Swift Current 鈥� Long-time Swift Current lawyer Cliff Nimegeers has represented many mineral rights owners, often farmers, over the years, and one singular oil company.
鈥淚 work primarily for farmers and owners, but in the case of Eldon McIntyre, who is a personal friend of mine and a personal client, I made and exception for his oil company,鈥�
鈥淚 was born in 鈥�41,鈥� he said. Nimegeers was raised one of 13 children on a large cattle and grain farm in the Weyburn area, where he went to school with Kenney and Dick Cugnet. He graduated from Weyburn High School and continued his education with the University of Saskatchewan. There he achieved his Bachelor of Arts (English/Philosophy) and thereafter his Bachelor of Laws (1966). He was called to the Bar in 1967.
His practice has included criminal, civil litigation, family law, surface rights and mineral rights, wills and estate planning, all types of farm and ranch and commercial sales. These days, partially due to his age, he focuses on wills and estates, home farm and business transactions and mortgages, and mineral/surface rights. 鈥淧urely solicitor work, now. In the past I did criminal work, I鈥檝e done civil litigation. I don鈥檛 do that anymore,鈥� he said.
Nimegeers said mineral and surface rights might be 25 per cent of his work.
The Keystone XL pipeline, if built, will pass through southwest Saskatchewan. Nimegeers said it doesn鈥檛 impact him too much, but, 鈥淢any of my clients in the southwest have their land (and) will be giving easements to TransCanada. Some of them have done it already, I believe. The Keystone, if it鈥檚 approved, will certainly have a significant financial impact on the southwest of Saskatchewan.鈥�
鈥淭he Keystone pipeline is certainly of great interest, and of interest to use because we鈥檙e anxious to see that the oil companies that operate in this area will get a fair price for their product. I鈥檓 well aware of the problems with disparity in prices because we can鈥檛 get our oil and natural gas to market as well as we should.鈥�
He鈥檚 also interested in what happens with the Kinder Morgan project as well. 鈥淲e have a very large oil industry in Swift Current. Anything that鈥檚 good for the oil industry will be food for Swift Current and will be good for my practice.鈥�
He generally represents the farmer when it comes to surface rights. 鈥淭here was a time I didn鈥檛 represent any oil companies at all, and refused to represent oil companies. Now, certainly my focus is on landowners鈥� rights. When you say farmer, I want to broaden that to ranchers and landowners of all kinds. The landowners鈥� interests are my primary focus.鈥�
鈥淚 have some very broad concerns about the direction the whole surface rights issue is going in,鈥� Nimegeers said. In particular, he has issues with the direction the Saskatchewan Surface Rights Board of Arbitration has taken in recent years.
鈥淢ineral rights, of course, there鈥檚 total freedom of negotiation. If you can鈥檛 make a deal, the owner of the mineral rights can walk, so there鈥檚 no right to expropriate the mineral rights. In the surface rights area, there鈥檚 expropriation rights, and that creates a lot of issues.
鈥淚 would almost say it鈥檚 a rather remarkable right that a private company, private oil companies, have the right to expropriate land from landowners, but it鈥檚 a necessary right, because the oil company has the oil under the ground and they have to get it out somewhere, and that involves the surface. So there had to be an accommodation, and that accommodation was created in the Surface Rights Act, allowing oil companies in limited circumstances, to expropriate and to require the farmer give up his land for the purpose of allowing the company to take their oil.
鈥淭he problem that鈥檚 developing, in my view, is the rights being given to the oil industry, to the oil producers, is going beyond what the act contemplated. The act is very restrictive. Take your oil, remove it and do what you have to do to do that. But any rights beyond that should be negotiated. There shouldn鈥檛 be expropriation rights because that doesn鈥檛 impact their ability to get their oil."
鈥淲hat is happening, in my view, is the board is exceeding some of the expropriation powers by giving such things as temporary work spaces and other rights that go beyond what the act contemplated and what it clearly states.鈥�
鈥淚 don鈥檛 think the oil industry needs those things to effectively operate.鈥�
鈥淕enerally, I think farmers鈥� and landowners鈥� rights are being eroded. There鈥檚 a reason for that. Farmers are not being well-represented, because, usually, the issue is whether they get $4,000, $5,000 or $6,000 for a well, the differential isn鈥檛 worth spending a lot of time, cost and lawyer鈥檚 fees. The oil company, on the other hand, will often have tens or even hundreds of wells in the area, so they are able to present a strong case with powerful legal representation.鈥�
His history with the board goes back very far indeed. In 1968, he had some input in the Friesen Commission that resulted in the act.
The act is 50 years old this year, he noted, saying, 鈥淭he act is not a bad act. It needs some updating.
鈥淭here is an imbalance. In the early stages, it seems the board was recognizing that imbalance, not putting as much pressure on the land owner or onus on them to prove their losses. It seems to me the act allows the board to use their expertise to figure out what their losses may be. But the board is very strident, now, in saying if you come to the board, you better be prepared. You better bring the evidence, and if you don鈥檛 have the evidence, too bad for you. You鈥檙e not going to get the compensation you鈥檙e asking for. So they鈥檙e moving away from such things as cumulative effect. They鈥檙e suggesting maybe they won鈥檛 pay gross loss of use anymore.鈥�
He noted that farming has radically changed. Summer fallow is no more. The land is continuously cropped with huge inputs, and there are better prices for the product. As a result of that, the gross return may be in excess of $500 per acre on many occasions.
Asked about a typical file, he noted that farmers are using lawyers less and less, because lawyers are expensive and the cost of a lawyer doesn鈥檛 justify the differential in the amount they might get. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 particularly problematic if they appear before the board, because often it will be a full day hearing before the board on a differential that may mean a few thousand dollars, particularly when the board is demanding the evidence be very carefully presented to them. It requires more care. And then there鈥檚 the preparation. You can quite easily see how it might not be economic for a farmer to hire a lawyer to do the work.鈥�
In a typical case, he tries to cost-effectively as possible put forward propositions based on board awards, and is focused on the documents to be signed so they are not granting broad rights that are not paid for.
鈥淢any of the leases that I see where the farmer and landowner is not represented, the oil company is paying for apples and they鈥檙e taking a fruit basket, in terms of their rights on the land, that they can do anything that is pertinent to their operations, whereas they only want one well, to drill a well and take production from it.
鈥淚f you want more rights, you have to pay more. If you put two wells on the same pad, there should be more compensation. If you put a refinery site, there should be a negotiated deal. If they want treaters and tanks, there should be more compensation. Generally speaking, the industry recognizes that, but the documents do not, in many cases,鈥� Nimegeers said.
He hasn鈥檛 appeared before the board in many years. Instead, he prepares the farmers for their hearing, and that way he doesn鈥檛 have to spend days on a case, becoming completely cost-ineffective for the farmer. But he reads every award very carefully and follows the progress of their thinking.
Regarding that one oil company he works with, it鈥檚 Jarod Oils, owned by Eldon McIntyre, originally of Hazlet. 鈥淓ldon has been my friend for some 50 years,鈥� Nimegeers said.
He even participated in some of McIntyre鈥檚 wells in the late 80s.
Nimegeers was reluctant, at first, to represent an oil company, but he told McIntyre, 鈥淚f you鈥檒l allow me to give fair compensation, and do state of the art documents, I will.
鈥淓ldon quickly agreed,鈥� Nimegeers said. Since then, he said their compensation for land owners has been better, or different, than other companies, resulting in great relations with landowners. In the end, it鈥檚 been a win-win situation.聽
Some his motivations behind this work are very personal. He grew up in in the Ralph area in what eventually became the famed Weyburn Unit, one of Saskatchewan鈥檚 most prolific oilfields. 鈥淢y father, back in the 50s, got conned out of his mineral rights in a section. It was a really hurtful situation,鈥� Nimegeers said.
So when he went to law school, he did some special studies into this area of law. When his parents died in 1978 in a car accident, his brother looked after the estate, and he fought for four years to get those mineral rights. He succeeded. There are four or five wells on it now in the Midale and Frobisher formations, and he鈥檚 one of 13 children who receive cheques from them.
