Appointed!

[cowman]

Thank you for that site, northfarmer. I note that Ontario farmers are fairly advanced in dealing with this problem, while Alberta has no pipeline group!
The neighbor asked me once if I thought it was a problem running a liquid manure wagon over the two ethane lines crossing his property? I told him I think you have to get permission from the pipeline company and if he damaged the pipeline he could be liable! Of course he was indignant that he should have to ask! I told him if those babies rupture he won't have to worry about it...at 3600 psi it is unlikely they'll find the operator, tractor, or manure tank!

[cowman]

better the darn tank ruptures in his field than on a public roadway and the contents get dumped into a creek !!!

[northfarmer]

I would suggest that a little pig shit in a creek is better than some farmer, or his kid, getting blown to bits on a pipeline rupture. Then, insult to injury, having the farmer pick up the tab for the mess and the loss of business on the pipeline.

We have old underground pipelines in our area that is starting to rupture. These lines carry produced water (contaminated water) for reinjection. The environmental impact is far greater than a little pig shit in the creek.

[Horse]

Northfarmer that link dont seem to work for me is there a problem with it or me.

[Horse]

In one area of the province there was a breech of a liquid manure storage which dumped millions of litres of hog manure into an irrigation canal where people obtained their drinking water.
I would suggest that had a very major enviromental impact and likely posed health risks as well. In fact northfarmer I don't know where in the north you are located but numerous municipalities in the north are adamantly opposed to large operations spreading manure by any method other than injection and also ensuring that there is no application on frozen or snow covered grown to protect dug outs that are used for human water supply.

[cakadu]

Cowman, I'm kind of curious to know how working with these companies and then sitting at the table with them to liaise wouldn't put you into some sort of conflict of interest.

While you might not be a tree hugger, the environmental impact and the ecological footprint as a result of all this drilling activity should be a relatively high priority. Without a stable environment, there can be no economic growth.

More and more we are having to balance the environmental with social and economic factors. Each can stand on their own, but to have prosperity into the future all three must be taken into consideration.

[cowman]

The point of this whole thing is more to do with running a grid pipeline system, weed control and reducing friction between the gas companies and the landowners. It is not about any social or environmental stuff? The whole purpose here is "How do we get that well drilled?"...with the least amount of hassle!
Obviously the Alberta government is focussed on getting the most economic benifit for the tax payers of this province? Have they ever done anything that would make you question that?
Am I in a conflict? Good question. The only concern I got about a conflict was that one of the companies involved in this was being brought to court by me! And that was solved earlier out of court, so I guess no conflict there? Now without a doubt in every business it is who you know that makes the world go around, but in reality I already know most of the people who will be sitting at the table.

[northfarmer]

Horse, no idea why it sould not work, site may be down for maintanence.

Emerald, big difference between breached lagoon draiing into creek and honey wagon going kaboom.

There are many parts in the north, unlike central Alberta or some other area heavily inhabited by non farmer types, that the nearest neighbors are miles away and there are more gas plants, compressors, and pump jacks then people or farmyards in the rural areas.

There are many proposed project for ILO's in some areas, and it only makes sense to place these things as far from people as possible. That said injection seems to be the strategy for the manure and that is fine by me.

The increased non agric traffic and road damage, noise, stink, pipeline access from oil and gas development are all issues of greater importance to me than the ILO issue.

Having a large sour gas facility parked on the edge of our farm is no different, or possibly worse, than a hog barn. Difference is that I would have more luck using political interference to block a hog barn than the sour gas plant. If the hog farmer really wanted to build, or needed land to spread manure on, he might even buy me out. The energy company, on the other hand, could proceed as they please.

[northfarmer]

northfarmer any ILO operator may apply to land spread vs injection. Municipalities used to have injection as a condition of their municipal permit but now that the Government has changed the rules municipalties can only comment on land use issues and whether the proposed operation is consistent with the Municipal Development Plan of the county. They can ask for injection to be a condition of the permit but it doesn't necessarily happen.

There are a lot of areas where there are no people but there are municipalities in the peace region that are getting saturated with hog operations and the communities are concerned. Groups that oppose applications for feeding operations only have standing if they are considered directly affected, which means they must live within a prescribed distance of the operation. Only if they have technical reason why the operation doesn't meet the criteria of the legislation will their concerns be taken seriously. When municipalities were responsible for the siting of feeding operations the community could and did shut the application down, that is not the case anymore.

One bad operator in an area can make it exceedingly difficult for any future ones to live in harmony with the community.

[cowman]

Emerald: It is sort of funny how there is this big fuss over a pig barn but not over a sour gas plant? The company asks for permission to build and voila they have their rubber stamp!
The pig barn might be unpleasant but it won't kill you in the twinkling of an eye!
These ethane lines I am talking about are very thick pipe and it is doubtful they would rupture from hauling a large manure wagon over them, but the fact is the farmer should get permission before he crosses and the fact is if he did rupture a line he would be liable...well if he wasn't instantly vaporized!
Another farmer was out trenching some run off sloughs close to one of these same lines a few years ago. That sure got some attention real fast! The oil company guy told him if he hit the pipe fairly hard with the trencher it could cause a breech!
Now these same lines run pretty close to my sons house. It is like having an atom bomb planted in your back yard!

[northfarmer]

Cowman, you get the point.

Thanks Emerald, I agree with you on your points and I am aware of the issues aournd ILO's.

The key issue is not ILO's, but the fact that oil and gas developments, their impact on the farmers and landowners seems to work off a different set of general rules, laws and regulations when it comes to their development and approval. I also recognize they cannot be viewed in the same light.

Specifically I feel that surface rights owners, which is almost what all of farmers are, excepting those fortunate enough to have mineral rights, have been getting rolled over by the quest to bring oil and gas and now CBM(cola bed methane) to the market at the least possible cost to the industry.

We need stronger representation on behalf of property rights owners, sorry I should say surface rights owners, to balance the govt, regulatory officals and the strong energy lobby.

That is why Harper has said that the most pressing constituationa issue is property rights. Poltical and court battles are now being waged over eminent domain ruling in the US courts over redevelopment of property.

It seems that we have the same underlying battle to be fought over access to our surface rights. Not suprisingly there are other threads that are talking about defending access to the public to our surface rights as a means of getting action on farm issues.

[northfarmer]

The oil and gas industry help pay the cost of the regulator which of course is the EUB.
The livestock industry pays nothing toward the cost of the NRCB and applying for a permit costs nothing so of course they are playing by a different set of rules. The big problem with farmers and oil companies et al, is the following:
If a group wants to oppose a development or band together to get a better price for a pipeline etc., there are always landowners that will not join forces with the rest and that is where the company or landman can use a divide and conquer strategy.

Seismic is a case in point. Some people allow them to go all over their land and think they are making a killing, others have very stringent conditions that they must follow, and their are those like myself, that will not allow them on period !!!

Legislators are of no help to get a fairer deal for farmers as far as resource extraction goes, remember the legislators are our MLA's who all feel that industry is #1, unless you happen to have the ear of an opposition MLA that can make some noise !!