Raising the Bar on Inactive Site Closure Across Western Canada

• Clearer regulatory expectations create a path to accelerate closure and reduce long-term liability
• Early, structured planning enables better cost control, prioritization and execution efficiency
• High-quality assessments unlock faster decisions, stronger stakeholder alignment and improved closure outcomes

In recent years, provincial jurisdictions across the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin have increased requirements for bringing inactive oil and gas sites to closure. British Columbia is the first western province to introduce prescribed timelines for decommissioning, assessing and restoring sites after they become dormant. Other provinces are considering similar mechanisms, such as Alberta’s Liability Management Framework, to improve and expedite reclamation efforts.

Against this backdrop, companies holding inactive sites need to understand the liability risk associated with inefficient or ineffective portfolio management. Delay presents the greatest risk at non-routine sites, where complexities such as comingled contaminants, fractured bedrock or extensive groundwater impacts require specialized expertise.

Inaction, or action led by contractors without experience in complex site conditions, reduces the likelihood that sites will meet regulatory closure requirements within expected timelines. The outcome is often rework, increased costs and frustration for landowners who experience repeated site visits with limited visible progress.

The solution begins with a comprehensive strategic plan. This includes a structured process for screening sites within a portfolio to evaluate environmental risk, stakeholder considerations, and estimated costs and timelines to closure. Completing this work early allows sites to be prioritized and sequenced into multi-year execution plans. It also supports financial planning and enables service providers to build the capacity and expertise required to deliver the work efficiently.

Environmental risk is best understood through the conceptual site model (CSM). The CSM defines the landscape and geological setting, identifies the type and extent of contamination and evaluates how contaminants may interact with environmental and human receptors.

This is a critical step in site screening and strategic planning. Sites with higher environmental or human health risk should be prioritized and addressed with focused effort during the closure process. The complexity of the CSM also influences the level of effort and time required to move a site through assessment, remediation and reclamation to meet regulatory obligations. Identifying this complexity early allows work to proceed in a more efficient and targeted way.

Costs and timelines to closure can be estimated using experience and data from previous assessment, remediation and reclamation projects. Historical performance provides a practical basis for forecasting the level of effort required to achieve restoration and obtain regulatory closure.

Stakeholder considerations also influence costs and timelines. Most landowners expect timely and fair efforts to restore their land to equivalent capability or an agreed alternative condition that supports their use. However, some sites involve stakeholder challenges that can delay progress. Understanding which sites may face access constraints, concerns or disputes allows these factors to be considered during prioritization and scheduling.

Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) are a mandatory regulatory requirement for the closure of upstream oil and gas sites across Western Canada. They are typically the first step in the closure process following abandonment and decommissioning. Phase 1 ESAs provide the foundation for strategic planning. They document site history, identify areas of potential environmental concern and highlight potential contaminants of concern.

In some cases, Phase 1 ESAs have been treated as a commodity, resulting in reports that are incomplete, inaccurate or difficult to interpret. This limits their value in guiding investigation and decision-making. Because these assessments inform the entire closure strategy, quality is essential. High-quality Phase 1 ESAs provide clear, reliable information that supports efficient planning and targeted investigation. Lower-quality assessments often lead to gaps in understanding, resulting in rework, increased costs and extended timelines. Early investment in quality reduces uncertainty and improves outcomes over the full lifecycle of site closure.

As regulatory frameworks evolve and expectations for timely closure increase, the need for strategic, risk-based planning is clear. From the quality of early-stage assessments to the prioritization of complex sites, organizations that take a proactive approach are better positioned to manage liabilities effectively, maintain stakeholder confidence and meet regulatory requirements.

Improving closure outcomes is not only about compliance. It reflects a commitment to restoring land, reducing environmental risk and supporting communities across the basin.