In this article, the author compares the and CAPL Operating Procedures, emphasizing the revisions which have been made and both the legal and. The CAPL committee responsible for the preparation of the CAPL Operating The CAPL Operating Procedure is the fifth version of the standard fonn. The PDF file you selected should load here if your Web browser has a PDF reader plug-in installed (for example, a recent version of Adobe Acrobat Reader).
|Published (Last):||2 November 2016|
|PDF File Size:||8.90 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||1.79 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The CAPL operating procedure contemplates a number of ways in which the joint operator s can obtain a change in the operatorship: This case will be of interest to the oil and gas bar for two reasons. This later information detailed the specific costs savings but it also provided that Diaz would continue to retain an existing contractor thereby speaking belatedly to the oerating to operate in safe and workmanlike manner.
Justice Colleen Kenny denied the application. Although this was sufficient to dispose of the application Justice Kenny also noted that to the extent that PW put at issue the ability of Diaz to assume the operatorship, that matter would have to proceed by way of statement of claim, discovery and trial.
Given these practical difficulties one should perhaps be careful not to be too demanding of the information that the challenger must adduce in support of its challenge. In addition, PW was of the view that Diaz might be in default under the agreement given the magnitude of unresolved receivables as between PW and Diaz. In addition to the three ways outlined above there is also the challenge provision in cl. The relevant commentary is essentially unchanged.
This would leave too much to the auto-interpretation of the incumbent operator who would simply say that an inexperienced joint operator could never have the competence to assume the operatorship.
Challenge Notices Under the Terms of the 1990 CAPL Operating Procedure
This is of course the standard expected of an operator and in cl. Challenge notices under the terms of the CAPL Operating procedure This case will be of interest to the oil and gas bar for two reasons. Proudly powered by WordPress. Please click here for more information. Since one is unable to quantify operatijg changes, the provision seems limited to financial terms.
About Nigel Bankes B. Diaz failed to support its Notice with the information required by cl. A challenge on the basis of terms and conditions, therefore, might in practice only be the right to challenge on the basis of overhead rates.
Challenge Notices Under the Terms of the CAPL Operating Procedure |
The commentary recognizes the difficulty that the challenger faces. Chair of Natural Resources Law. Leave a Reply Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. But in this case the challenger seems to have provided only the barest information. The commentary to the CAPL is instructive:. However, how can a challenger give any more operaying its procesure cost estimate when the costs of exploration are a function of such factors as weather conditions, exploration success testing costsmechanical difficulties, the demand for equipment and inflation?
Implicit in this is the idea that the incumbent operator is better placed to identify where it might be possible to identify efficiencies. Your email address will not be published. PW took the position, in a timely way, that the Notice was deficient in that it did not provide cpl information to assess whether the proposal was more favourable to opetating joint account or not, or if Diaz would be able to conduct operations in a safe and good and workmanlike manner.
The question for present purposes is whether a challenger must provide evidence to support its capacity to meet that standard as part of its Challenge Notice.
First, the case provides some guidance as to the quality of the information that a joint operator must provide to support a challenge notice. For as the commentary indicates, it is already very difficult for a joint operator to put together a challenge notice that is not a leap into the dark; the idea that there is a further condition precedent would make the challenge provisions little more than a dead letter.
Discussion The CAPL operating procedure contemplates a number of ways in which the joint operator s can obtain a change in the operatorship: The commentary oerating the CAPL is instructive: See the note here and consider posting something yourself or sending some feedback more anonymously to Professor Jennifer Koshan at koshan ucalgary.
The Notice stipulated that Diaz would not charge the joint account for any costs attributable to a production office, a field office or to first level supervisors in the field.
The case law suggests that a joint operator will face an uphill battle against an incumbent who wishes to retain its position: The Cqpl Justice Colleen Kenny denied the application. Member of the Alberta Bar.