Author: Nigel Bankes Page 1 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.

Decisions Commented On: (1) Request for a Regulatory Appeal by E3 Lithium Ltd. (E3), April 14, 2026; (2) Request for a Regulatory Appeal by PrairieSky Royalty Ltd. (PrairieSky), April 14, 2026; and (3) Request for Regulatory Appeal by Canpar Holdings Ltd. (Canpar), April 14, 2026

PDF Version: The Next Installment in the Continuing Debate Over Pore Space Conflict in Alberta

On July 30, 2025, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) granted an application from Enhance Energy Inc. (Enhance) for a CO₂ sequestration scheme approval under s 39(1)(d) of the Oil and Gas Conservation Act, RSA 2000, c O-6 (OGCA) for Enhance’s Origins Project. The AER granted Enhance its approval without holding a public hearing. The approval is available here. Enhance anticipates the sequestered CO₂ will result in a 4 km plume radius, up to a maximum radius of 5.6 km.

Bill 30, Expedited Project Approvals: Proponents Should Look Before They Leap

By Nigel Bankes

On April 24, 2026

In Administrative Law, Energy, Environmental, Natural Resources

By: Nigel Bankes and Drew Yewchuk

Matters Commented On: (1) Bill 30: Expedited 120 Day Approvals Act, first reading, April 14, 2026, (2) Press Release, Faster Approvals for Major Projects, April 14, 2026, (3) Bill-30, Streamlining project approvals, the press conference featuring Minister Jean, April 14, 2026.

PDF Version: Bill 30, Expedited Project Approvals: Proponents Should Look Before They Leap

This post examines Alberta’s Bill 30, a bill that proposes to offer a project proponent the option to seek expedited project approval. The post begins with an account of the reasons offered by the United Conservative Party (UCP) for the Bill, followed by an account of the expedited approval scheme that the bill proposes. It then offers a critique of some different aspects of Bill 30 before suggesting that a proponent should think carefully before accepting the government’s offer of an expedited process – it may be a poisoned chalice.

The Next Shoe Drops. The Northback (Grassy Mountain) Interests File an International Investment Law Claim Against Canada

By Nigel Bankes

On April 14, 2026

In Energy, Environmental, International Investment

By: Nigel Bankes and Kyla Tienhaara

Matter Commented On: Request for Arbitration, Riversdale Resources Pty Ltd and Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd v Canada, December 16, 2024, and Notice of Intent to Submit a Claim, September 17, 2024

PDF Version: The Next Shoe Drops. The Northback (Grassy Mountain) Interests File an International Investment Law Claim Against Canada

In December 2024, the Australian parent companies of Northback Holdings (Northback) filed a Request for Arbitration (RFA) with Canada under the terms of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP or Agreement) alleging breach of Canada’s investment obligations under that Agreement. The claim follows the rejection of the Grassy Mountain coal project by a joint federal–provincial review panel and subsequent domestic litigation. The case is part of a broader trend of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) claims challenging environmental decision-making in resource projects.

The Proposed Co-operation Agreement on Environmental and Impact Assessment between Canada and Alberta

By Nigel Bankes

On March 18, 2026

In Administrative Law, Constitutional, Environmental, Indigenous, Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes

Document Commented On: Draft Co-operation Agreement on Environmental and Impact Assessment between Canada and Alberta, March 6, 2026

PDF Version: The Proposed Co-operation Agreement on Environmental and Impact Assessment between Canada and Alberta

On March 6, 2026 the Governments of Canada and Alberta released a draft co-operation agreement on “Environmental and Impact Assessment”, thereby leading the way to fulfilling one of the undertakings contained in the Memorandum of Understanding on Energy (MOU) signed by the two governments on November 27, 2025. The MOU committed the parties to “Negotiate a cooperation agreement on impact assessments on or before April 1, 2026, that reduces duplication through a single assessment process that respects federal and provincial jurisdictions.” The Draft Agreement is open for comment until March 26, 2026.

Continuing Implementation of Revisions to the Columbia River Treaty

By Nigel Bankes

On March 11, 2026

In International Law, Natural Resources, Water Law

By: Nigel Bankes

Matters Commented On: (1) Annual Report of the Permanent Engineering Board (PEB) to the Governments of the United States and Canada under the terms of the Columbia River Treaty for the period of October 1, 2023 – September 30, 2024, May 16, 2025, and (2) Flood Risk Operating Plan (FROP) for the Columbia River Treaty, June 26, 2025

PDF Version: Continuing Implementation of Revisions to the Columbia River Treaty

The Columbia River Treaty (CRT) entered into force in September 1964. While the CRT has no expiry date, certain terms of the CRT, specifically the flood control provisions of the treaty, were scheduled to change automatically on the treaty’s sixtieth anniversary (September 16, 2024) in a way that would provide the United States far less certainty as to future upstream flood control operations in Canada. For this, and a number of other reasons, the US and Canada were motivated to modernize the CRT and to that end, and as highlighted in previous posts on ABlawg, the governments of Canada and the United States entered into a non-binding agreement in principle (AiP) in July 2024 outlining proposed changes to the Columbia River Treaty (CRT) (see posts on the AiP here and here).