University of Calgary Faculty of Law ABLawg.ca logo over mountains

Author: Nigel Bankes Page 6 of 87

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.

The AER Does Not Have the Jurisdiction to Consider New Coal Applications for the Grassy Mountain Coal Deposit

By: Nigel Bankes

Matter commented on: Applications by Northback Holdings Corporation for a Coal Exploration Program on the Grassy Mountain Coal Deposit, including Application Number 1948547, Deep Drilling Permit

PDF Version: The AER Does Not Have the Jurisdiction to Consider New Coal Applications for the Grassy Mountain Coal Deposit

On September 5, 2023, Northback Holdings Corporation filed an application with the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) for a Deep Drilling Permit in support of a coal exploration program on the Grassy Mountain coal deposit. This deposit is located north of Blairmore, Alberta on a combination of Crown coal lands and Northback’s privately owned land. Northback proposes to commence its exploration program as soon as possible. Northback’s applications have triggered an outpouring of opposition from the coalition of interests that fought the original Grassy Mountain coal project: see here (CPAWS) and here (Corb Lund). There has also been considerable media coverage of this latest development: see here (Bob Weber) and here (Andrew Nikiforuk). My purpose in writing this post is to make the case that (1) Northback was not entitled to make these applications to the AER, and (2) the AER has no business considering the merits of these applications because Northback’s new applications are subject to the general “no new coal rule” contained in a 2022 Ministerial Order directed at the AER (details below). Others have also made this case, including Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (Southern Alberta Chapter) (CPAWS-SAB) and the Timberwolf Wilderness Society, but it still seems useful to summarize the arguments.

The Legal Status of UNDRIP in British Columbia: Gitxaala v British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner)

By: Nigel Bankes

Case Commented on: Gitxaala v British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner), 2023 BCSC 1680 (CanLII)

PDF Version: The Legal Status of UNDRIP in British Columbia: Gitxaala v British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner)

This is the first of what we anticipate will be a series of posts on this important decision which involved a challenge to the implementation and/or constitutional validity of British Columbia’s hard rock mineral regime under the terms of the Mineral Tenure Act, RSBC 1996, c 292 [MTA]. Other posts will address the substance of the duty to consult and accommodate argument in the context of free entry regimes, as well as the sacred site issues discussed in the decision.

The Crown Pore Space Lease and Pore Space Unit Agreement

By: Nigel Bankes

Documents commented on: The Crown Pore Space Lease and Pore Space Unit Agreement

PDF Version: The Crown Pore Space Lease and Pore Space Unit Agreement

As I discussed in my last ABlawg post the Government of Alberta (GoA) recently announced the adoption of the Small-Scale and Remote (SSR) Carbon Sequestration Tenure. As part of this announcement, the GoA also released a standard form pore space lease (PSL) and a model Pore Space Unit Agreement (PSUA). This is my attempt to unpack these two agreements and to offer what I hope will be understood as constructive comments on these documents.

Alberta Rolls Out Yet Another Form of Sequestration Agreement

By: Nigel Bankes

Document commented on: Mineral Rights Information Bulletin, 2023-01, Small-Scale and Remote (SSR) Carbon Sequestration Tenure, September 14, 2023

PDF Version: Alberta Rolls Out Yet Another Form of Sequestration Agreement

The Government of Alberta (GoA) is experimenting with several different forms of carbon sequestration tenure. But while the initial development of sequestration tenure and policy between 2010 and 2013 was open and transparent – as reflected in the Regulatory Framework Assessment – there is very little in the way of public explanation for the more recent changes, and, as noted in previous ABlawg posts (my last post contains relevant links), very little in terms of overall transparency.

A Blog with Two Titles: (1) The Current Status of Monitoring, Measurement and Verification Requirements for Carbon Capture and Storage Projects in Alberta, and (2) When Does a Ministerial Order Have to be Published?

By: Nigel Bankes

Documents commented on: AER Bulletin 2023-29, July 27, 2023; a new edition of AER Directive 065: Resources Applications for Oil and Gas Reservoirs, July 27, 2023; and Ministerial Order MO 60/2023

PDF Version: A Blog with Two Titles: (1) The Current Status of Monitoring, Measurement and Verification Requirements for Carbon Capture and Storage Projects in Alberta, and (2) When Does a Ministerial Order Have to be Published?

As the title suggests this post addresses two matters. First it refers to some recent developments in Monitoring, Measurement and Verification (MMV) requirements for carbon capture and storage projects (CCS) in Alberta, and in particular the allocation (and now, it seems, a reallocation) of the regulatory responsibility for these requirements as between the recently rebranded Ministry of Energy and Minerals (MEM) and the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER). Second, it addresses the more general question of when ministerial orders have to be published. While these matters appear to be unrelated they are in fact joined at the hip, as I hope to demonstrate.

Page 6 of 87

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén