ABLawg - - Page 8

Matter Commented On: Review of Alberta Professional Regulation

PDF Version: Modernizing Professional Regulation is a Worthwhile Goal

Recently, more than one commentator has dismissed the Alberta government’s recent promises to reform professional regulation, including our own regulator, the Law Society of Alberta, as little more than grievance politics (see Shaun Fluker’s comment, here). However, the need to modernize Canada’s rather dated professional regulatory regime, with its excessive emphasis on self-governance, has been evident to many of us for a while now.

The Draft Alberta Quantification Protocol for CO2 Capture and Permanent Geologic Sequestration, Version 2

By Nigel Bankes

On November 18, 2024

In Energy, Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes

Document Commented On: Draft Quantification Protocol for CO₂ Capture and Permanent Geologic Sequestration v2.0, November 1, 2024

PDF Version: The Draft Alberta Quantification Protocol for CO₂ Capture and Permanent Geologic Sequestration, Version 2

Nearly ten years ago I posted an ABlawg comment on a draft of the first version of this Offset Quantification Protocol. The Quantification Protocol (QP) was developed at that time so as to be ready for when Shell’s Quest Project came on stream. A QP is designed to establish the circumstances under which a project, in this case a carbon capture and storage (CCS) project, might generate offset credits under Alberta’s CO₂emissions legislation and regulations, which could then be used to meet the compliance obligations of a regulated emitter. At that time, the relevant regulation was the Specified Gas Emitter Regulation, Alta Reg 139/2007 (SGER); the current regulation is the Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction Regulation, Alta Reg 133/2019 (TIER Regulation). My earlier post identified a number of issues that remain pertinent today, including the transparency of the process, issues of liability in the event of a reversal, and a question as to the apportionment of regulatory responsibilities between the mechanisms of the QP and the responsibility of the energy regulator (then the Energy Resources Conservation Board, now the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER)) for scheme approvals for injection activities. This latter point continues to present some difficulties in the current draft of Version 2.0, particularly with respect to monitoring for containment assurance, which is explicitly dealt with in s 5.1.6 and Appendix C of the Draft QP (but also relevant to the sections of the QP dealing with reversals). I explore these issues in more detail below.

Alberta’s Carbon Sequestration Agreement: An Analysis

By Nigel Bankes

On November 6, 2024

In Contracts

By: Nigel Bankes

Matter Commented On: Alberta’s Standard Form Carbon Sequestration Agreement

PDF Version: Alberta’s Carbon Sequestration Agreement: An Analysis

The Government of Alberta (GoA) has finally released the form or template of the Carbon Sequestration Agreement (CSA) that it will use for carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects organized as hub projects. A hub project is a CCS project in which one party provides transportation and sequestration (T & S) services to variety of emitters. One example is the Atlas Carbon Storage Hub promoted by ATCO EnPower and Shell Canada Products which received its final investment decision in June 2024. Previous ABlawg posts (here, here and here) have reviewed Alberta’s decision to adopt a hub approach to CCS in preference to the vertically integrated project approach that characterized Shell’s earlier Quest project (see ABlawg post here). A vertically integrated CCS project is a project in which a single party (or joint venture) is responsible for all three elements of the CCS value chain (that is to say, capture and compression, transportation, and injection and geological sequestration). In a hub project (or a hub and spoke project) one party (the hub operator) typically offers transportation and sequestration services (T & S) to a number of different large emitters. I refer readers to the earlier posts for the more detailed explanations of the background.

The University’s Kafkaesque Direction on Temporary Structures and Overnight Protests: “You are not supposed to see this.”

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On November 5, 2024

In Protest

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton and Shaun Fluker

Document Commented On: University Direction on Temporary Structures and Overnight Protests, 2024-UC-003-A, revised May 3, 2024

PDF Version: The University’s Kafkaesque Direction on Temporary Structures and Overnight Protests: “You are not supposed to see this.”

Questions about the authority exercised and the process followed by the University of Calgary when it acted on the “University Direction on Temporary Structures and Overnight Protests” (Direction) were raised in an earlier an ABlawg post on “Encampments on Campus Part 2.” As discussed in more detail in that earlier post, the Direction – identified as “2024-UC-003-A, Revised May 3, 2024” – was apparently sent to all U of C students by May 3 and handed out to pro-Palestinian protesters on campus on May 9, the same day the protesters set up their on-campus encampment and the Calgary Police Service (CPS) tore it down and forcibly removed those protesters. The Direction states that failure to follow the university’s Use of University Facilities for Non-Academic Purposes Policy (Facilities Policy) and the Direction “may constitute non-academic misconduct (students), cause for disciplinary action (staff), and/or grounds to be trespassed from the University of Calgary’s premises (all).”

The AER’s Proposed Amendments to Closure Liability Management Directives: Much Ado about Not Much

By Drew Yewchuk

On November 4, 2024

In Administrative Law, Energy, Oil & Gas

By: Drew Yewchuk and Shaun Fluker

Matter Commented On: Bulletin 2024-25, Invitation for Feedback on Revised Liability Directives

PDF Version: The AER’s Proposed Amendments to Closure Liability Management Directives: Much Ado about Not Much

On 8 October 2024, the AER issued Bulletin 2024-25, Invitation for Feedback on Revised Liability Directives, announcing the AER is taking public comments on a proposal to restructure AER directives relating to the closure liability management framework. The AER’s description of the changes, and a video presentation describing the changes, are here. At a high level:

Four directives are being amended: Directive 001: Requirements for Site-Specific Liability Assessments; Directive 011: Estimated Liability (previously Licensee Liability Rating (LLR) Program: Updated Industry Parameters and Liability Costs); Directive 068: Security Deposits; Directive 088: Licensee Life-Cycle Management.
Three directives are being rescinded as their contents are either being reorganized into the four amended directives or are no longer necessary: Directive 006: Licensee Liability Rating (LLR) Program; Directive 024: Large Facility Liability Management Program; Directive 075: Oilfield Waste Liability (OWL) Program.