Introduction

Public participation is a key feature of energy and natural resources development in Alberta. The provincial government often expresses its desire for participation by Albertans in its policy making and planning processes. At the project approval stage, project proponents regularly conduct public consultation programs and regulatory boards hold public hearings and award costs to interveners.

Yet there are signs that public participation is not all that it seems in the Alberta energy and resources development context. Albertans seem frustrated and dissatisfied with the current level or type of public participation available: see, for example, Dan Woynillowicz & Steve Kennett, “Passage of Bill 46 Perpetuates EUB Shortcomings” (2007). Applications for leave to appeal decisions of energy tribunals on issues of public participation and procedural fairness seem to be on the rise: see, for example, Prince v. Alberta (Energy Resources Conservation Board), 2010 ABCA 214, Cheyne v. Alberta (Utilities Commission), 2009 ABCA 94, and Kelly v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), 2008 ABCA 52.

The Canadian Institute of Resources Law (CIRL) at the University of Calgary is currently engaged in a research project, funded by the Alberta Law Foundation, which is focusing on legal and policy questions in relation to public participation in the Alberta energy and natural resources development context. To obtain input on the issues and challenges facing public participation in this context, CIRL held a Round Table discussion at the University of Calgary on April 16, 2010. There were 20 participants in attendance, all of whom have experience with public participation issues in the energy and natural resources development context. There was representation from landowners, regulators, industry, the regulatory bar, environmental and natural resources organizations, multi-stakeholder consultation groups, policy and energy consultants, and academia.

(more…)

PDF version: The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (fka the House of Lords) decides an oil and gas case 

Case considered: Star Energy Weald Basin Limited v Bocardo SA, [2010] UKSC 35

It is not every day, or even every year, that the highest court in the United Kingdom passes judgement in an oil and gas case. But the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom did so at the end of July and while much of the Court’s reasoning turns on the details of the UK’s petroleum legislation, and in particular on the terms of the Crown vesting legislation in that jurisdiction, the Court also had something to say about the common law ownership rights of the surface owner. These comments merit carefully scrutiny in the context of the ongoing debate in Alberta and elsewhere about ownership rights in relation to pore space, an important issue in the context of carbon capture and storage (CCS).

(more…)

PDF version: Estoppel arguments fail once again in an oil and gas lease case 

Case considered: Desoto Resources Limited v. Encana Corporation, 2010 ABQB 448

In this case Justice William Tilleman dismissed an appeal from Master Jodi Mason’s decision in chambers in which she had granted summary judgement in favour of the defendant in the action, Encana. Desoto had been seeking a declaration that it had a number of valid leases notwithstanding that the primary term of the leases had expired in the 1970s and that there had been no production on the leases for a period beginning in the late 1990s. This was apparently, at least at the outset, as a result of the properties being shut-in by order of the Energy Resources Conservation Board because of the failure of the then lessee to pay well abandonment deposits.

I blogged on Master Mason’s decision - see Successful application for summary dismissal in an oil and gas lease validity case.

On appeal, Desoto focused on estoppel arguments urging that the leases should survive on the basis of promissory estoppel, estoppel by acquiescence, or estoppel by deed.

(more…)

PDF version: Still More Questions about Standing before the ERCB 

Case Considered: Prince v. Alberta (Energy Resources Conservation Board), 2010 ABCA 214

Leave to appeal applications from standing decisions of the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) continue to be heard almost, it seems, regularly. Some cases raise questions about the first part of the standing test, whether a “right” has been established that may be affected by a proposed energy project. Others focus on the second part of the test, whether possible direct and adverse effects have been demonstrated. Sometimes the Court of Appeal grants leave; sometimes it does not. Prince v. Alberta (ERCB) is another case of leave denied. It is also yet another case that raises important questions about the proper interpretation of the test for standing. Isn’t it time for legislative direction?

(more…)

Case Considered: Consolidated Fastfrate Inc. v. Western Canada Council of Teamsters, 2009 SCC 53

PDF version:  The Rubber Hits the Road on Provincial Jurisdiction over Transportation Undertakings

The Supreme Court of Canada, in a 6-3 decision late last year, came down squarely in favour of provincial jurisdiction over transportation undertakings such as freight forwarding companies not themselves involved in interprovincial transportation. Shippers do not become subject to federal jurisdiction under s.92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867 merely by contracting for interprovincial transportation of goods, even if the company’s service includes delivery of goods in a receiving province. A recent post on The Court considered the implications of this case for division of powers analysis; my post will consider the Court’s interpretive approach in a modern natural resources context.

(more…)

Case considered: Kelly v. Alberta (Energy Resources Conservation Board, 2009 ABCA 349

PDF Version: The problem of Locus Standi at the Energy Resources Conservation Board: A Diceyan solution

Introduction
A person must have ‘standing’ to oppose an energy project being considered for approval by the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB). In January 2009 the ERCB denied standing to Susan Kelly, Linda McGinn, and Lillian Duperron in relation to an application by Grizzly Resources to drill two sour gas wells near their residences. All three applicants reside outside the designated 2.11 km area emergency planning zone (EPZ) surrounding the gas wells and designated by Grizzly pursuant to ERCB Directive 071 - Emergency Preparedness and Response Requirements for the Petroleum Industry. Directive 071 defines an EPZ as the area surrounding a sour gas well that due to its proximity requires an emergency response plan from the well licensee. The delineation of an EPZ by and large defines the applicant’s consultation requirements set by the ERCB and, as I note below, it also informs the ERCB’s interpretation of the standing test in section 26(2) of the Energy Resources Conservation Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. E - 10. The distinguishing feature in this case involves the relatively new requirement in Directive 071 for sour gas well licensees to model a protective action zone (PAZ) which anticipates the movement of a sour gas plume upon release from the well. Kelly, McGinn and Duperron reside within the designated PAZ modelled by Grizzly, which covered a larger area than the EPZ. This fact proved significant in the subsequent Alberta Court of Appeal proceedings.

(more…)

Case considered: Berger v. Alberta (Energy Resources Conservation Board), 2009 ABCA 158 

PDF version: Narrowing the prospect of obtaining leave to appeal an ERCB decision: The troublesome aspect of judicial deference

The Court of Appeal routinely decides applications for leave to appeal an Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) decision on questions of law or jurisdiction pursuant to section 41 of the Energy Resources Conservation Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. E-10 (ERCA). In Berger v. Alberta (Energy Resources Conservation Board), Mr. Justice Frans Slatter denies a request from several applicants for leave to appeal a December 2008 ERCB approval issued to Highpine Oil and Gas to drill 3 sour gas wells in Parkland County west of Edmonton (ERCB decision 2008-135).

(more…)

Case Considered: Kelly v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), 2009 ABCA 161

PDF version: Charter and Oil and Gas Issues to Await Another Day: A Disappointing End to the Kelly Appeal?

In an earlier post, I suggested that a recent development in the Kelly appeal would likely lead the Court of Appeal to declare the appeal moot (see “An Important Development in the Kelly Appeal“). I also suggested that, although this would not be a surprising decision, it would amount to a disappointing end for an appeal which held out promises of elucidating important legal issues. The Court of Appeal has indeed dismissed the Kelly appeal as moot. Although this result is certainly disappointing from a legal point of view, it is perhaps less so from a societal and public participation point of view.

(more…)

Cases Considered: National Energy Board, Reasons for Decision, TransCanada PipeLines Limited, GH-5-2008, Jurisdiction and Facilities, February 2008 (posted to the NEB website February 26, 2009)

PDF Version:  TransCanada’s Alberta Pipeline System now under federal regulatory authority

It’s official. The intra-provincial natural gas transmission system (the Alberta System), originally built by Alberta Gas Trunk Line Limited, latterly known as NOVA, and part of the TransCanada PipeLines (TCPL) empire since 1998, will henceforward be regulated by the National Energy Board rather than the provincial regulators, the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) (for pipeline construction etc) and the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) (for tolls and tariffs etc).

(more…)

Cases Considered: ATCO Midstream Ltd. v. Alberta (Energy Resources Conservation Board), 2009 ABCA 41.

PDF Version: What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander (and other, more mixed, metaphors): and a prediction as to the role of power and influence on law-making in the province.

The cases are legion in which the Energy Resources Conservation Board, supported by the Court of Appeal, has denied standing to public interest interveners, First Nations (e.g. Dene Tha’ First Nation v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), 2005 ABCA 68) and fellow-travellers on the grounds that they lack an adequate legal interest in the subject matter of the application. What is interesting about this case is that, this time, the ox that is gored is a sacred cow. Two sacred cows in fact; a leading provincial utility and gas processor (ATCO), and a petrochemical interest (NOVA) that the province spawned. At a formal level the result might be celebrated in terms of respect for the neutrality of the law and equality before the law. Respect may be tempered if we think the rule to be a bad rule.

(more…)