3 ms·
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. Eve
by 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 agoI 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.