News Releases

All of our News Releases are posted  on the front page of our website.  Please click anywhere on this line to go there.  Thank you!

Warning: Companies going bankrupt and reducing Annual Rentals

Many Oil/Gas companies are going bankrupt and are in receivership. 

It is unlikely that you’ll get any of your annual rentals paid from these companies.  Some companies like Sphere are arbitrarily reducing annual compensation amounts.
 
Do not sign any rental reductions.  Many of these companies state that reclamation is near or that they’re just reducing rentals until economic conditions improve.  It is too late for many of these companies and they’ll go bankrupt.  You’ll have to apply to the SRB to get your annual rentals from the Minister of Finance.  If you’ve accepted rental reductions, that is all you’ll get.
 
Neo Resources (100 wells in the Taber area) is now defunct.  Spyglass just went into receivership (3500 wells), Sphere is asking for rental reductions.  There are many more.
 
Do not accept any rental reductions and if you’re not being paid your annual compensation, let us know.  actionsurfacerights.ca

Beet growers reject Lantic offer

Written by Trevor Busch

Thursday, 12 April 2012 13:57

The production of one of southern Alberta’s most iconic crops could be in jeopardy, unless a supply agreement can be reached between Lantic Inc. and the Alberta Sugar Beet Growers.
In a letter to growers dated April 4, the Alberta Sugar Beet Growers (ASBG) board announced it was rejecting Lantic’s final offer, and suggested growers look to alternative cropping options for the 2012 crop year. All of which could mean grave news for the future of Taber’s sugar beet processing facility, which is currently operated by Lantic Inc.
ASBG president Rob Boras was unwilling to comment in detail on the situation being faced by both parties, but indicated the two sides are still talking and he is hopeful a resolution can be reached in the near future.
“It’s still quite sensitive, and we’d like to still persue our options. The president (of Lantic) opened the door. We still have a few days. I don’t know if he’s implying that they’re going to come around, or we’re going to come around. Having said that, there’s still hope that this could come to some resolution over the next short while. We’re not past the planting season yet. We’re still only barely started. We’d like to see resolution to it too, and in no way are we saying it’s an absolute no-go. You always leave that door open that there’s a possibility we can make it work.”
The ASBG board is suggesting the rejection of Lantic’s offer could lead to the closure of the Taber processing facility and the potential loss of approximately 120 full-time jobs and around 300 seasonal positions at the plant. Notwithstanding the potential negative impact on growers and their families throughout southern Alberta, the loss of sugar beets as a cash crop would have a significant effect on various related industries, as well as the regional economy.
For now, Lantic has indicated that closure of the plant is not being entertained by the company.
“At this point in time, we are not contemplating that,” said Doug Emek, general manager of Lantic’s Taber beet processing facility. “We are still hopeful — from our perspective we still want to grow the crop, and we still want to get beets, but there has to be an agreement in place that allows us to do that.”
The ASGB board’s April 4 letter noted Lantic’s offer “fell far short of the Growers original position,” and that “it has become apparent over the course of these negotiations that Lantic Inc. will only operate the Taber facility on a basis that provides marginal returns for an average crop, and then only if the growers will assume the bulk of the risk.”
Emek’s position was Lantic’s supply agreement offer had been more than fair, while he defended the intentions of the company.
“It was a significant offer — our offer contained significant improvements over the contract that was in place in 2011. We could not meet the board’s expectations in some areas. It has never been our intent to operate the factory only if there are marginal returns for growers, and in fact we believe that currently, grower returns are the highest for the 2011 crop, and in 2012, they would be amongst the highest returns that the growers have seen for many, many years. So, I don’t think that we’re asking the growers to accept marginal returns.”
From the perspective of growers, the contract proposals have not appeared to contain improvements, according to the letter, as it stated “no contract is better than a poor contract.”
The ASBG letter also indicated sugar beet growers are united in opposition to accepting Lantic’s final offer. As no contract is currently in place, the ASBG is not issuing quota certificates for 2012 at this point.
Pressed further on the issue of the potential closure of the beet processing facility in Taber, Emek admitted without a supply agreement in place and if no crop is being grown, closure could be a possibility.
“Well, if there are no beets, there would have to be some decisions made.”
At present, Lantic Inc. is not prepared to sweeten any further offers to the ASBG which might help the two parties come to an amicable agreement.
“No — we have made our final offer,” said Emek, while he still left the door open a crack for the ASBG. “But we are also open to discussions.”

Taber sugar factory in jeopardy

Friday, 06 April 2012 02:01 Albrecht, Craig
Trevor Busch
SOUTHERN ALBERTA NEWSPAPERS – TABER
The production of one of southern Alberta’s most iconic crops could be coming to an end, unless a supply agreement can be reached between Lantic Inc. and the Alberta Sugar Beet Growers.
In a letter to growers dated April 4, the Alberta Sugar Beet Growers (ASBG) board announced it was rejecting Lantic’s final offer, and suggested growers look to alternative cropping options for the 2012 crop year. All of which could mean grave news for the future of Taber’s sugar beet processing facility, which is operated by Lantic Inc.
ASBG president Rob Boras was unwilling to comment in detail on the situation being faced by both parties, but indicated the two sides are still talking and he is hopeful a resolution can be reached in the near future.
“It’s still quite sensitive, and we’d like to still pursue our options. The president (of Lantic) opened the door. We still have a few days. I don’t know if he’s implying that they’re going to come around, or we’re going to come around. Having said that, there’s still hope that this could come to some resolution over the next short while. We’re not past the planting season yet. We’re still only barely started. We’d like to see resolution to it, too, and in no way are we saying it’s an absolute no-go. You always leave that door open that there’s a possibility we can make it work.”
The ASBG board is suggesting the rejection of Lantic’s offer could lead to the closure of the Taber processing facility and the potential loss of approximately 120 full-time jobs and around 300 seasonal positions at the plant. Notwithstanding the potential negative impact on growers and their families throughout southern Alberta, the loss of sugar beets as a cash crop would have a significant effect on various related industries, as well as the regional economy.
For now, Lantic has indicated closure of the plant is not being entertained by the company.
“At this point in time, we are not contemplating that,” said Doug Emek, general manager of Lantic’s Taber beet processing facility. “We are still hopeful – from our perspective we still want to grow the crop, and we still want to get beets, but there has to be an agreement in place that allows us to do that.”
The ASGB board’s April 4 letter noted Lantic’s offer “fell far short of the Growers original position,” and that “it has become apparent over the course of these negotiations that Lantic Inc. will only operate the Taber facility on a basis that provides marginal returns for an average crop, and then only if the growers will assume the bulk of the risk.”
Emek’s position was Lantic’s supply agreement offer had been more than fair, while he defended the intentions of the company.
“It was a significant offer – our offer contained significant improvements over the contract that was in place in 2011. We could not meet the board’s expectations in some areas.
“It has never been our intent to operate the factory only if there are marginal returns for growers, and in fact we believe that currently, grower returns are the highest for the 2011 crop, and in 2012, they would be amongst the highest returns that the growers have seen for many, many years. So, I don’t think that we’re asking the growers to accept marginal returns.”
From the perspective of growers, the contract proposals have not appeared to contain improvements, according to the letter, as it stated “no contract is better than a poor contract.”
The ASBG letter also indicated sugar beet growers are united in opposition to accepting Lantic’s final offer. As no contract is in place, the ASBG is not issuing quota certificates for 2012 at this point.
Pressed further on the issue of the potential closure of the beet processing facility in Taber, Emek admitted without a supply agreement in place and if no crop is being grown, closure could be a possibility.
“Well, if there are no beets, there would have to be some decisions made.”
At present, Lantic Inc. is not prepared to sweeten any further offers to the ASBG which might help the two parties come to an amicable agreement.
“No – we have made our final offer,” said Emek, while he still left the door open a crack for the ASBG. “But we are also open to discussions.”

 

February 22, 2012
Province to create a Property Rights Advocate
Legislation major step to implement Task Force recommendations
Edmonton… The Alberta government has introduced legislation to establish a Property Rights Advocate to strengthen landowner interests as development in the province occurs.

“We are responding to Albertans,” said Diana McQueen, Minister of Alberta Environment and Water. “Combined with significant measures this government has taken to address growth pressures and plan for the future, the Property Rights Advocate will serve as a valuable resource to Alberta landowners.” Bill 6: the Property Rights Advocate Act supports the government’s position that landowners must have recourse to an independent tribunal, the courts, or both for the purpose of determining full and fair compensation for access to their land. Reporting to the Minister of Alberta Justice and Attorney General, the Property Rights Advocate Office will share independent and impartial information about property rights and help people determine the appropriate resolution mechanism including the courts.
The Advocate will be required to table an annual report on the office’s business each year in the legislature.
To view the proposed legislation visit www.assembly.ab.ca.
Creating a Property Rights Advocate is one of the actions recommended by the Property Rights Task Force following a consultation with Albertans. The report of the Task Force and the detailed government response are available at www.propertyrights.alberta.ca.

-30- Media inquiries may be directed to:
Erin Carrier
Communications
Alberta Environment and Water
780-427-6267
To call toll free within Alberta dial 310-0000.
Visit the Government of Alberta newsroom http://newsroom.alberta.ca

Lethbridge Herald Newsletter

Albertans don’t really have property rights

For over seven years my family has been forced to become familiar with how our laws work, what our property rights actually are, and how transmission lines are approved and built. The Montana Alberta Tie Line, a 230,000-volt power line, will be constructed 120 feet from my bedroom window, and we may not be compensated one penny. Read More

‘Special Place’ doesn’t seem to mean much

I fondly remember my early hunting, fishing, camping and hikes to Barnaby Lakes in the Castle River area when there was a forest ranger station at Mill Creek, Castle River and Lynx Creek. In the late 1990s, I remember the Castle River area was designated as a Special Place with protected-area status. Read More…

Electricity bill’s extra fees are outrageous

For shame! I used $17 of electrical power but with all the add-ons . . . Transmission Access, Distribution Access, Rider “A” Access, Rider “B” Balancing Pool, Rider “C” AESO Rate DTS, Administration Fee.
Read More…

Links

 

 

Quebec bans any fracking pending studies