ABlawg

Alberta’s Carbon Sequestration Agreement: An Analysis

Posted on November 6, 2024 by Nigel Bankes

Matter Commented On: Alberta’s Standard Form Carbon Sequestration Agreement

PDF Version: Alberta’s Carbon Sequestration Agreement: An Analysis

The Government of Alberta (GoA) has finally released the form or template of the Carbon Sequestration Agreement (CSA) that it will use for carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects organized as hub projects. A hub project is a CCS project in which one party provides transportation and sequestration (T & S) services to variety of emitters. One example is the Atlas Carbon Storage Hub promoted by ATCO EnPower and Shell Canada Products which received its final investment decision in June 2024. Previous ABlawg posts (here, here and here) have reviewed Alberta’s decision to adopt a hub approach to CCS in preference to the vertically integrated project approach that characterized Shell’s earlier Quest project (see ABlawg post here). A vertically integrated CCS project is a project in which a single party (or joint venture) is responsible for all three elements of the CCS value chain (that is to say, capture and compression, transportation, and injection and geological sequestration). In a hub project (or a hub and spoke project) one party (the hub operator) typically offers transportation and sequestration services (T & S) to a number of different large emitters. I refer readers to the earlier posts for the more detailed explanations of the background.

Continue reading →

Posted in Contracts | Leave a comment

The University’s Kafkaesque Direction on Temporary Structures and Overnight Protests: “You are not supposed to see this.”

Posted on November 5, 2024 by Jonnette Watson Hamilton

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton and Shaun Fluker

Document Commented On: University Direction on Temporary Structures and Overnight Protests, 2024-UC-003-A, revised May 3, 2024

PDF Version: The University’s Kafkaesque Direction on Temporary Structures and Overnight Protests: “You are not supposed to see this.”

Questions about the authority exercised and the process followed by the University of Calgary when it acted on the “University Direction on Temporary Structures and Overnight Protests” (Direction) were raised in an earlier an ABlawg post on “Encampments on Campus Part 2.” As discussed in more detail in that earlier post, the Direction – identified as “2024-UC-003-A, Revised May 3, 2024” – was apparently sent to all U of C students by May 3 and handed out to pro-Palestinian protesters on campus on May 9, the same day the protesters set up their on-campus encampment and the Calgary Police Service (CPS) tore it down and forcibly removed those protesters. The Direction states that failure to follow the university’s Use of University Facilities for Non-Academic Purposes Policy (Facilities Policy) and the Direction “may constitute non-academic misconduct (students), cause for disciplinary action (staff), and/or grounds to be trespassed from the University of Calgary’s premises (all).”

Continue reading →

Posted in Protest | Comments Off

The AER’s Proposed Amendments to Closure Liability Management Directives: Much Ado about Not Much

Posted on November 4, 2024 by Drew Yewchuk

By: Drew Yewchuk and Shaun Fluker

Matter Commented On: Bulletin 2024-25, Invitation for Feedback on Revised Liability Directives

PDF Version: The AER’s Proposed Amendments to Closure Liability Management Directives: Much Ado about Not Much

On 8 October 2024, the AER issued Bulletin 2024-25, Invitation for Feedback on Revised Liability Directives, announcing the AER is taking public comments on a proposal to restructure AER directives relating to the closure liability management framework. The AER’s description of the changes, and a video presentation describing the changes, are here. At a high level:

Four directives are being amended: Directive 001: Requirements for Site-Specific Liability Assessments; Directive 011: Estimated Liability (previously Licensee Liability Rating (LLR) Program: Updated Industry Parameters and Liability Costs); Directive 068: Security Deposits; Directive 088: Licensee Life-Cycle Management.
Three directives are being rescinded as their contents are either being reorganized into the four amended directives or are no longer necessary: Directive 006: Licensee Liability Rating (LLR) Program; Directive 024: Large Facility Liability Management Program; Directive 075: Oilfield Waste Liability (OWL) Program.

Continue reading →

Posted in Administrative Law, Energy, Oil & Gas | Comments Off

UCP Grievance Politics Takes Aim at the Law Society of Alberta

Posted on November 1, 2024 by Shaun Fluker

By: Shaun Fluker

Matter commented on: Review of Professional Regulators, October 23, 2024

PDF Version: UCP Grievance Politics Takes Aim at the Law Society of Alberta

On October 23, 2024, the UCP government announced it was spending public money to find a solution to a problem that does not exist: aka the Review of Professional Regulators. This exercise of grievance politics includes within its scope the Law Society of Alberta, and as a member of the law society, I received an email invitation to take the government’s survey. This post discloses my answers to the survey.

Continue reading →

Posted in Administrative Law | Comments Off

A Landmark Decision in Canadian Charter-based Climate Litigation: Mathur v Ontario, 2024 ONCA 762

Posted on October 31, 2024 by Martin Olszynski

By: Martin Olszynski, Jennifer Koshan, Nigel Bankes, and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

Case commented on: Mathur v Ontario, 2024 ONCA 762 (CanLII)

PDF Version: A Landmark Decision in Canadian Charter-based Climate Litigation: Mathur v Ontario, 2024 ONCA 762

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently released its decision in Mathur v Ontario, 2024 ONCA 762 (CanLII). ABlawg readers will know that this is one of three Charter-based climate lawsuits currently making their way through Canadian courts. The other two are La Rose v Canada, 2023 FCA 241 (CanLII), which involves a challenge to the federal government’s climate policies, and Dykstra et al v Saskatchewan Power Corporation, which involves a challenge to the Saskatchewan government’s and SaskPower’s decisions to expand gas-fired electricity generation (see our previous post on La Rose here). In this post, we contrast the trial and appellate reasons in Mathur (and where relevant, in La Rose FCA) and offer our commentary on several key issues in this litigation.