Category: Energy Page 1 of 52

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

On April 7, 2025

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 Questioning of Former Minister Savage: Was the Stay Denied with Conditions or Granted with Conditions?

By Drew Yewchuk

On April 3, 2025

In Energy

By: Drew Yewchuk

Case Commented On: Cabin Ridge Project Limited v Alberta, 2025 ABCA 109 (CanLII)

PDF Version: The Questioning of Former Minister Savage: Was the Stay Denied with Conditions or Granted with Conditions?

This post relates to the same coal corporation lawsuits I discussed in a February 2025 post: ‘The Public and The Coal Corporations Want to Know: What Was Government Thinking While Messing With Coal Policy?’. In short, there are two lawsuits in which six coal corporations are suing the government of Alberta alleging that regulatory changes removed all reasonable uses of their coal leases. In Cabin Ridge Project Limited v Alberta, 2025 ABCA 53 (CanLII) the Court of Appeal ruled former Minister Savage must attend to be questioned by the coal corporations about the Alberta government’s policy changes, and questioning was set for March 26^th, 2025.The Alberta government has applied for leave to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court has not yet decided Alberta’s leave application.

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.

The Public and The Coal Corporations Want to Know: What Was Government Thinking While Messing With Coal Policy?

By Drew Yewchuk

On February 25, 2025

In Energy

By: Drew Yewchuk

Case Commented On: Black Eagle Mining Corporation v Alberta, 2025 ABCA 22 (CanLII) and Cabin Ridge Project Limited v Alberta, 2025 ABCA 53 (CanLII)

PDF Version: The Public and The Coal Corporations Want to Know: What Was Government Thinking While Messing With Coal Policy?

Black Eagle Mining Corporation v Alberta, 2025 ABCA 22 (CanLII) (Black Eagle CA) and Cabin Ridge Project Limited v Alberta, 2025 ABCA 53 (CanLII) (Cabin Ridge CA) are decisions of the Alberta Court of Appeal relating to the lawsuits by coal mining corporations claiming compensation on the basis of how they were impacted by the Alberta government’s policy decisions about coal mining in the eastern slopes.

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.