Category: Energy Page 1 of 50

The Draft Alberta Quantification Protocol for CO2 Capture and Permanent Geologic Sequestration, Version 2

Nearly ten years ago I posted an ABlawg comment on a draft of the first version of this Offset Quantification Protocol. The Quantification Protocol (QP) was developed at that time so as to be ready for when Shell’s Quest Project came on stream. A QP is designed to establish the circumstances under which a project, in this case a carbon capture and storage (CCS) project, might generate offset credits under Alberta’s CO₂emissions legislation and regulations, which could then be used to meet the compliance obligations of a regulated emitter. At that time, the relevant regulation was the Specified Gas Emitter Regulation, Alta Reg 139/2007 (SGER); the current regulation is the Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction Regulation, Alta Reg 133/2019 (TIER Regulation). My earlier post identified a number of issues that remain pertinent today, including the transparency of the process, issues of liability in the event of a reversal, and a question as to the apportionment of regulatory responsibilities between the mechanisms of the QP and the responsibility of the energy regulator (then the Energy Resources Conservation Board, now the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER)) for scheme approvals for injection activities. This latter point continues to present some difficulties in the current draft of Version 2.0, particularly with respect to monitoring for containment assurance, which is explicitly dealt with in s 5.1.6 and Appendix C of the Draft QP (but also relevant to the sections of the QP dealing with reversals). I explore these issues in more detail below.

The AER’s Proposed Amendments to Closure Liability Management Directives: Much Ado about Not Much

By Drew Yewchuk

On November 4, 2024

In Administrative Law, Energy, Oil & Gas

By: Drew Yewchuk and Shaun Fluker

Matter Commented On: Bulletin 2024-25, Invitation for Feedback on Revised Liability Directives

PDF Version: The AER’s Proposed Amendments to Closure Liability Management Directives: Much Ado about Not Much

On 8 October 2024, the AER issued Bulletin 2024-25, Invitation for Feedback on Revised Liability Directives, announcing the AER is taking public comments on a proposal to restructure AER directives relating to the closure liability management framework. The AER’s description of the changes, and a video presentation describing the changes, are here. At a high level:

Four directives are being amended: Directive 001: Requirements for Site-Specific Liability Assessments; Directive 011: Estimated Liability (previously Licensee Liability Rating (LLR) Program: Updated Industry Parameters and Liability Costs); Directive 068: Security Deposits; Directive 088: Licensee Life-Cycle Management.
Three directives are being rescinded as their contents are either being reorganized into the four amended directives or are no longer necessary: Directive 006: Licensee Liability Rating (LLR) Program; Directive 024: Large Facility Liability Management Program; Directive 075: Oilfield Waste Liability (OWL) Program.

Court of Appeal Grants Permission to Appeal Another AER Coal Decision

By Nigel Bankes

On October 8, 2024

In Administrative Law, Energy

By: Nigel Bankes

Decision Commented On: Ranchland (Municipal District No 66) v Alberta Energy Regulator, 2024 ABCA 309 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Court of Appeal Grants Permission to Appeal Another AER Coal Decision

While my recent coal posts (e.g. here and here) have focused on the efforts of Benga/Northback to resurrect (literally bring back from the dead) its Grassy Mountain Project, it is important to acknowledge that the coal policy decisions (the “flip/flop”) of the Kenney and Smith governments have triggered other litigation. Some of that litigation involves claims to compensation for alleged regulatory takings or constructive expropriation (see Cabin Ridge Project Limited v Alberta, 2024 ABKB 189 (CanLII)) but the case that is the subject of this post deals with other issues – reclamation and opaque AER decision-making.

The Liabilities Go Up and the Security Stays the Same: The Oilsands Mine Financial Security Program in 2024

By Drew Yewchuk

On October 4, 2024

In Energy, Oil & Gas

By: Drew Yewchuk and Martin Olszynski

Documents Commented on: Mine Financial Security Program – Security and Liability (2024); Annual Mine Financial Security Program Submissions 2024 Submissions for 2023 Reporting Year

PDF Version: The Liabilities Go Up and the Security Stays the Same: The Oilsands Mine Financial Security Program in 2024

This is our annual update post in response to the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) posting the annual submissions for the Mine Financial Security Program (MFSP). The MFSP is ostensibly Alberta’s system for obtaining financial security for the closure of oilsands and coal mines. See last year’s post here, and a lengthy discussion of the problems with the MFSP in our 2023 paper coauthored with Andrew Leach, “Not Fit for Purpose: Oil Sands Mines and Alberta’s Mine Financial Security Program”.

Administrative Penalties at the Alberta Energy Regulator: Regulatory Penalties for the Kearl Oilsands Leak

By Drew Yewchuk

On September 4, 2024

In Administrative Law, Energy, Oil & Gas

By: Drew Yewchuk

Decisions Commented On: AER Notice of Administrative Penalty 202408-009, AER Administrative Sanction 202408-010, and AER News Release 2024-08-22

PDF Version: Administrative Penalties at the Alberta Energy Regulator: Regulatory Penalties for the Kearl Oilsands Leak

On August 22, 2024, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) issued notice of administrative penalty 202408-009 (penalty decision) and administrative sanction 202408-010 (administrative sanction) (together, the ‘enforcement decisions’) imposing terms and conditions to Imperial Oil Resources Limited (Imperial Oil). The AER also issued a news release about these two enforcement actions. This post assesses the AER’s enforcement decisions and the justifications provided for them.