Category Archives: Energy

The Alberta Energy Regulator and the Disclosure Without Delay Rule in FOIP

Commented On: Alberta Energy Regulator Announcement – March 02, 2023: Alberta Energy Regulator Actively Investigating and Responding to Imperial Oil Kearl Site Incident; and Letter to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner Requesting an Investigation of AER Emergency Disclosure Policy

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: The Alberta Energy Regulator and the Disclosure Without Delay Rule in FOIP

The Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) has been aware that industrial effluent has been seeping from a tailings pit at Imperial’s Kearl oilsands mine since May 2022. (They should not be called tailings ‘ponds’ – they may be pits or lakes, but ‘pond’ implies they are small, which they absolutely are not). The AER chose to make this information public on February 4, 2023, when an estimated 5,300 cubic meters of “[s]torage pond overflowed off lease” and the AER began investigating Imperial for “[f]ailure to comply with conditions of an approval and release of industrial watewater [sic] from an unapproved location” (AER compliance dashboard, incident number 20230311 and investigation number 2023-009). Continue reading →

Worrying About Reclamation and Abandonment Obligations in the Context of Property Assignment Consents

By: Nigel Bankes and Drew Yewchuk

Case commented on: Canadian Natural Resources Limited v Harvest Operations Corp, 2023 ABKB 62 (CanLII)

PDF Version: Worrying About Reclamation and Abandonment Obligations in the Context of Property Assignment Consents

This decision is principally about when a court can or should grant partial summary judgment. For that reason alone, we anticipate that it will be appealed. But the underlying concern that led to this litigation was (and still is) the decision of Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL) to contest assignments pursuant to a purchase and sale agreement (PSA) between Harvest Operations as the vendor and Spoke Resources as the purchaser. CNRL and Harvest were parties to some 170 agreements affected by the PSA, including 133 land agreements, 30 facility agreements, and 7 service agreements. Continue reading →

Do We Need a Forum Within Which to Discuss Issues of Electricity Law and Policy in Alberta?

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Do We Need a Forum Within Which to Discuss Issues of Electricity Law and Policy in Alberta?

I am not a technical electricity expert and I do not have day-to-day access to technical experts, but I have been following some of the law and policy issues in the electricity sector in Alberta over the last decade or so. I am concerned that we don’t have a suitable forum within which to publicly discuss and develop electricity law and policy for an increasingly decentralized electricity system that continues to decarbonize and has access to a greater diversity of generation. On top of this is the emerging policy of the “electrification of everything”. There is massive complexity here, but the public deserves to be involved in a discussion of the relevant issues. Continue reading →

Total Claims that its ROFR Rights Were Violated in the Sale of Teck’s Interest in the Fort Hills Project

By: Nigel Bankes

Case commented on: TotalEnergies EP Canada Ltd v Suncor Energy Inc, 2023 ABKB 59 (CanLII).

PDF Version: Total Claims that its ROFR Rights Were Violated in the Sale of Teck’s Interest in the Fort Hills Project

Suncor, Total, and Teck all owned interests in the Fort Hills Oilsands Project (54%, 24.4%, and 21.5%, respectively). Teck agreed to sell its interest in the project to Suncor. The sale triggered a right of first refusal (ROFR) in the relevant agreement. The sale included some of Teck’s other assets (the other assets) but the sale was also subject to a condition precedent that required Teck to vote in favour of a proposed operating budget for the Project (the budget approval covenant). Suncor’s proposed operating budget had been hotly contested among the three partners for a number of years. Total and Teck had repeatedly voted against Suncor’s budget proposals, with the result that those budgets were not approved and operations had to revert to the last approved budget of 2021. Continue reading →

Just Transition Friction Needs Interest-Based Negotiation

By: David V. Wright

Matter Commented On: Proposed federal just transition legislation

PDF Version: Just Transition Friction Needs Interest-Based Negotiation

For three weeks every January, I teach the University of Calgary Faculty of Law intensive block course on negotiations. This is a mandatory course for all second-year law students, and it’s a key part of the Calgary Curriculum. Each year I look for contemporary topics and events to use as examples that bring to life the approaches and concepts that we cover in the course. Like any good negotiations course, a core part of the curriculum is focused on interest-based negotiations, the approach long advocated by dispute resolution and negotiation experts around the world. This feeds one of the course’s key learning points: begin negotiations with an interest-based approach and then shift to more competitive, distributive stances later in the process if necessary. An obvious example for this year is the current friction between the federal government and the Alberta government with respect to a proposed federal just transition initiative. This short post examines what is painfully obvious and disconcerting in the present context: both levels of government contributing to this current tension are flouting even the most basic best practises in negotiations. They are adopting positional bargaining instead of an interest-based, problem-solving approach. While Alberta has been particularly aggressive, showing signs that it is more interested in short-term political gains than constructive resolution, no one is doing it right. Continue reading →