Electric.

So you want to live in a country where there are no environmental rules?

And industry can dump toxic waste or animal waste in your local river or in your back yard?

Reasonable people would say regulations are necessary and governments have a duty to protect all citizens and the environment from harm.

Chuck, it is against the law in Alberta for nonresidents to own farm land. When we buy agricultural land we must prove resident status to purchase agricultural land.

Know the facts before accusing people of false accusations please.

Cheers

is some areas in holland government wants to take over farms by force , get the farmers off the land , is that something you would support here ? would you walk away from your farm ?

But corporate investors can still own land correct? But you must be a resident of Alberta to own farmland in Alberta?

Because in Saskatchewan non residents of Saskatchewan like Andjelic Land can own farm land.

That being said Alberta and Saskatchewan give the oil industry easy access to your land to do what they want. You have no choice but to accept their take over of your land and if you try to stop it they take you to the government appointed arbitration board where you will lose.

Funny enough the oil industry likes these regulations that take the leasing of land out of the free market negotiation process. At the same time they regularly bitch about all the other government regulations while raking in record profits! LOL

Chuck, it is against the law in Alberta for nonresidents to own farm land. When we buy agricultural land we must prove resident status to purchase agricultural land.

Know the facts before accusing people of false accusations please.

Cheers

Resident status of shareholders is required… many family farm corporations own land… is that a problem for you?

Cheers

Yep must be a canadian resident or landed immigrant in order to purchase farmland. A non- canadian can own up to 2 acres..

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

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.

"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.