The First MACJR'S Mini-Verse² Forum
Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
MACJR

Avatar / Picture

Solar Power
Registered:
Posts: 1,904
Reply with quote  #1 

 

I never liked Mars bars… although I wanted to because of the Mars name. I do like a few of the other Mars brand candies though, like Snickers, M&Ms, and my all time favorite, Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups… oops, wrong candy company for that last one. Okay, so I prefer more of the Hershey’s candies but that is beside the point. 

 

Anyway, my candy preferences have nothing to do with the issue I am posting about here. Actually, this post is not about candy at all, but about government, law, and land owner rights.

 

I do not care how rich or how poor someone is, I do not think it is right, or fair, to have someone’s property rights stomped on by the courts, the government, or by other business interests. When someone’s land can be drilled on for whatever purpose, without the land owners consent, I feel something is very wrong with our legal system! Especially when the land can be degraded by this outside business's activities... not to mention the harmful environmental impacts of those activities!

 

Read the article below to see what I am talking about and find out just what the candy connection is.

 

 

MACJR

 

 

 

 

Candy Magnate Loses Bid to Bar Drilling on Ranch

 

 

By JIM ROBBINS

The New York Times

Published: January 10, 2008

 

HELENA, Mont. — A state judge has ruled that an energy company has the right to explore and drill for natural gas on a sprawling cattle ranch owned by the billionaire candy magnate Forrest E. Mars Jr., despite his opposition.

 

The company, Pinnacle Gas Resources, began drilling 90 minutes after the judge issued his ruling Tuesday, because its leases were set to expire this week if Pinnacle did not act.

 

“The company expects to learn a lot by drilling this first well,” said Chris Mangen, a lawyer who represented Pinnacle. “I expect they hope to find lots of gas.”

 

Lonnie Wright, the son-in-law of Forrest Mars and the manager of the 82,000-acre Diamond Cross ranch, said he had no choice but to let the company in. “I don’t contemplate any other action,” Mr. Wright said. “I got lots I could add but nothing that would help the situation.”

 

On Monday, ranch officials prevented Pinnacle workers from entering the property, telling them they would be in a “breach of the peace” if they tried to do so.

 

The conflict is the latest skirmish in a long war between ranchers and energy companies over a natural gas known as coal-bed methane. Technology created in the 1990s allowed producers to cheaply tap natural gas that occurs near the surface in underground coal deposits. That prompted a boom in the West, especially in Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming.

 

The technology has also generated controversy in cattle country because of something called split estate. The Stock Raising Homestead Act of 1916 gave land to ranchers, but reserved the mineral rights underneath for the federal government, which leased it to energy companies. There are about 60 million acres of split-estate land in the West.

 

The Mars ranch has about 10,300 acres of federal mineral leases. While energy companies often reach an agreement over the use of a rancher’s land, they have the upper hand legally and the landowner cannot deny access.

 

The judge required Pinnacle to post a $10,000 bond for possible damages on the ranch.

 

The methane occurs in aquifers, and to get the gas, producers pump out huge volumes of water, strip out the gas and then dispose of the water. Mr. Mars, who according to Forbes magazine is worth about $14 billion and whose company, Mars Inc., produces Snickers and M&M’s, among other candies, has said he opposes the development because of the volume of water that would be pumped out.

 

“Development comes with new roads, power lines, weed problems and ponds of water,” said Art Hayes of Birney, Mont., a neighbor of Mr. Mars who has split-estate minerals that have not yet been developed. “They could come in here at any time. We’re under the gun.”

 

The controversy has been playing out for a long time in other states.

 

“Some areas where water is usable you can improve a ranch,” with such development, said Tony Wendtland, a lawyer in Sheridan, Wyo., who represents about 20 landowners in claims against energy companies; they say energy development has damaged their land. “But more than half the time the water is so salty it kills the grass and turns the ground into cement.”

 

Some ranchers say they have been forced out of business by energy development. The problem has led to changes in the access law in some states, though landowners say it is too soon to tell how those changes are working.

 

Coal-bed methane development also affects mule deer and antelope and is believed to be the major cause in the decline of the sage grouse, which environmentalists believe should be given federal protection.

 

 

The New York Times


__________________
“They can shoot me dead but the moral high ground is mine!” The 10th Doctor
waltcesca

Avatar / Picture

Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 1,885
Reply with quote  #2 
MAC, I gotta side with you on this one, however, that land IS kinda in a sticky legal situation, after all, MARS only 'owns' the top and the underneath by the government. . . . Now I am getting a headache thinking about this. But it does remind me of out here in my city, Pacific Grove. We (this town) sits on top of a fresh water lake (or river or something). Anyway, IF I owned a plot of land, I would be BARRED from sinking a well on MY property! I would have to use the city's water supply (a supply, by the way, that is NOT fed by this underwater source). So, my 'plan', if I ever get stupid enough to own out here) is to build a large building, completely empty on the inside, and sink that well and use MY water on MY property! Oh sure, I would probably get tossed into jail and pay a fine or three, but that would be AFTER I make sure to spread the news ALL over this peninsula! Of course, just threatening to do so would end in a 'gas leak leading to an explosion, no survivors) but at least I stood up for something!!!

__________________
I am what I am and that's ALL what I am!
MACJR

Avatar / Picture

Solar Power
Registered:
Posts: 1,904
Reply with quote  #3 

Quote:
Originally Posted by waltcesca
MAC, I gotta side with you on this one, however, that land IS kinda in a sticky legal situation, after all, MARS only 'owns' the top and the underneath by the government. . . . Now I am getting a headache thinking about this. But it does remind me of out here in my city, Pacific Grove. We (this town) sits on top of a fresh water lake (or river or something). Anyway, IF I owned a plot of land, I would be BARRED from sinking a well on MY property! I would have to use the city's water supply (a supply, by the way, that is NOT fed by this underwater source). So, my 'plan', if I ever get stupid enough to own out here) is to build a large building, completely empty on the inside, and sink that well and use MY water on MY property! Oh sure, I would probably get tossed into jail and pay a fine or three, but that would be AFTER I make sure to spread the news ALL over this peninsula! Of course, just threatening to do so would end in a 'gas leak leading to an explosion, no survivors) but at least I stood up for something!!!

Well, Walt, do you know what happens when you siphon too much water out from an underground lake? You get sinkholes that swallow up land and houses. Maybe this well idea you have is not one of your brightest ideas. 

 

And, as for the government owning the mineral and water rights under a land owner's land, I feel it is wrong to disrupt, destroy, or make useless, the land above what the government owns without due compensation, at the very least, to the owner of the land above the government owned resources.

 

Imagine of someone sold you a house, but not the land under the house, and then land owner decides to make his land into a toxic waste dump. Well, at least a house is small enough to be moved if you can afford it. Moving your land from its location over the government owned resources is not possible and leaves you completely at the mercy of the government and their laws (imagine a government with the capacity for mercy, wouldn't that be something?).

 

I would think that the land owner’s ability to use the land as they see, legally, fit is their right, as owners, of that top layer of land. I believe it would behoove the government to show more concern for the land owner’s rights. If the government is bound and determined to let some company rape and pillage the resources under a land owner’s land, the land owner should be adequately compensated by the government and/or the businesses that gain the right to rape the land owner’s land for the resources under it.

 

I mean, what a sick joke. They sell you the land and then grant someone else the right to come in and disrupt or destroy its usefulness.

 

 

MACJR


__________________
“They can shoot me dead but the moral high ground is mine!” The 10th Doctor
waltcesca

Avatar / Picture

Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 1,885
Reply with quote  #4 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MACJR

Quote:
Originally Posted by waltcesca
MAC, I gotta side with you on this one, however, that land IS kinda in a sticky legal situation, after all, MARS only 'owns' the top and the underneath by the government. . . . Now I am getting a headache thinking about this. But it does remind me of out here in my city, Pacific Grove. We (this town) sits on top of a fresh water lake (or river or something). Anyway, IF I owned a plot of land, I would be BARRED from sinking a well on MY property! I would have to use the city's water supply (a supply, by the way, that is NOT fed by this underwater source). So, my 'plan', if I ever get stupid enough to own out here) is to build a large building, completely empty on the inside, and sink that well and use MY water on MY property! Oh sure, I would probably get tossed into jail and pay a fine or three, but that would be AFTER I make sure to spread the news ALL over this peninsula! Of course, just threatening to do so would end in a 'gas leak leading to an explosion, no survivors) but at least I stood up for something!!!

Well, Walt, do you know what happens when you siphon too much water out from an underground lake? You get sinkholes that swallow up land and houses. Maybe this well idea you have is not one of your brightest ideas.

And, as for the government owning the mineral and water rights under a land owner's land, I feel it is wrong to disrupt, destroy, or make useless, the land above what the government owns without due compensation, at the very least, to the owner of the land above the government owned resources.

Imagine of someone sold you a house, but not the land under the house, and then land owner decides to make his land into a toxic waste dump. Well, at least a house is small enough to be moved if you can afford it. Moving your land from its location over the government owned resources is not possible and leaves you completely at the mercy of the government and their laws (imagine a government with the capacity for mercy, wouldn't that be something?).

I would think that the land owner’s ability to use the land as they see, legally, fit is their right, as owners, of that top layer of land. I believe it would behoove the government to show more concern for the land owner’s rights. If the government is bound and determined to let some company rape and pillage the resources under a land owner’s land, the land owner should be adequately compensated by the government and/or the businesses that gain the right to rape the land owner’s land for the resources under it.

I mean, what a sick joke. They sell you the land and then grant someone else the right to come in and disrupt or destroy its usefulness.

MACJR



MAC, first off, of COURSE I know to replace what I take out with something else, and by the time I got that whole thing going, I will know what. That in mind, however, I would also have to figure out a way to DRILL through the bedrock that is covering MOST of said fresh water, but after that. . .

Oh and yes, it IS a sick joke, but our government has been pulling said jokes since our inception, UNFORTUNATELY!

__________________
I am what I am and that's ALL what I am!
Questmaker

Avatar / Picture

White Dwarf
Registered:
Posts: 782
Reply with quote  #5 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MACJR

If the government is bound and determined to let some company rape and pillage the resources under a land owner’s land, the land owner should be adequately compensated by the government and/or the businesses that gain the right to rape the land owner’s land for the resources under it.

MACJR



I don't really think that a $10,000 bond is adequate in this instance. I realize it is just a bond and that the company could pay for any damages but considering the possible damages it doesn't seem like but. Frell, some private security companies bond their employees for that much.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!

Back to Top Forum