Strom In Court

[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.

[cowman]

I know that what you purpose is advocated by one lawyer up in the Peace? Probably not a bad solution.
Many people in this area are getting $500 to allow the surveyors in. That is a real possibility?
I think the real value of the "discussion paper" is this: Now you are dealing from a position of power? I am pretty sure this document has not been ruled on by the EUB or Surface rights board...I don't think any company so far has challenged it...I don't think they want to try?
Now I'm not some sort of expert on this. I didn't even attend the meeting where it was presented, but the boy did.
The author of this document is Glenn Norman...and I'm not sure if I should even be reproducing it without his permission?
Heres the general idea behind this document: You have not refused to negotiate. You have in fact agreed to negotiate? You expect to be paid and you expect to be able to understand all the implications of a surface lease? I don't think the Surface Rights Board would find that unreasonable?
If the company refuses to sign this document and negotiate in good faith, and instead files for a right of entry...you must be informed they have applied for a right of entry and can file an objection to that right of entry? The Surface Rights Board and EUB can not issue a Right of entry until they consider the objection?
I believe this is true? Now how does the company justify their reluctance to negotiate fairly?
If you read a lot of the recent Surface Rights hearings I think you will see a general sympathetic feeling toward the small landowner versus the big oil company? Doesn't mean the oil company won't get what it wants...but it usually will have to pay more...and the tone is getting more favorful for farmers? The Surface Rights Board has stated their hands are tied by legislation and political will of the government? They hint very strongly that change is needed, especially in the equality of positions between farmer and oil company?
So far I have not heard of any company challenging this document? Some are signing it, some refuse? I have asked my Quicksilver landman to sign this document on one particular pipeline. If they do I intend to run with it! If they don't and abandon the pipeline I am okay with that(I would actually prefer this option)! If they contest it I will file an objection and we might see how this thing turns out?
I don't have all the answers. I rely on talking to other people, a good lawyer, the Surface Rights group, and trying to be upfront with the company landman and the CBM company? I have never tried to decieve them about what my intentions were in regard to this pipeline.

[farmers_son]

Cowman: I appreciate your comments and your point of view on this. From my perspective the typical landowner is never in a position of power when it comes to dealing with the energy companies. Surface rights groups help, knowledge helps, and there are some things that can be done to increase the landowners ability to leverage a deal from the company that cannot be talked about here but bottom line the company will get the well or pipeline if they want to bad enough. You have said as much yourself in various threads. The EUB and the SRB are there to ensure the energy project goes ahead.

I have read recent SRB decisions and although I know what you mean when you say the SRB is more sympathetic towards the smaller landowner I think it is more posturing than substance. The Surface Rights Act spells out the headings of compensation but does not specify a dollar amount. The SRB board members hear the cases and decide the compensation. In reality adverse effect could be any dollar amount the board decides, the same with general disturbance. Even the value of the taking does not have to be tied to land values and very often is double land values or more. The number one reason landowners are not getting paid a reasonable compensation for wellsites and pipelines, including no annual compensation for pipelines is the Surface Rights Board is not awarding that compensation. The energy companies know the SRB will not back up the landowners demands and are quite comfortable signing up deals for what they know is only a token sum. The SRB is for all intents and purposes the Government of the Province of Alberta therefore the blame for the low compensation paid landowners ultimately lies with the government.

There are quite a few games we landowners can play to pry a little more money out of the companies but it only amounts to a few baubles thrown to the peasants. Landowners need to know that the oil company’s signature on a document is only as good as their intention of keeping their word as there is no way we could ever afford to take a company to court and expect to win if the company tells us to take a hike. On the other hand your signature on a document binds you.