Category: Oil & Gas Page 1 of 54

Case Commented On: APL Oil & Gas (1998) Ltd v Alberta, 2025 ABKB 201 (CanLII)

PDF Version: An Important Alberta Crown Lease Continuation Decision

In the natural resources sector, as in so many other industrial sectors that require major capital investments in physical assets, security of tenure for those engaging in exploration activities (resource lessees) is foundational. And a crucial part of security of tenure for a resource lessee is the expectation that, if they make a discovery, they will be able to hold on to that discovery at least until they have recovered all their investment including a return on risk capital, or better yet, until the discovery has been fully exploited and is no longer profitable to produce. On the other hand, the resource owner (whether private or public (Crown)) wants to ensure diligent exploration and development by the resource operator/lessee, failing which the property should be returned to the owner so as to allow the owner to explore other potential lessees.

Can An Oil and Gas Operator Carry On Bitcoin Operations Under The Terms of a Surface Lease?

By Nigel Bankes

On March 20, 2025

In Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes

Decisions Commented On: Persist Oil and Gas Inc v Flowers, 2023 ABLPRT 236 (CanLII) (the ROE Decision), Flowers v Persist Oil and Gas Inc., 2024 ABLPRT 271 (CanLII) (the Compensation Decision), and Flowers v Persist Oil and Gas Inc., 2025 ABKB 142 (CanLII) (the KB Decision)

PDF Version: Can An Oil and Gas Operator Carry On Bitcoin Operations Under The Terms of a Surface Lease?

Bitcoin operators have an incentive to co-locate with natural gas production sites that offer the opportunity to self-generate electricity to power the bitcoin operations without needing to pay interconnection charges. Just bring some portable generators onto the site, add the necessary computing capacity and let it rip! While other approvals will usually be required, some bitcoin operators have played fast and loose until brought into line through the enforcement actions of the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC). I wrote about one example of this a few years ago in “Off-Grid Energy for Bitcoin Mines in Alberta: A Problematic Legal Regime” (2021).

AER Decides to Prosecute Imperial Oil for the 2023 Kearl Oilsands Berm Overflow

By Drew Yewchuk

On January 22, 2025

In Administrative Law, Oil & Gas

By: Drew Yewchuk

Decisions Commented On: AER News Release 2025-01-17

PDF Version: AER Decides to Prosecute Imperial Oil for the 2023 Kearl Oilsands Berm Overflow

On January 17, 2025, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) announced they were laying nine charges against Imperial Oil Resources Limited (Imperial Oil) related to a berm overflow that occurred in February 2023. Unlike the previous AER regulatory penalties for Imperial Oil in August 2024, this means Imperial Oil faces a prosecution before the Alberta Court of Justice, bringing a different procedure and set of potential penalties than AER enforcement using the administrative penalty mechanism.

Going Through the Motions to Trigger the Sovereignty Act: Another Paper Tiger?

By Nigel Bankes

On December 16, 2024

In Energy, Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes and Martin Olszynski

Matters Commented On: (1) Motion re the draft federal Clean Electricity Regulation, oral notice given, November 27, 2023, adopted by recorded vote on February 28, 2024, (2) Motion re proposed federal Oil and Gas Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cap Regulations, debated and adopted December 2, 2024 and (3) Proposed Oil and Gas Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cap Regulations, 158 (45) Canada Gazette, Part 1, November 9, 2024 and accompanying regulatory impact analysis statement.

PDF Version: Going Through the Motions to Trigger the Sovereignty Act: Another Paper Tiger?

This post assesses the second motion tabled pursuant to the Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act SA 2022, c A 33.8 (Sovereignty Act or the Act). The first motion was with respect to the draft federal Clean Electricity Regulation (the CER Motion), adopted on February 28, 2024. The second motion relates to the proposed federal Oil and Gas Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cap Regulations (the Emissions Cap Motion), debated and adopted December 2, 2024. Our focus is on the Emissions Cap Motion simply because it is the most current (but we also note that, ten months later, there do not appear to be any relevant developments in relation to the CER Motion – at least none that are publicly available and certainly none that take the form of implementing regulations under the Sovereignty Act).

The Draft Alberta Quantification Protocol for CO2 Capture and Permanent Geologic Sequestration, Version 2

By Nigel Bankes

On November 18, 2024

In Energy, Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes

Document Commented On: Draft Quantification Protocol for CO₂ Capture and Permanent Geologic Sequestration v2.0, November 1, 2024

PDF Version: The Draft Alberta Quantification Protocol for CO₂ Capture and Permanent Geologic Sequestration, Version 2

Nearly ten years ago I posted an ABlawg comment on a draft of the first version of this Offset Quantification Protocol. The Quantification Protocol (QP) was developed at that time so as to be ready for when Shell’s Quest Project came on stream. A QP is designed to establish the circumstances under which a project, in this case a carbon capture and storage (CCS) project, might generate offset credits under Alberta’s CO₂emissions legislation and regulations, which could then be used to meet the compliance obligations of a regulated emitter. At that time, the relevant regulation was the Specified Gas Emitter Regulation, Alta Reg 139/2007 (SGER); the current regulation is the Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction Regulation, Alta Reg 133/2019 (TIER Regulation). My earlier post identified a number of issues that remain pertinent today, including the transparency of the process, issues of liability in the event of a reversal, and a question as to the apportionment of regulatory responsibilities between the mechanisms of the QP and the responsibility of the energy regulator (then the Energy Resources Conservation Board, now the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER)) for scheme approvals for injection activities. This latter point continues to present some difficulties in the current draft of Version 2.0, particularly with respect to monitoring for containment assurance, which is explicitly dealt with in s 5.1.6 and Appendix C of the Draft QP (but also relevant to the sections of the QP dealing with reversals). I explore these issues in more detail below.