IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/clh/resear/v14y2021i16.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Surface Owner’S Burden: Landowner Rights And Alberta’S Oil And Gas Well Liabilities Crisis

Author

Listed:
  • Victoria Goodday

    (University of Calgary)

  • Braeden Larson

    (University of Calgary)

Abstract

Inactive and unreclaimed oil and gas wells pose financial, environmental and health risks to Alberta landowners. The province needs to develop stronger policies that will ensure landowners are fairly compensated and well sites cleaned up. The law requires Alberta landowners to lease the surface of their land for oil and gas development in exchange for financial compensation and land reclamation at the end of the lease. However, there are approximately 97,000 inactive wells in Alberta that haven’t been properly closed and 71,000 abandoned wells requiring clean-up. Low oil prices have resulted in insolvency for the operators of these wells and the Alberta Energy Regulator predicts 2021 will see another 6,014 wells become inactive. As of March 25, 2021, 54.8 per cent of all currently inactive oil and gas wells on the province’s list have been inactive for more than five years while 29.2 per cent have been so for more than a decade. When well operators default on their obligation to maintain the wells, landowners cannot collect timely compensation, and are required to apply to the Surface Rights Board to receive fair compensation from the provincial government. Landowners must shoulder the burden of the risks to their properties and livelihoods during this period. The problems are then compounded by increased potential for contamination, unequal treatment as an unintended consequence of site clean-up programs and difficulties seeking a remedy. Policy responses the province can take fall into two main categories: addressing the root problem of long-term inactive and unreclaimed wells and improving the protections of surface owner rights. To address long-term inactive and unreclaimed wells, the province could impose more severe financial penalties on the owners of incompliant wells, in addition to the interest that has accumulated during the period in which they failed to properly compensate the landowner. Furthermore, new policies on surface rights and liability management, drafted through engagement and consultation with landowners, must provide incentives or disincentives for operators to stop abandoning wells indefinitely, including regulations that should specify a time limit by which an inactive well must be cleaned up, and the land properly reclaimed. To improve the protections of surface owner rights, landowners need improved access to information on the recourse open to them, including compensation rates and decision-making by the Surface Rights Board, which mediates between well owners and landowners. Landowners also need to have relevant information available to them on the risk status of the well on their land and be provided with a risk assessment framework relevant to their site-specific concerns. Reclamation activities also require greater oversight, to ensure the land is returned to the capabilities it possessed prior to the well site being established. The Alberta Energy Regulator, which oversees surface leases, has reportedly conducted field audits for only three per cent of sites that were certified as reclaimed between 2014 and 2018. Property development and value, risks to crop farming and an inability to remedy their concerns about orphan wells have forced landowners for too long to live with an untenable situation. With the expected increase in inactive and unreclaimed wells, it is vital that the governance of surface rights and well liabilities be strengthened. The province owes landowners respect for their property rights and timely, fair access to recourse and compensation. Otherwise, Alberta landowners will continue to be unfairly burdened with financial and other costs that affect not only their ability to earn a living from their land, but also damage their trust in industry and government.

Suggested Citation

  • Victoria Goodday & Braeden Larson, 2021. "The Surface Owner’S Burden: Landowner Rights And Alberta’S Oil And Gas Well Liabilities Crisis," SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 14(16), May.
  • Handle: RePEc:clh:resear:v:14:y:2021:i:16
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/RF19_AB-Oil_Goodday-Larson.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. anonymous, 2002. "Focus on Authors," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 476-477.
    2. Benjamin Dachis & Blake Schaffer & Vincent Thivierge, 2017. "All’s Well that Ends Well: Addressing End-of-Life Liabilities for Oil and Gas Wells," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 492, September.
    3. Boxall, Peter C. & Chan, Wing H. & McMillan, Melville L., 2005. "The impact of oil and natural gas facilities on rural residential property values: a spatial hedonic analysis," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 248-269, October.
    4. Peter C. Boxall, Wing H. Chan, and Melville L. McMillan, 2005. "The Impact of Oil and Natural Gas Facilities on Rural Residential Property," Working Papers eg0039, Wilfrid Laurier University, Department of Economics, revised 2005.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lucija Muehlenbachs & Elisheba Spiller & Christopher Timmins, 2015. "The Housing Market Impacts of Shale Gas Development," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(12), pages 3633-3659, December.
    2. Tapsuwan, Sorada & Polyakov, Maksym & Bark, Rosalind & Nolan, Martin, 2015. "Valuing the Barmah–Millewa Forest and in stream river flows: A spatial heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent (SHAC) approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 98-105.
    3. Guiying Cao & Junlian Gao & Ming Ren & Tatiana Ermolieva & Xiangyang Xu & Elena Rovenskaya, 2017. "Societal Dimension of Energy Consumption ¨C Exploring Environmental Inequality in China," Research in World Economy, Research in World Economy, Sciedu Press, vol. 8(2), pages 66-77, December.
    4. Vissing, Ashley, 2015. "Private Contracts as Regulation: A Study of Private Lease Negotiations Using the Texas Natural Gas Industry," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 44(2), pages 1-18, August.
    5. Stock, James H. & Bradt, Jacob T., 2020. "Analysis of proposed 20-year mineral leasing withdrawal in Superior National Forest," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    6. Grant D. Jacobsen, 2019. "Who Wins In An Energy Boom? Evidence From Wage Rates And Housing," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 57(1), pages 9-32, January.
    7. Jellicoe, Michaela & Delgado, Michael S., 2015. "Quantifying the Effects of Underground Natural Gas Storage on Nearby Residents," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 44(2), pages 1-24, August.
    8. Grislain-Letrémy, Céline & Katossky, Arthur, 2014. "The impact of hazardous industrial facilities on housing prices: A comparison of parametric and semiparametric hedonic price models," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 93-107.
    9. Savage, Jeffrey & Ifft, Jennifer, 2013. "Does Pumping Pay: Groundwater Management Institutions and Cropland Values in Nebraska?," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150581, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. repec:fip:fedkrw:rwp2013-07 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. James R. Meldrum, 2016. "Floodplain Price Impacts by Property Type in Boulder County, Colorado: Condominiums Versus Standalone Properties," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(4), pages 725-750, August.
    12. Olivier JOALLAND & Tina RAMBONILAZA, 2017. "Assessing the impact of renewable energy infrastructure on the “tourist value” in rural landscapes: a spatial hedonic approach," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2017-10, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    13. Lipscomb, Clifford & Wang, Yongsheng & Kilpatrick, Sarah J., 2012. "Unconvensional Shale Gas Development and Real Estate Valuation Issues," The Review of Regional Studies, Southern Regional Science Association, vol. 42(2), pages 161-175, Summer.
    14. Marcelo Caffera & Felipe Vásquez & Daniel Rodríguez & Leonidas Carrasco-Letelier & José Ignacio Hernández & Mariela Buonomo, 2019. "Spatial Spillovers in the Implicit Market Price of Soil Erosion: An Estimation using a Spatio-temporal Hedonic Model," Documentos de Trabajo/Working Papers 1909, Facultad de Ciencias Empresariales y Economia. Universidad de Montevideo..
    15. Blundell, Wesley & Kokoza, Anatolii, 2022. "Natural gas flaring, respiratory health, and distributional effects," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    16. Lucija Muehlenbachs & Elisheba Spiller & Christopher Timmins, 2012. "Shale Gas Development and Property Values: Differences across Drinking Water Sources," NBER Working Papers 18390, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Douglas H. Wrenn & H. Allen Klaiber & Edward C. Jaenicke, 2016. "Unconventional Shale Gas Development, Risk Perceptions, and Averting Behavior: Evidence from Bottled Water Purchases," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 3(4), pages 779-817.
    18. Popkin, Jennifer H. & Duke, Joshua M. & Borchers, Allison M. & Ilvento, Thomas, 2013. "Social costs from proximity to hydraulic fracturing in New York State," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 62-69.
    19. Richard J. Vyn & Ryan M. McCullough, 2014. "The Effects of Wind Turbines on Property Values in Ontario: Does Public Perception Match Empirical Evidence?," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 62(3), pages 365-392, September.
    20. Jianu Daniel Muresan & Mihail Vincentiu Ivan, 2015. "Controversies Regarding Costs, Uncertainties and Benefits Specific to Shale Gas Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-17, March.
    21. Masha Maslianskaia-Pautrel & Catherine Baumont pba148, 2016. "The nature and impacts of environmental spillovers on housing prices: A spatial hedonic analysis," Working Papers 2016.04, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:clh:resear:v:14:y:2021:i:16. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Bev Dahlby (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/spcalca.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.