Political Theory

Re: Is this agreement valid?

Sieben — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:03:45 GMT

Drilling a well takes less than a month... after the rig is gone the wellhead is about 3x the size of a fire hydrant. They might need to bring back a workover rig every 5-10 years but these are typically smaller and are there for 1-3 days.

Also horizontal drilling has become relatively easy, so you can get at reservoirs without drilling directly above them. I.e. you can usually pick a spot that is ideal for everyone.

So I think this is kind of a non-issue...

Re: Is this agreement valid?

Merlin — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:36:08 GMT

eliotn:
When farms were homesteaded in the emergent US, farmers would sell the mineral rights to their property to oil companies.

Beg your pardon? How could farmers sell right they hadn’t? They had only homesteaded the land surface and its underground to the depth of tilling, and that’s all. Minerals where still unwonted, so the companies could sue the farmers for incidental theft. I, for one, would back them up in court.

And to try answer the main question, the parties would probably come to terms along the following lines: the rig would be build if the companies forfeited their rights to being repaid.

Re: Is this agreement valid?

DanielMuff — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 06:44:57 GMT

eliotn:

Knight_of_BAAWA:
They're still valid, but any pollution would have to be dealt with via compensation to the other homeowners in the area, given that they were there first, as it were.

Knight_of_BAAWA, lets take the hypothetical situation where the only way to access an oil deposit is by replacing a house with an oil rig. In this dilemma, are they agressing against the homeowners property by demolishing the house and building an oil rig without the homeowner's consent?

Yes.

Re: Is this agreement valid?

Angurse — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 05:02:28 GMT

eliotn:
In this dilemma, are they agressing against the homeowners property by demolishing the house and building an oil rig without the homeowner's consent?

Demolishing a house without the homeowners consent? Is that not agression 101? (Perhaps I've misread you)

Re: Is this agreement valid?

Knight_of_BAAWA — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 04:59:52 GMT

Yes, they would be. They only own the mineral rights, not the house.

Re: Is this agreement valid?

eliotn — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 04:37:01 GMT

Knight_of_BAAWA:
They're still valid, but any pollution would have to be dealt with via compensation to the other homeowners in the area, given that they were there first, as it were.

Knight_of_BAAWA, lets take the hypothetical situation where the only way to access an oil deposit is by replacing a house with an oil rig. In this dilemma, are they agressing against the homeowners property by demolishing the house and building an oil rig without the homeowner's consent?

Re: Is this agreement valid?

wilderness — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 03:57:04 GMT

i know this is off-topic and I drop it immediately after this post but...

i noticed something missing besides Knight's avatar. I know for a fact that Knight is one of the most stubborn individuals when it comes to truth that I've EVER encountered in my life. in a day and age when herd-like mentality and 'worry about them more than the truth' are ever-expanding it has been a GREAT HONOR to encounter somebody that knows what individuality means. And to add, that what is good is not something to just give away but to hold onto so the dialogue may never die in which truth always has a voice at the table even in the most seemingly obscure of places.

Re: Is this agreement valid?

Knight_of_BAAWA — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 03:46:29 GMT

They're still valid, but any pollution would have to be dealt with via compensation to the other homeowners in the area, given that they were there first, as it were.

Re: Is this agreement valid?

DanielMuff — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 03:12:11 GMT

eliotn:

When farms were homesteaded in the emergent US, farmers would sell the mineral rights to their property to oil companies. This meant that they could drill a hole and extract oil if they found any. Today, they still hold those mineral rights. However, the farmers agreed to it because the oil rigs could be placed without interfering much with their land. But today, when homes are clustered closer together, are the contracts still valid?

To the extent that they violate the rights of the other homeowners, yes.

Is this agreement valid?

eliotn — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 02:58:10 GMT

When farms were homesteaded in the emergent US, farmers would sell the mineral rights to their property to oil companies. This meant that they could drill a hole and extract oil if they found any. Today, they still hold those mineral rights. However, the farmers agreed to it because the oil rigs could be placed without interfering much with their land. But today, when homes are clustered closer together, are the contracts still valid?