The GLO University Lands Rate & Damage Schedule provides for a ten year easement on it's lands, which creates a perpetual income stream every ten years. We tried to negotiate that on the 42" lines to El Paso, and to Presidio, and the Pipeline company said that is a deal breaker.
Is it a fact, that none of the lands being utilized for the pipeline crosses lands that are negotiated by the GLO, or are the pipeline companies making false representations; or has the GLO backed off from it's published "Minimum" fees?
Thank you for your opinion?
Tradermiketx
University of Texas uses its Rate & Damage Schedule for pipelines which cross U.T. lands. As these are State-owned lands, common carriers do not have right of eminent domain and they will have to pay the rates. As an individual landowner, your rights are more limited and a common carrier can exercise eminent domain if you refuse to allow the pipeline to cross your surface. However you can negotiate higher payment than what is initially offered. Many landowners in West Texas use the U.T. rates, including additional consideration due every 10 years. This is more difficult with the really large pipeline companies, particularly as they do not want to deal with periodic payments. Ask for a one-time payment that is double the U.T. rate or the highest rate being paid in the county. Be sure that you do not sign a permanent easement, but that it terminates upon abandonment. Some companies will add a communication line and its use should be limited to information about the pipeline. You should be paid for a fiber optic line that is used by third parties.
Good points. All of our land is in East Texas with a number of pipelines crossing timber land. One of our tracts has a railroad right of way across it. We know that Railroads are able to make "yearly term leases" for $2,000+- per year for a 200 foot+- right of way. You can imagine the answer we got when we asked the right of way agent if we could get the same terms:). Nothing against the agent, he is just doing his job and he does not make the decisions, but it does not seem fair.
Also, pipeline companies will tell landowners they "have to have" a certain width right of way, and if you look at pipelines across National Forests or through residential areas (Barnett Shale), they can work with a much smaller right of way. They may not want to, and it may be more expensive to lay, but they can do it. Kathy
Thank each of you for the response. I neglected to mention that some of the acreage being crossed is mineral classified acreage, which provides the surface owner with 50% of the executive, bonus and Royalty Production retained, to the minerals, which are owned by the State of Texas. A condemnation of the right of way easement to the surface, would give the new owner these rights to the State's minerals under the right of way. Does anyone know of any decided court cases on this issue?
The threat of condemnation to several miles of pipeline, with a few miles of it being across mineral classified acreage, would seem to be intentional false representation, for which there could never be a "meeting of the minds" to any contract executed.
Your thoughts would be appreciated>
Make it a great day.