Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mars billionaire fights energy firms over drilling
The Telegraph ^ | 1/9/08 | Tom Leonard

Posted on 01/09/2008 6:01:24 PM PST by bruinbirdman

A reclusive billionaire whose family owns the Mars confectionery empire has emerged as a determined opponent of the energy industry's plans to develop one of America's last wilderness states.

Forrest E Mars Jr, the 75-year-old former chief executive of Mars Inc, has drawn on his $14 billion fortune to fire off a clutch of lawsuits to prevent drilling for natural gas and coal on his 82,000-acre Diamond Cross ranch near the town of Birney in south-eastern Montana.


Under threat: The Diamond Cross ranch in Montana

The state is famous for its "Big Sky" and breathtaking scenery but, despite its natural beauty and considerable tourism value, local laws in Western states favour the miners and drillers.

Specifically, nearly half of the state constitutes "split-estate" land, whereby landowners do not control the minerals beneath their property.

The mineral rights under Diamond Cross are owned by Fidelity and another company, Pinnacle Gas Resources.

Although state law gives the companies the right to enter Mr Mars's land to drill, he has so far held them off.

"The perception is that it's the big guy - energy companies - versus the little guy. In this instance that's not the case," said Bruce Williams, the vice-president of Fidelity Exploration and Production.

Pinnacle was last night due to challenge in court a legal move by Mr Mars which has stopped its employees entering his land.

Chris Mangen, a Pinnacle lawyer, said: "As a lawyer it should come down to the facts and the law, but there's no denying that money talks."

Tom Richmond, the administrator of the Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation, pointed out that as Pinnacle's stock was worth about one per cent of Mr Mars's estimated fortune, he could simply buy the company.

Mars, which was recently ranked America's sixth-largest privately held company, was set up by Mr Mars's grandparents, who started selling chocolates from their kitchen.

Their grandson began to amass property in south-eastern Montana in early 2003, just as natural gas production in the area was booming.

The Mars family has long enjoyed a reputation for secrecy and Mr Mars was not listed as a party in any of the lawsuits launched by his ranch.

His ownership of the land, at the northern end of the Powder River Basin, was only revealed in a court affidavit 10 days ago. The ranch sits in an area with some of the most productive coal and natural gas fields in America.

Mr Mars has refused to comment on the dispute but Loren O'Toole, a lawyer for the Diamond Cross ranch, said his opposition to energy development was rooted in the vast amounts of water that drilling can consume.

For working cattle ranches, such as Diamond Cross, a steady supply of water is a crucial factor in America's arid West.

Mr O'Toole said the lawsuits were not meant to block development. "That's not the point. The point is we can't lose all that water and at the same time have no provision to put it back," he said.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: Montana
KEYWORDS: billionaires; chocolate; drilling; energy; forrestmars; marschocolate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-45 next last
Wonder if Ted Turner is a neighbor.
1 posted on 01/09/2008 6:01:26 PM PST by bruinbirdman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

Why didn’t he buy the mineral rights then?


2 posted on 01/09/2008 6:06:10 PM PST by NonValueAdded ("Hillary ... a product whose sell-by date has passed" (OMG, I'm quoting Shrum))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman
I was thinking of this Mars billionaire.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
3 posted on 01/09/2008 6:08:30 PM PST by cripplecreek (Only one consistent conservative in this race and his name is Hunter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

In the west, it is often the case that the federal government came in and stripped off the mineral rights from the land quite some time back.

On our farm in Nevada, the desert land entry started with all the rights, and then just before the Dep’t of Interior deeded the land over to the first owners, the feds stripped the oil and gas rights off the land and held them ‘in trust’ for the ‘American people.’

After that, you cannot buy the mineral rights - you can only lease them.


4 posted on 01/09/2008 6:13:12 PM PST by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman
Image hosted by Photobucket.com he can simply buy the company if he wants to stop them bad enough...
5 posted on 01/09/2008 6:13:13 PM PST by Chode (American Hedonist ©®)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

Minerals rights aren’t always for sale.


6 posted on 01/09/2008 6:13:25 PM PST by Balding_Eagle (If America falls, darkness will cover the face of the earth for a thousand years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle

NV Dave has the correct answer upthread.


7 posted on 01/09/2008 6:14:14 PM PST by Balding_Eagle (If America falls, darkness will cover the face of the earth for a thousand years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Haha, classic!


8 posted on 01/09/2008 6:21:20 PM PST by ECM (Government is a make-work program for lawyers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman
Photobucket
9 posted on 01/09/2008 6:33:00 PM PST by rfp1234 (Phodopus campbelli: household ruler since July 2007.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman
Loren O'Toole, a lawyer for the Diamond Cross ranch, said his opposition to energy development was rooted in the vast amounts of water that drilling can consume.

For working cattle ranches, such as Diamond Cross, a steady supply of water is a crucial factor in America's arid West.

Mr O'Toole said the lawsuits were not meant to block development. "That's not the point. The point is we can't lose all that water and at the same time have no provision to put it back," he said.

OK, if the above is true then it's a reasonable position and there should be some reasonable way to work this out. 

If it's true. 

 

10 posted on 01/09/2008 6:34:29 PM PST by Phsstpok (When you don't know where you are, but you don't care, you're not lost, you're exploring!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

If he doesn’t own the mineral rights, and never did, I don’t see how he can legally prevent drilling. Since he’s a billionaire, he can buy off the courts, but an honest judge would tell him where to shove his Mars Bars.

His professed concerns over the supposed huge amounts of water used in drilling are BS.


11 posted on 01/09/2008 6:34:45 PM PST by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

“Mars billionaire fights energy firms over drilling “

Sure.
I wouldn’t be shocked if the guy behind Mars candies and about a
million cavaties isn’t a big investor in dental drill and NO2 gas
delivery systems.
And owns a good chunck of the electrical utilities to run the drills.

Yeah, I’m a cynic/skeptic.
But as Andy Grove of Intel says “Only The Paranoid Survive”.


12 posted on 01/09/2008 6:37:42 PM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman
these are very strange people. In spite of being one of the two wealthiest families in Amreica, but nobody knows much about them. The entire company is built around secrecy and all of its records are very secret. The factories are organized in such a way to keep as much work centered and contained so as to minimize knowledge of the entire operation. The corporate office is in a Small office building very old and employes only a few people most of whom are members of the family. Nobody knows much about what goes on there. It is said to be very spartan and very few people are let in. The Mars family is practically unknown in the community that they live in in New jersey. One of the things that did get out owever, is that on eof the women in the family developed most of the famous candy prodcts in her own kitchen at home. Very strange people!
13 posted on 01/09/2008 6:39:21 PM PST by bilhosty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman
Dear Mr. Forrest E Mars,
You can't take it with you.

Best Regards,
MaxMax.

14 posted on 01/09/2008 6:40:26 PM PST by MaxMax (God Bless America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phsstpok

Drilling doesn’t take that much water. I used to work out on a rig in the desert. The water was brought out once in awhile in a tanker truck. Most of it was just recirculated down (and up) the well.

As far as other environmental aspects - modern drilling is pretty clean, it has to be with all of the regulations involved. Of course a few new dirt roads will traverse his property.

I wonder if his grandparent’s ever got shut down or sued when their chocolate batches stunk up the neighborhood?


15 posted on 01/09/2008 6:46:36 PM PST by geopyg (Don't wish for peace, pray for Victory. ------ www.gohunter08.com ------)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

He lost his court case yesterday.


16 posted on 01/09/2008 6:47:33 PM PST by Wondering in Wyoming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NVDave
Here's the new link. Today is tomorrow in UK.

With all the riverrs around their property, I don't think "water" is the real reason for a dispute. The Mars are "recluses".

yitbos

17 posted on 01/09/2008 7:33:12 PM PST by bruinbirdman ("Those who control language control minds. - Ayn Rand")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NVDave
They should have done the same with Alaska. The land was purchased with federal money and belonged to everyone in all the states.
18 posted on 01/09/2008 8:01:21 PM PST by Mark was here (Hard work never killed anyone, but why take the chance?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mark was here
They should have done the same with Alaska.

They did more than that. The Federal Goverment owns most of the mineral rights AND most of the surface in Alaska. The State Goverment owns a much smaller but significant portion, about 28%. The natives were awarded about 11% of the land and mineral rights. Private ownerships of land is Alaska is less than 1% of the state.

Land Ownership in Alaska, with map
http://www.conservationgiscenter.org/maps/html/landown.html

http://library.state.ak.us/is/faq/FARQlandownership.html

19 posted on 01/10/2008 4:40:26 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

State Law is unconstitutional. This is a basic infringement on property rights.

I take the same position on “ground rents” that some cities have.


20 posted on 01/10/2008 4:43:12 AM PST by sauropod (Welcome to O'Malleyland. What's in your wallet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-45 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson