the egotiator · the largest leaseholders in canada use landman. calgary (403) 218-8300 dallas...

DA JUDGE IS BACKHarry Ediger once again probesan interesting issue, this timedealing with drilling over theexpiry of a freehold lease. PAGE 7

the

egotiatorT h e M a g a z i n e o f t h e C a n a d i a n A s s o c i a t i o n o f P e t r o l e u m L a n d m e n

N

TIME TO GET WIRED Did you know that the EUB will no longeraccept license transfer applications inpaper form? Paul Negenman explainswhat applicants must now do. PAGE 14

RIGHTS OF FIRST REFUSALForbes Newman discusses a recent courtruling and a number of points to becautious on when dealing with a Right ofFirst Refusal. PAGE 2

February 2002

Management NightFebruary 20, 2002

Dr. Lloyd Axworthy

CAPLManagement Night

February 20, 2002Dr. Lloyd Axworthy

CAPL

The largest leaseholders in Canada use LANDMAN.

Calgary (403) 218-8300 Dallas (972) 788-0400 Houston (281) 807-9150 www.atsi.com

How do you keep yourfeet on the ground?

LANDMAN is the most comprehensive land management system in the busi-ness. Fully integrated with ATS’ enterprise accounting solutions, Canada’s

most popular land management system can be accessed by anyone in yourcompany who requires information regarding your lands and their associated

mineral and surface leases, contracts, wells, units, and facilities.

Land managers and administrators, geologists and accounting departmentswill all find that LANDMAN is a significant asset in managing the properties

that form the core of their business. LANDMAN can be linked to a host ofother geotechnical applications- accessing information can be

as simple as the click of a mouse.

Stay tuned for ATS’ new application service provider (ASP) delivery vehicle. The Internet continues to change the way you do business. ATS is commit-

ted to position our customers to take advantage of the e-Business evolution.

Applied Terravision provides a comprehensive suite of software solutionsthat include Geoscience Applications, Production Management, Land &

Facilities Management, Financial Accounting, and Oil and Gas Marketing.

Editorial HighlightsChris Bartole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

A Time for Rational ThinkingBrian Ogden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Board BriefsElizabeth Burke-Gaffney, P.Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Since it BeganSuzanne Stahl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Negotiator HistoryDelona Butcher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Get SmartCAPL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Message from the ExecutiveSuzanne Stahl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

March Meeting AnnouncementCAPL Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

P.L.U.S. 2001/2002 UpdateSandy Sandhar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

CAPL Seeks NominationsCAPL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Echoes of YesteryearAubrey Kerr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

The Social NetworkCAPL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Roster UpdatesCAPL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Land Without BordersJohn Ediger, Jeremy Newton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

CAPL Calendar of EventsCAPL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

february 2002

The NegotiatorMONTHLY NEWS MAGAZINE OF THE

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF PETROLEUM LANDMEN

Senior Editorial BoardR.K. [Bob] Howard, P.Land – Editor-in-Chief

[ph] 303-8642 [fx] 233-7463

Chris Bartole – Co-ordinating Editor[ph] 237-1191 [fx] 237-1544

Delona Butcher – Feature Content Editor[ph] 234–5393 [fx] 234-5947Jan Peters – Advertising Editor[ph] 290-2108 [fx] 290-2610

Lori Van Immerzeel – Social Content Editor[ph] 777-2613 [fx] 777-2609

Jeremy Wallis – Regular Content Editor[ph] 290-3283 [fx] 290-2553

Rob Motherwell – Editor Emeritus[ph] 249-7334

Editorial StaffLinda Bernier [ph] 266-8200 [fx] 290-8200Harry Ediger [ph] 264-3959 [fx] 265-2227

Darryl Erickson [ph] 265-2230 [fx] 265-2227Calynda Gabel [ph] 261-2377 [fx] 269-8355

Ryan Heath [ph] 218-8685 [fx] 269-5858Nathan MacBey [ph] 261-2382 [fx] 269-6089

Mike Miles [ph] 231-0241 [fx] 231-0310Brad Purdy [ph] 218-6837 [fx] 266-6988

Robin Thorsen [ph] 509-8182 [fx] 509-6565Esther Watt [ph] 298-2813 [fx] 290-8147

Barbara Wylegly [ph] 509-8281 [fx] 237-8213

PhotographersDalton Dalik [ph] 230-2105 [fx] 264-0147Dave Leslie [ph] 237-5570 [fx] 237-5568Dave Laurie [ph] 229-1500 [fx] 245-0074

Design and Production PrintingRachel Hershfield McAra Printing

SubmissionsSubmissions to The Negotiator should be sent in print-ready formto one of our Editorial Board. For a copy of our submission guide-

lines, 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 Jan Peters [290-2108].

No endorsement or sponsorship by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Landmen is suggested or implied.

CAPL OnlineThe website for the CAPL is: www.landman.ca

CAPL OfficeSuite 350, 500 – 5 Avenue S.W.

Calgary, Alberta T2P 3L5[ph] 403-237-6635 [fax] 403-263-1620

Denise Grieve, Office [email protected]

Karin Steers, Office [email protected]

This Month’s Features

Here Comes da JudgeHarry Ediger

Digital LicenceTransfer ApplicationsPaul Negenman

Management Night/Lloyd Axworthy

Rights of First RefusalForbes Newman

the

egotiatorN

2

7

14

26

N Pa g e 2feb 2002

A number of excellent papers have been written in the past

several years on rights of first refusal (“ROFR”) in the context of

oil and gas transactions. My intention in this paper is not to dupli-

cate those efforts, but to discuss three specific ROFR issues,

those being (1) the allocation of values to ROFR properties in the

context of large asset dispositions, (2) the implications of the new

Limitations Act (Alberta), and (3) the accountability of a

purchaser for production revenues and associated capital costs

where the property acquired is subject to an outstanding ROFR.

N Pa g e 3feb 2002

THE ALLOCATION DILEMMAFrom a practical standpoint, one of the most common problems that vendorsand purchasers of oil and gas properties confront when dealing with ROFRsis what is frequently referred to as the “allocation dilemma.” The allocationdilemma arises when one property in a large sale transaction is subject to aROFR and the vendor and the purchaser are required to allocate a portion ofthe aggregate purchase price to the property which is subject to the ROFR.

Human nature being what it is, purchasers are inclined to allocate as muchvalue as they possibly can to the ROFR property with the hope that theholder of the ROFR will not exercise the ROFR or, if exercised, thepurchaser’s remaining cost on the balance of the properties will be dispro-portionately reduced.

Most lawyers and participants in the oil patch will be familiar with this issue.There may be many reasons why a particular property in the context of a largeracquisition will have a higher value to a prospective purchaser than it wouldotherwise have in an isolated sale, and purchasers and vendors are certainlyentitled to value the ROFR property in the context of the particular deal theyhave negotiated with respect to the larger transaction.

Ultimately, however, the purchase price can only be allocated once, that is tosay if a large portion of the purchase price is allocated to the ROFR property,then only the balance of the purchase price can be allocated among theremaining assets. This can lead to interesting allocations where, because ofthe higher value allocated to the ROFR property, other seemingly very valuableand productive assets are accorded values that seem unrealistically low. Atthe end of the day, the allocations must add up to 100% of the purchase price.

The difficulty in making appropriate allocations can, on occasion, lead tochallenges of the ROFR value. An illustration of this is the case of ChaseManhattan Bank of Canada v. Sunoma Energy Corp. (“Chase”).1

The facts of the Chase case are as follows. Best Pacific Resources Ltd. (“BestPacific”) asserted that it had a ROFR over certain assets which were sold byPriceWaterhouseCoopers (“PWC”), the receiver of Sunoma Energy Corp.(“Sunoma”), to Eravista Energy Corp. (“Eravista”).

Sunoma and Best Pacific were the current parties to a farmout agreementdated August, 1978. In April 2000, Sunoma was placed into receivership withPWC as receiver. PWC offered all of Sunoma’s assets for sale. Eravista offeredto purchase one of the parcels for a total of $4.35 million, part of whichrelated to Sunoma’s assets in the Hillsdown area of Alberta which includedinterests which were subject to the farmout agreement (the “HillsdownAssets”). The subject farmout agreement incorporated the 1974 CAPLOperating Procedure (the “Operating Procedure”) under which the parties hadmade an election to have the ROFR provision under Clause 2401(B) apply.

On November 14, 2000, PWC sent a ROFR notice to Best Pacific with respectto the Hillsdown Assets. Best Pacific was given 20 days from the date of thenotice to exercise the ROFR. Eravista allocated $1.015 million plus interestand GST to the Hillsdown Assets. The transaction was scheduled to close onDecember 14, 2000. The notice with respect to the ROFR provided that “fail-ure to respond to this notice within the time provided shall be deemed anelection not to exercise your preferential right of purchase”.

On November 2, 2000, a letter was sent by Best Pacific’s solicitors to PWC whichclaimed that the allocation of the purchase price to the Hillsdown Assets wasgrossly inflated and that Eravista had “not complied with the disposition noticerequirements under clause 2401(b) of the 1974 CAPL Operating Procedure.” On December 4, 2000, the notice with respect to the ROFR expired and the Courtgranted an Order approving PWC’s sale to Eravista. On December 11, 2000, BestPacific filed a Notice of Motion in the Court requesting an injunction to preventPWC from disposing of the Hillsdown Assets.

In the Chase decision, the Court was asked to address the following issues: 1. Was Best Pacific entitled to a ROFR Notice at all? 2. If the answer to issue number 1 is yes, was the Notice valid? 3. If answer to issue 2 is yes, did Best Pacific take the required steps on or

before December 4, 2000 to exercise or retain its ROFR?

The relevant portions of clauses 2401 and 2402 of the 1974 CAPL OperatingProcedure are as follows:

[Clause] 2401: subject to Clause 2402, a party hereto shall not assign, sellor dispose of any interest in the joint lands … without first complying withthe provisions in paragraph (b) below …

[paragraph] (b) if a party wishes to assign, sell, or dispose of, or hasreceived an offer which it is willing to accept for the assignment, sale ordisposition of, all or part of its interest in all of part of the joint lands, …the selling party shall give notice thereof to the other parties … the offer-ees shall have the right for a period of 20 days after receipt of the noticefrom the selling party ,… to elect in writing to acquire the subject interestfrom the selling party on the terms and conditions contained in the notice… if all the offerees decline or fail to elect within the notice period toacquire the subject interest, the selling party shall be free for a period of60 days next following the expiry of the notice period, to assign, sell ordispose of the subject interest on the terms and conditions and to theoffering party … stipulated in its offer …

[Clause] 2402: Clause 2401 shall not apply in the following instances,namely:

[paragraph] (a) an assignment made by way of security for theassignor’s indebtedness.

N Pa g e 4feb 2002

[paragraph] (c) an assignment, sale or disposition made by the assignor ofall, or substantially all, whereof an undivided interest in all, or substantiallyall of its petroleum and natural gas rights in the province … where the jointlands are situated.

Issue 1On the first issue, the Court concluded that Best Pacific was entitled to aROFR notice. This portion of the decision was based largely on an analysis ofClause 2402(c) of the Operating Procedure, which is the exception thatapplies to an assignment or sale of “all or substantially all, or of an undividedinterest in all, or substantially all” of the relevant petroleum and natural gasrights in the province where the joint lands are situated. The Court wasrequired to consider whether the exception applied to the piecemeal sale ofall Sunoma’s Alberta assets by PWC.

There was no doubt that PWC was engaged to sell all of Sunoma’s assets inAlberta through a series of sales of which the sale to Eravista was one. The Court concluded, however, that Clause 2402(c) contemplated “a singlepurchase of most or all of a party’s assets in the province”. It did not contem-plate the exception applying to each of a number of specific sales which werepart of a larger aggregate disposition and “that the exception in Clause2402(c) does not apply to the piecemeal sale of substantially all of Sunoma’sAlberta assets to several purchasers”. In reaching this conclusion, the Courtlooked to the substance and not the form of the transaction.

Eravista also argued that Clause 2401(a) of the Operating Procedure mightalso act as an exception because the sale of the subject assets was “infurtherance of realisation upon an assignment made by way security ofSunoma’s indebtedness to the Chase Manhattan Bank of Canada”. The Courtconcluded that the exception in Clause 2402(a) only applied to the originalassignment to the bank by way of security and did not apply to any subse-quent sale by the bank in enforcing its security. While a bank may takesecurity without being subject to the exercise of the ROFR, any subsequentrealisation of the security would be subject to the ROFR.

The Court in reaching these conclusions was justifiably influenced by thedecision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Canadian Long IslandPetroleums case2 where the Court found that the intent of a ROFR clausegenerally is to protect joint owners of oil and gas properties from being forcedinto joint ownership with a third party against their will. This principle ofinterpretation has been applied frequently in decisions involving ROFRs.

Issue 2With respect to the second issue, the Court concluded that the notice that hadbeen issued by Eravista was valid. This, in my view, is the more controversialconclusion which the Court reached.

With respect to the allocation question the Court considered whether, in allo-cating values among various properties, the parties to the OperatingProcedure owed a duty of good faith. The Court concluded that, while theOperating Procedure did not explicitly provide for a duty of good faith, therewas nevertheless an implied duty of good faith in the performance of contrac-tual obligations.

In the Hawker Siddeley case,3 the Court stated at paragraph 72:

“It is well established that the grantor of a right of first refusal must actreasonably and in good faith in relation to that right, and must not actin a fashion designed to eviscerate the very right which has been given.”

In the Sunoma case, Eravista claimed that it had set the value of theHillsdown Assets based on an assessment that had been made by its ownengineers and geologists. The Court record indicated that Eravista did notwish to disclose the basis of its allocation of value of the particular propertyon the basis that this information was confidential and proprietary.

Best Pacific claimed that Eravista had allocated values to the HillsdownAssets “so as to ensure that the party enjoying the ROFR right will not or willnot be able to exercise its rights under the terms of the ROFR notice”. Justice LoVecchio noted, based on an article by Johnson and Stanford,4 that

“fair market value is not necessarily of a particular, or even, any rele-vance; a wide range of values could be attributed to a particularROFR-encumbered property by different parties based upon their differentassessment of the upside potential associated with undeveloped proper-ties, or even the development potential for mature properties. The ROFRholders’ perception of fair market value may not be even remotely close tothe purchaser’s notion of such value, i.e., what it would have beenprepared to pay for the property if it was sold on a stand-alone basis.Moreover, there may be a value enhancement resulting from the packagedeal that would not otherwise exist, such as access to processing facili-ties and the like.”

Justice LoVecchio further concluded that:“In any event the ROFR holder clearly has the evidentiary burden ofproving that the other parties have breached their duty of good faith inallocating value.”

Best Pacific provided two valuations, one in-house by its vice president ofland and the other by Sproule Associates (a reputable independent consult-ing firm) which concluded that the Hillsdown assets were worth between$95,000.00 and $250,000.00 with an additional $10,000.00 or so for “prob-ables”. This was a substantially lower value than the $1.015 million valueallocated by Eravista.

Justice LoVecchio observed that these different valuations, even with thepresumed weight of the Sproule opinion, did not in themselves prove badfaith. Best Pacific was not able to provide evidence of an independent valu-ation of any or all the other assets included in addition to the HillsdownAssets, which comprised the lands that were sold to Eravista. If such addi-tional evidence had been provided, the Court suggested that such evidencemight have supported Best Pacific’s contention that the value of theHillsdown assets had been grossly inflated. The Court concluded that it wouldneed to see more evidence that there had been a breach of the duty of goodfaith. That Best Pacific would have assigned different values to the Hillsdownassets was not enough. Best Pacific had not met the evidentiary hurdle.

N Pa g e 5feb 2002

ReflectionsI wish to share some personal reflections on this decision. One can only spec-ulate as to why Eravista was not required to show the valuations which it hadplaced on each of the other assets that were part of the sale and whether, ifEravista had been required to disclose that information, the result would havebeen different. This latter case, of course, would have depended on whethersuch evidence would have disclosed that the value of the balance of the prop-erties was disproportionately low given the engineering or productioninformation available.

Clearly if a successful challenge is mounted against the valuation of a ROFR,it would be essential to know how the parties to the sale transaction valuedthe balance of the assets, and it will also probably be necessary to have somegeological information about the other properties to make some relativecomparison between the values attached to the ROFR property and the valuesattached to the balance of the assets which are subject to the sale. As noinformation of this kind was placed before the Court in the Chase case, theCourt was not able to make any comparison.

This decision suggests that Best Pacific should have hired independent engi-neering consultants to evaluate all of the assets that were subject to theEravista sale. I am advised that Best Pacific did not have interests in any ofthe other assets that were being sold, and as a result it presumably would nothave had ready access to information that would have allowed it to obtainsuch an engineering evaluation, even assuming that it was prepared to incurthe related cost. Production information on some of the key producing proper-ties might have been available from public sources such as the AEUB andproduction information on other assets presumably could have been obtainedfrom discoveries. While Eravista may have resisted producing such informa-tion, the decision of Justice LoVecchio indicates that it was most relevant tothe central issue.

One can only speculate as to whether the result would have been differentif Best Pacific had brought in several independent evaluations of theHillsdown Assets alone, all of which established that its value, on anyreasonable basis, was much less than the ROFR value allocated to it. While the approach would have bolstered Best Pacific’s position, thereasoning of the Court suggests that this alone may not have been enough.

Justice LoVecchio also concludes that, if he had accepted Best Pacific’s posi-tion that the value of the Hillsdown Assets was grossly inflated, this would haveimpacted on values allocated to other properties in the package sale which“could impact on another party’s Right of First Refusal.” This would have putthe Court or an arbitrator “in the awkward position of having to shift values toother interests within the parcel.”

This comment is also troubling. The effect on other valuations presumably isnot relevant. If the Hillsdown Assets were overvalued, surely PWC shouldhave been required to issue new notices to all parties reflecting correctvalues. The “awkwardness” of the situation presumably should not haveinfluenced the result.

I am advised that the Chase decision is under appeal. However, pending theoutcome on appeal, anyone intending to challenge a ROFR notice based onallocation of ROFR values will need to produce very compelling independentevidence that the ROFR value has been inflated.

Issue 3The third issue which the Court was asked to address was whether or not BestPacific had taken the required steps to exercise or maintain its ROFR beforeDecember 4, 2000. The Court concluded that, once a proper ROFR notice isgiven, the ROFR holder must comply strictly with the terms and conditions ofthe ROFR if it wishes to exercise its right. In this instance the ROFR holderwould lose its right if it declined the offer in the notice or failed to elect withinthe required 20 day period.

Best Pacific’s solicitors sent a letter to PWC within the notice period statingthat the notice was invalid. The Court concluded that such a letter was inad-equate to establish Best Pacific’s rights and that, at a minimum, Best Pacificshould have filed a Notice of Motion before the time had expired.

I am somewhat perplexed by this aspect of the decision in that, assuming thatBest Pacific had been successful in establishing that the Eravista had notexercised good faith in allocating value to the Hillsdown Assets, it is arguablefrom the Court’s reasoning that Best Pacific still would have been unsuccess-ful on the basis that it had not taken the appropriate steps to maintain itsROFR before the expiry date of December 4, 2000. A ROFR holder, in additionto challenging the ROFR notice based on the allocation, would be required tofile the Notice of Motion (or in most cases a Statement of Claim) challengingthe ROFR notice before the expiry of the required time period.

I would have thought that, if the ROFR notice was invalid on the basis thatEravista had not exercised good faith in allocating values to the HillsdownAssets, the issue of whether or not Best Pacific had taken appropriate stepsbefore December 4, 2000 would have been irrelevant as the notice would havebeen invalid in any event. However, the Court suggests that, not only must theROFR notice be successfully challenged as was done in this case, but formalsteps must also be taken to file a Notice of Motion or Statement of Claim onor before the expiry of the notice period.

The Chase case is worthy of serious consideration in any situation wherevalues must be allocated between ROFR and non-ROFR properties in a largeasset sale.

Notes1. 2001 A.J. No. 245 (Q.B.).2. Canadian Long Island Petroleums Ltd. et al. v. Irving Industries (Irving

Wire Products Division) et al. (1974), 50 D.L.R. (3d) 265 (S.C.C.) 275.3. GATX Corp. the Hawker Siddeley Canada Inc., [1996] O.J. No. 1462.

27 B.L.R. (2d) 251.4. C. Johnson and D. Stanford, “Rights of First Refusal in Oil and Gas

Transactions: A Progressive Analysis” (1999) 37 Alta. L. REV. (2) 316 atparagraph 27.

N

April 25 & 26, 2002Telus Convention Centre Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Canadian Association of Petroleum LandmenSuite 350, 500 – 5 Avenue S.W.Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 3L5www.landman.ca/pex

Don’t miss the most exciting industry event of the year.

N Pa g e 7feb 2002

DA JUDGE’S LAST ARTICLE ABOUT FORCED POOL-

INGS GOT MORE OF A REACTION THAN USUAL

with several calls from landmen who had situa-

tions which they had run into in their careers.

One of the questions, which stumped Da Judge,

was if receiving well information was consid-

ered part of the deal when you paid your

share of drilling and completion costs

under an EUB compulsory pool-

ing order. Da Judge’s

immediate reaction was

“of course you get the

well information”. As it

turns out that’s not the

case, as the EUB does

not consider this as

part of their jurisdic-

tion in dealing with a

forced pooling situa-

tion. The situation

which led to the ques-

tion was Co. A was not in

agreement with the Operator’s location and initially would not partici-

pate in the pooling of their mineral rights with the Operator’s. During

the forced pooling process, Co. A agreed not to challenge the pooling of

their mineral rights and their pooled interest became subject to the EUB

compulsory pooling order. When the time came to elect to participate

they did. They started receiving their share of production but the

Operator of the well would not provide them with the logs etc. as they

claimed the compulsory pooling order did not require it. When they

contacted the Board they were told that the EUB was responsible only

for the production and spacing issues and not the well information.

Since the CAPL Operating Procedures give the participants in a well the

right to receive well information you can see why logically one would

expect well information since they paid for the well. By the Operator

denying Co. A the well information, this sounds like a sure fire way to

sour relations between companies (unless they are already soured and

that’s why this scenario occurred). I’m sure the Operator was not happy

with Co. A who wouldn’t pay their way up front. Unless there is some

type of confidentiality issue I can see no reason for this type of action

except spite or past sour relations. Makes you want to think twice about

putting yourself in a forced pooling situation if

the well dope is important. Another interesting

scenario would be if the Operator now wanted to

do more work on one of the pooled formations

in the well and can’t put the partner under an

Independent Operations Notice. Does the

pooling order handle this?

Under the category of “good things to

know”, did you know that once the

Operator of your well is granted protec-

tion under a CCAA order, unless

you are already taking your

production in kind before

the Operator goes under

CCAA protection, the

CCAA order may

terminate your

right under the

CAPL Operating

Procedure to start

taking your production in

kind. Given the lower product price environment we are going into and

the financial stress some companies may be facing, you may want to get

your marketing guys to consider taking your production in kind if you

are a little unsure of your Operator.

A couple of things that we in the oil patch seem to do over and over

again is wait until the last minute before we react to a situation whether

it be land sale bids, responding to Independent Operations Notices or

expiry situations, especially where freehold leases are concerned.

Here are some words of advice (or warning) from John Bishop Ballem in

his book entitled The Oil and Gas Lease in Canada, “The lessee who

delays drilling until the primary term has nearly expired is flirting with

disaster. The final year of the primary term is more fraught with hazard

than the others. … the primary term of the lease can be extended only

by something that amounts to production”. As a case in point, early in

my career back in 1981 I was a very junior landman at Joffre Oils Ltd.

when the Court ruled on a situation which Joffre had encountered in

1978. Joffre was the Operator of the 11-3-37-13W4M well being drilled

on a freehold natural gas lease, which well commenced drilling (spud

August 20, 1978) a week before the end of the primary term of the lease

Here Comes da Judgeby Harry Ediger

continued p. 8

N Pa g e 8feb 2002

P E T R O L E U M J O I N T V E N T U R E A S S O C I A T I O N I S P L E A S E D T O P R E S E N T A

Spring Reception & Dinner MeetingFeaturing Noted Speaker and Commentator, Rex Murphy

Entertainment byBlues MusicianDonald Ray Johnson

R e g i s t e r o n l i n e a t w w w. p j v a . c a o r p h o n e t h e P J VA o f f i c e a t ( 4 0 3 ) 2 4 4 - 4 4 8 7 .

Cocktail Reception: 5:30 pm – 6:30 pmDinner: 6:30 pm – 7:30 pmGuest Speaker: 7:30 pm – 8:30 pm

Rex Murphy

Ticket prices for this special event are $75.00 per person including GST.

Wednesday, March 20, 2002Palomino Room, Round-Up Centre1410 Olympic Way SEStampede Park – Calgary, Alberta

(August 27, 1978). The well drilled over the expiry date and did not

encounter production until September 1, 1978) or 6 days after the

expiry date. As luck would have it, the Lessor’s name was Ballem and

she was the wife of John Bishop Ballem who is considered an author-

ity on oil and gas law and the Freehold lease. Needless to say this

became the case of Republic Resources Limited and Joffre Oils Ltd.

v Ballem. The wording that Joffre was hanging its hat on to continue

the lease beyond the expiry date was “if at any time after the expira-

tion of the primary term production of the leased substances has ceased

and the Lessee shall have commenced further drilling, working or rework-

ing operations on the said lands within 90 days after such cessation then

this Lease shall remain in force so long as such operations are continu-

ously prosecuted … and so long thereafter as leased substances are

produced from the said lands”.

The Court ruled that lease expired on the expiry date as there was no

production during the primary term. The Court’s opinion was that the

above wording referred to a situation where a lease had already been

continued beyond the primary term by virtue of production. The clause

was designed to prevent a lease already continued beyond the primary

term to automatically expire once production stopped and give the

lessee a chance to conduct further operations. Looking at the ruling

you can see where the Court came up with their decision as this situa-

tion is similar to Canada-Cities Service Petroleum Corp. v. Kininmonth

which was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1964 and

which ended up with Canada-Cities lease terminating because at the

end of the primary term they were drilling over the expiry date and did

not encounter production until after the expiry date. The wording of the

Kininmonth lease was similar to the Ballem lease with respect to the

clause extending the primary term. Joffre’s legal council argued some

of the minor wording changes in the lease allowed for the extension

beyond the primary term but the Court did not agree. The interesting

thing was that the Ballem lease provided Joffre with an option for 30

days after the expiry date to renew the lease for another ten year period

commencing at the end of the primary term by paying a lease bonus.

After the 30 day option period had elapsed and once Joffre realized the

lease was being challenged by the Lessor they asked the Court to grant

them the right to exercise the option but the Court rejected same as

they were beyond the 30 day period.

Now not only was Joffre out of a freehold lease which had been proved

productive but now the question of “Who owns the well?” came into

play. Joffre asked the Court that since the lease was held to have termi-

nated that it be allowed to recover its cost of drilling and completing

the well out of future production. Their claim for compensation was

based on “unjust enrichment”. This issue had previously been dealt with

by the Courts back in 1912 in Maple City Oil (“MPO”) v. Charlton where

MPO drilled a well on a lease which it held as a top lease over an exist-

ing lease. The existing lease was held to be valid and the Court ruled

that compensation was due to MPO only if the lessee of the prior lease

took “the benefit of the work done and improvements made by the

defendant company on the lands, it must be on terms of compensating

that company therefore”. The Court denied Joffre’s claim for compensa-

tion on the basis that the Lessor had not requested the drilling

activities on their land nor had any knowledge of the drilling activity.

As the well was shut in due to a lack of a market, Joffre had not proved

that the Lessor had gained any real benefit. I’m not one to keep score

but it looks like Joffre was 0 for 3 on this one.

I’d like to thank Mike Thackray of Thackray Burgess for assisting me by

providing me with some of the research material. N

N Pa g e 9feb 2002

Visit us at www.pioneerland.ca

COMPLETE LAND, ENVIRONMENTAL AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE SERVICES

FOR THE ENERGY INDUSTRY.

CALGARY T (403) 229-3969, F (403) 244-1202E [email protected]

EDMONTON T (780) 462-4486, F (780) 468-4325E [email protected]

GRANDE PRAIRIE T (780) 532-7707, F (780) 532-7711E [email protected]

FORT ST. JOHN T (250) 785-0669, F (250) 785-0644TOLL FREE 1-800-439-7990E [email protected]

REGINA T (306) 584-3044, F (306) 584-3066TOLL FREE 1-877-584-7707E [email protected]

LLOYDMINSTER T (780) 871-0945, F (780) 871-0946E [email protected]

THEY SPENT LONG DAYS

OPENING FRONTIERS,

BLAZING TRAILS,

STAKING CLAIMS,

AND SETTLING

THE LAND.

THE REALLY

TOUGH STUFF,

THEY LEFT TO US.

Although the December rush is well behind us and

year-end has come and gone, February proves to be a

very busy month for the Canadian landman.

Whether it’s registering for The Prospect Exchange,

submitting your nominations for the upcoming elec-

tion or taking in one of the many upcoming social

events, February is full of activity. Not only does this issue have all the infor-

mation you need to stay current on industry and Association happenings, we

also have a great lineup of feature content that will help you do your job!

Forbes Newman, partner at Gowling Lafleur Henderson, provides us with

the first article in his series on rights of first refusal. Through reference to

a recent court decision, issues are identified that can result from the “allo-

cation dilemma” – a situation arising when one property in a large asset

transaction is subject to a right of first refusal and a portion of the total

purchase price must be allocated to that property.

Harry Ediger affords us an answer to a question raised in response to da

Judge’s December issue article on Forced Poolings and once again provides

us with a thorough insight into interesting and misunderstood situations.

Effective January 1, 2002, the EUB changed its requirement for the submission

of licence transfer applications. What was formerly submitted by paper must

now be electronic. Paul Negenman, on behalf of Thackray Burgess, answers all

of your questions surrounding this recent change and gives a concise step-by-

step outline for taking your licence transfer applications digital.

It’s RRSP season. Do you know where your financial planner is? Brian Ogden

of Ogden Financial Planners Ltd. offers words of advice and helpful reminders

that you may find useful in making upcoming investment decisions. The arti-

cle’s focus is on rational investing and portfolio diversification – timely

suggestions in light of the volatility in late 2001 and the recent collapse of

a prominent company in the energy industry.

For those of us looking forward to Management Night, be sure to check out

the biography on Lloyd Axworthy. We also have an update from P.L.U.S. as

they recap what’s happened and where they’re going as they start off

another semester at the University of Calgary. Interested in history?

This month’s issue includes the second article in the Echoes of Yesteryear

series by Aubrey Kerr as well as The Negotiator History column. And as per

usual, count on The Negotiator to bring you all of the information we have

come to depend on including the Calendar of Events and Get Smart sections.

Once again, we encourage and value article contributions and your feed-

back on our Association’s publication. Happy reading!

Chris Bartole

Co-ordinating Editor

Editorial Highlights

N

Staying the course after investors have been reeling from the horri-

ble events of September 11 and the volatility of stock markets around

the world takes on a new meaning. Most investors feel bruised and

battered by their financial situation as a result of events they could

not control. To make things worse, roughly half of Canadian investors

have been in the markets for less than five years and have not expe-

rienced a significant downturn. How does one think rationally in this

environment and what are the indicators that markets will come back

in favour?

The importance of a diversified portfolio during these times has

proven to be very significant when you consider investors who

focused on just one company pension plan or one or two stock picks

that backfired, not to mention any one company be it a technology,

communications or oil & gas stock. All of the former being may be

excellent opportunities when considered in an overall investment

portfolio. When any one sector becomes the focus of your investment

strategy you must be prepared for more volatility and higher risk. The

alternative is to have a diversified portfolio of stock and/or mutual

funds and to be prepared to take an active role in taking stock of

what you have. Work with your planner on more than one occasion a

per year.

A Time for Rational Thinking

The following are some keys to rational thinking:

• Understanding market cycles. Realize that markets go up and down.

As such, investors should not be surprised, become overconfident or

panic in light of good or bad news.

• Use reason not emotion when investing. Investors should not buy

stocks without understanding what they are buying. This prevents

emotion based selling upon a sudden downturn.

• When markets go south, don’t bail out. Consider making new invest-

ments, after doing a little more homework. Consult with your planner.

He or she did not go south.

• Make market fluctuations work for you. In a lot of cases dollar cost

averaging removes the emotional factor from investment decisions,

enabling investors to buy more fund units when prices are low and

vice versa.

Professional advice is key. Be prepared to work with your advisor.

Staying the course has its rewards, because nobody can successfully time

declines or recoveries, it is wise to simply stay invested in the market to

ensure that you capture the days when it makes its biggest advances – and

advance it will. “The more we look back, the further we may see ahead”,

Winston S. Churchill. Those who stayed the course from September 11 have

seen today in some funds a rebound of 20%. That’s why it is never too early

to prepare for better days. Ultimately investors will be ready for the

inevitable upturn, appropriately positioning their portfolios.

The cost of letting emotions drive investment decisions in bull or bear

Markets is higher than you may think. There is a significant gap in

returns between disciplined vs. emotionally driven portfolios. Financial

Research Corporation has determined that investors who chase perform-

ance (for whatever reason) are acting contrary to their own best

financial interests.

The RRSP season is upon us and will try our emotions again.

Remember that this is another opportunity to dollar cost average and

add to your existing portfolio. Be sure to check out how well diversified

your plan is and avoid being too heavily invested in one sector. A good

diversified plan will lower your risk and increase the reward.

Brian Ogden, Ogden Financial Planners Ltd.

Ph: (403) 228-0901, Fax: (403) 228-0926

www.ogdenfinancial.com

N

N Pa g e 1 2feb 2002

The key issues discussed and resolved at the CAPL Executive Meeting on January

8, 2002:

• Dave Horn submitted a Treasurer’s Report as at January 8, 2002 showing CAPL

investments totaling $619,995.97 Canadian and $25,860.80 U.S. with a cash

balance of $(7,711.72) Canadian and $171.99 U.S.

• Carolyn Murphy advised that the CAPL Conference Site Selection Committee

has been created. In this regard, C. Murphy moved, and the Board approved,

the Committee be given the following mandate:

• Research and select sites for future CAPL Conferences ensuring that Conference Sites are

booked a minimum of two years in advance;

• Bring Site Selections to CAPL Board for final approval;

• Negotiate Hotel Contracts;

• Present Hotel Contracts to CAPL Board for final approval;

• The Vice President of CAPL will be responsible for this Committee and its interaction with the

CAPL Board;

• Long-term contracts with a specific hotel chain is not the direction being proposed, but if bene-

ficial to the Association may be proposed and brought to the CAPL Board for their approval.

• The CAPL Conference Site Selection Committee is currently comprised of:

• Tom Berg, P.Land • Sandy Drinnan, P.Land • Chris Soby

• R.K. Howard, P.Land • Bob Grey, P.Land

• R.K. Howard moved, and the Board approved, Life Members of the CAPL with a P.Land

(Professional Landman) will not be required to re-certify.

• Elizabeth Burke-Gaffney provided the following schedule of 2002 Social Events:

• February 7, 2002 Gin Tourney • April 13, 2002 Spring Ball

• February 28, 2002 Curling • August 1, 2002 Golf Tourney

• March 9, 2002 Squash • September 7, 2002 Trap Shoot

• March 8, 9 & 10, 2002 Ski Trip • December 7, 2002 Skating

• Guy Anderson advised the Professionalism Committee is currently looking at professional legislation

under Professions and Occupations with Alberta Human Resources. Professions and Occupations

works with associations to ensure they provide quality professional services and through professional

legislation, regulatory bodies are given the authority to ensure that their members:

• Meet educational and training requirements;

• Provide safe, ethical and competent services; and

• Follow prescribed codes of conduct.

• Suzanne Stahl advised that the Public Relations Committee will officially launch the CAPL

Commemorative Book Since It Began at the January 23, 2002 General Meeting. In addition,

Suzanne provided an update on the CAPL Calendar, which has just been circulated to the member-

ship. Some new ideas may be required for next year’s calendar simply because of the challenges

this year’s committee faced.

• Colin McKinnon raised the issue of the office cost allocation. The Board discussed some ideas at

length and approved a re-allocation for the 2002-03 budget year.

• Kevin Burke-Gaffney received comments of the first draft of the Constitution re-write and will submit

to the Board the second draft for review once again before it goes out to the membership for approval.

• Brad Goodfellow provided an update on the “FAM” committee’s involvement on the issue of pipeline

compensation. The January 28th meeting with the Standing Committee has been cancelled.

• Kevin Burke-Gaffney announced that the initial brochure for the Prospect Exchange will be circu-

lated to the membership shortly.

Elizabeth Burke-Gaffney, P.Land

Secretary/Director, Social

Board Briefs2001–2002

CAPL Executive

President

C.A. (Colin) McKinnon, P.Land[ph] 699-7305 [fax] 234-6671

Vice-President

C.A. (Carolyn) Murphy, P.Land[ph] 517-8794 [fax] 517-8798

Secretary/Director, Social

M.E. (Elizabeth) Burke-Gaffney, P.Land[ph] 264-7377 [fax] 266-6669

Director, Business Development

N.K. (Neil) Cusworth, P.Land[ph] 265-0077 [fax] 233-9034

Director, Communications

R.K. (Bob) Howard, P.Land[ph] 303-8642 [fax] 233-7463

Director, Education

D.J. (Dave) Bernatchez[ph] 231-1242 [fax] 571-8118

Director, Field Management

B.D. (Brad) Goodfellow[ph] 265-2230 [fax] 265-2227

Director, Finance

D.B. (Dave) Horn[ph] 290-2113 [fax] 290-2440

Director, Member Services

L.P.J. (Lawrence) Fisher[ph] 232-7622 [fax] 232-7429

Director, Professionalism

G.R. (Guy) Anderson, P.Land[ph] 221-0838 [fax] 221-0875

Director, Public Relations

S. (Suzanne) Stahl[ph] 571-5262 [fax] 571-5266

Director, Technology

G.L. (Gjoa) Taylor, P.Land[ph] 699-7304 [fax] 234-6671

Past President

K.F.J. (Kevin) Burke-Gaffney, P.Land[ph] 298-4403 [fax] 298-8444

N

Negotiator HistoryNews, views and excerpts from previous February issues

1991Many CAPL members provide their services to companies on a contract

basis as either self-employed consultants or through a corporation.

In the eyes of Revenue Canada, the individual or corporation will be

considered to be providing services that are taxable for purposes of

the GST (employees’ services are not subject to GST). The consultant

may be required to register with Revenue Canada and charge the 7%

tax on all amounts invoiced to the company for services provided

after 1990.

(Consulting Services and the GST, Dean Woodward)

1994The last week in June will mark the time when delegates from all over

North America meet in Calgary to attend the first joint CAPL/AAPL

International Conference. The Conference will provide delegates with a

full four day program designed for individuals to gain insight into

issues affecting our industry and profession.

(The 1994 International Conference, Tim R.J. Cumming)

1998The 1997 CAPL Overriding Royalty Procedure has recently been

endorsed by the CAPL Board. Early in the process of creating the 1997

Farmout & Royalty Procedure, it was recognized that there was demand

for a “stand-alone” royalty procedure for use in situations other than

new farmouts.

(Overriding Royalty Procedure Endorsed,

CAPL Farmout & Royalty Procedure Committee)

Delona Butcher

N

The Canadian Asso-

ciation of Petroleum

Landmen, through

fifty-three years of

growth and evolu-

tion within the

Canadian oil and

gas industry, has

made significant

contributions to

the industry,

community and

educ a t iona l

ins t i tut ions

which have been captualized in a

commemorative history book, entitled Since It Began.

This “coffee-table” style book is a professional and eye-appealing

work comprised of approximately 60 pages highlighting stories,

anecdotes, pictures, graphics and key accomplishments of the

CAPL throughout its history, commencing in 1948 with the forma-

tion of the first association, the Alberta Landman’s Association,

to present.

The book was written and produced by Shauna Kelly, a local free-

lance writer, with roots in the oil and gas industry herself, in

conjunction with thinkinc., a local graphic communications

firm, along with the efforts and contributions of many volun-

teers of CAPL.

A copy of Since It Began is available for all CAPL members, and may

be picked up at the CAPL office. Additional copies (while quantities

last) will be available to purchase through the CAPL office for

$25.00, plus GST.

Since it Began

N


The EUB has circulated ID 2001-6 regarding the DDS’s application to theelectronic submission of licence transfer applications:

The option to submit licence transfer applications electronically will beavailable November 13, 2001 … Paper copies of licence transfer applica-tions received after December 31, 2001, will be returned unprocessed tothe licensee.

We recommend that industry immediately switch to the electronic submis-sion format. We also recommend that a diligent search be undertaken forany executed but unregistered Guide 69 applications, so that all existingpaper transfers are submitted before year end.

Accessing the DDS systemTo access the new forms:

• go to the EUB website (www.eub.gov.ab.ca);• select DDS;• select Licence Transfer System (LTS) or Licence Notification System

(LNS); and• enter your DDS Login ID and Password (Password).

How the LTS WorksThe LTS replaces the existing Guide 69 application and deals with the trans-fer of licensed interests in wells, facilities and pipelines. By entering yourPassword you have access to all licences linked to that Password holder (andno other licences) directly from the EUB database.

Passwords are issued by licensee. One corporate entity with several operat-ing subsidiaries may have several Passwords (one for each entity holding alicence). You must log on separately for each licensee and create a separateLicence Transfer Application (Application) for each such entity.

To prepare an Application:• the Application must be initially prepared by Vendor (Transferor) as the

Password selects only those wells, pipelines and facilities registered inthe name of the Password holder. Wells and facilities are queried andselected from the EUB database (no more manual inputting of welllicence numbers, locations and names);

• the completed Application is “submitted” by selecting the submitbutton on the submission screen. Notification of the submission is thene-mailed to Purchaser (Transferee) for verification. Purchaser is advisedthat a submitted application exists on the DDS for their review;

• the submitted Application is a PDF read-only document. Purchaser cannot make corrections or amendment to the Application.Therefore, any corrections must by made by Vendor and theApplication resubmitted; and

• once finalized by Vendor and Purchaser, Purchaser selects submit onthe completed Application and the EUB is notified that an accepted

Application is on the DDS. The EUB then reviews and approvals theApplication. Signatures are no longer required on the Application.

How the LNS worksThe LNS is used for submitting well name changes, facility abandonmentnotices and facility licence linking to the EUB. As no transfer is occurring, thesubmission process is directly to the EUB. Again, the system uses data directlyfrom the EUB database and will involve less manual typing and errors.

Changes to EUB LTS transfer criteriaThe EUB has advised that a further Interim Directive will be issued shortlyto deal with changes in submission parameters. We will advise on thismatter when the ID is circulated. Our preliminary review of the LTS indi-cates the following:

• well transfers are now linked to reclamation certificate issuance status.Under Guide 69 abandoned wellbore licences could not be transferred.It now appears that the standard to deny licence transfer will be recla-mation status. Accordingly, abandoned but not reclaimed well licencescan be transferred; and

• abandoned pipeline legs can be transferred. Under Guide 69 aban-doned legs could not be transferred. Also, township plats for partialpipeline transfers will no longer be required.

What Hasn’t ChangedThe LTS and LNS replace the vast majority of paper application to the EUB,but not all. For example, the current Guide 65 Transfer of Approval (injec-tion and disposal scheme approvals) will still be submitted by paper copy.We expect over time that the remaining EUB applications will be added tothe DDS.

Get Your DDS Login ID and PasswordMost companies should have existing Passwords as the DDS has been upand running for engineering reporting for some time. Land departmentsmust obtain the Password and become familiar with the LTS and LNS. If youuse agents for preparation of this information, you must inform the EUB ofthis agent and a separate password will be attached to your Login ID foryour agent to use.

Thackray Burgess monitors current regulatory, statutory and judicialdevelopments in the energy sector. Any such developments that could beof interest to oil and gas counsel or industry participants are widely circu-lated electronically and generally on a weekly basis as an “Alert andUpdate” at no cost to the recipients. If you would like to be added to ouremail Thackray Burgess Alert and Update distribution list and/or receivecopies of the indexed prior year compilations (1999 and 2000), simplyrequest by email to [email protected].

by Paul Negenman

Digital LicenceTransfer ApplicationsDigital LicenceTransfer Applications

N


The CAPL Education Committee is pleased to present the following courses:

Oil Sands Tenure Regulations

February 7, 2002

8:30a.m. – 12:00p.m.

The course will focus on gaining an understanding of the current oil

sands regulations and will assist participants in understanding the tran-

sition from prior regulations to the current regulations.

Concurrent Gas Bitumen Production

February 7, 2002

1:30p.m. – 4:30p.m.

A discussion of some of the background leading to the 1997 EUB gas

bitumen hearings, including the 1983 splitting of gas rights from bitu-

men rights. This course is designed to gain an understanding of current

EUB concurrent production Information Directives and Regulations,

and an understanding of the context within which they were devel-

oped. It will also include a review of the impact of technology changes,

the development of EUB decisions, and possibly some discussion of

legal challenges.

Understanding Natural Gas Markets and Gas Marketing

February 12, 2002

8:30a.m. – 4:30p.m.

This seminar will focus on the basic fundamentals of natural gas market-

ing. It will cover a brief discussion of the history of gas marketing,

industry terminology, North American supply and demand, new areas of

exploration, the demand growth forecasts driven by new power genera-

tion, transportation of natural gas, how to evaluate new pipelines and

pipeline space, storage, and the basics of risk management.

Financial Oil & Gas Asset Evaluation

February 13 & 14, 2002

8:30a.m. – 4:30p.m.

Through using theory and practical examples topics covered will include:

uses and objectives of Oil & Gas Asset Evaluation and relation to risk,

economic criteria and basic concepts of time value of money including

NPV, Payout, ROI, IRR and weighted average cost capital, evaluation of

individual Oil & Gas Assets and the reserves report, estimation of Oil &

Gas reserve volumes, capital cost estimation, operating and transporta-

tion costs, commodity pricing, royalties and working interests,

probabilities and risk analysis, corporate evaluations and modeling.

AEUB Guide 56/60

February 20 & 21, 2002

8:30a.m. - 4:30p.m.

Public consultation under G56/60: Do you understand what's required when

you make an application to the AEUB for a well license or pipeline permit?

The Board believes that appropriate notification and public consultation

must be conducted well in advance of the submission of an application to

the Board. It must be thorough and the public must have sufficient infor-

mation to participate meaningfully. The proponents information must be

extensive, consistent, factual and disclosed in a timely way.

Economic Considerations for Land Deals

February 27 & 28, 2002

8:30a.m. – 4:30p.m.

This course will cover the basics of measuring project value from an

economic perspective. The advantages and disadvantages of alternate

methods of value measurement will be discussed, with an emphasis on

discounted cash flow analysis and its related profitability criteria.

Techniques for incorporating risk into evaluations will be presented.

Practical examples and applications of the materials covered in the semi-

nar will be provided.

Get Smart

continued p. 16


Most of us enjoy a trip down memory lane every

once in a while. To flip through the pages of old

photo albums or yearbooks, listen to some clas-

sic favourite tunes, reminisce with friends that

we haven’t talked to for a while – all bring out

nostalgic and happy emotions.

That’s the way I felt the first time (and every

time since) I read Since It Began, the recently completed Commemorative

CAPL History Book. Since then I’ve read it a few more times, and have

enjoyed flipping through the pages with some of my buddies, chuckling

at some of the quotes, laughing out loud at some of the stories (check

out the “fur coat” story as related by Norm Bartley), smiling at the

pictures, and reminiscing about some of our own personal anecdotes

which either didn’t make it to the final draft or would have been censored

anyways!; and finally, feeling a swell of pride at the growth and accom-

plishments of our organization over the past 50-some years as Since It

Began so aptly depicts. Even though I am not personally named, the book

is as much about me, my peers, my co-workers, my friends, and my career

as if I was named on every page.

Since It Began is the culmination, fruition and passion of several of our

members who initiated the project back in 1998 to commemorate the

CAPL’s 50th anniversary. Although it’s taken almost four years from

conception to press, I’m sure you’ll agree that it was worth the wait.

In fact, several more milestones have been achieved that wouldn’t have

made it into the book had we not taken so long to make it happen!

If you haven’t had a chance to pick up your copy of the book (members

may pick up their copy at the CAPL office), let me give you a little

insight on what’s in store for you. Since It Began is a delightful

capsulization of the evolution of our profession “since it began” in 1948

to the present. A skillful cross-section of stories, articles, anecdotes,

pictures and graphics, wrapped around an historical timeline of world

events, Canadian events, industry events and trends of the day, make for

a truly fun and enjoyable read, whether you want to sit and read it from

cover to cover, or use it as a coffee table book to flip through from time

to time like you would an old photo album.

Having had the opportunity to be involved with the re-initiation of this

project in 2001, I have gained a renewed appreciation of the contribu-

tion of our forefathers and trailblazers that have shaped our history.

The book characteristically generates a strong sense of history and

imparts a powerful identity to the land profession for the enjoyment of

young and old, in an easy and natural read.

Message fromthe Executive

Northern Issues

March 5, 2002 – NEW!!

8:30a.m. – 4:30p.m.

This seminar is intended for any person presently exploring for or

intending to explore for, and develop oil and gas properties north of

60. Topics covered include Introduction to the North, Development

of the Current Oil and Gas Regime, The Current Regulatory Regime,

Environmental Planning and Compliance, Aboriginal and Community

Issues, Northern Joint Operating Agreements.

Freehold Mineral Lease

March 7, 2002

8:30a.m. – 4:30p.m.

This course will include a discussion on the Torrens System in

Alberta, the concept of indefeasibility and its qualifications, the

Assurance Fund, historical searches, registration and caveats.

An overview of the nature and ownership of oil and gas in place will

be covered. The principle features of the lease and its standard

clauses, the formalities of completion and execution of the lease, the

termination of the lease, and top leasing are also discussed.

An Interpretative Approach To Dealing With ROFR Issues

March 12, 2002

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

This seminar is intended for more senior level landmen who are

responsible for analyzing various situations in which ROFR issues

may arise and recommending or implementing appropriate corporate

responses thereto. It will be presented in two parts. The morning will

be devoted to a presentation of legal principals which may be rele-

vant to ROFR situations and a suggested interpretative methodology

for analyzing and responding to unusual ROFR scenarios. In the after-

noon, a senior landman will join the lawyers in a round table

discussion with the seminar participants of ROFR issues and specific

fact scenarios gathered by the presenters and submitted to the panel

by the course participants. Prospective course participants are

encouraged to submit their favourite challenging ROFR problem to

Harry Ediger at Storm Energy Inc. prior to or at the seminar for

consideration and discussion in the afternoon round table.

For further information or to register, please contact the CAPL by phone (237-6635) or email ([email protected]), or complete the registrationform provided on the blue insert and fax it to 263-1620. Please visit theCAPL website at www.landman.ca for full course descriptions.

N

Huge kudos to Shauna Kelly – our writer and project manager for Since It

Began. Her enthusiasm, persistence, energy and objectivity has given the

book an original and very warm flavour. Although not a landman herself,

Shauna is no stranger to landmen or the oil industry. Shauna’s father, Fred

Kelly, a petroleum engineer, is a familiar name in the oilpatch, having

worked with Samedan for 20 years in both the Ardmore, OK and Calgary

offices, then joining NAL Resources as VP Operations (where he is currently

their Executive Vice President). Through high school and while completing

her English degree at U of C, Shauna worked summers and part-time at

Canadian Hunter and NAL Resources in the land department, so land jargon

was not a foreign language to her. After university, she went on to obtain

a diploma in Journalism from Mount Royal College. Her first “real” job was

working for The News in Parksville/Qualicum Beach, B.C. and then as a free-

lancer in Vancouver for a while after that.

After Vancouver, Shauna moved back to Calgary and spent four years with

Result Communications, a local corporate communications specialty firm.

Her free spirit then led her to take a “radical sabbatical” from work during

the winter of 2000-2001 at the Whistler, B.C. ski resort where she

performed various P.R.-type functions such as the snow phone and updat-

ing the internal website for the resort. Lucky for us, Shauna rejoined the

real world and returned to Calgary last year (to write our book, I’m sure!).

The 6-foot, 32-year old writer is an avid snowboarder and boxer. She also

appreciates a good scotch!

Through Shauna’s leadership as “book boss” we managed to finally see

this project through completion, and I think I speak on behalf of the

entire CAPL Commemorative History Book Committee (Ron Vermeulen,

Evelyn Vandenhengel, Gloria Boogmans, Lawrence Fisher and myself)

when I say that it has been a genuine and delightful pleasure to have

been able to work with her on this project.

Honourable mention goes out to Marshall Gill and Traci Elekes of think-

inc, responsible for the layout and design of Since It Began. Their superior

creative talents, tireless energy and enthusiasm have made it possible to

deliver a quality product that we can all be very proud of. In fact, so

many people have been a part of this project, through contribution of

materials, offering their time for interviews, and digging up old photos,

that it would take most of this page to name them all. Special thanks to

Ron Vermeulen and Lawrence Fisher who put the train back on the rails

for this project in mid-2001.

Similar to the new CAPL Video, Anatomy of a Landman, which was

produced last fall, Since It Began will represent another highly professional

P.R. tool to promote CAPL’s on-going and prominent contribution to the

community, government and industry, and will be presented as a gift to

various industry affiliates and organizations, governments and educational

institutions. A limited number of copies will also be available for sale (in

case you want two copies)!

Whether or not you are mentioned in Since It Began there is a part of each

member that has contributed to the growth and success of our organiza-

tion embodied on every page. Since It Began is a gift from the CAPL

membership to the CAPL members and I hope you enjoy reading it as

much as we’ve enjoyed making it happen!

Suzanne Stahl


N

March General MeetingNetworking Meeting

Wednesday, March 20, 2002

Brewsters Eau Claire

Cocktails & Hors D’oeuvres: 5:00 p.m. Cash Bar

Members must be fax their response to the CAPL Office (263-1620) by

12:00 noon, Friday March 15, 2002. Tickets for guests are available at the

CAPL office until 12:00 noon, Friday March 15, 2002, at a cost of $32.10

(GST included). Please contact the CAPL office for further information.

Meeting Announcement

An Open InvitationYou are cordially invited to attend the 20th Annual Reception to meet

the graduating students from the Olds College Land Agent And Land

Administration Programs. The Reception will be held on Thursday,

March 14, 2002, between 4:30 and 8:30 p.m.

Location: The Palliser Hotel (Alberta Room)

9th Avenue & 1st Street S.W.

Calgary, Alberta

Please RSVP to Bev Christman at Olds College (403) 556-4766 or

1-800-661-6537 by March 1, 2002. Your attendance and support at this

reception will be greatly appreciated.

On behalf of The University of Calgary Petroleum Landman Undergraduate

Society (P.L.U.S.), I would like to wish everyone a happy new year.

The first half of the school year proved to be extremely successful for our

student organization. Our events were well attended by students and by

industry members who came out to show their support for P.L.U.S.

We hope this is an indication of the events to come in the new year.

We are pleased to announce that Andy Prefontaine and Ryan Zembiac

have been selected to join our team as Third-Year Directors. Both Andy

and Ryan are full-time Management students who are eager to

contribute their time to help make P.L.U.S. 2001/2002 a great success

in the months to come.

We held our first event in September, the Annual Slo-Pitch tournament.

Landmen took the opportunity to get out of the office, and students

were relieved to get out of the classroom for a fun-filled Friday after-

noon. In addition to the tournament, we have held a number of our

infamous Gusher Nights, at various venues around the city.

Gusher Nights are a great time to come out and meet the PLM students

at the University of Calgary in a relaxed social setting. The gatherings

have proven to be a very valuable networking opportunity for students

and industry members alike. We will be holding more Gusher Nights in

the months to come, so you if you have not had the chance to come

out yet, you still have a chance to get in on the fun!

P.L.U.S. 2001/2002 would also like to extend a personal thank you to

the individuals and organizations who have shown their support for our

organization through their generous donations for the 2001/2002

school year. The following list shows those who have given very gener-

ously to our student organization:

Al Markin EOG Resources

Calpine Canada Husky Oil Canada

Canadian Landmasters Lawrence Fisher

Chevron Canada Mark Resources

Conoco Canada Petro-Canada

Devon Energy Canada Purcell Energy

El Paso Energy Sawtooth Resources

Enerplus Resources

Thank you for your continuing support of P.L.U.S. and the PLM students

at the University of Calgary. We look forward to seeing you at our

events throughout the year.

Sandy Sandhar

VP Relations, P.L.U.S. 2001

P.L.U.S. 2001/2002 Update

N

WWW.CANAM.COM (403)269-8887

The Election for the 2002-2003 Executive and Board of

Directors for the Canadian Association of

Petroleum Landmen will be held on

Wednesday, April 10, 2002. Nominations

for the positions of President, Vice

President and Director are open until

February 24, 2002, as allowed for under

the By-Laws of the Canadian Association

of Petroleum Landmen. Nominations can

be made for oneself or another CAPL

member as long as the person being nomi-

nated is an Active or Life Member of the CAPL.

Today, the CAPL is a multi-million dollar business. The contin-

ued success of the Association is dependent upon those of its members

who can build upon its storied history, maintain its strong integrity, and

lead it past new challenges.

The rewards for serving are countless, from the number

of new people you meet inside and outside the

Association, to the satisfaction gained of

doing something from which you, your

friends, your peers and your business

associates will benefit.

The Nominating Committee for the 2002-

2003 Election strongly urges all Active and

Life Members to reflect for one moment

upon the importance of the CAPL in their

professional and private lives and consider either

running for office or nominating a member who should.

Please contact any member of the 2002 Nominating Committee listed

below:

CAPL Seeks Nominations

Kevin Burke-Gaffney, P.Land (Chairman) 538-7474 [email protected]

Greg Chury, P.Land 750-3320 [email protected]

Tom Emerson 260-2009 [email protected]

Greg Strachan, P.Land 292-8005 [email protected] N


The following excerpt is the second of a series of historical accounts by Oil

& Gas Geologist and Historian, Aubrey Kerr.

Crown Reserves

Up to 1947, there had been no occasion to create Crown reserves,

simply because no oil discoveries of any account had been made.

Imperial Oil was able to obtain all the Crown minerals in Township 50,

Range 26, a one-time gift that was never to be repeated. The Imperial

Woodbend discovery, some eight or nine miles north, triggered the

creation of the first Crown reserves. This happened when Imperial very

reluctantly surrendered the bottom halves of Section 2-5, Township 51,

Range 26, back to the Crown. They had, in the process, carved out a

huge 4 x 4 lease, another anomaly which would not re-occur.

Edmonton subsequently made the first public posting of these quarter

section parcels in 1949 (see page 151 of “LEDUC”). Anglo, Home and

C&E, were the successful bidders buying what later turned out to be

proved D-3 acreage.

When Edmonton realized that this boom was here to stay, they tight-

ened up the regulations so that only 3 x 3 and 2 x 4 blocks could be

kept out of the original reservations. Thus, the Alberta government was

able to get back at least one-half of the Redwater reservation and resell

it for millions, thanks to Hubert Somerville, the mastermind. N


2002 CAPL Squash Tournament

When: Saturday March 9, 2002, 5:00 p.m.

Where: The Glencoe Club (636 – 29 Avenue SW)

Fee: $48.15 (including GST, a shirt, prizes, food

and drinks)

Return the entry form and a cheque payable to “2002

CAPL Squash Tournament” to: Scott Land & Lease Ltd.

900, 202 – 6 Avenue SW

Calgary, Alberta T2P 2R9, Attention: Scott Clapperton

Questions can be directed to any of the following Committee members:

Pat Burgess, Steve Ludgate, Brad Purdy, Don Austin, Kofi Prah, Dave

Leslie, Scott Clapperton or Kevin Koopman.

Check in at the West entrance by 4:45 p.m. Please note that all white

clothing is mandatory on the courts. Darts and pool in the Corner

Pocket Sports Bar after squash!

25th Annual CAPL CurlingBonspiel

Date: Thursday, February 28, 2002

Place: Calgary Winter Club,

4611 – 14th Street N.W.

Format: The bonspiel will consist of three games (4 ends per game).

Teams will be selected from entries received and will be published in

the Daily Oil Bulletin by February 26, 2002. The entire Winter Club

Curling Facility has been booked to accommodate 26 teams (104

curlers). All levels of curlers are encouraged to participate.

Program: Registration 12:00 Noon Curling 1:00 p.m.

Cocktails 5:30 p.m.

Dinner, Entertainment, Prize 6:30 p.m.

Cost: CAPL Members: $60.00 (Includes GST).

Non-CAPL Members: $65.00 (Includes GST).

Payments must be included with the entry form. No refunds after

January 31, 2002.

Please forward your entry form with a cheque made payable to CAPL

CURLING to:

CAPL Curling Bonspiel, c/o Canadian 88 Energy Corp.

700, 400 – 3rd Avenue S.W., Calgary, Alberta T2P 4H2

Attention: Jodi Whitlow

Any questions regarding the Bonspiel should be directed to the Curling

Committee:

Mike Mork 266-2858 Joanne Sipka 290-2446

Dave Laurie 237-4881 Jodi Whitlow 974-8885

Ian Ross 266-8670

The 4th Annual CAPLSki/Snowboard Trip

It’s Back! The 4th Annual CAPL Ski/Snowboard

Trip. This year is shaping up to be an outstand-

ing ski season! All CAPL members and guests

are invited to the 4th Annual Landman's

Ski/Snowboard Trip to Kimberley, British

Columbia from March 8 to March 10, 2002.

See the registration insert in the center of this issue for more details.

For further information please contact one of the following:

Keenan Cannady 861-8814 [email protected]

Jamie Beninger 974-7552 [email protected]

Mike Flanagan 508-6672 [email protected] N

The Social Network


EnergyUpdate


on the MOVERoster Updates

Alistair Anderson

PanCanadian Petroleum Limited

To PanCanadian Petroleum (U.K.)

Limited

Randy Birks

LCG Enterprises Ltd.

To Ronin Ventures Inc.

Peter Carwardine, P.Land

Calpine Canada Resources Ltd.

To Virtus Energy Ltd.

Michael Flanagan, P.Land

Dynaco Resources Ltd.

To Bulldog Energy Inc.

Robert Garies, P.Land

Independent

To Consultation & Compliance

Inc.

Sharon Gordon, P.Land

PennWest Petroleum Ltd.

To Sentinel Enterprises Inc.

Ray Heptonstall, P.Land

Independent

To Samson Canada, Ltd.

Robert Jansen, P.Land

Canadian Natural Resources

Limited

To Independent

Thomas Leakos

ISH Energy Ltd.

To Northrock Resources Ltd.

Alan Lyon, P.Land

Husky Oil Operations Limited

To Kobayashi & Associates Ltd.

Glen Malo

BTU Resources Ltd.

To Element Holdings Ltd.

Marianne McKay

Advantage Energy Income Fund

To McKay Land Consultants Ltd.

John Miller

Conoco Canada Resources Limited

To Independent

Norm Parsons

Pipestone Resources Ltd.

To Manhattan Resources Ltd.

Neil Phyper

Signalta Resources Limited

To Independent

Cristina Schwab, P.Land

Provident Energy Ltd.

To Independent

David Shenstone

Courage Energy Inc.

To Equatorial Energy Inc.

Chris Soby

Equatorial Energy Inc.

To Temple Exploration Inc.

Mark Stach

Stach & Associates Inc.

To Mirant Americas Energy

Marketing, LP

Peter Sticksl

Stratawest Land Ltd.

To Grid Resources Ltd.

Susan Targett, P.Land

Independent

To Tom Brown Resources Ltd.

On the Move As we wipe the last morsel of stuffing and

fleck of gravy from our lips and peer dimly

into 2002, we see that the contours of

our profession and our industry have

changed. National and provincial bound-

aries seem less relevant somehow within

the tremendous context of the North

American energy market.

Experts tell us that in the near term, electricity demand is linked

to GDP – a 1.0% increase in GDP growth requires a 0.8% increase

in electricity output. This points long term over the 2001 to

2010 time-frame to a need for 150,000 to 200,000 MW of gas

fired capacity, or, 450 TCF to 550 TCF of new natural gas reserves.

With North American supplies under continued pressure despite

high drilling activity, getting a sizeable acreage position and

possible future prospects between Mexico and the Mackenzie

Delta makes sense for the companies we represent.

How are we to position ourselves as landmen in a “land without

borders”? How will Canadians make the investment decisions

necessary to secure a long-term supply of natural gas for our

continent? What can we learn from First Nations representatives

who are increasingly able to execute economically significant

contracts despite the natural migration and occasional blurriness

of their traditional borders?

Our 2002 Conference Program Committee is hard at work probing

these issues. We will identify the technologies and insights with

which to avail ourselves of the behaviours necessary to prosper

in this environment – and to meld them into a cohesive confer-

ence program for our membership.

We look forward to your creative ideas, your continued support

and your attendance in classic Ottawa, September 15–18, 2002.

John Ediger, Jeremy Newton

Co-chairmen, 2002 Conference Program Committee

Program Committee Members

Cathy Armstrong

Costa Fotopoulos

Susan Gramlich

Lori-Ann Haslop

Jeff Leitl

Land Without Borders

N

Alberta landsale update

DECEMBER DECEMBER 2001 > $1000.00/ha

BONUSES

DECEMBER 2000 > $1000.00/ha

TOTAL # OF HECTARES SOLD IN DECEMBER

GRAND TOTAL

AREA 2000 2001

249,070

PLAINS 32,738 44,344

NORTHERN 128,822 194,229

FOOTHILLS 22,200 10,496

183,761

AVERAGE $/ha

DEC '00$176.74

DEC '01$97.10

DEC '01$101.83

DEC '01$321.50

DEC '00$291.71

DEC '00$310.88

Medicine Hat

Calgary

Edmonton

Fort McMurray

High Level

11

10

20

30

102030

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

10201 11 102010

FOUR

TH M

ERID

IAN

FIFT

H M

ERID

IAN

SIXT

H M

ERID

IAN

Northern Area

Plains Area

Foothills

Area

HOT SALE AREAS

Edmonton

High Level

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

1102011020110

FOUR

TH M

ERID

IAN

FIFT

H M

ERID

IAN

SIXT

H M

ERID

IAN

Northern Area

Foothills Area

Calgary

11

10

102030

BON

USES

IN M

ILLIO

NS

$

2000

20010

BON

USES

IN M

ILLIO

NS

$

NORTHERN PLAINS FOOTHILLS

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

JAN

UARY

FEBR

UARY

MA

RCH

APR

IL

MA

Y

JUN

E

JULY

AUG

UST

SEPT

EMBE

R

OC

TOBE

R

NO

VEM

BER

DEC

EMBE

R

20

40

60

80

100

120

0

(2)(2)

(2)

(2)

(2)

(3)

(2)

(2)

(2) (2)

(2)

(2)

(1)

(2)

(2)

(3)(3)

(2)(2)

(1)

Total Average Bonuses Per Month

Total Average Bonuses Per Area (December)

Months( ) number of sales per month

Medicine Hat

Plains Area

Fort McMurray

140

180

200

220

240

90

100

110

(2)

(3)

(2)

(1)


February General MeetingWednesday, February 20, 2002 Hyatt Regency Hotel, Imperial Ballroom

700 Centre Street SouthCocktails: 5:00 p.m. Dinner: 6:15 p.m.

Members must fax their response to the CAPL Office (263-1620) by 12:00 noon, February 13, 2002. Upon receipt of the registration form, tickets for your table will be forwarded to your attention

along with an invoice. Please contact the CAPL Office for further information.

Lloyd Axworthy is Director and

CEO of the Liu Centre for the Study

of Global Issues at the University of

British Columbia and holds posi-

tions on several boards and

companies. He joined the law firm

of Fraser Milner Casgrain as a

consultant on trade and interna-

tional affairs. He is a Board

member of the MacArthur Foun-

dation, Lester B. Pearson College,

University of the Arctic, Impacs (Institute for Media, Policy and

Civil Society), as well as Chairman of the Human Security

Centre for the United Nations University for Peace (UPEACE),

member of the Eminent Persons Group on Small Arms, Co-

Chair of the State of the World Forum, Commission on

Globalization, and Chairman of the Manitoba Task Force on

Climate Change. In July 2001, Dr. Axworthy became a UNICEF

Canada special representative. Dr. Axworthy is Duke

University’s Karl von der Heyden Distinguished Visiting

International Fellow for 2001.

Since leaving public life in the fall of 2000, Dr. Axworthy has

been the recipient of several prestigious awards and honours.

This year, the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation

presented him with the Senator Patrick J. Leahy Award in

recognition of his leadership in the global effort to outlaw

landmines and the use of children as soldiers and to bring war

criminals to justice. In February of 2001, Princeton University

awarded him the Madison Medal for his record of outstanding

public service. He received the CARE International

Humanitarian Award and in July 2001, was invested into the

Order of Manitoba.

In May, he was awarded an honourary doctorate from

Dalhousie University to accompany previous honourary degrees

from Niagara University and the University of Winnipeg.

He graduated in 1961 with a B.A. from United College (now

the University of Winnipeg), obtained his M.A. in Political

Science from Princeton University in 1963, subsequently earn-

ing a Ph.D from Princeton in 1972.

Lloyd Axworthy’s political career spanned 27 years, during six

of which he served in the Manitoba Legislative Assembly and

twenty-one in the Federal Parliament. First elected federally in

1979 as Liberal Member of Parliament for the riding of

Winnipeg-Fort Garry, Mr. Axworthy was re-elected in 1980,

1984, 1988, 1993 and 1997. He held several Cabinet positions,

notably Minister of Employment and Immigration, Minister

Responsible for the Status of Women, Minister of Transport, of

Human Resources Development, of Western Economic

Diversification and Minister of Foreign Affairs.

In his Foreign Affairs portfolio, he became internationally

known for his advancement of the human security concept, in

particular, the Ottawa Treaty – a landmark global treaty

banning anti-personnel landmines. For his leadership on land-

mines, he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. For his

efforts in establishing the International Criminal Court and the

Protocol on child soldiers, he received the North-South

Institute’s Peace Award.

He continues to be involved in international matters, leading

the Canadian delegation to The Hague Conference on Climate

Change and as Chairman of the Advisory Board of the

Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS).

Dr. Axworthy lectures widely in Canada, the US and abroad.

He is married to Denise Ommanney. They have three children:

John, Louise and Stephen. He makes his home on the west

coast of Canada.

Management NightThis year’s speaker: LLOYD AXWORTHY

N

N NN

N

N

Thank you for your generous support of our Teddy BearChallenge. We received over 2200 new stuffed animals worthover $36,500.00 and delivered them to various charities andneedy families. The top donors were Nexen with 341 bears andCNRL with 320 bears. Thanks to All!!!

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N


FebruarySunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

MarchSunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

Gregg Scott , President

900, 202-6th Avenue SWCalgary, Alberta T2P 2R9Telephone: 403-261-1000Fax: 403-263-5263

EdmontonTelephone: (780) 428-2212Facsimile: (780) 425-5263

ReginaTelephone: (306) 359-9000Facsimile: (306) 359-9015

LloydminsterTelephone: (780) 875-7201Facsimile: (780) 808-5263

Grande Prair ieTelephone: (780) 513-8540Facsimile: (780) 513-8541

Brandon Telephone: (204) 727-1511Facsimile: (204) 728-1622

Yo u r F u l l S e r v i c e L a n d C o m p a n y

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

CAPL Calendar of Events

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23

24 25 26 27 28

Alberta Land Sale

NegotiatorDeadline

NegotiatorDeadline

AlbertaLand Sale

SaskatchewanLand SaleExecutive Meeting

Northern IssuesExecutiveMeeting

Gin TournamentOil Sands TenureConcurrent Gas

BitumenProduction

UnderstandingNatural Gas

Markets & GasMarketing

Manitoba Land Sale

Financial Oil & Gas AssetEvaluation

Family DayAEUB

RegulationsSeminar

EconomicConsiderationsfor Land Deals

Freehold Mineral Lease

Ski Trip

SquashTournament

New Functionalityin AccuMap’sLand Module

Customized detailed labelsfor Crown & Freehold land

(Ownership, Bonus Price,Rights and more) and

lease boundary outlines.Coming Soon:

post proprietary landinformation.

Comprehensive, up-to-datepublic petroleum infor-mation including land,

wells, pipelines, facilities and more!

Client requested, IHS AccuMap delivered

Now, create clear and detailed customhardcopy land maps using AccuMap’sLand Text Posting capability.

Free

Petro-Canada Centre, West Tower 3900 150-6th AVE. S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 3Y7 Ph: (403) 770-4646 Fax: (403) 770-4647

the egotiator · the largest leaseholders in canada use landman. calgary (403) 218-8300 dallas...

Documents