Category: Natural Resources Page 22 of 23

When gas is sold on the basis of its thermal or heating value it is necessary to provide a formula for converting delivered volumes (Mcf) into British thermal units or equivalent. And it makes a difference whether the formula uses an assumption of wet gas or dry gas. Wet gas will have a lower heating content than dry. But what happens if the formula prescribes the use of wet gas but in fact actual deliveries under the contract have always been dry gas? This was the issue before Justice T.F. McMahon in the present case.

Environmental Permitting and the Scope of the Duty to Consult

By Nigel Bankes

On December 12, 2007

In Aboriginal, Environmental, Natural Resources

Cases Considered: Siksika First Nation v. Alberta (Director Southern Region Environment) 2007 ABCA 402

PDF Version: Environmental Permitting and the Scope of the Duty to Consult

The Town of Strathmore faced a sewage problem. It proposed to deal with that problem by constructing a pipeline and disposing of some of its waste water into the Bow above the Siksika Reserve. Not surprisingly the Siksika took a dim view of this and when the Director approved the town’s application under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. E-12, the Siksika appealed that decision to Alberta’s Environmental Appeal Board (the EAB). The Siksika also sought judicial review arguing amongst other things that the government of Alberta was in breach of its constitutional duty to consult the Nation. Justice Peter McInytre (oral reasons for judgement, available on the EAB’s website ) rejected the Siksika’s JR application on the grounds that the Siksika’s application was premature and therefore moot (because they might succeed before the EAB). In addition Justice McIntyre reasoned that the EAB procedure (and subsequent consideration of the EAB decision by the Minister) might cure any defect (want of consultation) there might have been in the Director’s procedure. There is no suggestion that Justice McIntyre rejected the application on the basis that the Siksika had not exhausted their local remedies.

Standing Against Public Participation at the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board

By Shaun Fluker

On December 12, 2007

In Administrative Law, Natural Resources

Cases Considered: Sawyer v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), 2007 ABCA 297

PDF Version: Standing Against Public Participation at the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board

In September 2007, the Alberta Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal an AEUB (now the Energy Resources Conservation Board) decision that affirmed its longstanding position that participatory rights to contest the merits of an energy project by, for example, presenting evidence and/or cross-examining the project proponent, are not available to recreational users of public lands or urban environmentalists.

Substance Over Form: The Court of Appeal’s Protection of Intervener Rights at the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board

By Alice Woolley

On December 12, 2007

In Administrative Law, Natural Resources

Cases Considered: Lavesta Area Group v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), 2007 ABCA 365

PDF Version: Substance Over Form: The Court of Appeal’s Protection of Intervener Rights at the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board

In Lavesta Area Group v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board) 2007 ABCA 365, Madam Justice Carole Conrad granted two appeals of Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (“Board”) decisions. She did so on the basis of “reasonable apprehension of bias” and, in particular, on the basis of the Board’s own concession that such an apprehension had arisen.

What Zones Were the Subject of a Unitization Agreement?

By Nigel Bankes

On November 11, 2007

In Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

Case Considered: Signalta Resources Limited v. Dominion Exploration Canada Limited, 2007 ABQB 636

Keywords: oil and gas law, expert witnesses, unit agreements, limitations, damages

PDF Version: What Zones Were the Subject of a Unitization Agreement?

The question of what substances are the subject of a unitization has been before the courts on at least one other occasion in Prism Petroleum Ltd v Omega Hydrocarbons Ltd, [1994] 6 WWR 585 (Alta. C.A.). The issue in that case involved a split petroleum and natural gas title. Signalta v. Dominion does not involve a split title in that sense. Rather the issue was whether the title that had been committed to a unitization agreement was confined to the Viking or whether it also included the Glauconite. Put in these terms the issue seems relatively simple but the paper trail was very complex. Combine a complex set of facts with competing expert opinions from well known legal (Ballem and Thackray) and land (O’Byrne) experts and the result is a very lengthy 74 page judgement from Justice A.G. Park in which he concluded that the Glauconite for the relevant tract was never included in the original unitization.

Category: Natural Resources Page 22 of 23

Calculating the Price of Gas: Wet or Dry?

Environmental Permitting and the Scope of the Duty to Consult

Standing Against Public Participation at the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board

Substance Over Form: The Court of Appeal’s Protection of Intervener Rights at the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board

What Zones Were the Subject of a Unitization Agreement?