Category: Oil & Gas Page 31 of 54

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Swift Judgment in a Complex Commercial Case

Case commented on: Blaze Energy Ltd v Imperial Oil Resources, 2014 ABQB 326

The Commercial Court of the English High Court is well known for its capacity to give swift judgments in complex commercial cases. This decision confirms that the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench can offer the same service provided that the parties can agree on the procedures to be followed.

The statement of claim in this matter was filed on April 23, 2014 and on April 29 Chief Justice Wittman granted a Consent Order for an expedited trial confined to three issues. Absent an Agreed Statement of Facts the trial proceeded on the basis of filed affidavits and the transcripts of cross examination on those affidavits. The Consent Order provided that there would be no questioning or viva voce evidence. The trial concluded on May 26 and Justice Frederica Schutz acceded to counsels’ request and gave well written reasons for judgement on May 30.

The AER’s Peace River Odours and Emissions Report and Response

By Nigel Bankes

On April 25, 2014

In Oil & Gas, Responsible Energy Development Act

By: Nigel Bankes

Reports commented on: AER Report of Recommendations on Odours and Emissions in the Peace River Area, March 31, 2014, 2014 ABAER 005; AER Response, April 15, 2014

PDF version: The AER’s Peace River Odours and Emissions Report and Response

For a long time now residents in the Peace River area (Three Creeks, Reno and Seal Lake) have complained about hydrocarbon odours and emissions from oil sands / heavy oil developments in this part of the province. Some residents have complained of health effects and some have found conditions intolerable and have moved off their properties. Pressure to deal with this has grown and the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) has responded by endorsing a comprehensive set of recommendations designed to:

reduce and virtually eliminate all hydrocarbon emissions that contribute to odour events, nuisance, and environmental and potential health impacts for residents of the Peace River area; and
increase the conservation of gas resources in the Peace River area. (Response at 11)

Crown Oil Sands Dispositions and the Duty to Consult

By Nigel Bankes

On April 22, 2014

In Aboriginal, Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes

Case commented on: Buffalo River Dene Nation v. Ministry of Energy and Resources and Scott Land and Lease Ltd., 2014 SKQB 69

PDF version: Crown Oil Sands Dispositions and the Duty to Consult

In this decision Justice Currie of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench concluded that the Crown owes no duty to consult a Treaty 10 First Nation when issuing Oil Sands Special Exploratory Permits (OSSEPs) in the traditional territory of that First Nation. In reaching this conclusion Justice Currie focused on his assessment that in issuing a permit the Minister did not make a decision that could affect the use of the land. Justice Currie also distinguished the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004 SCC 73, where that Court held that the Crown’s decision to authorize the assignment of tree farm licence could trigger the duty to consult on the basis that it was a high level strategic planning decision that could have subsequent on-the-ground effects. Justice Currie took the view in this case that there was no Crown “plan of action” and no high level strategic planning decisions and therefore no duty.

Four Years Out: Is the Gulf of Mexico Safer Today?

By Admin

On April 20, 2014

In Oil & Gas

By: Jacqueline L. Weaver

In February 2011, at the invitation of Professor Alastair Lucas at the University of Calgary, I spoke on the U of C campus about the causes and consequences of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico as of that date. That invitation led me on a three-year journey that culminated in two lengthy articles, just published in the Houston Journal of International Law, seeking to assess what has changed in offshore safety in the Gulf since the blowout (see “Offshore Safety in the Wake of the Macondo Disaster: Business as Usual or Sea Change?”, (2014) 36 Houston J. Int’l L. 148 (Part One) and “Offshore Safety in the Wake of the Macondo Disaster: the Role of the Regulator” (2014) 36 Houston J. Int’l L. 380 (Part Two)). This brief post summarizes my main findings on the state of safety in the Gulf today. I am deeply grateful for the “push” that the U of C Law School gave me with its invitation to speak and its gracious hospitality during my visit there.

Decision of the High Court of Australia of Interest to Canada’s Energy Bar

By Nigel Bankes

On March 25, 2014

In Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Decision of the High Court of Australia of Interest to Canada’s Energy Bar

Case Commented On: Electricity Generation Corporation v Woodside Energy Ltd, [2014] HCA 7

In this majority decision the High Court of Australia (HCA) concluded that the obligations of a seller under a gas purchase agreement (GSA) to use “reasonable endeavours” to provide the purchaser with a supplemental maximum daily quantity of gas (SMDQ) in addition to an agreed maximum daily quantity of gas (MDQ) did not require the seller to provide any gas at the SMDQ price when market opportunities emerged which afforded the seller the opportunity to sell all its available production beyond MDQ at a much higher price. While any case such as this turns on the particular language of the GSA in question, including the surrounding circumstances known to the parties and the commercial purpose or objects to be secured by the agreement, the case serves as a reminder that terms such as “best efforts” or “reasonable endeavours”, at least when viewed in the self-seeking paradigm of contract, may not offer much comfort to the counterparty in this sort of commercial arrangement.