AGLA Meeting Feb 27.

[Horse]

Asrg Let me get this straight If I rent land from you and An oil co wants to drill I get the entry fee ,loss of use, nusiance factor, anual rent and when I feel kike it I can also sell my rental agrement to whoever I want. Boy do I wish you were closer besause I would be your best buddy.
Lets put these leases into perspective without fear mongering that if the lease holders were asked to pay fair market value it is somehow going to affect my own holdings, Would you rent your land under the same circumstances as the gov does? The lease is 10yr and at the ministers descretion how would increasing the rate change any of that.
Lets take a 1/4 and say 30AUM at 1.39 $42 plus taxes , thats what you have to work with but if said 1/4 has a pad with 6 wells generating $10 thou plus 30AUM should it not be worth more rent???
As for real property the banks were the ones pushing for that because lease holders wanted money against them to gobble up more land that was liable to have exploration developed. It has had nothing to do with cows or grass for the last 50 yr.
I am not against leases but I am against the way they are administered some are no more than private hunting reserves and at my last count there was app 6500 leases in the prov and 3600 of them had some anual rent being paid from resources, add on sisemic,pipeline and entry fees and you are looking at upwards of 100mill and thats a lot more than the cows generate.
One lease $470,000 income $71,000 rent . Dosent that make you shake your head??

[smcgrath76]

I am interested to hear that you can use your lease to borrow against,
this is a new one on me and I would question a bank that would do it.
When you buy a lease it is not "owned property" even though the rights
to the lease are "real property" and you cannot obtain a mortgage to
buy a lease using the lease as collateral. A lease does not increase
your equity. I think the biggest issue surrounding leases is the
surface rights issues brought forth by oil and what is fair to the
lessee and the public. This was not an issue in the early days of
government leases. I do think there needs to be continuity available
for lessees for long term stewardship of lands that are often
ecologically fragile. Opening things up in a free for all encourages
patronage and potato farms as nearly as I can see.

[Horse]

The main reason for leases is the land was not realy goodenough to homestead and some that was was turned back for lack of improvement. Lots of the land was leased over 100yr ago when land was plentiful and ranchers needed cheap graze , well here we are 100 yr down the road and graze is still cheap but resourses are a valuable source of income . But you are supose to have animals to graze in order to keep a lease, BUT its turned around so people keep cows to keep the lease.

[ASRG]

Horse: I may be wrong but I don't think they get land cost or the entry fee on a new lease or pipeline right of way....just adverse effect and loss of use?
Like I said I might be wrong....I've never had anything to do with a grazing lease.

[ASRG]

Horse: further on this: If the government sets the price of the lease, and sets down the conditions for oil compensation/allowing hunting, receation, etc. how does that make the rancher evil or something? The government basically has all the power here? They can dictate whatever price/conditions they want....within the law?
A good example is the community pastures where they have raised the rates to a point where it is really borderline for the pasture patron (at least in Alberta). I had a neighbour who used to send 25 cows to the Cynthia pasture and when they raised the rates he found private pasture at $30/month was cheaper than the community pasture.

[Horse]

ASRG My point exactly ON grazing reserves that anyone can access as a patron or hunter the rates are at $25.50 in conner creek pasture anyway and get no oil revenue in fact the oil cos use roads paid for by the patrons, so why do grazing lease holders get oil revenue?
As I said before all these leases state AT THE MINISTERS DESCRETION. So realy the term is the only thing that could be argued a firm contract.
I think that the rates are basicly $1000 per oil lease but then there is pads with multi wells , I am not sure about entry fees but I do know that when a pipeline crossed one of my 1/4 the man with a grazing lease next to my land got more money for crossing his lease I dont know why but I did see his cheque.
As I have said before why are we subsidizing these leases I am sure they could pay thier own way and if not the gov would get far more out of the public land if it was just left to nature . Any idea how much is spent on hunting and recreation?

[SADIE]

I will comment here now "horse"

This could be the circumstance along the Keystone and The Keystone XL trancanada pipelines---Yes or No.

If it was along the Keystone or Keystone XL Trancanada lines you guys are basically tied to Confidentiality. I was the leader of the large group on the Enbridge Alberta Clipper Line that got that deal to Hardisty Alberta. On lease land on the Enbridge line the linear bonuses were not paid on lease land. We did not have enough landowners in that circumstance to get that component. The Alberta group basically took our deal and demanded it from Trancanada or "no signatures" The whole line was ready to force Transcanada to the second hearing at the National ENergy Board level --detailed route hearing. That would have delayed the construction of the Keystone (Now built and in operation) for years.

I practiced in that area as their vet for 20 years and know many of those guys. Even with "gag" clauses signed many have shown the deal. A few came and thanked us on the Enbridge line to set the bar so that deal was possible for others.

If that is not the line HORSE---than sorry I intruded on your thread.

[Horse]

Sadie thats not the line but thanks for the imput I am going to investigate some more all info is useful at some point.

[SADIE]

Is it a large diameter NEB regulated Line. If so CAEPLA has been involved in several of these on "linear Negotiations"

[ASRG]

Horse: if it was $1,000/lease up front I doubt the grazing leaseholder is getting anything but loss of use? Loss of use for pasture is $350/acre (in my area) and adverse effect is $2400 (3 acre site).
What I was trying to point out with the community pasture example was if grazing fees are raised too high, then no one will be buying the lease?
You imply the province would be better off getting the cows out completely?
If that happened who would manage the land? When you got a bunch of drunks up there every weekend roaring around on quads and mud trucks, lighting fires, chasing all the animals out of the country? Vandalizing the oil leases!
Those old ranchers might be the cheapest public land managers for the government!

[Happytrails]

Well put ASRG.

[Horse]

I alkways find it strange how all these terable things only hapen on lease land?It must suck to be on welfare>