1. travel
2. tourist destinations
3. canada

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 2014
Understanding the impact
the Grassy Narrows
and Tsilhqot’in
Decisions
Separating Primary and
Thermal Production Rights
The Grassy Narrows and
Tsilhqot’in Decisions
Selling of Assets and
Expectations of Vendors
Top-Court Provides Clarity for Projects
Affecting Aboriginal Lands
New CAPL Course:
Understanding
Reserve Evaluations
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: [email protected]
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
Brad Reynolds
[ph]
Advertising Editors
Kevin Young
[ph]
Coordinating Editor
Krissy Rennie
[ph]
Feature Content Editor
Mark Innes
[ph]
Regular Content Editor
Anne Macedo
[ph]
Social Content Editor
Jason Peacock
[ph]
Editorial Committee
Dave Lewis Amy Kalmbach
Nathan Roberts Dinora Santos [ph]
[ph]
[ph]
[ph]
THE
NEGOTIATOR
403-215-9159
403-724-4450
403-663-2595
403-818-7561
403-699-6451
403-691-7077
403-968-2673
403-619-2868
403-268-3006
403-470-1558
Design and Production
Rachel Hershfield, Folio Creations
Features October 2014
2 C ase Comment: Tsilhqot’in Nation
v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44
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 Colin Taylor (403-777-3347)
or Kevin Young (403-724-4450). 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.
Ann Bigué, Bernard Roth, Alexandre-Phillipe Avard
and Dan Collins
5 S CC Confirms Ontario’s Ability to
“Take Up” Lands Under Treaty 3
Ann Bigué, Bernard Roth, Alexandre-Phillipe Avard
and Dan Collins
7 T he Legal Implications of Separating
Primary and Thermal Production Rights
2014–2015 CAPL Board of Directors
President
Michelle Radomski
Vice-President
Nikki Sitch, P.Land, PSL
Director, Business Development
Alberta & British Columbia
Andrew Weldon
Director, Business Development
Saskatchewan & Alberta Oilsands
Michelle Creguer
Director, Communications
Brad Reynolds, P.Land
Director, Education
Connie De Ciancio
Director, Field Acquisition & Management
Paul Mandry, PSL
Director, Finance
Larry Buzan, P.Land
Director, Member Services
Kent Gibson
Director, Professionalism
Joanna Shea
Director, Public Relations
Gary Richardson, PSL
Director, Technology
Mandy Cookson
Secretary/Director, Social
Andrew Webb
Past President
John Covey
Readers may obtain any Director’s contact
information from the CAPL office.
Suite 350, 500 – 5 Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 3L5
[ph] 403-237-6635 [fax] 403-263-1620
www.landman.ca
Kaitlin Polowski
Denise Grieve
Irene Krickhan
Karin Steers
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Nigel Bankes
In Every Issue
17 Board Briefs
19 Get Smart
24
The Negotiator’s Message From the Board: Communications
25 Roster Updates
31 The Social Calendar
32 CAPL Calendar of Events
32 October Meeting
32 November Meeting
Also in this issue
6 Oktoberfest Charity Land Social
28 Scott Land & Lease Junior Landman Charity Golf Classic
30 2014 CAPL Golf Tournament
THE NEGOTIATO R / OC TO BER 20 14
Case Comment: Tsilhqot’in Nation
v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44
Introduction
Background
On June 26, 2014 the Supreme Court of Canada
The Tsilhqot’in Nation (the “Tsilhqot’in”) is a
(the “SCC”) released its much anticipated decision
group of six indigenous semi-nomadic bands situ-
in Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia.1 The case is
ated in British Columbia. In 1983, the Government
significant, in part, because it is the first SCC deci-
of British Columbia granted a commercial logging
sion where the applicant First Nation successfully
licence for an area that the Tsilhqot’in consid-
proved its claim to Aboriginal title. The case also
ered part of their traditional territory. In lengthy
provides further guidance for government and
reasons, which followed a 339-day trial spanning
industry interested in new developments on lands
a five-year period, the trial judge concluded that
that are subject to Aboriginal title. Overall, it is a
the Tsilhqot’in were entitled to a declaration of
logical and natural evolution of the jurisprudence
Aboriginal title for part of their claimed tradi-
Phillipe Avard and
developed by the SCC in cases such as Calder ,
tional land, but refused to make that declaration
Dan Collins
Guerin , Sparrow and Delgamuukw.
for procedural reasons. This territory potentially
Dentons Canada LLP
2
3
2
4
5
6
Written by
Ann Bigué, Bernard
Roth, Alexandre-
subject to Aboriginal title included not only village sites, but also
to occupy the lands, decide how to use the lands, and to the
territories that the Tsilhqot’in’s ancestors used regularly and
economic benefits of those uses.12 The court emphasised that
exclusively for hunting, fishing, and other activities.
Aboriginal title is sui generis or unique. It is a communal right
The British Columbia Court of Appeal overturned the trial
held for the benefit of all present and future members so that any
judge’s decision, but left open the possibility that the Tsilhqot’in
contemplated uses must not substantially deprive future genera-
could, in the future, bring a claim for Aboriginal title to certain
tions of the benefit conferred by the title.13
specific sites with defined boundaries that were used intensively
at the time of European sovereignty. Beyond those limited title
Infringements on Aboriginal title
claims, the Court of Appeal held that the Tsilhqot’in could exer-
The SCC is clear in Tsilhqot’in that the rights conferred by
cise their established aboriginal rights.7
Aboriginal title mean that governments and other parties seeking
to use the land must obtain the title-holding group’s consent.
The Decision
However, if the Aboriginal group does not consent, the govern-
Test for Aboriginal title
ment could justify the proposed incursion on the land under
Writing for a unanimous court, McLachlin CJC largely affirmed its
s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.14 The test for justifying infringe-
previous jurisprudence on the test for Aboriginal title. To establish
ment requires the Crown to demonstrate, inter alia, a compelling
a claim for Aboriginal title, the burden rests with the applicant to
and substantial governmental objective. The court affirmed that
establish that, at the assertion of Crown sovereignty:
economic development initiatives including forestry, mining and
8
hydroelectric developments are capable of justifying infringe1. their ancestors occupied the lands in a manner sufficient to
ground their claim,
ment, provided the proposed incursion on the Aboriginal right
is consistent with the Crown’s fiduciary duty towards Aboriginal
2. they have continuously occupied those lands since the asser-
people.15 The court emphasised that the focus must be on the
tion of sovereignty (if current occupation is relied upon to
economic value of the project relative to the detrimental effects
ground the title claim), and
on the Aboriginal rights holder and on whether or not the project
3. they have exclusively occupied and exercised effective control
over the lands.
would substantially deprive future generations of the benefit of
the land.16
The court’s approach to the first branch of the test is of particular
Remedies
importance. The SCC rejected the notion relied upon by the court
Finally, the SCC held that the remedies available to an Aboriginal
of Appeal; that the Tsilhqot’in needed to demonstrate intensive
group vary over time on a spectrum. The Chief Justice wrote:17
occupation of particular tracts of land to establish Aboriginal title.
It held that Aboriginal title can be established by showing regular
“The practical result may be a spectrum of duties appli-
use of the territory by ancestors based on a “strong presence on or
cable over time in a particular case. At the claims stage,
over the land claimed, manifesting itself in acts of occupation that
prior to establishment of Aboriginal title, the Crown owes
could reasonably be interpreted as demonstrating that the land in
a good faith duty to consult with the group concerned
question belonged to, was controlled by, or was under the exclu-
and, if appropriate, accommodate its interests. As the
sive stewardship of the claimant group” in a manner “comparable
claim strength increases, the required level of consultation
to what would be required to establish title at common law”.
and accommodation correspondingly increases. Where a
9
The determination of whether regular use of the territory is
claim is particularly strong — for example, shortly before
made out is a question of fact that will depend on the specific
a court declaration of title — appropriate care must be
circumstances of each case and, in particular, the characteris-
taken to preserve the Aboriginal interest pending final
tics of the Aboriginal group (number of members, nomadic or
resolution of the claim. Finally, once title is established,
semi-nomadic way of life, etc.) and the character of the land
the Crown cannot proceed with development of title land
subject to the claim (size, topography, availability of the resources
not consented to by the title-holding group unless it has
necessary to sustain the Aboriginal group, etc.).
discharged its duty to consult and the development is justi-
The SCC also noted that not every nomadic passage or use will
fied pursuant to s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
subjective or internally understood by the Aboriginal group.11
Once title is established, it may be necessary for the
Crown to reassess prior conduct in light of the new
Characteristics of Aboriginal title
reality in order to faithfully discharge its fiduciary duty
The SCC reiterated its past comments on the rights conferred by
to the title-holding group going forward. For example,
Aboriginal title. Aboriginal title holders have an exclusive right
if the Crown begins a project without consent prior to
3
TH E NEGOTIATOR / OCTO BER 20 14
ground title to land.10 Moreover, the occupation cannot be purely
Aboriginal title being established, it may be required
More than ever, industry proponents must be sensitive to
to cancel the project upon establishment of the title if
Aboriginal law issues. They must make sure that the governments
continuation of the project would be unjustifiably infring-
fulfil their duties to consult and accommodate the First Nations
ing. Similarly, if legislation was validly enacted before title
was established, such legislation may be rendered inap-
when appropriate. m
plicable going forward to the extent that it unjustifiably
Notes
infringes Aboriginal title.”
1. 2014 SCC 44.
18
2. Calder v. Attorney General of British Columbia, [1973] SCR 313.
The court also formulated the following solution to limit the risks
3. Guerin v. The Queen, [1984] 2 SCR 335.
related to a potential declaration of Aboriginal title:
4. R v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 SCR 1075.
5. Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 SCR 1010.
“Governments and individuals proposing to use or exploit
6. Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2007 BCSC 1700.
land, whether before or after a declaration of Aboriginal
7. Xeni Gwet’in First Nations v. British Columbia, 2012 BCCA 285.
title, can avoid a charge of infringement or failure to
8. Supra note 1 at para 26.
adequately consult by obtaining the consent of the inter-
9. Ibid at para 38, 42 and 54.
ested Aboriginal group.”
10. Ibid at para 33.
11. Ibid at para 38.
Implications for Industry
12. Ibid at para 73.
This case may give First Nations additional incentive to claim
13. Ibid at para 86.
Aboriginal title over significant territories and increase the pres-
14. Ibid at para 76.
sure on the governments and industry proponents. That being
15. Ibid at para 83.
said, Aboriginal title, as the most comprehensive of the Aboriginal
16. Ibid at para 127.
rights, remains particularly difficult to prove. Moreover, First
17. Ibid at para 91-92.
Nations do not have a veto over land development, particularly in
18. Ibid at para 97.
THE NEGOTIATO R / OC TO BER 20 14
cases where Aboriginal title is asserted, but still unproven.
4
SCC Confirms Ontario’s Ability to
“Take Up” Lands Under Treaty 3
Grassy Narrows First Nation v. Ontario (Natural Resources) 2014 SCC 48
Introduction
On July 11, 2014 the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) released
The second phase of the trial will eventually involve a determi-
its decision in Grassy Narrows First Nation v. Ontario (Natural
nation of the Grassy Narrows’ claim that the specific forestry
Resources).1 The unanimous decision affirms the Ontario Court of
licenses at issue are invalid. This second phase of litigation has
Appeal judgement which held that the Province of Ontario does
yet to commence.
not require Government of Canada approval to develop certain
The trial judge held that Treaty 3 established a two-step
lands surrendered by the Ojibway First Nation to the Crown under
process for taking up treaty lands.5 Ontario could not take up any
Treaty 3.
portion of the Keewatin area without the federal government’s
2
approval. Moreover, the trial judge further held that provinces
Background
cannot infringe treaty rights even if such an infringement could
In 1873, the Dominion of Canada concluded Treaty 3 with the
be justified, because of the constitutional doctrine of interjurisdic-
Ojibway Chiefs for the surrender of approximately 55,000 square
tional immunity.6
miles of land in what is now Northwestern Ontario and Eastern
The Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously reversed the lower
Manitoba. The Dominion of Canada needed to secure safe passage
court decision and confirmed Ontario’s ability to take up lands
through these lands to promote settlement in Western Canada
without any involvement from the Government of Canada.7
and build the Canadian Pacific Railway. In exchange for surrendering the lands, the Crown granted the Ojibway reserve lands in the
The Decision
area. Treaty 3 also gave the Ojibway rights to harvest non-reserve
The SCC unanimously upheld the Ontario Court of Appeal deci-
lands in their traditional territory until those harvest lands were
sion. The SCC essentially based its reasoning on provisions of the
“taken up” for settlement, mining, lumbering or other purposes by
Constitution Act, 1867, on the text of Treaty 3, and on legislation
the Government of the Dominion of Canada.
dealing with Treaty 3 lands.
3
In 1997, Ontario granted a timber licence to Abitibi-Consolidated
Inc. (now known as Resolute FP Canada Inc.) to conduct clear-cut
Constitutional Authority of the Province
forestry operations on Crown lands situated in a portion of the
The SCC held that Treaty 3 was fundamentally an agreement
Treaty 3 lands known as the Keewatin area. At the time Treaty 3
with the “Crown”, a concept that includes all government power
was concluded, the Keewatin area was under the exclusive control
(i.e. federal and provincial).8 It rejected the theory that since Treaty
of Canada. However, it was subsequently annexed to Ontario
3 was made with the federal Crown (as opposed to the Crown
through the enactment in 1912 of the Ontario Boundaries Extension
in right of Ontario), only the federal Crown had obligations and
Act.
powers over matters covered by Treaty 3.
In 2005, the Grassy Narrows First Nations (the “Grassy
According to the SCC, it is the division of powers established in
Narrows”), descendants of the Ojibway First Nation, brought an
the Constitution Act, 1867 that determines which of the federal or
action to set aside the forestry licence on the basis that it violated
provincial governments is entitled to exercise the Crown’s rights
their Treaty 3 harvesting rights.
under Treaty 3.9
Given that the Keewatin area was annexed to Ontario in
Judicial History
1912, section 109 of the Constitution Act, 1867 establishes that
In 2006, a case management judge divided the trial into two
Ontario holds the beneficial interest in these lands and the
phases. The first phase consisted of two threshold questions:
resources on or under these lands. Furthermore, section 92(5)
4
1. Whether Ontario has authority to “take up” tracts of land within
diction over “Management and Sale of Public Lands belonging
the Keewatin area so as to limit Treaty 3 harvesting rights?
to the Province and the sale of Timber and Wood thereon”.
2. If the answer to the first question is no, does Ontario have
Finally, section 92A gives the province jurisdiction to make laws
authority under the Constitution Act, 1867 to justifiably infringe
in relation to non-renewable natural resources, forestry resources,
the appellants’ treaty rights?
and electrical energy. These provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867
5
TH E NEGOTIATOR / OCTO BER 20 14
of that Constitution Act, 1867 gives provinces an exclusive juris-
collectively give Ontario an exclusive constitutional authority to
of Ontario to consult and, if appropriate, accommodate First
take up provincial lands for provincially regulated purposes.
Nation interests.13
The Grassy Narrows argued that the federal government’s
The court also reiterated its recent dicta in Tsilhqot’in Nation v.
authority over “Indians and Lands Reserved for Indians” set out in
British Columbia14 that the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity
section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 gives Canada a residual
does not prevent provincial laws from justifiably infringing treaty
role in respect of the taking up of Treaty 3 lands. The SCC rejected
rights.15 Consequently, where a province’s taking up of lands
this argument. It noted that while section 91(24) allows the federal
amounts to an infringement of treaty rights, this infringement
government to enact legislation dealing with Indians and lands
can be justified if the provincial government satisfies the require-
reserved for Indians that may have incidental effects on provincial
ments of the Sparrow/Badger analysis under section 35 of the
lands, it does not give Canada authority to take up lands for exclu-
Constitution Act, 1982.16
sively provincial purposes such as forestry, mining or settlement.
10
m
Ann Bigué, Bernard Roth, Alexandre-Phillipe Avard and Dan Collins
Interpretation of Treaty 3 and subsequent legislation
Dentons Canada LLP
According to the SCC, both the text of Treaty 3 as well as subsequent
legislation dealing with Treaty 3 lands support the conclusion that
Notes
only Ontario could properly take up Treaty 3 lands. Indeed, the
1. 2014 SCC 48.
text of Treaty 3 does not contemplate a two-step process involv-
2.
Keewatin v. Ontario (Minister of Natural Resources), 2013 ONCA
ing federal and provincial approval. Likewise, reciprocal statutes
158, 114 OR (3d) 401 [“Keewatin”].
enacted after the conclusion of Treaty 3 in order to resolve a
3. Supra note 1 at para 2.
boundary dispute between Canada and Ontario or to extend the
4. Ibid at para 19.
borders of Ontario, did not mention any continuing supervisory
5. Keewatin v. Minister of Natural Resources, 2011 ONSC 4801.
role for Canada in the taking up of lands by the Province, or any
6. Ibid at para 22.
two-step process involving both levels of governments.
7. Keewatin, supra note 2.
8. Supra note 1 at para 39.
Limits on the Power to Take Up Lands
9. Supra, note 1 at para 30.
Finally, the SCC held that Ontario’s power to take-up lands
10. Supra note 1 at para 37.
under Treaty 3 is not unconditional. Based on prior decisions
11. [2005] 3 SCR 388.
such as Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian
12. Supra note 1 at para 50.
Heritage) , the SCC reaffirmed that the province, “must exer-
13. Ibid at para 52.
cise its powers in conformity with the honour of the Crown,
14. 2014 SCC 44.
and is subject to the fiduciary duties that lie on the Crown in
15. Ibid at para; Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44.
dealing with Aboriginal interests”.12 This requires the Province
16. Supra note 1 at paras 52 and 53.
11
Oktoberfest Charity Land Social
October 9, 2014 • National on 10th • $60/Ticket
projects and offers the same
opportunities to donors and
As the Landman Charity event
approaches its 5th year, we’ve
volunteers. For those who
decided to shake things up a little and throw
our community. A big reason for choosing this organization is its
an Oktoberfest themed event that will have
ability to create high impact sustainable projects that we can see
THE NEGOTIATO R / OC TO BER 20 14
everyone talking. This year we’ve decided to donate all proceeds
the results of first hand.
to the Mary A. Tidlund Charitable Foundation. The Mary A. Tidlund
In following the Oktoberfest theme there will be schooners of
Charitable Foundation is a charitable organization that designs
beer and Bavarian style food supplied with the purchase of your
and funds sustainable development projects around the world.
$60 ticket. In addition, there will also be a large silent auction that
Established as a Canadian public foundation, it began operat-
always has a variety of great items to bid on. For information regard-
ing on October 14, 1998. Through the generosity of friends and
ing sponsorship or purchase of tickets please visit the CAPL website
supporters, it funds, operates and participates in a wide range of
6
don’t know, Mary Tidlund is a former landman with close ties to
or contact Christopher Ellis at [email protected]. m
The Legal Implications of
Separating Primary and
Thermal Production Rights
Nigel Bankes
the property would take the form of enhanced or
sors in interest continue with primary production?
ing: (1) What property interest did IFP acquire?
This was the issue at the heart of this decision.
(2) What is the test for determining whether a
thermal production.
In the course of his lengthy 73 page judgement Chief Justice Neil Wittmann (acting in place
of Justice Ron Stevens (deceased)) addressed a
number of questions of oil and gas law which will
be of interest to the energy bar including the follow-
The answer is that B gets shafted; B should have
working interest owner has reasonable grounds for
B.A., M.A., LL.M.
taken better steps to protect itself rather than
refusing consent to an assignment of shared inter-
University of Calgary
simply assume that all future production from
est lands under the 1990 CAPL Operating Procedure?
7
TH E NEGOTIATOR / OCTO BER 20 14
Written by
Case Considered: IFP Technologies
(Canada) v. Encana Midstream and
Marketing, 2014 ABQB 470
What happens when A sells B its
working interest in the thermal
or enhanced production from an
oil and gas property and A or its succes-
(3) What is the legal position where a working interest purports to
operating procedure, which was an amended version of the CAPL
withhold consent and the court subsequently determines that
1990 Operating Procedure. This second set of agreements covered
the withholding of consent was unreasonable? (4) Did the devel-
both the original CS Resources lands as well as other lands rolled
opment of the property through primary production techniques
in to the deal by PCR, including properties referred to as the Eyehill
substantially nullify the benefit for which IFP (B) had bargained so
Creek Assets. At the time of the AEA there were already 222 conven-
as to amount to a breach of contract? (5) Assuming that there was a
tional wells on these lands.
breach of contract, how should damages be assessed? (6) Assuming
Under the AEA, IFP was to acquire a 20% working interest in
liability should any claim for damages be capped by a contractual
the PCR lands including the Eyehill Creek Assets. The granting
agreement between the parties?
language of the AEA provided as follows:
The Facts and the Agreements Between the Parties?
[67] PCR hereby agrees to sell, assign, transfer, convey and
IFP (a wholly owned subsidiary of IFP Energies Nouvelles of France)
set over to IFP, and IFP hereby agrees to purchase from PCR, all
had expertise and technical information in relation to the drilling,
of the right, title, estate and interest of PCR (whether absolute
placement and completion of horizontal wells. Beginning in the late
or contingent, legal or beneficial) in and to the PCR assets,…
1980s IFP entered into a series of agreements with CS Resources,
all subject to an in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
a pioneer in the use of horizontal wells for the development of
(Emphasis is CJ Wittmann’s)
heavy oil resources. As part of the first series of these agreements
CS Resources granted IFP a 3% gross overriding royalty (GOR) on all
The idea that IFP’s interests were actually limited to thermal and
CS lands on which IFP’s technology was applied. PanCanadian (PCR)
enhanced production first seems to have been introduced in the
acquired CS Resources in 1997. IFP and PCR eventually concluded
terms of the JOA which was scheduled to the AEA. Clause 4(c)
that the GOR model was inappropriate and agreed to replace it
provided (at para 92):
with a working interest model. That agreement was recorded in
an Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) of July 1998 and an
4(c) It is specifically agreed and understood by the parties
Asset Exchange Agreement (AEA) of October 1998 to which were
that the working interests of the parties as described in Clause 5
scheduled a Joint Operating Agreement (JOA) and its appended
of this Agreement relate exclusively to thermal or other enhanced
THE NAME IN SURFACE
LAND ACQUISITIONS
THE NEGOTIATO R / OC TO BER 20 14
LAND ACQUISITIONS
FIRST NATIONS CONSULTATION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
AER CROWN APPLICATIONS
SHERWOOD PARK
8
ANNUAL COMPENSATION REVIEWS
DAMAGE SETTLEMENTS
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS &
NOTIFICATIONS
1.888.321.2222
www.hurland.com
[email protected]
recovery schemes and projects which may be applicable in
developing other assets such as its Christina Lake prop-
respect of the petroleum substances found within or
erty. One of PCR’s Eyehill leases had expired and in other
under the Joint Lands and the Title Documents. Unless
cases Alberta Energy had issued notices on continued leases
specifically agreed to in writing, IFP will have no interest and
requiring PCR to establish the productivity of the properties.
will bear no cost and will derive no benefit from the recovery of
Oil prices were depressed and PCR had shelved any idea of
petroleum substances by primary recovery methods from any of
introducing a thermal recovery operation at Eyehill. Given these
the rights otherwise described as part of the Joint Lands or the
concerns and concerns as to the abandonment liabilities asso-
Title Documents.
ciated with its existing wells, PCR was receptive to proposals to
(Emphasis is CJ Wittmann’s)
removing itself from the property. In 2001 PCR executed a letter
agreement with Wiser which was a form of farmout agreement
Other provisions of the JOA, including the definition of working
(ultimately formalized as an Abandonment, Reclamation and
interest and the nature of the parties’ participating interests, all
Option Agreement (ARO)) pursuant to which Wiser would earn
simply referred to the interests of the respective parties in the
PCR’s working interest in the Eyehill Creek lands by “dealing
lands without further qualification by reference to the nature of
with” the existing 222 wells by abandonment and reclamation,
the production process.
by re-working them or by putting them on production. It was
Under the attached CAPL operating procedure the parties had
elected the right of first refusal option (ROFR) under Article 24
clear that Wiser was only interested in the primary production
possibilities from these lands.
(at para 110) and the agreement seems to have contained
PCR gave IFP the ROFR notice to which it was entitled in April
the standard provisions on independent operations (with some
2001. At about the same time Wiser also sought (unsuccess-
amendments) with a 400% penalty (at para 107). Another element
fully) to clarify with IFP that IFP’s working interest was confined
of the JOA was a series of clauses that relieved IFP of any
to enhanced and thermal recovery operations. IFP declined to
responsibility for the abandonment of the conventional (primary
exercise its ROFR but did withhold consent to the disposition on
production) wells on the Eyehill Creek property (at para 33).
the grounds that Wiser “had no technical capability or intent to
By the late 1990s PCR was concerned about its ability
pursue thermal or other enhanced recovery” (at para 52; see also
to hold on to the Eyehill Creek lands and was focusing on
para 167). PCR proceeded to execute the ARO. Wiser protected
NO TERRAIN
IS TOO TOUGH.
With over 41 years of geomatics and surveying experience, we
don’t shy away from tough or rugged terrain. Contact us today for
your next project.
Edmonton
Grande Prairie
Swift Current
Fort Nelson
Fort St. John
1 800 478 6162 | canam.com
9
TH E NEGOTIATOR / OCTO BER 20 14
Calgary
itself through an indemnity agreement with PCR. Wiser was never
the royalty-as-interest-in-land cases culminating in Bank of Montreal
novated into the AEA and related agreements. Wiser commenced
v. Dynex Petroleum Ltd, 2002 SCC 7. If an interest in the proceeds of
the operations contemplated by the ARO and earned its interest.
production cannot give an interest in land how can a party have a
Wiser never informed or consulted IFP as to the nature of those
tenancy in common (not just any old interest in land, but an undi-
operations. Canadian Forest acquired Wiser’s interests in 2004.
vided interest) in a Crown lease that is contingent on the mode of
All of the operations conducted by Wiser and Canadian Forest
production of the leased substances?
were primary production operations; none involved enhanced or
thermal recovery.
How was this issue resolved here? Chief Justice Wittmann
seems to suggest that both the plaintiff and the defendant
On the basis of these facts IFP alleged that the Wiser farmout
adopted some version of the property-limited-by-contract
(the ARO) was a breach of contract and sought damages. PCP took
approach but the Chief Justice himself preferred some version of
the view that IFP had unreasonably withheld its consent to the
the property approach:
proposed agreement.
[97] I find that IFP’s working interest pursuant to these
What Property Interest Did IFP Acquire?
agreements has always been limited to thermal and other
I think that there are two possible interpretations of what IFP
enhanced recovery methods. I find the AEA did not grant
acquired. One interpretation (which I will refer to as the prop-
broad rights that were subsequently reduced or modi-
erty-limited-by-contract interpretation) is that IFP acquired an
fied by the JOA, as assumed by both the Plaintiff and the
undivided interest as a tenant in common of the relevant Crown
Defendants. The AEA does not define the term working
leases and other assets (subject to some contractual limitations
interest. The Preamble to the AEA states, however, that
on its precise rights in relation to those assets). A second interpre-
the ownership of working interests is subject to and in
tation (which I will refer to as the property interpretation) would
accordance with the terms and conditions of the JOA.
hold that IFP acquired something in the nature of a working inter-
Furthermore, the JOA is incorporated by reference into the
est in production from the lands resulting from thermal or other
AEA as though it were contained in the body of the AEA.
enhanced recovery techniques. There are pros and cons to each
As such, the definition of working interest in the JOA is
of these interpretations.
incorporated by reference into the AEA.
The principal argument in favour of the property-limitedby-contract interpretation is based upon the natural interpretation
(See also para 194 where the Chief Justice comments
of the granting words used in the dominant agreement, the AEA.
further on the relationship that the parties have created.)
THE NEGOTIATO R / OC TO BER 20 14
It also has the advantage that it accords IFP a legally coherent
10
and cognizable interest in the property. We know what the basic
But whatever interpretation is adopted it is still necessary to work
rights of a tenant in common are. The contrary argument is that
through the applicability of the operating procedure to primary
this classification does not seem to be consistent with the overall
production. We don’t have the complete story from the judge-
intentions of the parties which suggested that IFP’s rights prima
ment and in particular we do not know the full extent to which
facie did not extend to primary production. But the best way to
the parties modified the CAPL 1990 form, but one would antici-
respect that intention is to conclude that the property rights of
pate that significant changes would be required to make it work
IFO as a tenant in common were limited by the terms of the other
in these circumstances. Consider, however, what we do know.
contractual arrangements between them, including the key provi-
We know (see para 54) that Wiser carried out operations on the
sion in the JOA referred to above.
lands once it had acquired its interest in the property and we
The principal argument in favour of the property interpre-
know that it did not inform IFP about those operations. We can
tation is that it delivers a result that seems to comport with the
infer from this that Wiser was not in the habit of sending IFP AFE
overall result intended by the parties reading all of the agreements
(authorizations for expenditure) notices (which passes without
together and the commercial context for those agreements. The
comment in the judgement). Yet on the other hand the Court and
principal knock against this interpretation is that it fails to respect
the parties assume the applicability of the independent opera-
the dominant conveyancing language of the AEA and as a result
tions clause (modified as discussed at paras 105-107) with the
delivers an interest which is unrecognizable in terms of property
result that Chief Justice Wittmann concludes that IFP might have
law. It is one thing to have an undivided interest which is confined
been able to trigger the clause – although as a matter of practice
to a particular formation or formations; or to have an undivided
it lacked both the capital and the operational expertise to be able
interest in a particular substance; but we create a whole new layer
to do so (at para 197). But even aside from this practical problem
of complexity when we admit of the possibility that ownership of
facing IFP, it would be extremely difficult legally for IFP to propose
an interest in land varies with the nature of production from those
an effective independent operation where there were already
lands. Not only is this complex but it seems to be inconsistent with
licensed wells for the relevant drilling spacing units.
Standard Land
Since 1994, Standard Land’s experience in negotiating land access in highly sensitive
environments with multiple stakeholders has served a single purpose: success.
Let us put our experience to work for you.
CORE SERVICES » Everything “Land”
From simple consultation to large-scale
project management, Standard Land expertly
manages it all:
• Freehold Mineral Acquisition
• Crown Sales
• Surface Land
• First Nations Consultation
• Non Routine Project Management
• Surface and Regulatory Compliance
• Full suite of additional Services
KEY PERSONNEL
Surface Acquisition: Randy Funkhouser
[email protected]
Mineral Acquisition: Mikala Hansen
[email protected]
With over 100 employees across Canada,
contact Standard Land to discuss your project today.
Crown & Mineral Administration: Terri Dechka
[email protected]
Head Office Calgary Tel: 403-265-1116
1300, 734 - 7th Ave SW, Calgary, AB T2P 3P8
[email protected]
www.standardland.com
Calgary: 1-866-858-1116
Vancouver: 1-877-687-1102
Standard Land Company Inc
Regina: 1-866-441-2039
Winston E. Gaskin, President
Toronto: 1-877-598-1116
11
TH E NEGOTIATOR / OCTO BER 20 14
FULL SERVICE PROVIDER OF LAND SERVICES
The complexities of determining the applicability of various
The ROFR provision of the 1990 CAPL afford each working interest
clauses of the CAPL procedure (absent an express statement as
owner (WIO) two independent rights: the ROFR right itself and the
to applicability) seem legion. What about the applicability of the
right to refuse consent to the proposed transfer even where the
CAPL provisions dealing with access to information? Was IFP
WIO will not exercise the ROFR.
entitled to information about primary production from the lands
(referred to at para 176)? What about Article XI dealing with the
2401B(e) In the event that the working interest described
surrender of joint lands (referred to at para 221)?
in the disposition notice is not disposed of to one or more
The difficulties were also evident with respect to Article 24,
of the offerees pursuant to the preceding Subclause, the
the ROFR/consent provision of the procedure. Given Chief Justice
disposition to the proposed assignee shall be subject to the
Wittmann’s conclusions as to just what it was that IFP had obtained
consent of the offerees. Such consent shall not be unreasonably
(i.e. a working interest in only thermal and enhanced production)
withheld, and it shall be reasonable for an offeree to withhold
there was a certain logic to PCR’s position (at para 140) that the
its consent to the disposition if it reasonably believes that
transfer to Wiser should not trigger Article 24 since Wiser was only
the disposition would be likely to have a material adverse
interested in primary production. The difficulty with that argument
effect on it, its working interest or operations to be conducted
however was that whatever Wiser’s intentions with respect to what
hereunder, including, without limiting the generality of
it would produce (and how), Wiser was clearly acquiring PCR’s
all or any part of the foregoing, a reasonable belief that
entire interest in the property. Thus Chief Justice Wittmann is surely
the proposed assignee does not have the financial capa-
correct in concluding (at paras 141-145) that the Wiser transaction
bility to meet prospective obligations arising out of this
did trigger Article 24. The question would have been more difficult
Operating Procedure. …
had PCP retained its rights to thermal and enhanced production.
THE NEGOTIATO R / OC TO BER 20 14
What is the Test For Determining Whether a Working
Interest Owner Has Reasonable Grounds For Refusing
Consent to an Assignment of Shared Interest Lands
Under the 1990 Capl Operating Procedure?
Bus (403) 229-1500
Fax (403) 245-0074
Shawn Irwin, President
(Emphasis is CJ Wittmann’s)
This gives rise to two questions. The first is really a methodological question – how should the Court go about analyzing such a
question. And the second is that of how to apply the preferred
approach to the facts at hand. As for the methodology, both
eml. [email protected] 1250, 396 – 11th Ave S.W. Calgary, AB T2R 0C5
www.petroland.ca
Representatives in: Calgary, Edmonton, Lethbridge, Regina, Carlyle, Grande Prairie, Victoria
Surface Acquisitions Pipeline Right-of-Way Crown Sales Mineral Acquisitions Rent Reviews
Confidential Deals Damage Settlements Public Consultant & Notification
12
counsel and the Court (at para 152) decided to rely on case law
the circumstances a reasonable person would have refused
dealing with the unreasonable withholding of consent in the
to consent to the assignment.
context of the landlord and tenant relationship. There might
[156] A party must not refuse consent where such refusal
be some doubts as to the applicability of this body of law in
is calculated to achieve a collateral purpose, or benefit, not
this setting and thus it is useful to have the Court affirm its
contemplated by the original contract: Welbow at para 9.
relevance. From this body of law the Chief Justice derived the
[157] Proceeding with an assignment in the face of a
following principles:
reasonable refusal to consent is a clear breach of a negative
covenant: Exxonmobil at para 51.
[153] The burden of proof is on the party asserting
[158] The court should not defer to the party withholding
consent was unreasonably withheld: Sundance Investment
consent, but must assess the reasons for withholding
Corporation Ltd v. Richfield Properties Limited (1983), 41 AR 231
consent and consider whether a reasonable person in simi-
at para. 23 (CA).
lar circumstances would have made the same decision. The
[154] The party whose consent is required is entitled to base
court should consider the purpose of the consent clause
its decision on its own interests alone: Community Drug Marts
and the meaning and benefit it was intended to confer.
P & S Inc, Estate of v. William Schwartz, Construction Co Ltd, 31 AR
466 at para 41, (QB), aff’d [1981] AJ No 537.
Notably absent from this list is any reference to the venerable
[155] Whether a person has acted reasonably in withhold-
decision of the English Court of Appeal in Houlder Brothers v.
ing consent depends on all the factual circumstances: Gibbs, [1925] 1 Ch 575, which stands for the proposition that a
Exxonmobil Canada Energy v. Novagas Canada Ltd, 2002 ABQB
lessor will be able to withhold consent on grounds related to the
455 at para 49. The question is not whether a reasonable
personality of the proposed assignee or the use and occupation
person might have given consent, but whether a reasonable
that the proposed assignee will make of the leased premises.
person could have withheld consent in the circumstances:
Admittedly it is very difficult to reconcile Houlder Brothers with
1455202 Ontario Inc v. Welbow Holdings Ltd, [2003] OJ No 1785
the majority decision of Alberta’s Court of Appeal in Sundance,
at para 9 (ONSC) (“Welbow”). In Exxonmobil, Park J reviewed
but recall that in Sundance the majority was clearly of the view
the evidence on an objective basis to determine whether in
that a lessor had good grounds to object to any assignment
TH E NEGOTIATOR / OCTO BER 20 14
13
that prejudiced the lessor’s financial interest. I have never
not to be unreasonably withheld) the assignment or sublease
been very persuaded by that approach and much prefer Justice
is not invalid or void but the tenant is in breach of its covenant
Harradance’s dissenting judgement but in this case both Houlder
and the landlord will typically have reserved a right of re-entry
and the majority judgement in Sundance seemed to offer some
for breach. Similarly, if the landlord withholds consent and the
comfort to IFP.
tenant believes the withholding to be unreasonable the tenant
Indeed, if one looks simply to the outcome of the transfer in
may elect to proceed knowing that if it can establish that the
this case it look like a case in which IFP should be able to with-
landlord’s behavior is unreasonable it will not be in breach of
hold consent. After all, if IFP failed to forestall the transfer it was
its covenant. This is a high risk course of action since in the
going to be forced into a joint venture with a party that had the
case of a lease the penalty for being wrong may be the loss of
announced interest of exploiting the property exclusively for its
the lease. As a result, the assignee may well, as here, demand
primary production potential. Not only would that exclude IFP from
an indemnity. High risk it may be but it is a more expeditious
the opportunity to take its 20% share of production, it would also
way of proceeding than the alternative which is to apply for a
prejudice the economics and perhaps physical feasibility of future
declaration as to the unreasonableness of any withholding of
enhanced or thermal recovery operations at the site. But for Chief
consent (and note that under the CAPL the arbitration provisions
Justice Wittmann this was an oversimplification. He concluded that
of Article 24 apply to valuation issues in package deals; they do
IFP’s withholding of consent was unreasonable.
not apply to the consent issue).
Ultimately I think that the principal reason for this conclusion
The issue is a bit more complicated in the context of CAPL
is that as a matter of law IFP is no worse off after the Wiser trans-
because of the novation provisions of the agreement – modi-
action than it was before the transaction. This is because PCR was
fied in this case and universally by the terms of the CAPL
under no legal obligation to develop the thermal and enhanced
Assignment Procedure. These provisions are designed to provide
recovery potential of the lands. IFP had failed to contract for that
for deemed novation in certain circumstances but the provisions
obligation. One may question how consistent this is with the land-
can only be triggered if the parties are in compliance with the
lord and tenant cases which I think clearly allow the landlord to
consent provisions.
use the right to withhold consent as a means of ensuring that the
In this case Chief Justice Wittmann concluded that the logic of
property is not used for certain purposes even though the landlord
all of this was applicable to the joint operating context and thus:
had not specifically contracted against those uses in the lease:
(1) PCR was not in breach of the covenant not to assign without
Houlder Brothers and Sundance both support that proposition.
consent, because consent was withheld unreasonably, (2) the
Perhaps more convincing is Chief Justice Wittmann’s overall
deemed novation provisions were not precluded from applying by
assessment of (un)reasonableness in light of the dire circum-
the absence of consent, and (3) therefore Wiser had been novated
stances facing PCR (and therefore ultimately IFP itself). Essentially
into the relevant agreements.
PCR was sitting on a dying property in the form of a set of leases
The reader may be wondering where this argument was
(although PCR did hold the freehold mineral title to some of the
going and who was on what side of it. The issue had been raised
lands) that were going to expire or be cancelled unless somebody
by IFP. IFP wanted to argue that if Wiser had not been novated
did some work on the property (and PCR certainly had no obli-
into the JOA the provisions in the JOA that limited IFP’s inter-
gation to do that). Seen in this light the transfer to Wiser was a
est to an interest in thermal or enhanced recovery could not
means of saving the properties and saving IFP’s interest in those
be enforced against IFP – IFP could then be taken to have an
properties even if it might have prejudiced the adoption of ther-
unqualified 20% undivided interest in the property. And on that
mal and enhanced recovery in the future. In other words, better
basis IFP sought an accounting of its share of production rely-
the chance of the continuing possibility of future thermal and
ing on the Statute of Anne, 4 Anne c 16, s 27 (UK). Chief Justice
enhanced recovery (however remote) than the inevitable (and
Wittmann concluded (at paras 402-403) that his earlier findings
relatively immediate) loss of the properties. But if one takes this
as to the limited nature of IFP’s interest and his conclusion on
broad view of reasonableness then it might also be necessary to
the novation argument just referred to were a complete answer
consider the extent to which the dire circumstances in which
to the claim for an accounting.
PCR found itself were inevitable or whether they were of PCR’s
THE NEGOTIATO R / OC TO BER 20 14
own making.
What is the Legal Position Where a Working Interest Purports
to Withhold Consent and the Court Subsequently Determines
That the Withholding of Consent Was Unreasonable?
14
Did the Development of the Property Through Primary
Production Techniques Substantially Nullify the Benefit
For Which Ifp (B) Had Bargained so as to Amount to a
Breach of Contract?
It seems to me that Chief Justice Wittmann dealt with this issue in
If a tenant assigns a lease in breach of the covenant not to
two parts of his judgement, first at paras 199-212 under the head-
assign or sublet without the landlord’s consent (such consent
ing “4. What is the relevance of the reasonable expectations of the
parties?’ and then later at paras 220-270 under the heading “6.
established that “an operator pools on a reserves basis if the
Has the opportunity to pursue a thermal or other enhanced
geographical data clearly shows the boundaries of the reservoir,
recovery project at Eyehill Creek been destroyed or damaged?” and those boundaries are significantly at variance with the size
In framing the issue in terms of substantial nullification rather
of the corresponding surface parcels…”. Given the unusual nature
than adopting the Chief Justice’s headings I am drawing on Justice
of the split rights in this case it was clearly going to be difficult
Kerans’ judgement in the Court of Appeal in Mesa Operating Ltd
for IFP to establish an analogous body of practice to support its
Partnership v. Amoco Resources (1994), 149 AR 187 (which the Chief
contentions in this case.
Justice refers to at paras 199-201). I think that the Mesa case
Chief Justice Wittmann concluded that IFP could not make
and the substantial nullification test referred to in that decision
out its case under either of these two headings. IFP had not
provide an appropriate umbrella for the consideration of these
bargained for a prohibition on primary production (at para 212)
two headings in part because there is no discussion of any appli-
(and thus that benefit was not in the contemplation of both
cable law under heading (6) in the chief justice’s judgement. Thus
parties and had not been nullified) and while there was much
it seems best to bring the “destroyed or damaged” framing of
evidence that it would be more difficult and more expensive to
heading (6) under the Mesa umbrella.
introduce a thermal or enhanced recovery operation into a field
In Mesa, Mesa held a GOR in half a section of lands and argued
that had been drilled out and depleted through conventional
that Amoco breached its contractual obligations to Mesa when it
recovery measures and conventional cementing jobs, such an
carried out an administrative pooling of its lands on an acreage
operation would not be impossible (at paras 267 – 268). In so
basis rather than on a reserves basis thereby effectively diluting
concluding the Chief Justice establishes that Mesa sets a very
Mesa’s royalty entitlement. Amoco had the power to pool under
high threshold. The application of the test does seem justified
the terms of the GOR agreement and thus the question was
in this case because the parties clearly contemplated some
whether it had abused its discretion in the manner in which it
continuing primary production, and, as the Court notes at para
went about exercising that power. The Court of Appeal concluded
195, given that, some level of conflict between those who own
that this was a case in which pooling should have taken place
all the rights and those who only own some rights (the right to
on a reserves basis largely because it was able to say, consider-
enhanced or thermal production) is inevitable.
ing the traditions and practices of the industry, that it was well
YOU HAVE A LOT ON YOUR MIND – WE CAN HELP
With extensive experience in the oil and gas sector and a strong energy regulatory practice,
our Calgary office is perfectly positioned to assist Western Canada’s energy industry.
Randy Madsen
Jason Paton
Jay Lalach
Bernadita
Tamura-O’Connor
#1 regional law firm in British Columbia,
Alberta and the territories, Canadian Lawyer
magazine (2010-2014).
15
TH E NEGOTIATOR / OCTO BER 20 14
Paul Negenman
Assuming that there was a breach of contract
how should damages be assessed?
focusing on the price environment at that time is that PCR would
Although Chief Justice Wittmann concluded that PCR was not
and wait for prices to improve.
not have been able to hold on to the properties (see paras 377-378)
liable to IFP he did go on and consider whether IFP had been able
posed three questions: (1) Was the claim of lost opportunity to
Assuming Liability Should Any Claim for Damages be
Capped by a Contractual Agreement Between the Parties?
develop the thermal and enhanced recovery potential of the
Article 9 of the AEA provided that in no event should PCR’s liability
property real or fanciful? (2) If real what was the value of the
to IFP exceed the value of the PCR assets. The parties assigned a
opportunity? (3) What was the likelihood that IFP would have
value of $16 million to those assets; IFP’s claim for damages was
been able to realize this opportunity and what discounting factor
for $45 million. Chief Justice Wittmann commented as follows:
to establish that it had suffered any damages. The Chief Justice
should be applied?
Chief Justice Wittmann concluded (at paras 284- 285) that the
claim of lost opportunity was not merely fanciful. PCR disposed
[406]…. Given the language of the contract, IFP’s claim for
$45 million in damages was untenable.
of the Eyehill Creek property for strategic reasons not because
it believed that that the property had no potential for thermal
Such limitation of damages clauses are common in purchase and
development. He was less sympathetic to the plaintiff on the
sale agreements for oil and gas properties and confirmation of
other two questions concluding (at para 364) that the plaintiff had
been unable to establish any value for its lost opportunity and
their enforceability will be welcomed. m
concluding further that there was zero chance that PCR would
have initiated a thermal recovery operation in the absence of a
Reprinted with permission. First published
farmout because of the poor economics and IFP would have been
August 18, 2014 on ABlawg.ca. To subscribe
unable to initiate such an operation itself. I have not dug too
to ABlawg by email or RSS feed, please go to
deeply into these sections of the judgement but they seem very
ab.lawg.ca Follow ABlawg on Twitter @ABlawg.
much to emphasise the economics of a thermal recovery project
THE NEGOTIATO R / OC TO BER 20 14
based upon oil prices at the time of the farmout. The rationale for
16
Board Briefs
procedures manual for the BOD’s approval to then be available
on the website.
• Michelle Radomski reminded Directors of the following:
The key discussion items at
the CAPL Board of Directors’
• The next Board of Directors’ Meeting will be held September
Meeting held June 23, 2014 at
Michelle Radomski’s residence
were as follows:
9th, 2014.
• The next General Meeting is on September 22nd in Jasper at
the CAPL Conference. m
Andrew Webb
In Attendance L. Buzan
B. Reynolds
M. Cookson
J. Shea
M. Creguer
N. Sitch
K. Gibson
A. Webb
P. Mandry
A. Weldon
M. Radomski
Absent C. De Ciancio
G. Richardson
J. Covey
Secretary/Director, Social
Guests
None
The key discussion items at the CAPL Board of Directors’
Meeting held September 9, 2014 at Range Royalty’s
offices were as follows:
* Note: G. Richardson participated in meeting by teleconference
• Michelle
Radomski
tabled
the
proposed
CAPL
Bylaw
Amendments for Board approval. As a result of discussion and
request for further Member Services Committee input, the final
bylaw amendments were subsequently approved by the Board
by unanimous email vote and to be presented to membership
for approval by Special Resolution at next General Meeting.
In Attendance Absent L. Buzan
B. Reynolds
P. Mandry M. Cookson
G. Richardson J. Covey
J. Shea
M. Creguer
N. Sitch
C. De Ciancio A. Webb
K. Gibson
A. Weldon
M. Radomski
Guests
Roland Guenette
Eric Bedford
• Larry Buzan, Director of Finance outlined our current marketing process and discussed feedback from our sponsors and
• Larry Buzan, Director of Finance, presented a Treasurer’s Report
members. Larry presented a centralized marketing strategy
as of August 31st, 2014, showing CAPL investments totalling
proposed to provide a more consistent and streamlined process
$977,145 CDN along with a cash balance of $709,568 CDN.
for obtaining and managing sponsorship funds for annual
The CAPL Scholarship Fund has a balance of $243,636 CDN.
budget planning purposes.
There were no transfers made since the last report.
• Gary Richardson (via speakerphone) provided an update to the
• Kent Gibson presented seven Active, three Associate and ten
Board with regards to the CAPL Annual Publication. G. Richardson
Student membership applications to the Board of Directors,
recommended the CAPL use June Warren Publications on the
which were subsequently approved.
basis of value and distribution. The Board approved using June
Warren Publications for the CAPL Annual Publication.
• A new Privacy and Anti-Spam Policy as well as a new “Who We
Are” Introduction to CAPL were approved for posting to the new
• Andrew Weldon presented the concept of event insurance for
website when launched in September;
the annual CAPL Conference. A. Weldon recommended that
• Nikki Sitch advised the Board that the Office Space Review
payment if cancellation is necessary. The Marketing group will
Committee (OSRC) is looking into new office space as the
look into the “force majeure” clauses of all major agreements
current lease with Chevron is coming to an end on July 31, 2015.
and make a recommendation on next steps.
Colliers has presented three potential lease options thus far, all
of which are centrally located in the downtown core. The OSRC
• Michelle Radomski advised that she has updated the privacy
and anti-spam policy for the CAPL. Michelle will update the new
is looking for space to accommodate four offices and two classrooms to host educational classes (~4800-5000 sq. ft.)
website page for “who we are” and pull together a policy and
17
TH E NEGOTIATOR / OCTO BER 20 14
the CAPL look into getting coverage for the speakers and band
• Larry Buzan updated the Board on the Central Marketing
• CAPL has held or has scheduled meetings with CAPLA and
Initiative. He has received feedback from sponsors and commit-
CAPP to investigate opportunities for joint public relations and
tee members on the suggested framework which is currently
government liaison initiatives.
being evaluated. A Central Marketing committee will be formed
consisting of six members.
• CAPL is to again act as a sponsor and participant at the next PLS
Calgary Deal Makers Expo in October 2014.
• Joanna Shea provided an update on the Professionalism
Initiative. Through discussions with land executives and other
• Michelle Radomski reminded Directors of the following:
CAPL members it has become apparent that the CAPL needs
to build credit and market value for its designations through
• Process and Procedures Manuals and Terms of Reference
marketing and wider adoption of the CML, CSL, PSL , and
outlining goals, objectives and accountability are to be devel-
P.Land® amongst members.
oped for the Office and for each of the directors’ portfolios
®
and the committees.
• Roland Guenette and Eric Bedford from CIBC Wood Gundy
provided the Board with an overview of the service they provide
• The next Board of Directors’ Meeting will be held on October
7, 2014.
as account managers for the CAPL’s investment accounts.
• The next General Meeting will be held at the Annual
Roland and Eric summarized the various options the CAPL has
Conference Opening Breakfast on September 22, 2014 in
with regards to low risk investments suitable for an organization similar to the CAPL.
Jasper. m
Andrew Webb
• Paul Mandry’s report was read advising the Board as to the
Secretary/Director, Social
proposed amendments to the Saskatchewan Surface Rights
Act, and provided an update on the Aboriginal Consultation
Levy Act and where the Government of Alberta is at in its
implementation.
THE NEGOTIATO R / OC TO BER 20 14
&
transactions
Are you missing pieces to your pending A&D transaction?
Jaguar Land’s Quality, Focused and Value Driven
Land Professionals can put the pieces together.
18
Contact Jaguar Land
403-718-0525
jaguarland.ca
Get Smart
The CAPL Education Committee is pleased to present the following courses:
British Columbia P&NG Regulations
October 1, 2014
Professional Ethics: Core Values
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
October 8, 2014
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
The seminar will provide an overview of the British Columbia
This seminar is suitable for all interested land personnel and is
Petroleum and Natural Gas Act and associated regulations, includ-
required for prospective CAPL members as well as CAPL’s profes-
ing such topics as the land tenure system and the Crown sales
sional certification program. In this course the participants will be
process. A question and answer period will follow the presentation.
given the opportunity to identify their core values, the possible
sources for those values, and how those values express them-
British Columbia Surface Rights (PSL®)
October 2, 2014
selves in both their personal and professional life. Attention will
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
also be given to the development of personal mission and vision
statements and how they reflect the core values identified. In this
This course is intended for surface landmen and administra-
seminar there is an emphasis on the practical application of the
tors interacting in all facets of surface activities and associated
themes discussed.
regulations in British Columbia. This seminar will cover a wide
Fundamentals of Oil and Gas Law
range of issues provided under the jurisdiction of the British
October 9, 2014
Columbia Surface Rights Board and the British Columbia Oil &
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Gas Commission. An overview of oil & gas activities in British
Columbia will also be presented by the operations manager of the
This seminar will cover a range of legal issues, including environ-
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.
mental law and regulatory matters, but will focus on the types of
contracts most often dealt with in the upstream oil and gas indus-
Fundamentals of Surface Agreements (PSL®)
October 7, 2014
try. This is intended for junior to intermediate industry personnel. 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
A question and answer period will be scheduled.
Freehold Mineral Lease
This course is for the purposes of having detailed discussions on
October 14, 2014
those surface land agreements that are most commonly used
9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
during the surface acquisition process. Types of agreements include
the Surface Lease, Right-of-Way Agreement, Lease and Grant,
This seminar is intended for industry personnel who require
Amendments, Damage releases, and temporary agreements. Other
a detailed knowledge of freehold mineral rights. Anyone who
miscellaneous surface documents will be discussed as to when,
is taking this seminar should previously have taken CAPL’s Oil
where and how they are to be used. This course also covers the basic
and Gas Law or an equivalent course and/or have several years
concepts of contract law in order to learn how to make appropriate
of experience in land. The instructor will discuss the Torrens
System in Alberta (with some reference to Saskatchewan), the
changes to existing documents, and draft proper letter agreements.
Elexco_Negotiator
qrtrhoriz4CfinPage
1
6/24/11
7:47:54
Schedules and
addendums and
their uses will also
be
discussed. concept of indefeasibility and its qualification, historical searches,
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
19
TH E NEGOTIATOR / OCTO BER 20 14
• Mineral and Surface Leasing
• Right-of-Way Acquisitions
• Mineral Ownership/Title Curative
• Seismic Permitting
• Mapping/GIS Services
• Abstracts of Title
PM
registration and caveating issues. The instructor will then review
tenure regulations and guidelines. The course will focus on gain-
the nature and ownership of oil and gas in place, covering such
ing an understanding of the current oil sands tenure regulations
issues as: the rule of capture and legal and regulatory entitlement
and guidelines. Topics to be discussed will include: public and
to various substances such as coal bed methane. The topics to be
private sales; rights conveyed by oil sands agreements; types of
covered under the Freehold Oil and Gas Lease will be: the prin-
oil sands agreements; solution gas in oil sands; continuation of
ciple features of the lease, its standard clauses, the formalities
oil sands leases; minimum level of evaluation criteria; escalating
of completion and execution of the lease, the termination of the
rentals; development, research and exploration offsetting costs;
lease, and top leasing. A review of current court and regulatory
bitumen upgrading as it relates to offsetting costs; lease designa-
decisions regarding freehold leases will complete the day.
tions; changing from nonproducing to producing and vice versa.
Well Spacings and Holdings
Understanding Reserve Evaluations NEW COURSE
October 15, 2014
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
October 20, 2014
1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
This seminar is designed for landmen and other individuals who
This half-day session will be of interest to people interested in
wish to become familiar with the concepts and regulations asso-
understanding reserve evaluations. This seminar will present a
ciated with drilling spacing units and target areas in Alberta and
detailed discussion on the methodologies used when estimat-
B.C., the implications of these and how they could impact a land-
ing hydrocarbon reserves under various techniques such as
man’s negotiations. Emphasis will be placed on reviewing existing
Volumetrics, Tank Type Material Balance, Exponential Production
regulations (including holdings) and the consequences of variation
Decline and Analogy. The seminar will also briefly touch on
from normal spacing units through practical problems. Information
reserve estimates developed by hyperbolic and harmonic perfor-
resource sources will be discussed, in addition to the implications of
mance analysis as well as model studies. Participants will
the Lahee Well Classification System and surface stakeholder consid-
engage in a dialog on a number of rules of thumbs regarding
erations. Dispute resolution mechanisms will also be discussed.
the estimate of reserves and as reserves are the cornerstone
of economic analysis, reference will be made to both asset and
Alberta Crown Lease Continuation
October 16, 2014
corporate economic assessments.
8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Professional Ethics: Theory & Application
This seminar is intended for land personnel who are involved in
October 21, 2014
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
the Alberta Crown Lease process. Technical personnel will also
benefit from taking this course. An overview of the regulations
This seminar is suitable for all interested land personnel and is
and geological case studies governing lease continuation will be
required for prospective CAPL members as well as CAPL’s profes-
provided by instructors from the Alberta Department of Energy.
sional certification program. This seminar is intended to increase
the understanding of ethics and the dimensions to ethical behav-
Oil Sands Tenure
October 16, 2014
ior by stimulating the ethical thought process, providing a forum
1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
for discussions with respect to land related ethical issues. Case
studies will encourage class discussion and give each participant
This seminar is intended for land personnel who require an
insight into the morality vs legality question.
THE NEGOTIATO R / OC TO BER 20 14
understanding and working knowledge of the current oil sands
Land Acquisitions
Freehold Mineral Secialists
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
20
Geology
October 22, 2014
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
October 23, 2014
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
This seminar is designed for oil and gas personnel that require
a general understanding of geological prospect evaluation.
Landmen, technologists and other personnel involved in written
or oral communication with the geological department will benefit from attending this seminar. This two day seminar will provide
an overview of geology as it applies to petroleum exploration in
Canada. Workshops and exercises are an integral part of the seminar. The instructor will review the geological exploration tools,
models and concepts as they apply to oil and gas exploration
in Canadian sedimentary basins. Topics to be discussed include:
Seeking
Renewed Depth
In A
Land Services
Provider?
rocks and minerals, geological time scale, plate tectonics and
reconstruction, development of hydrocarbon reservoirs and traps,
the generation and entrapment of oil and gas and the historical
geology of the Western Canadian sedimentary basin. The geological tools used in exploration and formation evaluation will be
utilized throughout the seminar, including well cuttings, cores,
wireline and geophysical well logs, drillstem tests, surface and
subsurface maps and cross-sections. The integration of geological
data with geophysical, land, engineering and other disciplines will
also be discussed.
Contract Administration: An Overview
October 29, 2014
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
An overview of the mechanics required to compile and administer efficient land systems and controls will be presented.
The daily expectations and responsibilities of the land administrator will also be discussed. Practical examples will be provided
Integrity
Runs
Deep
and a discussion of common problems will be encouraged.
Topics include: role of the land administrator, the relationship
between mineral leases and contracts, land survey systems, wells,
common agreements (JOA, Farmout, Pooling, Royalty, CAPL 1990
Operating Procedure, PASC 1996), Notice of Assignment, terms
used in the industry and check lists.
Alberta P&NG Regulations
October 30, 2014
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
This seminar is intended for land personnel who require an
understanding and working knowledge of the Alberta Mines and
Minerals Act and associated regulations as it relates to P&NG
toll free: 1.877.998.1500 | www.integrityland.com
tions for primary and continued leases; groupings and validation
of licenses; registration of liens and transfers, surrenders, rentals,
offsets; the P&NG sales process and trespass.
21
TH E NEGOTIATOR / OCTO BER 20 14
tenure. This seminar will cover the administration of continua-
Contractual Issues Relating to Acquisitions and Divestments
November 5, 2014
8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
This seminar will focus on the legal aspects of the acquisition of
oil and gas reserves and facilities. Special emphasis will be on
emphasize situations and circumstances where fiduciary duties
do and do not arise and the nature of these duties.
Indian Oil & Gas Canada
November 6, 2014
1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
legal issues, such as the rights to deposit, basic tax issues, the
treatment of effective date vs. closing date, conditions precedent,
The session provides an overview of IOGC, the Indian Oil and
consents, ROFRs, due diligence and indemnities.
Gas Act and regulations, IOGC’s role in assisting First Nation
develop their oil and gas, the two key approaches to negotia-
Principles of Contract Drafting and Interpretation
November 5, 2014
1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
tions and a review of IOGC’s current sub surface and surface
disposition processes, applicable federal legislation and regulator
requirements.
The principles of drafting and interpreting contracts that have
evolved in case law over the years will be presented. In addition
to reviewing case studies, the instructor will discuss the essential
Geophysics for Non Geophysicists
November 12, 2014
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
concepts in drafting and suggestions for improving essential parts
This seminar will introduce the field of geophysics as it pertains
of agreements.
to hydrocarbon exploration in Western Canada. The instructor
Fiduciary Duties
November 6, 2014
will focus on a number of personal cases to exemplify the use
9:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
of seismic data. Simple in-class exercises will show some of the
THE NEGOTIATO R / OC TO BER 20 14
limitations of seismic data in a cost-effective exploration program.
22
This half day seminar will focus on problem areas arising in
Ownership issues and legal obligations of acquiring seismic data
the context of both transactions and day-to-day operations.
in Canada will also be introduced. Sample show and tell scenar-
Case examples and court decisions specific to land related issues
ios employing geophysics will demonstrate how the information
will be presented and discussed. Specifically, this course will
acquired in this course can benefit a non-geophysicist.
Aboriginal Affairs
November 13, 2014
Saskatchewan P&NG Regulations
8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
November 20, 2014
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
This session is especially useful for those interacting with
The seminar will provide an overview of the Saskatchewan
Aboriginal governments, businesses and communities, and helps
Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulations. Emphasis will be placed
in building positive relationships to enhance effectiveness with
on the land tenure system, lease continuation, posting and
Aboriginal people.
bidding on Crown Land. A question and answer period will follow
the presentation.
2007 CAPL Operating Procedure
November 18, 2014
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
1990 CAPL Operating Procedure Boot Camp
Nov 25 & 26, 2014
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
This one day course is an overview of the 2007 CAPL Operating
Procedure focused specifically on the changes between the 1990 and
This is a challenging interactive two day course in which partic-
the new document. It is meant to enable personnel to appreciate
ipants work through case studies on the 1990 and 2007 CAPL
substantive differences between the 1990 and the 2007 documents.
Operating Procedures in small work groups for presentation
to the larger group. The case studies address subtleties of the
Saskatchewan P&NG Regulations
November 19, 2014
Operating Procedure in the context of issues that could easily
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
arise on files, so that attendees improve their understanding of
those topics. The course is also designed to build the capability
The seminar will provide an overview of the Saskatchewan
Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulations. Emphasis will be placed
on the land tenure system, lease continuation, posting and
of attendees to assess and resolve Operating Procedure issues
more generally. m
bidding on Crown Land. A question and answer period will follow
the presentation.
OIL & GAS MINERAL RIGHTS
& ROYALTY MARKETPLACE
BUY • SELL • LEASE
SEARCH 400+ PROPERTIES IN NORTH AMERICA
OWNERS PUBLISH ADS FOR FREE
BUYERS SUBSCRIBE TO VIEW
23
TH E NEGOTIATOR / OCTO BER 20 14
WWW.LISTMINERALRIGHTS.COM
FOLLOW US. WE CAN GET YOU THERE.
The Negotiator’s
Message From
the Board
The core Communications
Committee now consists of:
Mark Innes, Anne Macedo,
Jason
Peacock,
Krissy
Rennie, Colin Taylor, and
Kevin Young. This team
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
September 2014
CAPL WELCOMES
THE 2014 BOARD
OF DIRECTORS
puts in countless hours of
volunteer time each month
I would like to begin by
saying thank you to all of
the individuals that took
the time to write an article for The Negotiator over
the past year. The mandate of the
to
obtain
and
manage
content, coordinate advertisements,
and
secure
feature articles. I want to
express my gratitude to
Terminating a Freehold
Oil & Gas Lease
Difficult to Terminate Non-Producing
Leases in Summary Judgment
CAPL 2014 Freehold Lease
New Changes to CAPL Lease Form
CAPL Merit Awards
Honouring Exceptional CAPL
Members & Individuals
20229_CAPL_September2014_Negotiator | Cyan Magenta Yellow Black | 27-AUG-1414:20:14
these Committee members as well as the other individuals of our
Communications Portfolio is to keep
team including: each of the proofreaders, the editors listed on
the CAPL membership informed, on a timely basis, of ongoing
the inside front cover of every Negotiator issue, as well as McAra
activities and initiatives both within the CAPL and in industry
Printing, and Rachel Hershfield of Folio Creations.
in general. This is something that could not be accomplished
Education and diversity of articles has been a key focus of
without the time and effort our writers put into each article.
The Negotiator over the past year. Since October 2013 we have had
All of the feature articles within The Negotiator are written by indi-
pieces on tenure regulation changes, unconventional reservoirs,
viduals willing to share their knowledge and expertise with the
water use, License Liability Rating, First Nations consultation,
Association and their volunteer efforts help educate us all. The
Unitization and EOR schemes and a variety of other topics.
CAPL membership is diverse and comprised of individuals with
Over the next year, be on the lookout for a quarterly M&A
unique experiences, backgrounds, and specialties. If you have
feature that will highlight industry transactions and deal metrics.
knowledge of a particular industry trend, regulatory change, or
Additionally, we hope to continue our relationship with the
any other topic you feel should be shared with the CAPL member-
PJVA and receive articles on an array of topics. For a look-back
ship please consider giving back to the Association and writing an
or keyword search for any articles published in The Negotiator
article for The Negotiator. Submission Guidelines for The Negotiator
please visit the CAPL website where archived issues dating back
can be found on the CAPL website. Please keep in mind that the
to January 2000 can be found. Finally, I would like to remind
submission deadline is typically five (5) weeks prior to publication.
our members that they can elect to receive only the electronic
While educational and thought provoking articles contrib-
version of The Negotiator. Should a member wish to only receive
ute to the success of The Negotiator, the magazine would not be
the electronic copy and no longer receive a paper copy, they
possible without the efforts of the strong volunteers within the
simply need to make this election by updating their profile on the
Communications Committee. Paul Cooper, Jared Frese, and Mark
Horne were three long-term volunteers with the Communications
CAPL website. m
Committee that have recently moved on to contribute their volun-
Brad Reynolds
teer efforts elsewhere and I would like to thank each of them for their
Director, Communications
THE NEGOTIATO R / OC TO BER 20 14
dedication and great work while they were with our Committee.
HMA Land Services is now RPS HMA.
At RPS HMA we place significant value on
developing and maintaining excellent
relationships with our clients and industry
partners. Our team is dedicated to
providing the same level of professional
service, reliability and expertise that our
clients have come to expect from us.
Toll Free (866) 412-5263
Pipeline  Exploration & Production ( E&P)  Telecom  Power
24
www.hmaland.com | www.rpsgroup.com
Roster Updates
New Members
The following members were approved by a
Motion on September 9, 2014:
Mark MacKay
Applicant
Current Employer
Sponsors
Active
Shell Canada Energy
Linda Edmunds
Kristin Rennie
Kevin Walz
Matthew Rasula
Husky Oil Operation
Dan Halper
Colin Taylor
Limited
Zvonko Rimac
Jeremy Wallis
Ryan B. Thompson
Aryn Flette
Jennifer Ho
Robert Bodzioch
TORC Oil & Gas Ltd. Shaun Cooper
Crescent Point
Energy Corp.
Craig Stayura
Joe Swift
Nina Gesell
TAQA North Ltd.Ann Janicki
Cari Williams
Shelley Wilson
Todd Girbav
McNally LandTerry Cutting
Services Ltd.
David Savage, P.Land
Robert Telford, P.Land, PSL
Jordan Kersch
Apache Canada Ltd.
Associate
Fabio Marson
SarPointMandy Ediger
Engineering Ltd.Aaron Giovanetto
Keely O’Neil
Trevor Rose
ConocoPhillips Canada John Miele
Bruce Robertson
Bill Schlegel, P.Land
Colin Szopa
XI Technologies Inc.Garrett Laudel
Wayne Ellis
Craig Stayura
Wayne Geddes, P.Land
Jared Tchir
Brad Johnston
LandLine
Divestco iLand and LandRite
Together at Last
Contact us today to learn more about our surface land data pipeline.
587.952.8000 | [email protected] | www.divestco.com
25
TH E NEGOTIATOR / OCTO BER 20 14
LandLine transfers iLand sub files and crossings that you acquire
directly into LandRite’s surface files and third party agreements.
Student
Independent
to Taddun Land Consultants Inc.
Darrell Boldon
University of OklahomaSteve Long
Evan Bowers-McCaw
Olds CollegeTara Lloyd
Amber Elie
Athabasca Oil Sands Corp.
Shannon Eastcott
Mount Royal University
Jillian Philpott
to Independent
Kimberly Folkins
Mount Royal University
Jillian Philpott
Dorothy Else
DDSB Consulting Ltd.
Dylan Johnson
University of CalgaryRobert Schulz
to PanTerra Resources Corp.
Joshua Lewis
Mount Royal University
Mayank Parmar
Mount Royal UniversityAndrea Gill
Chris Hillebrand
Sunshine Oilsands Ltd.
Steve Sawa
Mount Royal UniversityKimberly Dirven
to SunOcean Energy Ltd.
Alexandre Ste-Marie
University of CalgaryRobert Schulz
Mike Macdonald Apache Canada Ltd.
to ARC Resources Ltd.
Marshall McCarthy, PSL
Bellatrix Exploration Ltd.
to Independent
Natalie Taylor
Jillian Philpott
Mount Royal UniversityAndrea Gill
On the Move
THE NEGOTIATO R / OC TO BER 20 14
Dennis Eisner, P.Land
m
Brad Campbell
Pengrowth Energy Corporation
Len Moriarity, P.Land
Crescent Point Energy Corp.
to Independent
to Jupiter Resources Inc.
Dali Courtright
Crescent Point Energy Corp.
Bruce Murray
Tydyl Holdings Ltd.
to Independent
to Powder Mountain Energy Ltd.
Helmut Eckert, P.Land
Crocotta Energy Inc.
Karen Riep
Independent
to Leucrotta Exploration Inc.
to Indian Oil and Gas Canada
LANDGROUP
LANDGROUP
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.traverselandgroup.com
www.traverselandgroup.com
Calgary
Calgary
| 260,
| 260,
68156815
8 St.8NE,
St. Calgary,
NE, Calgary,
AB TAB
2E T7H7
2E 7H7
403.265.1050
403.265.1050
Sedgewick
Sedgewick
| 4911
| 4911
48 Ave.,
48 Ave.,
P.O. P.O.
Box Box
36, Sedgewick,
36, Sedgewick,
AB T0B
AB T0B
4C0 4C0780.384.3565
780.384.3565
Grande
Grande
Prairie
Prairie
| #101,
| #101,
10419
10419
99 Ave.,
99 Ave.,
Grande
Grande
Prairie,
Prairie,
AB T8V
AB T8V
0S4 0S4
780.532.7630
780.532.7630
26
Rich Rowe
Manitok Energy Inc.
to PanTerra Resources Corp.
Joanne Sipka, P.Land
Independent
30, 2014 at the age of 85 years. John was born in Regina and after
to Jupiter Resources Inc.
graduating from high school he attended McGill University where
Rhonda Trautman
CanEra Energy Corp.
to Independent
Brittney Walchuck
Independent
to Koch Oil Sands Operating ULC
Aaron Williams
Crescent Point Energy Corp.
Association of Petroleum Landmen). John was proud to be a
to Rolling Hills Energy Ltd.
member of the CAPL for over 60 years.
Kim Young
CanEra Energy Corp.
to Crescent Point Energy Corp.
Wiley Zimmerman
Cheveyo Energy Inc.
to Independent
John Gareau
The CAPL announces the recent passing of John Gareau on July
he received a Bachelor of Science degree.
He then began a long and successful career as a landman and
executive in the oil and gas industry, initially in Regina and then
in Calgary, with a two-year period in Houston. While living in
Regina, John became a member of the Saskatchewan Landmen’s
Association in 1953 (which eventually became the Canadian
John is survived by his wife Ethelene and several other family
m
members. He will be missed by all those that had the opportunity
to know him.
Brian Williams
The CAPL announces the recent passing of Brian Williams on
August 8, 2014 at the age of 67 years. Brian attended the University
In Memoriam
of Alberta where he received a degree in Business and Commerce.
He began his career in the oil and gas industry shortly after graduating and became a member of the CAPL in 1983 while he was
employed at Dome Petroleum Limited. During his career, Brian
Gary Aitken
worked in many oil and gas companies and eventually moved
The CAPL announces the recent passing of Gary Aitken on August
from Calgary to Edmonton.
12, 2014 at the age of 72 years. Gary was born in Edmonton and
Brian is survived by his wife Cynthia Rothwell and several
attended the University of Alberta where he received a degree in
other family members. He will be missed by all those that had the
Commerce. In 1967 he began his career in the oil and gas industry
in Calgary and became a member of the CAPL in 1968. In April of
opportunity to know him. m
2014, Gary proudly received his forty-five year CAPL pin. He also
received his Professional Landman (P.Land®) designation in 1988.
Gary is survived by his wife Judy, his daughters Jill Rossi (Ken),
Laura Metcalfe (Darryl) and his son Ross (Kirsteen), as well as
several other family members. He will be missed by all those that
had the opportunity to know him.
w w w. p r o g r ess l a n d . c o m
12831 – 163 Street, Edmonton, Alberta T5V 1M5
27
TH E NEGOTIATOR / OCTO BER 20 14
1.866.454.4717
Scott Land & Lease
Junior Landman
Charity Golf Classic
A big thank-you to everyone that joined us this past
June for another successful tournament. For anyone
that could not make the event, we welcome you to check out the Photos
tab on our website www.jrlandmanclassic.ca.
To date we have raised $40,000 and are on pace to surpass our goal of
raising $50,000 for the PLM Endowment fund by next year. We could not
have done this without our sponsors support so please take the time to
review our Sponsors Page on the website listed above.
The team of volunteers pulled off another great tournament so thankyou to the following people for organizing this year’s tournament: Brad
Johnston, Wayne Ellis, Garrett Laudel, Ryan Gillen, Brittney Walchuck,
Danielle Suchan, Sean Weld, and Akash Asif.
We look forward to seeing everyone in June 2015!
THE NEGOTIATO R / OC TO BER 20 14
Josh Wylie
28
m
WESTERN CANADA LAND SALE and DRILLING RIG REVIEW
August 2014
Land Sale Data
5,000.00
BriƟsh Columbia
Alberta
Saskatchewan
AREA
Manitoba
BC
4,500.00
AB - Foothills
4,000.00
3,500.00
Average $/Ha
3,000.00
Total Ha
Sold
Average
$ / Ha
7,737
$387
9,792
$426
AB - Plains
17,339
$394
AB - Northern
58,814
$1,250
SK
25,263
$1,916
2,334
$88
MB
NOTE: Numbers are rounded
2,500.00
2,000.00
1,500.00
1,000.00
500.00
0.00
Drilling Report for Last 5 Years
Drilling Rig UƟlizaƟon Rate
70%
60%
50%
900
800
40%
700
600
Drilling
500
Down
400
Total
300
Total
Down
Drilling
200
100
0
August
2009
August
2010
August
2011
August
2012
August
2013
August
2014
30%
UƟlizaƟon Rate
20%
10%
0%
August 2009
August 2010
August 2011
August 2012
August 2013
August 2014
THE EXPERTS IN LAND ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES.
LandSolutions LP #200, 601 - 10 Ave SW Calgary, AB T2R 0B2 1-866-834-0008
www.landsolutions.ca
2014 CAPL Golf
Tournament
beverages and even a tasty Spolumbo Burger. Coming off the
course our membership convened inside with a beer garden
sponsored by Gowlings and a fantastic dinner with support from
Universal Surveys and Progress Land. Dee Three again made a
generous donation to provide wine to complement the meal.
The staff at Heritage Pointe ensured that dinner ran smoothly and
CAPL once again
held their annual
golf tournament
at Heritage Pointe
Golf Club on August 21st this year and was
once again provided exceptional service. Prizes were distributed
hosted by title sponsor geoLOGIC. Our players were met by many
support. It is through their generous contributions that we are able
familiar faces at the registration desk receiving coffee & Baileys
to keep entry fees down, provide breakfast, baileys and coffee, on
from Davis LLP and a new pair of stylish Nike golf shoes courtesy
course refreshments and snacks, beer gardens, dinner with wine
of our friends at Standard Land. Golfers could grab a breakfast
and lots of great prizes. This tournament would not have been
sandwich (or two) courtesy of Lexterra with the opportunity to
possible without the contributions of all our sponsors and member-
meet with former touring professional Richard Zokol. As an added
ship support. A full listing of all our sponsors can be found below.
worthy cause in the Canadian Red Cross – Flood Relief Fund.
Thank you to all of our other sponsors for their continued
A special thanks to the chair of the committee Craig Stayura
Golf Course in Vernon, BC and the chance to win a fantastic golf
for shouldering the load on organizational duties. And last but
package. The charity putting contest presented by XI Technologies
not least the relentless efforts of the Golf Committee: Alayne
benefiting Spokes for Little Folks went off on the putting green
Fernquist, Cam Urquhart, Craig Thomas, Dave Boisjolie, Kristen
and the relaxed atmosphere encouraged catching up with old
Dublonko, Lawrence Fisher, Len Moriarity, Jeff Talbot, Garrett Zokol
friends and even a little bit of focused networking. As the golf-
and Trevor Burke.
conditions did not deteriorate too much and golfers were kept dry
in their carts sponsored by Can Am Geomatics.
Scores were low for our sandbagging members and the rest
of us were kept happy and refreshed with a variety of snacks,
We will see everybody again next August for the 2015 CAPL
Golf Tournament at Heritage Pointe Golf Club. m
Jeff Talbot
CAPL Golf Tournament Committee Member
Title Sponsor
Dinner Sponsors
Nexen
Birchcliff Energy
geoLOGIC
Universal Surveys Group
Integrity Land Inc.
PNG Exchange Ltd.
Progress Land Services
ConocoPhillips Canada Resources Corp.
Lawson Lundell
CORE Geomatics
All-Can Engineering
Golf Ball Sponsor
Steward Weir
Legacy Oil & Gas
Shell Canada Limited
Millennium Geomatics
McElhanney Land Surveys
Tee Gift Sponsor
Standard Land
Charity Putting Green Sponsor
Shell
geologic Systems
XI Technologies Inc.
Wine Sponsor
Caltech Surveys
IHS
Dee Three Exploration Ltd.
Precision Geomatics
Midwest Surveys
Crescent Point
McMillan
Water Sponsor
Divestco
Integrated Geomatics
Divestco
PanTerra Resources Corp.
Pandell
LW Survey Canada
Enerplus
Beer Garden Sponsor
Gowlings LLP
Baileys & Coffee Sponsor
Davis LLP
Prize Sponsor
Standard Land
Hole Sponsors
Sinopec Daylight
Vertex
Britt Land Services
Contributors
Land Solutions
Synergy Land Services
Petroland Services
Compass Geomatics
Lighstream Resources
Cart Sponsor
Action Land
Sayer Securities
Scott Land & Lease
Can-am Geomatics
Nuvista
Oil and Gas Index
Focus
Prospect Land Services
P2 Energy solutions
Altus Geomatics
Direct Energy
THE NEGOTIATO R / OC TO BER 20 14
Energy. This year’s mulligan draw saw nearly $2,500 donated to a
bonus every golfer was offered gift certificates to Predator Ridge
ers hit the course the rain started to sprinkle but thankfully the
Breakfast Sponsor
Lexterra Land Ltd.
30
to the lucky winners in part thanks to sponsorship from Direct
The Social Calendar
Event
DATE
TIME
LOCATION
COST
(INCLUDING GST)
CONTACT NAME
CONTACT PHONE
CONTACT EMAIL
REGISTRATION
DEADLINE
CAPL Oktoberfest
Charity
Land Social
Networking Night
9-Oct-04
4:30 PM
The National on 10th
$60.00
Christopher Ellis
(403) 817-4586
[email protected]
9-Oct-14
CAPL October
General Meeting
15-Oct-14
11:30 AM
The Westin
$31.50 for Student
Members
$63.00 for non-Members
Karin Steers
(403) 237-6635
[email protected]
9-Oct-14
CAPL November
General Meeting
13-Nov-14
5:00 PM
The Westin
$52.50 for Student
Members
$105 for non-Members
Kaitlin Polowski
(403) 237-6635
[email protected]
6-Nov-14
* 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
“SKY’S THE LIMIT”
Servicing Alberta and Saskatchewan since 2001
Branch Office:
18008 – 107 Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta T5S 2J5
Toll Free: 1-855-425-2530
www.actionland.ca
 Surface Acquisition  EAP  First Nation Consultation  Rental Reviews  Environmental Assessments 
31
TH E NEGOTIATOR / OCTO BER 20 14
Corporate Office:
Box 20096, Kensington P.O.
Medicine Hat, Alberta T1A 8M4
Toll Free: 1-866-528-2558
[email protected]
CAPL Calendar
of Events
October
1 Wednesday
1
2
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
13
14
15
15
15
16
16
20
21
22, 23
29
29
30
Wednesday
Thursday
Monday
Tuesday Tuesday
Wednesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Thursday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Wednesday
Monday
Thursday
Thursday
Monday
Tuesday
Wed-Thurs
Wednesday
Wednesday
Thursday
November
4 Tuesday
5
5
5
THE NEGOTIATO R / OC TO BER 20 14
5
6
6
11
12
13
18
19
19
20
25, 26
27
32
Alberta Land Sale
British Columbia P&NG Regulations
British Columbia Surface Rights (PSL®)
Saskatchewan Land Sale
Board Meeting
Fundamentals of Surface Agreements (PSL®)
British Columbia Land Sale
Professional Ethics: Core Values
Fundamentals of Oil and Gas Law
Charity Event
Thanksgiving
Freehold Mineral Lease
Alberta Land Sale
Well Spacings and Holdings
CAPL General Meeting
Alberta Crown Lease Continuation (am)
Oil Sands Tenure (pm)
Understanding Reserve Evaluations (am)
Professional Ethics: Theory and Application
Geology
Alberta Land Sale
Contract Administration: An Overview
Alberta P&NG Regulations m
Board Meeting
Wednesday British Columbia Land Sale
Wednesday Manitoba Land Sale
Wednesday
Contractual Issues Relating to Acquisitions
and Divestments (am)
Wednesday Principles of Contract Drafting and Interpretation (pm)
Thursday Fiduciary Duties (am)
Thursday Indian Oil & Gas Canada (pm)
Tuesday
Remembrance Day
Wednesday Geophysics for Non Geophysicists
Thursday Aboriginal Affairs (am)
Tuesday
2007 CAPL Operating Procedure
Wednesday Alberta Land Sale
Wednesday Saskatchewan P&NG Regulations
Thursday Saskatchewan P&NG Regulations
Tue-Wed 1990 CAPL Operating Procedure Boot Camp
Thursday Drilling and Production Operations m
October
Meeting
October 15, 2014
Speaker: TBD
Lunch:
11:30 a.m.
Where:
The Westin
320 4 Avenue S.W.
Cost:
Members: No Charge
Guests: $63.00 (Includes GST)
Student Members: $31.50 (Includes GST)
All student members and guests will be required to purchase a ticket.
Registration form is available on the CAPL website. Email responses to
Karin Steers at [email protected]. Please purchase tickets prior to noon
on October 9, 2014. m
November
Meeting
November 13, 2014
Speaker: TBD
Dinner:
5:00 p.m.
Where:
The Westin
320 4 Avenue S.W.
Cost:
Members: No Charge
Guests: $105.00 (Includes GST)
Student Members: $52.50 (Includes GST)
All student members and guests will be required to purchase a ticket.
Registration form is available on the CAPL website. Email responses to
Kaitlin Polowski at [email protected]. Please purchase tickets prior
to noon on November 6, 2014. m
NOW LAND ACQUISITION AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CAN
FOLLOW THE SAME PATH.
The experts in Land Acquisition offer Environmental Services as
well. Imagine that. An A to Z solution that is far more efficient
and effective, making your life so much easier. Your experts are
standing by.
Call 403-290-0008 or visit landsolutions.ca
Trust your Surface Land Project
to the Professionals at Scott Land!
Left to Right: Celeste Farrow, Maureen Gieg, Terry Wark, Todd Plandowski, Lorne Pudsey.
Scott Land is a leader in the Surface Land industry
acquiring more Crown and freehold surface land each
year than any other firm. We are known for our highly
experienced surface land team located in 7 full-service
offices across Western Canada. We have handled some of
the industry’s most demanding and complex projects in
all regions including large drilling projects, facilities, sour
gas, oilsands, stakeholder engagement and pipelines of
all sizes.
We charge from our closest office to your project. Our
Project Managers ensure a smooth acquisition and administration process for you.
Calgary
Edmonton
Grande Prairie
Our competitive advantages are many: stellar service,
trusted experience, strategic advice, proven processes,
solid reputation, local relationships, technical knowledge, quality administration, community involvement
and competitive rates. We have our own in-house First
Nations consultation team and an alliance with an environmental company for one-stop service.
The stakes are high, use the best land company you can
to ensure your project moves forward successfully. Have
a talk with one of the professionals at Scott Land about
your next project.
Fort St. John
Suite 900, Bow Valley Square 1, 202 – 6 Avenue SW, Calgary, Alberta, T2P 2R9
SLL Negotiator Ad 2014-10.indd 1
Lloydminster
Regina
Saskatoon
Ph: 403 261 1000
www.scottland.ca
2014-09-12 11:25 AM