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.

A Complex Oil and Gas Accounting Decision

By: Nigel Bankes

Case commented on: IFP Technologies (Canada) Inc v EnCana Midstream and Marketing, 2022 ABKB 807 (CanLII).

PDF Version: A Complex Oil and Gas Accounting Decision

Several years ago, I commented on both the original trial judgment in this case (2014 ABQB 470 (CanLII),following a six-week trial going back to 2011) and the Court of Appeal’s decision (2017 ABCA 157 (CanLII)). The posts are here and here. The Court of Appeal ultimately found in favour of IFP and ordered an accounting as the principal remedy but referred certain questions back to a trial judge to be assigned to hear the matter. This is that decision rendered by Justice Charlene Anderson. Continue reading →

Well Abandonment and Reclamation in Ontario

By: Nigel Bankes

Decisions Commented On: Bilodeau v Her Majesty The Queen in the Right of Ontario, 2022 ONSC 1742 (CanLII) and 2022 ONSC 4275 (Costs Endorsement).

PDF Version: Well Abandonment and Reclamation in Ontario

Over the years ABlawg has published numerous comments on the law pertaining to reclamation and abandonment obligations and the associated orphan well fund in Alberta. See, for example, Drew Yewchuk’s many excellent posts on these issues. This comment deals with a recent decision in Ontario which, while in itself a successful enforcement action, does highlight deficiencies in the law and practice pertaining to the abandonment and reclamation of old oil and gas wells in that province. Continue reading →

The Amendments to Bill 1

By: Martin Olszynski and Nigel Bankes

Matter commented on: The Government Amendments to Bill 1, Alberta Sovereignty within a United Canada Act

PDF Version: The Amendments to Bill 1

As anticipated at the time that we posted our original critique of Bill 1, the Smith administration tabled a set of amendments to Bill 1 that were adopted in the Committee of the Whole and included in the version adopted on third reading early in the morning of December 8, 2022.  The amendments were tabled in the form of a single document and included two main changes: (1) a change to the harm trigger; and (2) the removal of the Henry VIII provisions. Continue reading →

Running Afoul the Separation, Division, and Delegation of Powers: The Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act

By: Martin Olszynski and Nigel Bankes

Legislation Commented on: Bill 1 – Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act

 PDF Version: Running Afoul the Separation, Division, and Delegation of Powers: The Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act

On Tuesday, November 29, 2022, the provincial government unveiled its highly anticipated and controversial “Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act” (Bill 1). The promise to introduce some form of sovereignty legislation was the key plank of Premier Danielle Smith’s UCP leadership campaign this past summer and fall. An initial ABlawg post that drew from the general contours of  the legislation, as found in a 2021 policy document called the “Free Alberta Strategy,” expressed concerns that “the clearest and most immediate effects of such ideas is not sovereignty, nor changes to the confederation bargain, but rather a damaging blow to the rule of law and the basic building blocks of democratic governance.” Continue reading →

Sharing Geological Pore Space Disposal Capacity

By: Nigel Bankes

Decision commented on: 2022 ABAER 004, Pure Environmental Waste Management Ltd., Applications 1614037, 1784753, 1809825, 1928016, 1928017, 1928430, 30602032, 30608918, and 30608934 Hangingstone Project, October 20, 2022

PDF Version: Sharing Geological Pore Space Disposal Capacity

This decision is a follow-up decision to two decisions from 2020 dealing with Pure Environmental Waste Management’s Hangingstone waste disposal project: 2020 ABAER 004 and 2020 ABAER 005. I commented on those two decisions here: “More Competition For Underground Disposal Space” and I refer readers to that earlier comment for a more detailed account of the facts. Continue reading →