University of Calgary Faculty of Law ABLawg.ca logo over mountains

Author: Nigel Bankes Page 19 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.

What Are the Implications of Reinstating the 1976 Coal Development Policy?

By

On February 9, 2021

In Energy

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: What Are the Implications of Reinstating the 1976 Coal Development Policy?

Matters Commented On: Alberta Energy Press Release, “Alberta’s 1976 Coal Policy Reinstated” (February 8, 2021); Information Letter 2021-07 “Coal Policy Reinstatement” (8 February 2021) and attached Ministerial Order 054/2021

On February 8, 2021, Minister of Energy, Sonya Savage announced via press conference that, effective immediately, the 1976 Coal Development Policy (CDP) would be reinstated. The formal press release noted that “[t]his includes reinstating the four coal categories, which dictated where and how coal leasing, exploration and development could occur.” In addition, the release stipulated that “[a]ll future coal exploration approvals on Category 2 lands will be prohibited pending widespread consultations on a new coal policy.”

But these decisions alone will not restore the status quo as it stood prior to June 1, 2020 when the UCP government revoked the CDP without consultation. This makes the claim of reinstatement hollow – for at least two reasons.

Read More

Coal Law and Policy in Alberta, Part One: the Coal Policy and Its Legal Status

By

On February 8, 2021

In Energy

By: Nigel Bankes

 PDF Version: Coal Law and Policy in Alberta, Part One: the Coal Policy and Its Legal Status

Issue Commented On: Revocation of the Coal Development Policy for Alberta (1976); Department of Energy, Information Letter 2020-23 “Rescission of A Coal Development Policy for Alberta and new leasing rules for Crown coal leases” (15 May 2020)

I don’t need to tell anybody living in Alberta that there has been a lot of talk recently about coal. Most of that talk has been directed at the Government of Alberta’s decision, to revoke a policy adopted in 1976 known as the Coal Development Policy for Alberta (CDP or Policy).

Once it became widely known, the decision to revoke the policy attracted the attention of civil society and of the media. Interest in the decision is growing and many local governments including Lethbridge, High River, Nanton, Longview, Canmore, Edson, Okotoks, Airdrie and Turner Valley have weighed in on the issue. So too have the Kainai-Blood Tribe and the Siksika First Nation. A significant number of these governments have adopted resolutions either questioning the decision to revoke the coal policy or simply demanding that the Government of Alberta reinstate the policy. Much of the commentary focuses on the environmental and health costs associated with coal mining as well as the conflict between coal mining and other visions for the future of the eastern slopes of the Rockies (e.g. Sharon J Riley, “An Alberta County drafted big tourism plans. Then came the coal leases”, The Narwhal (6 February 2021))

Read More

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal Confirms that a Registrar’s Caveat Is Not a Magic Wand

By

On January 27, 2021

In Property

By: Nigel Bankes and Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Saskatchewan Court of Appeal Confirms that a Registrar’s Caveat Is Not a Magic Wand

Decision Commented On: Primrose Drilling Ventures v Registrar of Titles, 2021 SKCA 15

This case involves the rights acquired by a party (Primrose Drilling) who took a title that was encumbered by a registrar’s caveat. The caveat was filed to warn purchasers of a potential registrar’s error made back in the chain of title, but it was filed after a purchaser for value had got on the register relying on the flawed title.

The case came before the courts on the basis of a reference from the registrar relying on section 108 of The Land Titles Act, 2000, SS 2000, c L-5.1. The trial judge (Registrar of Titles and Great West Life Assurance Company and Primrose Drilling Ventures Ltd, 2018 SKQB 290 (CanLII)) concluded that Primrose’s title was subject to whatever interest the Registrar was seeking to protect (in this case the interests of GWL, the successor in interest to a party wrongly deprived of the mineral title to the lands in question). We commented on the trial judgment at some length in “Saskatchewan Land Titles Decision Calls Out for Appellate Review.” We took the position that the registrar had no authority to file a caveat once a purchaser for value had got on title on the faith of the register and that Primrose (the last purchaser for value in the chain of purchasers for value) was entitled to a title free of the blemish represented by the registrar’s claim. We refer the reader to that post for a detailed analysis and discussion of relevant authorities from both Saskatchewan and Alberta.

Read More

Court of Appeal (England and Wales) Confirms High Court Decision on the Relationship Between a Farmout Agreement and an Operating Agreement

By

On January 4, 2021

In Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) Confirms High Court Decision on the Relationship Between a Farmout Agreement and an Operating Agreement

Decision Commented On: Apache North Sea Limited v Euroil Exploration Limited and Edison SPA, [2020] EWCA Civ 1397

In this decision, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales confirmed Judge Pelling’s decision in the High Court with respect to the drilling costs Apache was entitled to recover from Euroil under the terms of a farmout agreement (FOA) and its related joint operating agreement (JOA). I commented on Judge Pelling’s decision here and I refer readers to that earlier post for a more detailed statement of the facts, as well as references to Canadian decisions dealing with the relationship between an FOA and the JOA.

In that earlier post I suggested that the FOA at issue here would likely be denominated as a “farmout and participation agreement” in a Canadian context insofar as the drilling obligation was not a sole risk obligation of the farmee (Euroil) but rather was a shared risk operation for which Euroil was to cover only a percentage of the costs. The farmor, Apache, was to carry out the drilling operation as operator and was also responsible for a percentage of the costs.

Read More

Water for Coal Developments: Where Will It Come From?

By

On December 4, 2020

In Energy, Environmental, Protection of Species

By: Nigel Bankes and Cheryl Bradley

 PDF Version: Water for Coal Developments: Where Will It Come From?

Matters Commented On: A Coal Development Policy for Alberta (1976, rescinded June 1, 2020); Oldman River Basin Water Allocation Order, Alta Reg 319/2003

The Government of Alberta (GoA) is hell-bent on facilitating the development of new coal mines in the Province. To that end, it purported to rescind the long-standing Coal Development Policy (CDP) of 1976 effective June 1, 2020. The CDP prevented development of coal resources in Category I lands on the eastern slopes of the Rockies and only permitted the development of new underground mines (rather than open-pit mines) in Category II lands (see Figure 1, below, also available here).

Read More

Page 19 of 89

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén