Natural Resources – Page 17

Last March I posted a blog about a Court of Appeal decision which granted a group of landowners (Kelly et al.) leave to appeal a decision of Alberta’s Energy and Utilities Board (now the Energy Resources Conservation Board). See “What does the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms have to do with Oil and Gas Development in Alberta?”. The grounds for leave in the Kelly appeal indicated that the Court of Appeal might have to address novel and difficult questions in relation to the possible application of section 7 of the Charter in the context of oil and gas development in Alberta. A recent development in the case, however, leaves me wondering whether the merits of the appeal will ultimately be heard or not.

What Zones Were the Subject of a Unitization Agreement?

By Nigel Bankes

On December 27, 2008

In Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

Cases Considered: Signalta Resources Limited v. Dominion Exploration Canada Limited, 2007 ABQB 636; Signalta Resources Limited v. Dominion Exploration Canada Limited, 2008 ABCA 437

PDF Version: What zones were the subject of a unitization agreement?

I blogged the trial decision of Justice AG Park in this case and now the Court of Appeal has affirmed. Readers wanting a full statement of the facts should review that earlier blog.

There were, as the Court put it, “no grounds for appellate intervention” (at para. 2) and in particular the Court of Appeal agreed with Justice Park that the original inclusion of the Glauconite for the section 8 lands in the schedule to the unitization agreement was a mistake. It was a mistake for two reasons: (1) Dyco (Dominion’s predecessor in title) did not have rights to the Glauconite under its farmout with Husky and therefore could not contribute Glauconite rights, and (2) Husky (which did own the Glauconite rights) never contributed them and executed the relevant agreements as a royalty owner and not as a working interest owner.

Thoughts on Alberta and the Federal Election

By Jennifer Koshan

On October 16, 2008

In Constitutional, Criminal, Natural Resources

The National Post recently ran a feature choosing different election theme songs for the federal political parties (see http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=822081). Critics of Alberta’s dismal turnout on voting day (52.9% of eligible voters) might suggest that the election itself deserved its own theme song in this province – Pink Floyd’s “Comfortably Numb” comes to mind, or perhaps “I’m Only Sleeping” by the Beatles (I am dating myself here – other suggestions welcome). This complacence is troubling in light of the fact that many issues of potential concern to Albertans were discussed during the election, some of which we explored in constitutional law this term.

Obtaining Leave to Intervene in a Leave to Appeal Application

By Nickie Nikolaou

On October 15, 2008

In Civil Procedure, Constitutional, Natural Resources

Cases Considered: Provident Energy Ltd. v. Alberta (Utilities Commission), 2008 ABCA 316

PDF Version: Obtaining Leave to Intervene in a Leave to Appeal Application

This decision deals with a unique and interesting point of civil procedure. It answers the following question: what is the test for obtaining leave to intervene in a leave to appeal application before Alberta’s Court of Appeal?

When Does a Royalty Owner not have to Pay for a Share of Processing Costs?

By Nigel Bankes

On August 14, 2008

In Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

Case Considered: 570495 Alberta Ltd. v. Hamilton Brothers Exploration Company, 2008 ABQB 413

PDF Version: When does a royalty owner not have to pay for a share of processing costs?

When does a royalty owner not have to pay for a share of processing costs? The answer of course should be that the royalty owner does not have to pay unless it is required to do so by the terms of the agreement that created the royalty. And that in fact is exactly what Justice Alan Macleod concludes in this judgement. Just as there is no rule of law that precludes an oil and gas lease from being kept in force beyond the end of its primary term by the mere existence of a shut-in well in “accordance with oil field practice” (see Kensington Energy Ltd v. B & G Energy Ltd 2008 ABCA 151 and my post on this decision), so too there is no rule of law that requires a royalty owner to pay a share of post-severance processing costs. This judgement confirms that processing costs are issues of contract between the parties and that the job of the court is to give effect to the terms of the agreement that the parties have negotiated.

Category: Natural Resources Page 17 of 21

An Important Development in the Kelly Appeal

What Zones Were the Subject of a Unitization Agreement?

Thoughts on Alberta and the Federal Election

Obtaining Leave to Intervene in a Leave to Appeal Application

When Does a Royalty Owner not have to Pay for a Share of Processing Costs?