Current / Previous

Previous Morning Discussions

2019: Mar
2017: Jan / Mar / Apr / Sep / Oct
2016: Jan / Mar / Apr / May / Sep / Nov
2015: Jan / Feb / Mar / Apr / May / Sept / Oct / Nov
2014: Jan / Mar / Apr / May / Sept / Oct / Nov 2013: Jan / Mar / May / Oct / Nov
2012: Jan / Feb / Mar / Apr / May / Oct / Dec
2011: Jan / Mar / Apr / May / Oct / Nov
2010: Jan / Feb / Mar / May / Sep / Oct / Nov

2009: Jan / Feb / Mar / Apr / May / Sep / Oct / Nov
2008: Feb / Mar / May / Oct / Nov
2007: Jan / Feb / Apr / Jun / Oct
2006: Jan / Feb / Mar / Sep / Oct / Nov
2005: Jan / Feb / Mar / Dec
2004: Mar
2003: Feb / Mar
2002: Jan / Feb / Mar / Apr / May / Oct / Nov
2001: Jan / Feb / Mar / Apr / May / Sep / Nov
2000: Oct / Nov


October 25, 2017

Special Edition EMS – Lunch & Learn style

Charging fees for Processing and Transportation – Land or JV?

What if you, as a JV professional, were approached by a company advising that for the purposes of reducing their administrative costs, that their joint venture agreements were going to be terminated and in place thereof, charges for things such as facility processing and transportation would fall to the land contracts? It’s one thing to terminate existing agreements but another to do so without establishing clear contractual terms to replace them.

As JV professionals, we know that a contract must be a mutual agreement between the parties and one party cannot unilaterally impose new terms with no way for the other party to accept them. Further, holes exist in the various CAPL agreements and it is for that reason (and others) that joint venture contracts and the joint venture industry were developed many decades ago. Land contracts such as JOAs cannot apply to multi-well facilities while serving different ownership groups, hence the need for individual service agreements when dealing with diverse working interests. In addition, key business terms such as billing and payment, product specifications, acceptance and delivery of production, allocations, priority, and failure to take in kind would be missing, as well as key provisions such as limitations, notices, audit rights, default and confidentiality. Omissions like this create uncertainty and only add risk.


Top of Page

October 25, 2017

Quit Claim Provisions

This topic will be presented by George Lepine from Enernext which is a boutique legal and advisory platform focused on energy, cleantech, sustainability, environmental compliance, liability and risk management and strategic planning.


Top of Page

September 27, 2017

Mutual Consent – Which agreements and clauses does it apply to?

Kyla Ulmer from ARC Resources will be presenting this topic, focusing on the importance for Joint Venture Contracts Analysts/Administrators on verifying terms of agreements. The topic of discussion will pertain to service Agreements, revisions of exhibits and dispositions and what current industry standards and practices are in place.


Top of Page

April 26, 2017

2017 CAPL Property Transfer Procedure

CAPL issued the second draft of the update to the 2000 CAPL Property Transfer Procedure in late January. The third draft will be presented to industry for review in late spring, and CAPL endorsement is expected in October. PJVA is represented directly on the Committee by Paul de Villenfagne as the PJVA Liaison.

Presentation:
Please login to download the presentation

Also here is the hyperlink to the Draft 2 Property Transfer Procedure materials on the CAPL website.


Top of Page

March 29, 2017

Taking Action for Canada's Future

Founder and spokesperson for Canada Action Coalition, Cody Battershill presented to us on March 29, 2017

Cody Battershill is a Calgary Realtor who has been called a one-man oil and gas advocate by the National Post. Tired of the misinformation and vitriol directed at Canada’s resource industries, Battershill founded the Canada Action Coalition in 2010. Since that time, the organization has become one of the leading resource advocacy groups in the country, with online and offline reach in the millions and plenty of earned media attention from coast to coast.

Presentation:
Please login to download the presentation
Top of Page

January 25, 2017

Stay in Control – Appropriate Dispute Resolution for Industry

Join us for this update on the issues, options, and provisions for the upstream Canadian petroleum industry. Engage in a conversation on the options for dispute resolution, the tools available and the proposed 2017 Dispute Resolution provisions for upcoming PJVA industry precedent agreements, including the new PJVA CO&O Agreement.

Presentation:
Please login to download the presentation
Top of Page

November 30, 2016

Risky Business – Protecting Against Counterparty Default and Insolvency Risk

A session on risky business practices by Carole Hunter, helping you to identify counterparties with potential financial difficulties and ways to mitigate your risk.

Presentation:
Please login to download the presentation
Top of Page

September 27, 2016

Facilities 101

Rein Evelein provides an overview on his Introduction to Facilities course. Rein presents a small sample of the course material and discuss how it is geared towards providing an in depth look at both oil and gas facilities for individuals with non-engineering backgrounds.


Top of Page

May 25, 2016

CO&O Update Part 4 – Pulse Check on Enlargements

The PJVA CO&O Task Force will be hosting a discussion on changes to a Facility over its life. Bring your questions, concerns and opinions on what’s working and what’s not. Let us know how you handle changes such as facility enlargements, operational changes, facility reductions, etc. Have your say and let's see how the proposed changes measure up!

Presentation:
Please login to download the presentation
Top of Page

April 27, 2016

CO&O Update Part 3 – Pulse Check on Capacity

The PJVA CO&O Task Force will be hosting a discussion on capacity. Bring your issues, concerns, and pet peeves. Have your say – weigh in on what's working and what's not on all things related to capacity. Let's see how the proposed changes measure up!

Presentation:
Please login to download the presentation
Top of Page

March 30, 2016

CO&O Update Part 2 – Specifications, Measurement & Allocation

This session on the new CO&O model will discuss Appendices 7, 8 and 9: Specifications, Measurement and Allocation. Many disputes arise from the improper application or lack of clarity and understanding of the inlet specifications and the application of allocation programs.

Presentation:
Please login to download the presentation
Top of Page

January 27, 2016

CO&O Update Part 1 – Task Force Update

Members of the CO&O Task Force will provide an overview of some of the proposed revisions to the model CO&O. The focus of this session will be on the financial matters contained in the CO&O Agreement. This session will consist of an overview of proposed changes to the CO&O Agreement and will provide an opportunity for feedback and discussion on the topic.

Presentation:
Please login to download the presentation
Top of Page

November 25, 2015

Back Out Fees

Moller and Keith Brereton will moderate the session and discuss what options an Operator of a facility has if third party production will back-out existing production? How do you determine shut-in compensation amounts if a competitor wants to drill a well through a producing zone to reach a deeper formation? What if production from one zone is stopped while the well is being serviced? Should the other company have to shut in their well to minimize impacts to the production? How should they be compensated if this is required? Have there been agreements in place in the past that have addressed these types of situations?

Presentation:
Please login to download the presentation
Top of Page

October 28, 2015

The New War on Talent

In recent years, there have been a number of rule changes that have redefined what contractors are into a number of separate groups. Our presentation will address these changes and how they affect independent contractors and companies who work with them. This will provide insight as to the risks and liabilities to both employers and contractors. We will also discuss what strategies can be used by progressive organizations and contractors.

If you are a contractor or considering becoming an independent contractor as a result of recent retirement or due to this economic environment, this session will be beneficial to you. Come with your questions.

The presenter is CEO Aly Bandali, CHRP. Aly has almost 20 years of executive management experience in the field of human resources. He has worked as an HR strategist in a variety of sectors, including oil and gas, energy, engineering, aviation, municipal government, private enterprise and not-for-profit. Aly has been chairman of the Canadian Council of HR Associations, HR Institute of Alberta and HR Association of Calgary. He has also served on the HR Committee of the Chamber of Commerce and the Executive Education Committee at the University of Alberta.

Presentation:
Please login to download the presentation
Top of Page

September 30, 2015

Emulsion Handling Fees

The topic for discussion at the September Early Morning Session was: What should the accepted industry practice be on determining Emulsion Handling Fees in a low price environment?

Presentation:
Please login to download the presentation
Top of Page

May 27, 2015

The Art of Equalizations

The topic for discussion at the upcoming Early Morning Session will be on equalizations. Lorie Lindberg will be on hand to take us through the information and expertise needed to prepare an equalization and will speak to what we in JV need to look for in order to review and approve same. Lorie has worked in the oilpatch for a number of years in oil and gas production accounting. She has her CMA designation and has completed several certificate programs including CAPPA, Oil and Gas Auditing and teaching.

Lorie has taught for CAPPA for 25 years and has taught many years for PASC in the areas of Equalizations and Production and Revenue Accounting. Lorie has consulted for several companies for the past 19 years specializing in the areas of Equalizations and Gas Cost Allowance.

Presentation:
Please login to download the presentation
Top of Page

April 29, 2015

A+D Issues from a JV Perspective

What are the various issues that could arise in an Acquisition or Divestiture? In what phase of the transaction (pre-close, close or post-close) might the issue occur? Does the existence of a governing JV agreement alleviate any issues? Finally and most importantly, what actions can the Joint Venture technician take to rectify the issue to the satisfaction of all parties involved?

Robyn Lewis (JV Specialist, Crescent Point Energy Corp.), and Lorie Caron, (Lead, Joint Interest Administration, Encana Services Company Ltd.), both possessing sufficient experience with A & D transactions during their years in joint venture, will moderate this session. The issues will be discussed with a view to sharing the cause and best resolutions. It is hoped that members will come to the session “armed” with their own issues and experiences to relate and discuss with the group.


Top of Page

March 25, 2015

Facilities 101 Course Status

Find out what's included, who's part of the team developing the course, how the course will be laid out and why there seems to be significant interest in the course. Course developer Rein Evelein and Board member Tracey Moore-Lewis will present and moderate the session.


Top of Page

February 25, 2015

Pad Sharing Agreement

Industry is drilling increasingly from shared well pads where wells or facilities are not held in common interests. This has created a need for an industry pad sharing agreement. How can the rights of the Operator and Joint Operators under the respective Joint Operating Agreements be balanced with the needs of the padsite Operator?

A joint PJVA-CAPL task force has accepted the challenge of developing a model well pad sharing agreement to strike such a balance. The agreement will govern the construction and operation of the shared site and shared facilities. It will raise awareness of, and bring clarity to the issues of Operatorship, liabilities and conduct of padsite operations. An industry standard model will speed the process of creating shared well pad agreements and offer parties the flexibility to customize for their own particular needs.

Task Force members Michael Bruch and Lorraine Grant will present and moderate on this topic.

Presentation:
Please login to download the presentation
Top of Page

January 28, 2015

Our first Early Morning Session of the New Year will be held on Wednesday, January 28th. Esteemed members of the C.O. & O. Task Force will be "in the house" to update us on their progress with the new Model Construction, Ownership and Operation Agreement. Tim Reimer and Crawford Hutchinson will moderate the session with expert assistance from Lynda MacNeill and Jan McLean. The group will provide an overview of the changes made to the agreement and why it is taking longer than anticipated to complete the process. This is a session you won't want to miss!

Presentation:
Please login to download the presentation
Top of Page

November 26, 2014

Budgets

  • Are companies actually sending out annual budgets for a vote anymore?
  • Is it really necessary to have budgets approved by partners or just sent for information purposes?
  • Do we need budgets for all facilities and units, just the major ones or those facilities and units with high operating costs?
  • How should the mechanics work? Are the current timelines in the agreement practical and achievable?
  • What can we do if the operator doesn’t comply?
  • Some Operators use the approval of the annual budget as blanket approval for the year for all of the maintenance projects mentioned in the budget documents, no matter how large the dollar value. Is this really legitimate?

Ib Moller, recently returned from warmer, sunnier climes, will moderate this “chilly” discussion.


Top of Page

November 3, 2014

Mr. Ove Ryland of Norway, Executive Director for EPIM (Exploration Production Information Management)

Mr. Ryland will discuss the background and history of the EPIM (Exploration Production Information Management) organization, challenges and the Norwegian regulatory/JV regime. Norway is considered one of the world’s most attractive E&P provinces, mainly because of their globally recognized best in class framework and reputation. Now, more than ever, the industry is pressured to reduce costs by leveraging best practices.

EPIM was established by the operators on the Norwegian Continental Shelf who identified a need to share information between operators and partners. Through this initiative L2S (License To Share) was created. Ove Ryland will share the story about how L2S has developed from its formation, through changes and regulatory reporting to becoming a global best practice solution for JV Management. He will shed light on the process, the challenges and opportunities through more than 10 years of its existence, and the role of EPIM going forward in establishing best practice solutions across the O&G industry. Since the birth of L2S, EPIM has identified 4 additional areas of expertise where the O&G industry can improve collaboration and information handling.

Ove Ryland, Executive Director, EPIM

Educational background and experience in IT, SCM, Project Mngt & Economics. Worked for 20 years + in Amoco & BP, mainly in Major Development Projects, SCM & Operator’s Joint Venture Management arena, incl. integrated business planning. Been a part of O&G industry collaboration forums since 1999. Became chair of EPIM BoD in 2007 and Executive Director from 2008.


Top of Page

October 29, 2014

Statute of Limitations

At the October 29th Early Morning Session, we will revisit The Limitations Act.

The Limitations Act sets the time limit when the “books are closed”, although many JV agreements extend the time limit. How is industry handling “leftover” items such as:

  • Forgotten Invoices (Operator discovers it had not been invoicing)
  • Discovery of a systemic error
  • Uncompleted 13th Month Adjustments
  • Unresolved audit queries:
    • Claims that extend beyond the audit period
    • Time to resolve audit queries

Julie Taylor and Paul Chiswell, solicitors with Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer LLP, will give a legal overview of Alberta’s Limitations Act and address questions.

Presentation:
Please login to download the presentation
Top of Page

September 24, 2014

Emulsion & Water Handling Agreement

The PJVA Board of Directors would like to invite members to see, hear and experience the newly rolled out “Emulsion/Water Handling Agreement”.  This is the latest agreement to be added to the PJVA suite of model agreements.

The members of the EWHA taskforce will present the agreement, and will discuss the process followed (over 5 years) to complete this model.  Also discussed will be some of the more contentious clauses and issues which the taskforce worked through.

Task Force:
Deidre Garyk
Beth Swift-Hill
Tanis Kalynchuk (in a supporting role)
Marcel Savoie


Top of Page

May 28, 2014

TO CONSENT OR NOT TO CONSENT...THAT IS THE QUESTION

The primary topic for discussion at this week's EMS will be the assignment / consent provisions of the current PJVA model service agreements. We will discuss the wording of the clause and the reasons for requiring prior consent. What are the options of not granting consent and how vigorously should consents be followed-up on? This is a timely topic for discussion given the impending release of the new model Emulsion Handling Agreement where the consent provisions of the assignment clause have been removed.


Top of Page

April 30, 2014

Model Production Administration Service Agreement

By Jan McLean

The Early Morning Session on Wednesday, April 30th introduced the new PJVA Model Production Administration Service Agreement - the most recent addition to the PJVA slate of model agreements. The presentation described the purpose of the agreement and when use of the agreement is appropriate. The terms of the agreement were explained and additional information provided regarding basic operations, identification of production sources and commonly misunderstood terms.

Jan McLean, long time PJVA member and recently recognized Lifetime Member, presented and moderated this session. Her vast knowledge and experience are well known to the industry. If you're new to the PJVA, you should check out Jan's bio on the website. Jan has been involved in the creation and maintenance of numerous model agreements. The session will be interesting and informative for all who attend.

Presentation:
Please login to download the presentation
Top of Page

March 26, 2014

A Recommended Practice for the Negotiation of Processing Fees

By Tim Reimer, Rick Steffensen

Presentation:
Please login to download the presentation
Top of Page

Jan 29, 2014

"THE ALL DATE DEBATE"

The topic for the upcoming EMS will be DATES! There are agreement dates, effective dates, closing dates, binding dates and others. What do these dates mean and are they all of relevant to Joint Venture? How are dates used and referenced in JV Agreements or exhibits?

Of recent concern with is where the Alberta Crown requires that a unit exhibit effective date documenting an amalgamation mirror the effective date of that amalgamation, as opposed to the normal practice of dating the exhibit the 1st day of the month following. Where a royalty default exists, the Crown are only refunding to the date of the unit exhibit rather than the date of the transaction. We hope to have some insight on this issue from the Crown to share with members at the session.

Other date related topics for discussion:
  • what issues arise when an incorrect effective date is used on an exhibit?
  • what is an acceptable amount of time to back-date an agreement or exhibit?
  • how are AFE's and Mail Ballots received during the period of time between the effective date and closing date of an A & D transaction and post close handled?
Robyn Lewis, Joint Venture Unit / A & D Specialist with Penn West and "friends" (TBA) will moderate the session.

Presentation:
Please login to download the presentation
Top of Page

Nov 28, 2013

Handling of Non-Unit Production in Unit Facilities

How should we handle non-Unit (Owner and Non-Owner) production at a Unit facility? There are many discussion points on this issue, some of which include:
  • Can Unit Owners use the Unit facilities for their non-Unit volumes?
  • What clauses in the PJVA Model UOA deal with this issue?
  • How should non-Unit volumes be treated with regard to fees, priorities, etc.?
  • Should Unit Owners have to pay for use of their "owned" facilities?
  • How should fee revenue for non-Unit volumes be allocated to Unit Owners?
  • Will this require a 13th month adjustment of operating costs?
  • Should non-Unit volumes owned by a Unit Owner be treated differently than those owned by a Non-Owner?
  • Is the Unit Operator required to enter into agreements with Unit Owners and non-Owners bringing in non-Unit volumes (including itself)?
Ib Moller, a Principal of GPMi, will moderate this discussion.

Presentation:
Please login to download the presentation
Top of Page

Oct 1, 2013

Mentorship, Help Link Ideas

PJVA is exploring the possibility of developing a mentorship program within the association to provide guidance towards this career path as well as to continued growth in each discipline. Those of us who have been mentored throughout our careers know the benefits. Mentoring usually occurs in-house. Can PJVA take advantage of the vast knowledge and experience within our membership towards the development of a mentorship program?

We'd like your questions, comments, ideas and opinions on this topic and to gauge interest and the level of participation we could expect, particularly from those who would act in the role of mentor.

We will also unveil our plans to add a "help link" option on the PJVA website where members can post about issues they are experiencing in the workplace which would be responded to by members who may have worked through a similar issue.




Top of Page

Oct 30, 2013

Joint Venture Agreements between a Company and Itself

The October 30th EMS topic for discussion will be the use of agreements between a company and itself, i.e., ABC Company as operator of a facility and ABC Company as operator of a source. Some companies use these agreements extensively while others do not believe such an agreement would be valid or even necessary.

There are practical reasons for having these agreements: one, as a means of charging source owners their share of custom user fees and another to avoid the preparation of separate service agreements with each source owner.


Top of Page

May 29, 2013

What Do We Do When the Crown Wants Out?

Presentation:
Please login to download the presentation


Top of Page

March 27, 2013

Negotiation Tactics & Dealing with Conflicts Relating to Joint Venture

This topic will be led by J.B. Isaacs from the Sage Institute of Calgary Ltd. J.B. specializes in Arbitration, Mediation, Management Consulting and Negotiation.

Attendees are encouraged to participate and if desired, come prepared with real-life examples of negotiation and conflicts they have experienced or anticipate experiencing related to JV and the work place.


Top of Page

January 30, 2013

Cost Recovery or Profit?

Lynda MacNeill shares her views and introduces us to some old concepts (and some new ones) as we discuss overhead.

Topics we'll touch on include:
  • What is overhead?
  • Another overhead for Engineering? How many rates do we really need?
  • Why are certain items excluded from the overhead calculations?
  • What overhead can be charged under draft agreements? What if there's no agreement?
  • How far back can I go to charge overhead if it's been missed or charged incorrectly?
Lynda is an active member of both PJVA and PASC. She is a member of the PJVA CO&O Task Force and is the Past Chair of the PASC Joint Interest Research Committee, where she lead the development of the 1996 and 2011 PASC Accounting Procedures. What overhead rates and elections do you use for the accounting procedure?




Top of Page

December 5, 2012

Budgets: What do we Really Need?

Ib Moller will moderate the discussion and the speakers will be:
  • Crawford Hutchinson from Devon - who will share his opinion on only issuing forecasts (not for approval) as opposed to formal budgets
  • Glen Kinney from ConocoPhillips - who will share his view on only issuing budgets for larger facilities, rather than smaller ones such as gathering lines and compressor stations.
We will also discuss:
  • What is really approved in a budget: operating costs, maintenance projects, turnarounds, projects above the operator's spending limit?
  • What happens if the budget is not approved?
  • What happens if the actual spending is above the budget?
  • Timing of Budgets: end of October, end of year, end of August?
  • Should Budgets be by Functional Unit?
  • Do Budgets need to be by Quarter, by Month, by Year?
CO&O Budget Provisions: Points made at the discussion will be considered by the CO&O Task Force which is currently updating the PJVA Model CO&O Agreement.

Presentations:
EMS Budgets (pptx)
PJVA Operating Cost Coffee Discussion (ppt)


Top of Page

October 29, 2012

"Can contracts help foster trust between partners?"

Christian Cormier will approach this topic using a case study format, looking to engage the audience in different scenarios to see how we could use contracts to help partners work together. For example:
  • are there specific clauses or language that could foster trust?
  • could framing the obligations as a penalty or a gain affect your partner's performance?
Christian will also talk about how the interpretation and enforcement of a contract can influence trust and the relationship between partners. For example:
  • would you rely on trust or the contract to help you resolve an issue with your partners? And to what extent?
  • can a more flexible interpretation of the contract help build trust?



Top of Page

October 3, 2012

Introducing the New PJVA Administration Portfolio

Items to be spoken to will include an outline of the portfolio and its 2 - 3 year plan.

We will also be looking for attendees to provide their input on the thought toward having administration templates and any suggestions for implementation.

The EMS will be moderated by Lorie Caron, Group Lead, Joint Venture Administration at Encana. Her vision as a new member of the PJVA Board of Directors is twofold - to create a repository within the PJVA website for Administrators, where they can find tools to help perform their tasks faster and with more efficiency and to establish PJVA Administration standards and processes across the industry. Lorie has successfully implemented an end to end document solution for the Joint Venture agreements at Encana, and has had positive results working with vendors to capture JV Administration processes within their systems. She continually provides innovative ways to help automate and standardize the basic JV Administration processes within Encana, which allow Administrators to focus on additional non-routine Administrative tasks and grow in their own career development.

Lorie joined the oil and gas industry in 1981 within the Exploration Services area at PanCanadian and held different administration, clerical and analytical positions within drilling, completions, accounting, production/facility operations, mineral land and joint venture. Within the JV group, she performed a variety of tasks from administration to analyst work, before moving into a leadership position. Lorie was instrumental in the re-write of the PJVA-Mount Royal Joint Venture Administration course, and teaches this same course at Mount Royal University.

Presentations:
Administration Portfolio (pdf)



Top of Page

May 2012

Just let the Arbitrator Decide!

Many Joint Venture Agreements include arbitration clauses specifying the process to undertake if the Joint Venture Owners cannot decide on any item among themselves. Having the ability to go to arbitration is particularly important in two-Party Agreements where unanimous consent is required. At this EMS we will review dispute resolution through arbitration including the typical arbitration process and the PJVA arbitration clauses. We will then discuss some of the issues that should be considered before deciding to go to arbitration. Considerations include:
  • What is Arbitration:
    - Key Components and Legal context
  • Types of Arbitration,
  • Commencing the process and selecting an Arbitrator,
  • Benefits: time, confidentiality and resource considerations
  • Challenges
Session moderated by Gary Selby, Mediator/Arbitrator and a instructor for the AAMS Arbitration Certificate in Alberta.


Top of Page

April 2012

Shutting in Wells and Facilities in a Low Price Environment

The sales gas price has dropped to its lowest level in many years and hence the revenue from some gas wells may be insufficient to cover their operating costs and royalties. Understandably, the Well Owners do not want to produce their wells at a loss and are considering shutting-in their uneconomic wells and/or gas facilities. At this EMS we will discuss some of the issues that should be considered when evaluating which wells and facilities should be shut-in.

Considerations include:
  • Well Operating costs
    • What if the Operator has a different cost structure than the other Owners?
  • Costs to suspend and re-activate the wells and facilities
  • Shut-in Well Operating Costs
  • Impact on Royalty Owners and Leases
  • Shutting in Gas Processing Facilities
    • Provisions of CO&O Agreement
    • Third-Party Processing Agreements
    • Shut-in Facility Operating Costs
The session was moderated by Paul O'Gorman, JV Representative from EnCana and Frank Terner from Shell's Land department.


Top of Page

March 2012

CO&O Model Agreement Updating Task Force

PJVA has established a Task Force to prepare a new and improved 2013 CO&O Model Agreement. The intent is to gather as much feedback on the existing 1999 CO&O Model Agreement as we can including industry comments, concerns and proposed improvements, sort through the comments and prepare a new CO&O Model Agreement using this feedback.

Comments on the existing Agreement have already been collected from an industry poll and from an EMS held in May 2010. In addition, several companies have already provided their comments or their modified CO&O Agreement.

We plan to review the comments collected so-far and solicit additional thoughts, bouquets, complaints and improvement to the existing CO&O Agreement at this Early Morning Session.

The session was co-moderated by Steve Roberts and Ib Moller from GPMi.

Presentation:
Please login to download an attached file


Top of Page

February 2012

How do we avoid this ROFR?

When a company wants to sell some or all of its assets, the current Owner will enter into a mutually agreeable sale arrangement with another Party. The sale will then proceed based on this agreement, right? Wrong! Many CO&O, Unit Operating and other Joint Venture Agreements limit the sale of an asset to a new Party without first offering the asset to the other Joint Venture Owners in the asset on the same terms and conditions as agreed between the current Owner and the new Party. This process is called a right-of-first-refusal (ROFR). During this EMS we will give an overview of the ROFR process and then discuss:
  • Why many Joint Venture Agreements contain ROFR provisions,
  • Evaluating the deemed value of each asset when multiple assets that are administered under different JV Agreements are sold in a single transaction,
  • When ROFR provisions don't apply,
  • What can happen if the ROFR process is ignored,
  • What if the existing Owners disagree with the deemed asset value,
  • Should we have ROFR's on jointly owned facilities?
Session co-moderated by Candice Jones from BD&P with overview of the ROFR process and some of the issues that can be encountered and Ib Moller from GPMi.

Presentation:
Please login to download an attached file


Top of Page

January 2012

EPAP is Here to Stay

The Enhanced Production Audit Program (EPAP) is a new audit methodology mandated by the ERCB for assuring measurement and reporting compliance.

EPAP requires that Operators annually declare the state of their measuring and reporting infrastructure to ensure compliance with ERCB requirements. Although Operators need not be fully compliant, they need to declare the extent to which they have controls in place and their plans to ensure future compliance.

During this EMS we will give an overview of the EPAP process and then discuss:
  • Why EPAP came into effect and what benefits can be anticipated.
  • How companies are meeting their mandated obligations.
  • What happens if a company fails to be compliant?
  • Who pays for the additional work?
  • Is Partner approval required?
  • What are the JV/Agreement/Measurement implications?
Session co-moderated by David Penton, measurement consultant helping companies with their EPAP program and Bill Wells, Keyera, who is responsible for Keyera's EPAP Program.

Presentation:
Please login to download an attached file


Top of Page

November 2011

The Statute of Limitations and Leftover Billings

The Statute of Limitations act sets the time limit when the "books are closed", although many JV agreements extend the time limit. How is industry handling "leftover" items such as:
  • Forgotten Invoices (Operator discovers he had not been invoicing)
  • Discovery of a systemic error
  • Uncompleted 13th Month Adjustments
  • Unresolved audit queries:
    - Claims that extend beyond the audit period
    - Time to resolve audit queries
  • In addition, if the property was sold in the interim - who pays?
Romeo Rojas from Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer will give a legal overview of Alberta's Limitations Act as well as any recent court case decisions (if any). After the legal review, Jerry Marchak from Daylight Energy Ltd from will lead the discussion on current industry practice.

This EMS is essentially a repeat of the quickly sold-out September 2010 EMS on the same topic. If you attended the last Statute of Limitations session, please delay your registration so others who could not attend that session might be able to attend this session.

Session moderated by Jerry Marchak from Daylight Energy Ltd.

Presentation:
Please login to download an attached file


Top of Page

October 2011

"We Only Want Custom Processing!"

You have found a Facility Operator that will process your gas for a reasonable fee, but now they also insist on providing "additional" services that will cost much more than just the gas processing fee. Is it reasonable that Facility Operators require the following in addition to the processing fees:
  • Operator must contract operate all Producer's wells and facilities tied-in to their system
  • Operator must complete all production accounting and provide all government reporting
  • Operator will market all Producer's products - Producer cannot take product in-kind
  • Producer is only given gas heating value for their hydrocarbon liquids
  • Operator will charge fees for other "services", such as:
    - Accounting Fees
    - CSO Fees
    - Administration Fees
    - Tie-in Fees
    - Marketing Fees
Are any of these additional services really necessary? Does the same apply to oil handling?

We want to hear your opinions and experiences related to any additional services and fees that Facility Operators insist on providing.



Top of Page

May 2011

Gathering System Mysteries

Operating a gathering system may seem fairly straight forward. Gas or oil goes in one end and hopefully comes out the other. When you involve partners in a gathering system, it can get more complicated. Gathering System Mysteries will be discussed at this EMS. In particular:
  • What happens if the new production backs-out the existing production?
    • How do you determine a fair back-out fee?
    • What is the basis for the back-out fees currently being charged?
  • Typically CO&O's use capacity as one of the key components for allocating usage fees, but a gathering pipeline is always full.
    • How do you determine whether an owner is overusing their capacity?
    • What pipeline capacity should you use for allocating fees?
  • If a gathering system is comprised of a bunch of flow-lines, who actually owns it?
    • If a third party wants to use the gathering system, who gets the fees?
    • Does the Operator have the authority to allow the third party to use the system?
    • Who pays for major capital additions or abandonment costs?
  • JP05 recommends using distance based fees in gathering systems ($0.20-$0.35/e3m3/km)
    • Are these really fair for long lines?
    • Does anyone charge the lower limit fee?
    • Are you seeing unjustified gathering system fee increases?
  • Do you have any other Gatherings System Mysteries you want to discuss?
Session facilitated by Keith Brereton and Ib Moller of GPMI.



Top of Page

April 2011

Introduction of the PJVA Model Tie-In Agreement

The PJVA Tie-in Agreement Task Force has recently issued the final draft of the PJVA Model Tie-In Agreement. The Agreement covers the costs, specification, construction, liabilities, insurance and statutory requirements related to the tie-in of Producer's equipment to an existing facility.

The main points of the draft Agreement will be reviewed in the EMS, feedback previously solicited and received through PJVA will be addressed and then we'll have further discussion and feedback. In particular:
  • Do you have any suggestions to improve clarity?
  • Are there any specific issues which may need to be added to the final tie-in agreement?
  • Are there clauses in the agreement that may be a hindrance to getting it executed?
  • Have you reviewed the draft Agreement yet?
The Task Force is led by Joan Lee and is made up of Dan McCormack, John Rothwell, Suzanne Oliver, Rose Schellenberg and Tracy McKim.

Please join us in thanking them on a job well done.

The session was facilitated by Joan Lee, the task force leader.

Please login to see the attached files:

Member Login

Username:
Password:
Forgot your password?



Top of Page

March 2011

Conflict Resolution - How are you resolving conflicts?

Unfortunately conflicts often arise when dealing with Partners. Many JV Agreements have dispute resolution appendices. How are you resolving your conflicts, especially if the other party doesn't want to come to a resolution? Do you have a magic solution, other than giving in?

Our March EMS will be a great opportunity to talk about conflict resolution and what each of us does when in conflict. While this is not the venue to deal with specific joint venture conflicts, this is your opportunity to have a conversation about them. What are the priority challenges? What are the "normal" behaviors and practices? What needs to change?

Session facilitated by David B. Savage and J.B. Isaacs.



Top of Page

January 2011

Facility Consolidation - A great idea?

If there are several large unutilized facilities in an area, it seems to make sense to consolidate the production into one. In reality, this is easier said than done.

Facility consolidation raises many difficult issues to be resolved among the Owners of both facilities. How do you decide which facility should remain operating and which facility to be shut-down? Who should pay for the modifications to the surviving facility to accept the new production? Who should pay for the reclamation of the shut-down facility? Should the owners of the shut-down facility have preferential processing rights in the operating facility? Should they become Owners in the operating facility?

These topics and more will be discussed at the EMS. What is your experience around facility consolidations? Whose plant was shut-down (anyone but mine)? Do you have any ideas to simplify the process?

Session moderated by Bill Armstrong from GPMI



Top of Page

November 2010

Are JP-05 Fees Fair in Today's Environment?

The JP-05 processing fee methodology was crafted over five years ago when gas price forecasts were somewhat more optimistic than today. Is the JP-05 fee calculation still fair for both the processor and the facility owner in today's environment? Come out and discuss your views on the JP-05 processing fee methodology.

Other items to be discussed at this session will include:
  • What actions can a processor undertake should revenue be less than the fees and operating costs?
  • Is there any obligation on behalf of the facility owners to lower the fees in an existing contract if the producer claims he is losing money by producing?
  • Should there be any considerations given for third party gas which is unavoidably comingled with owner's gas?
Session moderated by John Kingsbury from GPMI who was a member of the JP05, JP95 and JP90 task forces.


Top of Page

October 2010

Outdated Agreements - Issues and Pitfalls

Occasionally an older JV Agreement (such as a CO&O or Unit Agreement) for a specific facility may not be appropriate for the current operations of the facility. This might occur when one or more of the JV partners purchases the assets of the others, or through the addition or removal of facilities equipment.

Items to be discussed at this session will include how industry is handling items such as:
  • Unworkable voting procedures
  • Older Agreements missing new provisions
  • Agreements not kept up to date
  • Unsigned Agreements
The session co-moderated by Rick Steffensen from PennWest Energy Trust and Ib Moller from GPMI.

Presentation:
Outdated, Antiquated and Unsigned Agreements (pdf)




Top of Page

September 2010

The Statute of Limitations and Leftover Billings

The Statute of Limitations act sets the time limit when the "books are closed", although many JV agreements extend the time limit. How is industry handling "leftover" items such as:
  • Forgotten Invoices (Operator discovers he had not been invoicing)
  • Discovery of a systemic error
  • Uncompleted 13th Month Adjustments
  • Unresolved audit queries:
    • Claims that extend beyond the audit period
    • Time to resolve audit queries
  • In addition, if the property was sold in the interim - who pays?
Counsel from Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer will give a legal overview of Alberta's Limitations Act as well as any recent court case decisions (if any). After the legal review, Doug Phillips from Advantage will lead the group discussion on current industry practice.

The session moderated by Doug Phillips from Advantage Oil & Gas Ltd.

Presentation:
Limitation Periods & the Oil and Gas Industry (pdf)


Top of Page

May 2010

Re-Visiting the CO&O Agreement

The PJVA Model Construction Ownership and Operating (CO&O) Agreement was published in 1999. Many companies have a number of CO&O Agreements that have been in draft form for many years. The PJVA has set up a Task Force to review the need to update the current model CO&O Agreement and is seeking industry feedback regarding issues with the current model CO&O Agreement. Come and give your input.
  • Is the current CO&O model difficult to generate?
  • Are there particular clauses in the CO&O model that companies find objectionable or are commonly rewritten?
  • Are there new clauses that need to be added to the CO&O model?
  • Are there other reasons that companies do not execute CO&O's in a timely fashion?
  • Does the current CO&O model require an overall update?
  • What possible remedies are there?
The session moderated by Jan McLean, member of the PJVA CO&O Agreement Task Force.


Top of Page

March 2010

EPAP - What the heck is that?

The Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) has changed the process for auditing oil and natural gas volumetric data submitted by operators. The Enhanced Production Audit Program (EPAP) is a new measurement and reporting compliance assurance program being introduced by the ERCB. It replaces the current audit program and introduces a new audit methodology for assuring compliance.
  • What is the new process?
  • How are companies meeting their obligations?
  • Who pays for the additional work?
  • Is Partner approval required?
  • What are the JV/Agreement/Measurement implications?
Colby Ruff from the ERCB - an overview of the Enhanced Production Audit Program and the issues they were seeing under the old program. Ib Moller - moderator.

Presentation:
Intro to the Enhanced Production Audit Program (pdf)



Top of Page

February 2010

Mail Ballots and AFEs - Who needs them?

Operating Agreements generally require the Facility or Unit Operator to obtain specific approval for Capital or Operating projects above a certain expenditure limit from the Facility or Unit Working Interest Owners using Mail Ballots or AFEs.
  • When are Mail Ballots/AFEs used?
  • Is approval required for the project scope, or for the project expenditure?
  • What occurs if approval is denied?
  • What is a reasonable expenditure limit?
  • How should over-expenditures be handled?
Session moderated by Crawford Hutchinson from Devon discussing his experience obtaining specific Mail Ballot and Partner AFE approvals.



Top of Page

January 2010

Annual Operating Forecasts - Who needs them?

Many Operating Agreements require the Facility or Unit Operator obtain approval for the annual Operating Forecast from the Facility or Unit Working Interest Owners prior to a date specified in the Operating Agreement.
  • Are Operators providing annual Operating Forecasts?
  • Do the Non-Operators require this information, and if so why?
  • Should similar information be provided under Processing Agreements or in areas without a specific Operating Agreement?
  • What could happen/has happened if the Operator fails to provide an annual Operating Forecast?
  • What are possible next steps for the Operator if the Owners do not approve the annual Operating Forecast?
  • What is the protocol/procedure if the Operator overspends the annual Operating Forecast? Overspends by how much? Is any notice or additional approval required?
Session moderated by Kimi Rutz from Conoco Phillips discussing experience with obtaining approval of annual Operating Forecasts.

Presentation:
Annual Operating Forecasts (pdf)



Top of Page

November 2009

Auditing in a Low Price Environment
  1. Are auditors looking harder in this low price environment?
    • Overhead charges from third party contractors
    • Administrative services provided as part of third-party contracts
    • Lower materiality threshold - what is reasonable?
    • Audit "information requests"
    • How can we effectively manage audit claims?

  2. Is there a disconnect between the auditors and their clients?
    • Are audits being reviewed by JV group prior to submission?
    • What is the role of the JV auditor, vis a vis the role of the operating committee/JV reps?

  3. Open Discussion - what audit issues are you seeing?
    • Are they reasonable?
The session will be moderated by an Operator (Encana), who will discuss audit issues they are currently facing. Other views (from Non-Operators, Processors and Producers etc.) are encouraged. Please contact Keith Brereton (403-691-2645) if you are interested in representing other views.

Open discussion about the issues and potential solutions.



Top of Page

October 2009

Shutting in Wells and Facilities in a Low Price Environment
  1. Shutting in Gas Wells
    • Provisions of the Joint Operating Agreement (CAPL)
    • Impact on Royalty Owners and Leases
    • Partner notification
    • Unit considerations
    • Processing agreements
    • Suspension of wells
    • Shut-in Operating Costs

  2. Shutting in Gas Processing Facilities
    • Provisions of CO&O Agreement
    • Partner considerations
    • Processing agreements for third parties
    • Notification to owners and third parties
    • Shut-in Operating Costs

Producers and Midstreamers speak to their issues re shutting in production; open discussion about the impacts and potential solutions.


Top of Page

September 2009

JV Issues re Conversion to IFRS*
(*International Financial Reporting Standards)

Background
By 2011, all publicly traded companies in North America are expected to switch to IFRS from the current accounting reporting standard. This will have an impact on Joint Ventures, since some things will have to be reported differently than is current industry practice, especially operating costs vs. capital costs. This may require companies to have work practices (capital vs. expense) and issue AFE's for projects that would normally be expensed. For example:

Turnarounds: IFRS calls for turnarounds to be capitalized, and amortized over the period (forward) to the next turnaround; turnarounds are currently treated as operating costs in our CO&O's and processing agreements
  1. Impact on Producers that are Facility Owners
  2. Impact on Midstream Facility Owners
  3. Impact on Third Party users of Facilities (processing fees)
  4. Affect on Overhead - expense vs. capital
Abandonment: IFRS calls for abandonment to be expensed



Top of Page

May 2009

Processing Fees and Other Fees

This will be a general open discussion session to be led by Ib Moller. Some topics to be considered:
  1. A trend seems to be developing towards more expensive fees; are producers seeing some "gouging" by processors?
  2. JP-05 Fees: are producers seeing higher capital fees justified by higher "Replacement Cost" estimates? What happens when the "Original Cost" is not known?
  3. Do operating fees ever go down? Are third party producer fees suffering from declining throughputs?
  4. What can be done in the low price environment, when some well owner's production is uneconomic, while other's is un-economic?
  5. Questionable fee practices: charging Common Stream Operator fees for each well, duplicate well administration fees (e.g. for gathering and for processing); production accounting fees by owner; etc.
Audience discussion of experiences; determine whether any of these issues may warrant a review by the PJVA and/or other industry associations.



Top of Page

April 2009

Those Pesky Accounting Issues
  1. Should a fee be charged to cover the cost of allocation or accounting re-runs, should there be greater accountability to provide accurate and timely production data?
  2. Retroactive adjustments: how far back can service agreement fees or equalization costs be adjusted, are these limited to the Statute of Limitations
  3. Take in Kind Issues
    • Should producers always be allowed to take their products ion kind at the plant gate?
    • Should minority well owners that take in kind have their own processing contract or be included in the well Operator's contract?
  4. Affiliates: some CO&Os don't have an affiliates clause: should affiliates pay third party fees if the agreement doesn't specify otherwise, should an Owner's Silent Partners be treated as Affiliates or Third Parties


Top of Page

March 2009

Issues with Annual Budgets
  1. What happens if the partners do not approve the annual budget?
    • Will the Operator continue to operate?
    • Will some partners stop paying their share of bills
    • If there are no consequences should the budget be balloted or simply issued for information?
  2. Should budgets be issued for each Functional Unit in a plant?
  3. Other issues regarding allocating costs to Functional Units


Top of Page

February 2009

Issues with Greenhouse Gas Credits

Plant Operators now have a responsibility to manage Emission Liabilities and Emission Reduction Credits at facilities. Issues can arise regarding how individual Owners handle their liabilities and utilize credits.

The mechanisms and implementation of the CAPP Guidelines.



Top of Page

January 2009

Issues with Well Operating Charges

Well operating charges made to the Joint Account often result in questions and disputes. The matrix posted below is intended to bring some clarity to these charges.

The presenters at the Early Morning Session will welcome your comments and will point out some issues that can often result in a disagreement about what is chargeable versus what the Operator should pay under the Joint Operating Agreement.

Presentations:


Top of Page

November 2008

Issues with Two Party CO&O's and Issues with Facilities without CO&O's
  1. Two Party CO&O's:
    • Managing the Agreement
    • Issues that develop when one party has a small interest.
    • Other Issues
  2. Operating Facilites where there is no CO&O
    • Should mail ballots be sent?
    • Should 13th month adjustments be done?
    • How should third party fee revenues be distributed?
    • Other Issues


Top of Page

October 2008

Gas Gathering System Fee Issues
  1. JP-05 Fees: Calculated Fees vs. Distance Based Fees
  2. Fees by Single GGS, by Lateral used, or by Segment used?
  3. Calculated Fees: Capacity or Throughput based
    • Capacity based - What is capacity?
    • When are calculated fees applicable?
    • Sour Gas gathering
  4. Distance Based Fees: $0.20-$0.35/e3m3/km
    • Higher Pressure gathering vs. Low Pressure gathering
  5. Operating Costs:
    • Who charges GGS operating costs?
    • Costs allocated to GGS, or to Wells?
    • Cost of pigging
  6. Well Flow Lines and Tie-ins
    • Fees for non-participating well owners
Ib Moller - moderator

Top of Page

May 2008

The proposed new Well Administration and Production Accounting Agreement

A task force is to be formed in the fall, and so this is expected to be an interactive session to discuss the following:
  • Why is this agreement required?
  • What should be included in this agreement?
  • Why can this agreement not be incorporated into existing agreements?
  • How is it different from a Contract Operating Agreement or a Gas Handling Agreement?
  • Other?
Jan McLean - Moderator

Presentation:
Proposed Well Administration Agreement (pdf)

Top of Page

March 2008

Drafting and Execution of CO&O Agreements

CO&O Agreements often exist in draft form for many years after the construction of a facility. Mike Taylor moderated a discussion on the following:


Top of Page

February 2008

Tie In Agreements

Kimi Rutz - moderator:
  • What is the purpose of the Tie In Agreement?
  • What should it cover?
  • Should there be a standard?
    • Is this a JV Agreement?
    • Who should administer this agreement?
    • Other questions/issues
Members of the Agreements Task Force present for discussion.

Presentation:
Tie-in Agreements (pdf)

Top of Page

October 2007

Operator Overhead
Issues related to overhead in Joint Venture Operations

Doug Gurel presented and moderated a discussion of the practical issues arising from his years of experience in negotiating Joint Venture Agreements, dealing with audit queries and handling Partner concerns on matters related to Overhead.



Top of Page

June 2007

PASC Accounting Procedure
  • What does simplification in the Accounting Procedure mean? More clarity? More negotiating room? Specific direction?
  • What does "approval" mean? What are acceptable mechanisms?
  • How do we deal with billing disputes?
  • What is the role of the JV Auditor, vis a vis the role of the Operating Committee/JV Reps? How can we effectively manage audit claims?
  • The push to direct charge more costs: what is the root cause?
  • Should engineering costs be capped? If so, how? If not, why not?


Top of Page

April 2007

Internal Engineering Costs

Some companies are adding a fixed percentage to their AFEs for internal engineering costs; others are tracking and charging the actual hours spent by staff on engineering; while others are simply not tracking or recovering these costs.
  • What is the general practice for charging internal engineering costs?
  • How are charges from engineering alliances handled?
  • What hourly rates should be charged for in-house engineering?
  • What is an appropriate % rate for flat in-house engineering charges?
  • What is appropriate per the PASC Accounting Procedures?
  • Other issues re in-house technical charges


Top of Page

February 2007

  1. Allocation Issues
    • Daily Balancing vs. Monthly Balancing to Align With Marketing (pros and cons)
    • How is it currently handled?
    • Impact on fees?
    • Can Prism and QByte handle?
  2. Allocation Procedures
    • Best practices
  3. Fuel Gas Allocation
    • On compressor stations
    • On gathering or sales lines

Top of Page

January 2007

  1. Abandonment and Reclamation Charges
    • Who pays for Abandonment & Reclamation - Operating vs. Capital costs
    • Changes of ownership - changes of Operator
    • CO&O provisions
    • Partial abandonment of facilities - during facility normal operation
    • Cleanup of spills - during facility normal operation
    • Should we charge Third Parties using the facilities - variable operating costs
    • Midstreamer's responsibilities - charges to users
  2. Abandonment and Reclamation Funds
    • Use of abandonment funds in the oil industry
    • Fund complications - taxes, ownership changes
    • Contributions by Third Parties
    • Midstreamer perspective
    • Royalty Trust perspective

Top of Page

November 2006

The new Gas Handling Agreement - with Linda Green



Top of Page

October 2006

  1. Well Administration Charges
    • What is the basis for the usual $250/month charge? Is this fee sufficient, or excessive?
    • Should this fee apply to all wells, shallow, sour, CBM?
    • Does each facility operator add their fee (is it cumulative)?
    • Is this charge considered a well operating cost (subject to overhead)?

  2. Real Time Production Information
    • What information is the facility Operator obliged to provide?
    • Should information be available to all well owners, or just the well operator? Does the Operator have to communicate with well owners? What agreed to terms to receive the data?
    • What costs should parties share in setting up the real time data distribution? Set up costs? Continuing costs?
    • Do well operators expect to be able to provide direction on how the facility Operator produces the wells or field?

Top of Page

September 2006

CO&O Agreement Issues
Linda Green, BA MBA - Enerplus Resources Fund
  1. Silent Partners - rights/obligations, Operator indemnity, ROFRs.
  2. Assignment Issues - notices, retroactive effective dates and retroactive use of Capacity
  3. Changes to Appendices - voting vs. fact
  4. Execution of Agreements - managing counterparts
  5. Handling of Appendices - delete vs. N/A
CO&O Agreement Issues (pdf)


Top of Page

March 2006

Operating Cost Allocation
  1. Economic vs. Accounting Fixed and Variable Costs
  2. Should Cost Allocation be Based on Throughput - User Pay
  3. Surplus Capacity - What does it really cost?
  4. Cost Allocation by Operating Fees
  5. Avoiding 13th month adjustments
Moderator: Ib Moller, Gas Processing Management Inc.


Top of Page

February 2006

PASC Accounting Procedure Update

PASC is currently updating their model form Accounting Procedure. There are many changes being contemplated. The current draft and a summary document outlining the changes can be downloaded from the PASC website.

PASC is looking for comments from industry by mid March. This session will provide a forum for discussion of JV issues with the current Accounting Procedure and ways to address those problems.


Top of Page

January 2006

PJVA Model Form Gas Handling Agreement
Presentation and Discussion

There will be an overview presentation of the new Gas Handling Agreement. Mike Taylor, Brian Zimmer and Linda Green will lead the presentation and discussion.

Discussion amongst attendees relating to other issues needing consideration.

Presentation:
Gas Handling Agreement (pdf)


Top of Page

December 2005

13th Month Adjustments
Kathleen Grey, Course Developer

Kathleen will give an overview of 13th month adjustments and identify common errors. As well, she will address different types of processing fees and their impact on 13th month adjustments.

Discussion amongst attendees to identify other issues and approaches with 13th month adjustments.


Top of Page

March 2005

Large Facilities Liability Management Program
Orest Kotelko - CNRL Chairman, CAPP Industry Shadow Group for the Large Facility Liability Management Program

Orest will be updating the membership on the status and path forward for the Large Facility Liability Management Program proposed by the EUB. Stakeholder feedback closed on January 28th, and needless to say, there are differences of opinion across the industry.

Identify the key issues where consensus exists, and where it does not, so industry is prepared as this program unfolds.


Top of Page

February 2005

JV Impacts of Greenhouse Gases: Who Pays?
Keiren Ferris, Manager of Royalty and JV Policy, Shell Canada

Under current government of Canada plans, GHG emissions targets will be set by individual facilities - easy in some industries but a huge issue for an industry where joint ventures are a standard mode of business. CAPP has developed a proposal for sharing GHG costs and credits among JV partners. How would this proposal affect you as an operator, owner or third-party processor in a facility? What will it cost you?


Top of Page

January 2005

JP-04 Status Update and Various Industry Perspectives
John Kingsbury and other members of the Task Force

The JP-04 Task Force will soon release its report for industry association comment and input. This is the perfect opportunity for PJVA members to get first-hand details on the content, and hear the Task Force's perspective on how different sectors of our industry (producer operators, non-operators and midstreamers) may have different views on this new report.


Top of Page

March 2004

Sarbanes-Oxley Act and Bill 198

This subject is becoming a higher and higher priority as the time to comply with this new legislation approaches and as further guidance and interpretation comes available. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 establishes new standards for corporate accountability in response to corporate and accounting scandals in the US in an attempt to restore public trust in corporate accounting and reporting. Similar changes to the Ontario Securities Act and Regulations have also been put in place.

Presentation:
Assessing and Reporting on Internal Controls (ppt)


Top of Page

March 2003

Fee Recovery

Is your company recovering all the fees it is entitled to? Do your actual fee recoveries vs your estimated fee recoveries never match?

As this is a rather large topic to cover in one breakfast session we will be spreading it over three or four sessions to give it the attention it deserves. Our first meeting is intended to go over how the data bases fit together, an overview and then break it down into:
  • Is your company recovering the fees and charging out the operating expenses and capital dollars you should?
  • The first step is information repair in the databases.
  • Is your company checking the integrity of your databases?
  • Managing your databases.
  • Are you generating exception reports on the data within your databases?
  • Database exception reporting.
If you attend only one breakfast session this year this should be the one!

We will explain how to start this process within your company so you can recover all the fees you are entitled to.

The Early Morning Session (March 25, 2003) topic presented by Rod Swenson, was on the topic of databases related to fee recovery. Thanks to Rod for a presentation which raised a lot of interest from the 70+ attendees. Rod's one page chart and notes follow:



(Click to see the figure)

The Early Morning Planning Group believes there is interest in dedicating two more sessions so that Rod can continue with the same topic and address special interests. Tentative dates are April 22 and May 27, 2003. To be confirmed closer to these dates.


Top of Page

February 2003

THE C2C TASK FORCE & "NEW SKILLS FOR RESOLVING DISPUTES"

Resolving disputes through negotiation is something we do every day, at work and at home. The process and communication skills used by mediators in helping others resolve disputes can be learned and applied by each of us to improve our own effectiveness in negotiations.

JIM WILLSON (lawyer, mediator, arbitrator, instructor and coach) will review the four-stage interest based negotiation/mediation model and demonstrate the use of these communication skills in a simulated mediation with representatives (PAT FORREST - PJVA Rep and GEORGE GREEN - CAPLA Rep) from the COMPANY TO COMPANY (C2C) APPROPRIATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION TASK FORCE.

Join us for an entertaining and informative morning session. The C2C TASK FORCE is here to promote some ideas of how disputes may be avoided or resolved at an early stage before they develop into overwhelming problems. We promise to leave you with at least one new skill to try out on your co-workers and partners (and even your family).


Top of Page

November 2002

ISSUES RE PROCESSING AGREEMENTS
  • Do we really need separate Gas Processing and Gas Transportation agreements
  • Should processing agreements be with the well operator on behalf of the well owners, or with individual owners?
  • Has anyone ever tried to make the LIFO (last in first out) priority provision work? What about joint production from the wells?
  • Standard Terms and Conditions Task Force - what are they doing?
  • OTHER PROCESSING ISSUES from the attendees - Discussion

Top of Page

October 2002

  • VIPER - Volumetric and Infrastructure Petroleum Information Registry - update
  • Analysis and Measurement - The reality of Operator and Producer compliance at JV facilities
  • A&D - Understanding the responsibilities for paying JV billings after closing
  • Affiliates - How to correctly deal with them (capacity, priorities, ROFR's, etc.)
  • Audit Principles - continuation of November discussion - to discuss standards, scheduling, responses to exceptions and improved methods of conclusion
  • One year later - a look at Statute of Limitations or Power Deregulation or both

Top of Page

May 2002

PANEL DISCUSSION OF JOINT VENTURE HOT TOPICS

Join us for a panel discussion of shared joint venture concerns

On the panel will be:
  • Doug Phillips - Manager, Joint Ventures - Canadian 88 Energy
  • Alan Harvie - Partner - MacLeod Dixon
  • Cheryl Pritchard - Manager, Foothills Business Development - Keyspan Energy Canada Inc.
  • Doug Sick - Joint Venture Representative - Talisman Energy
  • John Kingsbury - Principal - Gas Processing Management Inc.
Up for discussion will be:
  • JP-95 - Current interpretations in the industry (used well or abused?)
  • Emulsion handling and water disposal fees - How should these fees be calculated to be fair to both Producer and Operator?
  • Midstreamer and Producers Owners - Will marriage work or will we just be friends?
  • Right to take in kind - Who decides; Processor, Well Operator or Working Interest Owner?
  • Administration fees - What do you get for $250/w/m?
  • CSO fees - When is it appropriate to charge to third party processors?
  • Bring your own questions, concerns, or comments on any joint venture topic that you are looking for some input into.
This is the last session until the fall. The committee is looking for some new members and/or ideas!


Top of Page

April 2002

THE PETROLEUM REGISTRY OF ALBERTA

Fred Lavitt, Interoperability and Implementation Manager for the Registry (formerly known as VIPER) project on behalf of the Government of Alberta, will be joining us to lead a discussion on the implementation of the Registry process in our industry. The industry testing begins in April 2002 wi th full implementation scheduled for October 2002. This Registry project represents a significant amount of change for most companies. Will you be ready?

Fred will discuss:
  • What is the Registry?
  • What are the benefits to Industry?
  • What are the "Hot Topics"?
  • How could your company be impacted?
  • What could the effect be on Joint Venture properties or roles?
We'll also be given a "peek" at the Product. Bring any of your own concerns, questions or experiences on how this subject has affected you and your company and share with the group any advice on making this implementation as smooth as possible for all concerned.


Top of Page

March 2002

LIFE WITHOUT AN AGREEMENT

John Stayura, of Tom Brown Resources Ltd. and co-author/co-instructor of the new PJVA CO&O course will be joining us to lead a discussion on a situation we have all encountered in our joint venture careers - conducting our joint business without an agreement in place, especially a CO&O agreement. John discussed:
  • Key terms that are effected by the lack of an agreement
  • Common law treatment of a facility with no agreement
  • Alternatives to a signed CO&O agreement - pros and cons
  • How enforceable is a draft agreement?
  • What about service agreements (or lack thereof)?

Top of Page

February 2002

MIDSTREAM PROCESSING IN JOINTLY OWNED PLANTS
  • Sharing of processing revenue vs streaming of processing revenue
  • Wellhead purchases or buy/sell arrangements for non-Owner production
  • "Firm Pool" for processing within a joint venture plant
  • Priority of processing for non-Owner gas
  • Enlargements, or capital expenditures for non-Owner processing

Top of Page

January 2002

Custom User Audit Guidelines

The Custom User Audit Committee, a subcommittee of the PASC Joint Venture Audit Committee (JVAC) and the Petroleum Joint Venture Association, has drafted Custom User Audit Guidelines currently being reviewed by PASC.

This project commenced by soliciting concerns surrounding Custom User audits within the industry, the results of which were published in the PASC and PJVA newsletters. Based on industry feedback, Guidelines for administering and conducting Custom User Audits were drafted, which we feel meet the requirements of industry today.

The Guidelines are divided into four sections; Protocol, Procedures, Confidentiality and Resolution. All sections, except for Procedures, are quite unique to Custom User audits and a summary of each will be presented by Kathleen Grey, audit consultant; Bill Harvey, Council - JV Contracts for Chevron Canada Resources and Noel Smyth, Manager of Operations Services for Keyspan Energy Canada, before opening the floor for discussion.



Top of Page

November 2001

SETTLING ACCOUNTING ISSUES
MATERIALITY
What is material enough to require a settlement?
What is material enough to require a rework of previous product allocation?
Audit protocol
PRECISE ACCOUNTING vs SETTLEMENT
Does every error have to be precisely corrected? - settlement vs rework.
How far back should we correct? - legal and moral obligations.
Production accounting reworks - settlement by cash or by volume
BENEFICIARIES OF SETTLEMENTS
How do all past owners/parties receive benefit (cost)?
Operator's obligations to allocate settlements? - current or past owners
Other affected parties - royalty owners, the Crown
RIGHT TO PROTEST BILLS
Withholding payment
Right to offset
Agreement provisions
Moderated by: Ib Moller, Gas Processing Management Inc.

Assistance: Lynda MacNeill, PanCanadian Energy


Top of Page

September 2001

INDUSTRY EDUCATION PROGRAMS - ARE WE SERVING YOUR NEEDS?
To start off this year, we will be looking at education programs offered by the various industry associations. There will be representatives from some or all of the following associations:
Petroleum Accountants Society of Canada (PASC)
Canadian Association of Petroleum Production Accounting (CAPPA)
Canadian Association of Petroleum Landmen (CAPL)
Canadian Association of Petroleum Land Administration (CAPLA)
and of course, PJVA.
The first part of the session will be an opportunity for the individual associations to give a ten minute overview of their educational offerings for the coming year.

The last half of the session will be more interactive. Now that you know what is available, tell us what we are doing well and what we can do differently:
    What are you looking for in education opportunities that will help you do your job better?
  • Subject matter
  • Length (how many days?), duration (how many hours/day?)
  • Class size
  • Type of instructor (volunteer or professional?)
  • Type of notes/handouts
  • Location
  • Cost
  • Credit/Non-credit

Top of Page

May 30, 2001

Payout Accounts

Joining us this month is Jim McLean. Jim is the Land Manager at Chevron Canada Resources and the principal draftsman of the 1990 CAPL Operating Procedure, the 1997 CAPL Farmout & Royalty Procedure, the 2000 CAPL Property Transfer Procedure and the pending update to the 1990 CAPL Operating Procedure.

He will be presenting an overview of payout mechanisms under farmout agreements and the CAPL Operating Procedure including:
  • traditional cost recovery mechanisms and their deficiencies;
  • volume based alternative; and
  • status of update work on the 1990 CAPL Operating Procedure respecting the production penalty mechanism

Top of Page

April 25, 2001

Energy Utilities Board's Appropriate Dispute Resolution (ADR) Initiative

Joining us this month will be Bill Remmer from the EUB and Dave Savage from BXL Energy to speak on the new EUB dispute resolution initiative. Both of these people were involved from the beginning on the committee which guided the formation of the process now used by the EUB. Informational Letter 2001-1 titled Appropriate Dispute Resolution (ADR) Program and Guidelines for Energy Industry Disputes was issued January 8, 2001. This regulatory document formalizes the use of ADR and explains the Board's expectations and requirements.

The goals of the EUB ADR program include:
  • improved landowner-industry relations in the interest of all Albertans
  • better use of the EUB's and stakeholders' time and other resources
  • more face-to-face discussions between affected landowners and company decision-makers, leading to local solutions to local problems
  • enhanced efficiencies in the effort to meet the needs of stakeholders in the electricity and upstream oil and gas sectors
  • increased resolution of industry-to-industry disputes without an EUB hearing
  • a more effective and efficient hearing, if one is necessary.
Come learn more about this ADR process, how it has been utilized so far, their successes to date and how they see the process evolving. Come participate in a discussion on how this method of dispute resolution will affect our Joint Venture dealings in the future.


Top of Page

March 2001

This month we are trying something new!

There will be a panel of JV professionals who will discuss (and encourage discussion of) various Joint Venture issues of their choosing and your choosing. What we hope to accomplish is to have a quick look at several topics that will not fill a whole session but that do deserve some air time. Some of the issues that have been put forward for discussion:
    What to do when your voting procedure fails (old agreements, not enough parties left)?
  • Common Stream fees, or Alliance fees proposed by some processors
  • Differential processing fees for Owners vs. non-Owners (eg. 15% vs 20% ROR)
  • What can be done to increase the confidence level of Operators and non-Operators that the facility $ values they are reporting to their insurance company accurately reflect the facility's true replacement cost?
  • How to optimize the process so that a non-Operator can take over suspended Unit wells for uphole potential? What obligations (if any) does the Operator have to share technical information with the uphole Owners as to the condition of the wellbore and the lease?
  • How are the model PJVA agreements working in the industry?
We want to spend 10 or 15 minutes on each topic and move on. If you have any questions that you would like addressed, please leave them with the PJVA office when you register or e-mail them to pforrest@telusplanet.net.

Facilitated by: Pat Forrest, Northern Cross Resource Management Inc.
Panel:
Robert Foster, Anderson Exploration Ltd.
Storm Purdy, ATCO Midstream Ltd. (and Vice President, PJVA)
John Stayura, Joint Venture Management Inc.

Top of Page

February 28, 2001

13th MONTH ADJUSTMENTS - IS THERE A BETTER WAY?
    PROBLEMS WITH THE CURRENT WAY
  • Timeliness of adjustments - within three months of the end of the year?
  • Missed costs - non-capital AFE's
  • Retroactive processing fee adjustments - ownership changes
  • Changes of Operator during the year
  • Are retroactive adjustments fair and equitable?
    A PROPOSAL FOR A BETTER WAY
  • Charge Operating Costs fee to throughput
  • Adjust forward, not backwards
  • The Rimbey and Strachan experience - a three year rolling average
  • Relative size of adjustment
  • Throughput adjustments should not apply to minor gathering lines
    REVISION OF CURRENT AGREEMENT PROVISIONS
  • Need for an Industry Task Force to develop provisions
  • Revise individual agreements, or by Industry Agreement?
Moderated by: Ib Moller, Gas Processing Management Inc.

Assistance: Blaine Clarke and Noel Smyth, Keyspan Energy Canada


Top of Page

January 31, 2001

Limitations Task Force and the resulting Industry Agreement regarding the Limitation Act

Please note this topic has been changed from the previous notices. A discussion on Payout Accounts has been moved to May.
  • On March 1, 2001, the new Limitation Act comes fully into effect in Alberta. Under the new Act, all actions must be commenced within two years of when the claimant knew or ought to have known of its claim.
  • Industry standard auditing procedures and industry agreements currently establish a process for the conduct of audits which might result in claims becoming statute-barred before the audit occurs.
  • In response to an industry survey, PASC formed a Limitations Act Task Force with a number of individuals presenting a number of key oil and gas companies and certain industry associations including PASC, CAPL, CAPLA and PJVA to find an industry wide solution to the limitation problem.
  • Jay Park, a director of PASC and a lawyer with Macleod Dixon, will be on hand to present the results of the Task Force and the resulting Industry Agreement. Additional information on this initiative can also be found on the PASC website (www.petroleumaccountants.com) or PJVA website (www.pjva.ca)
  • How is your company going to handle this situation? The agreement must be signed by February 15, 2001 in order to effectively amend the tens of thousands of agreements that require amending.
  • Come share your questions, concerns and observations.

Top of Page

November 29, 2000

Possible Impacts of Power Deregulation on the Joint Account
This topic was addressed at the October PJVA luncheon and is still generating a lot of discussion.
What does the CO&O say about purchasing power for facilities? What approvals are required, if any?
Do we ride the wave of prices and pass on what we are billed or do we become brokers where we buy and sell as required?
If we become brokers do we pass on the ups and downs to partners? Or do we take the profits and losses?
Do we do an equalization at the end of the year for our cost of power? Maybe we need to set a benchmark for the cost of power which companies profit from if they are below and absorb the cost if they are above.
What standards, if any, needs to be addressed/implemented by the industry to avoid possible problems down the road (at audit time, for example)?
How is your company going to handle this new situation?
Come to share your questions, concerns and observations.

Top of Page

October 25, 2000

Preliminary Results of CAPP Road Use Task Force Report
  • John Winton of Husky (Renaissance) and Don Snowdon of Northstar are representatives from the task force and both have 20 years experience as surface landmen. They have been responsible for numerous road use negotiations. They will be at the meeting to present some preliminary results and to lead the discussion
  • Find out their recommendations and findings
  • Share your questions, concerns and observations