in October 2015 - Canadian Association of Petroleum Landmen

Transcription

THE
NEGOTIATOR
Th e M a g a z i n e o f t h e C a n a d i a n A s s o c i at i o n o f Pe t ro l e u m L a n d m e n
October 2015
MANAGING THE
LIFE CYCLE OF
SHALE PROJECTS
Operating Agreement
Re-Evaluating Your Drilling Contracts
Inability to Withhold
Models for Unconventional
Shale Projects
Precision Drilling Canada Limited Partnership
vs Yangarra Resources Ltd.
Payments under Processing Agreements
Where Prior Billings Arguable
Your energy partner
Building on over 20 years of recognized oil and
gas leadership and valued relationships with
CAPL, McMillan continues to be your trusted and
experienced energy counsel.
For information on the services McMillan’s Energy Group can provide,
please visit our website or contact Michael Thackray, QC.
Michael A. Thackray, QC
e: michael.thackray@mcmillan.ca
t: 403.531.4710
THE
NEGOTIATOR
Th e M a g a z i n e o f t h e C a n a d i a n A s s o c i at i o n
o f Pe t ro l e u m L a n d m e n
Senior Editorial Board
Director of Communications
Kent Gibson
[ph]
Advertising Editors
Kevin Young
[ph]
Trevor Rose
[ph]
Coordinating Editor
Krissy Rennie
[ph]
Feature Content Editor
Mark Innes
[ph]
Regular Content Editor
Martin Leung
[ph]
Social Content Editor
Jason Peacock
[ph]
Editorial Committee
Josh Lewis Amy Kalmbach
Nathan Roberts Dinora Santos [ph]
[ph]
[ph]
[ph]
THE
NEGOTIATOR
403-698-8822
403-831-4908
403-233-3136
403-663-2595
403-818-7561
403-699-5864
403-691-7077
403-233-4446
403-619-2868
403-268-3006
403-470-1558
Design and Production
Rachel Hershfield, Folio Creations
Features October 2015
2 U
nconventional Risk Allocation:
Managing the Life Cycle of Shale Projects
Printing
McAra Printing
Submissions
For information regarding submission of articles, please
contact a member of our Senior Editorial Board.
Disclaimer
All articles printed under an author’s name represent the
views of the author; publication neither implies approval of
the opinions expressed, nor accuracy of the facts stated.
Advertising
For information, please contact Kevin Young (403-831-4908)
or Trevor Rose (403-233-3136). No endorsement or
sponsorship by the Canadian Association of Petroleum
Landmen is suggested or implied.
The contents of this publication may not be reproduced either
in part or in full without the consent of the publisher.
Fenner L. Stewart & Anthony G. Cioni
9 K nock-for-Knock Indemnification Clauses
in the Oil and Gas Industry
Kourtney Rylands
12 S ummary Judgement on Contested
Amounts Owing under Natural Gas
Processing and Related Agreements
2015–2016 CAPL Board of Directors
President
Nikki Sitch, P.Land, PSL
Vice-President
Larry Buzan, P.Land
Director, Business Development
Alberta & British Columbia
Ted Lefebvre, P.Land
Director, Business Development
Saskatchewan & Alberta Oilsands
Michelle Creguer
Director, Communications
Kent Gibson
Director, Education
Bill Schlegel, P.Land
Director, Field Acquisition & Management
Paul Mandry, PSL
Director, Finance
Andrew Webb
Director, Member Services
Ryan Stackhouse, P.Land
Director, Professionalism
Noel Millions, PSL
Director, Public Relations
Gary Richardson, PSL
Director, Technology
Mandy Cookson
Secretary/Director, Social
Jordan Murray
Past President
Michelle Radomski
Readers may obtain any Director’s contact
information from the CAPL office.
Suite 1600, 520 – 5 Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 3R7
[ph] 403-237-6635 [fax] 403-263-1620
www.landman.ca
Kaitlin Polowski
Denise Grieve
Irene Krickhan
Karin Steers
reception@landman.ca
dgrieve@landman.ca
ikrickhan@landman.ca
ksteers@landman.ca
Nigel Bankes
In Every Issue
8
The Negotiator’s Message From the Board: Communications
15 Roster Updates
19 Get Smart
27 The Social Calendar
28 CAPL Calendar of Events
28 October Meeting
28 November Meeting
Also in this issue
14 Ugly Oil Speakeasy Fundraiser
16 H1 M&A Report
24 October General Meeting Guest Speaker
26 2015 CAPL Golf Tournament
Illustration: U.S. Energy Information Administration
Unconventional Risk
Allocation: Managing the
Life Cycle of Shale Projects
Introduction
MODEL CONTRACTS PLAY A PRINCIPAL ROLE IN REDUCING TRANSACTION
COSTS. They offer parties a series of rules,
This adaptation of model contracts (e.g. the
third industry draft of the proposed updates to
the 2007 CAPL Operating Procedure) has created
a debate as to which model rules will be best for
which allocate risk so that delays, disagreements,
unconventional shale projects. As a contribution,
over-expenditures, and under-capitalizations can
this article first introduces how modern hydrau-
be managed (or avoided altogether). The best
lic fracturing has changed risk allocation in joint
model contracts are highly responsive, quickly
ventures, and then considers a couple of the
adapting to new realities. Accordingly, top drafters
central debates over what changes might need to
are pressed to doggedly re-evaluate whether or
be made so that model contracts can successfully
not their model rules are optimal in light of the
adjust to this new reality.
ever-changing nature of law and technology.
THE NEGOTIATO R / OC TO BER 20 15
Modern hydraulic fracturing is a disruptive
2
What’s In The Rocks
technology that shifts the incentives within oil and
Wood
Mackenzie
defines
the
conven-
gas joint venture projects. Drafters are adjusting
tional asset life cycle as having four phases:
their contracts to adapt. Experimentation with
exploration, appraisal, development, and production.
model rules is presently occurring in jurisdictions
In the exploration phase, the operator determines
such as the United States, Canada and Australia,
if hydrocarbons exist. In the appraisal phase, the
FENNER L. STEWART &
where unconventional resources abound.
operator determines if hydrocarbons exist in paying
ANTHONY G. CIONI
WRITTEN BY
quantities. In the development phase, the operator devises and
The exploit phase is not the same as the production phase of
executes a plan to get the hydrocarbons out of the geological forma-
conventional projects. The operator will drill many wells across
tion as efficiently as possible. In the production phase, the operator
the acreage. It will attempt to standardize production by re-using
follows through with the plan, ensuring production until the reservoir
a limited selection of well designs, established during the concept
is no longer commercially viable. An additional fifth phase is the
and pilot phases. This standardization process increases efficiency
decommissioning phase, in which the operator concludes operations
and reduces transaction costs. At the same time, this standard-
and carries out reclamation initiatives.
ization cannot be too rigid, since shale plays may have sharp
The unconventional asset life cycle of the shale play differs in
decline curves, which demand reworking to sustain production.
important ways. For such projects, Wood Mackenzie has devised
Put differently, well options must be responsive to changes in
four alternative phases: concept, pilot, ramp-up and exploit.
the subsurface characteristics of the play. Schlumberger calls this
In the concept phase, the operator devises a technical strategy
model the “flexible factory” model, because it takes a factory-style
to maximize the potential profitability of a shale play based
approach to standardization and combines it with a willingness to
mainly on the information on hand about its geological charac-
be responsive to change.
teristics and anticipated economics. In this phase, a number of
Ideally, the operator would not have to be flexible. The most
well designs will be devised for the acreage. In the pilot phase,
efficient well design would be available and it could be replicated
the operator tests the hypothesis of the concept phase against
across the entire shale play. In such an ideal world, risk would be
the reality of the play’s geology and rate of return. It does so by
much easier to manage. However, this ideal would demand, for one,
drilling a number of wells to test techniques for extracting hydro-
that the subsurface characteristics of any play be homogeneous.
carbons from the shale.
This is very unlikely; even the best plays will have a high probabil-
As the operator succeeds in the pilot phase, a greater number
ity of change in the subsurface characteristics. Furthermore, such
of wells are drilled. As more wells are drilled, the commercial
a geological change may not be as foreseeable as it is for a conven-
viability of the shale acreage becomes much clearer. If the
tional reservoir. In reality, when drilling a new well, the proposed
results of the pilot phase indicate the project will be as viable
well designs and fracturing programs may fail, and the operator
as projected, the operator will dramatically expand operations.
will have to re-commence experimenting with techniques in the
This expansion of operations is a key feature of the ramp-up phase.
hopes of achieving commercially viable production levels.
Stay the course
Calgary
Edmonton
Grande Prairie
Swift Current
Fort Nelson
Fort St. John
1 800 478 6162 | canam.com
3
TH E NEGOTIATOR / OCTO BER 20 15
At Can-Am Geomatics it’s business as usual delivering the same great service and
cost effective solutions our clients are used to. Our goal is to be your Geomatics
provider of choice by conducting business with safety, honesty, integrity and
professionalism. Contact us today and let’s navigate these waters together.
To better appreciate such a shale project, imagine a number
when the reservoir is depleted, notable risk re–emerges. At this
of drill pads equally spaced on one end of a sizable rectangular
point, the operator engages in enhanced recovery strategies
acreage. Attached to each drill pad are multiple wells that extend
entailing additional capital investment and increased operating
vertically down toward the shale formation. When approach-
costs to maintain reservoir pressure until the reservoir is no
ing the shale formation, these wells begin to curve until they
longer commercially viable.
are running horizontally through the target area of the play.
For an unconventional shale project, the subsurface risks play
Placed like the teeth of a comb, these wells allow for optimal
out differently. A greater number of wells need to be completed for
spacing of hydraulic fractures throughout the formation. As time
commercial production. The cost of drilling more wells is multiplied
lapses, more multi-well pads populate the acreage as the project
by the fact that each well tends to be more expensive than a conven-
moves across the shale play, systematically fracturing and exploit-
tional one. This is because each well needs to use horizontal drilling
ing as much of it as possible. The operator attempts to always
and hydraulic fracturing technologies. Accordingly, these projects
apply a selected number of well designs. While some wells move
have higher break-even points and are more sensitive to risk.
easily into the exploit phase, others may be transitioning between
Increased cost sensitivity is made more problematic because
concept, pilot and exploit phases to cope with unforeseen subsur-
it is harder to predict the commercial viability of the acreage over
face characteristics.
the asset’s life cycle. Shale plays rarely enjoy geological homoge-
neity across the play. Thus, at different locations within the play,
4
New Risks
the operator may have to invest more time, money, and effort to
For a conventional project, the industry practice is well defined:
tease the hydrocarbons from the shale. These additional compli-
drill one or two exploration wells, assess the results, create a
cations can make it difficult to predict costs.
development strategy to optimize production, install infrastruc-
Post completion, an operator of a successful conventional well
ture to execute the plan, and maintain production. The project is
tends to enjoy a time of more or less uninterrupted production
linear. After the well is completed, the project risk drops dramat-
from the reservoir’s natural drive mechanism. Even after this,
ically. As long as there are no problems with the reservoir, the
the operator can replace the natural drive artificially, extending
operator needs only to maintain equipment and keep production
the life of the asset. This is not to say that maintaining reservoir
flowing. Nearing the end of the well’s commercial production,
pressure will not have its complexities, just that a conventional
well tends to have higher risk until it is completed and then
the risk decreases dramatically during the production phase.
By contrast, a shale play tends to have lower risk up front,
but it tends to persist throughout the project’s lifecycle. In
other words, the risk profile tends to be flat. As a result, this
continuing risk ensures that an operator of a shale project
will not enjoy the same general risk profile as an operator of a
successful conventional well.
Takeaways
There are at least three takeaways from comparing conventional and unconventional shale projects. First, the costs of
unconventional projects are higher. Accordingly, such projects
are more sensitive to risk. Second, although the geological risk
of an unconventional project may be, on balance, lower than
a conventional project, the risk does not tend to decrease,
as it does for successful conventional projects. It follows
that unconventional projects are not only more sensitive to
risk, but the risk tends not to decrease over the life of the
project. Third, while conventional asset life cycles are linear,
unconventional asset life cycles may not be; they can move
forward and backward through the phases in order to cope
with changes in subsurface characteristics over the acreage.
In sum, an unconventional project has higher costs, is more
sensitive to risk, and sustains its level of risk over the asset’s
life cycle.
The Debate Over Model Rules
There are a number of debates as to which model rules are
best suited for shale projects. This article introduces two of
the main ones: Operator Control vs. Committee Control and
Independent Operations vs. No Independent Operations.
A. Operator-Control vs. Committee-Control Model
For conventional projects, most domestic model agreements
grant the operator sole authority over project management with only a few opportunities for the non-operators
to contest its discretion. One such opportunity is that the
non-operator can explain, using a prescribed process, how
the operator could conduct operations more efficiently. If the
suggestion is reasonable, the operator will have a set period
of time to respond: choosing either to adopt the suggested
mode of operation, or step aside and let the objecting party
takeover management on the terms it prescribed in the
complaint. If the operator steps aside, the objecting non-opleast two years. Although never used all that effectively in
practice, this requirement acts as a policing mechanism,
ensuring that only reasonable demands will be placed upon
the operator.
5
erator must act as operator on the prescribed terms for at
Another opportunity is the Authorizations For Expenditure
it is perceived that the committee approach increases opportu-
(AFE) mechanism. If the operator selects a course of action and
nities for risk adverse parties to block development. This may
the total bona fide estimated cost of that action is more than a
or may not prove to be the case. Regardless, loyalty to the oper-
set amount (usually set at $50,000), then the operator is required
ator-control model creates a formidable challenge, that is: how
to issue an AFE to the non-operators for approval. The AFE must
to optimize development in a manner that avoids the increased
contain sufficient information for the non-operators to make
threat of under-capitalization on one hand, but also the threat of
an informed decision. If a non-operator does not approve the
over-expenditure on the other.
AFE, this may trigger the independent operations mechanism
(note that this mechanism is also called “exclusive operations” in
B. Independent Operations vs. No Independent Operations
some model agreements). Under this mechanism, those that want
When less than all parties are willing to fund a new project
to continue with the project, as long as they are willing to assume
proposal, the independent operations mechanism may provide an
the additional risk between them, can conduct the proposed oper-
opportunity for some members of the original joint venture, who
ations without the non-participating parties.
have a larger risk appetite, to invest in a sub-consortium and push
Some, such as the Association of International Petroleum
forward. This mechanism prevents any party from vetoing any
Negotiators (AIPN), suggest that this operator-control model is
proposed expansion of operations. If such a veto were allowed, the
inappropriate for unconventional projects, because more deci-
most risk adverse party could set the pace.
sions, well in excess of the traditional trigger amount for an AFE
The parties can set the requirements for independent oper-
(i.e. $50,000), need to be made on an ongoing basis. The result is
ations in a number of ways. For instance, it can be agreed that a
many more AFEs: each AFE representing a potential independent
party with an interest of less than a certain percentage of the total
operation. Never knowing whether all the parties are finan-
working interest (e.g. 5%) may not propose an independent opera-
cially committed to future actions reduces business certainty.
tion. Another potential restriction could be that no such operation
This financial uncertainty can result in under-capitalization, since
is permitted without the support of a minimum percentage of the
the higher costs of unconventional projects may require a greater
total working interest (e.g. 25%). Another is that such operations
risk appetite to proceed independently.
may only be proposed after certain initial commitments are met
One solution is to increase the set amount to trigger an AFE to
under the original agreement. Such requirements can create a
$100,000 or $200,000. The downside of increasing the amount is
balance between the freedom to pursue profit and the ability to
that it will increase the discretion of the operator, and thus reduce
protect the joint venture as a whole.
the safeguard effect the AFE provides to non-operators. Ironically,
When a party opts out of an independent operation, it does
this potential solution to the under-capitalization problem could
not necessarily lose the right to come back into the operation if
lead to over-expenditure, because the operator can gamble with
the venture proves to be successful. In a successful independent
the investment of non-operators, and there are fewer safeguards
operation, once the participating parties have recovered a multi-
over the operator’s decisions.
ple of costs (e.g. 400%), the non-participating parties start to get a
In response to these concerns, the AIPN’s 2014 Operating
In conventional projects, not all independent operations
competing mechanism to operator-control. It employs the use of
are used for new exploration and drilling, some are for restor-
an operating committee, which usually features a voting threshold
ing, prolonging or enhancing the existing production of a well.
of 50-75% of the participating interests in the venture. The opera-
That said, many independent operations result from disputes
tor is beholden to the instructions of this committee and has only
over new drilling opportunities and can be regarded as a kind of
a limited discretion to act without that authority. This commit-
side bet. It is a side bet, because whether or not the independent
tee-control model grants non-operating parties greater capacity
operation pays out matters little to the success of the primary
to contribute to management and helps to provide a mechanism
wells of the joint venture. So, in the domestic context, costs plus
for the creation and approval of annual budgets. When large and
an additional bonus (e.g. 400% of costs) is an attractive stake for
unforeseeable expenses arise, the committee-control model still
those with greater risk appetite. If they succeed in their wager,
provides non-operator consultation on an ad hoc basis, using AFEs
not only do they win, but also all parties to the venture win; and if
on a much more limited basis. This largely locks in capital, and
they lose, only the risk-takers are out of pocket. This mechanism
provides greater business certainty for such projects.
may have its critics, but on balance, few deny that it enhances the
However, some drafters resist the committee model approach
6
share of production.
Agreement for Unconventional Resources (2014 UROA) offers a
potential profitability of conventional projects in most cases.
for a number of reasons, including in no small part that they
In an unconventional project, things may play out differently.
perceive that the domestic users of their agreements are accus-
The disputes that arise as to further investment are rarely side
tomed to, and prefer, how things are presently done. Furthermore,
bets, mere peripheral gambles; rather, they are integral to the
project’s success. If a party is allowed to elect not to participate
added to the current debate over what changes need to be made to
(subject only to costs plus a penalty for re-entry), the non-partici-
model operating agreements, by offering some useful insights into
pating party’s election not to participate can be used as a weapon
the complexities in—and pitfalls of—modifying such agreements
to unfairly shift more risk upon those who the non-participating
party knows are committed to ensuring that the project does
for unconventional shale projects. m
not fail.
The remaining participating parties may choose, in retaliation,
Dr. Stewart is an Assistant Professor of Law at the
to under-capitalize to mitigate the extra risk/cost thrown upon
University of Calgary Faculty of Law. He is a member
them. As a result, under-capitalization may lead to less explo-
of the University of Calgary’s Energy Research Strategy,
ration, experimentation, and analysis. Accordingly, the operator
entitled “Energy Innovation for Today and Tomorrow.”
might make less informed decisions as to drilling. This can result
This confederation of scholars is a new inter-faculty
in suboptimal production, or in the worse case, the premature
cluster from the Faculty of Arts, the Schulich School
abandonment of the project. Either way, the project may suffer.
of Engineering, the Haskayne School of Business, and
Although fears persist over allowing independent operations,
the Faculty of Law. Professor Stewart is also a Director
the 2014 UROA has retained it, attempting to make it work by
of the Midwest Center for Energy Law and Policy.
introducing safeguards, such as: (1) using annual budgets and
work programs (reducing the opportunities for independent
Mr. Cioni is a partner at Torys LLP and the firm’s top
operations); (2) limiting reentry after a party opts out (preventing
international petroleum specialist. He is also the Canada
problematic de-risking strategies); and (3) adding further restric-
Chapter Director for the Association of International
tions on their use (e.g. allowing such an operation on only one
Petroleum Negotiators in Calgary. A seasoned veteran
multi-well pad per quarter section per year).
with nearly two decades of practice in the area, Mr. Cioni
has participated in oil and gas projects in 27 countries.
Conclusion
Operating in a disparate span of regions helped shape Mr.
This article has pointed to a few of the differences between
Cioni into an expert in the business and political cultures in
conventional and non-conventional projects. Hopefully, it has also
which the international petroleum industry must operate.
7
The Negotiator’s
Message From
the Board
advertising options available, please refer to the Advertising
Details and Submission Guidelines on the CAPL website.
Inquiries can also be directed to our Advertising Editors, Kevin
Young and Trevor Rose. We continue to encourage our members
to submit Feature Articles discussing relevant topics, current
events or issues applicable to our field. Details about the process,
timelines and requirements for submitting an article for The
Negotiator can be found on the CAPL website under the Article
Submissions Guidelines. For further information, please contact
Communications
THIS IS MY FOURTH YEAR AS A
DIRECTOR ON THE CAPL BOARD,
Mark Innes, Feature Content Editor.
but my first year working with the
Mark Innes, Amy Kalmbach, Martin Leung, Jason Peacock, Krissy
Communication Portfolio. Although I
Rennie, Brad Reynolds, Trevor Rose and Kevin Young for ensuring
have only been in this role for a short
the continued success of The Negotiator . I would also like to thank
time, I quickly realized I had under-
the CAPL volunteers for their efforts. The success of the CAPL is
estimated the commitment required to make The Negotiator a
dependent on its volunteers, so I encourage our members to make
successful publication. The number of hours our volunteers
a contribution so we can continue to enjoy the benefits we have
contribute to The Negotiator is impressive. The Negotiator provides
been provided by the CAPL. I would also like to thank the CAPL
our CAPL membership with up to date information on education,
office staff Denise Grieve, Karin Steers, Irene Krickhan and Kaitlin
industry activity, social events, current initiatives and more. It is a
magazine that keeps us connected and informed, which is especially important during challenging economic times.
I would like to remind our membership of the marketing
opportunities offered by the magazine. With many different
8
Thank you to our proofreaders and editors, McAra Printing,
Rachel Hershfield of Folio Creations and our committee members:
Polowski for their hard work and support. m
Kent Gibson
Director, Communications
Knock-for-Knock Indemnification
Clauses in the Oil and Gas Industry
THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY IN ALBERTA AND INTERNATIONALLY IS LARGELY GOVERNED BY STANDARD FORM
CONTRACTS.1 These types of agreements provide certainty and
the negligence or other fault of Precision or howsoever arising.”4
efficiency to contractors and operators alike, on the assumption
assume all of the risk of and be solely liable for the cost of
that the parties have read and fully understand the implications
repairing and re-drilling a lost or damaged hole, including,
of entering into such a contract. However, a recent decision of the
without limitation, the cost of fishing operations, regardless of
Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench illustrates how even sophisticated
the negligence or other fault of Precision or howsoever arising.5
The contract further provided that Yangarra was to
entities can be caught off guard by the practical results of the
provisions in standard form drilling contracts.2 In Precision Drilling
The court relied on a plain language reading of the agreement to
Canada Limited Partnership v Yangarra Resources, 2015 ABQB 433, the
find that Yangarra was required to assume all of the losses caused
court upheld a bilateral no fault contract between a contractor and
by Precision. Yangarra was also required to pay for Precision’s day
an operator, resulting in multi-million dollar losses for the operator.
work. Yangarra attempted to counterclaim against Precision for
This case illustrates that Alberta courts have been more than willing
the losses it suffered based on arguments of negligence, gross
to hold experienced and sophisticated commercial entities to their
negligence, breach of contract, negligent and fraudulent misrep-
agreements, and serves as a cautionary tale for industry to be fully
resentation and unjust enrichment. However, under the contract,
informed about what is contained in its contracts, especially those
Yangarra had released Precision from any and all claims based on
that purport to allocate liability in a particular manner.
negligence or any other theory of legal liability. The court was not
In this case Yangarra Resources Ltd. (“Yangarra”), an oil
willing to overturn the clear intentions of the contract or find a
and gas operator, contracted with Precision Drilling Canada
carve-out the parties did not specifically agree to.6 The ultimate
Limited Partnership (“Precision”) to drill two wells. The agree-
question asked by the court and those who have read this deci-
ment between the parties was governed by a bilateral no fault
sion is: “why would anyone knowingly make such a contract?”7
contract, or reciprocal indemnity agreement. Agreements such as
Oil and gas companies around the world rely on model forms.
these are commonly referred to as “knock-for-knock” contracts
As commentators have noted, this practice “saves the parties
because, pursuant to the contract, each party agrees to bear the
time and transaction costs and gives comfort that they are using
risk of damage to its own assets even if its assets are destroyed or
documents with which they are already familiar.”8 One of the
damaged by the fault of the other.
most common provisions of a standard form oil and gas service
The losses to Yangarra occurred during the drilling of the second
contract is the apportionment of liability or knock-for-knock
well when an employee of Precision improperly mixed the drilling
provision.9 These types of agreements have become common in
mud. Precision employees then “neglected to test or carelessly
the oil and gas industry because they can offer significant bene-
tested the drilling mud and wrongly advised Yangarra’s supervisor
fits to all parties, such as reduced costs with respect to litigation,
that the drilling mud was in order.”3 During drilling, the drill string
increased certainty with respect to risk allocation, and decreased
and bit subsequently became stuck in the hole and could not be
friction between multiple parties at a wellsite.10 However, the
extracted, resulting in equipment losses to Yangarra of approxi-
Precision case is an example of the most significant drawback of
mately $300,000.00. It was assumed these losses were due to the use
the knock-for-knock regime: the requirement for a contracting
of the improperly mixed drilling mud. Yangarra also incurred addi-
party to assume liability for damage for which it is not responsible.
tional expenses in the amounts of $720,000.00 in attempts to retrieve
Depending on the jurisdiction, courts have taken different
the drill string and bit and $2.5 million to drill a replacement well.
approaches with respect to the enforcement of knock-for-knock
indemnification clauses. For example, there is legislation in place
fully sued Yangarra for all of its fees, including the extra expenses
in the United States that generally prohibits indemnification for an
incurred in fishing operations and to drill the replacement well.
indemnitee’s own negligence.11 In addition, some courts have raised
Yangarra was required to pay the full amount of Precision’s bill
the issue of public policy with respect to the enforcement of knock-
and was not able to set off any of its losses. This scenario was
for-knock provisions.12 In the Precision case Yangarra attempted
made possible by the wording of the knock-for-knock drilling
to make the public policy argument that the enforcement of the
contract. The contract provided that Yangarra was to assume all
knock-for-knock provisions would encourage negligent and grossly
of the risk of damage to its equipment or the hole “regardless of
negligent behaviour in the oil and gas industry, therefore placing
9
This decision may be surprising to some as Precision success-
the public at risk.13 However, the Alberta court made clear that
Precision and Yangarra were sophisticated commercial entities
with equal bargaining power who had significant motivation to
avoid negligent behaviour; the court determined that enforcing the
knock-for-knock contract under those circumstances was neither
unconscionable nor contrary to public policy.
As might be expected, negotiating knock-for-knock indemnification provisions can be a time consuming and heated endeavour.
Part of this negotiation process often involves the carve-out of
specific circumstances in which liability will be apportioned to each
party. For example, a knock-for-knock contract may have a carveout for negligence or gross negligence. One of the key factors in this
decision was that the contract provided indemnification for damage
based on any theory of legal liability. In Canada, there is no legislation in place which prohibits this type of broad indemnification
clause.14 In the Precision case the court found that the indemnity
clause covered all heads of damage advanced by Yangarra and
concluded that the indemnity clause would only be unenforceable
in circumstances in which intentional harm was inflicted.15
As discussed, standard form contracts (some complete with
knock-for-knock provisions) are common in the oil and gas industry
worldwide. These types of agreements are often drafted by experts
over many years and negotiated with certain purposes in mind.
For example, if we look slightly closer to home, the CAPL 2007
Operating Procedure is a widely used and accepted standard form
document. The Operating Procedure is by all accounts a “norm based”
standard form document and was designed by its drafters to serve
“typical” situations and transactions (remember $90.00/bbl oil?), all
in an acknowledged environment of ever-increasing non-typical
situations and transactions. Modifications to the norm were expected
to address special circumstances and efforts were made (see the
inclusion of special related annotations to assist users in recognizing
areas for which modifications might be appropriate) to highlight this
potential need and to facilitate special circumstance customization.
However, to understand when modifications to a standard form
document are necessary, one first has to completely understand what
the norm is and what the standard form document purports to do. I
have it on good authority that it was never the drafters intention to
create a document that could be mindlessly stapled onto a generic
and one-size-fits-all head agreement. Quite the contrary in fact. The
situation faced by Yangarra with respect to the use of a standard form
ROCK
SOLID
Synergy Land has experienced an
ever-changing industry since 2006.
You can rely on our strength
and expertise to withstand these
challenging times.
We are here to support your land
service needs. Let us be your rock.
drilling contract should cause every reader to reach to their shelf to
review the liability provisions of the Operating Procedure.
In the Precision case, the contract used by the parties was
not a CAPL standard form document, but instead was negotiated
between the Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors and
the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.16 As cautioned,
contractors and operators alike must still carefully consider and fully
understand the provisions of such contracts, including the liability and
release provisions they are committing to. For example, parties might
turn their minds to allocating certain risks between them instead of
10
Pursuing Perfection
synergyland.ca
|
403.283.4400
releasing each party completely. One way parties can accomplish this
Notes
is to identify in advance certain circumstances in which one party
1.
Trent Mercier, Josh Kane, and Sharbil Nammour, “Drafting Oilfield
has complete control of a particular aspect of the job and carve out an
exception to the knock-for-knock contract that allocates responsibility to such a party.17 In this instance the parties had the opportunity to
Master Service Agreements”, 52 Alta L Rev 245 (2014) at p 247 [Drafting
Oilfield Master Service Agreements].
2. Precision Drilling Canada Limited Partnership v Yangarra Resources, 2015
ABQB 433 at para 5 [Precision v Yangarra].
allocate some risk to Precision, which might have covered the prepa-
3. Ibid at para 17.
ration of the drilling mud. However, the contract used by Precision and
4. Ibid at para 11.
Yangarra noted that the risk allocated to Precision would be “nil.”
18
If parties do proceed with the broad form of indemnification they
5. Ibid at para 29.
6. Ibid at para 36.
7. Ibid at para 44.
need to consider whether there are gaps in their insurance coverage
8.Toby Hewitt, “An Asian Perspective on Model Oil and Gas Services
which a knock-for-knock contract might expose. Additionally, parties
Contracts”, 28 J Energy & Nat Resources L 331 (2010) page 331 [Model
should be aware of how the indemnification clauses in their agreements interact with the contract’s payment terms. Here the parties
Oil and Gas Services Contracts].
9.Model Oil and Gas Services Contracts, supra note 10 at p 333; Drafting
Oilfield Master Service Agreements, supra note 1 at p 255.
agreed that Precision would be paid day rates, which resulted in
10.
Nick Kangles, R Ben Rogers, and Chris Harris, “Risk Allocation
additional losses for Yangarra due to Precision’s continued work at
Provisions in Energy Industry Agreements: Are We Getting It Right?”,
the wellsite. A requirement for Precision to drill a complete well may
49 Alta L Rev 339 (2011-2012) at p 340 [Risk Allocation]; Christopher L
have resulted in reduced losses to Yangarra. Finally, operators headquartered in jurisdictions outside of Alberta with a different approach
Evans and F. Lee Butler, “Reciprocal Indemnification Agreements in the
Oil and Gas Industry: The Good, The Bad And The Ugly, 77 Def Counsel
J 226 (2010) at p 227-229 [Reciprocal Indemnification Agreements].
to the interpretation of indemnification clauses should carefully
11. Risk Allocation, supra note 12 at p 342.
consider choice of law clauses in their standard from agreements.
12. Ibid at p 247.
The results of this case indicate that Alberta courts may hold sophis-
13. Precision v Yangarra, supra note 2 at paras 101-112.
ticated commercial entities to their agreements and will not hesitate
14. Risk Allocation, supra note 12 at p 341.
in enforcing them, whatever the result may be. m
15. Precision v Yangarra, supra note 2 at para 37.
Kourtney Rylands
17.Reciprocal Indemnification Agreements, supra note 12 at p 231.
Land
Environmental
Archaeology
GIS Analysis / UAV Mapping
207 10139 - 100 St.
Fort St. John BC V1J 3Y6
T: 250-261-6644
F: 250-261-6915
Ad #3.indd 1
Alberta
Box 847 10912 - 100 Ave.
Fairview, AB T0H 1L0
T: 780-835-2682
F: 780-835-2140
Toll Free: 888-835-6682
Visit us online at www.roynorthern.com
12/17/2014 10:43:34 AM
11
British Columbia
fS
ervice
o

Calgary
30
s
ear
er 3 0 Y
Ov
Summary Judgement
on Contested Amounts
Owing under Natural
Gas Processing and
Related Agreements
Case commented on: SemCAMS ULC v Blaze Energy Ltd, 2015 ABQB 218
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT JUDGEMENT ON
THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN THE RULES FOR
THE INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS AND
THE POST HRYNIAK LAW ON SUMMARY
JUDGEMENT: see Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7.
12
The short version of the holding is that a producer
WRITTEN BY
cannot avoid summary judgement for outstanding
NIGEL BANKES, BA,
amounts owing under a natural gas processing or
MA, LLM
related agreement on the basis that the producer
has called for an audit of the operator’s accounts
CHAIR, NATURAL RESOURCES LAW,
PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY
or otherwise disputes the amounts owing – at least where the
amounts “as if the obligation to pay such amount and the interest
agreements in question clearly oblige producers to settle invoices
thereon were liquidated demands due and payable on the rele-
promptly, notwithstanding the existence of a dispute as to whether
vant date such amounts were due to be paid, without any right or
the invoices properly reflect the amounts owing.
resort of such Producer to set-off or counterclaim”.
Blaze was the successor in interest to a number of agreements
The evidence before the Court on this application for summary
pursuant to which SemCAMS provided gas transportation, gas
judgement consisted of affidavits by an official of each company
processing and contract operating services. These agreements all
and the transcripts from the questioning on those affidavits.
provided, as one might expect, that producers such as Blaze would
Justice Jo’Anne Strekaf summarized (at para 24) the tests for
promptly settle their accounts once properly invoiced. Given the
summary judgement drawing on the Court of Appeal’s decision
challenges involved in both assessing actual costs and allocating
in Windsor v Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd, 2014 ABCA 108 as follows:
those costs to particular gas streams, the agreements in question provided both a means for truing up accounts (13th month
Summary judgment is now an appropriate procedure where
there is no genuine issue requiring a trial:
adjustment) and a means for allowing producers to question the
accounts by way of audit.
There will be no genuine issue requiring a trial when the
The action related to invoices served by SemCAMS between
judge is able to reach a fair and just determination on the
July 2012 and April 2013 for a total of $6.9 million; remarkably (at
merits on a motion for summary judgment. This will be
para 11) “Blaze has made no payments whatsoever to SemCAMS,
the case when the process (1) allows the judge to make
despite the fact that SemCAMS has been processing its gas since
the necessary findings of fact, (2) allows the judge to apply
June 2012.” Blaze had filed a counterclaim, alleging, inter alia,
the law to the facts, and (3) is a proportionate, more expe-
wrongful shutting in of its wells.
ditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result.
Some, but importantly not all, of the agreements expressly
stated (at para 13) that the “Producer shall not be allowed to with-
The modern test for summary judgment is therefore to
hold payment of any portion of the bill presented by the Operator,
examine the record to see if a disposition that is fair and
due to a protest or question relating to such bill”; and others
just to both parties can be made on the existing record.
provided that the Operator can maintain an action for unpaid
13
On this record, SemCAMS sought judgement for the full invoiced
amount (subject to one adjustment) on the basis that the contracts
contemplated immediate recovery notwithstanding the potential
for subsequent adjustments (at para 38). Blaze on the other hand
argued that SemCAMS’ interpretation of the contracts led to an
absurdity since it “suggests that Blaze would be obligated to pay
whatever SemCAMS invoiced and that underpinning the obligation to make a payment under the Agreements is the requirement
Ugly Oil
Speakeasy
Fundraiser
that the invoices reasonably reflect the goods or services that were
provided” (at para 40).
Justice Strekaf rejected Blaze’s absurdity argument. She concluded (at para 48) that:
It can be inferred that the Operator needs to be able to rely on a
reliable cash flow. If there was a dispute between the Operator
and a Producer as to the amounts owing, the parties could
have decided to allocate the risk so that either the disputed
amount could be withheld by the Producer pending resolution
of that dispute, or that it would be paid and subsequently
adjusted following resolution of that dispute. The language
used in this case suggests that they chose the latter approach.
This arrangement is not an unreasonable allocation of risk.
In doing so Justice Strekaf immediately acknowledged (at para
49) that this was perhaps an unusual situation:
Typically in order for a party who provides services under
an agreement to collect on an unpaid account that they
October 16, 2015
Gerry Thomas Gallery
602 11 Avenue S.W.
Tickets: $75
must satisfy the Court that the amounts are ultimately
owing under the agreement, not that they have simply been
OIL PRICES GETTING YOU DOWN?
billed. It is unusual that a party would be able to obtain
Speak Easy October 16, 2015 at the Gerry Thomas Gallery for
summary judgment on the basis of amounts billed, subject
a night fine cocktails, entertainment, and increasing of moral
to subsequent adjustment following an audit. However, in
through the raising of funds for the Crohn’s and Colitis. All monies
this case the language used by the parties in the Agreements
raised will go directly to the U of C Research Department and stay
in the context of an Operator providing gas processing and
in Calgary.
Join us at the Ugly Oil
transportation services to numerous parties supports that
Ticket price for early bird will be $50 (roughly the price of oil
interpretation as reflecting the true intention of the parties.
today), with regular ticket pricing increasing to $75 where we’d all
like to see it. No worries, each ticket will get you two handmade
Justice Strekaf’s judgement clearly turns on the language of the
particular contracts; but, given that similar language will be
used in the many different types of agreements adopted by the
cocktails and appetizers to help take away the sting of oil prices!
Canadians have more reasons to be concerned about Crohn’s
disease and Ulcerative Colitis than anyone else in the world.
oil and gas industry in western Canada, the implications of this
judgement are potentially very far reaching. To the extent that
the judgement will make it difficult for a producer to postpone
or dodge its obligations to pay, even any amount owing, simply
by triggering the audit provisions of the relevant agreements,
• One in every 150 Canadians is living with Crohn’s or Colitis – a
rate that ranks in the highest worldwide
• Families new to Canada are developing Crohn’s and Colitis for
the first time – often within the first generation.
I suspect that the judgement will be broadly welcomed; and if
upheld on appeal it certainly provides useful guidance as to the
type of contractual language that operators need to insist upon as
part of obtaining effective remedies to secure necessary cash flow
in return for services provided. m
14
Most alarming, the number of new cases of Crohn’s disease in
Canadian children has almost doubled since 1995. m
Roster Updates
Kevin Koopman
Independent
to Synergy Land Services Ltd.
New Members
Curtis Maxwell
Hyperion Exploration Ltd.
The following members were approved by a
to Independent
Pat McCreary, P.Land
Apache Canada Ltd.
to Tiberius Incorporated
Lindsay McGill
EOG Resources Canada Inc.
to Independent
Glenn Miller, PSL
Southern Pacific Resource Corp.
to Value Creation Inc.
James Nixon
Midlake Oil & Gas Limited
to Cord Resources Management Limited
Scott Porter
Independent
to Apache Canada Ltd.
Motion on September 8, 2015:
Applicant
Current Employer
Sponsors
Active
David Bell
Encana Corporation James Armstrong, P.Land
Justin Calon
Joanna Shea
Peter Connelly
Penn West Exploration Thomas Crosley
Dallas Henderson
Ryan Schnitzler
Steven Koenig
ConocoPhillips Canada Alan Powell
Craig Stayura
Brad Reynolds, P.Land
Associate
Jessica Dixon
Larry Buzan, P.Land
Joanne Sinclaire Canalta Oil and Gas Ltd.
LandSolutions LP
Chad Hughes, PSL
to Harvest Operations Corp.
Glenn Miller, PSL
Danielle Suchan
Baytex Energy Ltd.
to Bonterra Energy Corp.
Student
Akash Asif
University of Calgary
Robert Schulz
Brittany D’Adamo
University of Calgary
Robert Schulz
Colin Taylor
Mapan Energy Ltd.
Matthew Douglass
Mount Royal University
Andrea Gill
to Independent
Alison McKendrick
Andrea Gill
Kevin Young
Independent
Mayank Parmar
Andrea Gill
to Rife Resources Ltd.
m
On the Move
Colleen Cochrane, P.Land
Proceed Land Ltd.
to Independent
Sandra Dixon
Encana Corporation
to Independent
Joelle Dunne
Cenovus Energy Inc.
to Apache Canada Ltd.
Lee Hardy
Bellatrix Exploration Ltd.
to Independent
Kathy Hiebert
CGI
to Dark Horse Land Consulting Ltd.
m
In Memoriam
Grant Maglis
It is with deepest sadness that the CAPL announces the recent
passing of Grant Maglis on August 20, 2015 in Calgary.
Grant was born in Edmonton, Alberta and grew up in Saskatoon,
Saskatchewan. In 1966 he moved to Hinton, Alberta where he
completed high school. From there, he moved to Calgary and
enrolled in the Petroleum Land Management program at Mount
Royal College.
Grant began his career in the oil and gas industry in 1969 and
became a member of the CAPL in 1987 while he was employed
Independent
at Omega Hydrocarbons Ltd. as the Manager of Land. He had a
to Rifle Shot Oil Corp.
successful career as a Petroleum Landman and eventually built his
Colin Kay
Independent
to Trout River Energy Inc.
Maureen Keough
Point Energy Advisors Ltd.
to Altura Energy Inc.
own oil and gas production company.
Grant was a proud father of Carlene, Mandy and Tom as well as
five grandchildren. He enriched the lives of those who knew him
and will be truly missed by all of those that had the opportunity
to know him. m
15
Bernie Kanwal
H1 M&A Report
Corporate
Financial Services
August 4, 2015
CANADIAN M&A METRICS
Annual Results
Number of transactions
Total sample dollar value C$BN
Total Proven Reserves ($/BOE)
Proven + Probable Reserves ($/BOE)
Per flowing BOE Production
NYMEX WTI ($US/barrel)
WCS (C$/barrel)
NYMEX ($US/MMBtu)
AECO-C (C$/MMBtu)
USD FX price
2010
138
$24.5
$24.10
$17.30
$64,648
$79.53
$68.48
$4.30
$4.00
1.0299
2011
121
$9.5
$25.72
$18.29
$65,093
$95.10
$78.54
$4.00
$3.60
0.9887
2012
130
$43.4
$22.93
$17.22
$73,400
$94.21
$74.36
$2.85
$2.41
0.9992
$20.00
$18.00
2009
122
$41.0
$25.68
$16.35
$56,227
$61.80
$60.29
$4.03
$4.13
1.1366
$16.35
$17.30
$18.29
2015
55
$9.5
$17.75
$10.94
$54,329
$52.99
$50.43
$2.82
$2.78
1.2426
$73,400
$64,648
$16.00
$12.76
2014
151
$37.5
$18.05
$12.68
$56,079
$92.99
$78.27
$4.37
$4.47
1.1043
Flowing BOE Production
$80,000
$17.22
$14.00
2013
93
$10.2
$18.31
$12.76
$58,769
$97.97
$76.21
$3.75
$3.22
1.0298
$60,000
$12.68
$65,093
$58,769
$56,227
$56,079
$54,329
2014
2015
$10.94
$12.00
$10.00
$40,000
$8.00
$6.00
$20,000
$4.00
$2.00
$0.00
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
$0
2015
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Quarterly Results
Number of transactions
Total sample dollar value C$MM
Total Proven Reserves ($/BOE)
Per flowing BOE Production
Proven + Probable Reserve Life Index (years)
Light Oil Weighted transactions (> 70%, $ per BOE)
OIL - Proven + Probable Reserves
OIL - Per flowing BOE Production
Gas Weighted transactions (> 70%, $ per BOE)
Gas - Proven + Probable Reserves
Gas - Per flowing BOE Production
Q4 13
31
$4,196
$18.81
$14.86
$66,594
17.3
10
$18.17
$89,203
2
$3.14
$20,745
Q1 14
31
$6,318
$18.11
$13.60
$50,055
13.3
7
$23.68
$88,509
13
$5.20
$26,674
Q2 14
39
$8,423
$19.24
$12.95
$63,840
18.2
12
$20.55
$89,492
9
$5.10
$31,192
Q3 14
49
$3,009
$18.38
$12.26
$62,169
11.9
10
$20.17
$100,743
9
$6.83
$28,266
Q4 14
32
$19,776
$16.28
$11.63
$48,098
15.9
5
$17.71
$74,625
5
$5.73
$36,345
Q1 15
19
$2,244
$19.50
$14.28
$61,808
15.5
8
$15.55
$75,682
3
$6.62
$41,284
Q2 15
36
$7,221
$17.01
$9.64
$48,927
14.8
9
$16.92
$76,112
7
$5.04
$31,064
Average Prices
WCS (C$/barrel)
NYMEX ($US/MMBtu)
AECO-C (C$/MMBtu)
USD FX price
Q4 13
$97.46
$69.63
$3.63
$3.15
1.0498
Q1 14
$98.68
$82.35
$4.90
$4.76
1.1035
Q2 14
$102.99
$86.15
$4.56
$4.68
1.0905
Q3 14
$97.16
$80.84
$4.07
$4.22
1.0893
Q4 14
$73.15
$63.75
$3.95
$4.01
1.1357
Q1 15
$48.64
$42.12
$2.97
$2.95
1.2411
Q2 15
$57.85
$56.94
$2.67
$2.68
1.2294
$16.00
Flowing BOE Production
$14.86
$13.60
$14.00
$80,000
$14.28
$12.95
$12.26
$12.00
$66,594
$11.63
$60,000
$8.00
$62,169
$50,055
$9.64
$10.00
$63,840
$61,808
$48,927
$48,098
$40,000
$6.00
$20,000
$4.00
$2.00
$0
$0.00
Q4 13
Q1 14
Q2 14
Q3 14
Q4 14
Q1 15
Q2 15
Q4 13
Q1 14
Q2 14
Q3 14
Q4 14
Questions? Please contact:
Craig Mathison @ (403) 731-3822; Cmathison@atb.com
This report is provided for informational purposes only. While ATB Financial believes the information to be reliable, ATB Financial does not guarantee, or make any representation as to its
accuracy or completeness. The information is not to be construed as offering investment or financial advice and ATB Financial will not be liable for any loss or damage resulting from its use.
16
Q1 15
Q2 15
™
Q1 2015 Notable Transactions
Q2 2015 Notable Transactions
SellerBuyer
SellerBuyer
NuVista Energy
Lightstream Resources
Pinecrest Energy
Surge Energy
Enerplus
Artek Exploration
Perpetual Energy
Beaumont Energy
Penn West
Arcan Resurces
Surge Energy
New Star Energy
Legacy
Mapan Energy
Cenovus
Carmel Bay
Coral Hill
Unspecified
Unspecified
Cardinal Energy and Virginia Hills Oil Corp
Raging River Exploration
Bonterra Energy
Kelt Exploration
Tourmaline Oil Corp
Whitecap Resources
Freehold Royalties
Aspenleaf Energy
TORC Oil & Gas
Sinoenergy Pacific Corp
Crescent Point
Tourmaline
Ontario Teachers Pension Plan
Black Swan Energy
Crescent Point
August 4, 2015
KEY STATISTICS SUMMARY
Alberta Electricity
2015 YTD
2014
2013
2012
3-Year Average
$41.15
$49.18
$80.18
$64.32
$64.56
6,271
7,143
894
1,434
409
16,151
6,271
5,906
894
1,088
409
14,568
6,286
5,728
894
1,088
409
14,405
6,286
5,728
894
1,088
409
14,405
39%
44%
17%
43%
41%
16%
44%
40%
17%
44%
40%
17%
Jun-15
Jun-14
Jun-13
Jun-12
Drilling Rig Count
Drilling Rig Utilization
123
16.2%
231
28.6%
178
21.7%
224
27.6%
Service Rig Utilization
Jun-15
30.2%
Jun-14
39.6%
Jun-13
47.2%
Jun-12
52.9%
3-Year Average
46.6%
Well Completions
Oil Completions
Natural Gas Completions
Other Completions (Service / Dry)
Total Completions
Jun-15
214
52
34
300
Jun-14
411
154
55
620
Jun-13
274
55
76
405
Jun-12
376
24
49
449
3-Year Average
354
78
60
491
Total Well Completions - Annual
Metres per well drilled
2014
10,920
2,226
2013
10,883
2,053
2012
11,651
2,003
2011
16,071
1,728
3-Year Average
12,868
1,928
CAODC 2015 Forecast (well completions WCSB)
5,531
2015 YTD
2014
2013
2012
3-Year Average
WCS (C$/barrel)
$52.99
$50.43
$92.99
$78.27
$97.97
$76.21
$94.21
$74.36
$95.06
$76.28
NYMEX ($US/MMBtu)
AECO-C (C$/MMBtu)
$2.82
$2.78
$4.37
$4.47
$3.75
$3.22
$2.85
$2.41
$3.65
$3.37
2015 YTD
2014
2013
2012
3-Year Average
2P Reserves - Light Oil Weighted ($/BOE)
2P Reserves - Gas Weighted ($/BOE)
2P Reserves - Total Sample Average ($/BOE)
$16.24
$5.26
$10.94
$20.68
$5.62
$12.68
$18.82
$5.63
$12.76
$25.42
$6.99
$17.22
$21.64
$6.08
$14.22
Flowing Production - Light Oil Weighted ($/BOE)
Flowing Production - Gas Weighted ($/BOE)
Flowing Production - Total Sample Average ($/BOE)
$75,847
$34,897
$54,329
$90,891
$29,519
$56,079
$83,388
$23,264
$58,769
$110,215
$39,680
$73,400
$94,831
$30,821
$62,749
Source: AESO
Prices ($ / MWh)
Source: AUC
Generation Capacity (MW)
Coal
Natural Gas
Hydro
Wind
Other
Total Capacity
% Coal
% Natural Gas
% Other
Drilling Results (WCSB)
3-Year Average
Source: CAODC
211
26.0%
* As of Sept/13 all rig activity reports are in the new CAODC format
Commodity Prices
Oil & Gas M&A Prices
Source: ATB
17
Alberta Land Sales
2015 YTD
2014
2013
2012
3-Year Average
$161.5
$146.27
$22.2
$424.44
$489.4
$462.34
$4.7
$150.25
$679.6
$316.91
$28.2
$192.05
$1,110.1
$360.06
$10.7
$136.27
$759.7
$379.8
$14.5
$159.5
Jun-15
Jun-14
Jun-13
Jun-12
3-Year Average
73,630
64,280
2,648
69,840
58,860
2,005
65,890
58,100
2,643
64,640
62,280
3,115
66,790
59,747
6,972
2014
16,876
2013
16,254
2012
16,161
2011
16,530
4-Year Average
16,455
Jun-15
Jun-14
Jun-13
Jun-12
3-Year Average
93.86
95.74
1.68
92.24
93.05
2.09
90.42
91.07
1.98
91.02
89.98
1.94
91.23
91.37
2.00
WCSB Crude Oil Volumes (Mbbl/d)
Eastern Canada Volumes (Mbbl/d)
Total Canada Volumes (Mbbl/d)
2014
3,525
216
3,741
2013
3,246
230
3,476
2012
3,038
199
3,237
2011
2,759
267
3,026
4-Year Average
3,142
228
3,370
Alberta Conventional Crude Oil Volumes (Mbbl/d)
Synthetic Crude Oil (Mbbl/d)
Bitumen Volumes (Mbbl/d)
Total Alberta Crude Oil Volumes (Mbbl/d)
589
958
1,205
2,752
581
938
1,003
2,522
557
903
877
2,337
489
864
755
2,108
2015 YTD
2014
2013
2012
3-Year Average
-0.6
-
2.5
4.4
2.0
3.9
1.8
3.8
2.1
4.0
0.50
2.70
0.66
2.04
1.97
1.00
3.00
1.18
1.82
1.81
1.00
3.00
1.16
1.84
1.84
1.00
3.00
1.16
1.84
1.86
1.00
3.00
1.17
1.83
1.84
Jun-15
1.0
2.3
1.7
Jun-14
2.4
1.8
1.9
Jun-13
1.2
1.3
2.3
Jun-12
1.5
2.0
1.3
3-Year Average
1.5
1.9
1.8
Source: Alberta Energy
Conventional Bonus Paid ($MM)
Conventional Price ($/HA)
Oilsands Bonus Paid ($MM)
Oilsands ($/HA)
Natural Gas Volumes
Source: EIA
U.S. Domestic Dry Gas Production (MMCF/d)
U.S. Natural Gas Consumption (MMCF/d)
U.S. Working Gas Inventory (BCF)
Source: CAPP
WCSB Natural Gas Production (MMCF/d)
Oil and Liquids Volumes
Source: EIA
Global Consumption (MMbbl/d)
Global Supply (MMbbl/d)
OPEC Surplus Capacity (MMbbl/d)
Source: CAPP
Economic Indicators
554
916
960
2,430
Source: Stats Canada
Canada GDP (%) - lastest quarter annualized
Alberta GDP (%)
Source: Bank of Canada
BOC Overnight Interest Rate (%) - end of period
Prime Rate (%) - end of period
BA 30 day Rate (%) - end of period monthly avg
Prime - BA Spread - end of period
Prime - BA Spread - annual average
Change Year over Year
Canada Total CPI
Canada CORE CPI
Alberta Total CPI
Land Acquisitions
Freehold Mineral Specialists
Surface Acquisitions
Pipeline Right-of-Way
Rental Reviews
Damage Settlements
Crown Sale Attendance
Title Registration
Potash Projects
Wind Generation Projects
Suite 201, 2629 – 29th Avenue
Regina, Saskatchewan S4S 2N9
18
Get Smart
The CAPL Education Committee is pleased to present the following courses:
British Columbia Surface Rights (PSL®)
October 06, 2015
8:30 a.m to 4:30 p.m.
Contract Administration: An Overview
October 08, 2015
8:30 a.m to 4:30 p.m.
This course is intended for surface landmen and administra-
This seminar is intended to give personnel an overview of
tors interacting in all facets of surface activities and associated
contract administration.
regulations in British Columbia. This seminar will cover a wide
An overview of the mechanics required to compile and admin-
range of issues provided under the jurisdiction of the British
ister efficient land systems and controls will be presented. The
Columbia Surface Rights Board and the British Columbia Oil &
daily expectations and responsibilities of the land administrator
Gas Commission. An overview of oil & gas activities in British
will also be discussed. Practical examples will be provided and
Columbia will also be presented by the operations manager of the
a discussion of common problems will be encouraged. Topics
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.
include: role of the land administrator, the relationship between
mineral leases and contracts, land survey systems, wells, common
Fundamentals of Surface Agreements (PSL®)
October 07, 2015
8:30 a.m to 4:30 p.m.
agreements (JOA, Farmout, Pooling, Royalty, CAPL 1990 Operating
Procedure, PASC 1996), Notice of Assignment, terms used in the
industry and check lists.
This course is for the purposes of having detailed discussions about
land agreements that are most commonly used during the surface
acquisition process. Types of agreements include the Alberta
Fundamentals of Oil and Gas Law
October 14, 2015
8:30 a.m to 4:30 p.m.
Surface Lease, Alberta Right-of-Way Agreement, Amendments,
Damage Releases, and Temporary Work Space Agreements. Other
This seminar will cover a range of legal issues, including environ-
miscellaneous surface documents will be discussed as to when,
mental law and regulatory matters, but will focus on the types of
where and how they are to be used. This course also covers the
contracts most often dealt with in the upstream oil and gas indus-
basic concepts of contract law, the Dower Act, Surface Rights Act,
try. This is intended for junior to intermediate industry personnel.
and Land Agent’s Licensing Act, and how these relate to surface
A question and answer period will be scheduled.
land acquisition.
Alberta P&NG Regulations
Petroleum Evaluations: Making the Right Decision NEW COURSE
October 07, 2015
October 15, 2015
8:30 a.m to 2:15 p.m.
8:30 a.m to 12:00 p.m.
This seminar is intended for land personnel who require an
This seminar is ideally suited for oil and gas professionals who may
understanding and working knowledge of the Alberta Mines and
currently or in the future be involved in the evaluation of oil and
Minerals Act and associated regulations as it relates to P&NG
gas development opportunities, reserves assessments and mergers
tenure. This seminar will cover the administration of continua-
and acquisitions or dispositions of assets. In this practical, half day
tions for primary and continued leases; groupings and validation
hands-on seminar, the attendees will assess the options open to a
of licenses; registration of liens and transfers, surrenders, rentals,
company when considering drilling a well. Specifically, the attendees
offsets, the P&NG sales process and trespass.
will consider the issues in drilling and farming out the opportunity.
The seminar will consist of four parts: creating an economic evaluation; assessing the opportunity and the alternatives; reviewing the
Freehold Mineral Lease
October 20, 2015
9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
will present the results of their analysis in the seminar. The attend-
This seminar is intended for industry personnel who require
ees will learn the inputs needed for an economic evaluation, the
a detailed knowledge of freehold mineral rights. Anyone who
difference between royalty and working interests, the mechanism
is taking this seminar should previously have taken CAPL’s Oil
of a farm-in, and how to estimate well recovery.
and Gas Law or an equivalent course and/or have several years
19
evaluation; and recommending a course of action. The attendees
of experience in land. The instructor will discuss the Torrens
System in Alberta (with some reference to Saskatchewan),
Alberta Crown Lease Continuation
October 22, 2015
8:30 a.m to 12:00 p.m.
the concept of indefeasibility and its qualification, historical
searches, registration and caveating issues. The instructor will
This seminar is intended for land personnel who are involved in
then review the nature and ownership of oil and gas in place,
the Alberta Crown Lease continuation process. Technical person-
covering such issues as: the rule of capture and legal and
nel will also benefit from taking this course. An overview of the
regulatory entitlement to various substances such as coal bed
regulations and geological case studies governing lease continua-
methane. The topics to be covered under the Freehold Oil and
tion will be provided by instructors from the Alberta Department
Gas Lease will be: the principle features of the lease, its stan-
of Energy.
dard clauses, the formalities of completion and execution of the
lease, the termination of the lease, and top leasing. A review of
current court and regulatory decisions regarding freehold leases
Oil Sands Tenure
October 22, 2015
1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
will complete the day. Throughout the seminar the instructor
will reference the leading Canadian court cases and legislation
This course will focus on gaining an understanding of the current
affecting the issues discussed.
oil sands tenure regulations and guidelines. Topics to be discussed
will include: public and private sales; rights conveyed by oil
Well Spacings and Holdings COURSE REVISED
October 21, 2015
8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
sands agreements; types of oil sands agreements; solution gas
in oil sands; continuation of oil sands leases; minimum level of
evaluation criteria; escalating rentals; development, research and
This seminar is designed for landmen and other individuals
exploration offsetting costs; bitumen upgrading as it relates to
who wish to become familiar with the concepts and regula-
offsetting costs; lease designations; changing from nonproducing
tions associated with drilling spacing units and target areas in
to producing and vice versa.
Alberta and B.C., the implications of these and how they could
impact a landman’s negotiations. Changes to the spacing regulations and Directive 065 along with the increase in horizontal
Acquisitions and Divestments: The Paper Chase
October 27, 2015
8:30 a.m to 4:30 p.m.
well drilling have led to confusion and misunderstanding as to
what constitutes an on-target, compliant well. The objectives
This seminar is intended for those land personnel who are
of this course are to familiarize participants with the current
involved in the corporate property rationalization process and
regulations and learn how to interpret them correctly to ensure
who have at least an intermediate knowledge of day to day land
the wells they drill will not be subject to off-target penalties or
practices. It will be of most benefit to those individuals responsi-
enforcement action (due to noncompliance) from the Alberta
ble for the preparation necessary to evaluate and close an asset
Energy Regulator (AER). Emphasis will be placed on reviewing
acquisition, divestment or trade. Persons responsible for manag-
existing regulations (including holdings) in both Alberta and B.C.
ing or supervising this area of expertise will also find this course
and the consequences of variation from normal spacing units
valuable. This course is not intended for junior land personnel.
through practical problems. Information resource sources will
Procedures, processes and tips necessary to properly time, evalu-
be discussed.
ate, create and disseminate the flow of paper, from the beginning
to the end of an acquisition, divestment or trade will be covered.
W W W. P R O G R E S S L A N D . C O M
1.866.454.4717
12831 – 163 Street, Edmonton, Alberta T5V 1M5
20
This will include scheduling, due diligence, closing and post-closing responsibilities. Documentation such as Land Schedules to
British Columbia P&NG Regulations
October 29, 2015
8:30 a.m to 4:30 p.m.
the Purchase and Sale Agreement and ROFR Notices, as well
as numerous specific conveyances, post-closing and tracking
This seminar is intended for land personnel who require an
documents will be reviewed. A comprehensive reference binder
understanding and working knowledge of the British Columbia
containing examples of these items will be provided.
Petroleum and Natural Gas Act and associated regulations. The
seminar will provide an overview of the British Columbia Petroleum
Negotiations: The Essential Skill for Landmen
October 27, 2015
and Natural Gas Act and associated regulations, including such
8:30 a.m to 4:30 p.m.
topics as the land tenure system and the Crown sales process. A
question and answer period will follow the presentation.
If you are on the front line conducting negotiations or are a
member of the “support team”, you must understand the negotiating process and how you can contribute. Whether this is your
Contractual Issues Relating to Acquisitions and Divestments
November 3, 2015
8:30 a.m to 12:00 p.m.
first exposure to training in negotiation or even if you have taken
negotiation courses in the past, this presentation is intended for
This seminar will focus on the legal aspects of the acquisition of
all professionals who wish to gain a further understanding of the
oil and gas reserves and facilities. Special emphasis will be on
process and how the process can be managed to the mutual bene-
legal issues, such as the rights to deposit, basic tax issues, the
fit of the negotiators. This seminar will provide participants with
treatment of effective date vs. closing date, conditions precedent,
an understanding of the process of negotiating and will introduce
consents, ROFRs, due diligence and indemnities.
them to the skills required to achieve outstanding agreements.
Instruction will involve short presentations, case discussions,
practice negotiations and video clips. Participants will be fully
Principles of Contract Drafting and Interpretation
November 3, 2015
1:00 p.m to 4:30 p.m.
engaged throughout the program.
The principles of drafting and interpreting contracts that have evolved
Fundamentals of Mineral Land NEW COURSE
October 28, 2015
in case law over the years will be presented. In addition to reviewing
8:30 a.m to 12:00 p.m.
case studies, the instructor will discuss the essential concepts in
drafting and suggestions for improving essential parts of agreements.
This course is provided for professionals such as surface landmen,
engineers, geologists and other professionals who either work
Evaluation of Canadian Oil and Gas Properties for Landmen
with their mineral land department or manage their mineral
NEW COURSE
land group as part of a larger team. Individuals new to the land
November 4, 2015
8:30 a.m to 4:30 p.m.
industry would also benefit from this course; some knowledge of
November 5, 2015
8:30 a.m to 4:30 p.m.
mineral land is beneficial but not required. The course is designed
to provide course attendees, who may have limited or basic
The course objective is to focus on understanding the process of
knowledge of oil and gas, with a basic ground-up overview of
evaluations and understanding the outputs so that land profes-
mineral land and the role of landmen in the exploration process.
sionals understand what oil & gas evaluators do and what they
This course will also include an introduction to land tenure and
report. Learning objectives include; definitions of reserves and
agreements in Western Canada.
resources and what they mean to a firm, the process of estimating
FALL IS ARRIVING
It’s that Time of Year Again!
Monetize Your Non-Core Properties and Focus on Your Core Assets
For further information on our corporate advisory services
please contact Alan Tambosso: atambosso@sayeradvisors.com
...Sayer, the recognized merger and acquisition experts.
th
1620, 540 - 5 Avenue SW
Calgary, Alberta T2P 0M2
P: 403.266.6133 F: 403.266.4467
www.sayeradvisors.com
21
• Interested in Raising Capital to put your Core Properties to Work?
• Want to Become a More Focused Company?
reserves and resources including the income method, calculations
acquiring seismic data in Canada will also be introduced. Sample
of recoverable volumes, price forecasts, operating and capital
show and tell scenarios employing geophysics will demonstrate
costs and royalties.
how the information acquired in this course can benefit a
non-geophysicist.
Fiduciary Duties
November 4, 2015
Aboriginal Affairs
9:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
November 10, 2015
8:30 a.m to 12:00 p.m.
This half day seminar will focus on problem areas arising in the
context of both transactions and day-to-day operations. Case
This session is especially useful for those interacting with
examples and court decisions specific to land related issues will
Aboriginal governments, businesses and communities, and helps
be presented and discussed. Specifically, this course will empha-
in building positive relationships to enhance effectiveness with
size situations and circumstances where fiduciary duties do and
Aboriginal people.
do not arise and the nature of these duties.
Indian Oil & Gas Canada
Geophysics for Non Geophysicists
November 5, 2015
November 10, 2015
1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
8:30 a.m to 4:30 p.m.
This session provides an overview of IOGC, the Indian Oil and Gas
This seminar will introduce the field of geophysics as it pertains
Act and regulations, IOGC’s role in assisting First Nations develop
to hydrocarbon exploration in Western Canada. The instruc-
their oil and gas, the two key approaches to negotiations and
tor will focus on a number of personal cases to exemplify the
a review of IOGC’s current sub surface and surface disposition
use of seismic data. Simple in-class exercises will show some
processes, applicable federal legislation and regulator requirements.
of the limitations of seismic data in a cost-effective explo-
www.actionland.ca
ration program. Ownership issues and legal obligations of
Fort St. John
Grand Prairie
Edmonton
Lloydminster
Saskatoon
Calgary
Regina
Medicine Hat
Servicing Alberta, BC and Saskatchewan since 2001
22
2007 CAPL Operating Procedure
November 17, 2015
8:30 a.m to 4:30 p.m.
Geology
November 24 & 25, 2015 8:30 a.m to 4:30 p.m.
This one day course is an overview of the 2007 CAPL Operating
This seminar will provide an overview of geology as it applies
Procedure focused specifically on the changes between the 1990
to petroleum exploration in Canada. Workshops and exercises
and the new document. It is meant to enable personnel to appre-
are an integral part of the seminar. The instructor will review
ciate substantive differences between the 1990 and the 2007
the geological exploration tools, models and concepts as they
documents.
apply to oil and gas exploration in Canadian sedimentary
basins. Topics will include: rocks and minerals, geological
Enhancing Strategic Perspective NEW COURSE
time scale, plate tectonics and reconstruction, development of
November 18 & 19 2015 8:30 a.m to 4:30 p.m.
hydrocarbon reservoirs and traps, the generation and entrapment of oil and gas and the historical geology of the Western
Participants in this course will learn how to: Apply the Enhancing
Canadian Sedimentary Basin. The geological tools used in
Strategic Perspective model, broaden their view of the envi-
exploration and formation evaluation will be utilized through-
ronment and lengthen the time horizon over which they plan,
out the seminar, including well cuttings, cores, wireline and
reflect on the impact of their actions and decisions, synthesize
geophysical well logs, drill stem tests, surface and subsurface
disparate information and see the interrelationships between
maps and cross-sections. The integration of geological data and
issues and people, be diligent in making choices and prioritizing
geophysical, land engineering and other disciplines will also
time, energy and resources, apply tools and strategies to increase
be discussed.
strategic capability and communicate in a way that increases
others’ perceptions of their strategic capability. Some prep work is
involved, please see the CAPL website for more information.
Professional Ethics: Theory and Application
November 18, 2015
8:30 a.m to 4:30 p.m.
Royalty Agreements (morning)
November 25, 2015
8:30 a.m to 12:00 p.m.
This half-day seminar is designed to assist in interpreting and
reviewing royalty clauses and agreements. It will examine the
critical components of a royalty agreement, and will discuss
This seminar is intended to increase the understanding of ethics
such topics as: qualifying an overriding royalty (i.e. an interest in
and dimensions to ethical behavior by stimulating the ethical
land vs. an interest in the proceeds from the sale of production);
thought process, giving a basic introduction to the nuances of
proper deductions in calculating an ORR; rights and obliga-
ethics, introducing a number of methods used in ethical deci-
tions of the royalty owner and payor; and securing payment of
sion making, and providing a forum for discussions with respect
an ORR.
to land related ethical issues. Case studies will encourage class
discussion and give each participant insight into the morality vs.
November 26 & December 1, 2015 8:30 a.m to 4:30 p.m.
legality question.
Advanced Surface Rights DATE CHANGED
November 19, 2015
Drilling & Production Operations
8:30 a.m to 4:30 p.m.
This seminar will give a non-technical overview of oilfield operations in Western Canada. The major topics of drilling, well
completion, and production operations will be covered. In the
This seminar is directed towards members of industry with 5
drilling section, the instructor will discuss drilling and other oper-
or more years’ experience and is intended to summarize and
ations such as logging, drill stem testing, coring and cementing.
describe all facets of surface rights within the oil and gas business.
The completion section will include a discussion of the service
Registrants should consider Introduction to Surface Rights or at
rig, perforating, stimulation and downhole equipment. Production
least five years of field experience as a prerequisite for this course.
operations will cover production facilities and equipment, meth-
It will include the following topics: history, contrast of surface
ods of artificial lift and enhanced recovery techniques. m
lessees, documents, applications for right of entry, applications
for well licenses or pipeline permits and surrender or termination
of interests.
23
rights and mineral rights, land titles, land agents, operators /
October General
Meeting
Guest Speaker
Tom Flanagan
TOM FLANAGAN STUDIED POLITICAL SCIENCE AT
NOTRE DAME UNIVERSITY, THE FREE UNIVERSITY
OF WEST BERLIN, AND DUKE UNIVERSITY, WHERE
HE RECEIVED HIS PH.D. He has taught political science at
the University of Calgary since 1968. He was elected to the Royal
Society of Canada in 1996, and was named University Professor
in 2007. He retired from the Political Science Department in 2013
but continues to teach in the University of Calgary’s School of
Public Policy.
Tom is best known as a scholar for his books on Louis Riel,
the North-West Rebellion, and aboriginal land claims. His book
First Nations? Second Thoughts received both the Donner Prize and
the Canadian Political Science Association’s Donald Smiley Prize
for the best book on Canadian politics published in the year 2000. His more recent book Beyond the Indian Act: Restoring Aboriginal
Property Rights explains how Canada’s First Nations can enjoy the
institution of private property on their land reserves. Co-authored
with Chris Alcantara and André Le Dressay, with a foreword by
Manny Jules, it was short-listed for the Donner Prize in 2011.
Tom is continuing his work on aboriginal property rights and
economic development as Chair of the Aboriginal Futures research
campaign in 2004. He was the Senior Communications Adviser in
program with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
the Conservative war room during the 2005-06 election campaign. Tom has also published on Canadian politics, elections, politi-
These experiences are described in his book Harper’s Team: Behind
cal parties, and game theory as a tool for understanding political
the Scenes in the Conservative Rise to Power (second ed., 2009). He also
life, and has worked as chief of staff and campaign manager
managed the campaign of the Wildrose Party in the 2012 Alberta
for Preston Manning, Stephen Harper, and Danielle Smith.
provincial election.
He managed Stephen Harper’s campaigns for the leadership of the
His most recent books are Winning Power: Canadian Campaigning
Canadian Alliance (2002) and of the Conservative Party of Canada
in the 21st Century (2013) and Persona non Grata: The Death of Free
(2004), as Elexco_Negotiator
well as the Conservative
Party’s1 national
qrtrhoriz4CfinPage
6/24/11 election
7:47:54 PM
• Mineral and Surface Leasing
• Right-of-Way Acquisitions
• Mineral Ownership/Title Curative
• Seismic Permitting
• Mapping/GIS Services
• Abstracts of Title
24
Speech in the Internet Age (2013). m
A FULL SERVICE LAND COMPANY SERVING NORTH AMERICA
Elexco Ltd.
Canada: 1.800.603.5263
www.elexco.com
Elexco Land Services, Inc.
New York: 1.866.999.5865
Michigan: 1.800.889.3574
Pennsylvania: 724.745.5600
gerry thomas gallery
602 11 Avenue S.W.
Calgary
October 16, 2015
6:30 PM
tickets:
www.eventbrite.com/e/the-ugly-oilspeak-easy-supporting-crohns-colitistickets-18562032539
25
2015 CAPL Golf
Tournament
raised for Parkinson Alberta, a standalone Alberta based charitable
organization with 100% of proceeds funding services, resources
and research for Parkinsons disease.
Our golfers teed off and birdies and eagles were plentiful.
Unfortunately, there was also a wasp or two ready to punish – anyone
not sticking to the fairway. Lost balls were common. Thanks to Shell
Canada and ARC Resources we had a few extras. Scorecards were
doctored and pints were pulled as Gowlings generously provided
a beer gardens on the patio. Universal Surveys and Progress Land
sponsored a fantastic dinner with wine provided by Boulder Energy.
A special thanks to the co-chair’s of the committee Craig Stayura
and Garrett Zokol for the heavy lifting on organizational duties.
Additional thanks for the enthusiastic efforts of the Golf Committee:
Alayne Fernquist, Cam Urquhart, Craig Thomas, Taylor Searle, Aryn
THE FORECAST WAS UNCERTAIN AS HERITAGE POINTE
GOLF CLUB WELCOMED CAPL MEMBERS ON AUGUST
20TH for our association’s annual golf tournament hosted by title
Flette, Len Moriarity, Jeff Talbot, Jeremy Galeski and Trevor Burke.
Thank you again to all our sponsors listed below, this event
would not be possible without your continued support:
sponsor geoLOGIC. Even with our industry facing difficult times,
our membership showed up in full force to once again sell out the
We hope to see everyone again next August for the 2016 CAPL
Golf Tournament.
tournament and while austerity measures are the norm we are
exceptionally grateful for the continued support of our sponsors.
CAPL Golf Tournament Committee
As the golfers registered and enjoyed a breakfast sandwich from
our friends at Lexterra Land the clouds burned off and out came
Some comments from our Title Sponsor
the Sun Dog sunglasses, our first tee gift sponsored by Dentons.
geoLOGIC systems was proud to once again be the Title Sponsor
While chatting before tee off we were treated to Coffee and Baileys
for the 2015 CAPL Golf Tournament. Situated on Heritage Pointe #1,
from DLA Piper before heading to our golf carts sponsored by
known as the “geoLOGIC stop-over” we welcomed multiple teams
Can-Am Geomatics. As is tradition with the tournament, most
of enthusiastic golfers to enjoy a Spolumbo’s sausage and a cold
players stopped by Len Moriarity and Breanne Ramsay’s table to
beverage before teeing off on this gorgeous hole.
purchase a mulligan package to help smooth out the tough holes
and a great summer send-off. m
ahead while helping a great cause. This year over $3,000 was
Title Sponsor
Dinner Sponsors
Lawson Lundell
Contributor Sponsors
geoLOGIC
Universal Surveys Group
All-Can Engineering
Petroland Services
Progress Land Services
Crescent Point
Action Land
McElhanney Land
Nuvista Energy
Baileys & Coffee Sponsor
geoLOGIC
Prospect Land
DLA Piper
I.H.S
Integrity Land
Breakfast Sponsor
Lexterra Land Ltd.
Wine Sponsor
Boulder Energy
Tee Gift Sponsor
Midwest Surveys
Jupiter Resources
Golf Ball Sponsor
Integrated Geomatics
Lawson Lundell
Shell Canada Limited
Pandell
Millennium Geomatics
ARC Resources
RPS HMA
Shell
Dentons
Standard Land
Caltech Surveys
Hole Sponsors
Sinopec Daylight
Precision Geomatics
Cart Sponsor
Vertex
Britt Land
KC Resources
Can-am Geomatics
LandSolutions
Synergy Land
Tierra Geomatics
Compass Geomatics
Blakes, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Beer Garden Sponsor
Sayer Securities
Scott Land & Lease
Gowlings LLP
P2 Energy
Focus
Birchcliff
Ikkuma
PNG Exchange
26
Thank you to all the participants for a wonderful day of golf
The Social Calendar
EVENT
DATE
TIME
LOCATION
COST
(INCLUDING GST)
CONTACT NAME
CONTACT PHONE
CONTACT EMAIL
REGISTRATION
DEADLINE
Ugly Oil
Speakeasy
Fundraiser
16-Oct-15
7:00 PM
Gerry Thomas Gallery
Early Bird: $50
After September 16: $75
Chris Ellis
(403) 250-7240
cellis@canadawestland.com
15-Oct-15
CAPL October
General Meeting
22-Oct-15
7:30 AM
The Westin
Members: No Charge
Non-Members: $63.00
Student Members: $31.50
Karin Steers
(403) 237-6635
ksteers@landman.ca
16-Oct-15
CAPL November
General Meeting
19-Nov-15
5:00 PM
The Westin
Members: No Charge
Non-Members: $94.50
Student Members: $47.25
Kaitlin Polowski
(403) 237-6635
reception@landman.ca
13-Nov-15
* Please note: Registration forms can be downloaded from the CAPL website:
General Meetings: http://landman.ca/events&meetings/general_meetings.php
Social: http://landman.ca/events&meetings/social_events.php
Since 1981 the HURLAND team has
been providing comprehensive
services in all aspects of Surface
Land Acquisition, Administration,
1.888.321.2222
Info@hurland.ca
www.hurland.com
27
SHERWOOD PARK
LAND ACQUISITIONS
FIRST NATIONS CONSULTATION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
AER CROWN APPLICATIONS
ANNUAL COMPENSATION REVIEWS
DAMAGE SETTLEMENTS
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS &
NOTIFICATIONS
CAPL Calendar
of Events
October
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
12
14
14
15
16
20
21
22
22
22
27
27
28
28
29
Tuesday
Tuesday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Wednesday
Wednesday Thursday
Monday
Wednesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Thursday
Thursday
Tuesday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Board Meeting
Saskatchewan Land Sale
British Columbia Surface Rights (PSL®)
British Columbia Land Sale
Fundamentals of Surface Agreements (PSL®)
Petroleum Evaluations - Making the Right Decisions
Contract Administration: An Overview
Thanksgiving
Alberta Land Sale
Fundamentals of Oil and Gas Law
Alberta P&NG Regulations
Ugly Oil Speakeasy Networking Event
Freehold Mineral Lease
Well Spacings and Holdings
General Meeting
Alberta Crown Lease Continuation
Oil Sands Tenure
Acquisitions and Divestments: The Paper Chase
Negotiations: The Essential Skill for Landmen
Alberta Land Sale
Fundamentals of Mineral Land
British Columbia P&NG Regulations m
3
4-5
4
4
4
5
10
10
11
17
18-19
18
18
19
19
25
24-25
26
Board Meeting
Issues Relating to Acquisitions
and Divestments
Tuesday Principles of Contract Drafting and Interpretation
Wed-Thurs
Evaluation of Canadian Oil and Gas Properties for Landmen
Wednesday British Columbia Land Sale
Wednesday Manitoba Land Sale
Wednesday Fiduciary Duties
Thursday Geophysics for Non Geophysicists
Tuesday
Aboriginal Affairs
Tuesday
Indian Oil & Gas Canada
Wednesday Remembrance Day
Tuesday
2007 CAPL Operating Procedure
Wed-Thurs Enhancing Strategic Perspective
Wednesday Alberta Land Sale
Wednesday Professional Ethics: Theory and Application
Thursday Advanced Surface Rights
Thursday General Meeting
Wednesday Royalty Agreements
Tues-Wed Geology
Thursday Drilling and Production Operations (continues Dec. 1) m
Tuesday
Contractual
November Meeting
October 22, 2015
General Meeting • Speaker: Tom Flanagan
November 19, 2015
General Meeting • Speaker: TBD
Time:
7:30 a.m.
Cocktails: 5:00 p.m.
Where:
The Westin Hotel
Where:
The Westin Hotel
320 – 4 Avenue S.W.
320 – 4 Avenue S.W.
Cost:
No Charge for Members
Cost:
No Charge for Members
Non-Members: $63.00
Non-Members: $94.50 (includes $4.50 GST)
Students $31.50
Students $47.25 (includes $2.25 GST)
Deadline for registration is noon, Friday, October 16, 2015. m
3
October Meeting
To register, please go the event tab on the CAPL website.
28
November
3 Tuesday
Dinner: 6:00 p.m.
To register, please go the event tab on the CAPL website.
Deadline for registration is noon, Friday, November 13, 2015. m
WWW.LANDSOLUTIONS.CA
WESTERN CANADA
LAND SALE & DRILLING RIG REVIEW
Land Sale Data
8,000.00
Manitoba
Saskatchewan
Alberta
7,000.00
70%
6,000.00
Average $ / Ha
60%
50%
40%
30%
5,000.00
4,000.00
3,000.00
20%
2,000.00
10%
1,000.00
0%
August 2012
0.00
August 2013
August 2014
August 2015
Au
gu
s
em t 20
be 13
Oc r 20
to
13
be
No
r2
ve
01
m
3
De ber
20
ce
13
m
be
r2
Ja
01
nu
3
ar
y2
Fe
01
br
4
ua
ry
M 201
ar
4
ch
20
14
Ap
ril
20
M 14
ay
2
Ju 014
ne
20
Ju 14
l
Au y 20
14
Se gus
t
pt
em 201
4
be
r
Oc
to 201
4
No ber
20
ve
m
1
De ber 4
ce
2
m 01
be 4
Ja r 2
nu 01
4
a
Fe ry 2
0
br
ua 15
ry
M 201
ar
5
ch
2
Ap 015
ril
20
15
M
ay
20
1
Ju
ne 5
20
Ju 15
ly
Au 20
gu 15
st
20
15
August 2011
Se
pt
August 2010
Drilling Report for Last 5 Years
A ugus t 2 0 1 5
A RE A
BC
T ot al Ha
S old
4,135
A B - Foot hills
A B - Plains
A B - Nort hern
1,618,140
7,936
3,441,718
A v erage
$ / Ha
$147
$275
600
500
$4
400
$384
300
SK
9,939
$306
MB
128
$904
NOTE: Numbers are rounded
Drilling
Down
Total
200
Total
Down
100
0
Drilling
August 2010
August 2011
August 2012
August 2013
August 2014
August 2015
ACQUIRING & DIVESTING ASSETS ISN’T ALWAYS STRAIGHT FORWARD
Let our team of experts guide you down the right road
LandSolutions offers expertise, local knowledge, and the full range of land acquisition and
management, public consultation, & environmental planning services to meet all of your
land needs. Whether large or small, surface or mineral, complex or simple, our network of
field offices staffed with experienced landmen and land administrators bring in-depth
knowledge and established landowner relationships to your project.
To learn more, call us toll free at 1.866.834.0008 or visit us at www.landsolutions.ca
Sunday September 18
to Wednesday September 21, 2016
30

in October 2015 - Canadian Association of Petroleum Landmen

Transcription

Similar documents

SILVERTIPAREASTRUCTUR EPLAN Canmore, Alberta October

RVDA of Alberta`s RV Learning Weekend

Case Study - Precision Drilling

Environment Challenges of Building and Maintaining Transmission

`Polar Bear`- Urecon Corporate Overview

Solutions brochure template

Certificate of Registration Xact Spec Industries LLC

Certificate of Registration Xact Spec Industries LLC

Beyond the doors of the Stollery`s pediatric emergency department

Peace River - AEP - Government of Alberta

2011 Annual Report - Canadian Association of Petroleum Landmen