Category: Energy Page 5 of 57

First Five Building Canada Act Projects of National Interest (PONIs): Hot to Trot, or All for Naught?

On September 25, 2025

In Energy, Environmental, Indigenous, Natural Resources

Matter Commented On: Building Canada Act, SC 2025, c 2, s 4

PDF Version: First Five Building Canada Act Projects of National Interest (PONIs): Hot to Trot, or All for Naught?

After months of speculation (see e.g. here), the first list of projects of national interest (PONIs) under the new Building Canada Act (BCA), SC 2025, c 2, s 4 was recently released by the federal government. So, now what? This post explores where these projects sit in the new BCA process and the legal paths ahead. Discussion is framed around several key legal questions that bring to the surface some of the complexities that will arise during implementation of the new regime. This builds on the previous ABlawg post that discussed and commented upon the basic structure of the BCA.

The Orphan Well Association Annual Report 2024/2025: The Sequoia Settlement Hits the Orphan Inventory

By Drew Yewchuk

On August 18, 2025

In Energy, Environmental, Oil & Gas

By: Drew Yewchuk

Matter Commented On: Orphan Well Association Annual Report 2024/2025

PDF Version: The Orphan Well Association Annual Report 2024/2025: The Sequoia Settlement Hits the Orphan Inventory

On July 15, 2025 the Orphan Well Association (OWA) released their Annual Report for 2024/2025. OWA annual reports provide insight into Alberta’s orphan oil and gas site problem and the pace at which the problem is being addressed (see the ABlawgs on past OWA annual reports: 2022/2023 and 2023/2024). The OWA annual report is separate from the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER)’s annual liability management performance reports, which ABlawg covered for 2022 and 2023. This blog summarizes the current state and foreseeable future of Alberta’s current orphan oil and gas site problem.

Taking Stock of the Grassy Mountain Project: Part 3, June 2025

By Nigel Bankes

On June 27, 2025

In Energy, Environmental, Natural Resources

By: Nigel Bankes

Cases and Decisions Commented On: (1) Northback Holdings Corporation v Alberta Energy Regulator, 2025 ABCA 186 (CanLII), (2) Northback Holdings Corporation v. Canada (Environment and Climate Change), 2025 FCA 31 (CanLII), and (3) AER Decision, Northback Holdings Corporation Applications for Coal Exploration Program (CEP) A10123772, Deep Drilling Permit (DDP) 1948547, and Temporary Diversion Licence (TDL) 00497386 May 15, 2025, 2025 ABAER 006

PDF Version: Taking Stock of the Grassy Mountain Project: Part 3, June 2025

In addition to ABlawg’s coal law and policy series (for the most recent post in that series see here) and our Coal Law and Policy ebook, we have provided occasional posts updating readers on the status of the Grassy Mountain project and litigation related to the project. As the title of the post suggests, this is the third such update following earlier updates in February 2024 and August 2024.

A Radical Departure: Remarks on Part II of Bill C-5 (the Building Canada Act)

By Martin Olszynski

On June 19, 2025

In Administrative Law, Energy, Environmental, Indigenous, Law Reform

By: Martin Olszynski

Matter Commented On: Part II of Bill C-5 (the Building Canada Act)

PDF Version: A Radical Departure: Remarks on Part II of Bill C-5 (the Building Canada Act)

On Tuesday, June 17^th, 2025, I had the opportunity to appear before the Senate in the context of its study of Bill C-5, Part II of which contains the Building Canada Act. Professor David Wright and I provided an initial analysis of this part of Bill C-5 shortly after it was tabled. As is my regular practice, this post includes my prepared remarks, which expand on some of that earlier analysis. I have also included hyperlinks where useful. In our initial post, Professor Wright asked whether Bill C-5 will allow Canada to ‘move fast and make things’ or ‘move fast and break things’? While it is still too early to answer that question from a project review perspective (the prospects, however, appear increasingly dim), it is now clear that as drafted Bill C-5 breaks fundamental democratic norms, at the least, and that our democracy and the rule of law will be diminished for it.

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

By Nigel Bankes

On April 7, 2025

In Administrative Law, Energy

By: Nigel Bankes

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.