Category: Energy Page 1 of 51

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

On February 25, 2025

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.

Grading the 2023 AER Liability Management Performance Report

By Drew Yewchuk

On February 10, 2025

In Administrative Law, Energy

By: Drew Yewchuk, Shaun Fluker, and Martin Olszynski

Report Commented On: 2023 AER Liability Management Performance Report

PDF Version: Grading the 2023 AER Liability Management Performance Report

On December 5, 2024 the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) published the 2023 Liability Management Performance Report (2023 Report). This is the second AER Liability Management Performance Report to the public on progress to reduce Alberta’s massive unfunded closure liability in the conventional (non-oil sands) oil and gas sector. We gave the 2022 Liability Management Performance Report a failing grade here because it offered little in relation to understanding whether industry performance was adequate and almost nothing at all about the AER’s performance. We note with disappointment that the AER has apparently removed the 2022 Report from its website, since historical comparison is also a method of measuring performance. The 2023 Report receives a slight improvement to a D grade because of enhanced data transparency, but the AER continues to offer little in terms of measuring effectiveness and performance in the administration of liability management.

The Modernization of the Columbia River Treaty: Interim Arrangements to Implement the Agreement-in-Principle

By Nigel Bankes

On February 6, 2025

In Energy, Water Law

By: Nigel Bankes

Matters Commented On: (1) Canada/US Exchange of Notes re Columbia River Treaty Assured Operating Plan for 2024-25, (September 18 and 20, 2024) and re Entity Agreement on the Interim Period Determination of Downstream Power Benefits (September 13, 16 and 17 September, 2024), (2) Canada/US Exchange of Notes Regarding Interim Pre-Planned Flood Risk Management Arrangements (November 18 and 22, 2024), and (3) Entity Agreement regarding Pre-Planned Flood Risk Management Arrangements (November 14 & 15, 2024).

PDF Version: The Modernization of the Columbia River Treaty: Interim Arrangements to Implement the Agreement-in-Principle

This post deals with the interim measures that the United States and Canada (the Parties) have adopted to address the temporal gap (the “Interim Period” between the Agreement-in-Principle (AiP) on a “modernized” Columbia River Treaty (CRT or Treaty) (1961)) adopted in mid-2024 and the conclusion and ratification of final modernized treaty text at some future time. In practice, the Parties and their operating Entities (see discussion of the term “Entities” below) are using the operational capability offered by the Treaty (and especially Article XIV(4)) to selectively implement some of the terms of the non-binding AiP. The Parties and their Entities have chosen to prioritize the early implementation of the changed flood control and power provisions of the AiP but have not extended that same priority to other elements of the AiP, including ecosystem considerations, and the creation of the Joint Ecosystem and Indigenous and Tribal Cultural Values Body (JEB). Neither do the interim arrangements address two groups of provisions in the AiP that were clearly intended to confer an advantage on Canada; first an additional annual compensation payment to Canada for “additional benefits” brought about by coordinated operations, and second, certain flexibility rules designed to allow Canada (British Columbia) to “undertake Treaty operations for domestic priorities, such as environmental, Indigenous cultural values and socioeconomic purposes.”

Going Through the Motions to Trigger the Sovereignty Act: Another Paper Tiger?

By Nigel Bankes

On December 16, 2024

In Energy, Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes and Martin Olszynski

Matters Commented On: (1) Motion re the draft federal Clean Electricity Regulation, oral notice given, November 27, 2023, adopted by recorded vote on February 28, 2024, (2) Motion re proposed federal Oil and Gas Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cap Regulations, debated and adopted December 2, 2024 and (3) Proposed Oil and Gas Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cap Regulations, 158 (45) Canada Gazette, Part 1, November 9, 2024 and accompanying regulatory impact analysis statement.

PDF Version: Going Through the Motions to Trigger the Sovereignty Act: Another Paper Tiger?

This post assesses the second motion tabled pursuant to the Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act SA 2022, c A 33.8 (Sovereignty Act or the Act). The first motion was with respect to the draft federal Clean Electricity Regulation (the CER Motion), adopted on February 28, 2024. The second motion relates to the proposed federal Oil and Gas Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cap Regulations (the Emissions Cap Motion), debated and adopted December 2, 2024. Our focus is on the Emissions Cap Motion simply because it is the most current (but we also note that, ten months later, there do not appear to be any relevant developments in relation to the CER Motion – at least none that are publicly available and certainly none that take the form of implementing regulations under the Sovereignty Act).