(no title)

The AER Panel Dismisses Appeal in Induced Seismicity Case But Reinforces the Case For a Regional Approach

On April 7, 2025

Decision Commented On: Obsidian Energy Ltd. Appeal of Environmental Protection Order March 7, 2025, 2025 ABAER 002

PDF Version: The AER Panel Dismisses Appeal in Induced Seismicity Case But Reinforces the Case For a Regional Approach

In this decision, an appeal panel of the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) confirmed that the Compliance Liability Management (CLM) Branch had sufficient warrant to issue a remedial Environmental Protection Order against Obsidian on the basis that CLM could reasonably form the opinion that Obsidian’s disposal activities were responsible for induced seismicity events. The decision reveals the complexity of determining cause and effect in cases such as this where there are multiple disposal injectors in the same area. As a result, the decision also supports the need for a proactive regional approach to the use of pore space for disposal (and perhaps other) purposes.

The Questioning of Former Minister Savage: Was the Stay Denied with Conditions or Granted with Conditions?

By Drew Yewchuk

On April 3, 2025

In Energy

By: Drew Yewchuk

Case Commented On: Cabin Ridge Project Limited v Alberta, 2025 ABCA 109 (CanLII)

PDF Version: The Questioning of Former Minister Savage: Was the Stay Denied with Conditions or Granted with Conditions?

This post relates to the same coal corporation lawsuits I discussed in a February 2025 post: ‘The Public and The Coal Corporations Want to Know: What Was Government Thinking While Messing With Coal Policy?’. In short, there are two lawsuits in which six coal corporations are suing the government of Alberta alleging that regulatory changes removed all reasonable uses of their coal leases. In Cabin Ridge Project Limited v Alberta, 2025 ABCA 53 (CanLII) the Court of Appeal ruled former Minister Savage must attend to be questioned by the coal corporations about the Alberta government’s policy changes, and questioning was set for March 26^th, 2025.The Alberta government has applied for leave to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court has not yet decided Alberta’s leave application.

Hudson’s Bay in Insolvency Proceedings: Employees’ Severance Payments & Directors’ Retention Bonuses

By Jassmine Girgis

On March 31, 2025

In Bankruptcy and Insolvency

By: Jassmine Girgis

Matter Commented On: Insolvency Proceedings of Hudson’s Bay Co.

PDF Version: Hudson’s Bay in Insolvency Proceedings: Employees’ Severance Payments & Directors’ Retention Bonuses

Hudson’s Bay Co. (Hudson’s Bay), founded in 1670, is the oldest company in North America. It is now, unfortunately, insolvent, and has obtained protection from its creditors under Canada’s restructuring legislation, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, RSC 1985, c C-36 (CCAA) (see In Re Hudson’s Bay Company, 2025 ONSC 1530 (Re Hudson’s Bay)).

The Municipal District of Ranchland Stands Strong Against More Coal Exploration

By Nigel Bankes

On March 26, 2025

In Administrative Law, Energy

By: Nigel Bankes

Case Commented On: Ranchland (Municipal District No 66) v Alberta Energy Regulator, 2025 ABCA 105 (CanLII).

PDF Version: The Municipal District of Ranchland Stands Strong Against More Coal Exploration

The short version of this post is that Justice April Grosse of the Alberta Court of Appeal has granted the MD of Ranchland permission to appeal four questions of law relating to Minister Jean’s cancellation of the coal moratorium and subsequent, but related, decisions of the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) to reinstate certain coal exploration permits (CEPs). Drew Yewchuk and I examined Minister Jean’s decision to cancel the moratorium here: Coal Moratoriums, They Come and Go. That post provides links to a series of ABlawg posts going back to 2020 dealing with the law and regulation of coal projects in Alberta.

What follows provides context for the decision on this permission to appeal application as well as some analysis of the decision.

Can An Oil and Gas Operator Carry On Bitcoin Operations Under The Terms of a Surface Lease?

By Nigel Bankes

On March 20, 2025

In Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes

Decisions Commented On: Persist Oil and Gas Inc v Flowers, 2023 ABLPRT 236 (CanLII) (the ROE Decision), Flowers v Persist Oil and Gas Inc., 2024 ABLPRT 271 (CanLII) (the Compensation Decision), and Flowers v Persist Oil and Gas Inc., 2025 ABKB 142 (CanLII) (the KB Decision)

PDF Version: Can An Oil and Gas Operator Carry On Bitcoin Operations Under The Terms of a Surface Lease?

Bitcoin operators have an incentive to co-locate with natural gas production sites that offer the opportunity to self-generate electricity to power the bitcoin operations without needing to pay interconnection charges. Just bring some portable generators onto the site, add the necessary computing capacity and let it rip! While other approvals will usually be required, some bitcoin operators have played fast and loose until brought into line through the enforcement actions of the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC). I wrote about one example of this a few years ago in “Off-Grid Energy for Bitcoin Mines in Alberta: A Problematic Legal Regime” (2021).