Regulatory Law Chambers logo

Search Results

These articles by our expert team cover the details of various decisions made by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER), Alberta Utilities Commision (AUC), and Canada Energy Regulator (CER). Browse our searchable archive below to learn more about the results we’ve achieved for our clients.

Subscribe

Directive 026 Rescinded, AER Bulletin 2024-02

Link to Decision Summarized Oil – Facilities To eliminate duplicative or obsolete requirements, the AER rescinded Directive 026: Setback Requirements for Oil Effluent Pipelines (“Directive 026”), effective immediately. The AER also rescinded the Directive 026 related...

New Edition of Directive 023, AER Bulletin 2024-01

Link to Decision Summarized Oil - Facilities On February 8, 2024, the Alberta Energy Regulator (“AER”) released a new edition of Directive 023: Oil Sands Project Applications (“Directive 023”), effective immediately. Directive 023 replaced the May 2013 draft edition....

Nonroutine Commingled Abandonment, AER Bulletin 2020-20

Link to Bulletin SummarizedBulletin - Abandonment In this Bulletin the AER discussed nonroutine commingled abandonment. Any abandonment activity that varies from the requirements given in Directive 020: Well Abandonment, is considered “nonroutine” and must be approved...

Fort McKay First Nation v. Prosper Petroleum Ltd., 2020 ABCA 163

Link to Decision SummarizedBitumen Recovery Project - Crown Consultation - Honour of the Crown In this decision, the Alberta Court of Appeal (“ABCA”) considered an appeal from the Fort McKay First Nation (“FMFN”) of the AER’s approval of an application by Prosper...

New Edition of Directive 054, AER Bulletin 2020-08

Link to Bulletin SummarizedBulletin - Reporting and Surveillance - In Situ Oil Sands Schemes On April 3, 2020, the AER released a new edition of Directive 054: Performance Reporting and Surveillance of In Situ Oil Sands Schemes. This edition focuses on requirements...

Coldwater First Nation v Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FCA 34

Link to Decision SummarizedIndigenous Consultation This case involved applications for judicial review of the second approval by the Governor in Council (“GIC”) of the Trans Mountain Pipeline Project (the “Project”) following a reconsideration hearing before the...

Tracking and Manifesting Produced Water, AER Bulletin 2019-29

Link to Bulletin SummarizedBulletin - Waste Management - Produced Water On November 19, 2018, Alberta Transportation issued Permit 2018-4703 for transporting produced water by truck that has not been cleaned or purged. Due to the overlap with the AER’s tracking and...

New Edition of Directive 081, AER Bulletin 2019-26

Link to Bulletin SummarizedBulletin - Water Disposal - In Situ Oil Sands The AER released a new edition of Directive 081: Water Disposal Limits and Reporting Requirements for Thermal In Situ Oil Sands Schemes. It consolidates various aspects of water management...

Request for Regulatory Appeal by Elizabeth Métis Settlement (AER Regulatory Appeal Nos: 1913250 and 1913252)

In this decision, the AER considered the Elizabeth Métis Settlement (“EMS”)’s request for a regulatory appeal of the AER’s decisions to issue Approval Nos.: 73534-01-02 under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (“EPEA”) (the “EPEA Approval”) and 8558MM under the Oil Sands Conservation Act (“OSCA”) (the “OSCA Approval) (collectively, the “Approvals”) to Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. (“Imperial”). The AER granted the request for regulatory appeal, finding that EMS was an eligible person under section 38 of the Responsible Energy Development Act (“REDA”).

AER Bulletin 2018-35: Government of Alberta Curtails Production

Crude Oil - Crude Bitumen On December 2, 2018, the Government of Alberta (“GoA”) announced short-term reductions in crude oil and crude bitumen production effective January 1, 2019.On December 3, 2018, the GoA released Curtailment Rules, regulations made under the Oil...

Request for Regulatory Appeal by Joslyn Energy Development IncorporateD (AER Decision)

In this decision, the AER considered Joslyn Energy Development Incorporated’s (“JEDI”) request for a regulatory appeal of an AER decision approving Suncor’s requested amendments to its commercial scheme operating approval for its Millennium oil sands mine (the “Amending Approval”).

The AER dismissed JEDI’s request for regulatory appeal, based on its determination that JEDI was not an “eligible person” under section 38 of the Responsible Energy Development Act (“REDA”) and therefore not eligible to request a regulatory appeal.

Tsleil-Waututh Nation v. Canada (Attorney General) (2018 FCA 153)

In this decision, the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) considered consolidated applications for judicial review by Aboriginal groups and two cities (Vancouver and Burnaby) (the “Applicants”), seeking to quash decisions of the NEB and Governor in Council (“GiC”) approving the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (the “Project”), namely:

(a)     the NEB decision report dated May 19, 2016 (the “NEB Report”); and

(b)     the Order in Council, PC 2016-1069, dated November 29, 2016, made by the GiC (the “Order in Council”).

The Applicants challenged the Order in Council on two principal grounds: (1) the NEB’s process and findings were so flawed that the GiC could not reasonably rely on the NEB Report; and (2) Canada failed to fulfill the duty to consult owed to Indigenous peoples.

The FCA allowed the applications for judicial review of the Order in Council, quashed the Order in Council and remitted the matter to the GiC for redetermination.

Husky Oil Operations Limited and Gibson Energy Inc. – Regulatory Appeals of an Environmental Protection Order Issued (AER Decision 2018 ABAER 007)

The AER dismissed the requests for regulatory appeal filed by Husky and Gibson pursuant to section 39(4) of Responsible Energy Development Act (“REDA”).

The AER panel found that the regulatory appeals of both Husky and Gibson were moot because the EPO was cancelled. There was no longer an appealable decision before the panel and no remedies under REDA that authorized the panel to grant these regulatory appeals. The AER stated that the proper venue for any dispute about allocation of financial liability for remediation costs is the civil court system, not the regulatory appeal process under REDA.

Syncrude Canada Limited – Application for Aurora North Tailings Management Plan (AER Decision 20180613A)

Syncrude Canada Limited’s (“Syncrude”) Aurora North oil sands processing plant and mine (“Aurora North”) received original approval through a joint Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (“EUB”) and Government of Canada panel in 1997. Syncrude commenced production at Aurora North in 2001, and tailings treatment in 2013 using composite tailings (“CT”) technology.

In this decision, the AER considered Syncrude’s application pursuant to section 13 of the Oil Sands Conservation Act (“OSCA”) for approval of its tailings management plan (“TMP”) for Aurora North.

The application sought approval for Syncrude’s TMP from the present until 2050.

The AER approved Syncrude’s application, subject to terms and conditions (the “Approval Conditions”).

Prosper Petroleum Limited – Rigel Project (AER Decision 2018 ABAER 005)

In this decision, the AER approved Prosper Petroleum Limited’s (“Prosper”) Oil Sands Conservation Act (“OSCA”) application to construct and operate a bitumen recovery scheme, including a central processing facility (“CPF”) and supporting infrastructure (the “Rigel Project” or the “Project”). The AER also approved Prosper’s Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (“EPEA”) application for the construction, operation, and reclamation of the Rigel Project. In addition, the AER approved Prosper’s Water Act Application to withdraw 255,500 m3/year of nonsaline water from the Viking and Undifferentiated Drift formations. All of these approvals were subject to conditions.

Canadian Natural Resources Limited – Application for a Single-Well Bitumen Battery – Waseca Formation (AER Decision 2018 ABAER 004)

In this decision, the AER considered Canadian Natural Resources Limited’s (“CNRL”) application for approval to construct and operate a single-well battery to produce and store bitumen containing no hydrogen sulphide (“H2S”) at an existing well site about seven kilometres (“km”) west of Canadian Forces Base Cold Lake (the “Application”). CNRL made the Application under section 7.001 of the Oil and Gas Conservation Rules (“OGCR”) and section 5.5(12) of AER Directive 056: Energy Development Applications and Schedules (“Directive 056”).

The AER approved the Application subject to the conditions.

Requests for Review under Section 64 of the Responsible Energy Development Act by Mike Richard – Grizzly Resources Limited Private Surface Agreement (AER Decision)

In this decision, the AER considered Mr. Richard’s requests under section 64 of the Responsible Energy Development Act (“REDA”) for an order directing Grizzly Resources Limited (“Grizzly”) to comply with the Private Surface Agreement dated October 9, 1997 and amended February 7, 2014 (the “PSA”).

The AER decided not to exercise its discretion to issue an order to comply.

Canadian Natural Upgrading Limited – Application for Jackpine Mine Tailings Management Plan (AER Decision 20180523B)

In this decision, the AER considered Canadian Natural Upgrading Limited’s (“CNUL”) application pursuant to section 13 of the Oil Sands Conservation Act (“OSCA”) for approval of its tailings management plan (“TMP”) for the Jackpine Mine (“JPM”). The AER approved CNUL’s application, subject to terms and conditions (the “Approval Conditions”) to address uncertainties and deficiencies, including requiring a new application be submitted by September 30, 2022.

The AER approved CNUL’s TMP for the short term management of fluid tailings, finding that there was sufficient information in the application to demonstrate CNUL’s ability to manage JPM tailings for the next few years. However, the AER was unable to assess whether CNUL would be able, over the medium- and long-term, to manage its fluid tailings and treated tailings deposits to meet the Lower Athabasca Region: Tailings Management Framework for Mineable Athabasca Oil Sands (“TMF”). objective and Directive 085: Fluid Tailings Management for Oil Sands Mining Projects (“Directive 085”) requirements due to uncertainties and deficiencies in the application.

Canadian Natural Upgrading Limited – Application for Muskeg River Mine Tailings Management Plan (AER Decision 20180523A)

In this decision, the AER considered Canadian Natural Upgrading Limited’s (“CNUL”) application pursuant to section 13 of the Oil Sands Conservation Act (“OSCA”) for approval of its tailings management plan (“TMP”) for the Muskeg River Mine (“MRM”).

The application sought approval for the TMP to 2115, which was 57 years beyond the MRM’s end of mine life.

The AER approved CNUL’s application, subject to terms and conditions (the “Approval Conditions”).

Value Creation Inc. – Applications to Amend the Heartland Upgrader Project Approvals (AER Decision 2018 ABAER 003)

In this decision, the AER considered Value Creation Inc.’s (“VCI”) application under the Oil Sands Conservation Act (“OSCA”) and the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (“EPEA”) to amend its existing AER approvals for the Heartland Upgrader Project, a three-phase oil sands processing plant (i.e., bitumen upgrader) (the “Project”). The Project would be located 15 kilometres (km) northeast of Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta.

The AER approved VCI’s amendment applications, subject to conditions, based on finding that the proposed amendments would support the efficient, safe, orderly and environmentally responsible development of Alberta’s energy resources.

Request for Regulatory Appeal by Fort McKay First Nation of AER Decision 20171218A Approving Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Tailings Management Plan (Regulatory Appeal No. 1905407)

In this decision, the AER considered Fort McKay First Nation’s (“FMFN”) request under section 38 of the Responsible Energy Development Act (“REDA”) for a regulatory appeal of the AER’s decision approving CNRL’s tailings management plan (“TMP”) application for the Horizon Oil Sands Processing Plant and Mine (the “Horizon Mine”) under its Oil Sands Conservation Act, RSA 2000, c. O-7 (“OSCA”) Commercial Scheme Approval No. 9752E (the “Horizon Approval”). The Decision was an amendment to the existing Horizon Approval (the “Decision”).