Author Archives: Drew Yewchuk

About Drew Yewchuk

B.A. (University of Alberta) J.D. (University of Calgary). Drew was formerly a staff lawyer with the University of Calgary's Public Interest Law Clinic from 2018-2022 and is now an LLM student at the Peter A. Allard School of Law.

The Alberta Energy Regulator and the Disclosure Without Delay Rule in FOIP

Commented On: Alberta Energy Regulator Announcement – March 02, 2023: Alberta Energy Regulator Actively Investigating and Responding to Imperial Oil Kearl Site Incident; and Letter to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner Requesting an Investigation of AER Emergency Disclosure Policy

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: The Alberta Energy Regulator and the Disclosure Without Delay Rule in FOIP

The Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) has been aware that industrial effluent has been seeping from a tailings pit at Imperial’s Kearl oilsands mine since May 2022. (They should not be called tailings ‘ponds’ – they may be pits or lakes, but ‘pond’ implies they are small, which they absolutely are not). The AER chose to make this information public on February 4, 2023, when an estimated 5,300 cubic meters of “[s]torage pond overflowed off lease” and the AER began investigating Imperial for “[f]ailure to comply with conditions of an approval and release of industrial watewater [sic] from an unapproved location” (AER compliance dashboard, incident number 20230311 and investigation number 2023-009). Continue reading →

Worrying About Reclamation and Abandonment Obligations in the Context of Property Assignment Consents

By: Nigel Bankes and Drew Yewchuk

Case commented on: Canadian Natural Resources Limited v Harvest Operations Corp, 2023 ABKB 62 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Worrying About Reclamation and Abandonment Obligations in the Context of Property Assignment Consents

This decision is principally about when a court can or should grant partial summary judgment. For that reason alone, we anticipate that it will be appealed. But the underlying concern that led to this litigation was (and still is) the decision of Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL) to contest assignments pursuant to a purchase and sale agreement (PSA) between Harvest Operations as the vendor and Spoke Resources as the purchaser. CNRL and Harvest were parties to some 170 agreements affected by the PSA, including 133 land agreements, 30 facility agreements, and 7 service agreements. Continue reading →

Fighting Over History at a Special Meeting of the Law Society of Alberta

By: Drew Yewchuk

Commented on: Resolution on Rule 67.4 Defeated at The Special Meeting of the Law Society of Alberta held February 6, 2023

PDF Version: Fighting Over History at a Special Meeting of the Law Society of Alberta

This post describes the procedure and results of the Special Meeting of the Law Society of Alberta held on Monday February 6, 2023, and then comments on what it all meant. The purpose of the special meeting was described on ABlawg in a previous post by Koren Lightning-Earle, Hadley Friedland, Anna Lund, Sarah N Kriekle, Heather (Hero) Laird here, and I refer readers needing background on the Resolution, and the purpose of the Special Meeting, to their post. I attended the special meeting and this post follows up with notes on the meeting itself. Continue reading →

The AER Quietly Implemented a Two-Tier Mandatory Closure Spend Target

By: Drew Yewchuk

Regulatory Change Commented On: The AER’s Inventory Reduction Program

 PDF Version: The AER Quietly Implemented a Two-Tier Mandatory Closure Spend Target

Starting in mid-2021, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) adopted a new liability management framework to address the problems of inactive conventional oil and gas assets. The new liability management framework includes mandatory closure spend targets, a requirement for companies to spend a certain amount on closure work each year. The mandatory closure spend targets deal with the liabilities of inactive assets and not orphan assets (it is not to be confused with the orphan fund levy, used to fund the Orphan Well Association that abandons and remediates wells with owners that went bankrupt). Continue reading →

The Sequoia Bankruptcy Part 4: Costs Lost in Time and Perpetual’s New Subsidiary

By: Drew Yewchuk

Cases Commented on: PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc v Perpetual Energy Inc, 2022 ABQB 592

PDF Version: The Sequoia Bankruptcy Part 4: Costs Lost in Time and Perpetual’s New Subsidiary

This is part 4 of a series on the litigation resulting from the Bankruptcy of Sequoia Resources Corp. (Sequoia). Part 1 covered the first application for summary dismissal and an application to intervene. Part 2 covered a costs decision against the trustee and the appeal of the first summary dismissal. Part 3 covered interlocutory decisions and the appeal of the second summary dismissal decision. Continue reading →