November 2019PJVA Luncheon October 10, 2019
CERI Breakfast Overview October 23, 1019
CAPPA/PASC/PJVA Joint Course – Product Measurement & Allocation – December 4, 2019
JV Certificate Program Volunteers required!
Call for Volunteers – Task Forces
Early Morning Discussion: Firm service agreements – who should pay under delivery fees?
PJVA 21st Annual Holiday Social
Who's On Board?
Column: What Canada's 2019 Election Means for Energy and Unity – Stewart Muir
New Capabilities - Ability to Change WIPS in AER OneStop
PJVA Luncheon October 10, 2019
On October 10, 2019, the PJVA Luncheon presented W. Brett Wilson with a talk advocating for more critical thinking from Canadians.
Some people know W. Brett Wilson from the TV show Dragon's Den as "the Dragon with a Heart". A lot more know him from his investment banking career - co-founding First Energy Capital Corp, then founding Prairie Merchant Capital and for his innovative philanthropy. Still others know him for his inspiring book "Redefining Success- Still Making Mistakes".
I had the opportunity to speak with Brett Wilson about his career and his current thoughts on Canadian business and recent events. In the seven years since writing his first book, Wilson has continued his journey building his company, his philanthropy and his message. He's arrived at the conclusion that in 2019, "Critical thinking is a lost art". In an interview, Brett described the evolution of this concept as follows.
"I realized that a lot of people were slipping in what I call critical thinking. They were taking words for granted and believing them as they were posted or published. The worst case is environmental activism or alarmism, where statements are made that are false. For example, that the TMX pipeline will increase tanker traffic and destroy the southern whale population. The reality is that it is less than half of one percent change in the amount of traffic that occurs in the area where the population of the southern killer whales live. Half of one percent makes no difference whatsoever. And yet it sounds good. It tells a story and that's just what alarmism builds on. They now try to chase 12 to 16-year olds who don't have the time nor the background to fact check. It's that absence of fact checking that's cost our governments, our people and our industries massively- by allowing alarmists and extremists to capture the flag. Critical thinking is overdue."
With the exponential growth of data and information one could arrive at the conclusion that the issue could be that people just don't have time for fact checking and questioning but Brett had a different take on the issue.
"Part of the challenge is the time to fact check and the other part is no urge or desire to fact check. People just accept statements as true. "The ice is shrinking"…or "polar bears are dying"…people just accept that these statements are true. Whether they have the time or not, they don't even think to question it, which is why I keep pressing this critical thinking concept."
In reference to the pervasive influence of environmental alarmist claims, Brett's identification of the history of the public conversation is clear.
"A lot of critical thinking is getting the data and the facts. Unfortunately for the oil industry, those who lead, act and work in the oil industry assumed incorrectly ten years ago, that logic, honesty and integrity would prevail. Well, logic doesn't prevail and right now we have a bunch of people scrambling to make claims. Interestingly, in the last few weeks in the election, the rhetoric around the carbon tax has gone away. Kind of interesting that it has gone quiet, but the reality is, if you layer on a chart of growth of gasoline demand for the last twenty years, and then drop on to that chart the carbon tax effect, the line is a straight line- it is virtually unchanged in terms of its growth. The carbon tax is supposed to change your behavior. The fact is that for twenty years, carbon taxes as they are imposed, have made no change whatsoever to human consumption or behavior. Why? Because a lot of things we do with energy in Canada are tied to keeping us warm, keeping us travelling, keeping us working, building, ploughing, and growing- things that are built into our system. "
Brett also addressed the flawed concepts behind the current trend to be overly critical of Canadian emissions and energy intensity while giving other developed countries a hall-pass.
"We are criticized by alarmists for having the highest energy intensity on a per capita basis of many of the developed nations. Well, we are also the most northerly. We're the most sparsely populated. We are the most economically advantaged and we export. So logically, we have to put more energy into products- using them, growing them, extracting them- more than any other country that is simply a consumer does. So, we get tagged with all the greenhouse gases associated with pulling items out of the earth whether it's soil or potash, uranium, diamonds or pulp and paper. Because we are so sparsely populated, we are going to, by definition, have a high per capita energy intensity. Yet, we get attacked for being high in per capita intensity. Alarmists take one data point and pretend it's a fact. They've been able to do this, and the Oil and other extractive industries have been slow on the uptake because they've assumed honestly, integrity and fairness would prevail."
With Canada in the middle of an election campaign - a very intense time for information, disinformation and persuasion- Brett commented on the challenge to voters.
"Right now, we have several parties are doing nothing but trying to buy the naive voter- using camping trips to buy votes. I'm not letting any party off the hook; all of the parties are getting criticism from me. I said on Twitter a while ago, I want a leader who is tough but fair. And we have neither tough nor fair. The Liberals have actually acknowledged that they are going to grow our national debt by something like $20 billion a year and it's as if they don't care. I've seen people summarize all of the foreign donations of the current Canadian government -and it's measured in the billions- without providing for clean water and transportation and safety on the site of every First Nation in Canada. I know for example, that every First Nation that builds a house with government funds has 200 applicants on average for that one house. In the meantime, we are giving away billions to other countries. Critical thinking would say "solve your problems at home first and then, with a robust economy, be a little generous to the rest of the world" instead of this optic of being generous to the world and then going into debt to solve our own problems. It doesn't make sense."
In Brett's book, he commented on the 2008 Economic collapse and characterized it as not strictly a financial crisis, not the crisis of credit but a crisis of morality. In reference to the question "Are we back in the same place as we were in 2008?" Brett had clear insight.
"The crisis of morality in 2008 was greed. In my mind it was just people loading up on structured financings that fed Wall St, that gave money to the pension funds and everyone thought it was a wonderful house of cards until someone pulled one of the bottom cards. Where are we today? We've let the vocal minority capture the flag and influence outcomes. So, I'm saying, half of one percent or less of the population has taken control of the 20 or 30% of the population who assume that honesty, integrity and fairness is in play. As a result, we are not getting honesty, integrity and fairness. The lunacy of one extra tanker a day versus the three thousand ships a day that go up and down the Straits of Juan de Fuca – one vs. three thousand- and that one is the one that will kill the planet? No, I don't think so. So, we've got an anti-pipeline, anti-fossil fuel, anti-investment "Industry". Global demand for oil still continues to grow at one to one and a half million barrels a day. It was ninety million barrels a day ten to fifteen years ago. Now it's one hundred and one, or one hundred and two million barrels a day. So, for Canada to disrupt its entire economy, and pretend that by shutting down our Oil industry we will as an example, ruin our country for the benefit of the rest of the world? I don't think so. Can we do better? Yes. Should we focus on pollution? Yes. I happen to believe that pollution is far more important than greenhouse gas emissions as an issue."
In the end, a conversation with W. Brett Wilson is a journey itself, into what shapes our values as much as our thoughts and beliefs.
Many thanks to W. Brett Wilson and our sponsors EnergyNow.ca and Integrity-Tech.ca for helping us produce such a thought-provoking event.
PJVA Director- Programs-Luncheons
CERI Breakfast Overview October 23, 1019
On October 23, I attended the CERI (Canadian Energy Research Institute) Breakfast Overview.
"Competitiveness of the Canadian Regulatory Framework for the Oil and Gas Sector" was the subject of the presentation by Allan Fogwill (President & CEO of CERI), after which there was a question and answer session.
The presentation was organized by the vice president of marketing and communications of CERI, Lisa Rollins. In order for the overview to take place, a study was conducted of the economic aspects of regulations. A combination of areas were focused on, including environmental regulations, economic regulations, and indigenous and other (social, health) high level assessment. Many jurisdictions were considered throughout Canada, and furthermore many states of the USA were part of the study.
There are many challenges that the Canadian oil and gas industry faces, including restrictions of market access to US and international markets. The conclusion was that if this were fixed, it would be the best cure for the Canadian oil and gas industry. One of the most concerning aspects for industry stakeholders is the concept of uncertainty. Timeliness in regulatory approval is somewhat lacking, and is at a disadvantage compared to the US. Without such delays, the Canadian industry is competitive with the US.
At the end of the presentation, a question was put to the attendees: is the increased time for assessing major projects leading to increased social outcomes (e.g. environmental protection, community participation, economic development, recognition of indigenous concerns)? Interpretations of yes or no answers were provided in advance: if yes – is a one of a cost benefit analysis, and if no – it is a regulatory efficiency matter. The interpretation that I offered was that the answer was concurrently yes and no, because both are affected at the same time and therefore both affect each other. Agreeing with me, Allan Fogwill added that it is also about efficiency.
A highly informative and well researched presentation, I am looking forward to attending more CERI breakfast overviews and becoming more closely involved in the future.
PJVA Director- Programs-Luncheons
Product Measurement and Allocation Course – December 4, 2019
This course addresses the following questions:
- What is product measurement and allocation?
- Why does product measurement and allocation matter?
- What is measurement difference? What is an acceptable measurement difference?
- What are common problems and pitfalls?
- What legislation applies to measurement and allocation? (ERCB Directive 17 and EPAP; Enhanced Production Audit Program)
- How does the PJVA/CAPPA/PASC model Product Allocation Exhibit address the above issues?
Suggested attendees include Joint Venture Agreement (CO&O) Practitioners, Product Allocation Practitioners, Revenue and Volume Auditors. Instructors are Kevin Johnson and Bill Wells.
JV Certificate Program Volunteers required!
Volunteers are required for the JV Certificate Program as follows:
These are longer term commitments – ideally, you will be ready to stay in the role for 1 or more years.
Time commitment: 2 – 5 hours/month, varying based on work required and number of committee members available
- 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.
ALL interested PJVA members are welcomed to submit their names to Randy Tomilson (firstname.lastname@example.org) for any of these roles – your unique combination of experience, background, and skills might be exactly what is needed for the ongoing development and maintenance of our course materials.
Call for Volunteers – Task Forces
The PJVA Task Force portfolio is looking to reinvigorate its suite of model form agreements. In order to do this, we are going to need a diverse group of energetic, experienced, and creative individuals to help the PJVA in its mission to provide high quality, trusted documents for the industry.
We are looking to provide for the following standing committees and will need contributors of all levels of experience for the following standing committees:
- Custom User Handling Agreements Task Force
This committee will work towards modernizing the Gas Handling and Emulsion & Water Handling Agreements. Through a thorough review of industry modifications to the existing model forms, this committee will be tasked with developing a set of consistent model form Custom User Agreements.
- Production Accounting and Administration Agreements Task Force
This Committee will need a combination of Joint Venture and Production Accounting professionals and will work towards the goal of modernizing or redeveloping the current set of Receipt Point Administration, and Production Administration Agreements. This committee will also be given the task of developing a set of consistent model form agreements.
- Task Force Steering Committee
This Committee, intended to be composed of chair (or) co-chair members of existing and newly formed committees, technical advisors and PJVA Director Task Forces and Director at Large (Legal). This Committee will be formed with the mandate of providing a consistent level of oversight for the development of PJVA agreements, reviewing drafts for consistency across PJVA task forces and providing a consistent approach for membership input. This group will also be charged with determining the need for additional groups of PJVA representatives based on industry trends.
PJVA is built upon the three pillars of education, networking and agreements. If you are interested in helping to move PJVA forward, provide or receive mentorship from industry peers, or provide input from both you and your organization's unique perspective, then we encourage you to send an expression of interest outlining your desired contribution and brief CV to email@example.com with the subject header "Task Force" followed by your First and Last name.
Thank you and we look forwards to hearing from you,
PJVA Director, Task Forces
Early Morning Session: Firm service agreements – who should pay under delivery fees?
Hosted by Douglas Klug on October 30, 2019, a presentation about firm service agreements was followed by comments and feedback from PJVA members who attended. Firm service has many issues which depend on many factors of each individual situation. Many agreements and factors within them form part of each situation, for example GHA, and JOA. It is important to be proactive rather than reactive and the most vital component of business arrangement is communication, including internally.
PJVA Newsletter Editor
PJVA 21st Annual Holiday Social
The PJVA 21st Annual Holiday Social will take place on November 28, 2019 from 4:30 pm until 7:30 pm.
The venue will be in the Main Ballroom at the Petroleum Club (319 - 5 Avenue SW).
Who's On Board?
Douglas Klug, EMS Director
Tell us about yourself: I have been working in the Oil and Gas industry since 1978. I am CPA and most of my experience has been in Joint Venture Accounting (12 years), Joint venture Audit (20 years) and as a Joint Venture Representative (4 years).
When did you get involved on the PJVA Board and why? I have been a PJVA Member for about 10 years but only became involved at the board level this September (2019). I became involved to help educate the next generation of JV Professionals to better understand the unique issues and problems we come across in all Joint Venture fields.
Tell us about why you like the challenges of the joint venture business? I like the oil and gas industry because it is dynamic and always changing, adapting to the issues that effect our industry. I like the joint venture area particularly because of the interaction between the companies in a joint venture and how we can learn to deal and cooperate with each other.
Tell us about the Early Morning Session (EMS) portfolio(s) you're responsible for at PJVA and the progress you have made over the last year or two? I have just started in the portfolio, so there are a lot of challenges trying to come up to speed with what is expected and how I can make the portfolio a success.
What are your goals for your portfolio in 2019/20? My goals for the EMS portfolio this year are:
- to recruit 2-3 volunteers to assist with the portfolio
- to present 4-5 EMS sessions,
- to increase the attendance at the sessions, and
- to exit the year with 8-10 additional planned ideas for EMS sessions so that the subsequent years will be easier to plan and run.
Best advice you ever received? "You are born with two ears and one mouth so you should spend twice as much time listening to others as you spend talking".
Column: What Canada's 2019 Election Means for Energy and Unity – Stewart Muir
*Article written by Stewart Muir October 23, 2019 and published by EnergyNow October 24, 2019.
Canada is increasingly a country of energy pessimists and energy optimists, where the nation's economic foundation of oil & gas has become the ideological battleground for much bigger issues.
Those who believe that energy supplied by Canada is a beneficial contribution to the global economy are pitted against others carrying out a moral crusade, ostensibly in the name of climate, that necessitates the harassment of corporate sinners through demarketing, delegitimizing and divesting.
Monday's election showed pretty clearly where most westerners stand on this. We are energy optimists. I would even say energy realists, in contrast to the energy fantasists who will do just about anything (short of paying more for their flights) to stop the oil & gas business that symbolizes and contributes to climate emissions.
The Trans Mountain pipeline project has until now provided a handy barometer of how we are, as a country, reconciling economic and environmental interests.
A seemingly endless barrage of court challenges, accompanied by pauses, tweaks and the addition of new layers of costly conditions, has got us to a place where the project is actually under construction. For years, political pundits have been predicting the Liberals would lose seats in Vancouver ridings adjacent to the pipeline's Pacific terminus on Burrard Inlet where, in 2015, the party won five of the seven ridings that touch shoreline.
Residents were subjected to a ceaseless barrage of climate marches, encampments, inflatable killer whales, high-volume rhetoric about this and that certain disaster, and ever-inventive activist gambits to whip up public concern.
In the end, all of this amounted to a big fat "meh". The Liberals held onto all of their seats. It was the pipeline-opposing NDP who were forced to concede one of their two seats in the area, to the pro-oil Conservatives.
It's almost as if voters are prepared to believe that the project will be done safely and create the benefits that its promoters and its owners (now the taxpayers of Canada) have been saying. If everyone had the same confidence in the Liberals that Burrard Inlet voters do, the new Parliament might look very different.
Credit where it's due: the Trudeau government saved the Trans Mountain project through its interventions, just as it has made impressive contributions toward LNG development in the west. However, it's also evident that the elaborate dance the Liberals performed to get to this point comes at a very heavy price.
To show those city residents they were serious about protecting the marine environment, Liberals killed the Northern Gateway Pipeline and then passed their northwest Pacific tanker ban into law. In the long term, this will cost Canada hundreds of billions in lost resource revenues and prevent access to what Transport Canada officials stated was a much safer area for shipping crude oil than Vancouver.
The Liberals also set about implementing a raft of policy changes that led to the complete collapse this week of the Liberal vote in Alberta and Saskatchewan. While many elsewhere are prone to dismiss any Prairie complaints as just more whining from the peanut gallery, it's plain to see that specific changes did occur that resulted in investment being driven away, with no tangible benefit for the environment or Canadians.
We know for a fact that in 2018 alone, 37 major projects worth $77 billion were cancelled in Canada. The CEO of Enbridge recently stated that more than $30 billion in investment has been lost due to major pipeline projects being cancelled or stalled. The University of Calgary's School of Public Policy said that pipeline capacity constraints mean $14 billion a year in lost revenue per year.
What the Liberals pitched as better regulations are seen by investors as decreased certainty. As part of the elaborate dance to charm Burrard Inlet, the federal government cooked up a porridge of climate/energy ideas that are represented to be our national energy policy (they aren't) but left us rudderless to develop long-term plans for energy development serving national priorities.
Few resource export economies hamstring themselves by adopting climate policies better suited to importing nations. Unfortunately, Canada has been nearly unique in doing exactly that. In recent years, numerous oil sands investors have departed Canada because of costs that do not exist in other jurisdictions.
The announcements are always tactful, leaving the field open to creative explanations by industry adversaries: bitumen is lousy, the oil sands are too expensive to develop and can't survive low prices, U.S. shale is destroying the oil sands business model, the world is moving off fossil fuels, etc.
The example of the Kearl oil sands project in northern Alberta shows a much different story. The Imperial-owned site is regarded as "the next generation" of oil sands mining that is now producing bitumen with about the same life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions as crude oils refined in the United States.
According to an internal company forecast that recently came to light, the impact of future government emissions policies for just that one mine was estimated to cost $14 billion Cdn.
For Alberta's Cold Lake in-situ operation, imposed government climate costs were forecast to shorten the asset's projected economic life by 28 years, resulting in billions of dollars in lost spending and government revenues.
A larger portfolio of 14 oil sands projects faced a total of $30 billion worth of added costs unique to operating in Canada.
These figures came to light this week in a New York State courtroom, where the attorney general is pursuing a convoluted thesis that Exxon lied to investors about climate costs. What the numbers really tell us is that international investors are highly sensitive to the extra expense of doing business in Canada, just as they are aware that it is very easy to go almost anywhere else in the world and develop similar resources but without the extra costs. And they are doing precisely that, in droves, with the latest sign being a fresh round of layoffs at Husky.
Capital exiting and bypassing Canada isn't sitting in the bank. It is flowing into oil & gas investments in jurisdictions that are incapable of matching Canada's excellence in managing its resources, its environment, and the equitable distribution of resource benefits. Thus the result of all the efforts to landlock Canadian hydrocarbons has simply been to move the climate impacts to places with a lower bar for emissions. They call this progress.
In recent years it has become off-limits to discuss the long-term strategic implications of major projects that will affect national prosperity decades into the future. One hundred lashes with a gluten-free noodle await anyone who dares to crystal ball on the criminal future existence of fossil-fuel infrastructure. In the absence of dialogue, the energy fantasizing proliferates.
The energy-aware rolled their eyes on election night when the CBC announcer in Prince Edward Island hailed the "carbon-free" Tesla of a Green candidate, apparently unaware that, despite PEI's lovely wind farms, the province and its electric cars are mostly dependent on imported electricity from New Brunswick where a majority of power is generated by fossil fuels.
During the English-language leaders' debate, energy-savvy westerners looked askance at Bloc Quebecois leader François Blanchet demanding that the federal equalization formula be changed to reward his province because it has abundant hydropower, implicitly at the expense of the western industries that already pay Canada's rent.
Could there have been a statement more savvily calculated to send westerners' blood pressures soaring? Small wonder that equalization is going to be a topic of intensive study on the Prairies over the next couple of years leading up to Alberta Premier Jason Kenney's promised 2021 referendum on the matter. The dangerous topic of national unity is already on the table in the minds of some, and that is a place no Canadian should want to go.
By way of contrast, the green-haloed, oil-exporting Norwegians remain quite firm and unabashed in maintaining a clear separation between their energy policy and their climate policy. This helps to explain why they are now are inaugurating a new, 50-year oilfield project while shrugging off any criticism.
As part of the Trans Mountain dance, the Liberals have felt it necessary to genuflect at the environmentalist altar while offering up the family silver as tribute, knowing even so that, in return, the world's eco-radicals will still condemn them for their leader's "stunning hypocrisy" etc. etc.
It's not like we haven't trained the environmental movement on how to get their way. The Great Bear Rainforest on the coast of British Columbia was the result of a long-term strategy by the American foundations to exert their will in Canada. At this stage of the game, they and their branch-plant factotums are the pros in the room. It's just a matter of rinse and repeat.
Back in 2015, Justin Trudeau's first act of office as prime minister was to place a five-year moratorium on oil exploration in Canada's Arctic. Canadian officials must have been slack-jawed with astonishment that Canada would hand the U.S. a half-decade head start in the Arctic offshore even before official briefings could be completed, particularly since it was President Obama – yes the saviour of the environment President Obama – who opened up the Arctic offshore for drilling before the end of his tenure (before implementing a few reversals in the policy when Trump won, setting Trump up to look anti-climate).
The Trudeau government's Arctic move was not the only major act of what economists call sterilization. Prepare for the situation to worsen. It now turns out that in term one, Justin Trudeau was just getting started. Term two means the Liberals will be expected to get busy on their 2019 campaign pledge to set aside 25 percent of the country's land and oceans from development and industrial activity by 2025. In the case of land, that means more than doubling what is currently off-limits.
Five years after that, a further five percent will be added, for a total of 30 percent. Parks are huggable, right? Sure, but don't be surprised when the land, water and resources that fall into the new reserves, protected areas and parks just happen to include strategic routes and oil & gas basins that favour American interests. That's how this stuff works, folks.
Don't be surprised when these designations occur not under legal instruments controlled by Canadian levels of government, but are part of intricate UN agreements that make it much harder for Canadians to respond to changing future needs.
There has been plenty of the aspirational talk about "compassionately" eliminating entire industries through a "just transition" to…who knows what. Maybe it is time to hear from respected economists who can speak to proven means of achieving affordability by building wealth.
Among G-7 nations, Canada was among the least hard hit by the 2008 global collapse. In 2008, per capita GDP in Canada was $46,6000 (current USD). The figure increased to $52,500 in 2014, driven largely by investment in resource development, particularly oil and gas.
Yet by 2018, Canadians were back at $46,200 — a drop to $40,000 after inflation. This means that Canadians' purchasing power in terms of per capita GDP had dropped by 14%. In the same period, Americans saw an 11% growth in real income. At least it could be worse: Spain, for example, slumped 23.5 percent, according to World Bank information. Norwegians were facing a worse decline than even Spain, from $100,000 a year to $67,000. However, they made a conscious decision to invest full-bore in fossil fuels, resulting in a reversal that began in 2016 and continues today.
The Bank of Canada reported that half of Canadians are now $200 or less away from financial insolvency at month-end. This is why affordability was so important to Canadians as they went to the polls this month. They can sniff the prospect of a diminished future for themselves and their children.
Today, hundreds of thousands of Canadians in the oil and gas sector remain unemployed, or underemployed. The effects ripple through the economy. We are at an inflection point for Canada. The one thing that Canadians should demand until they are blue in the face is for all government decisions to be anchored in terms of growth in the nation's economic prosperity in real terms.
For the Vancouver kids skipping school this Friday to see their hero Greta, the direction the country goes from here is of material importance. Yes, we need to do right by the environment, but in carrying out this duty do we wish to be a Spain or a Norway? That's a choice we have a say in.
Those who work in and around the western resource industries tend to know what they're talking about when it comes to energy issues because the industry depends on facts and professionalism. Many of these individuals simply do not believe that the energy assets residents in the west are a liability or something to be ashamed of, let alone phased out. This is a perfectly defensible position because no matter what the climate scenario, the fact is that humans will consume an immense amount of energy and they will choose to procure it at the lowest possible cost. Achieving net-zero emissions is the next target of Canadian hydrocarbon producers. That's ambitious, but the world cannot afford to fail at providing the most environmentally sound fuels.
Trans Mountain is real and it's happening, with evidence this week in Edmonton that construction on Spread 1 is finally getting underway. If this project can be completed, it proves that progress is possible.
Canadians can continue to build their future on industries that are reliable and necessary, and susceptible to needed improvements through investment in innovation. Political decisions made over the next two, three or four years will have a considerable impact on whether we recover and retain the operating room needed to continue this work.
*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.
At 11:00 am on November 11th, it was exactly a 101 years after the armistice, which led to the end of World War One and the treaty of Versailles was signed. Many individuals have served the country honourably in many conflicts for over 101 years, we thank them for their service and keep them in our memories.
Since World War One ended, the Canadian oil and gas sector has provided fuel during times of war and peace. Hopefully, economic progress will continue, and will continue to be powered by the Canadian oil and gas sector using PJVA model agreements.
PJVA Newsletter Editor
NEW CAPABILITIES - ABILITY TO CHANGE WIPS IN AER ONESTOP
Land personnel are typically involved in and responsible for closing A&D transactions to ensure the involved assets are properly conveyed by the Vendor to the Purchaser. Licensed wells/facilities are transferred through the AER DDS system and the working interest participants (WIP) that have an ownership in the well/facility can be updated at the time of transfer. However, as we know, if the asset includes a well/facility that is not licensed to the Vendor and the Vendor had a working interest in that tangible (whether it was named as a WIP in DDS or not), until now the transfer of, or correction to, that ownership (WIP) could not be registered with the AER after Closing of the A&D transaction. With the implementation of OneStop, the Licensee can now update the WIPs at any time. This means that the Vendor interest in the well/facility (licensed or not) can be transferred through OneStop to the Purchaser. This process will involve the Vendor contacting the Licensee to request that the WIP be updated, by simply adding another document/letter to the numerous conveyancing documents prepared in all A&D transactions.
Some information on the process to update the WIP in OneStop:
Select Operate - Working Interest Participants
Training Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYeuwfz9KoI
Login to OneStop: https://www1.aer.ca/onestop/ If users need further help navigating the OneStop system or need any support, please contact the Customer Contact Centre | 1-855-297-8311 (toll free) firstname.lastname@example.org
AER is working toward making WIP information available to the public, when available those lists can then be compared to your existing records and any errors or omissions can be updated with the assistance of the respective Licensee. Chances are if one WIP is incorrect in a license, the other WIPs are too. Please take a few minutes to acquaint yourself with this OneStop enhancement and/or circulate this email to individuals in your respective companies who would be interested in this development.
Respectfully submitted by,
Lynn Gregory, P.Land, Manager Contracts and Land Administration
PJVA 21st Annual Holiday Social
November 28, 2019
PJVA/PASC/CAPPA Joint Course: Product Measurement & Allocation
December 4, 2019
PJVA JV Certificate Program - Analyst 1 Course - January
January 7 - February 6, 2019