Category Archives: Oil & Gas

Lifting the Stay to Allow the CAPL Operator Replacement Provisions to Run their Course

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Lifting the Stay to Allow the CAPL Operator Replacement Provisions to Run their Course

Case Commented On: Firenze Energy Ltd v Scollard Energy Ltd, 2018 ABQB 126 (CanLII)

In this decision Justice Corina Dario granted Firenze’s application to lift a stay of proceedings imposed as part of a receivership order pertaining to Scollard in order to allow Firenze to issue a notice or notices with respect to the replacement of Scollard as operator of a number of oil and gas properties subject to the 2007 CAPL Operating Procedure. This decision, together with Justice Macleod’s earlier decision in Bank of Montreal v Bumper Development Corp, 2016 ABQB 363 (CanLII) (commented on here), calls into question the proposition that it will be difficult to replace an operator under the CAPL operating agreements once a receivership order is in place. Continue reading →

TMX v Burnaby: When Do Delays by a Municipal (or Provincial) Permitting Authority Trigger Paramountcy and Interjurisdictional Immunity?

By: Nigel Bankes and Martin Olszynski

PDF Version: TMX v Burnaby: When Do Delays by a Municipal (or Provincial) Permitting Authority Trigger Paramountcy and Interjurisdictional Immunity?

Decision Commented On: National Energy Board, Reasons for Decision (18 January 2018) in support of Order MO-057-2017 (6 December 2017) re Trans Mountain Expansion Project

The National Energy Board (NEB) has now issued its reasons for decision for an Order that it issued in December 2017 allowing Trans Mountain to proceed with certain activities associated with the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMX) without having first complied with bylaw requirements of the City of Burnaby. Continue reading →

Specific Performance of a Right of First Refusal in the Context of a Facilities Agreement

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Specific Performance of a Right of First Refusal in the Context of a Facilities Agreement

Decision Commented On: Canlin Resources Partnership v Husky Oil Operations Limited, 2018 ABQB 24 (CanLII)

Canlin and Husky are successors in interest to a Construction, Ownership and Operation (CO & O) Agreement for the Erith Dehydration and Flow Splitter Facility (Facility Agreement). The agreement was based on the standard form CO & O Agreement (1999) developed by the Petroleum Joint Venture Association (PJVA). The Facility Agreement provides both parties with mutual rights of first refusal (ROFR) in the event that either decides to sell the facility but also provides a number of exceptions. In particular, the Agreement provided that the ROFR would not be triggered in the event of (at para 3) “(a) disposition made by an Owner of all or substantially all … of its petroleum and natural gas rights in wells producing to the Facility …”. Husky was disposing of its interests in the area (the Ikkuma transaction) but the challenge was that there had been no wells producing into the facility since 2016 when Husky installed a “jumper” pipeline. This pipeline served to by-pass the Erith Facility with the result that gas previously processed at Erith was now processed at the Blackstone Facility. The question therefore was whether Husky could rely on the exception, there being no wells producing into the facility. Husky took the view that the exception was triggered since the wells in question were still associated with the Erith Facility in the sense of being tied-in to the Facility. Justice Romaine concluded that the exception was not triggered and accordingly declared that Canlin could exercise the ROFR; furthermore she concluded that Canlin was entitled to an order of specific performance. Continue reading →

Cowper-Smith and the Law of Proprietary Estoppel: Implications for the Oil and Gas Lease?

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Cowper-Smith and the Law of Proprietary Estoppel: Implications for the Oil and Gas Lease?

Case Commented On: Cowper-Smith v Morgan, 2017 SCC 61 (CanLII)

The Supreme Court of Canada handed down its decision in Cowper-Smith v Morgan in December 2017. The decision is an important decision on proprietary estoppel. While it arises in the context of a family dispute it deserves to be read by commercial lawyers including oil and gas lawyers. It is one of the curiosities of the Canadian law of estoppel that some of our leading cases have come out of fact patterns involving the “unless” form of the oil and gas lease from the 1960s and 1970s from Alberta and Saskatchewan. These cases include Canadian Superior Oil Ltd. v Paddon-Hughes Development Co., [1970] S.C.R. 932, 1970 CanLII 3 (SCC) and Sohio Petroleum Co. v Weyburn Security Co., [1971] S.C.R. 81, 1970 CanLII 137 (SCC). These cases continue to be influential in oil and gas lease matters and beyond. The typical fact pattern involves a missed or late payment during the primary term or a missed or late shut-in payment during the secondary term which automatically terminates the lease unbeknownst to either party. The parties continue to act as if the lease is in force and in some cases the lessee expends considerable monies on the leased lands including drilling a new well. But in the end, all is for naught. The lease is dead and to this point estoppel arguments aimed at reviving the lease have largely failed; in some cases on the basis that estoppel cannot be used as a sword (to create a new lease), and in other cases, and most commonly, on the basis that the lessee never acted to its detriment on the basis of a representation made by the lessor that the lease was still in effect; typically there was no such representation, the lessee was simply proceeding on the basis of its own understanding of the legal position. Continue reading →

Confidentiality Agreements and Brokerage Opportunities in the Context of the Sale of Oil and Gas Properties

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Confidentiality Agreements and Brokerage Opportunities in the Context of the Sale of Oil and Gas Properties

Case Commented On: Beaumont Resources Ltd. v Cardinal Energy Ltd., 2017 ABCA 416 (CanLII), aff’g unreported reasons for judgment of Justice Anderson, September 26, 2016, aff’g unreported reasons for judgment of Master Farrington, January 22, 2016

In 2012 Beaumont Resources made some preliminary inquiries of Felcom Resources about a possible acquisition of some oil and gas properties. In the course of those inquiries Beaumont and Felcom entered into a confidentiality agreement (the Felcom CA) with respect to information provided by Felcom to Beaumont. The agreement included the following terms: Continue reading →