pilot project for cbm?

[coppertop]

cowman,If I remember correctly I think my point was that no leader can change legislation on their own. The support from the entire PC caucus must be in place to put forward changes or amendments to legislation. Urban MLA's aren't likely to know or care about how surface rights legislation affects landowners, so any amendments will be up to rural MLA's to push forward if they are going to happen. Morton is the Minister of the porfolio that oversees the Surface Rights Board so if he was sincere about his intentions, he is certainly in a position to make changes, providing that he can get his colleagues onside.

I would suspect that some of the surface rights issues will be rolled into the Land Use Policy Framework. My understanding is that a draft policy will be rolled out for public consultation in a few weeks.

[farmers_son]

Re the Surface Rights Act. The only need to change the SRA would be to abolish it.

The Surface Rights Act's only purpose is to take landowners property from them by force and give it to the oil/gas companies, the pipeline companies, and the electrical companies at a token cost. These are for profit corporations and they make a lot of money. Of these three, the oil and gas companies are the only ones where there is a mixed ownership of the rights to the surface and the underlying minerals. The electrical distributors and the pipelines have no right to our property at all except the rights given to them by the Surface Rights Act.

Now obviously oil/gas wells, pipeline and power lines projects are going to go ahead. But do they have to go ahead at the direct expense of the men and women farming the land in this province? The only reason a well site may be worth $2500 a year is because the Surface Rights Board says that is what it is worth. The only reason a pipeline is worth $1500 per acre in a particular area is that is what the SRB says it is worth. The SRB could have said the landowner is entitled to two times or three times or ten times more but that is not the case. Compensation for nuisance and inconvenience, adverse effect is very subjective. It could be $1000 per year or it could be $10,000 per year. However the Government of the Province of Alberta through its agent the Surface Rights Board says it is the lesser amount.

I think an argument can be made that if the oil and gas companies can move next door that they do not need the right of expropriation. I think an argument could be made that pipelines and power lines should never have been given the right of expropriation for a farmers land. Be that as it may there is no doubt that compensation levels are set artificially low when viewed in the same light as comparable industrial developments, and these energy developments on the farmers land are indeed industrial developments.

Farmers need to realize that we are really getting a raw deal from the government when the Surface Rights Board sets compensation for these energy projects using methodologies established in 1970. The price of oil, gas, electricity has sky rocketed, these corporations are making astronomical profits, yet the compensation landowners get is pretty much the same. Today the annual rent for a well site or the compensation for a ½ mile of pipeline will not fill your fuel tanks once. That is wrong.

[cakadu]

If nothing else there should be a regular review and adjustments made accordingly. If I understand correctly, there is or has been nothing in the "formula" to account for rising land costs, development potential etc.

If the resource companies come and take the land, it will quite often destroy any further development potential and that is lost to the landowner. I am not at all in favor of this CBM project and think that if it is deemed to be okay to do elsewhere, we are going to be extremely sorry about it.

Any changes to water may not be readily apparent and it is important to remember that there are varying levels of aquifers and groundwater recharge often occurs many miles away from the actual aquifer. There are so many unforeseen consequences here that I don't see how this project could ever be deemed a "success".

How much of a negotiating position will every landowner have if it is deemed a "success"?

[grassfarmer]

I'm interested in the mention of HCL the hydrogoelogical consulting company in one of the posts. They are the consultants involved in the proposed freshwater oilfield waterflood project close to me. It would appear they are very much in the pockets of the oil companies. Their dubious test results here showed that the aquifer could produce 250 gallons a minute for 20 years without significant depletion. I spoke to someone who has a copy of a groundwater survey conducted in this area in 2003 on behalf of Ponoka County. This is in the form of a map highlighting potential (I assume potential sustainable) water well yields across the county. The area of the proposed project shows a potential of 1.5 to 15 gallons per minute. I haven't seen this information yet but it appears to contradict the idea that pumping 250 gallons a minute from the aquifer is sustainable. Interestingly this report for Ponoka County was also compiled by HCL!
To put this in context I have a stock well that produces 20 gallons a minute at 60 feet depth. My 140 cow/calf pairs drinking at maximum summer levels year round would require my well to produce at 20 gallons per minute for only 140 minutes per day. See how sustainable this type of use is? yet this oilfield project would use as much water as my cows do in a year every 1.5 days. And the oilfield injection process removes it from the hydrological cycle forever unlike the cows.

I am told that the owner of HCL stood up at a landowner meeting once(may have been a Pine Lake one) and stated that no water well in the Province had ever been affected by oil field activity. Rather a bold (and false) claim I would think.
Are HCL the only company doing this type of work or are there others all over the province? if so do they appear more believable?

[cakadu]

Based on your post, grassfarmer, I wonder how they can make those claims when Ponoka will eventually be looking to tap into the water that is already being piped to Blackfalds and Lacombe.

I wish I could remember who did the report and when it came out, but it was at least 10 years ago that the report in question stated that there would be no new development from Ponoka south because there would just not be the water to support it. How then can they turn around and say that they could take water out like that and not have it affect anything.

Statistics can be used to support just about anything, so why wouldn't the oil companies try to make it sound like a rosy picture.

[cowman]

Grassfarmer: He said that at this CBM pilot project meeting also...or I think he did? He definitely stated that there had never been a water well affected by shot holes for seismic! I think he said 52 million shot holes had been drilled.
I understand all the concerns and issues farmers son has raised...but bottom line...these are the rules and government we have to work with? Mr. Stelmach has about the most rural cabinet I can remember? If they don't change the system...then who will?
In my own mind CBM doesn't scare me. I have become convinced it is a good thing? Now I may be prejudiced because I am going to benifit in a big way...but I feel it is going to be all right? Just my opinion.

[cakadu]

What's that old song...."pave paradise and put up a parking lot". It may seem like a good thing in the short term, but is there any consideration at all for the long term? Future generations will be paying for the decisions we make now and they have no say.

We never appreciate what we have until it's gone. All the money in the world will not bring back potable water.

[grassfarmer]

The website that HCL records water well records on is worth a look. www.groundwatercentre.com You fill in the boxes for a password then can access records from across the province by legal land description. My area is full of mistakes, wells listed on my land that are actually a mile to the east or west etc on someone elses property. I hope their aquifer tests are more accurate.

[farmers_son]

I have had the misfortune to know first hand that seismic can ruin water wells. Last summer, the day after seismic shot their dynamite near our farm our only water well had no water. Of course the seismic company disavowed any responsibility and basically told me to take a hike. It is impossible to prove they ruined my well but it is quite a coincidence that a good well is no good the day after the seismic is shot.

It looks like it will cost upwards of $40,000 to replace that well with the costs of multiple dry holes and we have not been able to find another source of water nearly as good as we had. We will likely end up using dugout water for part of our watering needs as the subsurface water just does not seem to be there anymore.

Water is very important.

[cowman]

grassfarmer: A farmers consultant (Don Bester) brought up the fact that the ground water study showed a 150 ft. water depth difference from land in one county...right across the road in another county. The hydrologist said "Well I didn't do the other county!"
Linda: Did you know on numerous occasions your Reeve has said we should pave the whole darned county! Tongue in cheek of course?
farmers son: I take it you are not a believer in the water witch? Very few wells have been drilled in my area where the landowner hasn't brought in the witch! Is it all BS? I don't know however I've had four wells drilled that were witched and all were pretty well exactly where he said they were and produced what he said they would!
Had one well 220 feet that was never a good well...low producer always caving in. The witch did his thing and 60 feet from that well brought in a 50 gal/min at 60 feet! Well worth the $150 fee. My hog farmer neighbor had a 550 ft well that was getting so gassy when the hotsy came on in the hog barn it blew the door off! The witch got him a 50 gal/min well at 110 ft...about 12 feet from the old well!