Author Archives: Nigel Bankes

About Nigel Bankes

Nigel Bankes is emeritus professor of law at the University of Calgary. Prior to his retirement in June 2021 Nigel held the chair in natural resources law in the Faculty of Law.

Coal Law and Policy in Alberta, Part Three: Was the Public Rationale for Rescinding the Coal Policy Ever Convincing?

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Coal Law and Policy in Alberta, Part Three: Was the Public Rationale for Rescinding the Coal Policy Ever Convincing?

Matter Commented On: Information Letter 2020-23, “Rescission of A Coal Development Policy for Alberta and new leasing rules for Crown coal leases” (15 May 2020)

While Minister Savage announced the temporary reinstatement of the 1976 Coal Development Policy (CDP) on February 8, 2021, it still seems worth examining the public justification offered by the Government of Alberta for rescinding the CDP. The principal justification advanced was that the CDP was obsolete in light of developments in law and regulation. One version of this justification was posted on the coal policy guidelines page of the Department of Energy’s web page. The text is no longer available online, but it read as follows:

The Coal Policy was originally published in 1976, before modern regulatory processes existed. The scope of the policy was wide-ranging and included, among other items, a land use classification system…. When these categories were created, land use planning hadn’t yet been completed, supporting infrastructure was lacking and there were environmental concerns that the existing regulatory processes weren’t equipped to address.

With the various regulatory, policy and planning advancements over the past 45 years, the Coal Policy became obsolete.

…

All coal development projects will continue to be considered through the existing rigorous Alberta Energy Regulator review process. This review is based on each project’s merits, including its economic, social and environmental impacts.

The original intention of the Coal Policy was to ensure that there were appropriate regulatory and environmental protection measures in place before new coal projects were authorized—this objective is being met by today’s modern regulatory, land use planning and leasing systems.

Continue reading →

Coal Law and Policy in Alberta, Part Two: The Rules for Acquiring Coal Rights and the Royalty Regime

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Coal Law and Policy in Alberta, Part Two: The Rules for Acquiring Coal Rights and the Royalty Regime

Matters Commented On: Mines and Minerals Act, RSA 2000, c M-17; Coal Royalty Regulation, Alta Reg 295/1992

Minister of Energy Sonya Savage’s announcement on February 8, 2021 that the province would reinstate the 1976 Coal Development Policy (CDP) caused us to change the planned roll-out of this series on coal law and policy, and to add some analysis of that decision in the post “What Are the Implications of Reinstating the 1976 Coal Development Policy?”

With that out of the way, it still seems useful to return to the original plan in the interests of contributing to the ongoing debate on the future of coal on Alberta’s landscape and economy. To that end, this post examines the rules for acquiring coal rights and the royalty regime for coal in Alberta. In other words, it deals with questions of ownership or property. A later post will deal with questions relating to the regulation of coal exploration and development. It bears emphasizing at the outset that while a lease gives the lessee the property right to exploit the coal, the lessee still needs regulatory approvals from the Alberta Energy Regulator before it can engage in any exploration activities on the land. We see the same parallel structure in the oil and gas sector. A petroleum and natural gas lease, whether acquired from the Crown (Department of Energy) or a private owner, grants the property right to exploit the oil or gas but the lessee still requires a licence from the AER in order to be able to drill a well (see Oil and Gas Conservation Act, RSA 2000, c O-6, s 11). Hence it is important to keep separate questions of property and questions of regulation. The focus of this post is on question of property.

Continue reading →

What Are the Implications of Reinstating the 1976 Coal Development Policy?

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: What Are the Implications of Reinstating the 1976 Coal Development Policy?

Matters Commented On: Alberta Energy Press Release, “Alberta’s 1976 Coal Policy Reinstated” (February 8, 2021); Information Letter 2021-07 “Coal Policy Reinstatement” (8 February 2021) and attached Ministerial Order 054/2021

On February 8, 2021, Minister of Energy, Sonya Savage announced via press conference that, effective immediately, the 1976 Coal Development Policy (CDP) would be reinstated. The formal press release noted that “[t]his includes reinstating the four coal categories, which dictated where and how coal leasing, exploration and development could occur.” In addition, the release stipulated that “[a]ll future coal exploration approvals on Category 2 lands will be prohibited pending widespread consultations on a new coal policy.”

But these decisions alone will not restore the status quo as it stood prior to June 1, 2020 when the UCP government revoked the CDP without consultation. This makes the claim of reinstatement hollow – for at least two reasons.

Continue reading →

Coal Law and Policy in Alberta, Part One: the Coal Policy and Its Legal Status

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Coal Law and Policy in Alberta, Part One: the Coal Policy and Its Legal Status

Issue Commented On: Revocation of the Coal Development Policy for Alberta (1976); Department of Energy, Information Letter 2020-23 “Rescission of A Coal Development Policy for Alberta and new leasing rules for Crown coal leases” (15 May 2020)

I don’t need to tell anybody living in Alberta that there has been a lot of talk recently about coal. Most of that talk has been directed at the Government of Alberta’s decision, to revoke a policy adopted in 1976 known as the Coal Development Policy for Alberta (CDP or Policy).

Once it became widely known, the decision to revoke the policy attracted the attention of civil society and of the media. Interest in the decision is growing and many local governments including Lethbridge, High River, Nanton, Longview, Canmore, Edson, Okotoks, Airdrie and Turner Valley have weighed in on the issue. So too have the Kainai-Blood Tribe and the Siksika First Nation. A significant number of these governments have adopted resolutions either questioning the decision to revoke the coal policy or simply demanding that the Government of Alberta reinstate the policy. Much of the commentary focuses on the environmental and health costs associated with coal mining as well as the conflict between coal mining and other visions for the future of the eastern slopes of the Rockies (e.g. Sharon J Riley, “An Alberta County drafted big tourism plans. Then came the coal leases”, The Narwhal (6 February 2021))

Continue reading →

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal Confirms that a Registrar’s Caveat Is Not a Magic Wand

By: Nigel Bankes and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Saskatchewan Court of Appeal Confirms that a Registrar’s Caveat Is Not a Magic Wand

Decision Commented On: Primrose Drilling Ventures v Registrar of Titles, 2021 SKCA 15

This case involves the rights acquired by a party (Primrose Drilling) who took a title that was encumbered by a registrar’s caveat. The caveat was filed to warn purchasers of a potential registrar’s error made back in the chain of title, but it was filed after a purchaser for value had got on the register relying on the flawed title.

The case came before the courts on the basis of a reference from the registrar relying on section 108 of The Land Titles Act, 2000, SS 2000, c L-5.1. The trial judge (Registrar of Titles and Great West Life Assurance Company and Primrose Drilling Ventures Ltd, 2018 SKQB 290 (CanLII)) concluded that Primrose’s title was subject to whatever interest the Registrar was seeking to protect (in this case the interests of GWL, the successor in interest to a party wrongly deprived of the mineral title to the lands in question). We commented on the trial judgment at some length in “Saskatchewan Land Titles Decision Calls Out for Appellate Review.” We took the position that the registrar had no authority to file a caveat once a purchaser for value had got on title on the faith of the register and that Primrose (the last purchaser for value in the chain of purchasers for value) was entitled to a title free of the blemish represented by the registrar’s claim. We refer the reader to that post for a detailed analysis and discussion of relevant authorities from both Saskatchewan and Alberta.

Continue reading →