• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Surveyors

F

Faster horses

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
30,475
Location
NE WY at the foot of the Big Horn mountains
We received a call tonight from a ND company that wants to survey
our land for a pipeline...they are calling it 'The Bakken Link'. My
question is, should we charge these people for surveying? I can't
remember ever doing that before, but some think we should be paid
for it. This was the first I had heard of this particular project.

Here is what I found online, and really all I could find:
Business » TexasSubscribe
.Texas company proposes pipeline to move Bakken oil

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) - A Texas company is proposing a pipeline that could transport up to 75,000 barrels of crude a day from North Dakota's booming oil patch to U.S. supply hubs in Oklahoma and Illinois.

Plains All American Pipeline LP of Houston said the 103-mile Bakken North Pipeline would run from North Dakota's northwest corner through northeast Montana and to the U.S.-Canadian border. In Canada, it would link to an existing pipeline system capable of carrying crude to Oklahoma and Illinois.

Plains pegged the project at between $160 million and $200 million and wants to complete it in late 2012, company spokesman Roy Lamoreaux said Thursday.

The 12-inch pipeline would begin in Trenton, in northwest North Dakota, at the Bakken shale formation, an oil-rich deposit within the Williston Basin. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that with current technology, up to 4.3 billion barrels of oil can be recovered from the Bakken formation in North Dakota and Montana.

"We think the geography of this line is favorable," Lamoreaux said. The pipeline would have an initial capacity of 50,000 barrels a day but could be expanded to move an additional 25,000 barrels, the company said.

Lamoreaux said the Bakken North Pipeline would connect with the company's existing Wascana pipeline at the U.S.-Canadian boarder. That pipeline, which had been used to carry Canadian crude to the U.S., is not presently being used.

Under Plains' proposal, the 107-mile-long idle pipeline would take U.S. oil north to storage facilities in Saskatchewan. For there, it would be shipped south on either Enbridge Inc.'s mainline or TransCanada Corp.'s Keystone pipeline to storage facilities in Patoka, Ill. and Cushing, Okla. The price of oil on the New York Mercantile Exchange is heavily affected by oil supplies at Cushing, which typically stores about 10 percent of the nation's oil.

North Dakota was pumping a record 327,000 barrels daily in August, the latest figures available. State and industry officials say the daily production rate could hit 400,000 barrels a day within a year.

The state reached its pipeline, rail and refining capacity of about 189,000 barrels a day in October 2008, slowing rig activity and forcing producers to take steep discounts. Millions of dollars has been invested in North Dakota since then for infrastructure work including new rail shipping facilities and pipeline expansions.

So-called takeaway capacity is keeping pace with North Dakota's oil production but just barely, said Justin Kringstad, director of the North Dakota Pipeline Authority.

The daily takeaway capacity for North Dakota and eastern Montana at present is about 460,000 barrels, including 338,000 that are piped, he said. About 100,000 barrels are shipped by rail daily and about 22,000 are hauled by trucks.

Kringstad said more than $1 billion in pipeline projects are either planned or under way in North Dakota that would add about 321,000 in shipping capacity. Plains' proposed pipeline is in addition to those projects, he said.

Pipeline companies "only build projects when there is demand," Kringstad said. "They are reacting to what's happening on the producing side."

Ron Ness, president of the North Dakota Petroleum Council, said additional export capacity is needed badly in the Williston Basin.

"Plain and simple, this gives producers more options," Ness said. "Adding capacity always helps prices (for producers
 
We've had pipelines go through here before, but I just can't remember if we charged them to survey. Some oil companies have an easement that was in place before we purchased this place and of course,
they don't pay to survey. They do pay surface damages, although there haven't been many, if any, surface damage.
 
I believe that if they are accessing your property, there is potential for adverse effects and such things should be compensated. Wouldn't expect a lot to occur with surveying but we have had plenty of incidents with crews (chased cattle more than once)- most didn't grow up on a ranch and they don't have a clue of many common sense do's and don'ts.

For later use or possibly for others: Learned a lot from the few pipelines going through on us. I am a fair person, but after dealing with some jacka$$es that promised one thing in contracts without real teeth and then did another- we figured out a few things. Here are a couple to add to normal language of a pipeline lease.
1. I suggest contracting a maximum surface width they are allowed to disturb ~ 150ft and then a fine of 3x normal damages the total length of the line for not abiding by this (wouldn't have thought it would have taken over 150 ft in width but they tore 250 to 300 feet up in places.
2. Specifically state that corner posts must be set on both sides of a designated gate to be placed (and the dimensions of the posts) in a pre-existing fence and the wires must be secured prior to cutting them and a fine for not doing this for each infraction- to pay for repair. Good idea to have a specific cost stated for anything they do not uphold in the signed contract. Found out that they will almost sign anything and just go out and do as they please because communication is non-existent.
3. Designate specifically how top soil is removed and replaced (back on top).
4. Assume you don't have terraces but when applicable a cost for each one disturbed.
5. Cost for each tree disturbed, labeling the species and cost associated with each.
6. Pipeline becomes your property once it has not been used after 1 year.
7. They have the responsibility to remove the pipeline with payment for disturbance of the land.
8. Any valve/above ground structure- get a yearly payment in addition to the initial compensation. We get $500 a year for 5 ft by 5 ft area because it is in the lease.
9. If constuction is during hunting season, add compensation for disturbance and loss of hunting/leasing opportunity.

Get pictures before, during and after construction just in case you need them.
 
Keep in mind that if the pipeline is your property so then would the liability be yours. If you own it then you are responsible also for the removal. That could be profitable depending on the price of metal. It could also be risky depending on what was in the line and how it needs to be handled. They always claim that they might use the line in the future so never like to remove them. Make sure in the removal clause that after a period (3 to 5 years) of inactivity it has to be removed. You also need a way to monitor that.
 
Our ranch which we recently sold had a large pipeline through it. They wanted to put another line close to it. I never understood why they couldn't use the original easement, but they didn't want to.

They surveyed acorss it and developed a proposal. The new line crossed a corner of our place and they paid us $1300 per acre even though the landcould be used as before. We just couldn't build any building over the line.

One neighbor asked for my advice. I told him to take the money - they could use eminent domain if they needed to. He took the $57,000 they offered him. Another neighbor hired a lawyer and spent a lot of money figuring out what to do.

When the Enron fiasco took place (This was not Enron, just another company), the project was cancelled. One neighbor and I had some cash to spend, the other had attorneys bills.

Same deal on a new highway. We cooperated with the state and got a lot of stuff, including money. Another fought them tooth and nail and lost.

We got paid for seismic work and crop loss and trespass.

My experience is to cooperate and they will give you what you want. Of course, if they wanted to build a giant landfill, I would be on the other side.
 
Trenton is right near Fort Buford.

Some pipe lines are putting the liability for abandoned lines onto the land owner. I don't know how that's right in any way but they are doing it.
 
Around here what is normally done is you would get paid for an easement, X number of dollars per acre, just like they are purchasing the land. Only you still own the property and can use it for grazing as before, just like a power line running through the property. You would not normally get paid to allow the survey on your property. Just have that conversation before it gets surveyed. You most likely won't get paid before it is surveyed because the exact acreage isn't known until after the survey is done. The added contract language already posted is some great advice.
 
FH, give me a call today when you get a chance. I can tell you what most of the land owners around here do and what you may need to look out for.
 
I currently have a road and proposed pipeline being constructed through the middle of the ranch to get water out of a lake for a solution potash mine. Here are a couple thoughts to consider. I dont know the USA vs Canada implications of my thought.

1. Access for the host of people that may need access has a cost - make it fair and reasonable but not free

2. Your time has a cost to discuss their ideas - make it fair and reasonable but not free

3. liabilities, ensure that their access to your property and/or during construction you are not responsible. Same thing if the pipeline is abandoned or ruptures you are not responsible.

4. Make clear the changes required to road approaches and fences. This sounds simple but I am having to educate some city engineers about the need for approaches to move cattle across a 6 ft grade change. Temporary fences maybe required during construction, make them what you need, dont skimp or make do on spending their money, because if your cows get out, thats your problem not both parties problem

5. "Cattle at large" and Texas gates - some municipalities dont like them.

6. Reseeding and loss of use, be reasonable in the time to reestablish grass.

7. Be prepared for the what if's - you just never know! Example what if during the construction they find a archeological site of cultural significance medicine wheel, dinosaur bones, etc. What if it rains all summer and they cant complete the project on time, how will that effect your operation.

8. Attitude & Approach - as ranchers we are most often looking for a workable solution for all parties concerned. This is an admirable attitude and makes living in a district a requirement and a better place, however when it comes to pipelines and roads, look out for your needs first, and your needs second and then all parties needs third. You are most likely the only one in the discussion with that attitude.

9. Progress - we are going to be asked to move/change with the times and if you manage their expectations of you and your ranch well, you can come out of it with some dough and development continues. Win - Win!

Good luck and remember this was their idea!
 
If you don't like the Gov't why are you gonna let them cross your land?


And if you are foolish to think that the Gov't WILL NOT be involved...then you deserve what you get.....................

They set the reg's and rules for the energy compaines to abide by...... so thus they are working for the gov't not for you.......
 
Thanks for your 2 cents worth Jingo. And that's just what it was worth.

As for the rest of you, sincere thanks.
BAR BAR 2 please PM me your phone number.

We have had pipelines cross our place already, and more than
once. We always got along fine with the oil companies, but then
we don't hate them like some do. My question was on
a charge to survey. But I appreciate all the other advice,
very much.

I am going to call this company and give them permission to
survey, with compensation for surface damages.
 
Told a survey crew that was using a high spot to survey some Game andFish easments along the river . They could walk, but it was $100/day / pickup or 4 wheeler... they bawled like babies at walk
 
per said:
Keep in mind that if the pipeline is your property so then would the liability be yours. If you own it then you are responsible also for the removal. That could be profitable depending on the price of metal. It could also be risky depending on what was in the line and how it needs to be handled. They always claim that they might use the line in the future so never like to remove them. Make sure in the removal clause that after a period (3 to 5 years) of inactivity it has to be removed. You also need a way to monitor that.
Click to expand...

Per, you have a good point. I didn't state that as well as I should have and I don't remember the exact wording. However, ours was worded so that they lost the right's to use the line for transport of any medium if it was not used during a 1 year period (but can always re-negotiate it use 8) ), but still had the responsibility of removal after another designated time frame.

Cowpuncher, lossin out on a situation like that would be tough. However, I know way to many people down here that take what is offered (on things from pipelines, to wind energy, to drilling wells) because they see money and get screwed out of the appropriate rates (what many others are receiving) and loose ability to get compensation for rediculous acts because they are not protected. I think a lot of companies take advantage of the trusting nature of many rural eldely people and that just burns me.

Part of the HIGH cost of land these days and especially mineral rights is due to the potential for gain. It is an investment. You wouldn't sell your wal-mart stock for $80.00 when its trading at $120.00. I look at this the same way. Ask around and find out what things are going for- its amazing the differences that can be out there.

My attitude toward the land guys negotiating was always friendly and I only involved an attorney to read the contract for my protection and appropriately write the adjustments we requested in the jargon they use. I spoke with the land guys myself and wouldn't just turn an attorney loose to negotiate for me- as they can burn up a lot of time being rediculous on purpose. However, I made sure the contract was reviewed by a professional.

Deals can be made effectively, inexpensively, and quickly and still protect your rights. I think protecting yourself is probably more important than maximizing gain.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top