WWW.LEXPERT.CA
|
2017
|
LEXPERT 9
Burgess, Patrick W. Burgess Energy Advisors
(403) 616-4350 pat@burgessenergyadvisors.com
Mr. Burgess's energy law practice encompasses all aspects of energy law,
including international and domestic transactions relating to JVs, midstream
matters and asset and corporate acquisitions. He maintains strong relationships
with CAPP, EPAC, CAPL & CELF, and is active in AIPN & RMMLF.
Buckingham, Janice Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
(403) 260-7006 jbuckingham@osler.com
Ms. Buckingham's energy practice focuses on the development, acquisition
and divestiture of complex energy projects and investments in Canada.
She also advises on issues arising from industry standard agreements.
Brown, Darryl J. Gowling WLG
(416) 369-4581 darryl.brown@gowlingwlg.com
Mr. Brown's practice focuses on infrastructure, P3 and construction law. He
drafts and negotiates project agreements, construction contracts, operating
agreements and other contracts, and regularly represents sponsors, operators
and design builders.
Bremermann, Eric H. Stikeman Elliott LLP
(416) 869-6821 ebremermann@stikeman.com
Mr. Bremermann is a partner in the firm's Corporate Group and co-Chair of the
Toronto Energy Group. He advises on public/private infrastructure, renewable
energy and independent power production. He has great transactional and
project development expertise in the infrastructure sector, including its
structuring and financing. His practice has an emphasis on Canadian-European
cross-border issues.
Braul, Waldemar Gowling WLG
(403) 298-1039 wally.braul@gowlingwlg.com
Mr. Braul advises and litigates on projects that include mines, Fisheries Act
prosecutions, oil and gas production, pipelines, LNG, oil terminals, marine
shipping, shale gas "fracking," water, contaminated sites disputes and
Indigenous law issues. His mining law work focuses on mining reclamation,
tailings pond, environmental assessment and Indigenous claims.
Braithwaite, William J. Stikeman Elliott LLP
(416) 869-5654 wbraithwaite@stikeman.com
Mr. Braithwaite is Chair of the Firm and a member of the Partnership Board
and Executive Committee. He has a transactional practice focusing primarily
on public M&A, corporate finance and governance matters. He was counsel on
CNOOC's acquisition of Nexen, and he acts as counsel for a number of major
Canadian corporations, boards of directors and institutional stakeholders.
Another potential positive, says Estep, is having a
"no or go" stage at the start of the project. A determin-
ation as to whether a project is in the public interest
must ultimately be a political decision, and without
a positive result no project can expect to go ahead.
But under the existing system that determination can
happen years aer the initial application is launched,
meaning proponents can end up investing significant
amounts of money only to find out that they were es-
sentially wasted. "ere is the potential for that to be
a very good change," she says.
However, for all the hopeful signs, Estep cautions
that there are many details still to be sorted out. As for
the recommended three separate approval processes
by size, where would lines between them be drawn?
Estep worries that small projects, which once need-
ed to navigate only minimal approval processes, could
end up facing more hurdles. at would be problem-
atic, she says. "It would be beneficial if [regulators]
took a more restricted view to that so it was more the
extraordinary projects, the big new projects, that are
going through that additional process."
ere are those in the oil patch who argue whole-
sale change may not be necessary. According to this
viewpoint, if the NEB has shortcomings, they have
more to do with public relations. In other words, the
NEB essentially makes good decisions, but isn't up to
the task of defending them against its critics. What's
more, this argument goes, having NEB officials come
from industry means they understand the oen very
technical subject matter and companies that come
under the NEB's jurisdiction.
e NEB was "skilled technically, but they weren't
good at selling that story to the public," says Shawn
Denstedt, a lawyer at Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP.
"I think if we had injected more money into the board
and provided them with more authority, and said,
'We're going to give you the resources you need to do
a better job,' that's better than tinkering around the
edges with legal and legislative changes."
Denstedt's "take on this comes from what sustain-
able development really is about … when you develop
a project, you make sure you pay attention to the so-
cial, economic and environmental impacts. You bal-
ance all those things to arrive at a decision that is in
the public interest. e problem with the regulatory
system in Canada is we have moved way far away from
that. We are not balancing the benefits of the impact."
"ere are varying different applications of the
constitutional duty to consult and accommodate, and
there are a variety of procedural requirements that are
tailored to the proximity of the entity, so what rights
are affected," says DeMarco, who concedes this can
lead to complicated solutions. But ultimately the re-
form of the NEB "is about more transparency, and
more openness. I think that is positive for everyone.
e government will consider the Report and the
comments from Canadians before introducing new
legislation, potentially in 2018.
LEXPERT-RANKED LAWYERS
