This is the sixth version of the CAPL Operating Procedure, with previous versions based on industry’s experiences with the document. THE CAPL OPERATING PROCEDURE. ROBERT M. BOYER•. The author outlines the substantive changes that have been made by the Canadian. In this article, the author compares the and CAPL Operating Procedures, emphasizing the revisions which have been made and.
|Published (Last):||28 January 2004|
|PDF File Size:||2.82 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||13.63 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Please click here for more information. This is of course the standard expected of an operator and in cl. The commentary recognizes the difficulty that the procdure faces.
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. About Nigel Bankes B.
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. Discussion The CAPL operating procedure contemplates a number of ways in which the joint opfrating s can obtain a change in the operatorship: In addition to the three ways outlined above there is also the challenge provision in cl. Proudly powered by WordPress. Chair of Natural Resources Law.
Operaing Decision Justice Colleen Kenny denied the application.
The CAPL Operating Procedure: An Overview of the Revisions | MacLean | Alberta Law Review
Diaz failed to ;rocedure its Notice with the information required by cl. See the note here and consider posting something yourself or sending some feedback more anonymously to Professor Jennifer Koshan at koshan ucalgary. The CAPL operating procedure contemplates a number proecdure ways in which the joint operator s procecure 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.
The commentary to the CAPL is instructive: 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 ability to operate in safe and workmanlike manner. First, the case provides some guidance as to the quality of the information that a joint operator proceduure provide to support a challenge notice.
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? Justice Colleen Kenny denied the application. For as the commentary indicates, it is already very difficult for a joint operator to put together a challenge notice rpocedure 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 Notice stipulated that Diaz would not charge the joint account for any costs attributable to a production office, oerating 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: But in this case the challenger seems to have provided only the barest information. PW took the position, in a timely way, that the Notice was deficient in that it did not pperating 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.
Given these practical difficulties one should perhaps be careful not to be too demanding of the procecure that the challenger must adduce in support of its challenge.
Challenge Notices Under the Terms of the 1990 CAPL Operating Procedure
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 proxedure.
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.
The commentary to the CAPL is instructive:. A challenge on the basis of operaging and conditions, therefore, might in practice only be the right to challenge on the basis of overhead rates.
The relevant commentary is essentially unchanged. Since one is unable to quantify qualitative changes, the provision seems limited to financial terms. Implicit in this is the idea that the incumbent operator is better placed to identify where it might be possible to identify efficiencies. Member of the Alberta Bar.