Category Archives: Oil & Gas

A Complex Oil and Gas Accounting Decision

By: Nigel Bankes

Case commented on: IFP Technologies (Canada) Inc v EnCana Midstream and Marketing, 2022 ABKB 807 (CanLII).

PDF Version: A Complex Oil and Gas Accounting Decision

Several years ago, I commented on both the original trial judgment in this case (2014 ABQB 470 (CanLII),following a six-week trial going back to 2011) and the Court of Appeal’s decision (2017 ABCA 157 (CanLII)). The posts are here and here. The Court of Appeal ultimately found in favour of IFP and ordered an accounting as the principal remedy but referred certain questions back to a trial judge to be assigned to hear the matter. This is that decision rendered by Justice Charlene Anderson. Continue reading →

Well Abandonment and Reclamation in Ontario

By: Nigel Bankes

Decisions Commented On: Bilodeau v Her Majesty The Queen in the Right of Ontario, 2022 ONSC 1742 (CanLII) and 2022 ONSC 4275 (Costs Endorsement).

PDF Version: Well Abandonment and Reclamation in Ontario

Over the years ABlawg has published numerous comments on the law pertaining to reclamation and abandonment obligations and the associated orphan well fund in Alberta. See, for example, Drew Yewchuk’s many excellent posts on these issues. This comment deals with a recent decision in Ontario which, while in itself a successful enforcement action, does highlight deficiencies in the law and practice pertaining to the abandonment and reclamation of old oil and gas wells in that province. Continue reading →

Sharing Geological Pore Space Disposal Capacity

By: Nigel Bankes

Decision commented on: 2022 ABAER 004, Pure Environmental Waste Management Ltd., Applications 1614037, 1784753, 1809825, 1928016, 1928017, 1928430, 30602032, 30608918, and 30608934 Hangingstone Project, October 20, 2022

PDF Version: Sharing Geological Pore Space Disposal Capacity

This decision is a follow-up decision to two decisions from 2020 dealing with Pure Environmental Waste Management’s Hangingstone waste disposal project: 2020 ABAER 004 and 2020 ABAER 005. I commented on those two decisions here: “More Competition For Underground Disposal Space” and I refer readers to that earlier comment for a more detailed account of the facts. Continue reading →

The AER Quietly Implemented a Two-Tier Mandatory Closure Spend Target

By: Drew Yewchuk

Regulatory Change Commented On: The AER’s Inventory Reduction Program

 PDF Version: The AER Quietly Implemented a Two-Tier Mandatory Closure Spend Target

Starting in mid-2021, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) adopted a new liability management framework to address the problems of inactive conventional oil and gas assets. The new liability management framework includes mandatory closure spend targets, a requirement for companies to spend a certain amount on closure work each year. The mandatory closure spend targets deal with the liabilities of inactive assets and not orphan assets (it is not to be confused with the orphan fund levy, used to fund the Orphan Well Association that abandons and remediates wells with owners that went bankrupt). Continue reading →

The Sequoia Bankruptcy Part 4: Costs Lost in Time and Perpetual’s New Subsidiary

By: Drew Yewchuk

Cases Commented on: PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc v Perpetual Energy Inc, 2022 ABQB 592

PDF Version: The Sequoia Bankruptcy Part 4: Costs Lost in Time and Perpetual’s New Subsidiary

This is part 4 of a series on the litigation resulting from the Bankruptcy of Sequoia Resources Corp. (Sequoia). Part 1 covered the first application for summary dismissal and an application to intervene. Part 2 covered a costs decision against the trustee and the appeal of the first summary dismissal. Part 3 covered interlocutory decisions and the appeal of the second summary dismissal decision. Continue reading →