In MEG Energy Corp. v. Alberta (Minister of Energy), MEG Energy challenged audit decisions regarding royalties owed to the Crown from its Christina Lake Oil Sands Project for 2014 and 2015. The dispute centered on costs associated with the Stonefell Terminal.

Key issues included:

• Handling Charges: MEG sought to calculate costs for Stonefell Terminal services using fair market value. Alberta Energy Audit (AEA) and the Director instead applied a "cost of service" method, which was less favorable to MEG.
• Diluent Tanks: MEG claimed the costs for Diluent Tanks, used for storing diluent, should be deducted as "handling charges" or "allowed costs." AEA rejected this, classifying them as non-deductible storage costs.
• Fair Market Value: MEG argued the unique nature of the Stonefell Terminal justified using fair market value for services. AEA disagreed, concluding that no comparable market values could be reasonably determined.

The court largely upheld AEA's decisions, agreeing with the cost of service approach and the classification of the terminal's services. However, the court remitted the issue of the Diluent Tanks' cost for reconsideration, as the decision on this aspect required further review.

This case involves interpretations of Alberta's oil sands royalty regulations, particularly how transportation, storage, and handling costs are factored into royalty calculations. It highlights the discretion of Alberta’s Minister of Energy in audit decisions under the Mines and Minerals Act.

There was no monetary award or damages granted.