Author Archives: Nigel Bankes

About Nigel Bankes

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.

A Blog with Two Titles: (1) The Current Status of Monitoring, Measurement and Verification Requirements for Carbon Capture and Storage Projects in Alberta, and (2) When Does a Ministerial Order Have to be Published?

By: Nigel Bankes

Documents commented on: AER Bulletin 2023-29, July 27, 2023; a new edition of AER Directive 065: Resources Applications for Oil and Gas Reservoirs, July 27, 2023; and Ministerial Order MO 60/2023

PDF Version: A Blog with Two Titles: (1) The Current Status of Monitoring, Measurement and Verification Requirements for Carbon Capture and Storage Projects in Alberta, and (2) When Does a Ministerial Order Have to be Published?

As the title suggests this post addresses two matters. First it refers to some recent developments in Monitoring, Measurement and Verification (MMV) requirements for carbon capture and storage projects (CCS) in Alberta, and in particular the allocation (and now, it seems, a reallocation) of the regulatory responsibility for these requirements as between the recently rebranded Ministry of Energy and Minerals (MEM) and the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER). Second, it addresses the more general question of when ministerial orders have to be published. While these matters appear to be unrelated they are in fact joined at the hip, as I hope to demonstrate. Continue reading →

Sometimes it is Completely Irrelevant Whether or not a Royalty Interest Amounts to an Interest in Land

By: Nigel Bankes

Case commented on: Enerplus Corporation v Harvest Operations Corp, 2021 ABQB 634 (CanLII), appeal dismissed, 2023 ABKB 482 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Sometimes it is Completely Irrelevant Whether or not a Royalty Interest Amounts to an Interest in Land

Harvest (70%), Orlen (15%), and Petrus (15%) are the working interest owners of certain oil and gas properties. Under the terms of a farmout agreement (in the form of the 1997 Farmout and Royalty Procedure of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Landmen (CAPL)), back in the chain of title, Enerplus holds a gross overriding royalty interest (GORR) in the 70% interest currently held by Harvest. The terms of the GORR provided that: Continue reading →

An Incredibly Ill-Advised and Unnecessary Decision

By: Nigel Bankes and Martin Olszynski

Decision Commented On: Generation Approvals Pause Regulation, OiC 172/2023, August 2, 2023

PDF Version: An Incredibly Ill-Advised and Unnecessary Decision

On August 3, 2023 the Government of Alberta announced that the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) will pause approvals of new renewable electricity generation projects over one megawatt until February 29, 2024. As further set out below, this “pause” is entirely unnecessary to achieve the government’s stated goals; it is also astoundingly hypocritical and undermines confidence in the stability of Alberta’s regulatory framework insofar as it singles out renewable energy projects for special treatment. Continue reading →

Conflict in Paradise

By: Nigel Bankes

Decisions Commented On:  (1) AUC Decision 27589-D01-2023, Nova Solar G.P. Inc. and AltaLink Management Ltd., Nova Solar Power Plant and Transmission Connection, July 19, 2023; and (2) AUC letter decision on standing, October 31, 2022 (AUC’s Standing Ruling).

PDF Version: Conflict in Paradise

New and different resource uses may give rise to conflict or competition, and many have been discussed on ABlawg’s pages. Examples include:

(1)  competition between natural gas storage operations and conventional oil and gas operation, (see for example Bankes, “Kallisto #2. Competing Uses of Geological Space: Resolving Conflicts Between Oil Production and Natural Gas Storage Interests”);

(2) competition for underground disposal capacity, (see, for example Bankes, “Sharing Geological Pore Space Disposal Capacity” as well as a complex and ongoing regulatory matter involving CNRL and Greenfire Resources before the Alberta Energy Regulator); and

(3) competition between proposed carbon capture and storage operations and a variety of conventional and non-conventional resource activities, (see for example, Ettinger et al, “Alberta’s Carbon Capture & Storage Land Grab And The Potential For Conflicts Of Subsurface Rights”). Continue reading →

The Basics of Alberta’s Torrens Title System: Three Cases

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton and Nigel Bankes

Cases commented on: St Pierre v Schenk, 2020 ABCA 382 (CanLII); Calgary (City) v Teulon, 2021 ABQB 388 (CanLII); St Pierre v North Alberta Land Registry District (Registrar), 2023 ABCA 153 (CanLII)

PDF Version: The Basics of Alberta’s Torrens Title System: Three Cases

These three decisions about the basic elements of Alberta’s Torrens title system cover a wide range of issues. The two Alberta Court of Appeal decisions – one a reserved judgment – arise from the same set of facts, which feature a case of forgery. The first decision looks at whether the registration of a caveat will cure the caveator’s defective title, and the second discusses the Registrar’s liability for the caveator’s loss of an interest in land. The Court of King’s Bench decision stems from facts that are less straight-forward. It considers three statutory exceptions to the principle of indefeasibility that underlies Alberta’s Torrens title system: prior certificate of title, misdescription, and one of the listed exceptions in section 61 of the Land Titles Act, RSA 2000, c L-4 (LTA) (an alleged public highway). Continue reading →