Category: Natural Resources Page 15 of 17

Cases Considered: Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited v. Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development et al, 2008 FC 598, Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 FC 302,

PDF Version: Back on track to socio-ecological ruin: Kearl oil sands project re-authorized

My initial post on the Kearl project (see Just a Bump on the Road to Socio-Ecological Ruin) was accurate after all. Madame Justice Tremblay-Lamer’s decision in Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 FC 302, that held the Kearl joint panel breached section 34 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, S.C. 1992, c. 37, was simply a brief foray into environmental bliss. On June 6, 2008, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans re-issued the requisite authorization under the Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14, to Imperial Oil, reportedly on identical terms and conditions as set out in the original authorization (see my previous post Federal Court upholds nullification of Kearl oil sands authorization for more discussion on the nullification of the initial authorization).

Royalty Changes in Alberta: Why are we waiting? (to the tune of “O Come All ye Faithful”)

By Nigel Bankes

On May 27, 2008

In Natural Resources

PDF Version: Royalty Changes in Alberta: Why are we waiting? (to the tune of “O Come All ye Faithful”)

One of the most damning indictments contained in the Report of the Royalty Review Panel in the fall of last year was the revelation that the current royalty regime for conventional oil and gas loses any sensitivity to increased prices at extraordinarily low levels. The Government itself acknowledged this deficiency in its own proposal for a new Royalty Framework where it states that sensitivity is lost for oil at about $30 per barrel and for natural gas at about $3.70/GJ.

Federal Court upholds nullification of Kearl oil sands authorization

By Shaun Fluker

On May 21, 2008

In Environmental, Natural Resources

Cases Considered: Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited v. Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development et al, 2008 FC 598

PDF Version: Federal Court upholds nullification of Kearl oil sands authorization

The Federal Court’s decision in Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 FC 302, is proving to have more significance than I anticipated in my initial blog (see Just a Bump on the Road to Socio-Ecological Ruin). In that judgment, Madame Justice Tremblay-Lamer held the Kearl joint panel erred in law by failing to comply with one of the duties imposed upon it by section 34 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, S.C. 1992, c. 37. Shortly thereafter, the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans informed Imperial Oil that, as a consequence of the joint panel’s error in law, the Kearl project authorization issued by the Minister pursuant to the Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14, was a nullity. In correspondence addressed to Imperial Oil, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans stated in part:

Please be advised that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is of the view that, as a result of the Honourable Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer’s decision, the Authorization for Works or Undertakings Affecting Fish Habitat and the Authorization to Destroy Fish by any means other than Fishing (ED-03-2806) which was issued by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans pursuant to subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act to Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited on February 12, 2008, is a nullity.

A Lost Opportunity for Clarifying Public Participation Issues in Oil and Gas Decision Making

By Nickie Nikolaou

On May 10, 2008

In Natural Resources

Cases Considered: Graff v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), 2008 ABCA 119

PDF Version: A Lost Opportunity for Clarifying Public Participation Issues in Oil and Gas Decision Making

Those of us following the year-long journey of the Graff family (the “Graffs”) through the Court of Appeal were stunned when the final decision was handed down on March 26, 2008. While the grounds upon which leave to appeal had been granted held out promises of clarification on certain key public participation issues in oil and gas development, none of these grounds were ultimately dealt with by the Court. Instead, both appeals (heard together) were dismissed on the basic procedural point that parties requesting standing before the Energy and Utilities Board (the “EUB”, now the ERCB) must provide at least some relevant evidence to support their claim of being “directly and adversely” affected.

The Independent Operation Of The Shut-in Clause Of An Oil And Gas Lease

By Nigel Bankes

On May 10, 2008

In Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

Cases Considered: Kensington Energy Ltd v. B & G Energy Ltd 2008 ABCA 151

PDF Version: The Independent Operation Of The Shut-in Clause Of An Oil And Gas Lease

In this important decision (hereafter “Kensington”) the majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal (Hunt and Slatter JJA; Romaine JA dissenting) concluded that the third proviso to the habendum of an oil and gas lease does not establish a set of conditions precedent that the lessee must fulfill before it can rely upon the shut-in wells clause and shut-in well payment to deem production, thereby continuing the lease – at least, and this is an important caveat – where the language of the shut-in wells clause does not track that of the third proviso. In reaching this conclusion the Court effectively distinguished its earlier decision in Freyberg v. Fletcher Challenge Oil and Gas Inc, 2005 ABCA 46 (“Lady Freyberg”).