Category Archives: Oil & Gas

No Implied Duties When Voting to Discharge an Operator

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: No Implied Duties When Voting to Discharge an Operator

Case Commented On: TAQA Bratani Ltd et al v RockRose UKCS8 LLC, [2020] EWHC 58 (Comm)

The operator serves a crucial role in the operation of any jointly owned oil and gas property and yet, depending on the terms of the joint operating agreement (JOA), it may be quite difficult to remove and replace an operator. In this decision of the Commercial Division of the High Court (England and Wales), Judge Pelling QC sitting as a judge of the High Court concluded that a group of dissentient joint operators (TAQA, JX and Spirit) (the claimants) were entitled to use a unanimous voting provision in the JOA to replace Marathon oil (MOUK) (acquired by RockRose (RRUK) effective 1 July 2019). Furthermore, there were no implied conditions that the claimants had to fulfill before they could exercise this power. Accordingly, Judge Pelling granted the claimants the declaration that they sought to the effect that the notices by which they purported to terminate the operatorships of various JOAs pertaining to the Brae Fields in the North Sea were valid and take effect in accordance with their terms. Continue reading →

Clearing the Air on Teck Frontier (Extended ABlawg Edition)

By: Andrew Leach and Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: Clearing the Air on Teck Frontier (Extended ABlawg Edition)

Decision Commented On: Teck Resources Limited, Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project, Fort McMurray Area, 2019 ABAER 008/CEAA Reference No. 65505

A lot of ink is currently being spilled over the federal government’s upcoming decision to approve – or not – Teck Resources’ Frontier oil sands mine project. Premier Jason Kenney and members of his Cabinet insist that the Frontier project is critical to Alberta’s economic prosperity. The Mining Association of Canada’s Pierre Graton stresses that Teck completed a “world-class, independent and rigorous assessment” and that the project was determined to be in the public interest by the joint review panel (JRP) that reviewed it. Environmental groups argue that approval is fundamentally inconsistent with Canada’s climate change commitments. The project is being framed as both a test of Prime Minister Trudeau’s resolve to combat climate change and a referendum on the federal government’s support for Alberta’s economic interests and its commitment to national unity.

Our purpose here is not to take sides but rather to lay out the facts and relevant legal context as clearly as possible so that Albertans and indeed all Canadians can come to their own informed views about the desirability, or not, of this project and what, if any, larger importance to attach to the federal Cabinet’s eventual decision. Continue reading →

TMX Litigation Takes an Unusual Turn at the Federal Court of Appeal

By: David V. Wright, Martin Olszynski, and Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: TMX Litigation Takes an Unusual Turn at the Federal Court of Appeal

Case Commented On: Ignace v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 239 (CanLII)

Last week, the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) issued another ruling in the TMX saga dealing with the consolidated challenges to the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion (TMX) project. This decision comes just three weeks after Raincoast Conservation Foundation v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 224 (Can LII) (Raincoast), where the FCA granted leave to six parties to commence judicial reviews challenging the Governor in Council’s decision to re-approve the Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) project. In this most recent decision, Justice David Stratas concluded that two of those six parties, Tsleil Waututh Nation (TWN) and Squamish Nation (Squamish), had filed applications that went beyond the narrow parameters set out in the September 4thcourt order granting leave. Accordingly, the Court issued an order allowing both parties to file amended notices of application that comply with the restrictions in the initial order. In this post, we briefly summarize this latest and fairly unusual development and conclude with a brief comment on what might have led counsel to push the boundaries in this matter. Continue reading →

The Regulation of “Gas Utility” Transmission Pipelines in Alberta

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: The Regulation of “Gas Utility” Transmission Pipelines in Alberta

Decision Commented On: ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. Pembina-Keephills Transmission Pipeline Project August 6, 2019, AUC Decision 23799-D01-2019.

This decision of the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) deals with a large gas transmission pipeline designed to provide additional gas supplies to the Wabamun area (principally to provide fuel for coal to gas conversions of existing coal-fired generating facilities and additional gas generation). The decision reveals the surprising complexity of gas transmission pipeline regulation in Alberta. Continue reading →

Vesting Off Interests in Land – The Latest Dianor Decision

By: Ashley Weldon & Tasha Wood

PDF Version: Vesting Off Interests in Land – The Latest Dianor Decision

Decision Commented On: Third Eye Capital Corporation v Ressources Dianor Inc./Dianor Resources Inc., 2019 ONCA 508 (CanLII)

The Ontario Court of Appeal has released its much anticipated second decision in Third Eye Capital Corporation v Ressources Dianor Inc./Dianor Resources Inc.(Dianor2019). The issue squarely before the Court in this case was whether a vesting order granted in a receivership proceeding could extinguish a third party’s interest in land in the nature of a gross overriding royalty (GOR).  The Court concluded that it had the jurisdiction to do so. This appears to be the first case in Canada to reach this conclusion in the context of a GOR. Continue reading →