4 ms·
>The responsibility would legally have rested with the well operator. This is only half true. The responsibility is delegated to the operator by the land owner
by riversflow 6y ago
>The responsibility would legally have rested with the well operator.
This is only half true. The responsibility is delegated to the operator by the land owner, but it is ultimately the land owner's liability. Consider if the land owner was leasing the rights to the operator and then decided to change the lease agreement in a way that made the operator insolvent. If it were the way you describe the operator would be hostage of the landowner. Allowing the liability to pass upstream to the property owner makes complete sense.
- totalZero 6y agoIt is entirely true. Economic benefit derived only as a landowner or from a royalty interest is generally not sufficient to establish liability for plugging a well. If the operator were solvent, it would have had to pay. Also, Venoco's bankruptcy wasn't caused by this lease agreement. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/calgem/idle_well https://www.conservation.ca.gov/calgem/idle_well