Back to top
Back to Newsletter List

February 2019

JV Agreements Seminar Success
Early Morning Discussion – February 12, 2019
Communicating with the Agreements Task Force
February PJVA Luncheon
AIPN Canada Chapter Event: "Impacts of the IMO Sulphur Regulations on the Canadian Crude Oil Market"
March PJVA Luncheon
JV Certificate Program Volunteers required!
Who’s On Board?
Open Letter to those Canadians Opposing Canadian Pipelines and Oilsands: What if you win?
PART 2 – Open Letter to Canadians Opposing Canadian Pipelines and Oilsands
Notley encouraged by Industry Interest in Building new Alberta Refinery
Oil Gains as U.S. Imposes Sanctions on Venezuela, Global Supplies Weigh
Membership Survey – participate for your change at a $50 Gift Certificate
JP05 Workshop – April 30, 2019
JV Certificate Program – Analyst II Course classes begin March 5 – April 4, 2019

Table of Contents

JV Agreements Seminar Success

The new and improved JV Agreements Seminar was successfully held on January 16-17, 2019 at the PJVA classroom (c/o Associations Plus) with a bigger focus on Ownership and Service Agreements and the importance of creating and maintaining a proper agreement. A special thanks to our instructors Jan McLean and Marcel Savoie for teaching this seminar!

If you missed this seminar – don’t worry! PJVA will again offer this seminar if we have enough students to run another event, and similar to last time, PJVA will take registrations without payment until it is confirmed. Watch for an update on the PJVA calendar. Whether you need to create a Gas Handling Agreement or a CO&O, this seminar will introduce you to the many PJVA model agreements and how best to use them!

**PJVA and CAPL will jointly introduce a new seminar this year on the Pad Site Sharing Agreement or PSSA. Watch for an update on the PJVA calendar!

Dan Tonellato
PJVA Director- Education – Seminars

Table of Contents

EMS – February 12, 2019

Q&A session with the CO&O Task Force

7:30 am coffee/networking; 8:00 am - 9:30 am discussion

Please join us at The Calgary Petroleum Club (Card Room downstairs) to participate in a Q&A session with the CO&O Task Force. The goal of this session will be to assist PJVA members in preparing their comments on the new CO&O agreement prior to the industry feedback deadline on March 1st. Attendees are welcome to submit questions/comments in advance of the session to the Task Force mailbox. Please send your questions to with the subject line “CO&O Q&A”.

Click here to register: Secure Online Registration

Table of Contents

Communicating with the Agreements Task Force

Following up on a parting remark regarding questions regarding the Pad-Site Sharing Agreement which was rolled-out on the 25th of September, PJVA has created and will be monitoring the email address “”. Please feel free to submit your questions and comments regarding the PSSA and/or any other agreements currently in use. We will be compiling and forwarding the comments to the various groups for response.

As the goal of this method is to make this process as easy on our volunteers as possible, we ask that you submit your questions/comments/suggestions in the following subject line format.

“YYYY Agreement – comment“

For example, if you wish to have clarification around “seepage and pollution” insurance as mentioned in Article V, Clause 502 of Exhibit A to the PSSA, please title the email by this same or similar convention:

“2018 PSSA – Exhibit “A” 502 “seepage and pollution”

On behalf of PJVA, thank you very much for your comments,

John Downey
PJVA Director Task Forces

Table of Contents

February 14, 2019 Luncheon

Building on the promise of LNG in Canada

LNG Canada logo

Exploring the market trends, key drivers and building an understanding of the unique opportunity Canada has as a hub for LNG expansion. A discussion of the requirements and needs of major capital project construction supply chains including an assessment of the combined lessons learned that LNG Canada project can bring in from its Joint Venture members in terms of ensuring efficient and safe major capital project execution. Join us for a luncheon presentation with Steve Corbin, Executive Project Director - LNG Canada on February 14th at The Calgary Petroleum Club 11:30 am - 1:00 pm.

Steve Corbin

Steve is the EVP for LNG Canada – a Shell, PETRONAS, PetroChina, Mitsubishi and Kogas joint venture – which proposes to build BC’s largest LNG export facility. A Chartered Mechanical Engineer and Registered Project Professional, Steve has over 35 years of progressive experience in ensuring successful development and execution of complex, multi-billion dollar projects in the Oil & Gas industry.

Tickets - Members: $50.00 (+GST); Non-Members: $60.00 (+GST)

Click here to Register: Secure Online Registration

Sponsored by:

BOE logo GuildOne logo

Maureen McCall
PJVA Programs/Luncheons Director

Table of Contents

AIPN Canada Chapter Event: "Impacts of the IMO Sulphur Regulations on the Canadian Crude Oil Market"

12:00 pm - 1:30 pm on Thursday, February 21, 2019
Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer LLP
2400, 525 8th Avenue SW, Calgary

Join the Canada Chapter for "Impacts of the IMO Sulphur Regulations on the Canadian Crude Oil Market." Recent IMO regulations set a global limit for sulphur in fuel oil used to power ships at 0.5% (by mass) from the current 3.5% starting in Jan 2020. The regulations restrict emissions from ships plying international waters which could significantly change the crude oil landscape at regional & global levels. The change will propagate through the value chain; from the marine industry seeking replacement fuels to refiners producing bunker fuel & upstream oil producers who produce crudes that generate high sulphur residues used in bunkering.

Canada (CAN) is a major producer of high sulphur heavy crude oil which is refined primarily in CAN and the US, where there are sufficient capacities of complex refineries to handle this type of crude. Canadian bitumen contributes very little to bunkering as it is consumed by complex refining in CAN & US. CAN crude will have to compete for US refining space on netback refining value with other crudes that currently contribute to High Sulphur Fuel Oil (HSFO) supply.

A light lunch will be served.

Registration is $10 for members and $15 for non-members. Please register online by February 19 as space is limited.

Special thanks to event-sponsor: Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer LLP.

Allan Fogwill
President and CEO, Canadian Energy Research Institute

Table of Contents

March PJVA Luncheon

CN logo

Crude by Rail - Capacity, Economics, Markets and Innovation with speaker James Cairns

James Cairns

Vice President of Petroleum and Chemicals at CN Rail

A presentation on the short, medium & long term outlook of crude by rail capacity and the most recent developments and initiatives.
What impact will the provincial government have on the existing crude by rail market when they begin shipping unit trains of crude in Q4 2019?
How can rail economics match new build pipe economics? What are CanaPux? Will this new product be a part of the solution?
Join us for a luncheon presentation by James Cairns, Vice President of Petroleum and Chemicals, March 21st at The Calgary Petroleum Club 11:30 am - 1:00 pm.

Tickets - Members: $50.00 (+GST); Non-Members: $60.00 (+GST)

Click here to Register: Secure Online Registration

Sponsored by:

BOE logo

Maureen McCall
PJVA Programs/Luncheons Director

Table of Contents

JV Certificate Program Volunteers required!

Volunteers are required for the JV Certificate Program as follows:

  • Course Coordinator - JV Agreements course
  • All course review committees

These are longer term commitments – ideally, you will be ready to stay in the role for 1 or more years.
Time per week: 2 – 5 hours/month, varying based on work required and number of committee members available.

Experience required should be as follows:
JV Agreements Course Coordinator:

  • 5+ years’ progressive experience and have completed the JV Administration Certificate program,
  • OR

  • 5+ years practical and progressive experience in a JV Administrator role;

Committee member:

  • 2+ years’ experience with completion of the JV Administration or JV Analyst Certificate Program;
  • OR

  • 5+ years’ experience in a JV Administrator or JV Analyst role

Ideal candidates for these roles exhibit some or all of the following skills:

  • Able to work in a confidential manner;
  • Have current, relevant, industry experience and an understanding of the current PJVA Model agreements in use;
  • The ability to identify, research and summarize information from various sources;
  • Able to write new material, or edit existing materials, in a clear and concise manner suitable for use as an educational resource.

Table of Contents

Who’s On Board?

Jana Prete

Jana Prete


When did you get involved on the PJVA Board and why?
I got involved in July of this past year. Volunteering is very important to me and I felt like PJVA was a good match for my skillset. The portfolio I’m involved with is tasked with creating networking opportunities, and building strong relationships is a key part of my law practice.
The experience I have working on joint ventures is also a very good fit, whether with the PJVA model forms or otherwise.

Tell us about why you like the challenges of the joint venture business?
I enjoy the challenge of bringing entities together that potentially have different drivers and goals. I like to brainstorm different solutions and strategies to find ways to hopefully meet everybody’s needs and to create a joint venture parties can be excited about.
With every ongoing joint venture, there can be disagreement on how to interpret contracts. Setting the parties’ expectations and clearly laying these out in the contract from the outset can help avoid these issues going forward. This is also that challenge that I like.

Tell us about the Social/Membership/Volunteers portfolio you’re responsible for at PJVA and the progress you have made over the last year or two?
This is a broad portfolio and there are two task forces that have been created by members of the board to support it.
One task force will determine new social events that members will find appealing and create valuable networking opportunities. The other will brainstorm ways to increase membership even in the tough environment the oil and gas industry is currently in. I definitely welcome feedback from members as to what they would like to see for PJVA events and what it is that makes them want to join the association. We are also still looking for volunteers for various positions.

What are your goals for your portfolio in 2018/19?
To create social events that members are excited to attend, as well as increasing membership and determining what it is that members want to keep them involved in the PJVA.

Best advice you ever received?
To treat everybody the same way I would want to be treated. And just because something has been done a certain way in the past, doesn’t mean it has to continue to be done that way.

Table of Contents

Open Letter to those Canadians Opposing Canadian Pipelines and Oilsands: What if you win?

*Article written by Demian Newman and originally published in EnergyNow Media, December 28, 2018

As 2018 comes to a close and we open 2019, EnergyNow would like to share this heartfelt Open Letter by Demian Newman to those who oppose Canadian pipelines and oilsands. Please share in your respective networks. EnergyNow applauds Demian and others who have taken the time to defend the Canadian oil and gas industry, one of the most responsible in the world.

Dear fellow Canadians,

I’m writing this as an open letter to every Canadian who has protested the Canadian oil and gas industry. I’m writing this to ask – what if you win? What if you succeed and completely shut down Canada’s oil and gas industry? What happens next?

Obviously, if you’ve ever marched, protested or argued against Canadian pipelines or Oilsands, you must believe that you are financially insulated from the hundreds of billions this industry puts into the Canadian economy. Or you are OK with the crushing blow to the Canadian economy, because your heartfelt belief is that the Canadian oil and gas industry is so environmentally bad for the planet.

These are the people I desperately want to have a conversation with.

I write this letter, not as a Calgarian, Albertan, or even as a Canadian. But I write this as a human being. A human being with two young children, and one who doesn’t go a day without being concerned about how we’re leaving this planet.

So, let’s say that all the anti-Canadian pipeline and oilsands campaigns finally crippled this industry, to a point it can’t rebound. Which feels like a real possibility these days. But what is not just a possibility, but a reality, is that Canadians without their own oil and gas industry would still consume the same amount of energy.

And as Canadians continue to consume 1.5 million barrels of oil per day, the amount we need to import from foreign countries would rise from the current 56%, to 100%. And as completely confused as I already am that we currently import 850,000+ barrels of oil per day, while having the 4th largest reserves in the world. I have absolutely no idea how anyone can think importing an additional 650,000 barrels a day is better for Canada or the environment?

Let’s start with where it’s coming from, with Canada importing 61% from the US, 12% from Saudi Arabia, 6% from Azerbaijan, 5% from Norway, and 4% from Nigeria. I’m going to skip past each of these countries environmental, safety, employee and human rights track records, as there’s no point defacing them when Canada’s oil and gas industry is the world leader in all of these. And I’ll expand on this later, but I thought for arguments sake, we can pretend all these countries have the same standards as Canada.

How could it possibly be more environmentally positive to drill oil in the Middle East, pipeline it to their ports, tanker it 10,000+kms across the ocean, and then deliver it to Canada? Remembering that we have it right here.

So, you’ve won, and there’s no more of what you believe is “dirty oil”. And now we’re importing an additional 650,000 barrels a day into Canada. Let’s not forget, that the 5% of the world’s oil production which Canada currently produces daily, would need to be replaced, or prices would inflate and everyone across the globe would have to pay more at the pumps. And more for the 1,000’s of items manufactured from oil.

But don’t worry about the extra cost, as no other country has an anti-oil industry campaign against them, that has stopped or slowed them down like Canada has. And with technology getting better every day, Canada’s 5% worldwide production amounts will be easily replaced.

And let’s go full circle to the Canadian’s protesting new Canadian pipeline projects. If we eliminate our own industry, and we’re importing 650,000 extra barrels of oil daily, we’ll have no other choice but to build new pipelines and facilities to bring this additional oil from the US pipelines and foreign tankers.

So, wouldn’t that be an ironic punch in the face. Where Canadians protesting Canadian owned and operated pipelines, end up shutting down all the investment it takes to move Canadian resources through Canadian pipelines. Just so we are forced to build pipelines and facilities to move more foreign oil into Canada.

And I mentioned that we’d pretend all countries have the same environmental requirements and standards when exploring and developing their natural resources. But it isn’t even close.

You can Google articles with examples of Canada’s environmental standards in this industry, versus any other country. But instead, do yourself a favor and ask someone who’s worked in Canada’s oilpatch, and around the world. Every one of them has countless stories of horrendous environmental issues abroad, which haven’t been allowed in Canada in 30+years (or ever).

So, let’s look at what Canada’s environmental standards are for this industry. And by that, I mean you should go look it up. Don’t take my word for it, but find some reputable publications and factual documents, and not someone’s rambling blog.

Look it up, and please let me know if I’m wrong. Because as much as I needed to write this letter, to get a few things off my chest. I also wrote it, as I believe everyone needs to do better at having a conversation about climate change, the environment, and our responsibility to all do better.

So, I welcome the opposing opinion, as I don’t know why this topic has become a name calling divisive shouting match, where no one will listen to the other side.

But while I have you here, I did want to throw out a couple specific projects, and how protesting them doesn’t make any environmental sense to me. One is Energy East, and the other is BC LNG. The first one is dead, but my fingers are crossed that it can be revived. The second is still approved, for now.

If you look at a map of Canadian pipelines, there is no major pipeline going from Alberta to the east coast of Canada. This means that almost every drop of gas in every vehicle east of Winnipeg is from refined foreign oil. The amount of oil that would’ve travelled on the Energy East pipeline is almost the same amount of oil that we import from Saudi Arabia every day (roughly 100,000 barrels a day).

But what if we didn’t protest Energy East, and instead told the Premier of Quebec that he cannot block a national pipeline. Eastern Canadians would’ve paid (at a minimum) $10-$15 less per barrel than they are currently paying for Canadian oil versus foreign oil. But there was also the billions (not millions, but billions) in revenue that each province would receive from this pipeline running oil through their province.

And I know we’re focusing on the environment, and not the financial benefits of Canada’s oil and gas industry. But, the trick with clean energy and technology, is that it takes money to develop and get to market. So I could be wrong, but I’m almost certain that not one oil company would’ve been upset if Quebec hadn’t killed this pipeline, but instead, took their multi billions a year in revenue from it, and invested all of it into new clean energy technology.

Another thing I encourage you to Google, is the amount of new clean energy technology that has been developed by, and for, Canada’s oil and gas industry.

So, Energy East would’ve taken the amount of Canadian oil, which they are already buying from foreign countries, while generating a ton of money for Canada/Canadians. And then that money could’ve been invested into renewable green energy development. But, Climate Change is a worldwide problem, not just a Canadian one. So, as crazy as this might sound, I do believe that BC building facilities to ship Canadian liquid natural gas (LNG) to the world, could have an incredibly positive carbon emissions net benefit.

Currently, China alone has over 700 super coal plants. Just one of them emitting almost as much CO2 as the entire Canadian Oilsands (this is easy to look up). So, what if we could help China get their energy from Natural Gas instead of Coal, as its WAY better for the environment. (Side note – also look up Natural Gas and its carbon footprint, as I find very few people realize that it has been unfairly lumped in as a dirty fossil fuel).

And very quickly, I would like to address how we got here in the first place. Why is the perception of Canada’s oil and gas industry so bad across the rest of Canada?

The industry really must start by looking inward, as it has done a very poor job of promoting itself and the strides it’s made over the years. And it can still improve. As can all of us individually.

Because who outside of the industry knows that the Oilsands greenhouse gas emissions have dropped 29% since 2000. Or that a barrel of oil sent from the Oilsands to a refinery on the US Gulf Coast has a smaller carbon foot print than a barrel of oil traveling from an oil well in California (it’s small difference, but it’s still better).

And to understand why it’s tough for this industry to promote itself – it is Canadian after all, which explains a lot about its uncomfortable feelings towards self-promotion. And I’ve met a ton of extremely intelligent and thoughtful engineers, geologists, accountants, and tradespeople in this industry, but I’ve never met a Public Relations person – and if there is one, they are very underfunded.

Who is not underfunded, are the groups who make an extraordinary amount of money from Canada not being able to get its natural resources to other customers (the US is our biggest customer at 99%, which is a percentage no business can survive with). And you can’t blame these people for making money off Canada’s inability to build pipelines. But, how they’ve done it, by spending hundreds of millions on PR campaigns to smear Canada’s industry, and pitting us against each other, is beyond is infuriating.

If you only look up one item, please do some research on how openly organizations have been about making donations in the name of the environment, which only target one country’s oil industry. This has made a lot of headlines lately, but I’ve read national Canadian media articles investigating this as far back as 2010.

In conclusion, I would like to point out that I tried my best to use as few statistics as possible, as I’ve seen arguments get derailed with debates on stats. As if the $80 million that Canada losses every day due to no pipeline capacity, is any different if its $40 million or $100 million. It’s a lot of millions, that have turned into billions. And it’s costing hundreds of thousands of good hardworking Canadians financial hardship.

And if it saves the environment, and the planet, then there certainly is an argument for it. But if it’s not helping at all, and potentially harming the planet. Then everyone needs to get educated on all the facts and start to talk to each other about a real solution. And get our industries, politicians, and every Canadian on board with a solution that works.

And please, please, please, don’t take your information from this subject off some rogue website, that’s for or against my stance. Take the time to get your facts from vetted and fact checked publications.

No one should get their facts from a nameless person shouting on the internet. So, my name is Demian Newman, and the two kids I’m leaving this planet to are Olivia and Liam. And both of them need to grow up in a country which is thriving as a world leader, both economically and environmentally – as anything less would be un-Canadian.

Demian Newman

*The newsletter may contain material sourced from to third party websites. The material is provided solely as a convenience to you and not as an endorsement by PJVA of the contents on such third party Websites. PJVA is not responsible for the content of third party sourced material and does not make any representations regarding the content or accuracy of materials on such third party Websites, or the availability of such Websites. If you decide to access third party Websites, you do so at your own risk.

Table of Contents

PART 2 – Open Letter to Canadians Opposing Canadian Pipelines and Oilsands

*Article written by Demian Newman and originally published in EnergyNow Media, January 18, 2019

January 18, 2019 – Demian Newman would like to share PART 2 of this heartfelt Open Letter to those who oppose Canadian pipelines and oilsands. Please share in your respective networks. EnergyNow applauds Demian and others who have taken the time to defend the Canadian oil and gas industry, one of the most responsible in the world.

Dear fellow Canadians,

In my original Open Letter, I had a very simple and basic premise; I do not believe shutting down Canada’s oil and gas industry will help the environment or climate change. In fact, I wholeheartedly believe it would have the adverse effect.

Over 200,000 people have read my opinion piece, and a lot have left very positive comments. But there have also been some opposing viewpoints. Which is good, because I wanted to start a conversation. With that in mind, I have summarized all the opposing comments below, with a response to each (minus the personal attacks…which I quickly dismissed).

Before we dive into all the comments concerned with my original letter, I would just like to summarize again; that Canada’s oil and gas industry putting up an OUT OF BUSINESS sign today, will not help Canada, or the planet, on any environmental level. Because, 1) you (and I), will not change our energy consumption. 2) that energy will simply be provided by another country, which does not have the same environmental regulations and standards to extract and sell their natural resources as Canada does. If you’re protesting Canada’s industry because you’re fighting climate change, then I need to remind you that this is a worldwide issue, not a just a Canadian one. So, if that’s your intention, then you need to use your efforts to make worldwide change. Not just suffocate Canada’s industry.

If you’re already getting fired up that I’m not getting to the Q&A conversation, I promise I heard them all. But I don’t think a lot of people heard me before commenting on my first letter. And a lot of those voices were coming from a city that I absolutely love, but is obviously on a very different page regarding Canada’s oil and gas industry than me.

So, to my friends in Vancouver; I should’ve focused a bit more on the project which has been such a bone of contention for you – The Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion. And I’m not going dive that deep into this, as again, the basis of this letter was a conversation with everyone from my first letter. But I would be remiss if I didn’t bring up that your former Mayor, Greg Robertson was vehemently opposed to a Canadian pipeline (the TMX), but last June signed a $150M pipeline deal to get the ever-expanding Vancouver airport jet fuel – from the state of Washington.

This is the part where I’m left scratching my head again, as Mr. Robertson fights against a Canadian pipeline, saying “it’s not worth the risk. In fact, it’s not in Canada’s interest”. How is a pipeline from the state of Washington, instead of Canada, in Canada’s best interest?

I’d dive into the hypocrisy of Mr. Robertson blasting Canada’s oil and gas industry, by saying that the TMX would put “people and the environment are at risk”, but a pipeline direct to the Vancouver airport from the state of Washington, is apparently no issue. However, I will refrain, as I like to travel. And though commercial airline travel certainly isn’t the best for the environment, I do believe that Canada’s airlines/airports are doing everything to be a world leader in reducing their environmental footprint – because I’d expect nothing less of a Canadian industry.

To use an analogy, I didn’t have a chance to in my first letter; I do believe Canadians protesting Canada’s oil and gas industry would be the equivalent of Canadians boycotting WestJet and Air Canada, but still going on the same holidays – just using international airlines instead. This idea is obviously ridiculous, as no one could believe this would help the environment on any level.

But then there are protesters all over the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion, but not one to be found fighting against the 4000 tankers bringing imported oil to Canada each year. Again, its head scratching. I do think to understand why it’s happening, we need to have a cross-Canada conversation.

So, below are all the opposing opinions from my original letter (and I do apologize if I missed any, as I did try and summarize all of them). I’ve done this in a Q&A format, with the Opposing Comments (summarized) and then My Opinion. And it is only my opinion, and I’m sure someone else can give a much better reply, should they want to keep this conversation going…

Opposing Comments:
I received a lot of similar comments, that there’s no point in investing in a dying industry with no future.

My Opinion:
If you’re referring to no future based on worldwide oil reserves? The math on “Proven Reserves” is pretty straight forward, and everything you look up has it at 50ish years. This is based on today’s technology, and when you consider how far technology has come in the past 10–15yrs the opinions get pretty varied on how long the 50 years extends into. As this technology makes producing the “Probable Reserves” and “Possible Reserves” more likely by the day.
Without getting pulled down on this, I hope we can agree that fossil fuels aren’t running out any time soon – but aren’t a “forever solution”. So, we do need to find energy from multiple sources.

Opposing Comments:
It’s not a dying industry, it’s a dead industry. It’s the Model-T to the horse and buggy, Netflix to Blockbuster video, or the Internet to traditional media.

My opinion:
I’m sorry, but if fossil fuel energy was a dead industry – then it’d be dead. But absolutely every economist is saying that fossil fuel consumption will continue to increase worldwide each year. I don’t have to copy a link for this, as you can find Google results by the hundreds for factual data. And it’s not hopeful data, but factual based estimates which provide information that every country, Fortune 500 company, bank, etc. is listening too, while investing for the future.
At the bottom there is a link to an Energy Minute video, which does a great job explaining that the decrease in oil used by Canada between now and 2040 is more than offset by the increase use from developing nations. I’ve also again added Chris Slubicki’s video link (below) to this, as there’s a big portion of his presentation that explains this (and everything) much better than I ever could.

Opposing Comments:
A lot of people asked for proof that Canada is a world leader in oil and gas environmental standards.

My opinion:
The one thing I realized after my original letter, is that I’ve done a terrible job archiving everything I’ve read/watched/heard over the years, which drove the opinion for my first letter. So, if I could ask anyone for the stats on Canada versus the world on environmental standards in this industry, that’d be great. I know I’ve read hundreds of positive articles over the years (maybe more).
However, I have included the very public list of oil producing countries flaring gas in a link below (billions of cubic meters of gas which releases CO2 into the atmosphere). Canada ranks 22nd for the gas our industry emits (typically methane, ethane, butane, propane and hydrogen sulfide). I’m reading that as extremely positive, since we’re 7th in oil production over that time (2013-2017). Our 1.3 bcms pales in comparison to Russia (19.9) Iraq (17.8), Iran (17.7), or the USA (9.5). And don’t get me started on Nigeria who flared 7.6 bcms, which is more than 5 times the gas Canada flares, even though we produce almost twice as much oil.
I also included another link below of an interesting article this past month, where we have the least political corruption of any country involved in the oil and gas industry. Which is kind of funny, as I don’t think any Canadian would be surprised by that.

Opposing opinions:
Even though I didn’t mention the TMX pipeline in my original letter, I had numerous people say they were for Energy East and BC LNG, but dead-set against TMX – because of the certainty (as in absolute certainty) that there will be a tanker spill in the Vancouver harbor. And it could threaten the Orca population.

My opinion:
I agree. It might surprise people (but I really hope it doesn’t) that I also don’t want an oil tanker spill, nor do I want those tankers to endanger a single killer whale. And now that the feds bought TMX last summer (which is a whole other letter for another day), and EVERY CANADIAN is officially a pipeline company owner, I do think we should take these concerns seriously.
Current info will tell you that the TMX being built would increase tanker traffic off the coast of BC by 6.6%. Certainly not a huge percentage. I also understand that any increase needs to be measured against its environmental impact.
The National Energy Board (NEB) just came out last Friday, that they want the creation of the marine mammal protection program in response to the TMX. So, it’s good to see the NEB doing its job as a 3rd party nonpartisan review board on international and inter-provincial aspects of the oil, gas industry – which certainly doesn’t need to be removed as per bill C-69 (again, another topic for another letter).
Also, for the spills, I did see the plans for the (I believe quadrupled) emergency response program for tanker issues, because of the 6.6% additional TMX tanker traffic. Which was followed up with how incredibly unlikely an event like this would be, as the tankers are handled with tug boats until they hit open water.
What is easily accessible on Google are the stats on tanker spills (below). Worldwide it’s been 2 large tanker spills (700+ tonnes) since 2010. I also believe that two is, two too many – which is why I believe the Canadian industry will add a ton of safeguards over and above worldwide standards (like they do with their pipelines).
Speaking of, there is still nowhere near the Canada wide education on pipelines and the Canadian environmental standards for safe construction and maintenance of them. As somehow a record of 99.9995% pipelines with zero issues in Canada isn’t good enough. Neither is the fact that Canadian pipelines rate of spills were 57 per cent lower than in Europe and 60 per cent lower than in the United States over the past decade.
I understand that it should be 100%. But honestly, what is?

Opposing opinions:
Many in BC are upset as they are viewed as a mere obstacle for Alberta to get their oil to market. When Alberta gains all the benefit financially.

My opinion:
Federal and provincial governments will see $46.7 billion in additional taxes and royalties from construction and 20 years of operation. At the point, where a CANADIAN OWNED pipeline is making Canada billions, why as a Canadian who wants green energy vs fossil fuels, wouldn’t you demand your current government use that money to research and develop this green/clean tech. Seems like a win-win…with some compromises. But every reasonable solution requires compromise.

Opposing Comments: The romance of the electric car saving everything. And there are a lot of Canadians with this idea.

My opinion:
I can’t underscore my confusion on how the electric car has been so romanticized.
I completely understand the low emission side of the argument. But I’m shocked at how many people stop there, as if the electric car is “an environmental mic drop moment”, and don’t look any further. I think the video on the Energy Minute website does a fantastic job of both the pros and cons of the electric car (link below). But I also couldn’t help but include a link regarding on of the concerns on the batteries (also below).

Opposing opinion:
Not super surprising that I received lots of anti Oilsands “tarsands” “dirtyoil” comments, where Fort Mac got slammed pretty hard.

My opinion:
I included a few examples in my original letter about Oilsands GHG emissions dropping 29% since 2000 and a barrel of oil from there being a smaller carbon footprint than that of a barrel from California. But it fell on deaf ears.
So, this part of my letter isn’t for those you oppose the Oilsands, but instead is for those companies working in Canada’s Oilsands. It’s time to spend millions on a cross-Canada public relations campaign for this industry. And don’t tell Canadians how many jobs it creates. Cause I’ve heard from Canadians – and they don’t care.
Its time promote the thousands of real stories, where Canadian oil and gas projects cost so much more because of the extra time and effort needed to do them in the safest and most environmentally responsible way possible. Show Canadians what Fort Mac was before; unusable farmland with oil literally bubbling up through the ground. Show them what I’ve seen, that the reclamation efforts after the oil is extracted and the area is returned to a lush green forested area, where people would be shocked that oil and gas wells used to be there.
Perhaps we also need to get Canadians angry, and show them how they’ve been manipulated by groups like The Rockefeller group (article below) to demonize the Canadian Oilsands for their financial benefit.

Opposing Comments:
Who cares if protesters are paid? Doesn’t mean they don’t believe in their cause.

My Opinion:
I feel really bad that there are Canadians who’ve spent an enormous amount of time and effort at these protests and rallies, thinking they were trying to benefit the world. When they were actually helping line the pockets of billionaires. It makes me angry. I hope they all look into it. And it makes them angry.
Protesting a Canadian pipeline based on saving the environment, probably wasn’t funded by environment loving humanitarians. But instead funded by a corporation with this in their Corporate Guidance: From the very beginning, the campaign strategy was to land-lock the tar sands so their crude could not reach the international market where it could fetch a high price per barrel. This meant national and grassroots organizing to block all proposed pipelines (taken from the Vivian Krause interview link below).
Again, I’d be mad.

Last and my favorite Opposing Comments:
That I’m a millionaire lobbyist for Canada’s Oil and Gas industry.
My reality
I wish! That sounds fantastic!
But alas, I’m just your run of the mill sales guy.
I absolutely benefit financially from a booming oil and gas industry. And I was frustrated by this downturn hitting me financially, but not enough to type out these massive rants. These are 100% based on Canadians working together for an oil and gas industry we should all be proud of; as the best, safest, and most environmentally friendly in the world. As anything less would be un-Canadian.
Again, I’m Demian Newman. And I’m shocked so many people read my last rant. And even more so, if you made it through this epically long one.

*The newsletter may contain material sourced from to third party websites. The material is provided solely as a convenience to you and not as an endorsement by PJVA of the contents on such third party Websites. PJVA is not responsible for the content of third party sourced material and does not make any representations regarding the content or accuracy of materials on such third party Websites, or the availability of such Websites. If you decide to access third party Websites, you do so at your own risk.

Table of Contents

Notley Encouraged by Industry Interest in Building New Alberta Refinery

*Article originally published in The Canadian Press, January 29, 2019

CALGARY — Alberta Premier Rachel Notley says her government has met with about a dozen companies about potentially building a new oil refinery.

Last month the province invited the industry to pitch a brand new refinery or an expansion of an existing one — as long as it uses Alberta-produced oil.

Notley said at the time it was too early to provide specifics on what the province might offer in any construction deal.

The deadline for submissions is February 8, 2019.

Notley told cabinet ministers in Calgary Monday that the demonstration of interest so far has been encouraging.

She says Albertans have been getting pennies on the dollar for their resources for far too long and something has to change.

“We know that more refining and upgrading adds value and creates jobs and it means that we’re able to deliver on the full potential of the resources that we own. We’re not going to let up,” Notley said. She added that refining more Alberta oil in-province also acts as a buffer when there isn’t enough pipeline capacity to get Alberta crude to market, which leads to a price discount.

*The newsletter may contain material sourced from to third party websites. The material is provided solely as a convenience to you and not as an endorsement by PJVA of the contents on such third party Websites. PJVA is not responsible for the content of third party sourced material and does not make any representations regarding the content or accuracy of materials on such third party Websites, or the availability of such Websites. If you decide to access third party Websites, you do so at your own risk.

Table of Contents

Oil Gains as U.S. Imposes Sanctions on Venezuela, Global Supplies Weigh

*Article written by Henning Gloystein and Colin Packham with editing by Louise Heavens and David Evans and originally published in EnergyNow Media, January 29, 2019

LONDON (Reuters) – Oil prices rose on Tuesday after Washington imposed sanctions on Venezuelan state-owned oil firm PDVSA in a move that may curb the OPEC member’s crude exports, but price rises were capped by ample global supply and signs of a slowing Chinese economy.

International Brent crude oil futures were up 51 cents at $60.44 per barrel by 1149 GMT.

U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude futures were up 43 cents at $52.42 per barrel.

Venezuela has the world’s biggest proven oil reserves, but its potential has not been realized due to a lack of investment. The country is also a member of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, which is implementing a supply cut deal.

“The Latin American country is predominantly the producer of heavier crude, exactly what (U.S. Gulf) refiners are thirsty for,” PVM said in a note.

“They will now have to turn elsewhere (possibly to Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Iraq) to satisfy their needs for this type of crude, which would inevitably lead to a price spike.”

Venezuela’s exports fell to little more than 1 million barrels per day (bpd) in 2018 from 1.6 million bpd in 2017, according to Refinitiv ship tracking data and trade sources.

The United States has been the biggest buyer of Venezuelan oil despite their political differences, taking around half of the country’s export volumes, followed by India and China.

Petromatrix estimated that Venezuelan exports will drop by around 500,000 barrels a day under current conditions.

While news of the sanctions against Venezuela made headlines, analysts said the fundamental issue for global oil trade remained plentiful supply.

Global oil supply remains high largely due to a more than 2 million bpd increase in U.S. crude oil production last year, to a record 11.9 million bpd.

“(The) focus will be intensifying on the U.S. inventory data tomorrow, with expectations of a further build in stocks – a larger build will likely see crude taking a further step downwards,” Cantor Fitzgerald Europe said in a note.

There are also concerns in the oil industry that crude demand could stutter amid an economic slowdown.

Activity in China’s vast manufacturing sector likely shrank for the second straight month in January, a Reuters poll showed.

Warnings from Caterpillar and Nvidia on Monday about weakening demand from China have concerned investors.

*The newsletter may contain material sourced from to third party websites. The material is provided solely as a convenience to you and not as an endorsement by PJVA of the contents on such third party Websites. PJVA is not responsible for the content of third party sourced material and does not make any representations regarding the content or accuracy of materials on such third party Websites, or the availability of such Websites. If you decide to access third party Websites, you do so at your own risk.

Table of Contents

Membership Survey – participate for your chance at a $50 Gift Certificate

Could you use $50? In January, a membership survey was circulated to membership to gain your feedback and input relating to PJVA’s offerings and what you value from your membership. Those who participate in the survey prior to February 15, 2019 will be entered into a draw for a $50 Gift Certificate!

Your opinions matter to the Board of Directors so we want to hear from you.

Suggestions, comments and questions can also be submitted to We are Stronger Together.

Grant Feddema
PJVA Vice President

Table of Contents

JP05 Workshop – April 30, 2019

The JP-05 workshop will cover the following topics:

  1. How capital and operating fees are determined using JP-05
  2. Importance of disclosure, collaboration and negotiation
  3. Case study for negotiation and determination of fees
  4. Discussion of case studies
  5. Regulatory issues relating to JP-05

This workshop will be in depth and include actual examples and case studies.

The facilitators for this workshop are the original authors of the JP-05 Report.

This workshop will be appropriate for anyone who is in a position that requires more knowledge in the negotiation and calculation of Gas Processing Fees.

Click here for details and to register.

Table of Contents


For students currently completing JV Analyst I who may need JV Analyst II to complete their Joint Venture Analyst Certificate, please note the next session of JV Analyst II is open for registration.

Materials will be available the week of February 25, 2019, so students have the opportunity to become familiar with the content prior to the first class.

PJVA strongly recommends this course to any professional who has any exposure to or involvement with Joint Ventures. “Joint Venture Analyst Level II” is the final course in the PJVA Joint Venture Analyst Certificate program. PJVA is confident that this offering will provide its graduates with the critical foundational knowledge required to begin taking on a Joint Venture role.

Joint Venture Analyst Certificate
Prerequisite: Successful completion of the JV Administration Certificate

Joint Venture Analyst II
(25 hours)
Materials available week of February 25
Classes run March 5 - April 4, 2019
Tuesdays, Thursdays
Times: 4:30 pm – 7:00 pm
Members $545 gst
Non-members $575 gst

The prerequisite is required to obtain the full JV Analyst Certificate but does not exclude anyone who may wish to participate in one or more of the above courses, without completing the Certificate.

Please note there will be 2 exams in each of the courses, therefore those taking the full JV Certificate Program will require an 80% passing grade. If you do not pass the course, there will be an opportunity to rewrite the exam, for a nominal fee.

PLEASE NOTE: eStudies (online) courses do NOT qualify for the full Administration or Analyst Certificates. You will only receive the certificates of completion which you can access and print out after passing the online exam.

Also, as of January 1, 2019, PJVA will NO LONGER accept credit for eStudies courses taken in 2019, in combination with the inhouse classes to receive the Admin or Analyst Certificate.

For questions about the program, please contact the PJVA Academic Director:
Helen O’Brien

To register today, click here!

Table of Contents

Consider a Corporate Sponsorship with PJVA?

Is your company interested in a Corporate Sponsorship of PJVA? Do you know the benefits of being a Corporate Sponsor?

For further details please contact Jana Prete – PJVA Director or Connie Pruden at the PJVA office.

Table of Contents

Upcoming Events

February 12, 2019

PJVA Luncheon February 14, 2019
February 14, 2019

PJVA JV Certificate Program - Analyst 2 Course - Mar 5 - April 4, 2019
March 5 - April 4, 2019