Sask. oil and gas

[ivbinconned]

Oil revenue and leases "tie" together because the cowboy rents and runs the property, and pays a fee to do so! Any benifits from it shall accrue to him...I see no conflict. Some leases grow more grass!!! How would you solve that?? Its not equality!

Horse I will try to put this another way and hope you will understand why I defend the policy of some cowboys benefiting from oil and gas on crown land even though I do not.

I would far rather those monies be circulated into the economy by Joe my neighbor up the road than your choice, the politicians, who get rather corrupted by the power of distribution. And YOU know it!!

Your cowman friend will be paying taxes, donating to the local rink, hiring people who are “productive”, as apposed to bureaucrats, which all make for a better economy for you all. You do not pay for the road past your yard and all the way to town…his taxes do...just like the meal in the above illustration, you are subsidized…and likly by the guy with oil and gas on his lease. Or even those rich oil corporations.

By the way do you know any poor people who hire anyone??

If you are so into having the wealth distributed evenly… what’s wrong with someone you really know down the road doing it as apposed to BIG Brother. If your ideas are driven by jealousy of him…I pity you, you will never be happy.

[Horse]

IVBC this is my last post on this matter but just to set you straight Lease holders rent GRASS and thats what he pays for on an perAUM so more grass more pay, politisions dont have cows to compete with me so if they spend more it dosent affect me as much as it is spread throughout the entire population,Everyone hires someone like the plumer mechanic painter DR and so on now mabey I dont have those people on staff but I PAY THIER WAGES it sure as hell isnt who signs thier pay cheque,gov spreads it around more than Joe the neibour going to Mexico or buying a new tractor or pickup.
Now you didnt answer how it is any different for quebeck to get paid for nothing as compared to someone in any other province that gets by on the gov TIT>

[cowman]

The lease holder is a "grazing lease holder"...nothing more? He is renting the grass, not the minerals, not the developement potential? He does not own the land.
Horse is right on this one...hey that has to be a first...I agree with Horse!
If you want to get a windfall from surface lease or right of way...then go buy the land? The CROWN owns this land and the CROWN(citizens) should get the benifit of any added money from oil/gas/coal/diamond/developement/etc.!
The lessee knew full well he was buying a "grazing lease"?
I believe the Alberta government should buy out these leases, because they created this hornets nest in the first place! Get those cows off and then if they so choose rent the "grass only" on a five year basis!
No one should have a "government advantage" in the cow business? Frankly there just isn't the revenue to compete with "welfare cows"?
Let the darned old moose,deer, and elk have the Crown grazing leases? As an Alberta taxpayer...it would be money in the bank!
As a cattle producer...you just removed my biggest competition...bigger than every darned South American and Australian that ever drew a breath!

[coppertop]

I agree with you cowman. Grazing leases have turned into gold mines for some folks. In this area there are numerous leaseholders that are raking in a huge income from surface lease revenue. Given the number of people getting out of the cow business, it does make one wonder why we need these leases for grazing. I think the leaseholder should be compensated for input costs such as fences, etc., and the grass land put up for tender every five years. From what I am hearing the Provincial Land Use Policy Framework is going to deal in some fashion with public lands so maybe this issue will be addressed.

[ivbinconned]

“Every five years” you’ve got to be kidding??

“gold mines for some folks”…now that maybe true…what about the rest?

“should be compensated for input costs such as fences, etc.,…but cowman says…

“The lease holder is a "grazing lease holder"...nothing more? He is renting the grass,”…

so why should the lease holder pay for any improvements, sometimes at great cost…with copper and cowman only giving a five year lease??

“If you want to get a windfall from surface lease or right of way...then go buy the land?”…Now I can agree with that…will the crown sell it?? Horse probably will not want someone else to buy it…and the greens will sure oppose selling it!!

“The lessee knew full well he was buying a "grazing lease"?...
I suspect that many were expecting and payed for a lot more than that!!


You all advocating wealth distribution only by the government…be careful what you wish for.

By the way do any of YOU have a crown lease?

[cowman]

Ivebinconned: Of course the leaseholder expects more than the grass...as the government has let this happen. That doesn't make it right? That is why I said the government should buy out the leaseholders rights.
I just threw out 5 years as an example, it could be somewhat longer? How much private rented pasture is rented out on more than a year to year basis? Of course the leaseholder should be compensated for fences etc.? Basically just like private rented land...you wouldn't expect to have to build the fence for the landowner for free.
I don't know if the grazing fees reflect a fair price for the grass...I do know the Alberta citizen is losing millions in surface rights money? If there wasn't a cow on the grazing leases the taxpayer would save millions of dollars!
And no I don't own a grazing lease, never have, and have no desire to ever have one.

[coppertop]

a few years ago a high profile person in the province was able to snap up a grazing lease just off highway 22, he does NOT own a cow, and rents the pasture out, but collects the surface lease revenue every year. It was rumoured that he had 'inside' information before he acquired the lease. Many real cattlemen were interested in the lease but it was gone before anyone knew it was available. That is the sort of sweetheart deals that have ticked people off with the grazing lease structure.

[ivbinconned]

But Cowman you also wrote this…

“As a cattle producer...you just removed my biggest competition...bigger than every darned South American and Australian that ever drew a breath!”

How do you arrive at that conclusion, when you state you believe as I do that the land should all be owned privately….there would STILL BE COWS ON IT!! Also I think you are wrong in another way about that as I think it is the tax deduction dynamics that sees many wealth lawyers doctors etc who invest in cattle to fill the feedlots and buy cows that impacts the ‘real” cattleman more than we know.

You also wrote…”The CROWN owns this land and the CROWN (citizens) should get the benefit of any added money from oil/gas/coal/diamond/development/etc.!

But they are! The lessee is only being compensated for the “surface” activity that he has to work around.

Until or unless this land is deeded this is still better than the crown i.e. Politicians given the pleasure of diversifying the economy…I’d much rather see you and Horse do that…in a heart beat! Any other way is a Castro sort of deal!!

“No one should have a "government advantage" in the cow business? Frankly there just isn't the revenue to compete with "welfare cows"?

Again HOIW would this change that you suggest ...change the market?? And make you and Horse (can’t believe you are on the same side) more profitable??? There could still be as many cows…maybe even more with the added incentive to improve ones OWNED land.

“I just threw out 5 years as an example, it could be somewhat longer? How much private rented pasture is rented out on more than a year to year basis?” LOTS

“I do know the Alberta citizen is losing millions in surface rights money? NO...IT IS CITIZENS WHO ARE GETTING IT! If there wasn't a cow on the grazing leases the taxpayer would save millions of dollars! AND SPEND IT ON HIGHER BEEF PRICES OR ON IMPORTED BEEF!!!

If the land was deeded ...still the public would have NO CLAIM, nothing would change!! Joe Blow, who leases now, would own, and gain the benefit, and good on him.



Copper, if what you say is true about the sweetheart deals, then that is “political corruption” and the lease holders in general should not be blamed or punished.
Crown leases in Saskatchewan are allotted to the smaller and less established producer.

Again I write…be careful what you ask for...there would as always, be un-intended consequences.

[Horse]

IVBC i have to ask you do you own a lease .
As to how you presume all those cattle would still be there i dont know , the real problem is if you have a lease you are compeled to own cows or you may lose it and there goes the welfare cheque, now if you could just have a lease that costs you a few hundred a yr and you get thousands in welfare why would you want the bother of having cows?
You stated in sask they tend to give to the smaller producer well that would be nice but how do they get the land back when you get larger or make more land for the smaller guy?
What is the deal on sask leases do you get total ownership like here?
As for fencing a fence is capatilazed over 10yr but of course there is still a residual value and if someone was to out bib you on a lease there could easly be a figure put in place to compensate the prior owner, you see there are solutions if anyone realy wanted to look.
Cowman is right most of the land would be better off left to wildlife and the gov would make far more on the sale of hunting lisnces not to mention the recerational and resources.
On politicl coruption I an sure we dont have the market cornered as you have stated befor you also have it in sask and federaly.

[ivbinconned]

"IVBC I have to ask you do you own a lease?”
YES I DO, INCLUDING IT, I AM STILL THE SMALLEST OPERATER IN THE CUMMUNITY. WISH THEY WOULD SELL IT TO ME.
THE IMPROVMENTS THAT I HAVE PAID FOR ON IT INCLUDE WATER SYSTEMS, FENCING, CORRALS BUILDINGS AND I BROUGHT IN POWER. FOUR FIVE YEARS STRAIGHT DURING A DROUGHT I HAD TO PAY THE FEES, WHICH ARE QUITE A BIT HIGHER THAN IN ALBERTA, AS WELL AS THE TAXES…WITH ZERO INCOME. COULD HAVE USED A COUPLE OF GAS WELLS!!

“As to how you presume all those cattle would still be there i don’t know, IF THE LAND WAS PRIVATLY OWNED…THERE COULD BE EVEN MORE.

the real problem is if you have a lease you are compelled to own cows or you may lose it and there goes the welfare cheque, now if you could just have a lease that costs you a few hundred a yr and you get thousands in welfare why would you want the bother of having cows?”

“You stated in sask they tend to give to the smaller producer well that would be nice but how do they get the land back when you get larger or make more land for the smaller guy?” CAN ONLY SPEAK FOR MINE WHICH IS ALONG TERM LEASE THAT HAS BEEN AN IMPORTANT, OR NOT, TO THE VIABILITY OF THIS PLACE. VERY QUESTIONABLE ON THE DRY YEARS. I SUSPECT IN THE DRY YEARS MUCH OF THE ALBERTA “SPEACIAL AREAS” CROWN LAND IS NOT VERY PRODUCTIVE AND RANCHERS SHOULD BE PAID TO STEWARD IT…OR DID YOU WANT TO SEND BUREAUCRAT'S OUT FROM EDMONTON??


“What is the deal on sask leases do you get total ownership like here?” THERE ARE LIKELY DIFFERENCES…DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY ALL ARE.


“As for fencing a fence is capitalized over 10yr but of course there is still a residual value and if someone was to out bib you on a lease there could easily be a figure put in place to compensate the prior owner, you see there are solutions if anyone really wanted to look.”

“easily”?? HAVE TO PUT YOU IN CHARGE.


“Cowman is right most of the land would be better off left to wildlife and the gov would make far more on the sale of hunting licenses’ not to mention the recreational and resources.”
HARDLY…THE TAXES THAT ALL THOSE “SO CALLED” WEALTH RANGERS PAY WOULD FAR OUTSTRIP HUNTING LICENCES AND THE BUROCRACY IT TAKES TO MANAGE IT.

“On political corruption I an sure we don’t have the market cornered as you have stated before you also have it in sask and federally.”
THAT IS EXACTLY AND PRECISLY WHY IT IS BETTER THAT THE MONEY GO AS SHORT A PATH AS POSSIBLE FROM THE OIL COMPANY INTO THE ECONOMY…SEND IT THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT AND THEY BUILD EMPIRES.

Hope you do not mind the capitalization, just a good way to distinguish my comments from yours.

Incidentally, the compensation in one area I know about in Alberta goes something like this.
A well drilled on private land …first year 5g and from then on 2g. On leased land the lease owner gets 3g the years drilled and then $1500 following years.

BUT the government does get some of the compensation too, $500 first year and $200 following years, PLUS royalties on the well from then on. So it is not like the taxpayers are not getting anything. It is still the most efficient way of spurring “local” economies. Especially those in the far outlying areas. It keeps people there and communities alive.

Not perfect Horse but better than Cuba. How compensation is handled on Saskatchewan leases…I do not know. But I hope it is high.

A very high degree of "property rights" dynamics should be applicable to lease's, if we are going to have them. That way the lessee's will treat them as their own and it will NOT be overrun buy every weekend hot tail pipe from the city.

[Horse]

IVBC I take it from your coments that it only gets dry on crown land or should we all get paid to stewart the LAND.
Hunting puts a lot more money in the provincial coffers than lease fees do and here in alta we get our lisnces from somewhere in the US and the game wardens dont even get gas for thier trucks where as our public land men have lots of gas to go fishing and hunting on tax dollars.
Where can the majority of city dwellers go if they arnt allowed some public land to play on not all familys can afford the national parks or the private camp grounds and what would all the farmers do if they couldnt cry THERES A COW OUT THERE.

[ivbinconned]

Horsee...you don't listen with the intent to understand, you only listen with the intent to reply!

You completely ignor the FACT that these leese holders PAY TAXES!!