Sask. oil and gas

[cowman]

I understand the concept of the long term leaseholders entitlement to some sort of property rights. And understand how they have incorporated that lease land into their business.
I do believe some long term leases should be sold to the lease holder, especially in areas where there aren't other pressures on the land. In those cases I don't believe the lease should go to the highest bidder, but a price determined and the leaseholder gets first refusal. Otherwise Cargill might just end up owning everything!
Who owns the grazing leases? The people of Alberta do? If I own a piece of land and rent it to someone....should they benifit from a windfall...or should I? Not talking about production losses...the renter should definitely be compensated for whatever production he is losing?
A simple solution: When the leaseholder wants to sell his lease...the government buys it back...and all the implied equity? Then if they so choose they can rent out the "grass", the "hunting rights" the "recreation use", and the "surface rights"? More money into government coffers for government programs or possibly tax relief!
Everyone should benifit from Crown land...not just the leaseholder? The fact is right now the people of Alberta are paying the leaseholder to run cows on it!
If I as a private landowner am renting land to run cows and I'm grossing $650/cow/year and paying $150 to pasture her....how do I compete with the guy grossing $650...but getting a check for $300? I make $500...he makes $950!
I guess I could go buy a lease and get in on the gravy train, of screwing the taxpayer...but that isn't the point?
How about the city slicker? Isn't Crown land his too? How is he benifitting? If he wants to go fishing or hunting, or quadding or whatever....shouldn't he be entitled to use "his" land, too?
Alberta needs more recreation land. The fact is people will pay for that? They will pay to have places for wildlife to live? Why have a bunch of cows on welfare....when no one wants to pay a fair price for cattle?
Turn the grazing leases into a big playground for the owners(the people of Alberta)! We'll all make more money and the people will have a place to go to enjoy their property!

[ivbinconned]

“Everyone should benefit from Crown land...not just the leaseholder? The fact is right now the people of Alberta are paying the leaseholder to run cows on it! “

Cowman THAT is yours and horses blind spot…”everyone” is benefiting, the lease holder IS paying taxes on his income as he stewards the public lands!! A good question to ask you is, would YOU like to live 50 miles east of Wardlow or Cessford?? Take away surface rights on leases and you will depopulate the outlying areas even more.

“Who owns the grazing leases? The people of Alberta do?”
NO the lessee owns the “lease”. The people own the land.

Let’s say you have two apartments, a duplex to rent out, and one occupant is a mechanic making his 20 an hour and the other occupant is a commodity trader and he is making hundreds per hour with out leaving home. They have property rights as a renter and it is no business of the land lord how they use the space!! The landlord has no right to expect more from the guy making more money.

“If I own a piece of land and rent it to someone....should they benefit from a windfall...or should I?”

You know the answer to that…if your renter seeds barley and gets $2 dollars a bushel, would you demand more rent?? Most likely not. But are you telling me that if he seeded canary seed and lucked out and got a big crop and $10 a bushel…you would then demand more?? Don’t think he would want to rent from you any more.

“How about the city slicker? Isn't Crown land his too?” How is he benefiting?”

No! Only IF he is LEASING it! He benefits by the TAXES (is this not clear?) collected from the lessee and royalties from the well production. Please take note above the compensation is LOWER on the leased land…a plus for the poor “city slicker” you would have to concede!!
If the poor city fellow wants to go out for an adventure on leased land he can do so WITH PERMISSION, it is not a public park.

“We'll all make more money and the people will have a place to go to enjoy their property!”

Not all…how quickly you forget your fellow cowman. There are a lot more worthy targets deserving your animosity. Your neighbor with leases has his challenges to…but he is easier to blame.


Jealousy is very fertile ground for Marxist thought and that in my opinion is what this is all about. We are all lacking in understanding of how an economy works. But one thing we know for sure and that is that you Cowman and Horse are not in the least bit interested in moving out east into the wide open spaces on the east side of the province.

The fact that you would remove the compensation from lease holders and in fact you both advocate removing the cows from all this land reminds me of years ago the large beekeepers who were already wintering their bees advocated stopping the import of bee packages from California. Their selfish reasoning was that they knew this would wipe out a lot of their fellow beekeepers (believing there was an over supply of honey) which would then drive up the price of honey.

They succeeded in closing the border! The result was that bee packages from Ontario and Quebec doubled in price, the packer’s just imported honey from China, and the price of sugar doubled so wintering cost shot up. And did they whine!!

There are always un-intended consequences...as I said before, be careful what you ask for.

[perfecho]

So following this line of thinking, if the duplex went up in real estate value, the owner should split profits with the renters....I don't think so. Taking a walk on the wild side, if a "gold mine" was discovered under this duplex, would the renters be expected to reap the benefits....somehow I doubt it.

[ivbinconned]

“So following this line of thinking, if the duplex went up in real estate value, the owner should split profits with the renters....I don't think so. Taking a walk on the wild side, if a "gold mine" was discovered under this duplex, would the renters be expected to reap the benefits....somehow I doubt it.”

Like the others you are mixing the issues...comparing apples with oranges trying to make a point… to mask your jealousy.
We are NOT discussing the sale value of the “property” here…BUT the activity someone is doing with IN IT to earn a living, A BIG difference.

Your last point raises another very important question that I have asked or pointed out here and among other knowledgeable people. No one has ever attempted to answer it.

The whole mind set or accepted wisdom now a day of the “collective” ownership of resources “(owned by the people of Alberta”) had been in affect 100, 150 years ago would the west ever have been settled as it has been. If those risk takers who explored and settled and braved the elements of the western world had been told…”go forth” risk everything, dig for gold, oil and other precious wealth…BUT what ever you discover you must share with everyone!! It belongs to all of us!

Would there ever have been a gold rush, or a Leduc??

The negative effect that this now has in some jurisdictions (Saskatchewan) is rarely discussed. We leave it in the ground!!

[Horse]

IVBC you call it jelouscy I call it protectionisim looking after your own but because you set on a golden goose and dont want to share. What I am talking about is your appt senerio where 1 tenant dosent have water or power but has to pay the same rent as the tenant with power water hot tub and expects everyone else to pay for his conviences.
Permission what a joke like I said I have cows out there how can you expect me to let you fish you are to dumb to know the difference between the two.
You pay taxes woopie that also happens on deeded land and you only get 1/2 of the revenue tell that to the tax man and see if he is all warmth and kindness.
Like I said you are just trying to protect a good thing and I dont blame you if I had a freebee I would like to keep it to. If leases are so dam bad I would think they would be comeing back to Gov by the wheelbarrow full but that is not hapening I wonder why.

[coppertop]

When resource companies ' go forth' and explore they do it on their own dollar, if they hit a duster its the result of the gamble they took, if they hit a gusher they DO share the profits with the rest of the population, it's called royalties.

Now, whether those royalties are fair or not is another issue.

Anyone owning a grazing lease in resource areas of Alberta isn't being hard done by, in fact I personally know cattle producers that have kept afloat since BSE with the resource money off their grazing lease !!! Is that a good thing, for them, you bet it is, are Albertan's getting a good return for their money on leased lands, that question has been debated for ages. When the land use policy framework gets down to the nitty gritty and starts dealing with specific issues such as this, it will be interesting to see if there are any changes on how grazing leases are dealt with.

[ivbinconned]

None of this issue really applies to me directly but I just have a gut feeling there is more about this issue that is positive for communities than all negative as Horse would like to think.

His comments in other threads about over paid oil patch workers etc give him away as just being envious about the success and good fortune of others.

We likly do not have any lease holders reading this site who also benifit from the oil patch other wise I am sure they would engage here.

Any way that resource monies can be paid directly into the local economy instead of through government I would support...even if I am not one of the lucky ones.

We do not live in a vacume...life is not all about me.

[ivbinconned]

I found a grazing lease holder and directed him to this thread and asked for his imput. His last comment is a valid point. The policies of divide and concur have always been practiced in Western Canada where we have about 30 agriculture organizations all trying do do better at the others expence. In Quebec they have Just ONE!!

...........................

What part of the compensation do these fellows not like the lease holder to have?
This is an example of a deeded well site of 1.98 acres. As small a lease as any oil company will buy.
(1) Market value = 1980
(2) Nuisance & inconvenience = 1000
(3) Adverse effect= 1704
(4) Loss of use= 396

First year is the sum of all four, $5080. Annual is the total of 3&4, I got a benefit and have the total rounded up to $2100.

On lease’s, values for land are less and a generic low figure is used around here. The price has edged up on (1) and (2), in the 80’s were about 2200&1100 and so on until now 3000 and 1500 is the norm in 2006.

There are several kinds of leases in the province. We in the Special Areas are special! We have grazing, cultivation and at one time irrigation leases. Many controls come from head office (Hanna), no farming without a permit.

Re-grassing permit may be issued if it is found to have inadequate grasses. I have been turned down for a permit on some that has gone back into farmland. Probably last farmed in the 40's and not re-grassed since then. A grass specialist has been hired to monitor overgrazers. If you sublease your grazing lease the funds would be split with the lessee and Hanna (Crown). If abused the lease may be revoked.

Other parts of the province have forestry grazing leases and I am not that knowledgeable about them. Other leases are under the municipal affairs portfolio. These grazing leases are charged by the AUM's. Most leases are bought and sold, FCC will use as security but Banks want some deeded as well with lease.

Would they feel comfortable buying lease at $150/acre with these overpaid, under worked city folks wanting to revoke/cancel/use indiscriminately. 50 acres/cow @ $150/acre = a lot for a cow to pay back. That’s $7500.00 capital cost per cow. Deeded grass land like this in this area sells for around $400 per acre. So we are paying more than a third of that up front and only getting a lease. Improvement cost is all ours and I have spent plenty on water projects.

When I bought my lease in 78 there were no wells and if you saw a vehicle you investigated. Now there are many unknown pickups driving down my trails. Just when you get to know an operator and truck he is transferred/fired and you start over getting to know the replacement. Service vehicles come and go and the dust does not stay on the right of ways, health problems follow.

Are my “welfare” cows safe? Now Cowman and Horse want me to welcome these city drinking, smoking weekenders with dirt digging quads tearing through my herd, burning up and perhaps burning my grass. Will they go as they wish and stay off the grass that I lease! Maybe. The real problem, Horse and Cowman, is these city dwellers have the time and money not me the lease holding cattleman, who doesn’t have savings account…I spend all my money operating the place.

If the city of Calgary and residents are too good to sell water to a packing plant, then we should maybe fence them in with their water.

Acreage on lease land well site can vary with the length of access and the compensation does not change unless the well site and access acreage gets over 5 acres. It is unusual to have such a large access but sometimes an indirect route is best for both parties.
Oil companies don't appear to have any responsibility to inform land owners which of their operator or contractors are on the right of ways going through your land. Once you sign they have 24 hour 365 days a year unfettered access on their right of ways. Surface Leases (Deeded) and Consent of Occupant (Lease
Land) are 20 year documents with 5 year renewals. Once they are in, there is no way to get them out unless they want to abandon the well. Early in negotiations I agreed to an access going through my yard for one well. From that access road they expanded to four wells with all ensuing traffic within a few yards of my house.

Perhaps these cattlemen have a hard time sorting out the issues and see us lease holders as an easier target!! The grass always looks greener you know…on the other side of the province!!

[coppertop]

When an original surface lease is signed the property owner can include a clause requiring that the company contact the property owner prior to allowing any other company to have access to the lease. This clause has been included in many surface leases in this area. In fact an oil company is on the hook for big bucks for allowing another company to move a drilling rig in over their lease road without the land owners knowledge.

[Horse]

Dust a health concern Dam I am going to sue the county for the dust on the road that I am forced to live next to.
Burn grass I dont know of any grass fire that can tell the diference between leased or deaded.,Mabey if all the crown land wasnt hoged up there would be designated areas that could be used by weekend warriors,
If not farmed properly they can be revoked Yea when dis that ever happen.Its the gov job to get the best returns of the assets of albertans so why is it so hard for you to acnoledge that rates are to low.
The ACC did a study on grazing leases [that you can get a copy of for $20] the finding was the sale price of a lease is equal to the under charged rates, LEASES should not be ASSIGNABLE they should go back to gov for disposition whether that is rec or grazing.

[blackjack]

...since i was raised at hanna i have always got a laugh at my western alberta neighbors and the jealousy of the ranchers to the east...first of all most of the ranchers here in the west (most 3rd and 4th generation)that whine about the cheap grass know next to nothing about the economics of the leases other than it must be so...to say lease land never sells...that is not true...i have seen townships of it sold...by the way l have never seen any of these guys head out east to ranch even though they cannot afford to buy land in their own area...its probably a good thing ...with some of the grass management skills they portray... chances are the east country would be the last place they should head...

[ivbinconned]

Wecome blackjack!