Category: Natural Resources Page 4 of 21

Matter Commented On: Bill C-61, An Act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on First Nation lands, First Session, Forty-fourth Parliament, 70-71 Elizabeth II – 1-2-3 Charles III, 2021-2022-2023-2024

PDF Version: Who’s Afraid of the Proposed First Nations Clean Water Act?

On June 30, Alberta’s Minister of Environment and Protected Areas and Ontario’s Minister of Environment Conservation and Parks penned a remarkable letter to their federal counterpart, Ms. Julie Dabrusin, Minister of Environment and Climate Change (for Alberta’s Press Release see here). The joint letter asserted that “Canada is poised to be an economic superpower, but achieving that potential depends on strong, constitutionally grounded provincial authority over resource development and environmental management.” With that as the premise, the two Ministers went on to indicate that they had a number of “urgent requests” that they would like to discuss “immediately” with their federal counterpart, namely:

Repealing the Impact Assessment Act and the Physical Activities Regulations.
Repealing the Clean Electricity Regulations.
Repealing the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and associated regulations.
Amending the Species at Risk Act to respect the constitutional jurisdiction of the
Suspending the proposed Oil and Gas Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cap Regulation.
Undertaking to refrain from reintroducing Bill C-61: An Act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater, and related infrastructure on First Nation lands.

Recent Developments on Protection of Critical Habitat under the Species at Risk Act and Implications for Coal in Alberta

By Shaun Fluker

On July 7, 2025

In Environmental, Natural Resources

By: Shaun Fluker and Drew Yewchuk

Decisions Commented on: Federation of Nova Scotia Naturalists v. Canada (Environment and Climate Change), 2025 FC 983; Kebaowek First Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 472

PDF Version: Recent Developments on Protection of Critical Habitat under the Species at Risk Act and Implications for Coal in Alberta

This post briefly summarizes two recent federal court decisions relating to critical habitat under the Species at Risk Act, SC 2002, c 29 (SARA). These decisions add to a long list of federal court decisions adjudicating the interpretation of SARA provisions, resulting from litigation initiated by environmental non-government organizations (ENGOs) seeking judicial orders that force federal Ministers to interpret SARA in accordance with its purpose, implement SARA without undue delay, or frankly take any measures whatsoever under SARA to protect listed species at risk and their critical habitat (ABlawg has commented on many of these decisions, see for example two 2024 posts written by Drew Yewchuk here and here). Federal officials have impaired the effectiveness of SARA with peculiar interpretations that obstruct the application of legislation’s protection measures for species at risk. While the two decisions commented on here relate to species at risk in Ontario and Nova Scotia, both decisions will impact the application of SARA in Alberta and likely have implications for coal exploration and development along the Eastern Slopes of the Rocky Mountains and UCP government’s policy push to open up the Eastern Slopes to coal under the coal industry modernization initiative.

Taking Stock of the Grassy Mountain Project: Part 3, June 2025

By Nigel Bankes

On June 27, 2025

In Energy, Environmental, Natural Resources

By: Nigel Bankes

Cases and Decisions Commented On: (1) Northback Holdings Corporation v Alberta Energy Regulator, 2025 ABCA 186 (CanLII), (2) Northback Holdings Corporation v. Canada (Environment and Climate Change), 2025 FCA 31 (CanLII), and (3) AER Decision, Northback Holdings Corporation Applications for Coal Exploration Program (CEP) A10123772, Deep Drilling Permit (DDP) 1948547, and Temporary Diversion Licence (TDL) 00497386 May 15, 2025, 2025 ABAER 006

PDF Version: Taking Stock of the Grassy Mountain Project: Part 3, June 2025

In addition to ABlawg’s coal law and policy series (for the most recent post in that series see here) and our Coal Law and Policy ebook, we have provided occasional posts updating readers on the status of the Grassy Mountain project and litigation related to the project. As the title of the post suggests, this is the third such update following earlier updates in February 2024 and August 2024.

Beyond the Pale: The February 2025 Updates to the Mine Financial Security Program

By Drew Yewchuk

On March 19, 2025

In Administrative Law, Natural Resources

By: Drew Yewchuk and Martin Olszynski

Documents Commented on: Mine Financial Security Program Standard [December 2025], AER Manual 024: Guide to the Mine Financial Security Program [February 25, 2025].

PDF Version: Beyond the Pale: The February 2025 Updates to the Mine Financial Security Program

AER Bulletin 2025-06 was posted on February 25, 2025, announcing an updated Manual 024: Guide to the Mine Financial Security Program (MFSP). The new Manual 024 was preceded by two rounds of updates to the MFSP Standard in October 2024 and December 2024. The MFSP Standard sets out the rules for the MFSP and is incorporated by reference into the Conservation and Reclamation Regulation, Alta Reg 115/1993 (s 16.1). The Manual is intended to assist mine owners in their understanding of its various requirements. The changes to the MFSP made by the updates to the Standard and the Manual are not entirely trivial, but they repair only the more blatant and marginal deficiencies with the MFSP; the overall financial unsoundness of the MFSP – and its counterproductive asset to liability approach in particular – has been left intact. The Guide also remains replete with out-dated references that betray a troubling lack of professionalism and due regard for the public and relevant stakeholders, including downstream Indigenous peoples.

Who Owns Brine-Hosted Minerals in Alberta?

By Nigel Bankes

On February 14, 2025

In Energy, Natural Resources

By: Nigel Bankes

Matter Commented On: Application by Enhance Energy for a Scheme Approval for its Origins Carbon Capture and Storage Project, December 2024, AER Application No. 1956215

PDF Version: Who Owns Brine-Hosted Minerals in Alberta?

In December 2024 Enhance Energy Inc filed an application with the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) for a scheme approval (see Directive 065 and Oil and Gas Conservation Act, RSA 2000, c O-6 (OGCA) for its Origins Carbon Capture and Storage Project. The open file is currently available through the AER’s Integrated Application Registry (IAR) using application # 1956215. This link is currently functional. A large number of Statements of Concern (SOC) have been filed with the AER in response to this application. Many of these SOC filers are owners of mineral titles of one form or another who claim that the injection of carbon dioxide into the Leduc formation will be prejudicial to their mineral interests because of the potential to impair recovery of brine-hosted minerals, specifically lithium, in the reservoir. The underlying premise for SOCs that are framed in this way (i.e. specific to brine-hosted minerals rather than, for example, alleging prejudice to the recovery of hydrocarbons) must be that the SOC filer’s mineral title includes brine-hosted minerals. In this post I question that premise or assumption. I begin with a brief discussion of the nature of brine-hosted minerals and then discuss the relevant case law and statute law. My working conclusion is that since brine-hosted minerals are dissolved in water, and since the Crown in right of Alberta or the government of Alberta owns all the water in the province (at least outside federal lands), then brine-hosted minerals are part of that water title and not part of a mines and minerals title. It would follow from this that SOCs that are based solely on an interference with a brine-hosted mineral title have no merit.