Auditor General highlights Alberta grazing lease scam

[fish_e_o]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

Sure, why not. If one is leasing 100 acres for a $1000.00 and an energy company uses 10 acres, lower the lease to $900.00.

ya but now the farmer needs to do additional fencing to keep animals out of the lease you created. who pays for that?

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

Sure, why not. If one is leasing 100 acres for a $1000.00 and an energy company uses 10 acres, lower the lease to $900.00.

Not totally sure if you understand how these "leases" work, but that's not it

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by fish_e_o

ya but now the farmer needs to do additional fencing to keep animals out of the lease you created. who pays for that?

Energy company generally pays for the fencing as far as I know.

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by fish_e_o

ya but now the farmer needs to do additional fencing to keep animals out of the lease you created. who pays for that?

Wouldn't the energy company have to pay for the fencing just like on private land?

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

Not totally sure if you understand how these "leases" work, but that's not it

You are correct, I do not fully understand. But I am willing to learn.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

Not totally sure if you understand how these "leases" work, but that's not it

I have to admit, that my understanding of how grazing leases work is fairly shallow. I'd appreciate a quick crash course in the basics of how the lease system works if you don't mind.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

LOL. Aren't energy companies part of the public? Both lease holders and energy companies make money of the public land.

Is either one guaranteed a profit?

I think they are paying for access/use of the land. The fees are not based on profits.

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by rugatika

I have to admit, that my understanding of how grazing leases work is fairly shallow. I'd appreciate a quick crash course in the basics of how the lease system works if you don't mind.

X2

[Icon]

Originally Posted by rugatika

I have to admit, that my understanding of how grazing leases work is fairly shallow. I'd appreciate a quick crash course in the basics of how the lease system works if you don't mind.

I'm not sure that many actually know how it works, only how they think it should work, myself included!

I for one think that any lease, be it for grazing, timber, oil, water, etc., should only provide the lease holder for access to those only. It should not give the lease holder exclusive rights to all aspects of the land including the ability to refuse access the land by the public. Having a grazing lease should not provide the leaseholder an income from allowing Oil accesses. That's a huge loss of income to the public!

[fish_e_o]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

Wouldn't the energy company have to pay for the fencing just like on private land?

it depends on the contract. i had it removed in order to be paid more because i'll never have livestock on the land.

either way it gets paid for by the person leasing the land.

[leo]

Originally Posted by Icon

I'm not sure that many actually know how it works, only how they think it should work, myself included!

I for one think that any lease, be it for grazing, timber, oil, water, etc., should only provide the lease holder for access to those only. It should not give the lease holder exclusive rights to all aspects of the land including the ability to refuse access the land by the public. Having a grazing lease should not provide the leaseholder an income from allowing Oil accesses. That's a huge loss of income to the public!

I agree regarding any revenue that is resource related, but I can't agree on the access point of view. I believe that grazing leases should only have public access at the discretion of the lease holder from April 1st to October 31. From November 1st to March 30th, reasonable access should be granted to all who ask for access. Conditions can and should apply, as many lease holders leave livestock on leases year round. Conditions could be foot access only, gates are to remain shut at all times, no fires and a check in and out of the property policy. To refuse reasonable access during this time should be a breech of contract IMO.

[J0HN_R1]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

Curious why lease holders should get money from energy companies? I understand that there is a loss of grazing space, but shouldn't they just pay less
for the lease because of the loss of land?

I know that if I rent land from a landowner I do not get to collect the energy revenues. The landlord does. Aren't we the public the landlords of the grazing leases? Just trying to understand from a grazing lease holders perspective. Am I missing something?

I'd like to know what happens to these wells when the lease runs out, or worse, when the well runs dry & the farmer packs it in...?

Who pays to have these oil/gas wells decommissioned ?

[WildernessWanderer]

I find all the whining about the NDP on this website ironic, as history has proven that the PC's were no ally of the resident sportsmen in this province. The platform of the WR (or lack-thereof) is not exactly inspiring when it comes to public lands, fish, and wildlife. More old boys (PC's) looking out for the club..

Finally a government that may actually put public lands, resident hunters and fishers first will be drown out by the local AO old boys club that are upset that oil has tanked, all because of the evil NDP.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by WildernessWanderer

I find all the whining about the NDP on this website ironic, as history has proven that the PC's were no ally of the resident sportsmen in this province. The platform of the WR (or lack-thereof) is not exactly inspiring when it comes to public lands, fish, and wildlife. More old boys (PC's) looking out for the club..

Finally a government that may actually put public lands, resident hunters and fishers first will be drown out by the local AO old boys club that are upset that oil has tanked, all because of the evil NDP.

The evil NDP had nothing to do with oil prices tanking.

[russ]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

No longer needed. Already got Drew Barne's take on it.

And from Rick Stankman's website:

"This second proposal calls for legislation that protects both real property and intangible property. Intangible property includes things like grazing leases, water licenses, oilsands leases, licenses and approvals for oil and gas wells, irrigation licenses, and formal authorizations that allow people to be in the dairy business, run a feedlot, harvest timber, or engage in a wide range of commercial activities. These types of commercial property-instruments are referred to as statutory consents.

Statutory consents are not real property in the sense that they are not physical, but on a daily basis they are nevertheless bought, sold, and traded. Many people make the biggest financial decisions of their lives based on the assumed trustworthiness of statutory consents.

Grassroots Alberta says it is absolutely unacceptable for politicians in Cabinet—not the government and not the courts, but the politicians in Cabinet—to have the power to show up at someone’s door and without cause or justification, point a finger and say. “Your oilsands lease, water license, grazing lease, or gravel extraction permit has just been cancelled"

WILDROSE is doing everything it can to protect rancher's "right" to royalties and other revenues derived from the lease of public land for "grazing". There's absolutely no doubt whose side WR is on. So if you are concerned with or repulsed by cowboy welfare, WR ain't your horse.

why do you hate farmers and ranchers so much?

[sjd]

Its not about hating ranchers and farmers, its about closing a ridiculous loophole that lets a renter get paid 10 times what it costs him in rent in dubious costs from oil companies that rightfully belong to all Albertans.

Plus, its a pretty sweet deal that grazing leases cost 1/10 of private land rental costs and hasn't been changed since 1994. How much taxpayer revenue has been lost this way?

Sunlight is the best disinfectant

[russ]

Originally Posted by sjd

Its not about hating ranchers and farmers, its about closing a ridiculous loophole that lets a renter get paid 10 times what it costs him in rent in dubious costs from oil companies that rightfully belong to all Albertans.

Plus, its a pretty sweet deal that grazing leases cost 1/10 of private land rental costs and hasn't been changed since 1994. How much taxpayer revenue has been lost this way?

Sunlight is the best disinfectant

Sometimes the can opener is best left in the drawer people.

[nicecurr]

Originally Posted by hal53

"in their areas" ?????

Can't believe it! we agree!

[expmler]

Originally Posted by sjd

Its not about hating ranchers and farmers, its about closing a ridiculous loophole that lets a renter get paid 10 times what it costs him in rent in dubious costs from oil companies that rightfully belong to all Albertans.

Plus, its a pretty sweet deal that grazing leases cost 1/10 of private land rental costs and hasn't been changed since 1994. How much taxpayer revenue has been lost this way?

Sunlight is the best disinfectant

Funny how everybody is all for raising fees on ranchers yet mention a royalty review and these same guy lose their minds about gov't not being business friendly.

Seems like hate for a certain group of businessmen.

[nicecurr]

Originally Posted by rem338win

Lots more to these stories than is being given. I am actually shocked at the degree to which you all believe columnists and newspapers these days; they are spin doctors bent on selling. So similar to lobbyists and even your local used car salesman and yet we jump on board when it supports our notions and condemn them when they don't. Try being a little more objective.

Anyway, I am personally in favor of leased land reform. This said, the common perception that you have is incorrect and unfortunately will cause you to push for changes that aren't required and would be unfair on your part. The contribution that many of these people have made to the land is far greater than the gov stewardship of other public lands; especially in the case of protecting them from energy companies. In other cases the reason the amounts they are being paid so well by energy companies is due to their bargaining for those rates themselves.

Most of you are demonising a group of people and industry you have little knowledge of and need to do more foot work before grabbing a pitchfork and torch.

These lands should continue to be leased for the purposes they are with less grey and more black and white in the contracts. The public, therefor Gov, needs to take more responsibility for their share in the land and that has its downsides as well.

The "NDP will fix it" crowd on this is laughable. They're more likely to give it all to the FN than find an amicable solution that serves the public and a historic Alberta industry. Remember your head of ESRD is a Green Peace/Sierra Club hoodlum.......

Green Peace/Sierra Club treat the public far better than lease holders and actually raise their own money rather than rob the public.

[NCC]

How is a grazing lease holder restricting access any different than a coal mine restricting access on a reclaimed mine?

I only know of one person who was refused access to a grazing lease. He called SRD, SRD called the lease holder, he was granted access.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

You are correct, I do not fully understand. But I am willing to learn.

Originally Posted by rugatika

I have to admit, that my understanding of how grazing leases work is fairly shallow. I'd appreciate a quick crash course in the basics of how the lease system works if you don't mind.

As I am not a lease owner myself, can't quote exact figures, but could ask friends of even Dad if needed.

Say I buy a 160 acre lease, whether it be from the government or from a previous lease holder, a price is agreed upon for the lease (what you deem fair market value). After that there is a transfer fee which is substantial but as said I won't quote a figure. Lease will come with a AUM stipulated as max carrying capacity, cannot exceed that. You pay a yearly fee per AUM, as well as paying yearly land taxes. You are required to keep all maintainence and upkeep up to a standard, or lease can be taken away. All costs with building fence, drilling wells, clear fencelines, digging dugouts are your own cost. If X amount of land is lost to a wellsite and all roads pertaining, that is land taken out of use that you paid for with initial investment.

[hal53]

Originally Posted by expmler

Funny how everybody is all for raising fees on ranchers yet mention a royalty review and these same guy lose their minds about gov't not being business friendly.

Seems like hate for a certain group of businessmen.

Huh???...seems the only constant here is the oil companies paying....who it goes to is decided by the Gov't. of the day

[Deer Hunter]

Originally Posted by expmler

Funny how everybody is all for raising fees on ranchers yet mention a royalty review and these same guy lose their minds about gov't not being business friendly.

Seems like hate for a certain group of businessmen.

Oil royalties get reviewed. When was the last time the crown lease process was reviewed?

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by J0HN_R1

I'd like to know what happens to these wells when the lease runs out, or worse, when the well runs dry & the farmer packs it in...?

Who pays to have these oil/gas wells decommissioned ?

How would the well be a leaseholders responsibility?

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

Oil royalties get reviewed. When was the last time the crown lease process was reviewed?

So you are saying the taxes and AUM fees are never raised?

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by expmler

Funny how everybody is all for raising fees on ranchers yet mention a royalty review and these same guy lose their minds about gov't not being business friendly.

Seems like hate for a certain group of businessmen.

I don't see any hate.

Aren't we talking about oil companies paying the lease holder of public land instead of the public who owns the land and the public will more than likely have to pay for the reclamation of the land if the farmer or the energy company backs out?

[Deer Hunter]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

So you are saying the taxes and AUM fees are never raised?

Who said that? When was the surface revenue distribution process reviewed?

[hal53]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

How would the well be a leaseholders responsibility?

Even if the well peters out, the oil co. pays the land owner/leaseholder until the entire site and access road is re claimed to the land owners and AER's approval

[300magman]

Originally Posted by J0HN_R1

I'd like to know what happens to these wells when the lease runs out, or worse, when the well runs dry & the farmer packs it in...?

Who pays to have these oil/gas wells decommissioned ?

No different than on private land.....oil companies are responsible for them cradle to grave. Reclamation and remediation have nothing to do with the leaseholder other than signoff after reclamation is complete. Even the signoff can be fought by the oil companies if a landowner is refusing to sign on unreasonable grounds.