Author: Nigel Bankes Page 64 of 89

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.

Case considered: Kasten Energy Inc v Shamrock Oil and Gas Ltd, 2013 ABQB 63.

In this case Justice Lee granted Kasten’s application to appoint a receiver\manager over all of the assets of Shamrock, including Shamrock’s Crown oil and gas lease. Kasten was a secured creditor of Shamrock claiming under a general security agreement (GSA) over Shamrock’s present and after acquired personal property. In the course of making his decision to appoint a receiver Justice Lee concluded that Shamrock’s lease was an intangible form of personal property. Kasten brought its application for the appointment of a receiver\manager Kasten under section 13(2) of the Judicature Act, RSA 2000, c J-2 rather than under section 65(7) of the Personal Property Security Act, RSA 2000, c P-7 (PPSA).

When is a Lease Issued “In Lieu” of an Existing Lease?

By Nigel Bankes

On February 20, 2013

In Limitations, Oil & Gas

PDF version: When is a lease issued “in lieu” of an existing lease?

Case Commented In: Canadian Natural Resources Limited v Jensen Resources Ltd, 2012 ABQB 786

In the early 1980s the Government of Alberta decided to make a clearer distinction in its tenure regime between grants of conventional petroleum and natural gas (PNG) rights and grants of oil sands rights. In implementing this policy the province went so far as to redefine the rights contained in existing Crown PNG leases. But in return, it allowed the affected PNG lessees to apply for a form of oil sands tenure for the rights that had been excluded from the PNG leases. That’s what happened in this case and the issue was whether Jensen’s gross overriding royalty (GOR) which clearly applied to the PNG leases also carried over to the oil sands rights. Justice Jo’Anne Strekaf held that it did.

The right to trap in traditional territory: a case of competing normative orders?

By Nigel Bankes

On January 16, 2013

In Aboriginal

PDF version: The right to trap in traditional territory: a case of competing normative orders?

Decision commented on: Cooper and Boucher v Ganter and HMQA, 2012 ABQB 695.

I don’t actually know if this is a case of competing normative orders but it sure looks like it. More formally and abstractly this decision confirms that a claimant cannot avoid the six month limitation rule for judicial review proceedings by commencing an action by way of a statement of claim.

The death of free entry mining regimes in Canada?

By Nigel Bankes

On January 15, 2013

In Aboriginal, Natural Resources

PDF version: The death of free entry mining regimes in Canada?

Decision commented on: Ross River Dena Council v Government of Yukon, 2012 YKCA 14.

I (along with co-author Cheryl Sharvit) and others have long tried to make the case that free entry mining regimes are not only bad public policy but also unconstitutional on the grounds that the common premises of free entry regimes are inconsistent with the Crown’s duty to consult indigenous peoples whose rights and interests may be affected by the government’s decisions to allow others to acquire rights in traditional territory. See Bankes and Sharvit, Aboriginal Title and Free Entry Mining Regimes in Northern Canada, (1998) here and Bankes, “The Case for the Abolition of Free Entry Mining Regimes” (2004), 24(2) J. Land, Resources, & Envtl. Law 317-322.

A new approach to regulating unconventional resource plays in Alberta: the ERCB takes a bold step forward

By Nigel Bankes

On January 10, 2013

In Energy, Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

PDF version: A new approach to regulating unconventional resource plays in Alberta: the ERCB takes a bold step forward

Document commented on: ERCB Discussion Paper, Regulating Unconventional Oil and Gas in Alberta, 2012.

In the weeks before Christmas the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) released a number of documents all dealing with aspects of the development of unconventional resources. The documents included two inquiry reports dealing with serious incidents in relation to horizontal wells (here and here) and multi-stage fracturing, a draft Directive on Hydraulic Fracturing and the document which is the focus of this post, the Discussion Paper, Regulating Unconventional Oil and Gas in Alberta. The release of this paper is a welcome development because it provides a practical example of how a regulator can take the initiative in trying to manage cumulative impacts and the risks associated with the application of known technologies to new challenges. It is fully consistent with the planning approach espoused by the Alberta Land Stewardship Act, SA 2009, c A-26.8 and the Land-use Framework. And for once it demonstrates the ability of the Board to lead and get out in front of its critics – ironically, precisely at the moment when it is about to be replaced by new Energy Development Authority (I was going to title this blog “The ERCB and the Owl of Minerva” but thought that some might infer from that title that it was a post on species at risk).

Author: Nigel Bankes Page 64 of 89

Whoever heard of such a thing? A Crown oil and gas lease an intangible form of personal property?

When is a Lease Issued “In Lieu” of an Existing Lease?

The right to trap in traditional territory: a case of competing normative orders?

The death of free entry mining regimes in Canada?

A new approach to regulating unconventional resource plays in Alberta: the ERCB takes a bold step forward