Electric.

[chuckChuck]

That statement I don't entirely agree with, at least in Saskatchewan.

Government can give access to someone's land, but it does not have to be your land if your vehement about not wanting their development, or feel their offer is too weak. cc., you need to tune your negotiating skills with land people as locations are not often fixed with horizontal tech.

They operate off formulas, and personally I think $400-450/acre net replacement is a fair offer for a conventional crop return around here. Expand your thought process as there are many non monetary things that won't immediately add digits to your bank account that an oil company will do for you on their dime.

You don't want it on your land, that's good, because that generally makes it one less landowner that would accept it at less than formula.

I can see you doing it though being the old CWB formula guy!. lol

Some oil companies are more reasonable than others in negotiating leases. But the reality is that they have the power to force you to accept pipelines and leases whether you want them or not. And the government gives them this access through regulation and law.

Its an industry that claims to support a free market, but enjoys government protection and regulation from free market negotiation to access land.

Your assumption that all oil companies treat landowners fairly is not backed up by the reality.

Most of them nickle and dime unsuspecting landowners when ever possible and in many cases fail to clean up old wells, leases and batteries because the costs to do so, is incredibly high.

And there are stiil lots of facilities leaking H2S and flaring large amounts of gas polluting nearby farms and communities

[checking]

Some oil companies are more reasonable than others in negotiating leases. But the reality is that they have the power to force you to accept pipelines and leases whether you want them or not. And the government gives them this access through regulation and law.

Its an industry that claims to support a free market, but enjoys government protection and regulation from free market negotiation to access land.

Your assumption that all oil companies treat landowners fairly is not backed up by the reality.

Most of them nickle and dime unsuspecting landowners when ever possible and in many cases fail to clean up old wells, leases and batteries because the costs to do so, is incredibly high.

And there are stiil lots of facilities leaking H2S and flaring large amounts of gas polluting nearby farms and communities

What you are saying is "you attract the more unreasonable ones". That sounds like you would make a perfect land person for them with that mindset.

I don't believe I said that all oil companies treat landowners fairly. I said relatively new tech can stand up to your argument that they won't, or can't locate off your property. Even the concept of, "as the crow fly" pipelines do not have to be agreed to. Most of us only require least disturbance, or least impact placement on what you want to do with that surface, That may even require the insistence that flow lines be horizontally drilled under your 11.83 inches of surface control. The cost is equal to track hoeing.

Replace oil companies with, oh let's say "wind farm company, solar farm company, maybe how the CWB operated though government regulation, would you then be capable of seeing the problem of property owner control of surface to the total exclusion of rights below by a second party. I'd see chaos.

Your problem is that you don't like oil and gas, but that we need it for base load into the future.

[chuckChuck]

The transition from oil and gas as an energy source will be a long and winding road.

But to get back to my main point, the oil and gas industry has a lot of regulatory power to access surface land relative to land owners.

Oil drilling requires very specific placement of the well head to access the preferred pay zone in many cases. Not in all cases of course. In those situations alternative sites can be chosen.

For a long time a lot farm families saw oil well surface leases as a source of much needed revenue. Now many of the medium and large farms see them as a nuisance and potentially a permanent liability.

For one thing when you lease land to an oil company they pay you for permanent damage to the land based on the value of the land at that point in time. Well land values have gone up dramatically but the permanent damage value is fixed and the damage continues for ever unless they clean up and restore the lease to its original state.

We both know that this does not happen on many surface leases because the costs of clean up far exceeds the annual lease payment. Oil companies essentially take over your land for a very long time.

They are required to adjust surface lease payments every 3 year for crop loss and nuisance. Good luck negotiating that with a marginal small oil company that wants to cut costs.

In Alberta many marginal oil and gas companies are refusing to pay their County taxes and lease payments to landowners.

There are thousands of suspended abandoned and orphan wells and facilities that nobody pays landowners for.

Governments have given the oil industry extraordinary power over landowners but failed to put in robust requirements for oil companies to pay for shutting in and reclaiming surface leases. The damage and loss is many cases permanent.

But as usual most people only see the cash up front and forget about the potential long term liabilities and problems.

[checking]

The transition from oil and gas as an energy source will be a long and winding road.

But to get back to my main point, the oil and gas industry has a lot of regulatory power to access surface land relative to land owners.

Oil drilling requires very specific placement of the well head to access the preferred pay zone in many cases. Not in all cases of course. In those situations alternative sites can be chosen.

For a long time a lot farm families saw oil well surface leases as a source of much needed revenue. Now many of the medium and large farms see them as a nuisance and potentially a permanent liability.

For one thing when you lease land to an oil company they pay you for permanent damage to the land based on the value of the land at that point in time. Well land values have gone up dramatically but the permanent damage value is fixed and the damage continues for ever unless they clean up and restore the lease to its original state.

We both know that this does not happen on many surface leases because the costs of clean up far exceeds the annual lease payment. Oil companies essentially take over your land for a very long time.

They are required to adjust surface lease payments every 3 year for crop loss and nuisance. Good luck negotiating that with a marginal small oil company that wants to cut costs.

In Alberta many marginal oil and gas companies are refusing to pay their County taxes and lease payments to landowners.

There are thousands of suspended abandoned and orphan wells and facilities that nobody pays landowners for.

Governments have given the oil industry extraordinary power over landowners but failed to put in robust requirements for oil companies to pay for shutting in and reclaiming surface leases. The damage and loss is many cases permanent.

But as usual most people only see the cash up front and forget about the potential long term liabilities and problems.

A couple of things you have right, a couple of things you have a partial, a couple of things are Trump like, and you should know better, and one is not relevant.

Please don't bring up Alberta. I did not. I speak of Saskatchewan relevance, only.

You can explain, perhaps, how the mention of surface leases on land for sale by a retiring farmer draws a subtracting bid by medium and large acre farm enterprises because they find them a nuisance, and a potential liability. I wonder why those same individuals are willing to pay 5-6 times the annual surface lease rental over quarters without wells. Your logic says they run for the hills. Mine would suggest surface leases must be seen as assets when buying land by said farmers.

How am I suppose to take your statement on reparable permanent capital damage, and your wanting a retroactive payment to bring it up to today's land values? I'm wondering if that statement is like PET's saying that he may succeed himself. You really knew land values always go up. I'm highly skeptical that had they gone down you would have cut a cheque to the oil company.

Actually, oil companies are being required to complete clean ups, otherwise the license they want to be able to drill is denied. That is the carrot and stick approach that prevents companies avoiding their liabilities. It should have been there since day one.

[sumdumguy]

Ottawa City politicians are perplexed because not too many people are using their charging stations. The reality is that many people live in apartments so they don’t have home charging stations so the city sets up $2/ hour charging stations for their use but one was only used 65 times in first year and ones in busy usage areas 2-600 times. Hmmm

[jazz]

A nuisance is driving around a power pole which pays you zero.

Driving around an oil lease paying you $1000 a month is hardly a nuisance.

Any land with paying infrastructure on it goes for a premium. Big enbridge line that went through here a few yrs ago had farmers calling them to put it on their land.

[WiltonRanch]

Being in the heart of heavy oil country I find a lot of what Chuck alleges are valid in an era of little to no regulation. Fast forward to today and any new projects are met with a lot more regulation and the requirement of a bond be put up for welsite remediation when the time comes. Here the large players like Cenovus and Baytex are currently remediating over a thousand wells. It is a 20 year project but if they want to drill any new wells they have to reclaim a percentage. Most if not all new wells are multi hole polymer or steam injection projects. The days of being drilled out are a thing of the past. Companies do not want the footprint above ground for cost and environmental impact. I am more concerned with oil companies trying to weasel out of paying their share of property taxes. As well, the nefarious two bit operators trying to stiff guys on lease payments. They do exist and also stiff their contractors just as bad. However, to use this a talking point to trash the industry just like saying messy cattle operations dumping their shit in the river shows the abject contempt and ignorance for the industry at large and the benefits it has brought.

[chuckChuck]

A couple of things you have right, a couple of things you have a partial, a couple of things are Trump like, and you should know better, and one is not relevant.

Please don't bring up Alberta. I did not. I speak of Saskatchewan relevance, only.

You can explain, perhaps, how the mention of surface leases on land for sale by a retiring farmer draws a subtracting bid by medium and large acre farm enterprises because they find them a nuisance, and a potential liability. I wonder why those same individuals are willing to pay 5-6 times the annual surface lease rental over quarters without wells. Your logic says they run for the hills. Mine would suggest surface leases must be seen as assets when buying land by said farmers.

How am I suppose to take your statement on reparable permanent capital damage, and your wanting a retroactive payment to bring it up to today's land values? I'm wondering if that statement is like PET's saying that he may succeed himself. You really knew land values always go up. I'm highly skeptical that had they gone down you would have cut a cheque to the oil company.

Actually, oil companies are being required to complete clean ups, otherwise the license they want to be able to drill is denied. That is the carrot and stick approach that prevents companies avoiding their liabilities. It should have been there since day one.

What happens in Alberta does matter because it influences what happens in Saskatchewan. And many of the problems with oil companies in Alberta also happen in Saskatchewan.

I never said its not up to buyers and farmers to decide whether they see value in leases or buying land with existing leases.

Whats not up to landowners is the ability to turn down surface leases if they don't want them or decide to charge more than the going rate.

If oil companies want access to surface leases or pipelines then landowners should be able to negotiate in a free and open market without the threat of being taken to the arbitration board and accept a forced regulated outcome which goes against the principles of a free market.

You believe in the free market don't you?

The oil companies have the regulated right to access and take over your land. And you have little power to stop them when push comes to shove.

[chuckChuck]

"However, to use this a talking point to trash the industry just like saying messy cattle operations dumping their shit in the river shows the abject contempt and ignorance for the industry at large and the benefits it has brought."
Reply With Quote

I have witnessed the problems of both industries first hand and you can't deny they don't exist.

The oil industry has come a long way and so has the cattle industry. But there is more to do especially for some operators.

The cattle industry and the oil industry have both wanted less regulation and as result we still have cattle watering themselves in creeks, rivers and dugouts even though the best management practice is to provide them with a clean source of water so that their shit doesn't contaminate the water supply they drink.

[WiltonRanch]

"However, to use this a talking point to trash the industry just like saying messy cattle operations dumping their shit in the river shows the abject contempt and ignorance for the industry at large and the benefits it has brought."
Reply With Quote

I have witnessed the problems of both industries first hand and you can't deny they don't exist.

The oil industry has come a long way and so has the cattle industry. But there is more to do especially for some operators.

The cattle industry and the oil industry have both wanted less regulation and as result we still have cattle watering themselves in creeks, rivers and dugouts even though the best management practice is to provide them with a clean source of water so that their shit doesn't contaminate the water supply.

I don’t deny they exist. I just told you of problems I see so you’re preaching to the choir and any of us with wells know about it. Don’t worry we’ve dealt with our share of slick land men and had our battles too. Pipeline right of ways they don’t pay enough for the future pain in the ass. There is always room for improvement. Kinda like getting rid of the CWB has done wonders but we could do with a farmers advocate with teeth and mandated sales reports. There’s always room to do better.