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

To: Carry_Okie

I’m sure he never purchased them, based on the information given, and the current state of those rights across the West. I think very, very few mineral rights are transferred. With the value of minerals going up, and the discovery of oil at more and more locations (inevitable, as the world is awash in oil) everyone keeps them in the family in hopes of an oil find, and then they lease then one more time to some oil interest.

Dave upthread was right though, the minerals rights can only be leased from the state and not owned by an individual or company.

What Mars is doing is trying to protect his land rights. If the current ‘owner’ of the mineral rights takes the water in the process exercising his mineral rights, Mars is left with land that isn’t any good for grazing.

Someone on another thread about this case talked about the unfairness of someone like Mars with all his money being able to ‘outgun’ the oil interests in court.

I then pointed out that there have been decades of ‘abuse’ by the oil interests in court because, until now, it has been the oil interests with the big money. They’ve now met their match, and there may be a different outcome in court. I hope so. I also hope that someone will find the way to retrieve that oil and gas without disturbing the water.


33 posted on 01/10/2008 6:58:20 AM PST by Balding_Eagle (If America falls, darkness will cover the face of the earth for a thousand years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]


To: Balding_Eagle
If the current ‘owner’ of the mineral rights takes the water in the process exercising his mineral rights, Mars is left with land that isn’t any good for grazing.

If Mars has been using that water, hasn't he established a claim on at least a prescriptive right which would then require compensation if harmed? Further, his surface rights should be purchased by which to develop the mineral estate, IOW the gas may not be his but access to it is. He may not be able to deny that access to a mineral prospective developer, but at least he should be compensated for whatever loss of existing use of surface rights results along with a guarantee to mitigate damage to the site before development commences.

34 posted on 01/10/2008 7:07:28 AM PST by Carry_Okie (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

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