BOHICA... Oil and Gas Ban, despite the voters saying no in Nov...

[Grant H.]

https://kdvr.com/2019/03/01/colorado...-gas-drilling/

Even though it won't do any good, CO is a blue state and that won't be changing, make sure to write your reps/senators about this...

They tried to do this last year on the ballot with 112, the voters said NO.

But as has been expected in the O/G circles, they are going to cram it down our throats via legislation since they have the majorities and the governor...

[DavieD55]

Sure is going to be interesting someday when most manufacturing, farm equipment, and the food delivery trucks are halted.

[GeorgeandSugar]

Blue today. But holding out. Cutting their nose off, despite their face. Stupid! Good jobs and tax revenue will dry-up.

I just shake my head why in the world anyone would vote for these people. Look around and you can see the stupidity and the irrational thought process and eventually the unintended consequences.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DavieD55]

[GeorgeandSugar]

No kidding!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[avandelay]

If, and that is a big IF, the conservatives/republicans ever take control back I certainly hope they take the same scorched earth policy. I'm tired of the 'keep voting until we get our way and then it is settled law' bull flop.

[Ah Pook]

"Industry and environmental groups were reviewing the 27-page bill and had no immediate comment."

Could that be because it's so well written like most of the other "virtue signalling" legislation coming out lately?

I'm no fan of either side but the owners of the mineral rights usurp the top side owners. There are state agencies in place to regulate the extraction.

[Grant H.]

I'm no fan of either side but the owners of the mineral rights usurp the top side owners. There are state agencies in place to regulate the extraction.

I have to ask...

Can you explain your comment about mineral rights owners usurping surface owners? The connotation of what you wrote is extremely misleading, and I figure I better ask what you mean before I ramble on about how that whole relationship actually works.

[Ah Pook]

I have to ask...

Can you explain your comment about mineral rights owners usurping surface owners? The connotation of what you wrote is extremely misleading, and I figure I better ask what you mean before I ramble on about how that whole relationship actually works.

Mineral owners can come onto a property and exercise their rights to extract minerals. I am no expert on this and do not know the details or procedures. Look at the oil/gas exploration in Weld and Larimer counties. It is common for land to be sold without the mineral rights intact.

[Grant H.]

Mineral owners can come onto a property and exercise their rights to extract minerals. I am no expert on this and do not know the details or procedures. Look at the oil/gas exploration in Weld and Larimer counties. It is common for land to be sold without the mineral rights intact.

Okay, so you don't understand what is happening, and by assumption used the word "usurp" which puts an incorrect connotation of "illegal" or "by force" on the concept.

That was what I figured...

Surface owners are made ABUNDANTLY clear what rights they are buying before purchase. Those rights may be limited to surface only, surface and water, or surface/water/mineral. If someone buys a parcel of land without mineral rights, they have to understand that someone else owns the mineral rights. If they don't, that's just a "head in the sand" attitude that will only harm them.

Once the owner of the mineral rights decides to pursue producing them, they must work with the surface owner to come to a mutually acceptable agreement concerning the use of the surface for well heads, production assets, etc... Most often, this is handled in the form of a land lease for enough space to create an access road and a production pad. This will be a fairly small amount of space, but they are paid (monthly/annually/lump sum) for the use of that land. These agreements include details of all sorts, to include how the land will be returned to existing condition when the wells are P&A'd and the pad is removed (future).

The surface owners have the right to refuse leasing their land to the production group, which often results in the production company making a deal with their neighbors to place the pad there, and then use directional drilling to develop their assets... This leads to a LOT of pissed off idiots who scream about how the O/G companies are "cheating them" and "not paying what they should be" etc... I call them idiots because they had their chance, said no, and then get pissed when their neighbor is getting paid for the land use. (I am friends with a family that did exactly this, and they are still bitter against the company despite having been offered the chance to make the money themselves.)


ETA: I will throw this in there...

Property buyers are made abundantly aware of what they are buying, whether they read the details or not. One of the current issues has some dumb broad who claims "she didn't know she owned mineral rights". This means that she didn't pay attention when purchasing her home however many years ago. It was all handled in the contract.

ETA2: Buying and selling of mineral rights has been going on for a LONG time in the US, one of the last places on the earth where private individuals are allowed to own mineral rights. In the case of my friends family, their family bought a large piece of land several generations ago, and the forebear sold off the mineral rights for liquid capital to build a new shop and start a business out of it. There was a lot of anti-O/G whining from them when they found out they weren't going to be getting any royalties from the production, but they have no legal claim to it. Just because whoever sold them off doesn't own the property anymore doesn't negate the deal that was made for the mineral rights.