Strom In Court

[wbrower]

NOTICE

Ray Strom, Surface Rights Consultant / Farmers Advocate, from Two Hills, Alberta, will be in Court, in Vegerville on January 4 at 10:00 AM.

Strom is in Court on phony trumped up charges, because he has effectively advised and defended Alberta farmers in negotiations with petroleum land agents.

The petroleum land agents and their lap dogs within the bureaucracy of the Alberta Government have circumvented the Legislature and through a series of back room changes to regulation, have convoluted the Land Agents Licensing Act to where only a licensed petroleum land agent may advise or assist a farmer in negotiations with the takings of the petroleum industry.

Farmers of Alberta need to show up at the Court House in Vegerville, Thursday, January 4, in order to make it very clear to the Government of Alberta, that we will not tolerate this blatant abuse.

Please pass this message around and take a carload to Vegerville January 4.

[farmers_son]

The case should have been called Alberta Government and Big Energy vs Farmers/Landowners. The court room was full with landowners who supported Mr. Strom and his family in their bid to support farmers right to have anyone they wish represent them in dealings with Big Energy.

When it comes to dealings between landowners and Big Energy there can be no doubt whatsoever that our Alberta government is not on the landowners side. It seems our government is no better than a puppet for Encana and Exxon.

What a joke the Land Agents Licencing Act has become. The Land Agents Licencing Act was originally put in place to protect landowners who are forced to deal with energy companies who have been given the right to take the farmers land by force (a gift of our provincial government). No more. Now it is used as a tool to limit who the landowner can have represent them in dealings with Big Energy. Shame!

This could be an early test for the Stelmach government to see if this new administration is any different than the previous or is it just more of the same. A good first step would be to fire the Registrar and Deputy Registrar of Land Agents.

[wbrower]

This case has attracted nation wide coverage. So far there have been 8 seperate write ups. The question is what is it going to take to get Stelmach's people in gear. Some people have suggested that we boycott dealing with Petroleum Land Agents until the government restores the origonal intent of the Act, which was to protect farmers from unscrupulous Companies and Land Agents.
What says you all?

The following write up was in the Edmonton Journal.

Land agent didn’t need licence: lawyer (5:15 p.m.)
Case puts law governing 1,600 licenced agents on trial
Jeff Holubitsky, edmontonjournal.com
Published: Friday, January 05, 2007
A Two Hills man who helped rural land owners reach agreements with oil companies did not need to be a licenced land agent, his lawyer said in provincial court today.
“Mr. Strom’s position is that his activities do not bring him under the definition of the Land Agents Licensing Act,” Kevin Feth said in his closing arguments in the two-day trial that has drawn the attention of ranchers and farmers throughout Alberta.
Ray Strom is charged with impersonating a licensed land agent after accepting money for advising farmers in talks with three energy companies between October 2002 and November 2003. If convicted, he could face a fine of up to $5,000 or six months in jail.
The case examines the definition of land agents under legislation that deals with the licensing of Alberta’s 1,600 land agents, who primarily help oil companies or utilities acquire rural land for things such as wells, pipelines or power lines. Only a handful of the agents work for landowners.
More than 50 farmers, including members of several farm organizations, squeezed into the Vegreville provincial courtroom in support of Strom. They are concerned the legislation prohibits them from hiring whoever they want to negotiate compensation for the use of their land.
Feth said when the law defines a land agent, it is talking about someone who works to get land for energy companies, not a person who helps advise landowners on the conditions of the deal.
“It is essentially a one-sided industry,” he said. “Big business is being regulated by this legislation.”
Strom’s defence also said the vagueness of the provincial legislation could result in an infringement of his charter rights and freedom if he was to receive a prison term.
Crown prosecutor Jeff Rudiak, who built his case on the testimony of three land agents working on the behalf of energy companies, said the land agents act regulates negotiators for both landowners and the energy sector.
“Certainly with what he does, Mr. Strom is an agent,” he said.
In earlier testimony, expert witness Douglas MacKenzie said the current licensing system makes it difficult for anyone to obtain a licence as a land agent representing landowners. In order to get a licence, an intern must negotiate 25 cases under the supervision of a licenced agent.
“If you are saying you want to be a landowner representative, I don’t think there is a company in Alberta that will take you on,” he said.
Judge P. Ayotte said he would deliver his decision in a special court sitting on March 30.

[northfarmer]

All the best to Strom and he has my support.....we used him as our agent until we hit the neregy industry wall and now exlusively use a legal team, our only option under the current laws...

I have lobbied for a review of this and other terms around acces to my farm lands and have been told this is on the political agenda...and also was told the same by Stelamch folks during his recent run...

time will only tell if this will change into real action for property owners, we can only hope.....some sort of collectgive action or boycott would be somehting our operation would participate in....

[cowman]

There are "farmers land agents" out there who do have a license? I do agree it is difficult for someone to get one if they haven't or won't work for an energy company.
I was talking to the young landguy(oil company)I'm dealing with about this and his take on it is this: Quite often they were running into people who were acting as agents who didn't know the rules, weren't interested in co-operating, etc. and it was causing all kinds of frivolous problems with unreal demands, proposals etc.? He said it alienated the landowner from meaningful discussion and cancelled/postponed a lot of deals?
In case no one understands this yet: The Alberta government will support just about any measure to GET THAT WELL DRILLED? If you've ever dealt with the EUB, the Surface Rights Board, the Farmers Advocate...you should understand that basic principle? Yes, all of these agencies can address your concerns and some compensation issues...but bottom line is getting that well drilled as soon as possible?
And in reality that is a good thing? The government/taxpayer makes money on every barrel of oil and every cubic meter of gas? So whatever it takes to get her done, should be the priority of the government?

[farmers_son]

There between 5 and 10 “farmers land agents” in the entire province and only a few are actively working. It is effectively impossible for anyone working on the farmer's behalf to get a license.

I do agree that the Alberta government will support just about any measure to get that well drilled. And that included running rough shod over the men and women on the land.

The sad truth there are oil company land agents out there who will lie, cheat and harass the landowner in order to get the deal done. Where do you go if you have a problem? What the Strom case means is the landowner has almost no where to turn to for help.

If the Crown’s interpretation of the Land Agents Licensing Act if found to be correct it drastically restricts who can offer advice regarding negotiations for wells and pipelines. If the mother owns land and an oil company wants to drill on that land her son will not be able to offer her advice regarding negotiations with the oil company because compensation *could* have been involved. It is not necessary to actually have received money, Strom did not get paid on two of the three charges. If the farmland is incorporated the farmer who would be president of the corporation cannot negotiate a well or pipeline without a land agents license. An executor of an estate cannot negotiate for a well or pipeline on estate property if the executor gets paid unless the executor has a license which is impossible to get.

The real issue the oil sector has with land advisors is they were doing too good of a job and were forcing the oil companies to pay more compensation thereby threatening to blow the lid off what is artificially low prices for wellsites and especially pipelines. I can assure you the oil and gas landmen were not concerned about any “meaningful discussion” with the landowner.

[cakadu]

Depends on the definition of "meaningful" does it not farmers_son? As landowners, our value in the land for any future potential is often compromised. We should be getting paid for the value of the land in the future as we will likely never get it once the pipelines, pumpjacks etc. are on it.

Good luck to Mr. Strom. Maybe if he wins his case, we will see some changes in how we are treated and compensated.

[cowman]

Well I wasn't saying it was right...just saying how it is?
A lot of times the problem is this?
The landowner really does want the well/pipeline and uses some pretty clever tricks to get some extra money...while loudly proclaiming that he wants nothing to do with a well/pipeline? If you really don't want it...in most cases you won't get it...unless the company has no other option...eg. a transmission line?
I would again tell all landowners about the "legal discussion paper" some of the surface rights groups are advocating? In reality if you want to get rid of the oil/gas company...ask them to sign it? If they won't...they have no case at the EUB/ surface rights board. If they do...you have given yourself all kinds of options to empower yourself?
A quick example of a surface lease discussion agreement:

I___________as a represntative of___________ am seeking a surface lease on the property known as the_________. I on behalf of____________ do recognize the value of the landowners time and therefore I, on behalf of_______________ agree to the following conditions before any further discussion can proceed. Date & time of first contact__________.

1. For the purpose of this agreement___________________, including joint and several agents, land men, contractors, subcontractors, operators, consultants, surveyors, employees and personal shall be referred to as the Lessee, meaning potential Lessee and the landowner or landowners and those individuals and/or companies acting on their behalf, shall be known as the landowner.
2. The Lessee shall pay all legal,conculting and/or professional secretary service fees and costs incurred by the landowner, pertaining to the negotiation of this surface rights lease regardless of whether or not a lease is completed.
3. The Lessee shall pay all other costs incurred by the Landowner, pertaining to the negotiation of this surface lease regardless of whether this lease is completed. Other costs mean postage, stationary, long distance phone charges, cell phone charges, photocopying, all other out of pocket expenses etc.
4. The Landowners time in respect to matters concerning the negotiation of this surface lease shall be valued at a minimum of Fifty($50)dollars per hour(or any part there of)
5. The Landowners milage on the Landowners vehicles, in respect to matters concerning the negotiation of this surface lease shall be valued at a minimum of Seventy-five($.75)Cents per kilometer.
6. The Lessee shall pay all fore mentioned fees, costs, expenses, time, milage, and other costs pertaining to this negotiation, in the time period beginning with the first contact with the Landowner by the Lessee and ending when a lease is signed, witnessed, marked with bthe corporate seal, and a copy returned to the Landowner, or when the request is withdrawn by the Lessee in writing.
7. The Lessee shall pay all fees, costs,expenses,time, milage,and other costs within Thirty(30) days of invoicing. An interest rate of Three(3%) percent per month(36% per year) will be levied against any amount outstanding and will be compounded monthly.
8. The Lessee shall not enter this property by vehicle or motorized machine until surface lease negotiations have been completed and the surface lease and addendum signed by both the Lessee and the Landowner, bears the corporate seal, and has been returned to the Landowner. Such an entry by vehicle or motorized machine by the Lessee prior to this signing, sealing and returning of the surface lease shall be considered trespass and the Lessee shall pay to the Landowner a minimum fee of One Thousand Five Hundred($1500.00)Dollars per each vehicle or motorized machine per entry plus all damages whether such an entry occurs before or after the signing of this agreement.
9. The Landowner shall grant entry on foot to the Lessee with the signing of this agreement.
10. The Landowner shall have final say on the location of any proposed lease.
11. This document is not complete until it bears the corporate seal of the Lessee.

LESSEE_______________LANDOWNER_________

Print_______________ _________

Witness___________ Witness__________
Print_____________ __________

That is about it. The numbers aren't written in stone...you can put in whatever you think is reasonable.
The signing and sealing of this agreement by an energy company shows they are willing to negotiate with you, the landowner in a fair manner and since it is they who are seeking the lease, pay all the landowners costs, whether successful or not.
Subsequently, a refusal to sign this agreement shows the LAW(surface rights board/EUB), a refusal to negotiate therefore an Entry Order would probably not be granted...especially if you filed an objection with the EUB!
Do not say "NO"...say "I'm not keen on this lease, but lets talk, so sign this agreement or don't bother me until you can"!
This agreement gives you a lot of options including independent baseline water testing...for you and your neighbors!
You are entitled to hire consultants...for whatever your concerns might be, environmental, financial, even archeological!
You basically have just set yourself up to deal from a very powerful position...instead of one where you have little or no power?
Some companies are signing these agreements...some are not...so if you want that surface lease you might not want to use this? There is another "discussion agreement" for pipelines.

[wbrower]

A defense fund is in the process of being set up for Strom. It will likely be formally launched at the annual meeting of The Alberta Surface Rights Federation in Camrose on February 19 at the Norseman Inn.

In the meantime, if you are approached by petroleum Company or one of their agents, you might want to suggest that they make a robust contribution of say $1,000, to this defence fund, before you will make yourself available.

In so far as the petroleum industry has been caught red handed with their hand in the cookie jar, manipulating politicians and bureacrats, and attempting to compromise the rights of rural peoples for their own financial gain, then there must be a penalty. A penalty that might serve as a reminder to that industry, that they need to learn to show a little respect for the countryside that has provided such an over abundance of wealth to down town Calgary.

An annual compensation on pipelines that forever compromise the value of our property and limits our options, particularly regarding future development, might just be in order.
There is nothing in legislation that would prohibit such a move.

[cowman]

wbrower: Annual pipeline compensation.
Maybe coming soon? The surface rights board has expressed some interest in this concept? They have actually stated in past rulings that they favor the concept, but their hands are tied by the law and past decisions. They have actually stated that the province needs to change the law?
I would note that Ted Morton was the only leadership candidate who stated he would do something about this problem? I don't think Mr. Stelmach said anything about it? I believe he is probably happy with the status quo?

At one of our surface rights group meetings they had a representative from the surface rights board who told us eventually it will happen?
Right now I am dealing on two pipelines. This is a complicated deal where the company tried to include both pipelines as one! The lawyer I use got that idea scrapped and we now have two seperate pipeline proposals.
I have told the landman I have no problem dealing on the one pipeline(a production line) and basically agreed on the companies propostion...with a few minor adjustments regarding damages and a small adjustment on acreage. Neither of us see this as a problem.
On the other pipeline(transmission line) I have presented him with the "discussion agreement" and he is not too happy about that one! The fact is I do not want this line and I fully expect to get an "annual compensation" package if they insist on building it! My lawyer thinks we have an excellent shot at this, although he thinks the company might have a real problem paying an annual fee for "adverse affect"...becasue they don't want to set a precedence...for themselves or the rest of the industry(peer pressure?).
Now I am not in this world to fight everyones battles, but would prefer this type of compensation(adverse affect), if possible? The lawyer says we'll ask for a yearly "consulting fee" if they balk at annual adverse affect. He thinks I will be able to get that.

[jrkfarms]

cowman, If possible find out the temp of the gas flowing through the pipeline. If we can show that the gas is at 15 deg it is causing a different microclimate in your soil and therefore is possibly changing soil itself. We are working on this very same scenario with the proposed pipelines, and therefore maybe can get an annual rent.

[cowman]

Jrk: That is a pretty interesting argument! Never heard that one before!
I will attempt to find that out from my industry sources? I would suspect it would be cooler but who knows? This is low pressure CBM gas not conventional gas.
Most conventional gas has to be heated to avoid the forming of hydrates but CBM has no water or other hydro carbons in it so doesn't require heating. But you sure got me thinking on this one!

[wbrower]

Cowman - Thank you for posting your "discussion agreement" for Land Agents. I am sure there are a few people that could make good use of that little tool.

[cowman]

wbrower: There is also one for pipeline discussion. If any interest I will post that one also.

[farmers_son]

Cowman: A word of caution about the discussion document you pasted, and thank you for doing that. But why is the landowner signing it?

I try and encourage people to sign nothing. Be very, very careful about signing anything even this document. I could foresee the landman saying he will sign it with a few changes and it turns out the changes are not in your best interest. Do not sign anything.

Instead why not just tell the landman upfront you want $1000 to allow a survey across your land. And not sign anything. That gets you your money in your hands. Why do you need to justify your time to an energy company landman in any event. And by saying the money is for access to survey, negotiations technically have not started so the company cannot say compensation is an issue. Even though you are told otherwise you absolutely do have the right to say no to a survey so why not get paid a little cash for allowing the survey. Insist on getting paid for your cooperation. At the very least your document involves giving the energy company credit and many are not credit worthy.

To suggest that the energy company has no power before the EUB or the Surface Rights Board if they do not sign this document is absolutely wrong.

If the farmer insisted on this document being signed or else there would be no negotiations I would think the energy company could then run to the EUB and say the farmer would not sign over issues of compensation and get the well licence they seek.

The energy company need only to attempt to negotiate with the landowner twice, the first time they leave an offer and again after 48 hours. And if the landman can get you to initial the survey they do not need you any more.

The discussion document anticipates signing a lease. Landowners should consider never signing a lease, agreeing to compensation but allowing access through a Surface Rights Board order. That way the Surface Rights Board is between you and the energy company instead of you entering into a contract with the energy company. Consider this please. If you sign a surface lease and if at some time in the future there is a problem with the energy company development on your property you will be forced into court. The landowner will be going toe to toe with an energy company that may be worth more than the gross national product of most of the world’s nations. Of course a landowner cannot afford to do that so any terms of the surface lease that favour the landowner are in effect unenforceable. Landowners need to be aware that in our court system the one with the most money wins. With Surface Rights Board order the landowner is never party to the company being on your land and the SRB can adjudicate any disputes at not cost to the landowner.