood and therefore misrepresented the ERCB regulatory process as related to gas leases.
I now understand that all gas leases, in fact all gas and oil leases, are executed with the provision that the ERCB may make a ruling at some date in the future that could negatively affect the value of the lease.

I'm sure that isn't the wording, but you get the idea.

That means even the ERCB can't know for certain what situations may arise that will affect any given lease and the ERCB can act on the side of safety by shutting in the reserve before any or any more negative consequences of operating that lease can occur.

It's then in the best interests of the prospective lessee to examine the situation as carefully as possible to attempt to foresee any such negative situation arising.

I suspect the gas leases in question were let after the bitumen leases and then it would be reasonable to react to the bitumen lessees' concerns in precedence over the later gas lessees' concern.

Too bad my argument still makes assumptions, but they seem like reasonable assumptions.

I don't think my error about the regulatory process undoes my argument for transparency in accountability to Albertans, even though it distracts from the point of the argument.

Mike