Category: Natural Resources Page 8 of 21

Prime Minister Trudeau You’ve Got the Power (the Criminal Law Power): Syncrude Canada Ltd v Canada and Greenhouse Gas Regulation

On June 21, 2016

In Climate Change, Constitutional, Environmental, Natural Resources

By: Sharon Mascher

PDF Version: Prime Minister Trudeau You’ve Got the Power (the Criminal Law Power): Syncrude Canada Ltd v Canada and Greenhouse Gas Regulation

Case Commented on: Syncrude Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FCA 160 (CanLII)

On May 30^th Justice Rennie delivered the Federal Court of Appeal’s unanimous judgment in Syncrude Canada Ltd v Canada (Attorney General). At issue in this case was the validity of s 5(2) of the federal Renewable Fuels Regulations, SOR/2010-189 (RFRs) which requires that all diesel fuel produced, imported, or sold in Canada contains at least 2% renewable fuel. While the FCA held that the RFRs are valid, from a climate change perspective this conclusion is not the reason this decision is important. As my colleague Nigel Bankes has noted here, the RFRs represent only “a tiny, tiny step” towards reducing Canada’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Rather, coming as it does on the heels of Canada signing the Paris Agreement and in the midst of talks aimed at developing a pan-Canadian climate change framework, the Syncrude decision is important because the FCA confirms that the federal government can use the criminal law power to regulate GHG emissions. More specifically, given that the RFRs at issue in this case create a flexible scheme that allows for the buying and selling of compliance units to achieve the 2% renewable fuel requirement, the Syncrude decision endorses the use of the criminal law power to support market-based emissions trading schemes or other pricing mechanisms. In short, provided federal regulations are directed at the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, this FCA decision tells the federal government that it has the constitutional power to take action on climate change.

The AER Provides Useful Guidance in a New Pool Delineation Decision

By Nigel Bankes

On June 10, 2016

In Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: The AER Provides Useful Guidance in a New Pool Delineation Decision

Decision commented on: Proceeding 336 Application 1820596 Pool Delineation, Crossfield Basal Quartz C & V Pools, June 2, 2016, 2016 ABER 007

Alberta’s Oil and Gas Conservation Act, RSA 2000, c O-6 (OGCA) defines a pool as “(i) a natural underground reservoir containing or appearing to contain an accumulation of oil or gas, or both, separated or appearing to be separated from any other such accumulation”. Wells are identified as producing from particular pools and many provisions of the OGCA and the Oil and Gas Conservation Rules, Alta Reg 151/1971 (OGCR) turn on the question of whether or not a particular well is producing from a particular pool. For example, s 15(3) of the OGCA provides that “No person shall apply for a licence for a well for the purpose of obtaining production from the same pool as that from which another well is obtaining or capable of obtaining production in the same drilling spacing unit …”.

In this particular case, the applicant, Bearspaw Petroleum Ltd wanted its well classified as producing from the Crossfield Basal Quartz C Pool (BQ C Pool) rather than the single well BQ V pool in order to be able to gain access to the gas processing plant operated by the C Pool working interest owners – if necessary by means of a common processor order under s 53 of the OGCA. Since it is usually necessary to establish drainage as a pre-condition to obtaining a common processor order (i.e. that H’s well or wells are draining production from underneath B’s leased lands) (see Directive 065, Resources Applications for Oil and Gas Reservoirs, Unit 1, Equity) B first had to establish that its well was in the same pool as H’s wells.

BC Court Confirms That a Municipality Has No Authority With Respect to the Routing of an Interprovincial Pipeline

By Nigel Bankes

On December 17, 2015

In Constitutional, Energy, Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: BC Court Confirms That a Municipality Has No Authority With Respect to the Routing of an Interprovincial Pipeline

Case Commented On: Burnaby (City) v Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, 2015 BCSC 2140

The Trans Mountain Expansion Project is still before the National Energy Board (NEB) (see the comment by Kirk Lambrecht QC here) and all the while spawning lots of litigation, some in the Federal Court of Appeal and some in the provincial superior courts. I have commented on most of that litigation in “Pipelines, the National Energy Board and the Federal Court” (2015), 3 Energy Regulation Quarterly 59 – 73.

In this most recent case the City of Burnaby was trying to get the support of the Supreme Court of British Columbia for an issue that it had already lost before the NEB and which, to put it in neutral terms, had failed to attract the interest of the Federal Court of Appeal. To review the facts briefly, TM as part of its expansion proposals, was considering alternative routing for its pipeline through Burnaby Mountain. In order to assess that route it required access to the relevant lands to carry out geotechnical and other studies. The City of Burnaby actively opposed the expansion project and served notices on TM’s contractors alleging violation of various Burnaby by-laws. That led TM to seek a ruling from the NEB confirming that the Board had the jurisdiction to authorize TM’s activities, and, to the extent that Burnaby’s by-laws were making it impossible for TM to carry out the necessary tests, a ruling that the by-laws were constitutionally inapplicable, or if not inapplicable, were in conflict with the provisions of the National Energy Board Act and therefore inoperative on the basis of the paramountcy doctrine. The Board provided that ruling in its well-reasoned Ruling No. 40. The Federal Court of Appeal denied leave without giving reasons, a practice that I have criticized in earlier posts here and here.

The Governor in Council Occasions Change and Delay in the National Energy Board’s Review of the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project: The Curious Case of PC 2015-1137

By Kirk Lambrecht, Q.C.

On September 15, 2015

In Administrative Law, Energy, Natural Resources

By: Kirk Lambrecht, Q.C.

PDF Version: The Governor in Council Occasions Change and Delay in the National Energy Board’s Review of the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project: The Curious Case of PC 2015-1137

Matter Commented On: Order in Council PC 2015-1137

In plain language, it seems that the Governor in Council shot the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project in the foot just as the Project was about the cross the finish line of a two year environmental assessment and regulatory review process overseen by the quasi-judicial National Energy Board [NEB]. A Governor in Council decision to appoint a Proponent’s witness to the NEB, taken while a Panel of the NEB was still considering the Proponent’s application, has occasioned the striking of a part of the Proponent’s evidence in the ongoing environmental assessment process (described here) and regulatory review process (described here) for the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project (described here). The Governor in Council’s action will cause unexpected changes and delays to these processes; and the clouds of future litigation which lay on the horizon for this Project now darken as a further consequence. This comment is structured around four questions: (1) what happened? (2) how could this happen? (3) will this affect Aboriginal consultation? and (4) what happens next?

The Declaration Concerning the Prevention of Unregulated High Seas Fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean

By Seamus Ryder

On July 31, 2015

In International Law, Law of the Sea, Natural Resources

By: Seamus Ryder

PDF Version: The Declaration Concerning the Prevention of Unregulated High Seas Fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean

Matter Commented On: The Declaration concerning the Prevention of Unregulated High Seas Fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean

On 16 July, 2015, Ambassadorial-level representatives from all five Arctic Ocean coastal states – Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the United States (the Arctic Five) – met in Oslo to sign the Declaration concerning the Prevention of Unregulated High Seas Fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean (the Declaration). The Declaration follows up on the substantive outcome of the February 2014 Nuuk Meeting on Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries and builds upon discussions toward the development and implementation of interim measures to prevent unregulated fishing in the high seas portion of the central Arctic Ocean and related scientific matters. In this sense, the Declaration can be seen as the latest development in a so-called “Arctic Ocean coastal state process” on the regulation and management of Arctic Ocean fisheries. This blog post looks at the substantive output of this latest development and makes some initial observations regarding the contribution of the Declaration to the legal and policy framework for Arctic fisheries (background information and discussions on both the Nuuk meeting and the Arctic Ocean coastal state process on Arctic Ocean fisheries can be found in an earlier blog post). If nothing else, this post aims to clarify a number of apparent misconceptions and inaccuracies in media reports on the Declaration.