Category: Oil & Gas Page 33 of 54

Protecting Alberta’s Environment Act: A Keystone Kops Response to Environmental Monitoring and Reporting in Alberta

On January 2, 2014

By Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: Protecting Alberta’s Environment Act: A Keystone Kops Response to Environmental Monitoring and Reporting in Alberta

Legislation commented on: Protecting Alberta’s Environment Act, SA 2013, c P-26.8

The Protecting Alberta’s Environment Act received royal assent on December 11, 2013, and the statute will come into force on proclamation at a later date. The title of this new legislation suggests it is a reworking of environmental protection laws, along the lines of the Alberta Land Stewardship Act, SA 2009, c A-26.8, which enacted a new framework for land use planning in 2009, or the Responsible Energy Development Act, SA 2012, c R-17.3,which reconfigured energy project regulation this year in Alberta. Anyone with these kinds of expectations will be disappointed though. The sweepingly broad title is misleading as the Act really just targets environmental monitoring and reporting, and is the Alberta legislature’s response to the 2012 Report issued by the Alberta Working Group on Environmental Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting (see here). What follows are my comments on the Protecting Alberta’s Environment Act. My overall synopsis is that the Act accomplishes very little, reads as if it was put together in a hurry, and unfortunately allows politics to override science and transparency when it comes to environmental monitoring and reporting.

What are the Rules Governing Consents to Assignments of Pipeline Easements across Indian Reserves?

By Nigel Bankes

On December 16, 2013

In Aboriginal, Oil & Gas

PDF Version: What are the Rules Governing Consents to Assignments of Pipeline Easements across Indian Reserves?

Case commented on: Coldwater Indian Band v Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, 2013 FC 1138

This case raises the question of the leverage available to a First Nation to claim hold-out rents where a pipeline crosses reserve lands and the current owner/operator of the pipeline has failed to obtain required consents to an assignment of the pipeline easement.

Limitations Issues in Oil and Gas Royalty Litigation

By Nigel Bankes

On December 2, 2013

In Oil & Gas

PDF Version: Limitations Issues in Oil and Gas Royalty Litigation

Case commented on: Canadian Natural Resources Limited v Jensen Resources Ltd., 2013 ABCA 399

This case involves a geologist’s gross overriding royalty (GORR). The principal issue at trial (see earlier post here) was the question of whether or not the royalty continued as against the property in question when the Crown issued oil sands leases for the oil sands rights in place of the earlier petroleum natural gas leases which were in force when the royalties crystallized. The trial judge held that the royalty did continue against these new leases and the Court of Appeal has confirmed that part of the award.

Judgment Handed Down in a Complex Petroleum and Natural Gas Lease Case

By Nigel Bankes

On November 29, 2013

In Oil & Gas

PDF Version: Judgment Handed Down in a Complex Petroleum and Natural Gas Lease Case

Case commented on: Stewart Estate v TAQA North Ltd, 2013 ABQB 691

This lengthy (121 page plus appendices) and well-reasoned decision will be essential reading for members of the oil and gas bar in Alberta. Justice Barbara Romaine offers guidance on a number of issues including the importance of having all relevant parties before the Court when seeking a declaration as to lease validity, limitations, the interpretation of the term “lack of or intermittent market” and the term “any cause whatsoever beyond the Lessee’s reasonable control”, and the measure of damages where a lessee produces on a dead lease. Given the length of the decision (much of which is taken up with a careful review of the testimony of expert witnesses) I will limit this post to the above legal questions. There are, however, a number of other issues discussed in the decision that this post does not deal with (e.g. estoppel, leave and licence, champerty and maintenance, etc).

Read More

Eighty Percent Of Success Is Showing Up: Or “How A Pro Se Farmer Won A Default Against The United States In His Suit To Invalidate The Permit For Half Of Keystone Xl (& Why It Probably Won’t Last)”

By James Coleman

On November 14, 2013

In Oil & Gas

PDF Version: Eighty Percent Of Success Is Showing Up: Or “How A Pro Se Farmer Won A Default Against The United States In His Suit To Invalidate The Permit For Half Of Keystone Xl (& Why It Probably Won’t Last)”

Case commented on: Bishop v Bostick, 9:13-cv-00082, (E.D. Tex, Nov. 6, 2013).

On April 25, Michael Bishop, a farmer acting pro se, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to revoke TransCanada’s permit to construct the southern half of the Keystone XL project. This part of the project, known as the “Gulf Coast Project” or “Phase III”, travels from Cushing, Oklahoma to the Gulf Coast. Bishop sued the Army Corps of Engineers and its Commanding General, Thomas Bostick, because the Army Corps issued the permit to TransCanada. The complaint that Bishop filed asked the court to order the Army Corps to revoke Keystone’s permit. Bishop then served this complaint on the Army Corps of Engineers, its officers, and the Attorney General of the United States.