General Discussion

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)

7. This is true, at least in some states--enough of your neighbors sign on, and you're

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 07:19 AM

Jul 2012

going to be forced into it. It's called force-pooling, I think. It keeps you from standing in the way of other entities exercising their right to access their minerals. In the end, most states will do what's good for oil, gas, mining...and you, piddly little landowner of a few acres of dirt, can go pound salt.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

44 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

No to �fracking� doesn�t mean no: Landowner refusal can�t stop drilling [View all] HiPointDem Jul 2012 OP

My question: Where are the Teabaggers and the militias? redgreenandblue Jul 2012 #1

Good question... KansDem Jul 2012 #2

Anytime.. 12ZTR Jul 2012 #3

Who cares who they voted for? DiverDave Jul 2012 #4

Some things transcend politics and some people need to lay in the bed they made leftyohiolib Jul 2012 #9

Yes they do, but theft DiverDave Jul 2012 #26

This message was self-deleted by its author leftyohiolib Aug 2012 #39

You wont give us your mineral rights. We'll take them. fasttense Jul 2012 #5

All those tea baggers flobee1 Jul 2012 #6

This is true, at least in some states--enough of your neighbors sign on, and you're TwilightGardener Jul 2012 #7

This guy should form a LLC and sell himself the mineral rights. Loudestlib Jul 2012 #8

What difference would that make? badtoworse Jul 2012 #11

Interesting twist on the subject?.....I guess that just as we do not own the airspace above our prop lostnote12 Jul 2012 #32

You own the mineral rights, unless they've been sold, which is common in some parts of the country badtoworse Jul 2012 #35

Force Pooling Has Been Around For Many, Many Years. (nt) Paladin Jul 2012 #10

They won't be drilling on his property or building roads or pipelines badtoworse Jul 2012 #12

Right! Plus, he still has his 2nd amendment rights. Chef Eric Jul 2012 #13

What an erudite response. badtoworse Jul 2012 #14

Thank you. Chef Eric Jul 2012 #18

Gasland is a crock, a politically motivated hit piece. badtoworse Jul 2012 #20

Oh please SalviaBlue Jul 2012 #22

It's not a question of bad. The issue is risk. badtoworse Jul 2012 #23

They say that water is SAFE?? DiverDave Jul 2012 #28

Actually, it was the EPA that said it was safe to drink. badtoworse Jul 2012 #34

Some people think exploiting the earth and profiting from climate change is cool. raouldukelives Aug 2012 #40

Some people don't care if the lights stay on, people can drive or whether homes stay warm in winter. badtoworse Aug 2012 #41

Speaking of homes staying warm in the winter. raouldukelives Aug 2012 #42

We don't have the technology to get off fossil fuels anytime soon. badtoworse Aug 2012 #43

And we never will have one at this rate. raouldukelives Aug 2012 #44

Maybe he was planning on giving the oil and gas to his grandkids? Hassin Bin Sober Jul 2012 #27

You do realize that Politicalboi Jul 2012 #29

It has happened in a small number of cases,... badtoworse Jul 2012 #36

Gasland part deux triplepoint Jul 2012 #15

The EPA investigated the water in Dimock and has declared it safe badtoworse Jul 2012 #16

Nice Try. Thanks for Playing/Trolling Though. triplepoint Jul 2012 #21

That's baloney badtoworse Jul 2012 #24

Cabot was providing the water, not the EPA. HiPointDem Jul 2012 #37

At the end of the day, the EPA (not just the DEP) is on record that Dimock's water is safe to drink badtoworse Aug 2012 #38

Probably a hand slap like BP Politicalboi Jul 2012 #31

Where are the wingnut defenders of private property? Odin2005 Jul 2012 #17

Corporations are people my friend! Liberal_in_LA Jul 2012 #19

All my life, I have said that no rights were sacred. malthaussen Jul 2012 #25

Post removed Post removed Jul 2012 #30

" You People Are Victums Of Your Own Ignorance"???...I guess so.... lostnote12 Jul 2012 #33