So just to recap here, Alberta's UCP hands over $238 M to resolve an issue that was essentially an unforced error to a bunch of Australian coal companies. Given how at least one of those coal companies was noted as belligerent, I trust that they made sure to let us know what they thought when they got the money from the UCP.
https://kopitalk.net/post/24925
[Edit: Vagueness] Among these companies, Valory is catching attention due to how the Alberta Energy Regulator has acted in an unprecedented manner.
From Alberta's Big Payouts to Spurned Australian Coal Miners, by Andrew Nikiforuk,
Valory Resources, which wants to build a massive underground mine near Nordegg under 15,000 hectares of public land, told The Tyee that it has settled its lawsuit.
After the government cancelled its moratorium on coal exploration last January, Valory’s legal claim shifted “from a permanent expropriation claim to a temporary expropriation claim,” said Glenn Vassallo, head of corporate and project finance for Valory, in an email. Given the complicated nature of such a claim, “both Valory and the Alberta Government mutually agreed to settle and discontinue the claim.”
Asked if the Alberta Energy Regulator’s unprecedented cancelling of a public hearing on another Valory project was part of the mutual agreement, Vassallo replied, “No it was not.”
Now, about the AER's unprecedented cancelling of a public hearing, it comes out that
A series of e-mails between the head of the Alberta Energy Regulator, a coal-mining company and the Energy Minister’s office about a mine application has raised questions about the independence of the province’s energy watchdog.
...
Nigel Bankes, a professor emeritus of law at the University of Calgary, said the e-mail exchange calls into question just how independent from government the AER really is.“What is disclosed I think is very troubling,” Prof. Bankes said in an interview, noting that Mr. Morgan’s request for input from the minister’s office came within hours of Summit’s application to the AER.
While correspondence between the minister’s office and the regulator is to be expected, he said, “there should never be correspondence in relation to a current application before the AER.”
To do so “creates the apprehension … or the actuality of political interference.”