The Magazine of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Landmen

January 2016

THE NEGOTIATOR

Speculation is Evil – And Costly “Disgorgement of net benefits” in

the Stewart Estate v TAQA case

The Apache Pipeline SpillAER Presses Charges Under New Regulations

Respecting Aboriginal Title & Rights Why Aboriginal Relations

Should be a Core Focus When Developing in an Aboriginal Area

CAPL MANAGEMENT NETWORKING NIGHTJanuary 21, 2016Speaker: Dr. Patrick Moore

For information on the services McMillan’s Energy Group can provide, please visit our website or contact Michael Thackray, QC.

Your energy partnerBuilding 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.

Michael A. Thackray, QCe: michael.thackray@mcmillan.cat: 403.531.4710

Senior Editorial BoardDirector of Communications

Kent Gibson [ph] 403-698-8822Advertising Editors

Kevin Young [ph] 403-831-4908Trevor Rose [ph] 403-233-3136

Coordinating Editor Krissy Rennie [ph] 403-663-2595

Feature Content EditorMark Innes [ph] 403-818-7561

Regular Content EditorMartin Leung [ph] 403-699-5864

Social Content EditorJason Peacock [ph] 403-691-7077

Editorial CommitteeAmy Kalmbach [ph] 587-794-4723 Nathan Roberts [ph] 403-268-3006Dinora Santos [ph] 403-470-1558

Design and ProductionRachel Hershfield, Folio Creations

PrintingMcAra Printing

SubmissionsFor information regarding submission of articles, please contact a member of our Senior Editorial Board.

DisclaimerAll 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.

AdvertisingFor information, please contact Kevin Young (403-831-4908) or Trevor Rose (403-233-3136). No endorsement or sponsorship by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Landmen is suggested or implied.

The contents of this publication may not be reproduced either in part or in full without the consent of the publisher.

2015–2016 CAPL Board of DirectorsPresident

Nikki Sitch, P.Land, PSLVice-President

Larry Buzan, P.LandDirector, Business DevelopmentAlberta & British Columbia

Ted Lefebvre, P.LandDirector, Business DevelopmentSaskatchewan & Alberta Oilsands

Michelle CreguerDirector, Communications

Kent GibsonDirector, Education

Bill Schlegel, P.LandDirector, Field Acquisition & Management

Paul Mandry, PSLDirector, Finance

Andrew WebbDirector, Member Services

Ryan Stackhouse, P.LandDirector, Professionalism

Noel Millions, PSLDirector, Public Relations

Gary Richardson, PSLDirector, Technology

Mandy CooksonSecretary/Director, Social

Jordan MurrayPast President

Michelle Radomski

Readers may obtain any Director’s contact information from the CAPL office. Suite 1600, 520 – 5 Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 3R7 [ph] 403-237-6635 [fax] 403-263-1620www.landman.ca

Kaitlin Polowski reception@landman.caDenise Grieve dgrieve@landman.ca Irene Krickhan ikrickhan@landman.caKarin Steers ksteers@landman.ca

Also in this issue

7 Management Networking Night Guest Speaker

19 “ Contract Depth” Does Not Mean Optimal Depth

21 2016 CAPL Curling Bonspiel

25 2016 CAPL Education Courses

28 2016 Annual CAPL Squash Tournament

THE NEGOTIATORThe Magazine of the Canadian Association

of Petroleum Landmen THE NEGOTIATOR

Features January 2016

2 Speculation is Evil – and Costly Paul Negenman

8 The Apache Pipeline Spill and the Alberta Energy Regulator

Kourtney Rylands

13 Respecting Aboriginal Title and Rights Can Ensure Timely Natural Resource Development

Steven Francis

17 It’s Crunch Time! T racey Moore-Lewis, Tony Cioni & Michelle Thoen

In Every Issue11 The Negotiator’s Message From the Board: Professionalism

11 The Negotiator’s Message From the Board: Education

22 Board Briefs

24 Get Smart

26 Roster Updates

31 The Social Calendar

32 CAPL Calendar of Events

28 January Meeting

28 February Meeting

2TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ J

AN

UA

RY

20

16

“Disgorgement of net benefits” (Stewart Estate, par 417). Ouch.IF YOU ARE THINKING, “DISGORGEMENT” SOUNDS LIKE AN UNHAPPY WORD, YOU ARE CORRECT. To be clear, it is also a super cool

word. It sounds like something you might do to a

dragon. The wee little problem is that the dragon

in the Stewart Estate case is us, lessees producing

from dead freehold leases.

FactsFirst, a quick summary of the facts:

• Non-CAPL freehold lease entered into in the

1960s. “Are produced” clause in habendum.

“Lack of or intermittent market” or “any cause

whatsoever beyond the lessee’s reasonable

control” not counted provision in the 4th proviso.

Speculation is Evil – and Costly(Stewart Estate v TAQA North Ltd, 2015 ABCA 357)

WRITTEN BY

PAUL NEGENMAN, LL.B

At Can-Am Geomatics it’s business as usual delivering the same great service and cost e�ective solutions our clients are used to. Our goal is to be your Geomatics provider of choice by conducting business with safety, honesty, integrity and professionalism. Contact us today and let’s navigate these waters together.

Stay the course

Fort Nelson Fort St. JohnGrande Prairie Swift CurrentCalgary Edmonton 1 800 478 6162 | canam.com

3

TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ JAN

UA

RY

20

16

• 7-25 gas well spud and produced during the primary term.

No production from 1995 to 2001. Recommences production

in 2001. Production suspended by ERCB (AER) in 2011 for other

reasons. Sweet Basal Quartz and sour Wabamun production.

• Lessors, in concert with a top lessee Freehold Solutions,

commence a Court action in 2005 seeking a declaration that

the leases terminated in 1995 when the 7-25 well was shut-in.

They also issued a Notice to Vacate at that time.

Decision – Dead LeaseShockingly, the Court found the leases were dead. Of course, I jest.

The leases are always dead.

Mr. Justice O’Ferrall sets out this principle problem with free-

hold leases quite succinctly:

[347] Historically, in drafting the terms of petroleum and

natural gas leases, oil companies wanted to be free to walk

away from their leases. They wished to avoid being stuck

with the obligations of a tenant under a conventional real

property lease. So, oil companies drafted forms of leases

which permitted them to unilaterally abandon their leases

at any time. Hence the “unless” and “so long as” clauses in

oil and gas leases. The problem presented by such clauses

is that a lessee can unwittingly cause a lease to expire

according to its terms. As John Ballem so aptly stated in

the preface to the first edition of his book, the oil and

gas lease contains “hazards to the lessee” because of the

“dogged determination of oil companies to continue with

the lethal ‘unless’ type of drilling clauses”. Ballem describes

these clauses as being “explicable” only in terms of “a corporate

death wish”. The same could also be said of the “so long

as” clauses in continued production provisos which are in

issue in this case. (emphasis mine)

This of course is an issue larger than the Stewart Estate decision.

The issue is the very nature of the oil and gas lease. An oil and gas

lease “is not a traditional lease because it grants a profit à pren-

dre, rights to minerals in situ below the surface.” (Stewart Estate,

par 162).

Unless and until we decide to fundamentally rewrite the terms

of the freehold lease to make it into something more durable than

a mere profit à prendre (the right to win, take and remove), we

cannot expect to get better results from the Courts.

Speculation is EvilOnce the Court found the leases were dead, it next considered

how to interpret the contract (the leases) as between the lessor

and lessee, in respect of the nature of the wrong committed by

the lessee. The Court relies heavily of the prior decisions of Omers

4TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ J

AN

UA

RY

20

16

Energy Inc v Alberta (Energy Resources Conservation Board), 2011

ABCA 251 and Freyberg v Fletcher Challenge Oil & Gas Inc, 2007 ABQB

353, 428 AR 102 in formulating its interpretive lens.

From Omers and Freyberg comes the unsurprising concept that

the words of the lease must be interpreted by the Court by search-

ing for the intention of the parties (the lessor and lessee).

More annoying is that the Court’s search for the intention of

the parties results in a finding that “speculation” by oil and gas

companies is somehow evil:

[73] As this court remarked in Freyberg, it strains common

sense to think that a lessor would tie up its land past the primary

term for a lessee’s speculative purposes and for a well that

lacked commercial viability: para 50. As reinforced in Omers,

the third proviso was not intended to permit a lessee to

hold a property for purely speculative purposes: para 95.

The common purpose and goal of parties entering into the

lease is to develop the resource for the purpose of making a

profit: Omers at paras 77 and 95; Freyberg at paras 50-51.

Any interpretation which defeats that purpose should be

rejected in favour of one which promotes that purpose

and a sensible commercial result: Omers at para 78.

(emphasis mine)

This is the first major decision on remedies post Omers, and the

Court relies heavily on the Omers interpretive lens to justify a

greater measure of damages. Me thinks that all subsequent free-

hold lease decisions will be interpreted through this lens. Wind is

blowing one way; we appear to be peeing against it.

…and CostlyOnce the lease is dead, the issue is how much does it costs the oil

and gas company (i.e. what are the damages payable by the lessee

to the lessor). Damages are based upon two causes of action, tres-

pass and conversion.

Best Royalty Plus Bonus Rejected

From the remedies decision in Freyberg, Williston Wildcatters, 2001

SKQB 360, aff’d 2002 SKCA 91, and the trial decision in Stewart

Estate, many people, included myself, concluded that the proper

measure of damages for trespass or conversion by a lessee under a

dead lease was the “Royalty Method.” Justice Rowbothem summa-

rized the royalty method as follows:

[196]… When neither party knew of the trespass and the

property owner would have been unable to realize the

benefit the trespasser obtained from the trespass, courts

have permitted the trespasser to retain the benefit of the

trespass and ordered the trespasser to pay the property

owner a reasonable fee for the use of the property. This is

known as the “royalty method”. The lessee pays the property

owner contractually agreed royalties and any bonus associated

with negotiating a new lease. (emphasis mine)

This measure of damages is based upon the utterly common

sense proposition that where the lessor is an individual not

involved in the oil and gas business, it would never, ever, be in

a realistic position to drill a well. Ergo, compensatory damages

(to put the lessor in the same position as if the wrong had not

occurred), means damages are limited to the best royalty and

any fresh bonus the lessor could have negotiated at the date the

lease terminated.

Many of us believed that to give the lessor more would be

punitive, and punitive damages are generally not awarded in

Canada, unlike the good ol’ US of A, where you can get millions for

spilling a coffee on your crotch.

Of course, the elephant in the room is that the “royalty

approach” means that an oil and gas company can quite easily

decide to continue to produce a dead lease, because, well, honestly

the measure of damages is pretty darn low.

Notwithstanding the prior decisions that ignored the elephant,

this Court was not amused:

[209] First, and foremost, the royalty approach ignores the

ownership of the gas after the termination of the lease.

It is the lessor and not the lessee who owns the gas. Once a

lease has terminated, “it is the lessor, not the lessee who

owns the minerals. In the absence of bad faith on the part

of the lessee, and following the [Sohio] approach, it would

seem equitable to apply a form of restitution”: Ballem at

388. Moreover, the royalty approach used by the trial judge “could

encourage the lessee to continue producing the well after the lease

has been challenged, knowing that the financial consequences

will not be severe. Indeed, it would be very much to the

lessee’s advantage to do so, as the result could end up being

almost the same as if the lease continued to be valid.…

This, despite the fact that the lessee had enjoyed revenue

Of course, the elephant in the room is that the “royalty approach” means

that an oil and gas company can quite easily decide to continue to

produce a dead lease, because, well, honestly the measure of damages is

pretty darn low.

5

TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ JAN

UA

RY

20

16

from the production of minerals to which it had no legal

title”: Ballem at 389. (emphasis mine)

Does anyone else smell elephant poo?

Disgorgement (Mild Rule)

Now we get to the crux of the matter. Speculation is evil. Best royalty

plus bonus is unfair. So what then is the proper measure of

damages? The answer is disgorgement:

[213] …but when circumstances call for a different measure,

disgorgement of defendant’s benefit is a potential remedy…

[416] … the court is not simply compensating for tres-

pass. It is also compensating for a wrongful conversion.

In other words, the wrongdoers (the lessees) not only over-

held, but they also damaged (depleted or wasted) the reversion

while they overheld. An irreplaceable value was taken from

the fee. This was not simply a wrongful occupation of

land for which compensation for use and occupation

(e.g., rent) might be appropriate. This was a wrongful failure

to vacate accompanied by a wrongful conversion of personal

property (when the hydrocarbons were severed from the

realty and produced by the lessees) for which the value

of the goods wrongfully converted may be an appropriate

measure of damages. (emphasis mine)

At law, disgorgement can be applied harshly or mildly. Two of the

three judges choose the “mild rule” to calculate damages in this case:

[1.d.i] Rowbotham JA and O’Ferrall JA direct the respon-

dents to disgorge revenues less production, gathering and

processing, i.e., on a net basis… (the so-called “mild rule”).

(emphasis mine)

Ouch. The cost for producing a dead lease is now your total net

revenue. It’s not so easy anymore to simply ignore a dead lease

and keep on pumping.

Disgorgement (Harsh Rule)

We should be happy that only one judge choose the “harsh rule”

of disgorgement:

[1.d.ii] McDonald JA would impose disgorgement of the

respondent’s gross revenues (the so-called-harsh rule).

(emphasis mine)

Double ouch. Damages equal to gross revenues, with no allowance

for cost and deductions.

I would like to say that the harsh rule will never be applicable

in a dead lease trespass and conversion case, but it is tough to

fight the logic of Justice McDonald:

Suite 201, 2629 – 29th Avenue Regina, Saskatchewan S4S 2N9

Land AcquisitionsFreehold Mineral Specialists

Surface AcquisitionsPipeline Right-of-Way

Rental ReviewsDamage Settlements

Crown Sale AttendanceTitle Registration

Potash ProjectsWind Generation Projects

6TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ J

AN

UA

RY

20

16

[313] We are dealing with large, sophisticated and well-in-

formed corporations on the one hand, and lay people, including

the proverbial “little old lady in the nursing home” on the other.

The need for the former to act in good faith when discharg-

ing their contractual obligations to the latter has been

highlighted with the recent Supreme Court of Canada

decision in Bhasin v Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71, [2014] 3 SCR 494.

See also Freyberg at para 82. (emphasis mine)

Once the genie is out of the bottle for a Court to do more

than simply compensate a lessor, all the interpretive concepts

discussed above seem to point to damages creeping closer and

closer to the Harsh Rule. Who knows, I never thought the Mild

Rule would be applied.

Limitation of Action – the Good NewsNow for some good news: At least until lessors, or top lessee’s

like Freehold Solutions, get smart and start suing faster and more

often.

Two of the three judges found that the two-year limitation in

the Limitations Act applied to the lessors. The Court found that

the lessors knew or ought to have known that the leases might

have terminated once they stopped receiving royalties. Once that

trigger starts, they need to sue or lose the right to sue for damages:

[7] However, the Limitations Act, RSA 2000, c L-12 is a complete

defence to claims that arose before August 9, 2003, two years

before the statement of claim was filed.

Due to the breach (trespass and conversion) being continuous, a

new cause of action accrues monthly. So the leases are dead in

either 1995 (two judges) or 2000 (one judge), but the limitation

period is a two-year look back from the statement of claim date

due to the continuous breach.

This is again shocking to me. I swear I am really a lawyer,

perhaps maybe just a dumb one. I had assumed that the two-year

look back, which was applied to a sophisticated Landman in

Canadian Natural Resources Limited v Jensen Resources Ltd, 2013 ABCA

399, would not apply to non-industry, unsophisticated lessors.

I had assumed they would be provided with the ultimate 10-year

look back period under the Limitations Act. You know what they say

about assuming. So, two-year look back it is.

Note 1The decision includes an excellent analysis of the measure of

damages payable during the time period after the lease dies

until the lessor demands that the lessee stop producing or files

a statement of claim. Concepts of “consent to occupy” and “leave

and license” are really fleshed out and are shown as a true limit

on disgorgement damages. These concepts also provide some

merit to the very annoying Landman lament that the lessor is still

cashing the cheques. However, the reverse may also be true, such

that a lessor could revoke you leave and license (like the Notice to

Vacate issued in Stewart Estate), even before a statement of claim

is filed and begin the clock on higher damages. Fascinating, but a

discussion for another day.

Note 2Stewart Estate is also extremely important in its discussion of the

4th proviso of the non-CAPL lease where the lessee is entitled to

not produce due to a “lack of or intermittent market” or “any cause

whatsoever beyond the lessee’s reasonable control.” Stunningly,

the Court upheld the trial decision that the fourth proviso allows

a lessee to not produce where an objectively uneconomical market for

production from the well exists. Seems like a big win, but the Court’s

analysis, and the withering dissent, likely means the application

of this clause will still be a Hail Mary pass for most lessees. Again,

due to space, a discussion for another day. m

7

TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ JAN

UA

RY

20

16

RAISE YOUR HAND

to raise the bar

CAPL NEEDS YOU

PUT YOUR hand FORWARD

FOR election to THE BOARD

Management Networking Night Guest SpeakerDr. Patrick MooreA LEADER OF THE INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT FOR MORE THAN 40 YEARS, Dr. Patrick Moore

reveals the myths and misinformation that distort current envi-

ronmental debates. He calls for issues to be discussed on the basis

of accurate scientific data, a search for consensus and the creation

of sustainable solutions. Moore was a founding member, former

President and International Director of Greenpeace.

The informative book, Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout:

the Making of a Sensible Environmentalist, is Dr. Patrick Moore’s

engaging firsthand account of his many years spent as the ulti-

mate Greenpeace insider. Confessions details Moore’s vision for

a more sustainable world. From energy independence to climate

change, genetic engineering to aquaculture, Moore sheds new

light on some of the most controversial subjects in the news

today. In Confessions, Moore persuasively argues for us to rethink

our conventional wisdom about environment and, in so doing,

provides the reader with new ways to see the world.

In recent years, Dr. Moore has been focused on the promo-

tion of sustainability and consensus building among competing

concerns. He was a member of British Columbia government-

appointed Round Table on the Environment and Economy from

1990-1994. In 1990, Dr. Moore founded and chaired the B.C. Carbon

Project, a group that worked to develop a common understanding

of climate change.

He is currently working as an independent scientist and

consultant, advising government and industry on a wide range of

environmental and sustainability issues. He acts as a campaign

spokesman for Allow Golden Rice Now, an initiative aiming to

convince Greenpeace and its allies to stop opposing Golden Rice

as a cure for vitamin A deficiency.

An informed and provocative speaker, Dr. Moore inspires new

ways of thinking about our environmental challenges. Business,

professional and educational groups find his views refreshing,

informative and relevant. Dr. Moore has played a prominent role

in raising environmentalism to the forefront of public concern in

Canada and throughout the world. Still a strong environmentalist,

he is personally committed to collaborating with others in finding

solutions to environmental conflicts. m

8TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ J

AN

UA

RY

20

16

AS MANY IN THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY WILL BE AWARE, ON OCTOBER 19, 2015, THE ALBERTA ENERGY REGULATOR ANNOUNCED THAT CHARGES WERE LAID AGAINST APACHE CANADA LTD. for a pipe-

line spill which occurred in October 2013. Apache

was charged under the Environmental Protection and

Enhancement Act, the Public Lands Act, and the Pipeline

Act (Alberta) for offences that included: releasing a

substance into the environment that caused or had

the potential to cause a significant adverse affect;

failing to immediately report the release; failing to

take reasonable measures to remediate; disturbance

of public land resulting in damage to a bed or shore

of a watercourse; and failing to provide adequate

support for above ground piping.

The incident, which occurred outside of Zama

City, Alberta, resulted in the release of 1.8 million

litres of produced water into the environment

(the Incident). Apache reported the Incident to the

AER on October 25, 2013. Once the AER was made

aware of the Incident it proceeded to investigate,

eventually levying a $16,500.00 administrative

penalty against Apache. The AER also forwarded

the results of its investigation to Alberta Justice

for prosecution under the above noted legislation.

Prosecution has the potential to result in millions

of dollars in fines for Apache. The AER provided the

following background explanation:

The AER conducts investigations to deter-

mine the root cause of energy industry

incidents, whether an energy company

followed the rules… the goal of an investi-

gation is to collect information to confirm

whether an incident has occurred and to

The Apache Pipeline Spill and the Alberta Energy RegulatorLots of Questions… Few Answers

WRITTEN BY

KOURTNEY RYLANDSASSOCIATE, MCMILLAN LLP

9

TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ JAN

UA

RY

20

16

identify the energy operator responsible for the incident…

in the event that the AER recommends prosecution in the

courts for noncompliance, the file is provided to Alberta Justice

who determines whether or not prosecution is justified.

Given the above, it is useful to pause and more closely exam-

ine what it means for the AER to investigate a pipeline spill.

Even companies who interact with regulators on an ordinary basis

are often surprised by the consequences of regulatory enforce-

ment for non-routine breaches of legislation.

The AER came online as a full life-cycle regulator for oil, gas, oil

sands and coal developments in the spring of 2014. The mandate

of the AER, as set out in the Responsible Energy Development Act

is to provide for the efficient, safe, orderly and environmentally

responsible development of energy resources in Alberta. In order to

accomplish its mandate the AER was granted all of the powers of

officials, the government or the Crown under each piece of legisla-

tion it oversees. In addition, the AER has the power to conduct its

own hearings. The REDA provides that the AER can order a person

to testify or provide documents at an AER hearing, even if such

testimony might incriminate that person. The corollary to that

requirement is that if a person is ordered to testify or provide docu-

ments in an AER hearing, such incriminating testimony cannot

be used against that person in any other proceedings, except in

a prosecution for perjury or the giving of contradictory evidence.

Yet what happens when information or reports are provided to the

Regulator outside of a hearing or inquiry?

The REDA provides that the minutes, accounts and records

of the Regulator are admissible in evidence. The reports made

to the Regulator by regulated companies arguably belong to the

Regulator and could be admissible in evidence. Under the Pipeline

Act, a licensee is required to immediately inform the Regulator

of the location of a leak or break. Pursuant to the Pipeline Rules,

when a leak or break is reported to the Regulator, the licensee is

also required to submit a report describing the particulars of the

leak or break, including the conditions that caused or contrib-

uted to its occurrence. Under the EPEA, a person who releases or

permits the release of a substance into the environment that may

cause an adverse effect must report it to the Director. This report

typically includes a description of the circumstances leading up

to the release. These reports can be difficult to provide, because in

many circumstances a company or licensee will not know exactly

what happened, or will only have some facts. The cause of a leak

or break might be multi-faceted and require technical investiga-

tion. In addition, all information that is reported to the Regulator

becomes part of its investigation and forms the basis for adminis-

trative fines and regulatory charges.

As well as reporting on the potential causes of a leak or a

break under the legislation, a licensee is required to report on any

other information that the regulator may request. This is a broad

30 O

ver 30 Years

of Service

Land Environmental Archaeology GIS Analysis / UAV Mapping

Calgary

British Columbia207 10139 - 100 St.Fort St. John BC V1J 3Y6T: 250-261-6644F: 250-261-6915

AlbertaBox 847 10912 - 100 Ave.Fairview, AB T0H 1L0T: 780-835-2682F: 780-835-2140Toll Free: 888-835-6682 Visit us online at www.roynorthern.com

Ad #3.indd 1 12/17/2014 10:43:34 AM10TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ J

AN

UA

RY

20

16

requirement and it is arguably difficult to define what it is that a

regulator may properly request from a regulated company. There is

also a specific offence under the legislation for failing to report to

the regulator. How might this issue play out in regulatory proceed-

ings regarding a spill incident? Should licensees submit all reports

through their counsel and claim privilege over their contents?

Regulatory offences, like those Apache has been charged

with, are often offences of strict liability. This means that when

prosecuting strict liability offences, the Crown need only prove

that the offence occurred; the onus then shifts to the accused to

prove a defence of due diligence. For example, no person may

be convicted of an offence under certain sections of the PLA or

the EPEA if the person establishes on a balance of probabilities

that they took all reasonable steps to prevent its commission.

However, charges under strict liability offences can be hard to

defend against; how does a company prove it acted with due

diligence? In regulatory proceedings in criminal courts, the

accused is not obliged to testify, yet establishing a defence of

due diligence often requires just that. Should companies be

pro-active and ensure that their compliance programs are up

to date and report it to the regulator with their spill report?

Should a company raise a defence of double jeopardy, because

such a company has likely already been fined by the Regulator

for the same incident? The REDA provides that a person who

pays an administrative penalty in respect of a contravention

or noncompliance cannot be charged under an energy resource

enactment for an offence in respect of the same contravention.

Yet what happens when the penalties are slightly different but

arise from the same incident?

There are few reported cases of prosecutions under EPEA, the

PLA or the Pipeline Act. Since it is relatively new, the AER does not

have much of a track record of prosecuting wrongdoing. However,

with thousands of miles of aging pipeline infrastructure in

Alberta, this situation may become more common.

By the time this article is published Apache will have made its

first, and perhaps second court appearance in Provincial Criminal

Court. For now we know that Apache is facing a total of seven

charges under the EPEA, the PLA and the Pipeline Act.

The Apache prosecution should serve as a reminder for

industry to report to the Regulator with all necessary counsel

and in a candid and accurate way. In the oil and gas industry, the

AER, through its Best in Class Initiative, can be the linchpin for a

credible and world renowned regulatory system. Yet companies

who interact with the Regulator on a daily or weekly basis must

understand that the mandate of the Regulator and the inter-

ests of a regulated company are not always aligned. Companies

should always keep one eye on their potential jeopardy under

the regulatory scheme – which as Apache probably knew and is

now finding out in real time, can be far greater than an admin-

istrative fine. m

11

TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ JAN

UA

RY

20

16

The Negotiator’s Message From the Board

Professionalism IN THIS CLIMATE OF CHANGE, IN OUR CITY, OUR PROVINCE, OUR COUNTRY AND THE WORLD AS A WHOLE, the more we focus on

personal growth, our circle of influ-

ences grows. In this space is where we

own our own outcomes and are less

impacted by decisions and the state of affairs of the economy, etc.

around us. In an economic climate, such as where we currently

find ourselves, the overarching culture can be discouraging when

we see colleagues and friends being laid off and seeing first-hand

the impact that has on them personally and professionally. We, as

a Board, are looking at ways of increasing the value our members

see from the Association along with seeking innovative ways to

promote the pursuit of Professional Designations and its value

to our members. We see this as a way to promote our collec-

tive influence even within the current economic environment.

We have recently garnered the acceptance of our designations

within the confines of EPAC (Explorers & Producers Association

of Canada) and most recently with CAPP (Canadian Association

of Petroleum Producers). This has been a long standing vision of

the Professionalism Committee and one I am more than willing to

continue to promote.

Obtaining a Professional Designation can offer many bene-

fits both personally and professionally. There is a shared vision

between the Board and the Professionalism Committee that

having a designation does provide a competitive advantage

when seeking new work opportunities. It further demonstrates

a commitment to staying current to the regulatory framework

and being aware of growing trends and stretching ourselves to

learn other scope areas within the confines of Access to Land.

The Professional designations also demonstrate a personal

commitment to going over and above the expectations and may

provide a competitive advantage to that of your peers. Are there

other ways that the CAPL can continue to promote the designa-

tions and help grow our collective circle of influence?

This is the third Portfolio I have had the opportunity of being

affiliated with in my time as a Director for the CAPL. This oppor-

tunity has opened new doors, grown my own network within

the Association and has provided me with new experiences

and renewed purpose for the CAPL as well as the vision of the

Professionalism Committee. Having the opportunity to work

and learn from some of the most dedicated CAPL volunteers,

and witnessing first-hand how they are promoting profession-

alism within our Association and beyond has been a rewarding

experience. This active promotion is setting a course for a new

challenges going forward.

I am proud to be associated with a strong volunteer Committee

and their collective dedication to this Association. The main

committee is made up of the following volunteers:

Heather Stables-Fofonoff

Ian Ross

Darren Clarke

Rob Pitchford

Jacquie Djuranic

We as a Committee are also very thankful for the support we

receive from the CAPL Office staff and in particular Irene Krickhan

who sits on our Committee and attempts to keep us in line. m

Noel Millions, PSL

Director, Professionalism

EducationAS A ROOKIE IN THE POSITION OF DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (STARTED MAY 2015), I am amazed

at the breadth and complexity of the

portfolio. Connie warned me, but I did

not listen.

It is both an honor and a privilege

to be tasked with this job. I have been impressed by the people

who populate all of the committees that make this portfolio work.

I have already learned many things, and know that I am only

aware of a portion of the job that is required.

The Education portfolio includes: the directing of education

within the CAPL with an Education Committee, as well as: a

Scholarship Committee, a Mentorship Committee, and Advisory

Committees for both the University of Calgary and Mount Royal.

I have met with individuals from Mentorship, Scholarship, as

well as the University of Calgary and Mount Royal. I have even

talked with an education representative from the AAPL.

So far most of what I have been involved in has related to the

Education Committee. The Education Committee is currently one

of the largest revenue generators and we have 71 courses listed

on the CAPL website. The Committee currently has 36 members

listed. The amount of work that is required for this Committee to

Pursuing Perfection

synergyland.ca | 403.283.4400

Over the past 15 years, Kevin Koopman has earned his place in industry.

Ready for another 15?

WE ARE.

Contact Kevin at 403-807-1992 or at kevinkoopman@synergyland.ca.

LEAVING HIS MARK.

Synergy2015_Negotiator_1stAdDec_v1.indd 1 2015-11-14 5:07 PM

12TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ J

AN

UA

RY

20

16

function is impressive. Many things must come together to put on

each individual course. Every course must have an instructor who

has been contracted , scheduled and prepared. Each course has to

be advertised. Course materials have to be prepared, copied and

assembled. Materials have to be reviewed and updated. Of course

before you do any of this a course must be developed. At any given

time the Education Committee may have 100 plus course ideas.

It must be decided which courses should be cancelled, and which

courses should be pushed forward in the development process.

All of these items are monitored, discussed and coordinated.

The Education portfolio depends on a committed volunteer

base and the CAPL office staff (Denise Grieve, Karin Steers, Irene

Krickhan, and Kaitlin Polowski) who all tirelessly fill in gaps in the

process and push on all fronts to put on each course within the

CAPL offices.

With the downturn in the Oil Industry, Education has had to

cancel a record number of courses and as a result we have less

revenue. We know that the Oil Industry is cyclical and we will

maintain a strong education portfolio for our members. We need

to continue to develop a land talent base for the industry.

The Education Committee has developed and put on five new

courses this year:

1) Enhancing Strategic Perspectives

2) Risk Assessment Regulatory Compliance and CSR

3) Fundamentals of Mineral Land

4) Evaluations of Canadian Oil & Gas Properties for Landmen

5) Petroleum Evaluations – Making the Right Decision

With the move to new offices, the CAPL has 2000 square feet of

classroom space available for rent. This space can be used as

a large classroom able to accommodate 76 people or split into

two smaller classrooms, with audio visual equipment available.

Should you be interested in classroom rental, please contact the

CAPL office.

We appreciate all volunteer support and challenge you to

improve your skill set by taking a CAPL course.

Thank you for your current and future support. m

Bill Schlegel, P.Land

Director, Education

13

TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ JAN

UA

RY

20

16

NATURAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT IS A SIGNIFICANT CORNERSTONE OF THE CANADIAN ECONOMY. It is also an industry

that can help particular and local First Nation

communities prosper and thrive.

Canada is a country that is blessed with a signif-

icant amount of natural resources, such as, forests

for timber production, water for hydro develop-

ment, and hydrocarbons for oil & gas production to

name a few. However, to realize the value of these

natural resources, developers or proponents wish-

ing to capitalize on Canada’s bounty must engage

with First Nations in an honest and significant way

or risk that their investments will be sunken costs

Respecting Aboriginal Title and Rights Can Ensure Timely Natural Resource Development

WRITTEN BY

STEVEN FRANCIS,

B.A., LL.B.

canadawestland.com

It’s a New Year, and our resolution is to be faster, more cost effective, and produce the highest of quality. Because in this environment, we know that every minute and every dollar count. Wishing you health and happiness in 2016. And better commodity prices!

14TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ J

AN

UA

RY

20

16

that may not be immediately recovered if ever. Many in industry

will question why we have to treat First Nations any differently

than other stakeholders? Because it’s the law and they are not

simply stakeholders, but rights holders in Canada. Proponents

that struggle with this concept are the ones who will struggle to

be successful with resource development.

According to information on Natural Resources Canada’s

website, within the next 10 years as much as $700 billion dollars

could be invested in natural resource projects in Canada and

much of this resource potential is located within the traditional

territories of many of Canada’s First Nations. Tapping into and

sustaining this enormous potential requires developers or propo-

nents to initiate, develop, and maintain strategic relationships

with local First Nations. To do otherwise, will simply lead to frus-

tration and delay for the developer who wants to capitalize on

market demand and favorable revenues or profits.

Notably absent from many of the necessary conversations

between developers or proponents and First Nations is the

provincial and/or federal government. Often, when consultation

is delegated to a developer or proponent, governments or their

personnel are not seen or heard from except when a prelimi-

nary decision is requested on the developer’s consultation effort

with the First Nation in order to ensure that other related activ-

ities and work can proceed unabated. So, companies that expect

government to consult or think they only need to follow the mini-

mum legal requirements often find that this doesn’t work well.

However, in practical terms while a developer or proponent may

have an initial approval for an authorized activity, the risk to his

or her project development schedule is still susceptible to First

Nations interventions, legal or otherwise. This is especially true

when it comes to Aboriginal title or rights references.

According to information on Natural Resources Canada’s website, within

the next 10 years as much as $700 billion dollars could be invested

in natural resource projects in Canada and much of this resource

potential is located within the traditional territories of many of Canada’s

First Nations.

15

TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ JAN

UA

RY

20

16

Aboriginal title and rights protected by section 35 (1) of the

Constitution Act, 1982, are the basis on which many First Nations

can prosper and at the same time ensure that their children’s

rights and traditional territories are available for them far into the

future. The substantive rights protected by s. 35 of the Constitution

include, fishing, hunting and trapping rights, as well as site-spe-

cific rights and potential interests relative to land. Procedural

rights, especially, the duty to consult and accommodate First

Nations in particular circumstances, have been recognized in case

law beginning with Delgamuukw in 1997; enhanced by Haida Nation

and Taku River Tlingit First Nation in 2004; followed by Mikisew Cree

First Nation in 2005; and continuing through to Tsilhqot’in Nation

and Grassy Narrows First Nation in 2014.

The duty to consult and accommodate is a Government

responsibility. It’s not one that developers or proponents can

address exclusively or totally when they want to access their

subsurface property. To help in this regard, government personnel

will often suggest or advise the developer or proponent to offer

economic assistance to the First Nations or to make strategic

investments to ensure that their consultation effort is sufficient.

Notwithstanding that a consultation adequacy decision can be

obtained, the better course is to develop and sustain a relationship

with a First Nation underpinned by a negotiated Agreement.

Whenever possible, a developer or proponent should plan to

spend a modest 2 to 4 percent of their early or developmental

budget on Aboriginal or First Nation consultation issues. Also, it

would be wise to retain an experienced Aboriginal or First Nation

Consultant to conduct company or proponent consultation with

the relevant First Nations. Supported by company management

and a First Nation Engagement and Relationship Strategy, a devel-

oper or proponent increases their chances of avoiding consultation

delay attributed to a First Nation.

Additional rights important to First Nations are rooted in

historic and modern treaties. Where historic treaties exist, many

First Nations also allege and insist that their treaty rights include:

1) medical care;

2) elementary education through to post-secondary;

3) freedom from all forms of taxation; and

4) economic development assistance to name a few others.

Where modern treaties exist, beyond 1911, a developer will also have

to respect land and environmental provisions that have been nego-

tiated and ratified that are also effective. Engaging and talking about

these potential rights is essential in order to learn about traditions

and local history, in addition to, ensuring goodwill and building a

meaningful relationship. Doing otherwise is of no potential value.

Rather than having a debate on these various “rights”, it is

more important for a developer to listen and note these perspec-

tives for their consultation record. Additionally, a proponent is

not able to meaningfully address rights, so instead their focus

should be on developing a sincere and strategic relationship

with the First Nations that are in close proximity to their land

interest. After all, rights fulfillment is a Government responsibil-

ity. It is not one that any developer or proponent can solve in its

entirety. Despite minimal action by any Canadian Government,

federal, provincial or territorial, on Aboriginal title and rights

within the last 18 years (since Delgamuukw), natural resource

development has been occurring in Canada and will continue to

do so. The question becomes by what means and mechanism is

natural resource development ensured with local First Nations

and Governments.

Natural resource development can continue unabated if First

Nations’ Aboriginal title and rights are respected by developers

16TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ J

AN

UA

RY

20

16

and proponents and meaningfully addressed by Governments

of all ideologies. Practically speaking, I can suggest that timely

project development will occur so long as the following happens:

1) developers or proponents respect and acknowledge the local

First Nation’s perspective and use of the land;

2) developers or proponents ensure that important hunting, fish-

ing, trapping and harvesting sites or locations are avoided or

only minimally impacted;

3) developers or proponents invest in First Nation environmental

priorities and capacity; and

4) developers or proponents commit to providing resources to First

Nation(s) while they are in production or operation mode.

In short, developers or proponents would do well to put their

commitments in writing in a negotiated Agreement that can serve

and guide them and the relevant First Nations. Doing so is simply

staying with the current trend and expectation of First Nations

in western Canada. Also, the rights provided for in the written

treaties represent a solemn and perpetual binding Agreement

between First Nations and all non-Aboriginal Canadians, includ-

ing corporations.

Negotiated Agreements between developers and First Nations

are the best mitigation for unanticipated project delay for a

developer and temporary benefits for a First Nation. Agreements

provide a level of certainty to a developer or company that their

initiative will not unnecessarily have to deal with litigation and

the First Nation gains additional resources for community priori-

ties that are unavailable from Governments. This is especially true

for First Nations in British Columbia (BC), where the provincial

government will negotiate Agreements between itself and First

Nations that will facilitate natural resource development by other

third parties, i.e. oil & gas and forestry companies.

Negotiated Agreements are the far better approach for dealing

with First Nations concerns rather than having to deal with direct

action by First Nations who may choose to blockade, occupy, protest

or demonstrate their displeasure with a developer or proponent.

Confronted with the possibility of direct action protests, propo-

nents should respect Aboriginal Law precedents mentioned earlier

and sincerely talk and engage with local First Nations with a view

to understanding their concerns and explaining to them what is

possible in the way of accommodation or mitigation and commit

to subsequent conversations when mutually agreed upon.

Without question, First Nations have a deep and spiritual

connection to the land their ancestors have occupied that is also

important for subsistence and cultural activities that are without

equal from the First Nation’s perspective. In this respect, treaties

are also accorded a level of importance that is generally not well

understood by non-First Nations people.

From the writer’s perspective, Governments are not likely to

negotiate and conclude modern treaties in BC fast enough for natu-

ral resource developers or proponents, so they will be left to their

own devises to secure the level of certainty they require for the

significant investments they may choose to make. Moreover, the

BC and the federal governments will be loath to implement recent

Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, namely the Tsilhqot’in

Nation decision in a manner that truly recognizes First Nation

jurisdiction with respect to their traditional lands, so as suggested

in the title to this article it is incumbent upon a developer or propo-

nent to sincerely respect a First Nation’s Aboriginal title and rights

perspective in a negotiated Agreement to ensure that timely natu-

ral resource development will occur.

In conclusion, developers or proponents should view their

Aboriginal Relations approach as a core and ongoing cost

of doing business in today’s natural resource environment.

Not respecting Aboriginal title and/or rights of First Nations will

likely result in developmental delay and possibly investment in

other jurisdictions or countries where Aboriginal title and rights

are not a reality. m

17

TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ JAN

UA

RY

20

16

IF NOT ALREADY DONE, IT’S THAT TIME OF THE YEAR THAT YOUR COMPANY IS REVIEWING ITS BUDGET FOR 2016 (SHOULD BE A GOOD ONE!) and allocating

funds to each asset team within the organization.

From there, the asset team will work with the allo-

cated amount it receives to establish capital and

operating spending required for the asset. This is

the time we need to work with our partners to seek

their approval for the 2016 plans and approve the

forecasted work.

Forecasts or budgets are an estimate of future

expenditures for a set period of time. They can

include revenue and expenses, but most often they

It’s Crunch Time! WRITTEN BY

TRACEY MOORE-LEWISPJVA, EDUCATION DIRECTOR

TONY CIONIAIPN, CANADA CHAPTER DIRECTOR

MICHELLE THOENPJVA, EDUCATION DIRECTOR

18TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ J

AN

UA

RY

20

16

support forward looking project-based expenditures for your plant

or facility. In our industry, either forecasts or budgets are typically

required under a governing agreement. This is true irrespective

of the model form used (e.g. CAPL, PJVA, AIPN). These budgets

or forecasts are put together in the fall for the next year thereby

providing enough time and detail to partners so that they, too, can

plan and budget.

Examining the scope of future projects is a planning process

that identifies priority areas of spending, wasteful expenditures

and tighter financial controls. This process helps you set goals for

your company and your partners, build knowledge in your area of

operations, and make balanced decisions involving development

and planning.

Here is the language we often read in many PJVA contracts:

Operator shall consult with the Operating Committee

from time to time with respect to decisions to be made for

the conduct of Joint Operations, and Operator shall keep

the Owners informed in a timely manner with respect to

important or significant Joint Operations.

(r) “Forecast” means a written statement, initiated by

Operator, of the Joint Operations which are anticipated

to be conducted during the Forecast Period, together

with a written statement of the estimated expenditures

to be made in connection with such Joint Operations;

(s) “Forecast Period” means a period of one (1) Year,

provided that if this Agreement does not come into

effect as of the beginning of a Year, the first such period

for the Year in which this Agreement comes into effect

shall comprise the portion of such Year remaining after

this Agreement comes into effect;

Forecasts(a) As soon as practicable after the execution hereof,

Operator shall submit to the Operating Committee for

approval a Forecast for the Forecast Period. In each

subsequent Year, Operator shall submit a Forecast for

the Forecast Period to the Operating Committee for

approval, on or before the end of the current Year.

If the Operating Committee does not approve a Forecast,

or any portion thereof, such Forecast or the portion

thereof not approved, shall be revised by Operator

in accordance with the instructions of the Operating

Committee. A copy of each revised Forecast shall be

promptly furnished to each Owner.

(b) Each Forecast shall include a detailed and specific

description of expenditures therein, identifying

Operating Costs and Capital Costs separately, and

providing an estimate of Owner’s Substances and

Outside Substances to be handled by the Facility. Any

single Operating Cost in excess of the single expen-

diture limit set forth in the Accounting Procedure for

which the Operator requests approval through approval

of the Forecast should be clearly and separately identi-

fied. Each Forecast shall also provide for comparison, a

summary of the Forecast and a projection of expected

final expenditures for the current Year.

(c) Approval of a Forecast shall constitute approval of

all expenditures in accordance with this Agreement,

except single Capital Cost expenditures in excess of

the single expenditure limit set forth in the Accounting

Procedure. If directed by the Operating Committee,

separate approval for projects, categorized as Operating

Costs, that have an estimated cost in excess of

Operator’s single expenditure limit set forth in the

Accounting Procedure, shall be required.

You already know that a contract is an exchange of promises

to do, or not do, certain things. Put another way, a contract is a

binding agreement between two or more persons which creates

obligations that may be enforced by the courts. So, why does our

industry seemingly bypass the contractual requirement to send

forecasts or budgets? In pondering this question, we had the

following thoughts:

• Are companies simply unable to meet the Fall timeframe?

We believe that this is part of the problem. Most companies do

Another common issue amongst companies is that budgets/forecasts

are done at a field level. Unless you make your field team aware of the

budget commitments for each CO&O, it is very difficult for them to pull

numbers out of a high level budget after the fact. This is a very common

practice in the industry.

19

TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ JAN

UA

RY

20

16

not have their budgets approved internally until after the Fall

timeframe listed in many of the governing agreements. If this

is the case for your company and for your partners, perhaps

you should re-consider the deadline for forecasts/budgets.

If this deadline were changed to realistically match with each

company’s financial cycle, then these fiscal control points might

better align.

• Another common issue amongst companies is that budgets/

forecasts are done at a field level. Unless you make your field

team aware of the budget commitments for each CO&O, it is

very difficult for them to pull numbers out of a high level budget

after the fact. This is a very common practice in the industry.

One way to deal with this is to let your field team know the

budget deadline for their information. This will help them to

help you properly construct your budgets.

• Should you choose not to do a budget you could be putting

yourself in a position where your partners do not have the

funds to go forward with a project, and as such production

could be impacted. This will help partners accrue for upcom-

ing projects. This leads to a final word about the model form

contract that you might be working under.

While the CAPL form operating procedure and other domes-

tic contract models permit operators to request payment from

partners without a budget, other model form agreements do not.

For example, the model form joint operating agreement for the

Association of International Petroleum Negotiators (AIPN) requires

budgets. Without a budget, it is not even possible for an operator

to cash call its partners. Forecasts do not suffice. The commercial

assumption is that financial decisions should be made collabo-

ratively by the partners, and should not fall under the operator’s

general discretion. Once the partners have approved a budget, it

effectively operates like a “contract within a contract”, and any

partner who fails to fund its share of costs is subject to harsh

remedies such as the forfeiture of its interest or dilution of its

working interest at a steep discount rate. m

Case Commented On: Shallow Gas Drilling Corp v Legacy Oil and Gas, 2015 ABQB 606

IT WOULD BE NICE TO KNOW A LITTLE MORE ABOUT THE FACTS OF THIS CASE BUT WHAT APPEARS TO HAVE HAPPENED ON THE BASIS OF THE RATHER CRYPTIC RECORD PROVIDED BY JUSTICE BENSLER’S JUDGEMENT IS AS FOLLOWS. 1346329 Alberta Ltd (134)

drilled a series of wells to earn interests in the Pierson prop-

erties. Earning was contingent on drilling the wells to contract

depth which was defined as “a subsurface depth sufficient to

penetrate 15 metres into the Spearfish.” The wells were drilled

between late 2007 and January 2008 to depths between 28.3 and

30.65 metres into the Spearfish.

Shallow Gas Drilling (SGD), the plaintiff and appellant agreed

to participate in 134’s operations by providing a capital contribu-

tion. As a result it also earned a working interest in the properties.

Legacy, the defendant and respondent, subsequently acquired

134’s interest. SGD’s participation was formalized under the terms

of a Participation, Joint Operating and Clarification Agreement

(the Participation Agreement). The CAPL 1990 Operating Procedure

(CAPL 1990) was a schedule to that agreement.

The production results of the wells were disappointing.

The Sproule report commissioned by Legacy suggested that the

wells should have been completed higher within the Spearfish

than they had been. As a result Legacy proposed a number of inde-

pendent operations, the details of which were not discussed in the

judgement. SGD declined to participate and as a result suffered a

dilution of its interest. Again there was no further discussion in

the agreement of the operation of the penalty provisions of Article

X of CAPL 1990.

SGD seems to have taken the view that Legacy breached the

terms of the Participation Agreement by failing to complete in

the optimal part of the Spearfish. SGD characterized this as both

a breach of contract and actionable negligence. It further alleged

that, given these breaches, the operation of the penalty provi-

sions of CAPL 1990 effected an unjust enrichment which should

be reversed.

On this record, Legacy sought and was granted summary judge-

ment by Master Hanebury. Justice Bensler dismissed the appeal.

“ Contract Depth” Does Not Mean Optimal Depth

12831 – 163 Street, Edmonton, Alberta T5V 1M5

WWW.PROGRESSLAND.COM

1.866.454.4717

20TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ J

AN

UA

RY

20

16

On the appeal SGD offered additional evidence in the form of

an affidavit seeking to address the meaning of contract depth and

what the parties might have intended by that term. Justice Bensler

ruled that the proposed evidence was inadmissible:

[26] Litigants are not permitted to call evidence as to what

they think the contract means: Dow Chemical Canada

Inc v Shell Chemicals Canada Ltd., 2010 ABCA 126 at para

16, leave to appeal to SCC refused [2010] SCCA No 234.

As a corollary to this rule, parties may not call expert

evidence on the meaning of a contract: Dow at para 17;

Lawson v Lawson, 2005 ABCA 253, at para 52.

[27] Applying the foregoing principles to the case at bar,

I conclude that the Burnett Affidavit is not relevant

and material because Burnett essentially provides

an interpretation of the Agreement. After reciting

several clauses from the Agreement, Burnett concludes

that “Clause 2 of the Agreement indicates to this

author that the test wells were intended to be drilled

to a depth of 15 metres into the Spearfish” (empha-

sis added). Burnett later writes that “Based on the

Agreement, the intended drilling depth of the test

wells was 15 metres into the Spearfish and not 28, 29,

or 33 metres into the Spearfish” (emphasis added).

In other words, Burnett opines on the intentions of the

parties at the time the contract was formed, which is

within the exclusive purview of the Court.

[28] The Court is not persuaded by the Appellant’s submis-

sion that Burnett provides an analysis of the drilling

without providing an interpretation of the Agreement

itself. Burnett’s opinion that “the drilling depths of [the

Test Wells] were all materially deeper than the Contract

Depth… as defined in the Agreement” requires the

reader to agree with Burnett that the parties intended

“Contract Depth” to mean a depth of exactly 15 metres

into the Spearfish and no more. In other words,

Burnett cannot conclude that the drilling depths of

the Test Wells exceeded the “Contract Depth” without

first interpreting the meaning of that term, which he

expressly does early in his report.

[29] It is also important to emphasize that the Burnett

Affidavit addresses the meaning of “Contract Depth”,

which is the ultimate issue in this case. As held in the

seminal decision R v Mohan, [1994] 2 SCR 9, at para 25,

the criterion of relevance is applied strictly in assess-

ing expert evidence in respect of an ultimate issue.

See also Bernum Petroleum Ltd v Birch Lake Energy Inc,

2014 ABQB 652, at paras 53 to 54.

Justice Bensler was also of the view that Master Hanebury

had been correct to reject each of the contract, tort and unjust

enrichment claims. The contract claim must be rejected because

the wells had in fact been drilled to the required depth (at para

50). The wells may not have been completed in the optimal part

of the formation but that was not the issue. The tort claims must

be rejected because at no point did the plaintiff actually allege

negligence (at paras 55-57). And finally, the unjust enrichment

claim must be rejected because the enrichment that occurred in

favour of Legacy through the penalty provisions of the indepen-

dent operations clause was justified by a juristic reason, namely

the operation of the contract. The enrichment in favour of Legacy

was therefore not an unjust enrichment (at paras 58-61).

All of which seems eminently reasonable.

The case would seem to bear a strong resemblance to the

much older case of Hi-Ridge Resources Limited v Noble Mines and Oils

Ltd, [1978] 5 WWR 552 (BCCA). m

Reprinted with permission.

First published on ABlawg.ca.

21

TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ JAN

UA

RY

20

16

2016 CAPL Curling BonspielIF YOU HAVE NOT REGISTERED FOR THIS YEAR’S 39TH

ANNUAL CAPL CURLING BONSPIEL, then please do so,

as space is limited. This event will be held at the Calgary Winter

Club on Thursday, February 18, 2016. Registration will start at 12:00

noon as we are providing some additional time to network before

the first match starts.

Curling will start at 12:50 p.m. sharp and run until 5:50 p.m.

At that time, cocktails, some more networking and a fabulous

dinner buffet will be provided. After dinner we will hand out some

prizes and may have some live entertainment before we close out

the day. If we don’t have live entertainment then the event will

finish by 7:00 pm. Please realize that this is a fun event, geared

towards networking with your fellow landmen, so previous curl-

ing experience is not necessary.

The Entry fee this year has been reduced to $125.00 for CAPL

members and $150.00 for non-CAPL members (GST not included).

If you would like to sponsor this event, we have reduced that cost

to $300, which includes one free curling entry.

The deadline to register has been extended to Friday, February

12, 2016, so please submit your entry form quickly. This is a first

come first serve event. If this event is sold out, we will place you

on the waiting list and contact you if an opening comes available.

If you require further information, or if your company is still

interested in sponsoring this event, please contact one of the

committee members listed below:

Kevin Koopman (403) 807-1992

Anna Burden (403) 386-5341

Mike Twomey (403) 298-7850

Rob Heynen (403) 930-1053

Ali Stayura (403) 269-8887

Jordan Murray (403) 509-8196

Tasha Anderson (403) 767-6474

Wayne Ellis (587) 955-3391

Aryn Flette (403) 767-6977

We look forward to seeing all of you on Thursday, February, 18,

2016. m

Curling in Central Park, New York, 1900

• Mineral and Surface Leasing• Right-of-Way Acquisitions• Mineral Ownership/Title Curative• Seismic Permitting• Mapping/GIS Services• Abstracts of Title

Elexco Land Services, Inc.New York: 1.866.999.5865Michigan: 1.800.889.3574Pennsylvania: 724.745.5600

Elexco Ltd.Canada: 1.800.603.5263

www.elexco.com

A FULL SERVICE LAND COMPANY SERVING NORTH AMERICA

Elexco_Negotiator qrtrhoriz4CfinPage 1 6/24/11 7:47:54 PM

22TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ J

AN

UA

RY

20

16

Board BriefsThe key discussion items at the

CAPL Board of Directors’ Meeting

held November 3, 2015 at the

CAPL Office were as follows:

In Attendance Absent Guests L. Buzan A. Webb N. Sitch J. MacLean

A. Webb J. Murray P. Mandry

T. Lefebvre M. Creguer

K. Gibson B. Schlegel

M. Radomski R. Stackhouse

N. Millions G. Richardson

M. Cookson

• Jim MacLean presented an update on the 2015 CAPL Farmout

& Royalty Procedure and the Operating Procedure. Per the

update, Jim reiterated the intent of standardizing the two

documents was to simplify the drafting, administration and

negotiation of industry agreements. While reviewing the

Farmout and Royalty Procedure it became evident that addi-

tional updates were necessary to the Operating Procedure so

that the two documents would work in concert with one another.

Additionally, with the advent of horizontal wells and multi-use

pad sites it was necessary to update the documents to better

meet the needs of our industry today. The Farmout and Royalty

Procedure and Operating Procedure updates are also intended

to be forward-thinking to serve our association, members

and industry over time. Jim and his committee have afforded

industry three opportunities to review and comment on the

documents. The Board noted the tremendous effort expended

in this regard by Jim and his committee and were grateful for

their timeliness, enthusiasm and knowledge.

• Andrew Webb presented a Treasurer’s Report as at October 31,

2015, showing CAPL investments totalling $790,574.24 CDN plus

a cash balance of $200,572.52 CDN for a total of $991,146.76

CDN. The CAPL Scholarship Fund has a balance of $246,918.38

CDN. There has been one transfer of $200,000.00 CDN which is

reflected in the investment balances outlined above.

• Ryan Stackhouse presented the Board with a motion to endorse

the recommendation of the Membership Committee to accept five

candidates for Active Membership, one candidate for Associate

membership and one candidate for Student Membership in the

Canadian Association of Petroleum Landmen. The motion was

approved. In addition, the Board of Directors approved two members’

requests to change their membership status from Active to Senior.

• Noel Millions advised the Board on aspects of the Professionalism

Procedure which require clarification and discussion, specif-

ically, an update relating to the CML/CSL requirements for

those candidates ‘to earn a minimum of 12 credits by attend-

ing approved CAPL Courses’ (a previous motion was made

and approved to remove the word “Surface” before ‘credits’

described above). Additionally, discussions were held about the

re-certification requirements as well as looking for opportuni-

ties to broaden the awareness of all Professional Members in

all areas of Access to Land. Further discussions about increas-

ing awareness to other forms of land negotiations/access

constraints will take place at the Board and committee levels.

• Gary Richardson presented the Board with an issue that has

been identified, wherein members frequently register for meet-

ings and don’t show up, costs our membership $65-$85 a plate

(on average). The Board understands that life is busy and that

sometimes circumstances arise that prevent members from

attending events they’ve registered for. However, the issue

appears to be more common. As such, an idea has been raised

about charging a penalty to members who ‘no-show’ for events

they’re registered for (without prior notice). No agreement was

made on pursuing this initiative or on a penalty fee and more

23

TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ JAN

UA

RY

20

16

discussion is required with the General Meetings’ committee.

Additionally, the PR committee is reviewing the general meeting

formats in conjunction with the General Meetings committee.

Gary also noted the PR committee is working towards organiz-

ing a second Barn Burner event in May 2016. Gary updated the

Board that he is searching for a photographer who is willing

to volunteer for various CAPL events. And lastly, Gary reiter-

ated that CAPL has been invited to the Calgary Leadership

Forum to speak on behalf of the Royalty Review process.

No decision was made about sending a representative or two to

this forum on CAPL’s behalf as there was an insufficient under-

standing of the purpose and intent of this forum at the time.

• Mandy Cookson updated the Board that the Technology commit-

tee is requesting members to upload photos of themselves

to the CAPL website to assist with putting ‘faces to names’.

Also, a link for information about renting CAPL’s classrooms

to third parties has been uploaded to the CAPL website, so

members are invited to inquire about hosting any meetings or

AGM’s they or their companies may require at CAPL’s offices.

• Ryan Stackhouse presented the Board with a questionnaire

his committee drafted. The intent is to elicit feedback from

our membership in order to help determine a direction for

the Board to move in relation to the insurance coverage we

currently have for members. Also, Ryan will describe what the

understanding of the ‘interim’ membership statuses is exactly

between CAPL and the members to avoid any potential confu-

sion. Finally, Ryan made a motion to leave the membership dues

at the same level as 2015. The motion was approved.

• Kent Gibson presented the Board with a request for the

Board and all members to continue providing any ideas they

may have for article content and to seek input from vari-

ous places for article content in relation to The Negotiator.

This will ensure The Negotiator is continuously able to expand

their sources for article compilation and to prevent similar

topics from being created.

• Jordan Murray updated the Board that a subcommittee,

consisting of Kent Gibson, Ted Lefebvre, Larry Buzan and

himself met to discuss the concept of CAPL Endorsed Events

versus Sponsored Social Events. This subcommittee will be

seeking further clarity on the applicable background of each

event and if there are any specific parameters the Board would

like each event to adhere to. Additionally, what sort of quali-

fications, charitable connections or community involvement

does each event have? Furthermore, the subcommittee will be

seeking clarity about liability and insurance coverage related to

each event.

24TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ J

AN

UA

RY

20

16

• Michelle Radomski presented the Board with an update on the

nominations committee. The nominations committee will be

taking a slightly different tack with identifying potential Board

members this year. Transparency will be paramount with seek-

ing new nominees and attempting to make it more interesting in

order to attract new candidates. Michelle Radomski also updated

the Board that the office can provide paper copies of bios and

photographs of candidates at a member’s request as the infor-

mation package is now available on CAPL’s website.

• Larry Buzan advised the Board that the November General

Meeting will be a dinner at the Westin on November 19 with

Dr. Jack Mintz being the speaker. The December networking

event will be held at the Ranchmen’s Club December 17 and

the January General Meeting is scheduled to be January 21 as

a Management Night with Patrick Moore as the main speaker.

Booths at this event will be revised and reported on next

meeting.

• Michelle Creguer advised the Board that the Abandoned Well

committee has delayed their next meeting until November 28.

• Updating old business, the following motions were made and

approved:

• Larry Buzan made a motion to remove the protocol require-

ment for an annual CAPL report. The motion was approved.

An annual update will be compiled by the CAPL office staff

from Board Briefs and Message from the Board updates in The

Negotiator and will be posted on the CAPL website.

• Andrew Webb made a motion to reinstate Jackie David as an

Active CAPL member. The motion was approved.

• Ted Lefebvre made a motion to recommend that Dennis

Eisner act as a CAPL representative at the Alberta Dialogue

November 16-17 and to continue being the CAPL stakeholder

representative for “The AER in continuing its journey toward

regulatory excellence” as described by the Alberta Energy

Regulator in an e-mail dated October 28, 2015. The motion

was approved.

• The following new business was discussed:

• Bill Schlegel mentioned numerous courses have been or are

being considered for cancellation due to low attendance.

The Education committee is working to negotiate with

instructors and continue to explore their options.

• Gary Richardson will be representing CAPL at a Lower Atha-

basca Land Management plan meeting with Environment and

Parks.

• Michelle Radomski advised the Board that the nominations

committee consists of Dennis Eisner, Gloria Boogmans and

Lawrence Fisher and herself.

• Larry Buzan reminded the Directors of the following:

• The next Board of Directors Meeting will be December 1, 2015;

and

• The next General Meeting will be a dinner at the Westin Hotel

on November 19, 2015. m

Jordan Murray

Secretary/Director, Social

January 2016Energy Risk Management: Fundamentals and Outlook

January 28, 2016 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.

This luncheon seminar will introduce the debate which happens

in every company, “Should we hedge?” The instructor will

provide an overview of the mechanics of basic risk management

structures commonly used in our industry, along with recent

Canadian producer energy risk management activities and trends.

The course will provide an update on oil and gas fundamentals,

pricing and current market sentiment.

February 2016:Professional Ethics: Theory and Application

February 24, 2016 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

This seminar is intended to increase the understanding of ethics

and the dimensions to ethical behavior by stimulating the ethical

thought process, giving a basic introduction to the nuances of

ethics, introducing a number of methods used in ethical deci-

sion making, and providing a forum for discussions with respect

to land related ethical issues. Case studies will encourage class

discussion and give each participant insight into the morality vs

legality question.

Economic Considerations for Land Deals

February 24 & 25, 2016 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

This seminar is intended for senior landmen and individuals

involved in conducting project economic evaluations. Emphasis

is on the use of economics to assist in the structuring and evalu-

ation of land deals. m

Get SmartThe CAPL Education Committee is pleased to present the following courses:

25

TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ JAN

UA

RY

20

16

2016 CAPL Education Courses• View Full Calendar at www.landman.ca.

• Online registration for 2016 is available at

http://landman.ca/course_calendar.php

• In the event your company is interested in a CAPL course, to

be scheduled on an exclusive basis for your employees, please

contact the CAPL office at 403-237-6635 for further information.

Acquisition & DivestmentsAcquisitions & Divestments: The Paper Chase

Acquisitions & Divestments: A Practical Guide

Contractual Issues Relating to: Acquisition

& Divestments (½ day)

Agreements & Contractual IssuesCAPL Operating Procedures

CAPL Farmout & Royalty Procedures

Conventional Agreements: Junior Level

Principles of Contract Drafting & Interpretation (½ day)

Production Agreements

ROFR Issues: An Interpretive Approach

Royalty Calculations (½ day)

Royalty Agreements (½ day)

Negotiations & Business SkillsAboriginal Affairs (½ day)

Constructive Conflict Management (PSL®)

Economic Consideration for Land Deals (2 days)

Enhancing Strategic Perspective (2 days) NEW COURSEFiduciary Duties (½ day)

Fundamentals of Oil & Gas Law

Indian Oil & Gas Canada (½ day)

Negotiations: The Essential Skill for Landmen

Negotiation Skills for Surface Land Agents (PSL®)

Professional Ethics: Theory & Application

Professional Ethics: Theory & Application (On-line)

Professional Ethics: Core Values & Case Studies for Landmen

Resolving Conflict through Negotiation

Understanding Crude Oil & Natural Gas Marketing

RegulationsAER Non-Routine Applications: Mitigating Obstacles (PSL®) (½ day)

Alberta Crown Lease Continuation (½ day)

Alberta Oil Sands Tenure (½ day)

Alberta P&NG Regulations

British Columbia P&NG Continuations (½ day) NEW COURSE

British Columbia P&NG Regulations

Directive 56: AER Energy Development Applications Public

Consultation Requirements (PSL®)

Directive 71: Emergency Preparedness & Response

Requirements (PSL®)

Risk Assessment, Regulatory Compliance & CSR NEW COURSESaskatchewan P&NG Regulations

Surface Rights Law (PSL®)

Well Spacings & Holdings

Surface & MineralAdvanced Surface Rights

British Columbia Surface Rights (PSL®)

Contract Administration: An Overview

Facilities Overview (PSL®)

Freehold Mineral Lease

Fundamentals of Mineral Land (½ day) NEW COURSEFundamentals of Surface Agreements (PSL®)

Groundwater: Issues & Impacts for Surface Landmen (PSL®) (½ day)

Oil & Gas Land Surveying: An Alberta

Perspective (PSL®) (½ day) NEW COURSEPreparing for a Surface Rights Board Hearing (PSL®)

Surface A&D (PSL®)

Surface Land Fundamentals

Technical SkillsDrilling & Production Operations (2 days)

Evaluations of Canadian Oil & Gas Properties for Landmen

(2 days) NEW COURSEGeology (2 days)

Geophysics for Non Geophysicists

Overcoming the Five Dysfunctions of a Team

Petroleum Evaluations – Making the Right Decision (½ day)

NEW COURSE m

26TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ J

AN

UA

RY

20

16

Roster UpdatesOn the MoveNathan Biluk Enerplus Corporation

to KUFPEC Canada Inc.

John Boone ProWest Land Services Ltd.

to Carnarvon Energy Ltd.

Debbie Bosnak Legacy Oil + Gas Inc.

to Crescent Point Energy Corp.

Bernadette Clancy MFC Energy Corporation

to 1500339 Alberta Ltd.

Chris Dalgarno Harvest Operations Corp.

to Independent

Jacqueline David Apache Corporation

to Progress Energy Canada Ltd.

Michael Flanagan, P.Land Independent

to Dynaco Holding Ltd.

Sharon Gough, P.Land Manitok Energy Inc.

to Sentinel Enterprises Inc.

Kyle Goulet Independent

to Britt Land Services

Jason Gouw, PSL Quicksilver Resources Canada Inc.

to Nexen Energy ULC

Lee Hardy Independent

to Vertex Professional Services Ltd.

Thomas Hunter Delphi Energy Corp.

to Independent

Carolyn Ink Independent

to PrairieSky Royalty Ltd.

Rob Kendel TransCanada

to Independent

Debra Kinnon Cenovus Energy Inc.

to Kinnon Services Inc.

Susan Kuethe, P.Land Koch Oil Sands Operating ULC

to Independent

Joseph Levesque, P.Land ConocoPhillips Canada

to Bank of Montreal – Capital Markets

Russ Marshall Shell Canada Energy

to Independent

James McCorquodale Synergy Land Services Ltd.

to Independent

Debbie Morrison Apache Canada Ltd.

to Independent

Trevor Murray DeeThree Exploration Ltd.

to Boulder Energy Ltd.

Lance Petersen TAQA North Ltd.

to Athabasca Oil Corporation

Murray Phillips Murphy Oil Company Ltd.

to Independent

Lori Potts Journey Energy Inc.

to Independent

Al Siemens MEG Energy Corp.

to Independent

George Sofocleous Aim Land Services Ltd.

to Independent

Robert Van Wielingen, P.Land Tuzo Energy Corporation

to Rovan Resources Ltd.

Paula Whitteron, P.Land Independent

to Summerland Energy Inc.

Colin Wiebe Husky Oil Operations Limited

to Independent

Chris Worden Cenovus Energy Inc.

to Heritage Royalty m

In MemoriamJon Axford It is with deepest sadness that the CAPL announces the recent

passing of Donald (Jon) Axford on October 25, 2015 at the age of 59

after a courageous battle with cancer. He is survived by his wife

Denise and his daughters Lindsay and Jacqui and several other

relatives.

Jon was born in Calgary and lived in many different places

throughout his lifetime, including Midland, Texas, Stamford,

Connecticut and Edmonton, Alberta.

He became a member of the CAPL in 1991 and worked as a

landman in Calgary, operating his own company after working

alongside his father for many years. He attended the University of

Alberta and received a BSc in Geology and Math. He later attended

Mount Royal University in the PLM program.

27

TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ JAN

UA

RY

20

16

Jon was truly the kind of person who could best be described

as the life of the party, and he will be missed by all of those who

had the pleasure to know him.

Jim CowieIt is with deepest sadness that the CAPL announces the recent

passing of James (Jim) Cowie on October 30, 2015 at the age of 81.

Jim became a member of the CAPL in 1964 and served as the CAPL

President in 1972.

Jim was born in Montreal, Quebec and graduated from UBC

with a Bachelor of Commerce in 1956. He moved to Calgary in 1959

to work in the petroleum industry. He had a long and successful

career with several companies, retiring as the President of Ryerson

Oil and Gas Ltd.

As well as a President of the CAPL, he was a Director of the

American Association of Professional Landman (AAPL), and a

Director of the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada

(IPAC). He also completed the Advanced Management Program of

the Graduate School of Business at Harvard University. Jim was

an active golfer and Past President of the Silver Springs Golf and

Country Club and an active volunteer with the Naval Museum of

Alberta Society.

Jim is survived by his wife Ann, as well as his children and

several other relatives. He will be missed by all of those that had

the opportunity to know him.

Pat McCauleyIt is with deepest sadness that the CAPL announces the recent

passing of Patrick (Pat) Francis McCauley on November 9, 2015 at

the age of 89. He is survived by his wife Joan, his daughters Monica

and Andrea and six grandchildren.

Pat was born in Lisnaskea, Northern Ireland and came to

Canada in 1948. He became a member of the CAPL in 1973 and

was a Landman with Imperial Oil for 38 years and worked in the

industry for over 45 years.

Pat attended Mount Royal College where he received a diploma

in Arts and Science – Petroleum Land Management. He received

the CAPL Professional Landman (P.Land) designation in 1989.

Pat was a kind person and will truly be missed by all of those

that had the opportunity to know him.

Kim McKayIt is with deepest sadness that the CAPL announces the recent

passing of Kim McKay on November 21, 2015 at the age of 58 years

as a result of a tragic accident in Zihuatanejo, Mexico doing what

she loved – riding her beloved horse Picasso. She is survived by

her husband Murray Berg, a CAPL member, CAPL members Tamara

MacDonald and Randy Berg, as well as many other relatives.

Kim was born in Calgary, Alberta and grew up on an acreage

near Drumheller where she gained a fond appreciation and love

for animals. As well as having her first horse at the age of two, Kim

was deeply involved in breeding, raising and showing Papillon dogs.

She became a member of the CAPL in 1985 when she was

employed with Electra Resources Ltd. She also worked at

several other oil and gas companies including NAL, Summit

Resources, Erskine Resources, Ashlu Resources and most recently

Cal-Ranch Resources.

Kim enjoyed a wonderful life travelling and spending time in

Mexico, riding her horse and enjoying the beautiful beaches in the

area. She had many dear friends and will be remembered for her

generosity, kindness and fun loving nature and will be missed by

all of those who had the pleasure to know her.

Mona MillerIt is with deepest sadness that the CAPL announces the recent

passing of Mona Miller on November 8, 2015 at the age of 85 years.

Mona was born in Edmonton and lived most of her life in Calgary.

Mona is survived by her three children, six grandchildren and four

great-grandchildren.

Mona became a member of the CAPL in 1974 and was a

Landman (a pioneer) with Panarctic Oils.

Her biggest passions in life were her family, the Calgary Flames

and animals.

Mona was a generous person and will truly be missed by all of

those that had the opportunity to know her.

Bob SeatonIt is with deepest sadness that the CAPL announces the recent

passing of Robert (Bob) Seaton on July 18, 2015 at the age of 89.

Bob was born in Edson, Alberta and spent his childhood and

youth in the towns of Mountain Park and Luscar. In 1945 he

was deployed to Europe, arriving weeks before the end of WWII.

He returned to Red Deer, where he completed high school, followed

by a Bachelor of Commerce at the University of Edmonton.

Following graduation, he was employed by the Alberta

Department of Mines and Minerals in Edmonton.

Bob was known for being a regular guest speaker at the CAPL

General Meetings throughout 1963 to 1968.

In 1975, he left the Department and formed his own consulting

firm with Dale Jordan, giving birth to Seaton-Jordan & Associates,

a firm which still operates today with its base in Calgary.

Bob is survived by his wife Dolores as well as his children and

several other relatives. He will be truly missed by all of those that

had the pleasure to know him. m

28TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ J

AN

UA

RY

20

16

2016 Annual CAPL Squash TournamentSaturday, March 12, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.

The Glencoe Club 636 29 Avenue S.W.Calgary, Alberta

Entry Fee: $89.25(Includes $4.25 GST, prizes, food & beverages)

WE WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME ALL CAPL MEMBERS AND THEIR GUESTS TO THE SEVENTEENTH EDITION OF THE CAPL SQUASH TOURNAMENT BEING HELD ONCE AGAIN AT THE GLENCOE CLUB. The new space

is modern, upscale, and will surely provide an incredible atmo-

sphere for this tournament!

On Saturday March 12, 2016, check in at the West entrance of

the Glencoe Club and head over to the newly renovated squash

courts and common area. Following a round robin tournament,

the merriments will continue with a buffet dinner, prizes, refresh-

ments and some night bowling in the bowling alley.

This tournament is a great time and suited for all levels

of players, from beginners to the biggest squash enthusiasts.

We will have online registration available this year to streamline

the process so stay tuned for further details regarding registration.

The squash tournament has always proven to be a great

success and is an excellent way to promote networking within

the industry. This year, we are offering the opportunity for

your company to be a “Court Sponsor” for this tournament.

Please contact any of our committee members for further details.

29

TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ JAN

UA

RY

20

16

Rob Bodzioch rbodzioch@torcoil.com

Maddison Gee mgee@crescentpointenergy.com

Jordan Murray jmurray@arcresources.com

Darcy Cosgrove DCosgrove@arcresources.com

Shaun Cooper scooper@torcoil.com

Travis Monk tmonk@spartanenergy.ca

Nathan Laviolette nlaviolette@nal.com

Brad Johnston johnston@carnaby.ca

Katie Bamber kbamber@rrexploration.com

Natalie Gillespie Natalie.Gillespie@encana.com

Jackie Djuranic jdjuranic@torcoil.com

Brodie Barkway brodie.barkway@cnrl.com

* Please note that white clothing is required for racquet sports at

the Glencoe Club. m

Savethe

Date!September 18-21, 2016

30TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ J

AN

UA

RY

20

16

31

TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ JAN

UA

RY

20

16

The Social Calendar

EVENT DATE TIME LOCATIONCOST

(INCLUDING GST)CONTACT NAME CONTACT PHONE CONTACT EMAIL

REGISTRATION DEADLINE

CAPL January Management

Networking Night21-Jan-16 05:00 PM The Westin Calgary

Members/Students $42.00 Guests $94.50

Kaitlin Polowski (403) 237-6635 reception@landman.ca 15-Jan-16

CAPL Ski Trip 2016

5-Feb-16 7:00 AMLake Louise

(bus pickup at Staples/old Target, West Hills)

Members: $141.75 Non-Members: $157.50

Will Glass (403) 648-2302 will.glass@bonavistaenergy.com 27-Jan-16

CAPL Curling Bonspiel

18-Feb-16 12:50 PM Calgary Winter ClubMembers: $131.25

Non-Members: $157.50Kevin Koopman (403) 807-1992 kevinkoopman@synergyland.com 12-Feb-16

CAPL February General Meeting

18-Feb-16 5:00 PM The Westin CalgaryMembers: No Charge

Student Members: $47.25 Non-Members: $94.50

Karin Steers (403) 237-6635 ksteers@landman.ca 12-Feb-16

CAPL 2016 Squash

Tournament12-Mar-16 5:00 PM Glencoe Club $89.25 Rob Bodzioch (403) 930-4184 rbodzioch@torcoil.com 4-Mar-16

* Information and online registration:General Meetings: http://landman.ca/events/general-meetings/Social: http://landman.ca/events/social-events/

SHERWOOD PARK 1.888.321.2222 Info@hurland.ca www.hurland.com

ANNUAL COMPENSATION REVIEWSDAMAGE SETTLEMENTSPUBLIC CONSULTATIONS &NOTIFICATIONS

LAND ACQUISITIONSFIRST NATIONS CONSULTATIONPROJECT MANAGEMENTAER CROWN APPLICATIONS

THE NAME IN SURFACELAND ACQUISITIONS

32TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ J

AN

UA

RY

20

16

January MeetingSponsored by IHSJanuary 21, 2016Management Networking NightGuest Speaker: Dr. Patrick Moore

Time: 5:00 p.m.

Where: The Westin Calgary

320 4 Avenue S.W.

Cost: Members: $42.00

Student Members: $42.00

Guests: $94.50

To register, please go the event tab on the CAPL website.

Deadline for registration is noon, Wednesday, January 16, 2016. m

February MeetingSponsored by IHSFebruary 18, 2016

Dinner: 6:00 p.m.

Where: The Westin Calgary

320 4 Avenue S.W.

Cost: Members: No Charge

Student Members: $47.25

Guests: $94.50

To register, please go the event tab on the CAPL website.

Deadline for registration is noon, Friday, February 12, 2016. m

of EventsJanuary 1 Friday New Year’s Day 12 Tuesday Board Meeting 13 Wednesday Alberta Crown Land Sale 20 Wednesday British Columbia Crown Land Sale 21 Thursday General Meeting 27 Wednesday Alberta Crown Land Sale 28 Thursday Energy Risk Management: Fundamentals

and Outlook for 2016 – Business Luncheon m

February 2 Tuesday Saskatchewan Land Sale 2 Tuesday Board Meeting 5 Friday CAPL Ski Trip 10 Wednesday Alberta Crown Land Sale 10 Wednesday Manitoba Crown Land Sale 15 Monday Family Day 18 Thursday CAPL Curling Bonspiel 18 Thursday General Meeting 24,25 Wed/Thurs Economic Considerations for Land Deals 24 Wednesday Professional Ethics: Theory and Application 24 Wednesday British Columbia Crown Land Sale m

CAPL Calendar

LET US BE YOUR DESIGNATED DRIVER

WESTERN CANADALAND SALE & DRILLI NG RIG REVIEW

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

November 2010November 2011

November 2012November 2013

November 2014November 2015

Drilling

Down

Total

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

November 2010 November 2011 November 2012 November 2013 November 2014 November 2015

Drilling Report for Last 5 Years

Drilling

Down

Total

AA RREEAATT oott aall HHaa

SS oolldd AA vveerraaggee

$$ // HHaa

BBCC 2,622 $666

AA BB -- FFoooott hhiillllss 832 $62

AA BB -- PPllaaiinnss 8,848 $128

AA BB -- NNoorrtt hheerrnn 13,377 $1,451

SS KK - -

MMBB 1,424 $540

NNoovveemmbbeerr 22 00 11 55

NOTE: Numbers are rounded

0.00

1,000.00

2,000.00

3,000.00

4,000.00

5,000.00

6,000.00

7,000.00

8,000.00

November 2

015

November 2

013

December 2013

January 2014

February

2014

March 2014

April 2014

May 2014

June 2014

July 2014

August 2014

September 2

014

October 2

014

November 2

014

December 2014

January 2015

February

2015

March 2015

April 2015

May 2015

June 2015

July 2015

August 2015

September 2

015

October 2

015

Aver

age

$/Ha

LAND SALE DATAAlberta Saskatchewan Manitoba

WWW.LANDSOLUTIONS.CA

Buying and selling of assets requires attention to detail and a team that understands where the details are found. LandSolutions has a team of professionals who know where to look, giving you peace of mind that your acquisition or divestiture is completed successfully.

To learn more, call us toll free at 1.866.834.0008 or visit us at www.landsolutions.ca

LandSolutions can drive your A&D deal home

MOSAIC COMMUNICATIONS - 403-230-4224 EXT 107

JOB: GEO006 APPROVED BY:

DATE: 06/05/2015 CLIENT:

FILE NAME: GEO006 CAPL 8.375x10.875-Bakr-05June2015-EO-FO ACCT MGR:

FILE SIZE:8.375x10.875 PROD MGR:

FILE AT: 100% ART DR:

Power your upstream decision-making with customer-driven data, integrated software and services from geoLOGIC.

g e o S C O U T | g D C Upstream knowledge solutions

WITHOUT knowledge action IS USELESS AND knowledge without ACTION IS futile.Abu Bakr

At geoLOGIC, we help turn raw data into actionable knowledge. That’s a powerful tool to leverage all your decision making, whether it’s at head office or out in the field. From comprehensive oil and gas data to mapping and analysis, we’ve got you covered. Get all the knowledge you need, all in one place with geoLOGIC.

For more on our full suite of decision support tools, visit geoLOGIC.com