LAW REVIEWCALGARY

a special publication on business law by the calgary herald NOVEMBER, 2012 www.calgaryherald.com/business/lawreview

ENERGY LAW PROGRAM CROSSES

BORDERS

P 6

SOCIAL MEDIA, THE GOOD

AND THE cautious

P 6

PROFILES OF CALGARY

LAWYERS

3, 5, 7

eyeing the arctic for resources

P 4

INSIDE:

Litigator, Calgary managing partner for Osler Hoskin Harcourt, winner of a Women in Law leadership award from the Association of Women Law-yers; mother of four and university instructor: Maureen Killoran never started out to be a downtown, power attorney for one of the biggest law firms in Canada. Killoran says it all came from taking a flexible approach to finding out what she was good at — and a rather more rigid approach to setting priorities.

When and how did you decide you were going to become a lawyer?

I did my degree in English and his-tory at Queens and I knew I didn’t want to be a teacher. I wasn’t really quite sure what I wanted to do and I was resisting my parents’ advice. As two people who grew up in the Depression, they told all four of their kids to get a professional degree, doctor, lawyer, engineer, and you’re set for life.

So after my degree I actually worked for a couple of years and then ulti-mately decided to apply to law school.

The reason it took me so long is, I ac-tually didn’t think it was going to be my thing. And I was so pleasantly surprised in law school by how much I liked it.

That’s a big jump to take when you’re of two minds.

Yeah, I guess it was. I thought,

well, if I’m going to practice law, it doesn’t mean I have to do it in the traditional way. I don’t have to be with a big Toronto, Bay Street firm. If you’d asked me, in first year, I probably thought I would do some-thing a little left of centre and some-thing more human rights oriented. I worked with LEAF (the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund) and one of our professors was really involved in the Bosnia Herzegovina war crimes trial, so I did some work with her on that.

And then I summered at a law firm and was shocked at how much I liked the actual practice of it. So I went from thinking I was going to be a left-of-centre human rights lawyer to being at a Bay Street firm.

What was it that appealed to you about corporate law?

It’s the problem solving, I think. It’s all about trying to find the business answer for your client, with the help of the law.

I think I was really encouraged to see how 99.9 per cent of the time, your gut feeling was actually the right answer and that the courts give you case law that’s really based on common sense.

You’re a litigator. That’s a very win-or-lose kind of thing. What attracted you to litigation?

I took kind of a circuitous route

and, again, wasn’t entirely sure that I wanted to be on the corpo-rate side of litigation. I started off doing quite a bit of medical malpractice defence when I was a lawyer at Bennett Jones. And, once again, the reason I turned to that was because I found the material interesting, the interaction with people interesting. And after a short period of time, I found it not so interesting.

You dealt with people whose lives had really been compromised by some awful event. Sometimes chil-dren. And, to be perfectly frank, when you do energy law, as I do, or corpo-rate litigation, you’re not dealing with life and death situations and people whose lives have been turned upside down, plaintiffs who are weeping. It’s just about money.

It’s about being creative. Some-times, finding a solution that everybody will buy into, that’s a moderate compromise, is the way to go.

And sometimes it’s adversarial and it’s aggressive. I think I pride myself on working really hard for my clients and taking the hard stand. But never in such a way that my credibility is compromised … because that’s what I have to offer my clients — my reputation with the judges and with the other law-

yers in town. That’s the most mean-ingful thing to me.

I remember when my kids were little, somebody asked them what their mom did for a living and they said, “She goes to an office and she yells at people on the telephone.” (Laughs) And some days it feels like that. (Laughs) But most days it’s pretty civilized.

You’re now managing partner for a big, corporate law firm. How did that happen?

I have no idea. (Laughs) I missed a meeting, I think. It certainly wasn’t anything I aspired to be. But I think, when your partners ask you to fulfill the role, it’s one that you ought to step up and fulfill. And we’d had someone in the position for eight years, Tris (Tristram) Mallett, and he’d done a fantastic job.

At Osler, the firm feels very strongly that you ought to continue to practice while you manage — and I feel very strongly that I don’t want to give up my practice. I want to do 100 per cent of it and I do. If a great file comes in, I’m going to do it. I really love my prac-tice. I love litigating and I’m not going to give any of it up.

See KIDS, Page 2 See EXPORTS, Page 2

by brian burton

The Canadian government should use caution and a modicum of historical perspective before

demanding strict reciprocity from China in foreign investment, oil and gas law-yers say.

It’s worth making the point with the Chinese government about equal access to markets, they say, but big energy deals in Calgary shouldn’t be hamstrung by direct linkages to spe-cific Canadian efforts to buy into com-panies in China.

“It’s harder (for us) to make invest-ments there than it is (for them) to make investments here,” concedes

Peter Glossop, a competition and antitrust specialist with Osler Hoskin Harcourt.

But Glossop says Canadians need only look back to the National Energy Program of 1980 to recall a time when Canada sought to control foreign ownership in its oil industry.

Now, as Canada promotes foreign investment to ac-celerate enormous energy develop-ments in this country, and as

state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in China have responded with more than $30 billion worth of energy investment in the past four years, Glossop suggests we should cut China some slack on the principle of equal access to their economy.

“In a perfect world, everybody would be perfectly reciprocal,” he says.

But attempting to use access to Ca-nadian energy as a lever to open up the Chinese economy to Canadian invest-ment might be expecting too much of a country going through rapid change, he warns.

“I think it’s better, on balance, to have capital coming into this country than not.”

Osler colleague Frank Turner agrees that huge inbound energy investments could be needlessly complicated by horse trading on unrelated Canadian investments in China.

Turner is a Calgary-based merg-ers and acquisitions (M&A) expert and he and Glossop have worked on several mega deals in which the Chi-nese have acquired energy assets in Canada.

“It’s well recognized by both indus-try and government that we need bil-lions and billions of dollars to develop our resources and Canadian capital markets just aren’t big enough,” Turner says. “There are only a very small number of capital pools that are big enough to do these deals” and Chinese SOEs are an important part of that picture.

Glossop adds that there is also a limit to the amount of investment exposure multinational oil companies want to have in any one country and companies such as Exxon and Shell may well be near those limits with the investments they’ve already made and proposed in Canada.

The obvious and eager alternative is Asian SOEs.

Turner says Canada also badly needs to diversify and expand markets for its increasing oilsands output.

‘Don’t hamstring

energy deals with demands

on China’

Peter Glossop

INTERVIEW BY BRIAN BURTON • PHOTOS BY WIL ANDRUSCHAK

Calgary litigator, mother of four, spouse and university instructor — you can have it all, says Maureen Killoran, managing partner for Osler Hoskin Harcourt

Powerattorney

of

Frank Turner

Currently, Canada sells its oil and gas exports exclusively to the United States but pipeline constraints and rising tight-oil production in the U.S. have caused sharp discounts on prices paid for Canadian oil.

The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce has estimated Canadian producers will take an $18-billion hit on prices this year alone and Turner says the alternative is to develop Asian markets.

But that will require major pipeline projects to carry oil to West Coast shipping terminals. Natural gas also badly needs a West Coast outlet to Asian mar-kets — and that means Canada needs still more foreign invest-ment in pipelines and massive liquefaction plants.

“The Chinese believe they un-derstand the (investment) rules here,” Turner says, and it would be a potential setback for Canada if demands for mathematical reciprocity changed that.

Much has been made of China’s $30-billion buy into Canadian energy, but Glos-sop says Chinese investment shouldn’t be seen as aggressive or threatening.

He notes it’s small compared with Chinese investments in Australia and Russia and minute compared with the $300 million annual investment made by U.S. companies in Canada.

The Calgary office of global law firm Norton Rose has also acted in major joint ventures

involving Chinese SOEs, as well as a friendly takeover of a failing Canadian oil company by a Chinese state-owned en-terprise.

Norton Rose is currently establishing a Canada Desk in China to support Chinese investment here and a China Desk in Canada to assist Ca-nadian companies seeking Chinese investment or needing legal support for investments in China.

This effort is backed by senior partner and former Ca-nadian prime minister Brian Mulroney, who recently visited Beijing and Shanghai with senior Norton Rose colleagues to help raise the firm’s profile there.

Norton Rose partner and Calgary-based M&A specialist Craig Hoskins says Mulroney’s status as a former head of gov-ernment is a major door opener throughout Asia.

He says that, while huge energy deals involving SOEs grab the headlines, a “wave” of more modest, “normal course” M&A investments is taking shape as private capital from mainland China seeks investment opportunities in Canadian energy.

At the same time, Canadian oilsands producers are ap-proaching Norton Rose seeking Chinese partners for projects.

Where they can, he says, en-ergy companies are dodging the volatility of stock markets and turning to private capital for more patient investment in energy joint ventures.

Where major deals with SOEs are concerned, Hoskins says, “a mirror image analy-sis of reciprocity is probably not the best way of looking at things.

“China is an enormous country with enormous issues and undergoing enormous changes. To think that Canada is going to push them (on in-vestment policy) is likely fal-lacious.”

Hoskins suggests it’s better to engage with China on energy investments than to wait until its market and legal reforms are completed to Western standards because Canada’s energy oppor-tunity is now.

“File-by-file reciprocity may be like throwing the baby out with the bath water and we could forego a lot of investment without speeding change.” But he adds that now is likely a good time to make the Chinese aware that Canada is keeping score on reciprocity.

Turner and Hoskins decline to comment on whether either of their firms was among those warned by the Canadian Secu-rity Intelligence Service (CSIS) about systematic hacking efforts based in China and aimed at seven Canadian law firms. But Hoskins dismisses hacking as a “red herring” where investment is concerned.

“Canada needs to engage with the world and it will encounter a whole myriad of risks,” he says.

“You manage those risks. You don’t eliminate them by closing off investment.”

There’s a reason China’s state-owned oil companies are rapidly becoming some of the biggest clients of Calgary’s top law firms.

It’s because, in some ways, the two vast countries are mir-ror opposites of each other. Put simply, each has what the other lacks.

Canada has the world’s second-largest oil reserves, at 170 billion barrels — and the largest reserves open to foreign investment. (Saudi reserves and production are state owned, as are those of many other major exporters.) Canada also has a very small population and cor-respondingly smallish capital formation capacity from which to fund identified opportunities for some $200 billon worth of energy projects. And Canada is learning that it needs export alternatives to the U.S.

Conversely, China is the world’s second-largest and fastest-growing oil importer and its emergence as an eco-nomic powerhouse has given it immense cash reserves with which to buy oil and gas proper-ties, projects or entire energy companies.

China’s vehicle fleet is the world’s second largest, growing 20-fold in the decade ending in 2010 and now totalling 78 mil-lion units. It’s also the world’s largest vehicle manufacturer, producing 18.4 million units in 2011. By 2050, the Chinese fleet is predicted to surpass 500 million vehicles, easily making it the largest in the world.

Every day, China produces about four million barrels of oil and consumes about 10 mil-lion. By 2017, Chinese daily consumption is forecast to reach 12 million barrels per day, push-ing imports to nine million bpd as domestic deliveries decline. And by 2050, consumption is expected to reach 20 million barrels per day, most of it com-ing from offshore.

Seen in this light, it’s not hard to understand why Chinese state-owned oil companies are willing to spend a few billion dollars out of China’s $3 tril-lion in depreciating foreign exchange reserves to buy oil sands assets that are likely to appreciate in value. Fees paid to Calgary law firms, running into millions of dollars, are simply inconsequential as the Chinese

government seeks to maintain domestic economic growth and, thereby, it’s own political legitimacy.

The same logic applies to Canadian natural gas reserves — but with two added incen-tives for Chinese investment. Gas is the lowest-carbon fossil fuel in an increasingly carbon-constrained world.

And North American natural gas prices, depressed by a con-tinental glut, are running about one-tenth of the price natural gas commands in Asia.

Producing gas in Alberta and British Columbia, pipelining it to the West Coast and liquefying it for shipment to China would produce a huge and ongoing savings in energy costs on whatever reserves China might acquire.

In the process, China would help to fund development of more than $100 billion worth of proposed projects in the oil-sands and a somewhat smaller number of proposed liquefied natural gas projects in Alberta and B.C. Each deal would re-quire armies of construction workers — and smaller armies of Calgary lawyers.

CALGARY LAW REVIEW2

CALGARY LAW REVIEWCalgary Law Review is a special publication of the Calgary Herald

Special Projects Manager/Editor: Barb Livingstone, 403-235-7339, blivingstone@calgaryherald.com

Co-ordinator: Jennifer Worley

How many kids do you have?Four. All boys. (Arran, 23; Fraser, 21; Josh,

14; and Liam, 13.)

So, you’ve got the managing partner gig, you’ve got a full case load, a very full home life, obviously, and you teach at U of C.

I probably will this year. The first year I think I missed was last year — that’s 2012. So I’ll be on the schedule again in 2013. I generally try to do the intensive trial advocacy courses. That’s in-structing trial lawyers in town on trial skills. And then they have a similar one at the University of Calgary. The third-year class is put through a one-week intensive program. I usually instructed that. The other one I do is at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Ind. I try to do that once a year, which is another trial advocacy in-tensive training course.

How did you come to teach at an American university?

I met Jim Seckinger, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, while I was teaching trial skills at the University of Calgary about five years ago. He has a great intensive trial skills course that he offers his students twice per year. It’s taught by trial lawyers from all over the States — lots of hard-nosed Chicago liti-gators. He invites me down to ND to instruct annually. Jim is especially tickled to compare the U.S. trial lawyers with their Canadian counterparts. As you might expect, Canadians are much more polite — but equally effective.

There are lots of women graduating law schools, but if you look at senior partners, not so many.

We’re still losing women. It’s a difficult is-sue, especially as a woman who … who beat those odds. And if you ask me how, I’m not sure I could give you an answer. Other than, I really loved what I did in the day. I think it makes me a better parent.

You’ve got to explain that!Not better than other parents. Just better than I

would be, otherwise. For me, it’s the right choice. I have a lot of energy — and I’m probably attention deficit. I need tons of stimulation and I’m not good at taking things slow. I go home — and it’s been this way ever since my boys arrived — and I am energized and completely focused on making the most of every moment I have with them. And I’ve done what I’ve done by being, not just organized with my time, but absolutely rigid when it comes to my priorities.

Actions speak louder than words. So, for me, when I’m home with my kids I’m interact-ing and I play a big role in their lives — and they in mine. And it wasn’t always easy. Especially when they’re little and they’re say-ing, “How come you don’t stay home, like my friend’s mom does?” But the two young-est guys are now 13 and 14. Their powers of

observation are such that they say, “Wow. You volunteered at my kindergarten classes.”

Sometimes I think I couldn’t have done it in another city. I mean, in Calgary, you can hop in your car and in 10 minutes flat I was at their preschool, at the hockey arenas and soccer arenas. And I think, if I were in Toronto, it just would have been an awful lot tougher to do it.

As managing partner, have you been able to do anything that makes a difference for women? I’m thinking of that in light of your award for Women in Law (2011).

You know, naturally as you sort of ascend through the ranks of a law firm, you tend to identify more with the women who come to work for you. And I think all of us who’ve reached a level of seniority tend to take a spe-cial interest in the women beneath us, to say, “You can have it all.” And when I say that, I really mean you can do it without sacrificing your priorities. You can be a great parent. You can be a great spouse. You probably have to have a great spouse. (Laughs) Like I do. He (Ray Daniels, senior vice-president, opera-tions, Enerplus) and I made a commitment to each other that we are raising these kids together and they’re our priority.

Sometimes stuff hits the fan and we pull out our Blackberries and say, “Whose day is more impor-tant and who can cancel things?” You have to have an equal partner at home, but you can do it.

On at least one occasion, you’ve been to the London Court of International Arbitration. Whose rules do you play by there?

Usually you’ll find, especially in oil and gas contracts, the contract will (specify) the London Court of International Arbitration. But more often than not, I’m still dealing with Alberta law. So, we’re seen as a jurisdiction with so much experience in energy and in oil and gas contracts and operations, that you’ll find, internationally, parties are okay with choosing Alberta law.

Chinese M&A (mergers and acquisitions) in town — have you acted on any of those?

Lot’s of them. Usually, I will be asked to take a look at an arbitration clause in one of the agree-ments or take a look at some of the litigation that may be exposed in the due diligence process.

We have acted for many of those in-bound investments. We were on the transaction where we sold ConocoPhillips’ interest in Syncrude. ($4.5 billion sale to Sinopec.)

There’s been recent speculation that’s there’s a great deal of foreign M&A going on behind the scenes besides the Nexen deal that’s cur-rently getting all the press. Is that accurate?

Yes. There have been stories that there’s a whole bunch of activity out there and I would certainly say that that’s our view, as well. And this Nexen deal is a pretty important one, right? Depending on how the government decides, it’s really going to set the tone for our market and what’s going to happen in the next few years.

China’s thirst for oil unquenchable

— Calgary Herald Archive

The Chinese National Offshore Oil Corp.’s bid to buy Calgary oil producer Nexen Inc. is just one of the moves by China to invest in Canadian resources.

— Wil Andruschak photo

Osler Hoskin Harcourt managing partner and litigator Maureen Killoran at her firm’s offices located in Calgary’s TransCanada Tower.

EXPORTS, FROM PAGE 1

KIDS, FROM PAGE 1

Pat Maguire is a partner at Bennett Jones, where

he serves as co-head of the corporate depart-

ment. A member of the firm’s energy practice

group. Maguire acts for energy companies on

a broad range of commercial transactions, in

Canada and internationally.

Born in the U.S., Maguire grew up in the town

of Millet, Alta. He obtained his law degree from

the University of Alberta and articled at Bennett

Jones in Calgary in 1991, where he worked until

1996 before moving on to Nexen. While at Nexen,

Maguire took on a variety of international as-

signments, including spending a couple of years

in Yemen.

Because he particularly enjoyed the interna-

tional environment and wanted to expand his

understanding of the business world, Maguire

headed back to university to do an MBA at Cam-

bridge University in 2000. He wrote his thesis

while living in the south of France, and travelled

the world before rejoining Bennett Jones in 2001.

“The job is increasingly international,” notes

Maguire, 46. “Our firm has offices in China and

in the Middle East, and that provides me with

great opportunities, as I have always been inter-

nationally focused. Most recently, Bennett Jones

has been acting in connection with a lot of Asian

investment into Canada.”

Q: How would you describe yourself?A: There are different kinds of lawyers. Some are great technical practitioners, and some are very business oriented. I would describe myself as being a balance of the best of those. I want to get the deal done, but I want to get it done right.

Q: What was your first job?A: My first job was as a maintenance person for the County of Wetaskiwin. It incented me greatly to go to law school. My first legal job was at Bennett Jones, where I articled in 1991.

Q: What attracted you to your area of specialization?A: The economics in Alberta are re-ally based on the energy industry, and it seemed to be the obvious place for me to

practise. My area of specialty is in com-mercial transactions, which is not overly bound by procedural rules, and provides room for a great degree of creativity.

Q: What’s the best part of your job?A: I am lucky to work at Bennett Jones with some very smart, engaged people. These are some of the best lawyers in the field and they are leaders in the community. It is a fantastic environment to be in. It challenges me every day and is really rewarding.

Q: What’s the most challenging part of your job?A: Time management is definitely the biggest challenge. It’s not uncommon to have clients asking for more of your time than you have to give. I occasionally over-commit, based on the time I have available.

Q: What makes a good lawyer?A: The right balance of brains, technical ex-pertise, business sense and personal skills.

Q: Whom do you admire?A: Nelson Mandela. His ability to always see there is a path forward into the future that will be better than where we’re at today, has been awe-inspiring. On a pro-fessional level, a senior regulatory lawyer at Bennett Jones who mentored me in the early years, taught me how to be a good lawyer, a good business adviser and a good partner.

Q: What are you most passionate about?A: Family, friends, my colleagues and my clients. Within the day, each of them will have priority.

Q: What does a great day off look like for you?A: Spending time with the family, skiing, golfing, and in the evening, a good bottle of red wine and a nice meal.

— Jacqueline Louie

PROFILE: PAT Maguire, bennett jones

CALGARY LAW REVIEW 3

On January 1, 2012 Macleod Dixon joined Norton Rose. Our enlarged national capabilities and unmatched international platform allows us to help our clients achieve new heights - all with a significant local presence.

nortonrose.com

Over and Above

2900 lawyers | 43 offices | 6 continents | 1 vision

NRC_1886_HeraldLawReviewAd_OverAndAbove.indd 1 01/11/2012 1:16:32 PM

Climate change brings Arctic resources closer

Wylie Spicer

CALGARY LAW REVIEW4

by brian burton

Every kid knows the North Pole is hallowed ground, free of the grasping claims of nation

states. Santa, after all, is a law unto himself, who, presumably, has scant need for the services of lawyers and other mortals.

And, in fact, the latest map docu-menting the territorial ambitions of Canada, Russia, Denmark, Norway and the United States shows an area adjacent to the pole that is, at least notionally, unclaimed. Think of it as Santa Land — for now, anyway. The rest of the vast seabed between Canada and Russia is more or less up for grabs, as five nations around the pole seek

legal extensions of their territorial waters beyond the established 200-nautical-mile limit.

Claims are made to the United Na-tions Commission on the Limits of the Continental

Shelf (CLCS). The commission is guided by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and in particular by Article 82 of the Law of the Sea Treaty. Article 82 allows exten-sions “with respect to the exploitation of the continental shelf ” — from 200 to as much as 350 nautical miles — with certain important provisos.

Article 82, then, is where Santa Land ends and the laws of men take over.

Wylie Spicer, Calgary-based expert

on Arctic and maritime law with Nor-ton Rose, explains that Article 82 is based on the concept that the seafloor beyond the 200-mile limit is part of the “common heritage of mankind.”

Regardless of who succeeds in claiming various extended tracts of seafloor and the resources under them, Article 82 specifies that the first royal-ties, up to seven per cent of revenues, will be shared “equitably” between 162 nations who are signatories to UNCLOS.

“This article has been sort of a sleeping giant and no one has made payments under it, so far,” Spicer says. But global warming is bringing Arctic resources within reach and the U.S. Geological Survey has estimated that oil reserves alone could exceed 90 billion barrels or $7 trillion, at today’s prices.

“Obviously, resource companies should be very aware of agreements governing these extensions of seabed boundaries,” Spicer observes.

The International Seabed Authority (ISA) — a creature of UNCLOS based in Kingston, Jamaica — is charged with distributing royalty revenues from extensions of seabed rights. Under Article 82, the ISA is directed to distribute royalties, up to seven per cent of production or revenues, “taking into account the interests and needs of developing States, particularly the least developed and the landlocked among them.”

In Canadian terms, think of it as an equalization payment, redistributing a portion of the wealth from richer jurisdictions to poorer ones. But, un-

like Canadian law, which gives each province undivided right to its own resources, UNCLOS and ISA use resources as the source for revenue redistribution.

Nations which succeed in extend-ing their claims beyond 200 miles will, in effect, become paid manag-ers of subsea resources, overseeing their development on behalf of the 162 UNCLOS signatories, remitting the first seven-per-cent of revenues to ISA for the “least developed” na-tions and, hopefully, retaining any royalties beyond seven per cent. The unanswered question, in an extremely remote and hostile envi-ronment, is whether there will be any room for royalties to rise beyond seven per cent.

Spicer describes Canada as a con-tented signatory to UNCLOS, willing to abide by its terms and see first royal-ties go to developing nations. The U.S., meanwhile, has not signed on to UN-CLOS. In July, 34 Republican sena-tors once again indicated opposition to signing the Law of the Sea Treaty, denying the two-thirds Senate majority that international treaties need for U.S. ratification.

Ironically, Spicer says, in the much more developed Gulf of Mexico, the U.S. has drafted detailed regulations for remitting royalties to ISA in the extension zone between 200 and 350 miles offshore. Canada, meanwhile, has no corresponding royalty regula-tions for the high Arctic or off New-foundland. While there is some active exploration in the extension zone off Newfoundland, no drillers are active in

the area above the Arctic Archipelago. “As oil and gas become rarer and

rarer, 51 countries have applied for extensions in various areas around the world.” With that, Spicer says, the Ar-ticle-82 sleeping giant is edging closer to an awakening.

The first stirrings took place during an UNCLOS conference in Beijing, where Spicer attended and monitored issues important to Canada, including how resource royalties will be calcu-lated, who controls the Lomonosov Ridge under the Arctic Ocean, who controls a section of the Beaufort Sea and how pollution management will be extended to the 350-nautical mile limit.

“We stand to be huge winners on the extended continental shelf issues,” Spicer says.

Canada and the U.S. are contesting control of a sliver of the Beaufort Sea —about the size of Lake Ontario — that the National Energy Board (NEB) has estimated could contain some 10 billion barrels of oil. Canada bases its claim on a straight-line extension of the Alaska/Yukon border as delineated in an 1825 treaty between Russia and Great Britain, while the U.S. bases its claim on a line drawn equidistant from both coasts. Both countries are reviewing offshore drilling regulations in light of the blowout in the Gulf of Mexico. And both have publicly sug-gested a resolution may lie in the fact that, beyond the 200-mile limit, the American line appears to be better for Canada, while the Canadian line ap-pears to be better for the U.S.

In 2001, Russia submitted a formal

claim to extend its territory in a way that would project far onto the Ca-nadian side of the pole, based on the huge Lomonosov Ridge having arisen from the European continental shelf. Canada says the ridge, some 1,800 kilometres long and up to 200 km wide, arose from the North American continental shelf and properly falls under Canadian jurisdiction. Russia says it has spent $50 million research-ing its claim, while Canada has spent $109 million on a 10-year mapping project. Canada has until 2013 to sub-mit its counterclaim, but with seabed extension disputes going on all over the world, there’s no telling when a rul-ing might be made. (Denmark has also signaled an interest in the Lomonosov issue, based on its ownership of Green-land.)

Additionally, Spicer says the issue of resource royalty calculations re-quires considerable refinement, even though most countries have signed on to general terms. It’s not known, for instance, whether royalties will be calculated before or after produc-tion companies recover the costs of hugely expensive arctic development projects.

From recent public hearings of the National Energy Board in Inuvik, Spicer says, he learned that Northern-ers are generally supportive of devel-opment — but the ocean is a primary food source and they want very close regulation to ensure that pollution will be prevented.

“An oil spill under the sea ice would be catastrophic and the NEB got that message, loud and clear,” he says.

BY JACqUELINE LOUIE

The University of Calgary’s law fac-ulty has a clear and simple goal: to be ‘Calgary’s law school.’

“We want our programs to be reflec-tive of the needs of our community. We want to be a central part of Calgary and its future. We want our graduates to go on to be leaders within the community, and we want to be a part of the profes-sional fabric of Calgary,” says dean of law, Ian Holloway, Q.C.

That’s why, when the U of C’s faculty of law recently launched a new devel-opment campaign, it brought together a diverse, broadly representative group from Calgary’s legal community to help reach its goal.

“The level of government support for legal education has not been keep-

ing up with inflation, and so increas-ingly law schools at every university in Canada have to turn to external sources of support,” Holloway says.

“Trying to put those two things together — a need for resources, and a desire to be more reflective of our community — led us to put together what we call a campaign cabinet — a group of women and men who are leaders within the legal profession in Calgary.

They include senior people from law firms, but also include corporate counsel people from industry — and that’s unique. One of the things that makes Calgary such a special city, at least from the perspective of the legal profession, is the extent to which corporate counsel are involved in things. On our committee, we’ve got a

wonderful blend of lawyers in private practice and corporate counsel.”

The honorary co-chairs of the U of C law school’s development campaign are Rick George, former Suncor CEO; and Jim Palmer, Q.C., chairman emeritus of law firm Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer.

Senior leaders on the committee are Brian Felesky, Q.C., managing direc-tor of Credit Suisse Securities; Kerry Dyte, Q.C., executive vice-president of Cenovus; and Eric Miller, vice-president of Agrium.

Approximately 20 people are part of the campaign cabinet, which includes managing partners or senior partners of most of the major law firms in Cal-gary, as well as senior executives from a number of corporations, including companies such as Nexen, Trans-Canada Pipelines, Talisman Energy,

Enbridge, Precision Drilling, Total, Chevron and others.

“The makeup of our cabinet is re-ally unique amongst law schools in North America,” Holloway says. “To have such a blend of lawyers in private practice and business executives, is not something that you (typically) see in North American law school cam-paigns. We are very proud of it. It re-ally does say something special about this city, and the level of civic pride and engagement in Calgary.”

The development campaign’s objec-tive, is to raise $20 million over the next five years.

In addition to raising additional re-sources, the development campaign also seeks to integrate the U of C’s law school more closely with Calgary’s legal and professional community.

Law faculty distinctively ‘Calgarian’

— Calgary Herald Archive

Greenland is being eyed by countries around the world for the rich resources that lay beneath the barren island, which is a quarter the size of the U.S.

— Calgary Herald Archive

Ian Holloway, U of C’s dean of law.

CALGARY LAW REVIEW 5

When he was 19 years old, Keith Byblow

sold all his belongings and went to Holly-

wood to be a rock star.

While his dreams of Hollywood music star-

dom didn’t pan out, Byblow has found his

calling in oil and gas law.

Born and raised in Calgary, with a law

degree from the University of Calgary (and

a bachelor of music degree in jazz perfor-

mance from St. Francis Xavier University),

Byblow is a partner in McCarthy Tétrault’s

Energy Department of Business Law

Group, with a practice that includes a wide

range of domestic and international trans-

actions. Byblow, 41, also counsels clients on

structuring and negotiating international

joint ventures and partnerships for the ac-

quisition, exploration and development of

oil and gas assets abroad.

Q: How would you describe yourself?A: Cliché Type A, hopefully not to a

fault, but enough to do my job well. I am a fairly social person. Thankfully my wife Carla is very outgoing, and I have learned from her to be a little more outgoing.

Q: What was your first job?A: A paper route and washing dishes at a Bonanza restaurant. I was 14. I don’t think there is a job that I haven’t done in one capacity or another — I like to think that keeps me grounded.

Q: What attracted you to your area of specialization?A: The first clue was my interest in property and oil and gas law courses in law school. Once I ar-ticled and realized I did not want to be a litigator or a securities lawyer, I joined our oil and gas group as an associate — and once I was

in, I was hooked. Reading Daniel Yergin’s The Prize really cinched it. I am fascinated by the industry, and how this commodity is so fun-damental to every social and eco-nomic element of our lives.

Q: What’s the best part of your job?A: The people I work with, both clients and the people at McCarthy Tétrault. Also, I really enjoy putting deals together, particularly those that are atypical and require you to take a client’s ideas and issues, and build the structure from scratch. That is very rewarding. That, and the fact that the challenges in this profession are con-stantly changing.

Q: What’s the most challenging part of your job?A: Substantively, the most challeng-

ing parts are also what make the job most interesting and rewarding. Staying up-to-date on industry and market trends, and finding innova-tive ways to deliver the service at the caliber that we do is very demanding. Logistically, there are always competing forces on your time, given how demanding and competitive the service element is. It makes all the difference to have a family that understands and is sup-portive. They make a lot of sacrifices behind the scenes.

Q: What makes a good lawyer?A: Of course, the highest level of competence substantively. What sets you apart, is your approach to service and how your expertise is delivered. You need to listen and hear what your clients are saying so

that you add value and are a business facilitator. What you are ultimately trying to build at the end of the day, is trust.

Q: Whom do you admire?A: So many of my colleagues and friends. You can learn something from pretty much any person and situation if you watch for it and are self-aware. If I had to pick only a few, I would have to say my parents, for their tremendous work ethic and selflessness.

Q: What are you most passionate about?A: My kids. I am most passionate about providing them with opportu-nity and seeing them be happy.

— Jacqueline Louie

PROFILE: keith byblow, McCarthy Tétrault

mccarthy.ca McCarthy Tétrault LLP

A relentless focus on client success is at the heart of our firm. Business achievement begins with the right team, asking the right questions. Our team integrates legal expertise, industry insight, and legal project management to deliver more value to our clients. We not only help clients achieve success – we make the journey better.

You talk. We listen.

CALGARY LAW REVIEW6Calgary, Houston connect for dual degree program

BY JACqUELINE LOUIE

U of C law student Barrett Schitka has had a whirlwind of a semester so far. He’s

in Houston, enrolled in the Interna-tional Energy Lawyers Program — a new joint degree program offered by the University of Calgary and the University of Houston which allows law students at the U of C and the University of Houston Law Center to earn Canadian and American law degrees in four years. Students will spend two years at each institution, and at the end of the program will be able to apply for admission to bar associations in both the U.S. and Canada.

“That’s a flagship program that we developed in partnership with the University of Houston, reflec-tive of the Houston-Calgary axis, which is really the backbone of the North American energy industry,” says Ian Holloway, dean of the U of C’s faculty of law.

Schitka, who was admitted to the program in July and moved to Houston in August, is the program’s first and — so far only — student. “There are a few other dual degree programs in Canada. What’s unique about this program, is its focus on energy and natural resources law,” he says.

Born and raised in Calgary, Schitka, 24, has always had an interest in law. A student in the International Bac-calaureate program at St. Mary’s High School in Calgary, he enjoyed debat-ing, and was a competitive athlete for many years.

At the same time, he is also very strong in math and the sciences, and opted to study chemical engineering, choosing the best program he could find: at the University of Waterloo, where he obtained two degrees

concurrently: a bachelor of applied science degree in chemical engineer-ing, with an option in management science, and a bachelor of arts degree in Spanish.

Another draw for Schitka, was Waterloo’s co-operative education program, which allows students to spend every four months alternating between a study term and a work term. Over the five years that Schitka spent on his engineering degree, he received a year-and-a-half of industry work experience, doing everything from waste water treatment and research and development, to engineering simula-tion software. During his first term, he worked as a research assistant at the National University of Engineering in Lima, Peru, and in his third year he worked for a Sarnia, Ont. petrochemi-cal company that was renegotiating some of its service agreements. As a co-op student, Schitka went through contracts and production data, and participated in some of the negotia-tions and strategy processes that were going on.

“That’s when I started to see that maybe there was a way to put the two together — law and engineering. The more I looked into things, spoke with people and did research, I knew that that was what I wanted to do, and I never looked back.”

Schitka returned to Calgary in 2011 to attend law school, where the draw-ing factor was the U of C’s energy and natural resources focus. Since his ac-ceptance into the International Energy Lawyers Program, he has continued to pack his schedule.

Among other things, Schitka was selected to participate in the Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition, the largest, and one of the most prestigious moot court competi-tions in the world. In the case of the Jessup competition, moot court is a

simulation of arguments done before the International Court of Justice. The student teams participating in the com-petition represent fictional countries involved in an international dispute, and present and argue their case in front of a panel of judges.

Schitka is also a member of the edi-torial boards of two student-published journals: the Alberta Law Review, and the Houston Journal of Health Law and Policy. “We put out journals throughout the year. We do everything from article selection to copy editing to note writing — every element of the publication process,” he explains. The journals, which go into law librar-ies around the world, feature articles written by law faculty and legal schol-ars nation-wide.

Through the joint degree program, Schitka is gaining an understand-ing of the U.S. and other countries “on a more fundamental level. You start to understand why the U.S. has evolved the way it has, why laws have evolved the way they have, and how decisions made 100 years ago have an impact today,” he says. “You start to see things on both sides of the border that you may not have seen before. Both countries have the same English common law roots, but it’s seeing things from a slightly differ-ent angle.”

After he graduates from law school, Schitka would like to develop an energy practice. “I’m not quite sure yet whether it will be a transactional-based practice or a litigation-based practice — there are elements of both that I very much enjoy,” he says. “My intention is to have some sort of international flavour to it, whether it be domestic clients with international interests, or international clients. Hopefully one day as I continue to de-velop, grow, work and learn, I’ll be at the forefront of that sort of industry.”

— Courtesy Jessica Franklin, UHLC

University of Calgary law student Barrett Schitka is the first student in the International Energy Lawyers program, a new joint degree program between the U of C and the Uni-versity of Houston.

*Thomson Reuters ranks Gowlings the #1 Canadian law firmby deal count for worldwide M&A in the first 9 months of 2012.

sorry you haven’t seen us at the gym lately ...

but we’ve been busy.

montréal • ottawa • toronto • hamilton • waterloo region • calgary • vancouver • beijing • moscow • london • gowlings.com

Canada’s Busiest M&A Firm for 2012 YTD*

CALGARY LAW REVIEW 7PROFILE: DALE SPACKMAN, PARLEE McLAWS

Dale Spackman, Q.C., is a partner at

Parlee McLaws LLP in Calgary, where he

has been a lawyer for 32 years. Born and

raised in Calgary, Spackman, 58, is a third-

generation southern Albertan. He and his

wife have two grown children.

Q: How would you describe your-self?A: I’m a people person. I try to do the right thing and work hard.

Q: What was your first job?A: As a Calgary Herald delivery boy, when I was about 15. I had one of the largest paper routes in Calgary.

Q: What attracted you to your area of specialization?A: Early on, I wanted to focus my practice on solicitor’s work — corpo-rate and commercial law. I took a lot of satisfaction in advising clients and

working through complicated cor-porate and commercial transactions, and seeing the transactions come to a satisfactory conclusion. My ex-pertise in aviation law, which is the main area of my practice now, really came out about as a consequence of circumstance. One of the first clients I had obtained as a young lawyer was a commercial air service company. I really enjoyed that work and de-veloped a lot of relationships in that industry, and it just grew from there. My other main area of specialization is banking law.

Q: What’s the best part of your job?A: The interaction I have with clients, and the satisfaction I get from help-ing them with their legal needs. Add to that the intellectual challenges and the opportunity to continually gain new knowledge and skills. I love to

learn and problem solve and I find the law gives you a really great opportu-nity to do that in a practical setting.

Q: What’s the most challenging part of your job?A: Juggling the competing demands of clients and keeping them all happy. The other very challenging part of the job is keeping up on the law in my areas of specialization because it’s continually evolving.

Q: What makes a good lawyer?A: In no particular order of impor-tance: intelligence, common sense, excellent communication skills, integrity, courtesy, humility and ex-tremely hard work.

Q: Whom do you admire?A: I admire anyone who is hardwork-ing, genuine and makes a positive

difference in other people’s lives. Some of the people I admire the most, are those closest to me. For example, my wife Cathy, because she has all of the qualities that I admire in people. She is a professional accountant, she is the CFO of a large public corporation and she always spends an enormous amount of time helping the community.

Q: What type of volunteering do you do?A: I started doing things like coach-ing sports teams and refereeing sports when in high school and carried that through into my profes-sional career. I’ve done everything from being a Boy Scout leader and coaching my kids’ sports teams and other sports teams to coaching and serving on the board of directors of the Calgary Minor Soccer Associa-tion for eight years. I was a member

of the board of directors of the Law Society of Alberta for eight years — and lots of other stuff.

Q: What are you most passionate about?A: My family would come first, and secondly the law. I am also passion-ate about sports, especially hockey and football. And I am passionate about children. That’s why I got so involved in coaching and minor soc-cer. I am a real believer in team sports — that it’s one of the most important things a child can participate in, to help them in their adult life.

Q: What does a great day off look like for you?A: Spending time with my family, es-pecially at our cabin at Pigeon Lake.

— Jacqueline Louie

CALGARY LAW REVIEW8

BY BARBARA BALfOUR

After months agonizing over whether he should delete his Facebook profile, Sander

Duncanson was pleasantly surprised when, on his first day as a summer student at a law firm, he was given instructions on how to set up his own LinkedIn account.

It was 2009, a time when profiles on Facebook and other social media were as ubiquitous as they were potentially incriminating. “I always thought social media would be discouraged because of certain things in your personal life that law firms didn’t want you broadcast-ing to the world,” says the 29-year-old associate at Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt. “Instead, the marketing manager said, ‘Here are the basics you should have — now get out there and use them.

“‘This will be the most important tool you have to develop your personal brand as you go through your career.’”

The use of social media to grow a firm’s reputation, share legal resources, and pro-vide instant updates is only one example of how much and how quickly technology has changed lawyers’ approach to their practice. Yet as younger lawyers are more likely to take for granted the accessibility and speed of today’s digital world, senior colleagues are reminding them that tech-nology is not infallible.

“When you’re dealing with a legal area you’re not familiar with, your first re-sponse is to see what comes up on Google, but that information is not always reli-able,” says Claire Stilwell, a 20-something lawyer at Norton Rose who specializes in technology and innovation.

“I was directed by a senior colleague to actually take out a textbook at the start of my research to become more familiar with this area of law. When I had that ex-tra context, it made my searching much more efficient — I knew what was useful and what wasn’t. I don’t think I would have had that approach otherwise.”

Stilwell also credits her older col-leagues for stressing the importance of face-to-face time with clients when

relationships are often maintained in a virtual world.

“We’ve heard a lot of discussion about what it really means to have 500 friends within the context of Facebook. You can use Facebook to keep in touch with people, but it’s no substitute for sitting down with a client and taking them out for lunch. And sometimes, you can get so much more done by picking up the phone than by sending a million e-mails.”

As a way of reaching younger audi-ences and potential clients, Facebook is also integral in trial preparation. Family law attorney Lisa Tose often educates her clients on the damage their online profiles can do to their case.

“It’s very commonplace for Face-book postings to be brought into the trial or hearing, especially when chil-dren are involved,” says Tose, 40.

“I always advise my clients to elimi-nate Facebook altogether prior to a trial

or while we’re having an ongoing issue. This is regardless of privacy settings — they may believe they have locked it down or unfriended the ex-partner, but their information is still available through other people on their friends list.

“I can get a lot more information about the opposing party than I ever used to be able to before.”

In 1998, when Tose first started prac-ticing, she would have never dared to bring a cellphone into the courtroom. “Now judges expect you to have it handy to look up queries for them, quickly use applications to access case law or do child support calculations,” says Tose, 40. “I couldn’t imagine going into a trial without my phone charged and ready to go.”

At legal firms such as Field Law, remote access usage is encouraged so lawyers are not confined to their offices — they can practice using a

virtual desktop anytime, anywhere, says insurance defence lawyer Alex Yiu, 31. “Nearly 100 per cent of our lawyers use a mobile device and nearly a quarter of our members use an iPad as a staple in their everyday usage.”

Other examples where technol-ogy comes into play include affidavit records and legal cases now available in digital format and even full-blown trials that are run electronically in “smart” courtooms, says Yiu.

While being connected to the office when outside of it physically can give lawyers more freedom, it can also add more pressure.

“When I was just starting out, fax machines had become the big thing and lawyers were bemoaning that clients expected to hear back within a day,” says Robert Hawkes, 51, a part-ner at JS Barristers who specializes in commercial litigation and class ac-

tions. Today, Hawkes will often spend time even while on vacation fielding urgent matters electronically.

“With e-mail, clients expect to hear back within the hour if not within minutes.”

At the same time, some lawyers have noted a general reluctance to rely on tech-nology too much. “I go to a lot of hearings, and my tendency is to put all the files I need on a USB key, take my laptop, and I’m good to go,” says Duncanson.

“Most senior lawyers will say, ‘That’s great, but make sure you always have a hard copy.’ It may seem exces-sive but every once in a while comput-ers crash and I have had that happen. When technology fails, you still have to be able to continue your practice.

“The older generation has learned to practice law without that technol-ogy so they still make sure they can do without it.”

— Wil Andruschak photo

Claire Stilwell, a lawyer at Norton Rose specializing in technology and innovation, says Google and Facebook are no substitute for researching law or staying in touch with clients. Textbook research and face-to-face time with clients are still critical.

Social media: good, bad and ... cautious

Plug into Canada's Oil and Gas law firm.

Your lawyer. Your law �rm. Your business advisor.

Download our Oil Sands Backgrounder at: bennettjones.com/oilsands

calgary | toronto | edmonton | ot tawa | beijing | dubai | abu dhabi | doha

N

BennettJones_CalgaryLawReview_Nov2012.indd 2 09/11/2012 1:15:08 PM