University of Calgary Faculty of Law ABLawg.ca logo over mountains

Category: Oil & Gas Page 40 of 57

Whoever heard of such a thing? A Crown oil and gas lease an intangible form of personal property?

By

On March 1, 2013

In Bankruptcy and Insolvency, Oil & Gas

PDF version: Whoever heard of such a thing? A Crown oil and gas lease an intangible form of personal property?

Case considered: Kasten Energy Inc v Shamrock Oil and Gas Ltd, 2013 ABQB 63.

In this case Justice Lee granted Kasten’s application to appoint a receiver\manager over all of the assets of Shamrock, including Shamrock’s Crown oil and gas lease. Kasten was a secured creditor of Shamrock claiming under a general security agreement (GSA) over Shamrock’s present and after acquired personal property. In the course of making his decision to appoint a receiver Justice Lee concluded that Shamrock’s lease was an intangible form of personal property. Kasten brought its application for the appointment of a receiver\manager Kasten under section 13(2) of the Judicature Act, RSA 2000, c J-2 rather than under section 65(7) of the Personal Property Security Act, RSA 2000, c P-7 (PPSA).

Read More

When is a Lease Issued “In Lieu” of an Existing Lease?

By

On February 20, 2013

In Limitations, Oil & Gas

PDF version: When is a lease issued “in lieu” of an existing lease?

Case Commented In: Canadian Natural Resources Limited v Jensen Resources Ltd, 2012 ABQB 786

In the early 1980s the Government of Alberta decided to make a clearer distinction in its tenure regime between grants of conventional petroleum and natural gas (PNG) rights and grants of oil sands rights. In implementing this policy the province went so far as to redefine the rights contained in existing Crown PNG leases. But in return, it allowed the affected PNG lessees to apply for a form of oil sands tenure for the rights that had been excluded from the PNG leases. That’s what happened in this case and the issue was whether Jensen’s gross overriding royalty (GOR) which clearly applied to the PNG leases also carried over to the oil sands rights. Justice Jo’Anne Strekaf held that it did.

Read More

A new approach to regulating unconventional resource plays in Alberta: the ERCB takes a bold step forward

By

On January 10, 2013

In Energy, Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

PDF version: A new approach to regulating unconventional resource plays in Alberta: the ERCB takes a bold step forward

Document commented on: ERCB Discussion Paper, Regulating Unconventional Oil and Gas in Alberta, 2012.

In the weeks before Christmas the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) released a number of documents all dealing with aspects of the development of unconventional resources. The documents included two inquiry reports dealing with serious incidents in relation to horizontal wells (here and here) and multi-stage fracturing, a draft Directive on Hydraulic Fracturing and the document which is the focus of this post, the Discussion Paper, Regulating Unconventional Oil and Gas in Alberta. The release of this paper is a welcome development because it provides a practical example of how a regulator can take the initiative in trying to manage cumulative impacts and the risks associated with the application of known technologies to new challenges. It is fully consistent with the planning approach espoused by the Alberta Land Stewardship Act, SA 2009, c A-26.8 and the Land-use Framework. And for once it demonstrates the ability of the Board to lead and get out in front of its critics – ironically, precisely at the moment when it is about to be replaced by new Energy Development Authority (I was going to title this blog “The ERCB and the Owl of Minerva” but thought that some might infer from that title that it was a post on species at risk).

Read More

The Responsible Energy Development Act and the Water Act – cloudy confluences

By

On January 7, 2013

In Environmental, Oil & Gas, Responsible Energy Development Act, Water Law

PDF version: The Responsible Energy Development Act and the Water Act – cloudy confluences

After 18 consecutive hours of steamed debate Alberta Legislature passed Bill 2, the Responsible Energy Development Act, (REDA) into law on November 21st, 2012 (see Calgary Herald, 11-21-2012, here).  The Bill received Royal Assent on December 10th, and except for some exceptions, comes into force on Proclamation (REDA, s 113).  The ABlawg has distilled much of the Bill in its numerous discussions posted on Bill 2 (see posts under the category Responsible Energy Development Act here) and will continue its stream of comments on the REDA.  This ABlawg post navigates some of the actual and potential impacts of the REDA on water management in the Province under the Water Act, RSA 2000, c W-3 (canlii), one of the “specified enactments” under the REDA.  As will be seen, subject to forthcoming regulations, there could be a deluge of potential impacts, that could, unless the regulations are very clear, circumscribed, and publicized,  obfuscate water management and perplex water users and the public.

Read More

Bill 2 the Responsible Energy Development Act and the Duty to Consult

By

On November 19, 2012

In Administrative Law, Environmental, Natural Resources, Oil & Gas, Responsible Energy Development Act

PDF version: Bill 2 the Responsible Energy Development Act and the Duty to Consult

Proposals commented on: Bill 2, the Responsible Energy Development Act, Alberta and the First Nations Consultation Policy, Discussion Paper, (Fall 2012).

There has been a lively debate in the courts, tribunal decisions and the literature over the last few years as to the role of administrative tribunals in discharging or examining the Crown’s duty to consult aboriginal peoples when contemplating making decisions and developing policies which may adversely affect aboriginal or treaty rights.  There are two guiding rules.  First, a tribunal that has the authority to decide questions of law is presumed to have the jurisdiction to decide questions of constitutional law including the question of whether or not the Crown has satisfied its constitutional duty to consult and accommodate – provided that the constitutional question is rationally connected to a power or jurisdiction that the tribunal is exercising.  The legislature may rebut that presumption by removing all or part of that jurisdiction from a tribunal.  Second, a tribunal does not have the authority to discharge the Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate unless that authority is expressly delegated to the tribunal.  The principal authority for all of this is Rio Tinto Alcan Inc v Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, 2010 SCC 43 which I blogged at here.

Read More

Page 40 of 57

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén