Author: Drew Yewchuk Page 1 of 19

B.A. (UAlberta) J.D. (UCalgary) LLM (U.B.C.) Drew was a full-time staff lawyer with the University of Calgary's Public Interest Law Clinic from 2018-2022. He is now an PhD student at the Peter A. Allard School of Law. His research focuses on administrative secrecy, access to information law, species at risk, resource law, and environmental liabilities.

Unpaid Oil and Gas Municipal Property Taxes: Another Problem for the AER’s Closure and Liability Management System

By Drew Yewchuk

On April 9, 2026

In Administrative Law, Municipal Law, Oil & Gas, Tax

By: Drew Yewchuk

Document Commented On: Property Tax Accountability Strategy (PTAS) Final Report and Recommendations, March 2026

PDF Version: Unpaid Oil and Gas Municipal Property Taxes: Another Problem for the AER’s Closure and Liability Management System

On March 16, 2026, the government of Alberta announced a new report on the ongoing problem of unpaid municipal property taxes by a segment of the Alberta oil and gas industry. The announcement says the report is “the result of the Property Tax Accountability Strategy (PTAS) working group, which comprised Alberta’s government, the Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA), and rural municipal administrators, with support from representatives of the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) and the oil and gas industry as observers.” The PTAS Report includes a description of the problem, along with 17 recommendations to address the problem. This post reviews some highlights of the PTAS Report’s description of the problem and comments on the likely effectiveness of the PTAS Report’s recommendations.

AlphaBow Again Challenges AER Enforcement Related to Oil and Gas Closure Liabilities During Insolvency

By Drew Yewchuk

On February 23, 2026

In Energy, Environmental, Insolvency, Oil & Gas

By: Drew Yewchuk

Decisions Commented On: Re AlphaBow Energy Ltd., 2025 ABKB 622 (CanLII) (AlphaBow ABKB); Re AlphaBow Energy Ltd., 2026 ABCA 35 (CanLII) (AlphaBow ABCA)

PDF Version: AlphaBow Again Challenges AER Enforcement Related to Oil and Gas Closure Liabilities During Insolvency

This post comments on two decisions relating to the ongoing insolvency process of AlphaBow Energy Ltd. (AlphaBow). AlphaBow brought challenges to the power of the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) to require security deposits as a condition for transferring oil and gas licences from AlphaBow’s inventory. AlphaBow was unsuccessful at King’s Bench and then failed to get leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal.

This post provides some background to AlphaBow’s insolvency, summarizes the two decisions, and concludes with commentary on what AlphaBow’s ongoing insolvency process shows about oil and gas closure liability management and insolvency in Alberta.

Grading the 2024 AER Liability Management Performance Report

By Drew Yewchuk

On February 5, 2026

In Energy, Environmental, Natural Resources

By: Drew Yewchuk and Shaun Fluker

Report Commented On: 2024 AER Liability Management Performance Report

PDF Version: Grading the 2024 AER Liability Management Performance Report

In November 2025, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) published the 2024 Liability Management Performance Report (2024 Report). This is the third AER Liability Management Performance Report to the public on progress to reduce Alberta’s massive unfunded closure liability in the conventional (non-oil sands mine) oil and gas sector. We discussed the 2022 report here and the 2023 report here. In a positive change from earlier years, the AER has kept the 2022 and 2023 reports up on their website. While this allows the public to compare information in the current report with past years, it is noteworthy that the AER itself does not use the previous years to evaluate performance and the 2024 Report provides almost no discussion or analysis of the data set out in the report. This is one of the reasons why the 2024 Report receives an F grade.

The Queue-Jumping Problem with Mandamus: Northback v the Minister of Environment and Protected Areas

By Drew Yewchuk

On November 18, 2025

In Access to Information, Administrative Law, Privacy

By: Drew Yewchuk

Case Commented On: Northback Holdings Corporation v Alberta (Environment and Protected Areas), 2025 ABKB 617 (CanLII)

PDF Version: The Queue-Jumping Problem with Mandamus:Northback v the Minister of Environment and Protected Areas

In Northback Holdings Corporation v Alberta (Environment and Protected Areas), 2025 ABKB 617 (CanLII), Northback Holdings Corporation (Northback), (formerly known as Benga Mining Limited) sought a mandamus order from the Alberta Court of King’s Bench that would require the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) to complete their review of the Minister of Environment and Protected Areas’ response to access requests made under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, SA 2000 c F-25 (FOIP). The Court of King’s Bench dismissed the application, finding that three years was not unreasonable delay in light of the OIPC’s lack of resources and workload, and that an order would have caused inequitable queue jumping.

A Review of Closure Nomination for Inactive Oil and Gas Sites and AER Updates to Directive 088

By Drew Yewchuk

On October 24, 2025

In Energy, Environmental, Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

By: Drew Yewchuk & Shaun Fluker

Regulatory Bulletin Commented On: Alberta Energy Regulator, Bulletin 2025-32, Invitation for Feedback on Proposed Revisions to Closure Nomination Requirements in Directive 088

PDF Version: A Review of Closure Nomination for Inactive Oil and Gas Sites and AER Updates to Directive 088

The Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) is taking comments on some proposed changes to the process for nominating oil and gas sites (facilities and wells) for closure work. The comment period is open until November 12, 2025. The AER’s closure nomination system has been in place since April 2023, and one of us commented on its commencement in Updates to the Oil and Gas Liability Management Framework: The New Closure Nomination and The Renamed Closure Quotas. The proposed changes adjust the timelines for the closure nomination. In particular, they shorten the timeline for nominated sites that had already been decommissioned to complete a phase 1 environmental site assessment from three years to one year, and they extend all closure nomination timelines to the end of the quarter-year. This post reviews the public information on the closure nomination process so far, discusses the AER’s proposed changes, and assesses the effectiveness of the closure nomination process so far.