Author: Nigel Bankes Page 1 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.

The AER Panel Dismisses Appeal in Induced Seismicity Case But Reinforces the Case For a Regional Approach

By Nigel Bankes

On April 7, 2025

In Administrative Law, Energy

By: Nigel Bankes

Decision Commented On: Obsidian Energy Ltd. Appeal of Environmental Protection Order March 7, 2025, 2025 ABAER 002

PDF Version: The AER Panel Dismisses Appeal in Induced Seismicity Case But Reinforces the Case For a Regional Approach

In this decision, an appeal panel of the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) confirmed that the Compliance Liability Management (CLM) Branch had sufficient warrant to issue a remedial Environmental Protection Order against Obsidian on the basis that CLM could reasonably form the opinion that Obsidian’s disposal activities were responsible for induced seismicity events. The decision reveals the complexity of determining cause and effect in cases such as this where there are multiple disposal injectors in the same area. As a result, the decision also supports the need for a proactive regional approach to the use of pore space for disposal (and perhaps other) purposes.

The Municipal District of Ranchland Stands Strong Against More Coal Exploration

By Nigel Bankes

On March 26, 2025

In Administrative Law, Energy

By: Nigel Bankes

Case Commented On: Ranchland (Municipal District No 66) v Alberta Energy Regulator, 2025 ABCA 105 (CanLII).

PDF Version: The Municipal District of Ranchland Stands Strong Against More Coal Exploration

The short version of this post is that Justice April Grosse of the Alberta Court of Appeal has granted the MD of Ranchland permission to appeal four questions of law relating to Minister Jean’s cancellation of the coal moratorium and subsequent, but related, decisions of the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) to reinstate certain coal exploration permits (CEPs). Drew Yewchuk and I examined Minister Jean’s decision to cancel the moratorium here: Coal Moratoriums, They Come and Go. That post provides links to a series of ABlawg posts going back to 2020 dealing with the law and regulation of coal projects in Alberta.

What follows provides context for the decision on this permission to appeal application as well as some analysis of the decision.

Can An Oil and Gas Operator Carry On Bitcoin Operations Under The Terms of a Surface Lease?

By Nigel Bankes

On March 20, 2025

In Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes

Decisions Commented On: Persist Oil and Gas Inc v Flowers, 2023 ABLPRT 236 (CanLII) (the ROE Decision), Flowers v Persist Oil and Gas Inc., 2024 ABLPRT 271 (CanLII) (the Compensation Decision), and Flowers v Persist Oil and Gas Inc., 2025 ABKB 142 (CanLII) (the KB Decision)

PDF Version: Can An Oil and Gas Operator Carry On Bitcoin Operations Under The Terms of a Surface Lease?

Bitcoin operators have an incentive to co-locate with natural gas production sites that offer the opportunity to self-generate electricity to power the bitcoin operations without needing to pay interconnection charges. Just bring some portable generators onto the site, add the necessary computing capacity and let it rip! While other approvals will usually be required, some bitcoin operators have played fast and loose until brought into line through the enforcement actions of the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC). I wrote about one example of this a few years ago in “Off-Grid Energy for Bitcoin Mines in Alberta: A Problematic Legal Regime” (2021).

Who Owns Brine-Hosted Minerals in Alberta?

By Nigel Bankes

On February 14, 2025

In Energy, Natural Resources

By: Nigel Bankes

Matter Commented On: Application by Enhance Energy for a Scheme Approval for its Origins Carbon Capture and Storage Project, December 2024, AER Application No. 1956215

PDF Version: Who Owns Brine-Hosted Minerals in Alberta?

In December 2024 Enhance Energy Inc filed an application with the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) for a scheme approval (see Directive 065 and Oil and Gas Conservation Act, RSA 2000, c O-6 (OGCA) for its Origins Carbon Capture and Storage Project. The open file is currently available through the AER’s Integrated Application Registry (IAR) using application # 1956215. This link is currently functional. A large number of Statements of Concern (SOC) have been filed with the AER in response to this application. Many of these SOC filers are owners of mineral titles of one form or another who claim that the injection of carbon dioxide into the Leduc formation will be prejudicial to their mineral interests because of the potential to impair recovery of brine-hosted minerals, specifically lithium, in the reservoir. The underlying premise for SOCs that are framed in this way (i.e. specific to brine-hosted minerals rather than, for example, alleging prejudice to the recovery of hydrocarbons) must be that the SOC filer’s mineral title includes brine-hosted minerals. In this post I question that premise or assumption. I begin with a brief discussion of the nature of brine-hosted minerals and then discuss the relevant case law and statute law. My working conclusion is that since brine-hosted minerals are dissolved in water, and since the Crown in right of Alberta or the government of Alberta owns all the water in the province (at least outside federal lands), then brine-hosted minerals are part of that water title and not part of a mines and minerals title. It would follow from this that SOCs that are based solely on an interference with a brine-hosted mineral title have no merit.

The Modernization of the Columbia River Treaty: Interim Arrangements to Implement the Agreement-in-Principle

By Nigel Bankes

On February 6, 2025

In Energy, Water Law

By: Nigel Bankes

Matters Commented On: (1) Canada/US Exchange of Notes re Columbia River Treaty Assured Operating Plan for 2024-25, (September 18 and 20, 2024) and re Entity Agreement on the Interim Period Determination of Downstream Power Benefits (September 13, 16 and 17 September, 2024), (2) Canada/US Exchange of Notes Regarding Interim Pre-Planned Flood Risk Management Arrangements (November 18 and 22, 2024), and (3) Entity Agreement regarding Pre-Planned Flood Risk Management Arrangements (November 14 & 15, 2024).

PDF Version: The Modernization of the Columbia River Treaty: Interim Arrangements to Implement the Agreement-in-Principle

This post deals with the interim measures that the United States and Canada (the Parties) have adopted to address the temporal gap (the “Interim Period” between the Agreement-in-Principle (AiP) on a “modernized” Columbia River Treaty (CRT or Treaty) (1961)) adopted in mid-2024 and the conclusion and ratification of final modernized treaty text at some future time. In practice, the Parties and their operating Entities (see discussion of the term “Entities” below) are using the operational capability offered by the Treaty (and especially Article XIV(4)) to selectively implement some of the terms of the non-binding AiP. The Parties and their Entities have chosen to prioritize the early implementation of the changed flood control and power provisions of the AiP but have not extended that same priority to other elements of the AiP, including ecosystem considerations, and the creation of the Joint Ecosystem and Indigenous and Tribal Cultural Values Body (JEB). Neither do the interim arrangements address two groups of provisions in the AiP that were clearly intended to confer an advantage on Canada; first an additional annual compensation payment to Canada for “additional benefits” brought about by coordinated operations, and second, certain flexibility rules designed to allow Canada (British Columbia) to “undertake Treaty operations for domestic priorities, such as environmental, Indigenous cultural values and socioeconomic purposes.”