Directive 065: Resources Applications for Oil and Gas Reservoirs ...

Requirements
a) the steps that you have taken to market
your production, and
Comments
b) an indication of whether your well is tied
into a gathering system and, if not, why
the order should be made on a retroactive
basis.
17) If you are requesting, pursuant to Section
55(2) of the OGCA, for the ERCB to set the
processing fee to be paid to the common
processor,
a) a discussion and documentation
indicating what negotiations were carried
out respecting the fee to be paid and
where the impasse lies,
b) a statement of the processing fee you
propose be paid, together with a
discussion of why you believe the tariff
proposed is fair in comparison to the
tariff offered,
c) if you have calculated the processing fee
you propose be paid using the JP-05
formula (see Comments column),
i) a tabulation of the values in the
calculations, and
ii) a discussion of the basis and/or source
for each value used in the calculation,
and
d) if you have calculated the processing fee
you propose be paid using a
methodology other than the JP-05
formula, a detailed discussion of how the
fee was obtained and why the ERCB
should used the methodology proposed
rather than the JP-05 formula.
If you are not asking the ERCB to set
processing fees, you do not need to include
the information noted in item 17.
Your response to item 17(a) may be
combined with your response to item 4.
Normally, the ERCB would consider setting
processing fees only if there were a specific
dispute on the fee issue. Therefore, if you are
requesting the ERCB to set the processing
fee, you must show that this is a specific area
of dispute and that you have made substantial
efforts to negotiate a resolution to the matter
prior to making this request.
Decision 2006-021 confirms the ERCB’s
support for the setting of fees using the
formula and principles set out in JP-05: A
Recommended Practice for the Negotiation
of Processing Fees (JP-05).
You may propose an alternative way of
calculating a fair processing fee other than
the JP-05 formula; however, you should
offer detailed justification as to why the
ERCB should not use the JP-05 formula for
the case in question.
1-28 • ERCB Directive 065: Resources Applications / Common Processor (October 2011)