Author: Nigel Bankes Page 84 of 88

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.

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander (and other, more mixed, metaphors): and a prediction as to the role of power and influence on law-making in the province.

By Nigel Bankes

On February 25, 2009

In Administrative Law, Natural Resources

Cases Considered: ATCO Midstream Ltd. v. Alberta (Energy Resources Conservation Board), 2009 ABCA 41.

PDF Version: What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander (and other, more mixed, metaphors): and a prediction as to the role of power and influence on law-making in the province.

The cases are legion in which the Energy Resources Conservation Board, supported by the Court of Appeal, has denied standing to public interest interveners, First Nations (e.g. Dene Tha’ First Nation v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), 2005 ABCA 68) and fellow-travellers on the grounds that they lack an adequate legal interest in the subject matter of the application. What is interesting about this case is that, this time, the ox that is gored is a sacred cow. Two sacred cows in fact; a leading provincial utility and gas processor (ATCO), and a petrochemical interest (NOVA) that the province spawned. At a formal level the result might be celebrated in terms of respect for the neutrality of the law and equality before the law. Respect may be tempered if we think the rule to be a bad rule.

The Crown has neither the power nor the duty to invest Indian monies: The use of legislation to limit trust duties

By Nigel Bankes

On February 20, 2009

In Aboriginal, Constitutional, Oil & Gas, Supreme Court of Canada

Cases Considered: Ermineskin Indian Band and Nation v. Canada, 2009 SCC 9.

PDF Version: The Crown has neither the power nor the duty to invest Indian monies: The use of legislation to limit trust duties

The “money management” part of the long-running Samson\Ermineskin Case has now come to a close. A unanimous seven person panel of the Supreme Court of Canada in a judgement authored by Justice Marshall Rothstein has ruled that the Government of Canada is not liable when it fails to invest First Nation royalty monies and instead deposits those monies to the credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund (CRF) and pays the First Nations interest on those monies. In fact, the Court has ruled that the Indian Act makes it illegal for the Crown to invest Indian capital monies. The Court also ruled that the provisions of the Act which require this conclusion do not constitute discrimination within the meaning of s.15 of the Charter.

Co-Ownership is a Messy Business (Even with an Operating Agreement)

By Nigel Bankes

On February 15, 2009

In Bankruptcy and Insolvency, Oil & Gas, Property

Cases Considered: San Juan Resources Inc (Re) 2009 ABQB 55 (Registrar in Bankruptcy).

PDF Version: Co-ownership is a messy business (even with an operating agreement)

Co-ownership is a legal relationship for parties who are able to get along together. For those who cannot the court will order partition or sale under the Law of Property Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. L-7. But co-ownership is also the typical foundation for oil and gas operations in this province and elsewhere since oil and gas companies will typically be tenants in common (working interest owners) of their title documents (the freehold and Crown leases) on which their operations rely.

The sky is falling, let’s blame the royalty review

By Nigel Bankes

On February 3, 2009

In Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

PDF Version: The sky is falling, let’s blame the royalty review

I have lived in Alberta and this city for nearly thirty years. During the fall of 2007 I thought that we had the best public policy debate that I have ever seen in this province. The subject of that debate was the province’s royalty review.

I think that it was a good debate because it was a well informed debate on a crucial public policy issue. It was a well informed debate because the province, for the first time in its history, struck a public review which articulated a set of principles that should govern royalty design. Prior to that, royalty reviews were essentially private affairs between government and industry.

Adjudicating on waterflood enhanced recovery schemes: is it time for compulsory unitization in Alberta?

By Nigel Bankes

On February 1, 2009

In Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

Cases Considered: Hunt Oil Company of Canada Inc: Applications to amend enhanced recovery scheme approval No. 10848 and Pool Delineation Kleskun and Puskwaskau Fields, December 23, 2008, ERCB Decision 2008-130, December 23, 2008.

PDF Version: Adjudicating on waterflood enhanced recovery schemes: is it time for compulsory unitization in Alberta?

Hunt and Galleon (and perhaps others) have interests in the same small oil pool and indeed a series of oil pools that are all “in communication” by virtue of a common aquifer. But evidently they cannot agree on how best to develop the pool, or perhaps they cannot agree on how to share the costs and benefits of joint development including the allocation of resulting production. As a result, each of them operates separate waterflood schemes in the same pool. Each such enhanced oil recovery (EOR) scheme needs to be approved by the ERCB under s.39(1)(a) of the Oil and Gas Conservation Act (OGCA), R.S.A. 2000, c. O-6.