Confidentiality and Dispositions in the Oil and Gas Industry

The author examines issues relating to confidentiality and dispositions in the oil and gas industry. He surveys the general common law and equitable principles concerning breach of fiduciary duty and breach of confidence as they relate to the oil and gas industry as well as contractual obligations to joint working interest owners. The author presents an in-depth examination of issues in negotiating and drafting confidentiality agreements. There is a discussion of general concerns including what information is considered confidential, when there is a disclosure requirement and what remedies are available for a breach of confidence. The author also looks at possible specific provisions of confidentiality agreements such as covenant trusts, standstill covenants and area of exclusion covenants.

Download Full-text

Modernizing the Property Laws That Bind Us: Challenging Traditional Property Law Concepts Unsuited to the Realities of the Oil and Gas Industry

Alberta Law Review ◽

10.29173/alr497 ◽

2003 ◽

Vol 41 (1) ◽

pp. 159

Author(s):

Alicia K. Quesnel

Keyword(s):

Oil And Gas ◽

Common Law ◽

Oil And Gas Industry ◽

Property Law ◽

Gas Industry ◽

Strict Interpretation ◽

The Common

Practitioners deal primarily with two different methods of interpretation in oil and gas cases: the strict method of interpretation and the liberal method of interpretation. However, in recent decisions such as Bank of Montreal v. Dynex Petroleum and Taylor v. Scurry-Rainbow Oil, the courts refused to apply the common law, instead upholding long-standing industry practices that could not be easily classified into proper legal categories. Following a review of the strict interpretation and liberal interpretation methodologies currently used in interpreting oil and gas cases, this article looks more closely at the method of interpretation used by the courts in Dynex and Taylor. This method of interpretation will be referred to as the challenging method of interpretation. The article discusses the key analytical aspects of the challenging method interpretation, and examines its possible impact on the existing methods of interpretation used in oil and gas cases. Finally, this article concludes with some thoughts about the implications of these cases on oil and gas law.

Download Full-text

Fiduciary Relationships in Oil and Gas Joint Ventures

Alberta Law Review ◽

10.29173/alr544 ◽

1970 ◽

Vol 8 (2) ◽

pp. 233 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

D. A. MacWilliam

Keyword(s):

Joint Ventures ◽

Joint Venture ◽

Oil And Gas ◽

Oil And Gas Industry ◽

Fiduciary Duty ◽

The Other ◽

Gas Industry ◽

Full Disclosure ◽

Fiduciary Relationships ◽

The Many

A party to a joint venture agreement in the oil and gas industry is often faced with the problem of determining whether or not he owes a fiduciary duty to his joint venturer. This article examines the many factual situations in oil and gas joint ventures which, could give rise to a fiduciary duty and concludes that the extent to which the fiduciary principle is applicable to various relationships involving interests in oil and gas has not yet been determined by the courts. As such, the author suggests that in addition to attempting to provide in the agreement for those circumstances which could give rise to a fiduciary duty, a party to a joint venture who desires to avoid a breach of a fiduciary duty should make full disclosure to and attempt to get the consent of the other contracting party.

Download Full-text

Legal Liability in the Canadian Arctic Relating to Oil Spills and Blowouts

Alberta Law Review ◽

10.29173/alr634 ◽

1972 ◽

Vol 10 (3) ◽

pp. 440

Author(s):

D. E. Lewis, Q.C.

Keyword(s):

Oil And Gas ◽

Oil Spills ◽

Common Law ◽

Canadian Arctic ◽

Oil And Gas Industry ◽

Legal Liability ◽

The Arctic ◽

Property Damage ◽

Gas Industry

There is an ever-increasing concern in today's society about problems arising from pollution, but issues of liability for and prevention of pollution in the Arctic are particularly acute. This article discusses the pollution problems of the oil and gas industry in the Arctic with respect to liability for oil spills and blowouts. The article considers possible common law and statutory liability for personal injuries and property damage caused by blowouts and oil spills that may occur both on and off shore. The article concludes with) discussion of the special problems of foreseeability of damage in the Arctic.

Download Full-text

Coalbed Methane: Conventional Rules for an Unconventional Resource

Alberta Law Review ◽

10.29173/alr483 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Janice Buckingham ◽

Patricia Steele

Keyword(s):

North America ◽

Coalbed Methane ◽

Oil And Gas ◽

Common Law ◽

Oil And Gas Industry ◽

Environmental Concerns ◽

Gas Industry ◽

Regulatory Frameworks ◽

Unconventional Resource ◽

Over Time

Considering the evolution of coalbed methane development In North America, the authors highlight the risks involved at various stages of development. To manage these risks and potentially increase the chance of successful projects, the authors offer suggestions for adapting leases and agreements typically used in the oil and gas industry to reflect the uniqueness of coalbed methane development. The authors also suggest amendments to Alberta's current legislation affecting Crownlands. The authors acknowledge that the issues that arise in the coalbed methane context will change over time as projects are carried out, the industry matures and the legal and regulatory frameworks governing coalbed methane evolve. In providing possible solutions to the current situation, consideration is given to common law principles of ownership of coalbed methane, legislation affecting Crown and freeholdlands, typical freeholdleases, joint ventures and operating agreements and environmental concerns surrounding coalbed methane development.

Download Full-text

Liability in oil and gas: what happened in the case of Deepwater Horizon?

The APPEA Journal ◽

10.1071/aj10048 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 51 (2) ◽

pp. 668

Author(s):

Leanne McClurg

Keyword(s):

Oil And Gas ◽

Common Law ◽

Oil And Gas Industry ◽

Deepwater Horizon ◽

Gas Industry ◽

The Us ◽

Opportune Time ◽

The Common ◽

Us Senate ◽

Oil Rig

Disasters such as the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig and the consequential pollution in the Gulf of Mexico have heightened awareness surrounding liability for such events. It is an opportune time for all companies—whether owners, operators or contractors—to closely examine their contracting regimes to ensure their interests are protected to the maximum extent possible. It is commercial reality in all industries that parties negotiating contracts seek to limit their liability. Unique to the oil and gas industry, contracts for services usually contain reciprocal indemnities, often referred to as knock for knock clauses, where each party is responsible for loss or damage to its own people and property, regardless of the cause. Such clauses have the effect of altering the common law position where liability is usually based on the cause of any loss or damage. In this session the speaker discusses some tips and traps for drafting reciprocal indemnity clauses, and looks at how they have been interpreted by the courts. Consideration is given to how an incident like Deepwater Horizon would be treated if it occurred in Australia and an update on the US Senate Committee’s inquiry into the disaster is provided.

Download Full-text

Look before you leap: are your oil patch liability clauses enforceable?: (An analysis under civil law jurisdictions with emphasis on Brazil)

The Journal of World Energy Law & Business ◽

10.1093/jwelb/jwab004 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Norman Nadorff ◽

Maria Beatriz Gomes

Keyword(s):

Human Error ◽

Oil And Gas ◽

Common Law ◽

Civil Law ◽

Normal Fault ◽

Oil And Gas Industry ◽

Mitigation Strategies ◽

Policy Implications ◽

Gas Industry ◽

Environmental Integrity

Abstract The oil and gas industry requires huge investments involving extraordinary financial, environmental and safety risks. Dramatic images of the Deepwater Horizon (Gulf of Mexico, 2010), Alpha Piper (Scotland, 1988), P-51 (Brazil, 2001) and Campeche (Mexico, 1979) disasters offer chilling reminders of the monumental loss of life, property and environmental integrity that can quickly result from human error. With this backdrop, industry participants and their insurers learned early on that the normal fault-based approach to wellsite liability did not fit the nature and needs of the petroleum business. This article analyzes the risks inherent in applying the laws of a civil law jurisdiction to an oil and gas wellsite contract based on common law principles, with special emphasis on Brazil. It first briefly describes the traditional common law approach to liability allocation in wellsite contracts, including “knock-for-knock” principles (“K4K”). Next, it outlines the traditional civil law approach to liability (responsbilité) through French and Brazilian prisms. The authors do not deeply discuss the pros and cons of K4K clauses nor the policy implications of anti-indemnity statutes. Rather, they assume the reader is contemplating the negotiation of a wellsite services contract subject to the laws of a civil law jurisdiction, and describe the relevant risks and possible mitigation strategies.

Download Full-text

The Ever-Protruding Stick in the Bundle

10.37419/lr.v2.i1.3 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 2 (1) ◽

pp. 79-106

Author(s):

Andrew D. Lewis

Keyword(s):

Oil And Gas ◽

Common Law ◽

Oil And Gas Industry ◽

Subsurface Water ◽

Public Interests ◽

Gas Industry ◽

Oil And Gas Exploration ◽

The Public ◽

Mineral Rights ◽

Reasonable Use

In Texas, water is on everyone’s minds. Between a raging drought, an expanding oil and gas industry, and a whirring media machine, Texans find themselves in great conflict on how to maintain a tradition and a booming industry while conserving the very resource that allows their presence in the first place: water. Water has become an important part of oil and gas exploration, and this fact has kept it well within the reach of those who lease the mineral interests. Texas law promotes such exploration by granting these lessees the rights to the reasonable use of the land’s subsurface water so that they may be able to pursue their mineral interests. The limitations to this right loom large, however, as this right may begin to appear, in the minds of legislators, landowners, and the public-at-large, as not so reasonable. Existing Texas common-law limitations to this implied right may provide the door through which public interests slip into the traditional analyses and allow the interests of the landowner, the public, and the oil and gas industry to be served. This Comment suggests that changes in common law, regulations, and social and environmental trends portend broader interpretations of the limitations to Texas’s implied right of reasonable use of the surface. Specifically, this Comment suggests that the analysis provided by one limitation, the Accommodation Doctrine, may be the path by which Texas courts find that the oil and gas industry should accommodate public interests as well as specific surface-owner interests when pursuing their mineral rights.

Download Full-text