negotiator - canadian association of petroleum...

The Magazine of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Landmen

December 2014

THE NEGOTIATOR

The NOA DebateTransfer Date Versus Effective Date

The CAPL Farmout and Royalty Procedure

Entering the New Millennium

The Ernst DecisionsRevisiting Regulatory Negligence

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: [email protected]: 403.531.4710

Senior Editorial BoardDirector of Communications

Brad Reynolds [ph] 403-215-9159Advertising Editors

Kevin Young [ph] 403-724-4450Trevor Rose [ph] 403-233-3136

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

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

Regular Content EditorAnne Macedo [ph] 403-699-6451

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

Editorial CommitteeJosh Lewis [ph] 403-233-4446Amy Kalmbach [ph] 403-619-2868Nathan 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 (403-724-4450) 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.

2014–2015 CAPL Board of DirectorsPresident

Michelle RadomskiVice-President

Nikki Sitch, P.Land, PSLDirector, Business DevelopmentAlberta & British Columbia

Andrew WeldonDirector, Business DevelopmentSaskatchewan & Alberta Oilsands

Michelle CreguerDirector, Communications

Brad Reynolds, P.LandDirector, Education

Connie De CiancioDirector, Field Acquisition & Management

Paul Mandry, PSLDirector, Finance

Larry Buzan, P.LandDirector, Member Services

Kent GibsonDirector, Professionalism

Joanna SheaDirector, Public Relations

Gary Richardson, PSLDirector, Technology

Mandy CooksonSecretary/Director, Social

Andrew WebbPast President

John Covey

Readers may obtain any Director’s contact information from the CAPL office. Suite 350, 500 – 5 Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 3L5 [ph] 403-237-6635 [fax] 403-263-1620www.landman.ca

Kaitlin Polowski [email protected] Grieve [email protected] Irene Krickhan [email protected] Steers [email protected]

Also in this issue

10 Fourth Annual CAPL Ski Trip

16 2015 CAPL Squash Tournament

17 2014 Merit Awards

19 Q3 M&A Report by ATB

27 CAPL General Meeting and Industry Night

28 2015 CAPL Conference

30 Student’s Corner: Women in Energy

THE NEGOTIATORThe Magazine of the Canadian Association

of Petroleum Landmen THE NEGOTIATOR

Features December 2014

2 NOA To Be or Not To Be Effective on This Day!

Michelle Radomski

7 Upgrading to a “Smart Phone” Jim MacLean

10 Revisiting Regulatory Negligence: The Ernst Fracking Litigation

Martin Olszynski

In Every Issue18 Board Briefs

20 Get Smart

23 The Negotiator’s Message From the Board: Member Services

25 Roster Updates

31 The Social Calendar

32 CAPL Calendar of Events

32 December Meeting

32 January Meeting

2TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ D

EC

EM

BE

R 2

01

4

There has been much debaTe and debacle over The years relaTed To accounTing adjusTmenTs for the period

between the Transfer Date and the Binding Date of

a Notice of Assignment (NOA).

There are two schools of thought:

1. On and after the Binding Date, the Assignee

becomes the recognized party to the Master

Agreement with respect to any and all matter

or thing occurring or accruing beyond the

Transfer Date, which by definition means “the

effective date of the transfer of the Assigned

Interest”. Very important to note that it is not

defined as the date of the transfer (in other

words the closing date); but, instead, that date

the transfer was made effective (sometimes

also called an adjustment date).

2. Alternatively, the Transfer Date has no appli-

cation to the Third Party. All matter or thing

which accrued prior to the Binding Date is for

the Assignor’s account and any adjustments

related to the period between the Transfer Date

and Binding Date are to be settled between

the Assignor and Assignee. After all, Clause

8 of the Notice of Assignment states “… In

addition, Assignor and Assignee agree that

they shall be solely responsible for any adjust-

ment between themselves with respect to

the Assigned Interest as to revenues, benefits,

costs, obligations or indemnities which accrue

prior to the Binding Date” – but wait, this will

be addressed below!

The act of novationIt is of fundamental importance that everyone

remembers that a NOA is not a standalone docu-

ment and that its use, application, and effect

are dictated by the Assignment Procedure. It is

equally important to remember that the NOA is

WriTTen by

MICHELLE RADOMSkIWiTh Thanks To Paul negenman, jim maclean & lynn gregor

NOA To Be or Not To Be Effective on This Day!

HMA Land Services is now RPS HMA. At RPS HMA we place significant value on developing and maintaining excellent relationships with our clients and industry partners. Our team is dedicated to providing the same level of professional service, reliability and expertise that our clients have come to expect from us.

Pipeline Exploration & Production ( E&P) Telecom Power

Toll Free (866) 412-5263www.hmaland.com | www.rpsgroup.com

3

TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ DE

CE

MB

ER

20

14

a contractual instrument instituted by Industry in substitution

for the assignment and novation agreement (A&N), but which

still results in novation. This means, “the act of those concerned

parties agreeing that their mutual agreement has been replaced

by a new one among differing parties.” In the case of a NOA, this

occurs as of the Transfer Date when the old party is discharged

from, and the new party assumes all, the rights and obligations of

the old party under the Agreement as provided by Clause 3.01 of

the Assignment Procedure.

What is the binding dateTo determine which, if either, of the two above approaches is

correct, let’s first determine exactly, “what is the Binding Date”?

By definition under the Assignment Procedure, it means “the

first day of the second calendar month following the month in

which the Notice of Assignment is served”. Quite simply, it is an

administrative trigger date at which time the NOA becomes effec-

tive against the Third Party. In other words, the act of novation is

deemed to have occurred as of the Binding Date. But, remember,

the act of novation occurring on the Binding Date is different than

the date the Third Party is deemed to have agreed that the nova-

tion (substitution of the parties) is effective; being the Transfer

Date. The Binding Date of a NOA is no different than the date

that all counterpart pages had been signed and distributed to the

parties to an A&N. This is where all the third parties recognize the

Assignee as the correct party to that agreement from and after the

effective date stipulated in the A&N.

Things you should know about the Transfer dateBefore beginning to address the effect of the NOA on the Third

Party there are a few other things to be considered by the Assignor

and Assignee. The first issue is establishing the Transfer Date to be

stated in the NOA as the effective date or adjustment date versus

the closing date of the transaction, when risk, possession and title

are actually transferred, assigned and conveyed:

• Purely from a legal and contractual perspective, the effective

or adjustment date is the date the parties have agreed to

adjust revenues and expenses (and occasionally risk) back to

the date the cash or bona fide value to be given to the Assignor

for the Assigned Interest at closing was determined. Use of

the effective or adjustment date as the Transfer Date is not a

big deal for revenues and expenses. However, the subsequent

effect of Clause 3.01 on the Third Party is to have the Assignee

responsible for any of the interim period liability (e.g. – court

action, taxes, facility fire) from the effective or adjustment

date forward, not the closing date forward. Notwithstanding

that Clause 3.02 of the CAPL Property Transfer Procedure

deems “benefits, obligations and risks” back to the Effective

Date, this may not always be the agreed upon arrangement in

a different form of purchase and sale agreement between an

Assignor and Assignee.

• To the contrary, based on the “matching principle” of accrual

accounting, where one tries to match costs and expenses to the

associated revenues and periods of time, it is logical and practi-

cal to link the cash flow (revenues-expenses) to the incremental

risk associated with the generation of that cash flow. It is help-

ful to use the Effective or Adjustment Date as the Transfer Date

in the NOA, for the following reasons:

• the Assignee would have likely had the opportunity to

conduct due diligence and conditionally walk away from

closing the transaction (e.g. “no substantial damage” condi-

tion) if they were not prepared to take the Assigned Interest

on an “as is” basis;

• the maintenance of business provisions in a purchase and

sale agreement typically provide the Assignee with influence

over operations during the interim period;

• this date is usually linked to a production month vs. a clos-

ing date that is other than the 1st day of a given month and

avoids odd adjustments;

• it mitigates rework on documents when the closing date

changes even a day (a very common occurrence);

• it encourages shorter interim periods due to the operational

risks;

OIL & GAS MINERAL RIGHTS & ROYALTY MARKETPLACE

BUY • SELL • LEASE SEARCH 400+ PROPERTIES IN NORTH AMERICA

OWNERS PUBLISH ADS FOR FREEBUYERS SUBSCRIBE TO VIEW

WWW.LISTMINERALRIGHTS.COMFOLLOW US. WE CAN GET YOU THERE.

4TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ D

EC

EM

BE

R 2

01

4

• the Canada Revenue Agency’s tax requirements can be

managed through a tax adjustment provision; and

• the CRA is not requiring tax adjustments and allowing the

purchaser to include sale proceeds in its income where the

effective date and closing date are in the same calendar month).

Industry seems to understand and accept that risk, possession

and title doesn’t actually pass until the closing date pursuant to

most purchase and sale agreements. However, everyone seems

to be using the effective or adjustment date as the Transfer Date

in their NOA, with respect to the joint account held with the

Third Party if there is an unusual event requiring a risk adjust-

ment, the indemnification and subordinate auxiliary conveyance

document provisions of a typical purchase and sale agreement

would likely cause this to become a vendor – purchaser action,

regardless of which party the Third Party may hold liable under

the Agreement.

What happens Pursuant to the assignment ProcedureThe Assignment Procedure provides as follows:

• Clause 2.05 says, “An assignment of an Assigned Interest shall…

be effective against Third Party on the Binding Date”.

• Clause 3.01 states that following the Binding Date “the Assignor

has transferred, assigned and conveyed… to Assignee as of the

Transfer Date”

• Assignee shall replace Assignor as a party to the Agreement

“on and after the Transfer Date;”

• As far as a Third Party is concerned, (i) “Assignee shall

assume and be bound by, observe and perform all terms,

obligations and provisions in the Agreement… [and] shall

assume and be entitled to all rights, benefits and privileges

under the Agreement… on or after the Transfer Date, and (ii)

Assignor shall retain and be entitled to all rights, benefits

and privileges under the Agreement… prior to the Transfer

Date;”

• Third Party… [and] Assignee… “(i) releases and discharges

Assignor from the observance and performance of all terms

and covenants… and all obligations and liabilities which arise

or occur on or after the Transfer Date under the Agreement;

and (ii) does not release and discharge Assignor from any

obligation or liability which had arisen or accrued prior to

the Transfer Date;”

• In all matters relating to the Assigned Interest “subsequent to

the Transfer Date and prior to the Binding Date,” Assignor acts as

trustee for and duly authorized agent of Assignee; and

• The Agreement “shall continue in full force and effect

from and after the Transfer Date with Assignee made a party

thereto… subject to Clause 3.01(d), being that above provision

for the Assignor to have acted as trustee for the Assignee.”

LANDGROUP [email protected] www.traverselandgroup.com

Calgary | 260, 6815 8 St. NE, Calgary, AB 2T E 7H7 403.265.1050

Sedgewick | 4911 48 Ave., P.O. Box 36, Sedgewick, AB T0B 4C0 780.384.3565

Grande Prairie | #101, 10419 99 Ave., Grande Prairie, AB T8V 0S4 780.532.7630









5

TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ DE

CE

MB

ER

20

14

• Clause 3.03 says, “Assignor and Assignee shall be solely respon-

sible for any adjustments between themselves with respect to

the Assigned Interest as to revenues, benefits, costs, obligations

or indemnities which accrue prior to the Binding Date”.

So, now let’s take a look at the situation from two very different

points in time – prior to and subsequent to the Binding Date.

Pre-binding date (novation has not occurred)Until novation occurs on the Binding Date, the Assignor remains

the recognized party to the Agreement and has the right and duty

to act as trustee and duly authorized agent of the Assignee for

all matters relating to the Assigned Interest subsequent to the

Transfer Date and prior to the Binding Date.

It is not a reasonable expectation that once revenues, costs,

and expenses are booked as actuals or accruals to a JIB account for

any given accounting month prior to the Binding Date. This would

cause Third Party accounting groups to go back and reverse any

payments or charges to the Assignor related to the accounting

months between the Transfer Date and the Binding Date.

Therefore, pursuant to Clause 3.03, the Assignor and Assignee

are responsible to account for any adjustments between them-

selves for any revenues, benefits, costs, obligations or indemnities

attributable to the Assigned Interest after the Transfer Date

which are for the Assignee’s benefit and which were accrued

to the Assignor’s joint interest billing (JIB) account prior to the

Binding Date.

Post-binding date (novation has occurred)The Binding Date has no application or relevance after is passes

– it was simply the trigger date at which time the act of novation

occurs and become binding on all the parties. The Assignee is now

the recognized party to the Agreement in all matters pertaining to

the Assigned Interest from the Transfer Date onwards. The trustee,

agency, and adjustment provision in Clauses 3.01(d) and 3.03 took

care of the interim period issues as between the Assignee and

Assignor. At this point in time, the Assignor has been released

and discharged from, and the Assignee has assumed all the

obligations, liabilities, rights, benefits, and privileges under the

Agreement on and after the Transfer Date. The Assignor no longer

has the ability to act as the trustee and duly authorized agent of

the Assignee.

Accounting for actual revenue payments is often several

months behind the production accruals. It is not a reasonable

expectation for the Assignor to continue to receive JIB’s well

beyond the Binding Date for production months occurring several

months in advance of the Binding Date and relating to revenues,

costs and expenses accruing on and after the Transfer Date.

The Third Party has been deemed to have already agreed that

these accruals belong to the Assignee by virtue of the act of

6TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ D

EC

EM

BE

R 2

01

4

novation. This practice further complicates the final settlement of

accounts between the Assignor and Assignee commonly occurring

180 days after closing in most purchase and sale agreements.

So, what about Clause 8 of the Notice of Assignment? Although this

clause fails to reference the Transfer Date, it cannot be read and inter-

preted independent of the Assignment Procedure. The beginning of

Clause 8 actually reads, “This Notice of Assignment shall become binding

on all parties to the Master Agreement on the… (Binding Date)”. Taken in

context with the Assignment Procedure and novation, the later part

of this clause, which says, “In addition, Assignor and Assignee agree

that they shall be solely responsible for any adjustment between

themselves with respect to the Assigned Interest as to revenues,

benefits, costs, obligations or indemnities which accrue prior to the

Binding Date”, can be reasonably interpreted as intending to only

apply to that Pre-Binding Date period, before novation occurred,

when the Third Party was not required to recognize the Assignee.

novation by exampleUsing an example in which the NOA has a Binding Date of

September 1 and a Transfer Date of April 1, the following account-

ing practice would apply:

For the accounting months preceding the September 1 Binding

Date, the Third Party continues to deal with the Assignor, and

the Assignor and Assignee make the applicable adjustments

between themselves.

On the Binding Date, novation occurs, and Third Party deals

directly with the Assignee for all matters accruing to the Assigned

Interest for any and all production months after the April 1

Transfer Date.

For any rights, benefits, liabilities or obligation accruing to the

Assigned Interest prior to the Transfer Date, the Third Party is to

deal directly with the Assignor.

In summary, the Binding Date is only that date on which the

Third Party must change its records to reflect the new party to

the agreement effective as of the Transfer Date. The 1st School of

Thought is the practice dictated by the Assignment Procedure and

the legal act of novation and should be accepted and followed by

Industry. It is also important to remember that, subsequent to the

Binding Date, it is all about determining when the rights, benefits,

liabilities, or obligation accrued under the Agreement, not when

the accounting is done. To illustrate, an error discovered for the

January-March period that is discovered in October should be sent

to the Assignor, not the Assignee, as the issue is one that pertains

to the period prior to the Transfer Date. m

With credit and thanks given to Paul Negenman,

Jim MacLean and Lynn Gregory for their initial

input, which resulted in much of the content

and concepts presented in this article.

7

TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ DE

CE

MB

ER

20

14

Upgrading to a “Smart Phone”The update to the 1997 caPl Farmout & royalty Procedure

The 1997 caPl FarmouT & royalTy Procedure became Widely accePTed in 1998, and has fundamen-

tally changed the way in which our industry has documented

earning agreements. Users found that the document: (i) reduced

the cycle time and effort required to complete appropriate docu-

mentation; (ii) focused negotiations on key business components

of transactions; (iii) streamlined administrative processes, while

increasing document and data integrity; and (iv) resulted in

resources being focused on additional value creation opportunities.

We distributed a package of materials to industry in late June

respecting our work on an update to the 1997 CAPL Farmout

& Royalty Procedure. The package included an annotated copy

of the updated draft, an overview document, and a matrix that

identified all material changes and the rationale for each change.

The supporting overview and matrix elaborate on the changes in

the update document in a user friendly format, and offer readers

a context that will simplify their review effort.

it’s Working Well, so Why change it?Based on the major ongoing positive impact of the 1997 CAPL

Farmout & Royalty Procedure, it has generally held up well.

This raises the obvious questions about why we would make

significant changes to something that has been working well

when there is no strong user outcry for change.

The answer is actually the same as for any project of this type.

The essence of our industry is that it is built on a foundation of

continuous improvement, and the nature of these documents

is that agreements using them will remain in effect well into

the future.

This realization requires us to balance our respect for the past

with both an objective assessment of the needs of today and a

prudent vision for the needs of tomorrow. It also requires us to

place significant trust in the judgment of those closest to the

applicable document because of the unique insights that these

“programmers” have on the applications they have created.

The degree to which a significant “renovation” of one of our

core documents is required is a function of a number of factors.

These include the age of the document, experiences with the docu-

ment, subtle cracks in the foundation that warrant repair to avoid

larger problems later on, legal and regulatory developments and, of

course, changes in the way that our industry conducts its business.

The major pending upgrade to the 1997 CAPL Farmout & Royalty

Procedure is driven by a number of diverse factors. These include:

• learnings from our experiences with the 1997 document,

particularly with respect to Article 3.00 for “straight up” earning

transactions;

• the need to address specific issues associated with evolving

business needs (e.g., the “shale revolution” and the greater

frequency of horizontal wells, the need for royalty allocation

processes for horizontal wells straddling Royalty Lands and

other lands, changes to drilling density rules, more complex

transactions, a much greater use of “straight up” earning struc-

tures, more transactions in areas with multi-zone potential,

many more partial interest farmouts and the potential for an

increased frequency of re-entry transactions because of the

likelihood of greater challenges in obtaining surface access);

• legal influences (i.e., court cases and other changes in the legis-

lative and regulatory environment), notwithstanding that there

have been very few cases to date on the 1997 document;

• changes required because of completion of the 2007 CAPL

Operating Procedure and the changes contemplated in the

current initiative to update that document;

• the use of “plain language” principles to simplify the presenta-

tion of the content and to use a more modern drafting style in

order to facilitate a more confident use of the document by a

broad range of users;

• a major expansion of the annotations as a reference tool for

users of all experience levels, given the demographic challenges

that our industry facesas the baby boomers begin to retire; and

• the ability to increase the breadth and depth of coverage to an

extent not feasible in the 1997 document, given the sensitivity to

length at that time because we knew that there would be challenges

in obtaining industry acceptance of the initial 1997 document.

but it’s so much longer!The length of the draft will initially be a concern to many. It is

important to put this concern in context, though, as we believe

that users have much clearer answers on their issues than had

previously been the case. As I like to say, we are giving users a

more complete “car manual” that will enable them to manage

issues more efficiently, effectively. and independently.

The inclusion of headings for every subclause increases the

length of the document incrementally, but offers users much

greater context on the provisions and allows users to find the

applicable provision much more easily. Similarly, the subdivision

of longer provisions into smaller “bites” through the creation of

extra subclauses and paragraphs materially enhances the read-

ability of the document for users.

The addition of new content has also increased the breadth

and depth of content materially by offering reasonable solu-

tions to foreseeable problems. Some provisions were expanded

THE NAME IN SURFACELAND ACQUISITIONS

SHERWOOD PARK 1.888.321.2222 [email protected]

ANNUAL COMPENSATION REVIEWSDAMAGE SETTLEMENTSPUBLIC CONSULTATIONS &NOTIFICATIONS

LAND ACQUISITIONSFIRST NATIONS CONSULTATIONPROJECT MANAGEMENTAER CROWN APPLICATIONS

8TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ D

EC

EM

BE

R 2

01

4

materially to address recognized issues, such as Clauses 1.02, 3.01,

3.02, 5.05, 6.02, 6.06, 8.01 and 9.03. New provisions were added to

address other emerging issues, including the addition of func-

tionality to address horizontal wells, test well programs, re-entry

Programs, the potential elimination of separate trust agreements

relating to typical earning agreements, royalty allocations respect-

ing horizontal wells drilled partially on Royalty Lands and partial

interest farmouts. As shown in Addendum III at the end of the

annotated draft, the shift of new procedural content to the docu-

ment admittedly adds length, but simplifies finalization of the

Head Agreement.

There has also been a major expansion to the annotations in

ways that will benefit users of all experience levels with respect

to both new agreements that use the updated Farmout & Royalty

Procedure and older transactions. The annotations include infor-

mation on the evolution of the clauses as a reference tool when

considering issues under current and older agreements, together

with an examination of the relevant case law. A special area of

focus is the inclusion of ideas that might be considered by negoti-

ators and contracts personnel when structuring new transactions

using either the new document or the 1997 version.

As users routinely include a schedule of elections in their

agreements, rather than the CAPL document, we believe that the

benefits of enhanced coverage and clarity in this new “car manual”

more than offset any negative impact of the increased length.

some concepts can help you address issues TodayThere are many provisions in the draft update that can be of

immediate benefit resolving existing disputes or to prepare new

agreements. Examples of these include:

• various modifications to Article 3.00 to address such topics as:

(i) difficulties in commencing operations; (ii) the interrelationship

between “Complete, Cap and Abandon”, the obligation to evaluate

the Test Well to the Farmor’s reasonable satisfaction and zonal

testing requirements; and (iii) the finality of the Farmee’s well

evaluation obligations in a multi-zone operating environment;

• various modifications to Article 5.00 to address such topics as:

(i) Royalty Wells that straddle Royalty Lands and other lands;

and (ii) optionality to allocate costs through the First Point

of Measurement, including special provisions respecting the

handling of frac water during the initial cleanup period;

• the inclusion of modifications to Clause 6.06 to address an

additional well in the same formation as the productive BPO

Earning Well;

• a major expansion to the acquisitions that are exempt from the

Area of Mutual Interest requirements of Article 8.00;

• modifications to Clause 9.03 to offer optionality for the provision

of well information from additional Royalty Wells to the Farmor;

• the inclusion of a new Article 10.00 that addresses the possibil-

ity that the Farmor may hold less than a 100% Working Interest

with other third parties under an existing agreement;

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

NO TERRAINIS TOO TOUGH.With over 41 years of geomatics and surveying experience, we don’t shy away from tough or rugged terrain. Contact us today for your next project.

With over 41 years of geomatics and surveying experience, we don’t shy away from tough or rugged terrain. Contact us today for your next project.

9

TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ DE

CE

MB

ER

20

14

• a new Clause 16.02 that adds mutuality to the Reserved

Formations Article by having obligations flowing back to the

Farmout Lands from the applicable Reserved Formation parties;

• modifications to Article 18.00 to offer functionality restricting

drilling during the earning phase and for the circumstance in

which a party other than the Operator/Farmee retains respon-

sibility for ongoing administration of the Title Documents;

and

• an expansion to the miscellaneous annotations at the end of

the document that outline certain circumstances in which

it may be appropriate to deviate from the provisions of the

Farmout & Royalty Procedure.

but some Things remain the sameThe document continues to be designed to provide a platform that

allows the parties to focus on the business issues associated with

a particular transaction, without attempting to pre-structure the

business components of the transaction.

As shown in the sample agreements in Addendum III to the

document, the document addresses the procedural elements that

do not vary materially in agreements in a way that enables the

parties to complete their documents efficiently and effectively,

while retaining full control over the business variable elements of

their transactions.

our ask of youThe initial industry draft was issued in June. Our intention is to

complete the document in 2Q2015, so that users will have the

benefit of the document for the 2015-16 winter drilling season.

Given the reality that industry will be using the final version

of this document in due course, it is mutually beneficial for a crit-

ical mass of industry to invest time in optimizing the document

during its initial stages.

Your feedback on the document during its early stages will

help us enhance the quality of the document materially and

use project resources much more efficiently. More importantly, it

will shorten the cycle time to project completion and facilitate a

timely and orderly transition to the new document for the collec-

tive benefit of our industry.

Obtaining familiarity with the document in the near-term also

better enables users to understand and address issues with your

current agreements and positions users to apply the document

more quickly following completion.

Parallel Project to update 2007 caPl operating ProcedureTo optimize alignment between this document and the Operating

Procedure in the future, we are proceeding in parallel with a

modest update to the 2007 CAPL Operating Procedure that will be

completed early in 2015.

10TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ D

EC

EM

BE

R 2

01

4

The primary motivation for this update is to make substantive

changes to offer greater functionality for horizontal wells in the

context of an increasing number of “long reach wells” on resource

plays. Many of these changes are included as enabling provisions

to minimize the need for consequential changes in the document

if the parties were to create custom provisions in their Agreement

in due course to address such matters as multiple well drilling or

completion programs and specialized provisions addressing the

development of well pads. These changes offer a more appropri-

ate foundation for complex shale projects without attempting

to predict or prescribe detailed project specific development

processes that are more appropriately left for the parties to nego-

tiate in their particular circumstances.

The other proposed changes are typically very specific, minor

adjustments to the applicable provision or the related annota-

tions. They have been included to reflect experiences to date

with the document, intervening legal decisions and the desire to

minimize the number of corporate preference type changes being

proposed by industry for typical transactions.

To attempt to simplify the review effort significantly, we

have presented the proposed changes in a table format in the

context of the corresponding provisions in the 2007 document,

with an identification of the specific proposed change through

underlining or strikethrough text. The actual changes are more

modest than what may first appear when printing the table

because the presentation of the changes within the existing

provisions and the inclusion of the rationale for each change.

Proceeding with an updated version of the CAPL Operating

Procedure in parallel with the project to update the 1997 CAPL

Farmout & Royalty Procedure will optimize the alignment between

the two documents. One of the other anticipated benefits of this is

the facilitation of a smooth transition directly from the 1990 docu-

ment into the modestly updated 2014 CAPL Operating Procedure

for users that have yet to embrace the 2007 CAPL Operating

Procedure.

Our expectation is that the quality of the two updated CAPL

documents resulting from the current initiatives will be such

that future modifications to each document will be much more

modest than the “extreme home makeovers” of the 1990 CAPL

Operating Procedure and the 1997 CAPL Farmout & Royalty

Procedure. This conclusion is reinforced when one looks at the

relatively modest modifications being proposed to the 2007 CAPL

Operating Procedure.

in the Words of Wayne gretzkyWhen Wayne Gretzky was a boy, he would spend a lot of time

practicing hockey with his dad, Walter. Whenever Walter asked,

“Where do you skate?”, Wayne consistently replied, “To where the

puck is going, not where it’s been.”

We can learn something from that simple story. Our business

continues to evolve in significant ways, and our agreements need

to evolve with the needs of the business. This reflects the reality

that our agreements revolve around the business needs, not the

other way around.

The updates to the CAPL Farmout & Royalty Procedure and

the CAPL Operating Procedure are instruments of opportunity.

They allow us to embrace the changes inherent in our business

and, to at least some degree, anticipate those changes and facili-

tate them in a way in which we are proactive, rather than reactive.

However, we can only optimize our gains if we collectively recog-

nize this opportunity and seize it.

As proud as I am of the 1997 CAPL Farmout & Royalty Procedure

and the enhanced efficiencies it has provided to our industry, the

reality is that it is analogous to a 2004 Blackberry. It is now time

to make a step change and move to a “smart phone” that offers

much greater functionality, that honours the past by building on

the prior, solid foundation of work and that addresses the biggest

fear of users by being intuitive in use.

We look forward to working with you as our journey with these

documents moves to its next phase. Together, we can truly make

a difference to our companies, our profession and our industry. m

Jim MacLean

Fourth Annual CAPL Ski Tripsave the date! The FourTh annual caPl ski TriP will be held on

January 30, 2015 at Lake Louise.

Registration for this event opens

December 1, please visit the

CAPL social events webpage.

If you or your organization

is interested in sponsoring this

event please contact one of the

committee members:

Will Glass [email protected]

Natalie Carson [email protected]

Jared Tchir [email protected]

Debra Bristow [email protected]

Your lands of opportunity await

Please contact us if you are looking to lease simple fee mineral title or enter into other royalty arrangements.

www.prairiesky.com

We have one of the largest independently-owned portfolios of fee simple mineral title in Canada with approximately 5.2 million acres of fee simple mineral title lands.

11

TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ DE

CE

MB

ER

20

14

on sePTember 15, 2014, The alberTa courT oF aPPeal released iTs decision in ERNST V. ALBERTA (Energy Resources Conservation Board) 2014 ABCA 285.

On November 7, 2014, Chief Justice Whitmann concluded that

the claim against Alberta Environment should not be struck

and awarded Ms. Ernst her costs at triple the column she

received in the 2013 action. This article will first review the

September 2014 Decision and then provide discussion around

the November 14 Decision.

backgroundMs. Ernst owns land near Rosebud, Alberta, and is suing EnCana

Corporation, the ERCB (now the Alberta Energy Regulator) and

Alberta Environment (now Alberta Environment and Sustainable

Resources Development) for negligence in relation to the alleged

contamination of her groundwater as a result of EnCana’s hydrau-

lic fracturing (fracking) activities in the area. With respect to the

ERCB specifically, Ms. Ernst’s alleged that the regulator, having

been informed by her of potential groundwater contamination,

failed to respond in a reasonable manner (i.e. failed to investi-

gate the incident). The ERCB filed a preliminary motion to have

the action against it struck out. Chief Justice Wittmann agreed

that this particular negligence claim was not supported in law:

he found that the ERCB owed no private law “duty of care” to

Ms. Ernst and that, in any event, any claim was barred by s 43 of

the ERCB’s enabling legislation (see Ernst v. EnCana Corporation,

2013 ABQB 537). The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed Ms. Ernst’s

appeal. This article considers the regulatory negligence aspects of

both the Queen’s Bench and Court of Appeal decisions.

a Primer on the law of negligenceIn Canada, a plaintiff has to prove five elements in order to estab-

lish negligence: (1) that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty

of care; (2) that the defendant breached the applicable standard

of care; (3) that the plaintiff suffered damages; (4) that these

damages were caused by the defendant’s breach; and (5) that the

damages are not too remote. The Ernst decisions are concerned

only with the first and what is widely regarded as the most

Revisiting Regulatory Negligence: The Ernst Fracking Litigation

12TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ D

EC

EM

BE

R 2

01

4

challenging element in proving negligence: whether the ERCB

owed Ms. Ernst a duty of care in the first place.

The applicable legal framework was set out by the Supreme

Court of Canada in Cooper v. Hobbart, 2001 SCC 79:

[30] … At the first stage of the [Anns/Cooper] test, two ques-

tions arise: (1) was the harm that occurred the reasonably

foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s act? and (2)

are there reasons, notwithstanding the proximity between

the parties established in the first part of this test, that

tort liability should not be recognized here? The proximity

analysis… focuses on factors arising from the relationship

between the plaintiff and the defendant. These factors

include questions of policy, in the broad sense of that word.

If foreseeability and proximity are established…a prima

facie duty of care arises. At the second stage…, the

question still remains whether there are residual policy

considerations outside the relationship of the parties that

may negative the imposition of a duty of care. [Underlining

in original]

With respect to proximity, the Supreme Court has stated that this

involves looking at “expectations, representations, reliance, and

the property or other interests involved” (Cooper). In the specific

context of regulatory negligence, the Supreme Court has recently

distinguished between two situations: (1) where the alleged duty

of care is said to arise explicitly or by implication from the statu-

tory scheme (which the Court admits will be rare); and (2) where

the duty arises from interactions between the claimant and the

regulatory authority (most relevant here) (see R. v. Imperial Tobacco

Canada Ltd., 2011 SCC 42). In all cases, the driving determination is

whether “it is just and fair having regard to that relationship [between

plaintiff and defendant] to impose a duty of care in law upon the

defendant” (Cooper).

As for the second, “residual policy considerations stage,” the

Supreme Court in Hill v. HamiltonWentworth Regional Police Services

Board, 2007 SCC 41 (a case where police officers were found to owe

a duty of care to the suspects of crime) made clear that “even if a

potential conflict could be posited, that would not automatically

negate the prima facie duty of care… A prima facie duty of care will

be negated only when the conflict, considered together with other

relevant policy considerations, gives rise to a real potential for

negative policy consequences… a duty of care in tort law should

not be denied on speculative grounds.”

The Ernst decisionsPerhaps the most striking aspect of both decisions is how much

space is devoted to the analysis of the ERCB’s duty of care in light

of both courts’ conclusion that any claim against the ERCB was

barred by s 43 of the Energy Resources Conservation Act in any event

(since repealed and replaced with s 27 of the Responsible Energy

Development Act).

There are, of course, numerous good reasons why a court

might choose to address all of the issues in a case such as this

one, not least of which is the fact that there is another regulator –

Alberta Environment – being sued for negligence here, one which

has not applied to have the action against it struck. Perhaps the

Courts wanted to make clearer to counsel the framework within

which the action against Alberta Environment will be assessed

and give some sense of their predisposition to such actions. Along

these lines, it is reasonable to suggest that the Court of Appeal’s

decision to state explicitly that which was not at issue before it,

including “whether the pleading against the defendant Alberta

could be struck as being frivolous or vexatious” (Ernst v. Alberta at

para 9), reflects judicial scepticism.

As for the duty of care analysis, although the outcome is the

same in both decisions the analysis is actually quite different.

Chief Justice Wittmann begins and ends his analysis at the first

stage of the Anns/Cooper test. Situating Ms. Ernst’s relationship

with the ERCB as more like that between the unsuccessful

investors and the Registrar of Mortgage Brokers in Cooper than

the miners to whom government inspectors were held to owe a

duty in Fullowka v Pinkerton’s of Canada Limited, 2010 SCC 5, the

Chief Justice concluded that there was “no sufficient proximity

to ground a private duty. Nor was there a relationship estab-

lished between Ernst and the ERCB outside the statutory regime

which created a private duty” (Ernst v. EnCana at para 28). It was

thus “unnecessary to determine whether the harm to Ernst was

foreseeable. It is also unnecessary to consider the second part of

the Anns test, that is, whether there would be any policy reason,

assuming proximity, to [not] impose a private duty” (at para 29).

The Court of Appeal, for its part, seemed to jump immedi-

ately to the second, “residual policy considerations” stage, laying

out a series of reasons reflected in the case law as to why any

prima facie duty of care owed by regulators is usually negated.

These include the difficulty of distinguishing between policy and

operational decisions (the former being immune from liability),

the potential for conflict between private and public duties, and

indeterminacy problems (Ernst v. Alberta at para 17). In the Court

of Appeal’s view, many of these considerations were relevant to

the case at bar:

[18] Forcing the Board to consider the extent to which it

must balance the interests of specific individuals while

attempting to regulate in the overall public interest would

be unworkable in fact and bad policy in law. Recognizing

any such private duty would distract the Board from its

general duty to protect the public, as well as its duty to deal

fairly with participants in the regulated industry. Any such

13

TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ DE

CE

MB

ER

20

14

individualized duty of care would plainly involve indeter-

minate liability, and would undermine the Board’s ability

to effectively address the general public obligations placed

on it under its controlling legislative scheme.

One might have expected the following paragraphs to elaborate

on these otherwise fairly generic concerns. The Court of Appeal,

however, then switched gears entirely and simply concluded

that Chief Justice Wittmann “correctly applied the test for deter-

mining whether the Board owed a private law duty of care to

the appellant” (Ernst v. Alberta at para 19). This conclusion is

jarring because, as noted, the Chief Justice did not even engage

the second stage. Rather, he focused on proximity and, adopting

what could be called the “spectrum” approach applied by Justice

Cromwell in Fullowka, concluded that the interactions between

Ms. Ernst’s and the ERCB were more like those of the unsuc-

cessful plaintiffs in Cooper than those of the miners in Fullowka.

The Court of Appeal actually dismissed Fullowka as an “anomaly”

(Ernst v. Alberta at para 16), which if anything suggests that they

didn’t agree with the Chief Justice’s approach at all.

discussion on the september 15 decisionCanadian law professor Bruce Feldthusen has observed that

“[d]ecoding the law governing the negligence liability of statutory

public authorities in Canada has always been a challenge,” and

has suggested that it may be time revisit the basis upon which

liability for regulatory negligence will be founded.1 Certainly,

recent events like the Lac Megantic disaster in Quebec and the

Mount Polley spill in British Columbia do point to something

rotten within the modern regulatory state to which the common

law of torts could potentially respond.

The Ernst case may or may not be the right one for such a

discussion. At the very least, however, it bears recalling that the

Supreme Court’s decision in Cooper is valued first and foremost

for bringing some much needed transparency to the duty of care

analysis. It would be preferable, then, for the Courts to apply the

Anns/Cooper test in a predictable, sequential manner – something

that both Courts failed to do here.

As noted above, the first step is to determine foreseeability of

harm. Contrary to the Court of Appeal’s assertion (Ernst v. Alberta

at para 16), this is actually something that most regulatory

… a fair reading of Hill suggests that an equally important factor was the

very significant personal interest (i.e. liberty) at stake.

Bus (403) 229-1500 Fax (403) 245-0074 eml. [email protected] 1250, 396 – 11th Ave S.W. Calgary, AB T2R 0C5www.petroland.ca

Shawn Irwin, President Representatives in: Calgary, Edmonton, Lethbridge, Regina, Carlyle, Grande Prairie, Victoria

Surface Acquisitions Pipeline Right-of-Way Crown Sales Mineral Acquisitions Rent ReviewsConfidential Deals Damage Settlements Public Consultant & Notification

14TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ D

EC

EM

BE

R 2

01

4

negligence plaintiffs have very little difficulty establishing (see

e.g. Cooper at para 42, Hill at para 32, Imperial Tobacco at para 57).

It is precisely because foreseeability represents a relatively low

bar that finding a prima facie duty of care requires both foresee-

ability and proximity. As in Cooper, then, it seems reasonably

foreseeable that Ms. Ernst would suffer some harm if the ERCB

were negligent in carrying out its duties, especially with respect

to enforcement.

With respect to proximity, the “spectrum of regulatory rela-

tionships” approach applied by Justice Cromwell in Fullowka and

adopted by Chief Justice Wittmann may be a good place to start

but it also has the potential to mask important distinctions.

For example, although there were differences in the relationship

and interactions between the plaintiffs and the relevant public

authorities in Cooper (the registrar of mortgage brokers and

investors) and Hill (the police and their suspects), a fair reading

of Hill suggests that an equally important factor was the very

significant personal interest (i.e. liberty) at stake. Arguably, Ms.

Ernst’s interest in the safety of her water supply is more like

the interest in Hill than in Cooper, which was a case for pure

economic loss – a category of negligence claims that Canadian

courts are particularly wary of. Another seemingly relevant

distinction between Cooper and Ms. Ernst is that the plaintiffs in

Cooper were voluntary investors, whereas landowners in Alberta

cannot refuse oil and gas activity on or around their lands and

are therefore entirely dependent on the adequacy of the regula-

tory regime.

Turning to the second, “residual policy considerations” stage,

it is not obvious to me how owing a private law duty to those

individuals particularly vulnerable or susceptible to a regulator’s

negligence would be unworkable. Generally speaking, regulators

like the ERCB and Alberta Environment are not monolithic entities

– they have branches that carry out specific functions, includ-

ing a compliance and enforcement branch. When this branch is

engaged, the problem of indeterminacy would seem to be largely

resolved: compliance activities are concerned with specific inci-

dents at discrete locations. The Supreme Court’s approach in Hill,

which affirmed the existence of a tort of negligent investigation

but also recognized the role of the standard of care in mediat-

ing the spectre of liability (i.e. perfection is not required) seems

perfectly suited for such situations. At the very least, however,

defendants should have to explain – and the courts should set

out in their reasons – the overarching policy considerations that

justify negating any prima facie duty of care in the specific instance

before them.

The Alberta Court of Appeal is certainly correct that there are

a number of reasons why a duty of care is not generally placed on

a regulator (Ernst v. Alberta at para 17), but it is equally true that

sometimes it is, and that regulatory negligence is a recognized

tort in Canada.

Contact Jaguar Land403-718-0525jaguarland.ca

transactions&

Are you missing pieces to your pending A&D transaction?Jaguar Land’s Quality, Focused and Value Driven Land Professionals can put the pieces together.

15

TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ DE

CE

MB

ER

20

14

discussion on november 7, 2014 decisionThis decision would seem to set a new standard for the transpar-

ent and thoughtful analysis of the duty of care. Substantively, and

beginning with the first stage of the Anns test, I do have some

concerns about the potential implications of an analysis that

seems to hinge on whether a regulator or other agency puts actual

boots on the ground (the key factual difference between the ERCB

and Alberta Environment). As the Chief Justice observed in Ernst I,

a private duty cannot arise simply because an individual commu-

nicates with a regulator (at para 28); the flip side of this is that a

duty of care should not be avoidable simply by refusing to show

up. In my view, there are other relevant factors that can support

or negate a conclusion of sufficient proximity. For instance, it

seems relevant that in Alberta landowners cannot refuse oil and

gas activities on their lands and are therefore entirely dependent

on the regulators to ensure that such activities are conducted in a

safe and environmentally sound manner.

With respect to the second stage, the Chief Justice was right

to not blindly accept Alberta Environment’s arguments about

potential conflict between private and public duties and indeter-

minacy. As I noted in my previous post, the Supreme Court has

been clear that the “residual policy consideration” stage is not the

place for speculation and generalizations (see e.g. Hill). The Chief

Justice was also correct, in my view, to remind government coun-

sel that finding a duty of care is not dispositive of the negligence

action – a plaintiff must still prove that the defendant breached

the applicable standard of care and that this breach caused the

plaintiff’s damage. This is a complete response to those who

argue that such litigation imposes undue hardship on govern-

ment regulators. m

Martin Olszynski

notes1. Bruce Fledthusen, “Simplifying Canadian Negligence Actions

Against Public Authorities – or Maybe Not” (2012) Tort L Rev 176

at 176 and 184.

* For further reading and updates to this case, please see www.

ablawg.com.

Martin Olszynski is an Assistant Professor of Law

at the University of Calgary, Faculty of Law.

A previous version of this article first appeared in

ABlawg, the University of Calgary Faculty of Law Blog.

iLand

P: 587.952.8000 | E: [email protected]

on acquisition & asset management software!

‘�s the se�on for savings,

Contact us today to learn more.

LandRite

16TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ D

EC

EM

BE

R 2

01

4

2015 CAPL Squash Tournamentsaturday, march 7, 2014 at 5:00 p.m.The glencoe club: 636 – 29 ave s.W., calgary, abentry Fee: $75.00 (includes gsT, a shirt, prizes, food and beverages)

We Would like To Welcome all caPl members and Their guesTs To The 2015 caPl squash TournamenT. This tournament is a great time and suited for

all levels of players from beginners to the most competitive.

Due to recent renovations at the Glencoe Club, the squash area

has been reduced to five playing courts which will unfortunately

impact the number of players eligible to play. As a result of this

downsizing, the first forty player entries received will be accepted

– so get your entry form in early!

On Saturday March 7, check in at the West entrance of the

Glencoe and head down to the squash courts. Dinner, prizes,

refreshments and some night bowling will follow in the Bowling

Alley at the Glencoe after the tournament.

Please complete the entry form on the CAPL website and send

it with your cheque made out to “2015 CAPL Squash Tournament”

to Rob Bodzioch at TORC Oil & Gas Ltd., Suite 1800 Eighth Avenue

Place, 525 8 Ave. SW, Calgary AB T2P 1G1.

The tournament is a great way to promote and market your

company and yourself. If you are interested in sponsoring this

event please contact any of our committee members:

Rob Bodzioch: [email protected]

Shaun Cooper [email protected]

Jordan Murray [email protected]

Nathan Laviolette [email protected]

Travis Monk [email protected]

Brad Johnston [email protected]

Brodie Barkway [email protected]

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

the Glencoe Club. m

LALP14898 Oil and Gas Ad for CAPL • The Negotiator Magazine Ad – Half page

LALP14898_Oil and Gas CAPL Negotiator ad HP6 Print Scale: 100% Op: Apiradee

Trim Size: 7.25”W x 4.75”H Bleed: -

Colour: 4c Line Screen: 100 line Logos: vector

Fonts: Helvetica, MundoSans, AideticNeo,

T 604.629.2060 F 604.629.2064

Proof: 605/15/14 @ 12:10 PM

Production:

Art Director:

Writer:

Creative Dir:

Acct. Services:

Proof read/Spell check:CLIENT:

With extensive experience in the oil and gas sector and a strong energy regulatory practice, our Calgary office is perfectly positioned to assist Western Canada’s energy industry.

YOU HAVE A LOT ON YOUR MIND – WE CAN HELP

Paul Negenman Jason Paton Bernadita Tamura-O’Connor

Randy Madsen Jay Lalach#1 regional law fi rm in British Columbia, Alberta and the territories, Canadian Lawyer magazine (2010-2014).

17

TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ DE

CE

MB

ER

20

14

2014 Merit Awards

Time to nominate!your 2014/2015 commiTTee Will be Pleased To receive nominaTions (award category descriptions and

forms to be filled out are soon to be available on the CAPL website)

for all awards. Ask yourselves: Who do I see as a deserving recipient

for an award for 2014? If you have received any such awards in

the past (and we have a bevy of recipients) – ask yourselves who

most resembles you? The brightest, the best and the most devout

members, corporations and individuals associated with CAPL

deserve our recognition. All nominations are kept confidential.

By policy, the Merit Awards Committee itself cannot make any

nominations so we depend on you to provide these to us.

Questions – please contact any of the following volunteers:

Larry Buzan (Chairperson), Robyn Baron, Suzanne Stahl, Rob

Pettifer, Brad Reynolds or Kent Gibson, Director, Member Services. m

18TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ D

EC

EM

BE

R 2

01

4

Board BriefsThe key discussion items at the

caPl board of directors’ meeting

held november 4, 2014 at

Talisman’s offices were as follows:

In Attendance Absent Guests M. Radomski B. Reynolds Joanna Shea Kevin Egan

A. Weldon G. Richardson Michelle Creguer

J. Covey M. Cookson Nikki Sitch

C. De Ciancio A. Webb

K. Gibson L. Buzan

P. Mandry

• Kevin Egan was invited to present a leadership training course

that he recommends adding to the educational courses currently

offered by the CAPL. The course is run by Knightsbridge and

would cater to more senior level CAPL members. The course

would run over two days and it is proposed that the content be

customized for landmen at an additional cost.

• Larry Buzan, Director of Finance, presented a Treasurer’s Report

as at October 30, 2014, showing CAPL investments totalling

$979,188.46 CDN along with a cash balance of $258,000.74

CDN having paid out $362,274.90 in the month of October for

a total of CAPL investments of $1,237,189.20 CDN. The CAPL

Scholarship Fund has a balance of $244,137.41 CDN. There were

no transfers made since the last report.

• Kent Gibson presented five Active, and three Student member-

ship applications to the Board of Directors, which were

subsequently approved.

• Mandy Cookson advised the Board that the new website is

scheduled to launch on December 1. The new website will

include a cleaner and more user friendly design with current

industry updates on the front page and a suggestion box area

for members to submit ideas, comments, etc. to the Board.

There are ongoing development plans after the launch to

update membership profiles, revamp online event registration

and more.

• Larry Buzan updated the Board on the Centralized Marketing

initiative. A Centralized Marketing Committee will be struck

consisting of members from the Conference Committee and the

Golf Committee. This Committee will be tasked with creating a

suite of marketing opportunities for current and potential spon-

sors. A brochure will be created detailing the various services

and support the CAPL provides to its membership, the local

community and industry as a whole. This brochure will help

educate sponsors on what their contributions are supporting.

• Michelle Radomski updated the Board on the formalization of

code of conduct expectations for the CAPL office and all CAPL

volunteers. Job descriptions and expectations, succession plan-

ning and formal performance reviews for the office staff are all

being implemented.

• Michelle Radomski updated the Board on the upcoming Industry

Night in January. Michelle recommended inviting govern-

ment representatives from the various oil and gas producing

provinces.

• Gary Richardson advised the Board that the Public Relations

Committee will bring the CAPL booth to Agri-Trade in Red Deer

(November 5-8) and the Oil & Gas Education and Career Info

Fair at Mount Royal College (November 19). The PR Committee

also plans to send representatives to the Regina Agribition

(November 24-29) and Junior Achievement of Southern Alberta

(November 28). A $500 donation will be made again by CAPL this

year to the later.

• Michelle Radomski reminded Directors of the following:

• The next Board of Directors’ Meeting will be held on December

2, 2014.

• The next General Meeting will be held at the Westin on

November 13, 2014.

• The next Networking Night will be held at the Petroleum Club

on December 10, 2014. m

Andrew Webb

Secretary/Director, Social

19

TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ DE

CE

MB

ER

20

14

Annual Results 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Number of transactions 111 122 138 121 130 93 132Total sample dollar value C$BN $13.3 $41.0 $24.5 $9.5 $43.4 $10.2 $20.9Total Proven Reserves ($/BOE) $27.97 $25.68 $24.10 $25.72 $22.93 $18.31 $18.71Proven + Probable Reserves ($/BOE) $17.51 $16.35 $17.30 $18.29 $17.22 $12.76 $12.83Per flowing BOE Production $59,530 $56,227 $64,648 $65,093 $73,400 $58,769 $57,724Cdn Par / Cdn Light (C$/bbl) - Sept/14 $102.19 $65.87 $77.50 $95.04 $86.16 $92.83 $100.58AECO average (C$/mcf) - Sept/14 $8.16 $3.96 $4.01 $3.63 $2.39 $3.18 $4.82USD FX price (month end in C$) 1.2246 1.0466 0.9946 1.0170 0.9949 1.0636 1.1275

Quarterly Results Q2 13 Q3 13 Q4 13 Q1 14 Q2 14 Q3 14 Q4 14Number of transactions 18 29 31 31 40 49 12Total sample dollar value C$MM $2,042 $3,652 $4,196 $6,318 $8,705 $3,009 $2,844Total Proven Reserves ($/BOE) $19.99 $16.58 $18.81 $18.11 $19.24 $18.38 $20.28Proven + Probable Reserves ($/BOE) $11.67 $10.52 $14.86 $13.60 $12.95 $12.26 $11.32Per flowing BOE Production $51,711 $55,813 $66,594 $50,055 $63,840 $62,169 $48,836Proven + Probable Reserve Life Index (years) 13.0 15.7 17.3 13.3 18.2 11.9 12.3Light Oil Weighted transactions (> 70%, $ per BOE) 7 2 10 7 12 10 -OIL - Proven + Probable Reserves $18.72 $18.85 $18.17 $23.68 $20.55 $20.17 -OIL - Per flowing BOE Production $81,892 $86,552 $89,203 $88,509 $89,492 $100,743 -Gas Weighted transactions (> 70%, $ per BOE) 4 7 2 13 9 9 3Gas - Proven + Probable Reserves $5.81 $5.87 $3.14 $5.20 $5.10 $6.83 -Gas - Per flowing BOE Production $21,181 $23,204 $20,745 $26,674 $31,192 $28,266 $32,433

Average Prices - Sept 2014 Q2 13 Q3 13 Q4 13 Q1 14 Q2 14 Q3 14 Q4 14Canadian Par / Cdn Light (C$/bbl) $92.16 $104.71 $86.28 $99.80 $104.18 $97.75 -Canadian Heavy (C$/bbl) $79.30 $93.01 $69.75 $84.13 $90.73 $84.40 -AECO gas price average (C$/mcf) $3.54 $2.45 $3.52 $5.75 $4.69 $4.02 -USD FX price (month end in C$) 1.0512 1.0285 1.0636 1.1048 1.0661 1.1208 1.1275

Questions? Please contact:Craig Mathison @ (403) 731-3822; [email protected] report is provided for informational purposes only. While ATB Financial believes the information to be reliable, ATB Financial does not guarantee, or make any representation as to its accuracy or completeness. The information is not to be construed as offering investment or financial advice and ATB Financial will not be liable for any loss or damage resulting from its use.

$17.51$16.35

$17.30$18.29

$17.22

$12.76 $12.83

$0.00

$2.00

$4.00

$6.00

$8.00

$10.00

$12.00

$14.00

$16.00

$18.00

$20.00

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Proven + Probable Reserves ($/BOE)

$59,530$56,227

$64,648 $65,093

$73,400

$58,769 $57,724

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Flowing BOE Production

$11.67$10.52

$14.86

$13.60$12.95

$12.26$11.32

$0.00

$2.00

$4.00

$6.00

$8.00

$10.00

$12.00

$14.00

$16.00

Q2 13 Q3 13 Q4 13 Q1 14 Q2 14 Q3 14 Q4 14

Proven + Probable Reserves ($/BOE)

$51,711$55,813

$66,594

$50,055

$63,840 $62,169

$48,836

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

Q2 13 Q3 13 Q4 13 Q1 14 Q2 14 Q3 14 Q4 14

Flowing BOE Production

October 31, 2014CANADIAN M&A METRICS

Q3 M&A Report CorporateFinancial Services™

PEACEMerry Christmas, from our family to yours.

20TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ D

EC

EM

BE

R 2

01

4

Preparing for a Surface Rights Board Hearing (PSL®)

december 04, 2014 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

This course will begin by covering the types of surface rights board

hearings, including compensation, rent review, damage claims

and back rent. The next section will focus on the structure of the

hearing and deal with procedural elements, evidence taken under

oath, direct and cross examination of witnesses and questions

from the board. From there the course will focus on evidentiary

issues like the burden of proof and discuss privacy issues before

closing by discussing the orders ultimately issued by the board.

Overcoming the Five Dysfunctions of a Team

december 09, 2014 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

This seminar is built on the assumption that great teams

attract great team players, and that great team players on great

teams achieve more collectively than they could on their own.

Using Patrick Lencioni’s book The Five Dysfunctions of a Team as

a template, this day long seminar teaches participants how to

strengthen their teams, improve their self-awareness and sharpen

their leadership skills. The course also includes a number of prac-

tical exercises that can be used to overcome hurdles that stand in

the way of building an effective team.

Directive 056: ERCB Energy Development Applications Public

Consultation Requirements (PSL®)

december 10, 2014 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

The AER (the “Board”) believes that appropriate notification and

public consultation must be conducted well in advance of the

submission of an application to the AER. It must be thorough

enough to allow all parties who are affected to be sufficiently

aware of not only the proposed project, but the Board process

Get SmartThe caPl education committee is pleased to present the following courses:

Pursuing Perfection

www.synergyland.ca | 1.877.961.LAND (5263)

SYNERGY LAND would like to remind all of our CAPL colleagues that we are

ready and able to assist with your mineral leasing needs. Several of our agents are

well versed in negotiating freehold mineral agreements, and we attend land

sales in all of the Western Provinces.

Call James McCorquodale at (403) 930-3301, and our team will help you develop the budget and timeline

for your 2015 mineral acquisitions.

Please note that as of November 1, 2014,Synergy Land Services Ltd.

will be located at:200, 2710 – 17 Avenue SE

Calgary, AB T2A 0P6

Crown Land Salesand

Freehold Mineral Leasing

Synergy2014_CAPLHalfPgVert3.5x9.75.indd 1 2014-10-24 10:58 AM

21

TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ DE

CE

MB

ER

20

14

as well. The Board believes that the public must have sufficient

information to participate meaningfully in the decision making

process, to voice their concerns and have their concerns heard

and properly addressed and, if possible, resolved. The proponents

information must be extensive, consistent, factual and must be

disclosed in a timely manner, and if the proposal is part of a larger

project, the proponent should be prepared to discuss the entire

project and explain how its components compliment other energy

development plans in the area. This seminar helps proponents

understand the public consultation requirements, expectations of

the AER and assists companies in completing the application or

audit processes for regulatory compliance.

Negotiation Skills for Surface Land Agents (PSL®)

december 11, 2014 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

This seminar will examine the common struggle we often experience

between meeting our substantive needs in the negotiation while

maintaining or improving the working relationship. This workshop

also provides a number of interactive industry related negotiation

scenarios during the day that allow the participants an opportunity

to apply the skills learned during the early stages of the workshop.

ROFR Issues: An Interpretive Approach

january 21, 2015 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

This seminar is intended for senior level landmen who are

responsible for analyzing various situations in which ROFR issues

may arise and recommending or implementing appropriate

corporate responses thereto. The morning will be devoted to a

presentation of legal principles and the afternoon a round table

discussion of ROFR issues.

Surface Land Fundamentals

january 22, 2015 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

This course is provided for professionals such as mineral land-

men, engineers, geologists and other project managers who either

work with their surface land department or manage their surface

land group as part of a larger team. Individuals new to the land

industry would also benefit from this course; some knowledge of

surface land is beneficial but not required.

Economic Considerations for Land Deals

january 28 & 29, 2015 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 evaluation

of land deals. m

FULL SERVICE PROVIDER OF LAND SERVICESHead Office Calgary Tel: 403-265-1116

1300, 734 - 7th Ave SW, Calgary, AB T2P 3P8

[email protected] www.standardland.com Standard Land Company Inc Winston E. Gaskin, President

Calgary: 1-866-858-1116 Vancouver: 1-877-687-1102 Regina: 1-866-441-2039 Toronto: 1-877-598-1116

Standard LandSince 1994, Standard Land’s experience in negotiating land access in highly sensitiveenvironments with multiple stakeholders has served a single purpose: success.

Let us put our experience to work for you.

CORE SERVICES » Everything “Land”

From simple consultation to large-scaleproject management, Standard Land expertlymanages it all:

• Freehold Mineral Acquisition

• Crown Sales

• Surface Land

• First Nations Consultation

• Non Routine Project Management

• Surface and Regulatory Compliance

• Full suite of additional Services

With over 100 employees across Canada,contact Standard Land to discuss your project today.

KEY PERSONNEL

Surface Acquisition: Randy [email protected]

Mineral Acquisition: Mikala [email protected]

Crown & Mineral Administration: Terri [email protected]

StandardLand_ADV_Negotiator_Layout 1 12-09-11 10:01 AM Page 1

• 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

FULL SERVICE PROVIDER OF LAND SERVICESHead Office Calgary Tel: 403-265-1116

1300, 734 - 7th Ave SW, Calgary, AB T2P 3P8

[email protected] www.standardland.com Standard Land Company Inc Winston E. Gaskin, President

Calgary: 1-866-858-1116 Vancouver: 1-877-687-1102 Regina: 1-866-441-2039 Toronto: 1-877-598-1116

Standard LandSince 1994, Standard Land’s experience in negotiating land access in highly sensitiveenvironments with multiple stakeholders has served a single purpose: success.

Let us put our experience to work for you.

CORE SERVICES » Everything “Land”

From simple consultation to large-scaleproject management, Standard Land expertlymanages it all:

• Freehold Mineral Acquisition

• Crown Sales

• Surface Land

• First Nations Consultation

• Non Routine Project Management

• Surface and Regulatory Compliance

• Full suite of additional Services

With over 100 employees across Canada,contact Standard Land to discuss your project today.

KEY PERSONNEL

Surface Acquisition: Randy [email protected]

Mineral Acquisition: Mikala [email protected]

Crown & Mineral Administration: Terri [email protected]

StandardLand_ADV_Negotiator_Layout 1 12-09-11 10:01 AM Page 1

23

TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ DE

CE

MB

ER

20

14

The Negotiator’s Message From the Board

member servicesThe member services PorTFolio is devoTed To mainTaining a suPerior associaTion WiTh high qual-iTy members, oPPorTuniTies and beneFiTs. Although I have only

been working with Member Services for a short time, it has been

exciting to work with this professional and committed group

of volunteers. It is the incredible volunteers that define CAPL,

making it a valuable Association for its members.

As of October 2014, our membership consists of 1,558 Active

members, 122 Senior members, 75 Associate members, 49 Life

members and 46 Student members.

Member Services is divided into three committees which over-

see membership admissions, the Merit Awards, the CAPL roster,

member benefits and compensation.

Membership Admissions Committee

Active, Associate and Student membership applications go

through a three step process. They are first sent to the CAPL

office where they are reviewed to ensure all forms are filled

out correctly and membership information about sponsors is

accurate. The applications are then sent to the Membership

Admissions Committee, who meet once a month, to confirm

all application requirements are satisfied. If the Admissions

Committee approves the application it is then sent to the

Director of Member Services who will present the applications

as a motion to the CAPL Board of Directors at the monthly Board

meetings. This committee also reviews all Honorary, Senior and

Life memberships annually. If necessary those statuses will

also be approved through the CAPL Board of Directors. Year to

date, the committee has processed 34 Active, 4 Associate and 40

Student membership applications.

Committee Members

Colin Kay (Committee Chairman), Colleen Cochrane, Guido De Ciancio,

James Armstrong, Josh Truba, Mark Grierson, Noel Millions, Robyn Baron,

and Troy Cameron.

Merit Awards Committee

Every year, CAPL recognizes individuals and organizations that

have made extraordinary contributions to the Association and its

community. This committee is responsible for seeking out and

gathering the nominations from CAPL members. There are many

outstanding contributions that have been made and it is essential

that we receive member participation, for input and nominations,

to ensure they are recognized.

The awards that are presented are the Herb Hughes

Memorial, CAPL Distinguished Citizen, CAPL Award of Merit, CAPL

Outstanding Graduate, Bright Lights, Volunteer Supporter, and

Friends of CAPL. If you know of any individual or organization that

would be eligible for one of these awards, please don’t forget to

make those nominations.

Committee Members

Larry Buzan (Committee Chairman), Brad Reynolds, Rob Pettifer, Robyn

Baron, and Suzanne Stahl.

CAPL Roster

It is very common for individuals in our membership to change

companies and move to different opportunities throughout their

careers. It is essential for us to keep our online database and

Roster updated as these changes occur. Irene Krickhan at the

CAPL office is responsible for adding individuals to the Roster and

making all the required changes. The majority of our membership

uses the Roster on a regular basis, and thanks to Irene’s hard work

24TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ D

EC

EM

BE

R 2

01

4

we can rely on it. Please keep in mind that it is your responsibility

to make sure your information is correct and up to date, so please

continue to do so.

Member Benefits

Another aspect of the Membership Services portfolio is to oversee

our member insurance benefits. Each year the Director of Member

Services reviews our policies with Nexgen Financial to ensure our

members are receiving top value from our policies. Benefits to all

Active and Lifetime members include Best Doctors, accidental

death/dismemberment, and life insurance.

Some additional benefits that were made available to our

membership in 2013 include discounts on services from various

organizations. These discounts can be found under the Additional

Membership Benefits link on the Members Only page of the CAPL

website. If you haven’t had a chance to look at the discounts avail-

able to you, I recommend taking the time to do so. The discounts

currently available to CAPL members include personal insurance,

a land tool, and fitness membership.

Compensation Survey Committee

In Q1 2014 a compensation survey was sent out to membership,

of which 629 members participated. For relevance the survey data

was split into six different job families: Negotiations, Contracts

Landman, Surface Land Agent, Acquisitions and Divestitures,

Administration, and Land Management. Once the job family was

identified it was again split out into six levels of experience from

Entry Level to Executive Level. A lot of work went into putting

this survey together, so I want to thank everyone who partici-

pated in the survey and each individual within the committee

that made this valuable piece of information available to our

membership. The results of the survey can be found under the

2014 CAPL Compensation Survey link on the Members Only page

of the CAPL website.

Committee Members

Bob Bachynski (Committee Chairman), Adam Wolfenden, Amanda

White, Bonnie Cioni, Colleen Bailey, Craig Bisschop, Danell Kokol, Diane

VanderVeen, Heather Stables Fofonoff, James Armstrong, Lynn Viehweger,

Sharon Gordon, and Teresa Strom.

Thank you once again to all of the great volunteers that make

CAPL such a successful and valuable Association for its members.

Also, a big thank you to the CAPL office staff: Denise Grieve, Karin

Steers, Irene Krickhan and Kaitlin Polowski for all their hard work

and support. m

Kent Gibson

Director, Member Services

Seeking

Renewed Depth

In A

Land Services

Provider?

IntegrityRunsDeep

toll free: 1.877.998.1500 | www.integrityland.com

25

TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ DE

CE

MB

ER

20

14

Roster Updatesnew membersThe following members were approved by a

Motion on November 4, 2014:

Applicant Current Employer Sponsors

Active

Meghan Hockaday raging river Wayne ellis

exploration inc. john miele

Walter vrataric

Sheila Howe imperial oil resources john charuk

mark Pinsent, P.land

greg strachan, P.land

Amy Jones conocoPhillips canada michelle Forrest

jessica jonassen

sean mcleod

Irene Mercer spyglass resources marilou corsino

corp. ann janicki

cindy miller

Karen Middleton Taqa north ltd. linda bourcier

karen hertel

cari Williams

Student

Tate Aronovich olds college nicola millions-hollamby

Colleen Miller mount royal university jillian Philpott

Danielle Suchan mount royal university jillian Philpott m

on the moveNathaniel Barker aim land services ltd.

to aTco Pipelines a division of aTco group

Trevor Burke Penn West exploration

to centrica energy canada

Ruth Cross kingsmere resources ltd.

to sifton Petroleum inc.

Brad Crowe Tiercel energy inc.

to independent

Jaquelyn Djuranic independent

to Transcanada

Sharon Gordon, P.Land sentinel enterprises inc.

to manitok energy inc.

George Hardisty West valley energy corp.

to independent

12831 – 163 Street, Edmonton, Alberta T5V 1M5

www.progrESSlAnd.coM

1.866.454.4717

26TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ D

EC

EM

BE

R 2

01

4

Ryan Heath hyperion exploration ltd.

to striker exploration corp.

Lewis Johnson birchcliff energy ltd.

to independent

Amy Kalmbach, P.Land incipient exploration ltd.

to striker exploration corp.

Jeff Leggett shell canada energy

to seven generation energy ltd.

Zack MacPhee scott land & lease ltd.

to brion energy

Mark Mason cenovus energy inc.

to brymark energy inc.

Curtis McLauchlin southern Pacific resources corp.

to Transcanada

Wade McLeod independent

to scott land & lease ltd.

Steve Moran stellavista capital corp.

to corridor resources inc.

Ken Murias arriva energy inc.

to baseline oil & gas inc.

Brett Norrie husky oil operations limited

to Tourmaline oil corp.

John Parry Tbs energy corp.

to revel resources corp.

Sherry Phan imaginea energy corp.

to independent

Craig Pittman, P.Land independent

to Pengrowth energy corporation

Russell Ray visser consulting ltd.

to visser deloitte

Korey Revenco visser consulting ltd.

to visser deloitte

Karen Riep indian oil and gas canada

to independent

Craig Ruddy Prairiesky royalty ltd.

to independent

Steve Sawyer harvest operations corp.

to Plains midstream canada

Steven Schneider independent

to omers energy inc.

Jennifer Schroeder Prairiesky royalty ltd.

to independent

Peter Sticksl mosaic energy ltd.

to independent

Jared Tchir integrity land inc.

to Transcanada

Nolan Treble, PSL Penn West exploration

to legacy oil + gas inc.

Robert Welch lone Pine resources canada ltd.

to independent

Kevin Wolters Penn West exploration

to independent

Christina Wong rife resources ltd.

to conocoPhillips canada

Troy Wylie independent

to visser deloitte m

27

TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ DE

CE

MB

ER

20

14

CAPL General Meeting and Industry Nightintroducing a new meeting Formatjanuary 15, 2015, 4:00 Pmcalgary Westin hotel

The caPl board oF direcTors has decided To make an exciTing FormaT change To The Formal 2015 managemenT nighT dinner and general meeTing. The inaugural 2015 CAPL Industry Night is being

introduced for our members to invite, not only our managers,

but all of our technical peer group (the geologists, geophysicist,

engineers, CEOs, CFOs, etc.) as guests, to join us for an evening

of informative networking and the opportunity to listen to

our keynote speaker, Deborah Yedlin, Calgary Herald Business

Columnist. The evening will start with a cash bar and hors

d’oeuvre service at 4:00 p.m. The General Meeting will be held

promptly at 5:00 p.m. and the keynote speaker will then present

her thoughts on “The Energy Eco-System: Land, Labor and Capital”

at 5:15 p.m., with a theatre-seating layout and time allotted for

Q&A. By 6:30 p.m., members and their guests will be invited to

walk about the cocktail/buffet reception and visit with the many

volunteers representing numerous CAPL Committees, our invited

Government Oil & Gas Ministry representatives and select indus-

try information service providers.

deborah yedlinCalgary Herald Business Columnist

Taking Care of Business, The

Calgary Way

Deborah has covered the

energy sector as a colum-

nist and radio commentator

for CBC since 1996. She has

worked for the Financial Post,

Globe and Mail and is currently

the business columnist with

the Calgary Herald. Prior to her

career switch to journalism,

Deborah worked as an invest-

ment banker on Wall Street and

Bay Street. Deborah holds a B.A. in Economics from the University

of Alberta, an MBA from Queen’s University and is a member of

the Institute of Corporate Directors. m

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

Land AcquisitionsFreehold Mineral Secialists

Surface AcquisitionsPipeline Right-of-Way

Rental ReviewsDamage Settlements

Crown Sale AttendanceTitle Registration

Potash ProjectsWind Generation Projects

28TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ D

EC

EM

BE

R 2

01

4

2015 CAPL ConferenceaT The 2014 conFerence in jasPer, The locaTion oF The 37Th annual conFerence Was revealed – St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador. In Jasper, in keeping with

Newfoundland’s unique culture, 20 individuals (or “come-from-

aways”) were ‘Screeched-In’, complete with the requirement to

kiss the cod. All were presented with a certificate to officially

recognize them as Honourary Newfoundlanders.

This is the first time the conference is heading to St. John’s.

Many oil and gas companies have offices in St. John’s, including

majors ExxonMobil, Husky, Statoil, Suncor and Chevron, and

hundreds of industry service companies. St. John’s harbour is one

of the busiest in Canada, largely supporting offshore oil produc-

tion and seismic/drilling operations.

Downtown St. John’s looks a lot like Calgary with construction

cranes for new office buildings, new condos under construction,

and many renovation

projects. The airport

is under expansion

including installa-

tion of GPS so planes

can land in the fog!

Our theme is

Navigating the Future,

a nod to the mari-

time location and

central organizing principal of our program. We’ll focus on the

landman’s role in our dynamic industry. We’ll consider how the

landman’s traditional role has evolved to today’s negotiating

landmen. Negotiating landmen may need to broaden their scope

to extend a unique and valuable skill set. We’ll also gaze into the

crystal ball with a broader look at what the future holds for the

industry and our profession both onshore and offshore.

Newfoundland and Labrador seems to be on everyone’s bucket

list, so the conference presents a great opportunity to make the

trip, not only for the conference but to spend some time exploring

the Rock. Besides the great program we’ll offer many activities

for delegates and guests to heighten their experience in Canada’s

youngest Province.

We’ve made arrangements with the Sheraton Newfoundland

hotel as our host which has recently undergone an 11 million

dollar renovation.

Please join us in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, from

Sunday September 20 to Wednesday September 23, 2015. m

i’m pleased to introduce the committee executive:Chair Colin McKinnon

Administration Colleen Allen

Finance Dave Bernatchez

Program Denis McGrath

Activities Mary Gothard and Kelly Pypers

Marketing Gary Cole

Colin McKinnon

Chair of the 2015 CAPL Conference

WESTERN CANADA LAND SALE and DRILLING RIG REVIEW

THE EXPERTS IN LAND ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES.

LandSolutions LP #200, 601 - 10 Ave SW Calgary, AB T2R 0B2 1-866-834-0008www.landsolutions.ca

0.00

500.00

1,000.00

1,500.00

2,000.00

2,500.00

3,000.00

3,500.00

4,000.00

4,500.00

5,000.00

Aver

age

$/Ha

Land Sale Data

British Columbia Alberta Saskatchewan Manitoba AREATotal Ha

Sold Average$ / Ha

BC 14,360 $997

AB - Foothills 20,992 $588

AB - Plains 38,557 $169

AB - Northern 81,728 $563

SK 29,215 $739

MB no sale

October 2014

NOTE: Numbers are rounded

DrillingDown

Total

0100200300400500600700800900

October2009

October2010

October2011

October2012

October2013

October2014

Drilling Report for Last 5 Years

DrillingDownTotal

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

October2009 October

2010 October2011 October

2012 October2013 October

2014

Drilling Rig Utilization Rate

Utilization Rate

Celebrating 65 years ofland surveying and geomatics

in Western Canada.

www.midwestsurveys.comService Beyond Boundaries.

30TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ D

EC

EM

BE

R 2

01

4

Student’s CornerWomen in energyWhen i FirsT heard abouT The PeTroleum land managemenT (Plma) Program aT The universiTy oF calgary, i Was hesiTanT To aPPly For a couPle oF reasons. To begin, the application process to enter the

program was extensive, and required both commitment and dedi-

cation. Secondly, I had heard that there were few females in this

line of work, which I had also inferred due to the job title itself

being “Landman.” However, I was pleasantly surprised to discover

that the latter information was inaccurate. I entered the program

to learn that not only would I be in the 2014/2015 graduating class

with five other women, but that these women would also become

good friends that I would share similar interests with! I was also

surprised to discover from my networking experiences that there

are many successful female Landmen, who are key contributors in

the success of the companies they work for.

Two women in particular who have been an inspiration to me

thus far in my journey have been Alexis Watson, who is currently a

Senior Landman at ConocoPhillips Canada, and Connie De Ciancio,

who is Vice President, Land at Mosaic Energy. Alexis was one of my

points of contacts when I first heard about the PLMA program, and

I have had the privilege of working under her this past summer;

she is someone

that I can contact

for advice at any

given time who

has an exten-

sive background

in Land. Connie is

my “official” indus-

try mentor assigned

to me through

the University of

Calgary PLM Mentor

Program. She has also been an incredible source of knowledge and

encouragement for my studies and has introduced me to several

key people in this industry.

As we finish off our final year of studies, it is our hope as

a female student group, that we will continue to make strong

connections with both men and women in our chosen field that

will assist us in our future careers as Landmen. In addition to this,

we hope to one day be mentors ourselves, to both the women and

men in the PLMA program!

Happy Holidays from the PLMA student group! m

Dinora Santos

Fourth Year PLMA Student

L to R: Taylor Blanchard, Brittany D’Adamo, Dinora Santos, Natalie Gillespie, Julia Sande and Sumeet Brar

[email protected] 1-866-528-2558 Medicine Hat 1-855-425-2530 Edmonton actionland.ca

Have a very Merry Christmas and Best Wishes for the Holiday Season!

31

TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ DE

CE

MB

ER

20

14

The Social Calendar

EvEnt DAtE tIME LOCAtIOnCOSt

(InCLUDInG GSt)COntACt nAME COntACt PHOnE COntACt EMAIL

REGIStRAtIOn DEADLInE

CAPL Christmas networking

10-Dec-14 4:00 PMCalgary Petroleum

ClubStudent Members: Free Non-Members: $94.50

Karin Steers (403) 237-6637 [email protected] 3-Dec-14

CAPL January Meeting

15-Jan-15 5:00 PM The Westin HotelMembers: $42.00

Student Members: $42.00 Non-Members: $94.50

Kaitlin Polowski (403) 237-6637 [email protected] 8-Jan-15

CAPL Ski trip 30-Jan-15 7:30 AM Lake LouiseMembers: $135

Non-Members: $150Natalie Carson (403) 476-7530 [email protected] 23-Jan-15

CAPL Squash tournament

7-Mar-15 5:00 PM The Glencoe Club $75.00 Rob Bodzioch (403) 930-4184 [email protected] 6-Mar-15

* Please note: Registration forms can be downloaded from the CAPL website:

General Meetings: http://landman.ca/events&meetings/general_meetings.php

Social: http://landman.ca/events&meetings/social_events.php

32TH

E N

EG

OT

IAT

OR

/ D

EC

EM

BE

R 2

01

4

December Meetingdecember 10, 2014caPl christmas networking

Reception: 4:00 p.m.

Where: Calgary Petroleum Club

319 – 5 Avenue S.W.

Cost: Members: No Charge

Student Members: Free (Designated Meeting)

Guests: $94.50 (incl. $4.50 GST)

All members are required to confirm their attendance by email.

Only guests are required to purchase a ticket. Guest tickets will be sent to

the member with an invoice. Jacket required (no jeans or T-shirts) please.

Registration please email [email protected]. Please confirm your atten-

dance by emailing before noon on December 3, 2014 m

January Meetingjanuary 15, 2015industry networking eventspeaker: deborah yedlin

business columnist, The Calgary Herald

Time: 5:00 p.m.

Where: The Westin Calgary

320 – 4 Avenue S.W.

Cost: Members: $42.00 (incl. GST)

Student Members: $42.00 (incl. GST)

Guests: $94.50 (incl. GST)

Ticket order form is available on the CAPL website. Ticket order deadline

is January 5, 21015. m

december 1 Monday Saskatchewan Land Sale 2 Tuesday Board Meeting 2 Tuesday Drilling & Production Operations 3 Wednesday Alberta Land Sale 3 Wednesday Professional Ethics: Case Studies for Landmen 4 Thursday Preparing for a Surface Rights Board Hearing (PSL®) 9 Tuesday Professional Ethics: Theory and Application 9 Tuesday Overcoming the Five Dysfunctions of a Team 10 Wednesday British Columbia Land Sale 10 Wednesday Directive 056: AER Energy Development Applications

Public Consultation Requirements (PSL®) 11 Thursday Negotiation Skills for Surface Land Agents (PSL®) 17 Wednesday Alberta Land Sale 25 Thursday Christmas Day 26 Friday Boxing Day m

january 1 Thursday New Year’s Day 6 Tuesday Board Meeting 14 Wednesday Alberta Land Sale 15 Thursday CAPL Industry Night 21 Wednesday British Columbia Land Sale 21 Wednesday ROFR Issues: An Interpretive Approach 22 Thursday Surface Land Fundamentals 28 Wednesday Alberta Land Sale 28, 29 Wed-Thu Economic Considerations for Land Deals m

CAPL Calendar of Events

The experts in Land Acquisition offer Environmental Services as

well. Picture that. An A to Z solution that is far more efficient

and effective, making your life so much easier. Join the industry

leaders who count on us for expert solutions.

Call 1-866-834-0008 or visit landsolutions.ca and relax.

NOW THIS CAN BE BOTH THE BEFORE AND THE AFTER SHOT.

YOUR ADHERE*

(*because like a blue moon, available advertisement space on the back cover of The Negotiator is a very rare occurrence…)

For advertising opportunities, please contact Kevin Young (403-724-4450) or Trevor Rose (403-233-3136)