Category: Natural Resources Page 2 of 17

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

On February 22, 2023

In Energy, Natural Resources, Provincial Court, Uncategorized

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.

The AER Quietly Implemented a Two-Tier Mandatory Closure Spend Target

By Drew Yewchuk

On November 8, 2022

In Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

By: Drew Yewchuk

Regulatory Change Commented On: The AER’s Inventory Reduction Program

PDF Version: The AER Quietly Implemented a Two-Tier Mandatory Closure Spend Target

Starting in mid-2021, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) adopted a new liability management framework to address the problems of inactive conventional oil and gas assets. The new liability management framework includes mandatory closure spend targets, a requirement for companies to spend a certain amount on closure work each year. The mandatory closure spend targets deal with the liabilities of inactive assets and not orphan assets (it is not to be confused with the orphan fund levy, used to fund the Orphan Well Association that abandons and remediates wells with owners that went bankrupt).

The Milk and St. Mary Apportionment: A Next Step?

By Nigel Bankes

On August 24, 2022

In Natural Resources, Water Law

By: Nigel Bankes

Matter commented on: International St Mary-Milk Rivers Study Board, Work Plan for the International St Mary-Milk Rivers Study, June 2022, released July 28, 2022

PDF Version: The Milk and St. Mary Apportionment: A Next Step?

This post examines the most recent development in efforts to improve the ability of both Canada and the United States to access its water entitlement to each of the Milk and St. Mary Rivers under the terms of an apportionment order made by the International Joint Commission (IJC) under the Boundary Waters Treaty more than a century ago.

The Rhetoric of Property and Immunity in the Majority Opinion in the Impact Assessment Reference

By Nigel Bankes

On June 8, 2022

In Constitutional, Energy, Natural Resources, Property

By: Nigel Bankes & Andrew Leach

Opinion Commented On: Reference re Impact Assessment Act, 2022 ABCA 165 (CanLII).

PDF Version: The Rhetoric of Property and Immunity in the Majority Opinion in the Impact Assessment Reference

The Alberta Court of Appeal recently released its opinion in Reference re Impact Assessment Act, 2022 ABCA 165 (CanLII). A majority of the Court found the Impact Assessment Act, SC 2019, c. 28, s 1 [IAA] to be unconstitutional. Our colleague Martin Olszynski has already summarized the majority’s approach and some of the doctrinal difficulties therein.

In this post, we consider in more detail the majority’s lengthy discussion of the historical evolution of the resource rights of the prairie provinces from the creation of Alberta and Saskatchewan as provinces in 1905, through to the Natural Resources Transfer Agreements (NRTAs) of 1930, culminating with the adoption of s 92A (the Resources Amendment) in 1982.

Responding to Concerns that Alberta Does Not Collect Enough Security for Environmental Remediation the AER Chooses to Collect Less Security

By Drew Yewchuk

On May 26, 2021

In Energy, Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: Responding to Concerns that Alberta Does Not Collect Enough Security for Environmental Remediation the AER Chooses to Collect Less Security

Document Commented On: Mine Financial Security Program Standard, dated May 6, 2021

On May 6, 2021, the Alberta Government announced they would review and modify the Mine Financial Security Program (MFSP). The MFSP is Alberta’s system for ensuring (purportedly at least) that companies pay for the reclamation of their mines, both oilsands and coal. At first glance, a review and modification sounds like a good idea, since the MFSP has been criticized as severely deficient since at least 2015 when an Auditor General report identified numerous significant problems concluding that in the event that “a mine operator cannot fulfill its reclamation obligations… the province may have to pay a potentially substantial cost for this work to be completed” (at 2). Since then, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) has improved its administration of the program, but Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP), the primary department responsible for the policy and design of the MFSP, has not addressed the overall structure of the program (see the Auditor General’s 2019 report). Under the MFSP, the province held $1.57 billion in security against estimated reclamation liabilities of $20.8 billion in December 2014 and $1.46 billion in security against $28.35 billion in estimated reclamation liabilities in June 2018. So reform is long overdue, especially if Alberta is considering approving new coal mines.