PDF version: The Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel and the Governor in Council

Documents commented on: (1) An open letter from the Honourable Joe Oliver, Minister of Natural Resources, on Canada’s commitment to diversify our energy markets and the need to further streamline the regulatory process in order to advance Canada’s national economic interest, January 9, 2012;

(2) National Energy Board Act, RSC 1985, c N-7, s 52;

(3) Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, SC 1992, c 37, s 37.

On January 9, 2012, the day before the hearings by a Joint Review Panel (JRP) were due to open for the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline (NGP), the federal Minister of Natural Resources, Joe Oliver took the extraordinary step of issuing an Open Letter to Canadians. He followed this up with a series of media appearances. In his letter Minister Oliver made four main points. First, Canada needs to diversify its export markets for many products including oil. Second, “environmental and other radical groups” seek to block this opportunity and any underlying projects. Third, these “radicals” will “hijack our regulatory system,” stack public hearings, “kill good projects,” exploit any opportunity they can to delay project reviews. These radicals have access to foreign money to implement their goals. The delays that ensue are unacceptable. Fourth, Canada needs a fair and independent process to assess projects based on science and the facts - but the current system is out of balance and “is broken.”

(more…)

PDF version: The theory and the practice of well abandonment and surface reclamation in Alberta: the latest episode in the dismal saga of Sarg Oils Limited

Decision commented on: Sarg Oils Limited, Review of Abandonment Orders AD 2006-17, AD 2006-17A, AD 2006-18, AD 2006-19 and AD 2006-20, November 15, 2011, 2011 AERCB 032.

Well over ten years ago Sarg Oils sold oil and gas assets to another party. The Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) refused to consent to the transfer of the well licences associated with those assets and as a result Sarg was left with the responsibility of abandoning those facilities. And when Sarg refused, the ERCB did the job itself and sent the bill to Sarg; and when Sarg didn’t pay (and the Court of Appeal ruled that this was a lawful debt owing to the Board: ERCB v Sarg Oils Ltd, 2002 ABCA 174) the ERCB garnisheed other assets of Sarg (the Southern Alberta assets). Sarg didn’t like that and shut the facilities in - owing by this time in excess of $1 million. The Board informed the province of this dastardly deed and the province triggered the procedures under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Tenure Regulation (Alta Reg 267/1997, s18) to terminate the leases on those Southern Alberta assets. Since Sarg no longer had the right to exploit the resources on those terminated leases, the ERCB ordered Sarg (2006) to abandon the related wells and facilities. Sarg did nothing about this except to seek a section 40 review (this application) under the Energy Resources Conservation Act, RSA 2000, c E-10) of the Board orders. And now, five years later, the Board has concluded that the orders “are valid and will be upheld” (at para 148). And now, Sarg must really get on with it! Whew! Unless of course Sarg seeks leave to appeal.

(more…)

PDF version: Bill 16, 2011: Alberta Paves the Way for Cleaner Coal with In Situ Coal Gasification

Legislation commented on: Bill 16 - Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2011

On 13 May 2011, the Legislative Assembly of Alberta passed the Energy Statutes Amendment Act (”Bill 16, 2011″). Bill 16, 2011 amends the following acts: the Alberta Utilities Commission Act, RSA 2007, c A-37.2, the Coal Conservation Act (CCA), RSA 2000, c C-17, the Electric Utilities Act, RSA 2003, c E-5.1, the Gas Utilities Act, RSA 2000, c G-5, the Oil and Gas Conservation Act (OGCA), RSA 2000, c O-6, the Oil Sands Conservation Act (OSCA), RSA 2000, c O-7, and the Pipeline Act (PA), RSA, c P-15. The amendments entered into force on 13 May 2011.

Bill 16, 2011 implements two central amendments to the regulatory regime of the above mentioned energy laws. The first amendment removes the Industrial Development Permit (IDP) legislation (see ERCB Bulletin 2010-42). In short, section 51 of the CCA, section 111 of the OGCA and section 27 of the OSCA cancel existing IDPs. The general repeal of these provisions makes it unnecessary to apply for an IDP in the future. See previous post by Nigel Bankes here. The second amendment clarifies the ERCB’s authority to regulate in situ coal development and sets out the requirements for in situ coal projects (see ERCB Bulletin 2009-36).

(more…)

PDF version: Section 19 of the Perpetuities Act and the oil and gas lease as a fee simple determinable estate of a profit à prendre 

Statute commented on: Perpetuities Act, RSA 2000, c P-5.

In a couple of years we will “celebrate” the fortieth anniversary of the Perpetuities Act of 1972, SA 1972, c 121. They may not know it yet, but the wildest celebrations will be heard from those who hold oil and gas leases granted after July 1, 1973 which are still in force. Here’s why. After that date, as each and every oil and gas lease reaches its fortieth birthday, the lessor’s possibility of reverter for terminating the lease for want of production comes to an end; thenceforward the lease can only be terminated for cause (as described in the default clause of the leases) such as the non-payment of royalties, which causes can typically be cured without losing the lease. Lessees will become the effective owners of the oil and gas estate.

(more…)

PDF version: Accounting issues left unresolved in split title litigation

Case considered: Anderson v Amoco Canada Oil and Gas Co, 2011 ABCA 268

The Court of Appeal has finally brought an end to the phase gas, split title litigation known under the style of cause of Anderson v Amoco. The Court did so (at the behest of the petroleum owners (the defendants)) under the cover of the drop dead rule of the old Rules of Court. As a result of this decision the accounting issues, one of the key issues in split title litigation which has been around since the Privy Council’s decision in Borys v CPR, [1953] AC 217, will remain unresolved. While this dismissal will bind the particular plaintiffs listed in this litigation it will not preclude disgruntled gas owners from returning to the fray in the future - either individually or as part of a class action. Thus, while the defendants and their lawyers may have cracked open a few bottles of champagne last week to celebrate the end of this long-running litigation I am not sure that the accounting issues related to production from split title lands are going to go away.

(more…)

PDF version: What does the term “oil well rights” mean when used in a will? 

Case considered: Wernicke v Quirk, 2011 SKCA 95

The moral of this story might well be “don’t mess with terms you don’t understand”; and if you want to make a specific devise of surface rentals from gas wells on your property you might wish to do so explicitly and not use a term like “oil well rights”.

(more…)

PDF version: Failing to Assess the Key Issue: The Unsatisfactory Approval Process for Keystone XL 

Decision considered: United States Department of State Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Keystone XL Project (August 26, 2011); National Energy Board, TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd., OH-1-2009 (March 2010)

For two weeks in August, thousands of protesters staged a sit-in at the White House to protest the imminent approval of TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline expansion project. The project would connect the Alberta oilsands to the Gulf Coast market. In one of the biggest acts of environmental civil disobedience in decades, over 1,200 people were arrested and fined, including big names such as Daryl Hanna, Naomi Klein and NASA climatologist, James Hansen. While the Canadian regulatory process caused barely a ripple in the Canadian public conscience, American protesters have launched a full frontal attack drawing support from celebrities, Senators, Congress members, State Governors and Nobel Prize laureates. Keystone XL has become the next chapter in Alberta’s increasingly hostile relationship with American environmentalists. This post explains the American context of the Keystone XL proposal. Why has it is inflamed environmentalists, and is this more than just politics?

(more…)

PDF version: Production in meaningful quantities: commercial realities should inform the interpretation of an oil and gas lease

Case commented on: Omers Energy Inc. v Alberta (Energy Resources Conservation Board), 2011 ABCA 251

In important and rare “reasons for judgement reserved” the Alberta Court of Appeal, in unanimous reasons authored by Justice Carol Conrad, affirmed the decision of the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) to the effect that a petroleum and natural gas lease had expired in its secondary term in accordance with its own terms when the gas well (the 100/05-4 well) on the lands was unable to produce for more than very short periods of time (minutes or hours) because of large volumes of produced water. The lease in question (the CAPL 91 form) provided for continuation beyond the end of its primary term by “operations”; the term “operations” was defined to include “the production of any leased substances” and was further extended by the language of the shut-in wells clause which defined the existence of a well “capable of producing the leased substances” to serve as “operations” for the purposes of the habendum. Both the Board and the Court concluded that the lease could not be continued. The words “capable of producing” did not mean just any production no matter how miniscule the quantities, and instead must be read to mean “production in meaningful quantities”. Since it followed from this that the lease had expired, Omers was not entitled to maintain well licences for two other wells that it had drilled on the leased properties since it could no longer meet the requirements of s 16 of the Oil and Gas Conservation Act, RSA 2000, c O-6 to the effect that:

16(1) No person shall apply for or hold a licence for a well
(a) for the recovery of oil, gas or crude bitumen, or
(b) for any other authorized purpose
unless that person is a working interest participant and is entitled to the right to produce the oil, gas or crude bitumen from the well or to the right to drill or operate the well for the other authorized purpose, as the case may be.

ERCB Decision 2009-037 is available here.

(more…)

PDF version: The Court confirms that coalbed methane forms part of the natural gas title and not the coal title

Case considered: Encana Corporation v ARC Resources Ltd., 2011 ABQB 431

In 2010 the provincial legislature amended the Mines and Minerals Act, RSA 2000, c. M-17 (as am by SA 2010, c.20) (MMA) to declare that coalbed methane (CBM) is and always has been natural gas. In this case Justice Kent of the Court of Queen’s Bench applied the new s.10.1 to grant summary judgement in competing actions brought by the coal owners and the natural gas lessees seeking declaratory relief as to the ownership of CBM in certain lands. The actions in question had all been commenced before the amendment was introduced and passed. The Court held that s.10.1 was a complete answer to the competing claims and concluded that the natural gas lessees were entitled to a declaration that the coalbed methane had been granted to them under the terms of their natural gas leases.

(more…)

PDF version: A single window for the permitting of energy projects in Alberta: who will look out for the chickens? 

Report commented on: Enhancing Assurance: Developing an integrated energy resources regulator, a discussion document, May 2011

In a discussion paper released on May 9, 2011 under a covering message from Premier Stelmach, the provincial government has announced its intention to create a single window for the permitting of energy projects in the province. The proposal envisages a single new board that will have all of the current responsibilities of the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) plus the following additional responsibilities (as they pertain to energy projects including conventional oil and gas, oilsands, and coal - and in the future perhaps mining):

1. The responsibilities currently vested in Alberta Environment under the terms of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, (EPEA) RSA 2000c. E-12, and the Water Act, RSA 2000, c.W-3 to conduct EIAs, issue licences and authorizations under the Water Act and EPEA and to deal with reclamation and remediation on private land.

2. The responsibilities currently vested in Sustainable Resource Development (SRD) to issue public land dispositions including mineral surface leases, and to deal with reclamation and remediation on public land.

Does this make sense?

(more…)