5 ms·

> When you sell your mineral rights, you're giving consent. What usually happens is that the gas companies lease your mineral rights and in that lease agreement

> When you sell your mineral rights, you're giving consent. What usually happens is that the gas companies lease your mineral rights and in that lease agreement are provisions that give the gas company the right to drill on your property, which includes equipment, trucks, etc I think it is more suspect when the new drilling technology destroys aquifers and other parts of the land.

ssharp 14y ago
I read a lease agreement a year or so ago and don't remember if it prohibited civil action if the water supply on the property is contaminated or destroyed. Even if it did, I'm not sure if such a clause would even hold up in court. The people who really lose out in the whole situation are the home owners who own small parcels of land for just their homes. They are still living in a rural area, relying on well water, but aren't getting any substantial oil money. If their water supplies are contaminated, they're entirely reliant on the legal system for saving their investment in their home. At least the people with leases are probably getting enough money to move elsewhere if the water supply is damaged.
- johnrgrace 14y ago
  I college I worked at exxonmobil in their lease accounting department so I do know something about this. It would be highly unusual for ANY lease to have language like this, oil companies have entire departments that pay out money for damage done to surface property owners. I know there was one guy who's prize bull would ALWAYS die from drinking saltwater from the oil well every year in April and demand $5,000 which was paid without a peep. Everyone was pretty sure that there was no bull, but it wasn't worth fighting for $5,000. Also if the lease did have language prohibiting civil action state mineral laws would make that a contract term that is void, except Louisiana you can never be sure about law there.
protomyth 14y ago
Can you point to one case where "new drilling technology destroys aquifers and other parts of the land" in regards to fracking?
- darkarmani 14y ago
  It's funny you mention this. In 2005 they got an exemption from the Clean Water Act. Good luck proving they are the source of your contamination you have an exemption like this: http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/wells_hydroreg.cfm http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfr...
  - protomyth 14y ago
    They are injecting the water 6,000 and 10,000 feet and aquifers are about 500 feet down. They had to get the exception according to current law even if they were somehow injecting directly into the earth's core. The exception was given because the water cannot get into the aquifer.
    - darkarmani 14y ago
      > The exception was given because the water cannot get into the aquifer. Now that is circular reasoning. In 10 years, we'll really know how well everything holds up. > They had to get the exception according to current law Except that isn't true. They only needed the exception if they didn't want to follow the rules set up by the EPA.
      - protomyth 14y ago
        > Now that is circular reasoning. In 10 years, we'll really know how well everything holds up. The natural gas and oil haven't got into the aquifer in all the years they have been some miles farther down. We are talking more than a mile of solid rock. It isn't circular reasoning, it is basic logic, physics, and geology. > Except that isn't true. They only needed the exception if they didn't want to follow the rules set up by the EPA. The EPA rules (specifically Safe Drinking Water Act) dates back to 1973. Modern fracking happened in 1998. This is two years after Clinton signed the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments in 1996. The EPA rules didn't take into account depth of injection, thus the reason of the exception. You might want to look at how many other activities have exceptions because the rules don't fit new situations.

ssharp 14y ago

I read a lease agreement a year or so ago and don't remember if it prohibited civil action if the water supply on the property is contaminated or destroyed. Even if it did, I'm not sure if such a clause would even hold up in court. The people who really lose out in the whole situation are the home owners who own small parcels of land for just their homes. They are still living in a rural area, relying on well water, but aren't getting any substantial oil money. If their water supplies are contaminated, they're entirely reliant on the legal system for saving their investment in their home. At least the people with leases are probably getting enough money to move elsewhere if the water supply is damaged.

johnrgrace 14y ago
I college I worked at exxonmobil in their lease accounting department so I do know something about this. It would be highly unusual for ANY lease to have language like this, oil companies have entire departments that pay out money for damage done to surface property owners. I know there was one guy who's prize bull would ALWAYS die from drinking saltwater from the oil well every year in April and demand $5,000 which was paid without a peep. Everyone was pretty sure that there was no bull, but it wasn't worth fighting for $5,000. Also if the lease did have language prohibiting civil action state mineral laws would make that a contract term that is void, except Louisiana you can never be sure about law there.

protomyth 14y ago

Can you point to one case where "new drilling technology destroys aquifers and other parts of the land" in regards to fracking?

darkarmani 14y ago
It's funny you mention this. In 2005 they got an exemption from the Clean Water Act. Good luck proving they are the source of your contamination you have an exemption like this: http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/wells_hydroreg.cfm http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfr...
- protomyth 14y ago
  They are injecting the water 6,000 and 10,000 feet and aquifers are about 500 feet down. They had to get the exception according to current law even if they were somehow injecting directly into the earth's core. The exception was given because the water cannot get into the aquifer.
  - darkarmani 14y ago
    > The exception was given because the water cannot get into the aquifer. Now that is circular reasoning. In 10 years, we'll really know how well everything holds up. > They had to get the exception according to current law Except that isn't true. They only needed the exception if they didn't want to follow the rules set up by the EPA.
    - protomyth 14y ago
      > Now that is circular reasoning. In 10 years, we'll really know how well everything holds up. The natural gas and oil haven't got into the aquifer in all the years they have been some miles farther down. We are talking more than a mile of solid rock. It isn't circular reasoning, it is basic logic, physics, and geology. > Except that isn't true. They only needed the exception if they didn't want to follow the rules set up by the EPA. The EPA rules (specifically Safe Drinking Water Act) dates back to 1973. Modern fracking happened in 1998. This is two years after Clinton signed the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments in 1996. The EPA rules didn't take into account depth of injection, thus the reason of the exception. You might want to look at how many other activities have exceptions because the rules don't fit new situations.