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):||10 July 2018|
|PDF File Size:||16.8 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||16.99 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Challenge Notices Under the Terms of the 1990 CAPL Operating Procedure
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 ability to operate in safe and workmanlike manner. 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. Chair of Natural Resources Law. 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.
The relevant commentary is essentially unchanged. The CAPL operating procedure contemplates a number of ways in which the joint operator s can obtain a change in the operatorship: Implicit in this is the idea that the incumbent operator is better placed to identify where it might be possible to identify efficiencies.
Since one is unable to quantify qualitative changes, the provision seems limited to financial terms. 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.
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.
In addition to the three ways outlined above there is also the challenge provision in cl.
Please click here for more information. Discussion The CAPL operating procedure contemplates a number of ways in which the joint operator s can obtain a change in the operatorship: 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.
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.
PW took the position, in a timely way, that the Notice was deficient in that it did not provide sufficient information to assess whether the proposal was more favourable to the joint account or not, or if Diaz would be able to conduct operations in a safe and good and workmanlike manner.
See the note here and consider posting something yourself or sending some feedback more anonymously to Professor Jennifer Koshan at koshan ucalgary.
Your email address will not be published. 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.
Proudly powered by WordPress.
The commentary to the CAPL is instructive:. First, the case provides some operatung as to the quality of the information that a joint operator must provide to support a challenge notice.
This case will be of interest to the oil and gas bar for two reasons. However, how can a challenger give any more than its best 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?
The commentary recognizes the difficulty that the challenger faces. Justice Colleen Kenny denied the application.
Member of the Alberta Bar. Leave a Reply Cancel reply Your email address will not be published.
The CAPL Operating Procedure: An Overview of the Revisions | MacLean | Alberta Law Review
A challenge on the basis of terms and conditions, therefore, might in practice only be the right to challenge oerating the basis of overhead rates. But in this case the challenger seems to have provided only the barest information.
The Decision Justice Colleen Kenny denied the application. 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.
About Nigel Bankes B. Diaz failed to support its Notice with the information required by cl. The case law suggests that a joint operator will face an uphill battle against an incumbent who opwrating to retain its position: The commentary to the CAPL is instructive: