Category: Oil & Gas Page 44 of 54

A single window for the permitting of energy projects in Alberta: who will look out for the chickens?

On May 16, 2011

In Administrative Law, Energy, Environmental, Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

PDF version: A single window for the permitting of energy projects in Alberta: who will look out for the chickens?

Report commented on: Enhancing Assurance: Developing an integrated energy resources regulator, a discussion document, May 2011

In a discussion paper released on May 9, 2011 under a covering message from Premier Stelmach, the provincial government has announced its intention to create a single window for the permitting of energy projects in the province. The proposal envisages a single new board that will have all of the current responsibilities of the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) plus the following additional responsibilities (as they pertain to energy projects including conventional oil and gas, oilsands, and coal – and in the future perhaps mining):

1. The responsibilities currently vested in Alberta Environment under the terms of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, (EPEA) RSA 2000c. E-12, and the Water Act, RSA 2000, c.W-3 to conduct EIAs, issue licences and authorizations under the Water Act and EPEA and to deal with reclamation and remediation on private land.

2. The responsibilities currently vested in Sustainable Resource Development (SRD) to issue public land dispositions including mineral surface leases, and to deal with reclamation and remediation on public land.

Does this make sense?

Alberta’s CCS Disposition Scheme: the Carbon Sequestration Tenure Regulation

By Nigel Bankes

On May 9, 2011

In Carbon Capture and Storage, Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Alberta’s CCS Disposition Scheme: the Carbon Sequestration Tenure Regulation

Regulation Commented On: Carbon Sequestration Tenure Regulation, A.R. 68/2011

The provincial government is making steady progress in implementing its plan to put in place a legal and regulatory framework for carbon capture and storage projects. The province passed legislation in the fall of 2010 (Bill 24, Carbon Capture and Storage Statutes Amendment Act, which I blogged here) to deal with pore space ownership issues and to provide a framework for granting agreements to sequester captured carbon dioxide (CO2) in that pore space; and in March 2011 it launched a Regulatory Framework Assessment (RFA) to review the current regulatory rules.

The most recent step is the promulgation (at the end of April) of the Carbon Sequestration Tenure Regulation, Alta. Reg. 68/2011. This regulation puts some meat on the framework established by the new Part 9 of the Mines and Minerals Act (RSA 2000, c. M-17 (MMA)). In particular, it describes in greater detail the elements of the two new forms of agreement (evaluation permits and carbon sequestration leases) and some of the content of monitoring, measuring and verification plans (MMV) and closure plans. The regulations also go some way towards clarifying the relationship between the Department of Energy and the Energy Resources Conservation Board in relation to some of the more technical aspects of MMV programs and closure plans.

Back to square one: summary judgement on an oil and gas lease validity issue set aside

By Nigel Bankes

On April 14, 2011

In Oil & Gas

PDF version: Back to square one: summary judgement on an oil and gas lease validity issue set aside

Case considered: Desoto Resources Limited v. Encana Corporation, 2011 ABCA 100

In this decision the Court of Appeal set aside lower court decisions (Master and the Court of Queen’s Bench) granting the lessor summary judgement in an oil and gas lease validity case.

At issue in this case is the validity of certain petroleum and natural gas leases granted by PanCanadian (Encana’s predecessor in title) in 1974 to Desoto’s predecessor in title. The fact pattern was complicated by Jofco’s (Desoto’s previous corporate name) bankruptcy in 1999. As part of the judicially approved bankruptcy settlement it appears that PanCanadian was prepared at that time to forego its position that the leases had terminated.

Court of Appeal grants relief from forfeiture in an oil and gas lease case

By Nigel Bankes

On February 24, 2011

In Oil & Gas

PDF version: Court of Appeal grants relief from forfeiture in an oil and gas lease case

Case commented on: Canpar Holdings Ltd. v. Petrobank Energy and Resources Ltd., 2011 ABCA 62

The principal significance of this case is that it confirms that the Court may relieve against the forfeiture of an oil and gas lease that is terminated for cause (in this case failing to calculate and tender royalties as prescribed by the lease) – as opposed to termination in accordance with its own terms (e.g. for failure to drill or produce), in which case there can be no relief. In granting relief the Court signals that it will draw guidance from non-oil and gas cases dealing with relief from forfeiture. I think that this is the first reported decision in which the Court of Appeal has exercised its discretion to relieve against forfeiture in an oil and gas lease case.

Supreme Court Broadly Interprets s. 99(1) of the National Energy Board Act

By Matthew Ducharme

On February 18, 2011

In Administrative Law, Costs, Oil & Gas, Supreme Court of Canada

PDF version: Supreme Court Broadly Interprets s. 99(1) of the National Energy Board Act

Case considered: Smith v Alliance Pipeline Ltd., 2011 SCC 7

In Smith v Alliance Pipeline Ltd., 2011 SCC 7 (Smith) all nine judges of the Supreme Court of Canada endorsed a broad view of the power of the federal Pipeline Arbitration Committee (PAC) established under the National Energy Board Act, RSC 1985 c N-7 (NEBA) to award costs to a claimant to an arbitration proceeding. Committee costs may include solicitor-client costs of related litigation. The Court grounded its finding in subsection 99(1) of the NEBA, which if triggered requires a company to pay “all legal, appraisal and other costs determined by the Committee to have been reasonably incurred by that person in asserting that person’s claim for compensation,” and in the history of statutory reform of the law of expropriation, specifically the principle of full compensation for expropriation. The Court was silent on the Federal Court of Appeal finding that matters for which a committee may award compensation are restricted by section 84 of the NEBA, under which litigation costs are not compensable (Alliance Pipeline Ltd. v Smith, 2009 FCA 110 at para. 55 (Smith FCA)). The impact of Smith may be limited to cases in which compensation awarded by the committee exceeds 85 percent of the value offered by the company, as the statutory basis for the Court’s decision is subsection 99(1), and the subsection is triggered only where the 85 percent threshold is exceeded.