oilandlandowner.ca
Rim bey,
T0C 2J0
March 17/05
******
Murphy Oil Co. Ltd.
******
In reference to a letter of January 10/05 from ****** sent to me on your behalf.
This letter is full of deceptions and non-truths. I find it difficult to imagine that people in positions of higher management would even consider such trash.
On the subject of accusing me of "Obstruction of Lawful Access", please be advised that the combine was removed from the lease road and Murphy was given access to their lease site as of August 16/04, this is therefore a false accusation. You, sir, are fully aware of this, as you are the one I talked to on August 16/04.
Re: your statement "some of the grievances you have listed have been resolved, while others remain outstanding". This is not true. None of the issues arising since the combine was placed on the road in November 2002 have been resolved.
Re: your statement "Murphy has made a good faith attempt to resolve the complaints, concerns or issues you have raised". This is not true. As an example, for seven months in 2004, Murphy refused to answer any of my letters or concerns. When I asked ****** why they were not responding to my letters, he told me that he had been instructed not to. Excepting for a ridiculous offer of some small poplar trees, Murphy has not made as much as an inkling to resolve any of my concerns. This is not in good faith.
Re: your statement " ****** will again contact you in the near future, particularly with respect to resolving the pipeline crop loss and driveway marker damage issues". Please note that this is only a deflection tactic as neither the pipeline crop loss nor driveway marker have been issues with why the lease road was blocked.
Since we are on the subject, please be advised that I wrote a couple of letters to ****** on January 20/05 with regards to these issues and being true to form, my letters were never answered. I believe you refer to this as bargaining in good faith.
Re: your statement " Murphy believes the methanol tank still contains a small amount of methanol, and is concerned that the methanol tank may leak". This again is not true as the methanol tank in question was removed from the site in November 2002 (more than two years ago). Where are your competent, professional people that I hear about?
Re: your statement " the 100 barrel tank is believed to contain a barrel of condensate and another chemical that may corrode the tank and cause it to leak". If this is the case, we have a serious problem, as the tank is less than three years old. If these tanks are subject to corrosion and possible leakage within this time, when they are supposed to be designed to contain these chemicals, I believe the EUB and Alberta Environment should be aware of this. I shall therefore bring this to their attention. We may have numerous tanks like this across the province.
You have had seven months to check out this tank for possible leaks and it has not been done. If your concerns are genuine then I feel you are showing gross neglect by not checking this tank out.
You and I agreed on August16/04 that you had access to the site but you would not remove any of the equipment from the site until we had a meeting with ****** to resolve the outstanding issues. This has not happened.
Re: your statement asking me to confirm "the lock has been removed from the gate". Please be advised that it is Murphy’s lock that is holding you out, not mine. If Murphy does not know the combination to their own lock, this is not my concern.
Please note also that your counsel, on your behalf stated that I placed a combine on the access road in November 2002 and that I signed a damage release covering all issues up to that time. This is again not true. The release he refers to, of which he sent me a copy is dated January 2002. The pipeline wasn’t started until March 2002. It was during and after the construction of the pipeline that most of the problems arose.
In reference to planting trees as part of reclamation you refer to the fact that I said "upon final pipeline restoration, well site will be rototilled or equivalent, and re-seeded to good quality pasture mix and there is no reference to planting trees". This is an absolutely ludicrous statement to make. I don’t believe any prudent person would ask you to plant trees on an active well site. Once again your information is inaccurate, as the lease seeding in reference to pipeline has nothing to do with planting trees as part of the reclamation process.
Reclamation is a whole new game.
Mr. ****** sir, you are accusing me of preventing you from exercising your contractual rights (breaking the contract) by my blocking you access. Because of this you have chosen to send the lawyer dogs after me. It seems all right for you, Big Oil to break the contracts, but the minute the landowner steps out of line, you pounce upon him like a vulture. You broke our contract when you cut my fences instead of rolling them back. You broke our contract when you left gates open that were supposed to be kept closed. You broke our contract when you would not lock the perimeter gate if you were not on the premises. You broke our contract every time you let thistles and other weeds go to seed. I don’t see any mention of these items in the letters from your counsel. When these concerns have been brought up with other Murphy personnel they are dropped like a hot potato along with other items such as using my property for a crapper because you did not supply your people with proper facilities. Driving over barbed wire gates and breaking the uprights instead of opening the gates properly. Loosening wire gate loops so as the gates sag when done up. The gates were designed with handles so as my wife and children could close them if necessary. To have loosened the loops as was done is extreme tardiness on the part of Murphy Oil. Until now most of the above items and more have not been considered for compensation. This has now changed.
I am requesting that you exercise prudence and call off your lawyer dogs, as we both know this is not going to resolve our differences. If you figure it is a wise decision to exercise what I shall refer to as "legal forced entry" to remove your equipment before settling outstanding past issues first, so be it. I am not going to say you can’t come and I am also not going to say you can come. The choice will be yours.
I am for the umpteenth time requesting a meeting with you at my place. Maybe you can find out what goes on in the real world. I would suggest 1 PM on Wednesday April 20/05. If this suits you please confirm by April 1/05. If this timing does not suit you, please advise me by April 1/05 and we can try to make other arrangements. Please don’t respond with " I don’t think it will do any good" it has already been overused. In the meantime please reread all the letters I have sent you over the past couple of years. This will give you a preview of what the public will be reading.
Cc: EUB
Farmers Advocate
Surface Rights Board
Rimbey Review
Calgary Sun
Note: No response from Murphy Oil.