Author: Nigel Bankes Page 85 of 88

Nigel Bankes is emeritus professor of law at the University of Calgary. Prior to his retirement in June 2021 Nigel held the chair in natural resources law in the Faculty of Law.

Terminating a Long Term Gas Sales Contract on Account of a Material Adverse Change: The Continuing Fallout from the Collapse of the Enron Empire

By Nigel Bankes

On January 31, 2009

In Contracts, Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

Cases Considered: Marathon Canada Ltd v. Enron Canada Ltd, 2008 ABQB 408;
Marathon Canada Ltd v. Enron Canada Ltd, 2009 ABCA 31.

PDF Version: Terminating a long term gas sales contract on account of a material adverse change: the continuing fallout from the collapse of the Enron Empire

The Court of Appeal, in a memorandum of judgement authored by Justices Ellen Picard, Peter Costigan and Jack Watson, has affirmed the decision at trial of Justice Terence McMahon of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. Justice McMahon held that Marathon Canada had lawfully terminated a natural gas purchase contract with Enron Canada. Marathon chose to terminate when Enron Canada’s US parent (Enron Corp) fell into serious financial difficulties. Both courts also held that: (1) Marathon was entitled to recover $560,000 damages for natural gas that it had delivered prior to contract termination, but that, (2) Enron Canada was not entitled to recover liquidated damages of some $126 million based on a counter-claim of wrongful termination and the estimated\guesstimated present value of Marathon’s future deliveries at the contract price.

What Zones Were the Subject of a Unitization Agreement?

By Nigel Bankes

On December 27, 2008

In Natural Resources, Oil & Gas

Cases Considered: Signalta Resources Limited v. Dominion Exploration Canada Limited, 2007 ABQB 636; Signalta Resources Limited v. Dominion Exploration Canada Limited, 2008 ABCA 437

PDF Version: What zones were the subject of a unitization agreement?

I blogged the trial decision of Justice AG Park in this case and now the Court of Appeal has affirmed. Readers wanting a full statement of the facts should review that earlier blog.

There were, as the Court put it, “no grounds for appellate intervention” (at para. 2) and in particular the Court of Appeal agreed with Justice Park that the original inclusion of the Glauconite for the section 8 lands in the schedule to the unitization agreement was a mistake. It was a mistake for two reasons: (1) Dyco (Dominion’s predecessor in title) did not have rights to the Glauconite under its farmout with Husky and therefore could not contribute Glauconite rights, and (2) Husky (which did own the Glauconite rights) never contributed them and executed the relevant agreements as a royalty owner and not as a working interest owner.

Comments on the Interim Report of the Alberta Carbon Capture and Storage Development Council, Accelerating Carbon Capture and Storage in Alberta

By Nigel Bankes

On November 7, 2008

In Carbon Capture and Storage, Climate Change

By: Nigel Bankes & Jenette Poschwatta

PDF Version: Comments on the Interim Report of the Alberta Carbon Capture and Storage Development Council, Accelerating Carbon Capture and Storage in Alberta

Report Commented On: Accelerating Carbon Capture and Storage in Alberta, dated September 30, 2008, released October 22, 2008; now Final Report released March 2009

In these comments we focus on three aspects of the interim report: (1) the treatment of the ownership of pore space, (2) the design of a provincial tenure system for geological sequestration, and (3) the treatment of liability issues. In each case we provide our understanding of what it is that the Council proposes and then we provide our comments. While we welcome the report and agree with the need to accelerate the adoption of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in Alberta, we think that these sections of the report require further clarification before the Council issues its final report. In particular, we think that the report needs to do a much better job of, identifying the problems and providing reasoned arguments for the solutions that it advances.

When is a Non-Operator Entitled to a Constructive Trust over the Operator’s Own Assets?

By Nigel Bankes

On October 11, 2008

In Oil & Gas, Remedies

Cases Considered: Brookfield Bridge Lending Fund Inc. v. Vanquish Oil and Gas Corporation, 2008 ABQB 444

PDF Version: When is a non-operator entitled to a constructive trust over the operator’s own assets?

In this case Justice Bruce McDonald ruled that a joint operator may be entitled to a constructive trust remedy over the assets of an operator, where the operator is in receipt of production revenues attributable to the joint operator and where the operator fails to preserve an amount representing those monies in its commingled bank account. As a result, the joint operator was allowed to take priority over the interests of both secured and unsecured creditors.

When Does a “Participant” Earn Under the Terms of a Farmout and Participation Agreement?

By Nigel Bankes

On October 9, 2008

In Contracts, Oil & Gas

Case Considered: Solara Exploration Ltd v. Richmount Petroleum Ltd., 2008 ABQB 596

PDF Version: When does a “participant” earn under the terms of a farmout and participation agreement?

In this decision Justice Sheilah Martin concluded that a participant in a farmout and participation agreement did not earn an interest in the farmout property when it elected to go non-consent on an operation to frac a particular formation, even when that operation was proposed after the parties had already installed a well head, outlet valve and production tubing. However, Justice Martin went on to hold that the farmor was estopped from denying that the participant had earned in the circumstances of the particular case. The decision is an important one for several reasons. It is a first decision on the definition of “completion” in the 1990 CAPL operating procedure, but it also serves to draw attention to the vulnerability of a “participant” in a farmout and participation agreement, especially where the farmor (as here) is wearing multiple hats and serving as both farmor and as operator for the purposes of the test well to which the participant is contributing. The case also highlights some of the difficulties associated with borrowing definitions from other agreements.