The oil and gas industry has reaped profits without ensuring there will be money to plug and clean up their wells. In Oklahoma, that work could cost more than $7 billion if it falls to the state.
Did you even read the article? Due to the way Oklahoma law works the family owns the land and farm, but the oil companies have the “mineral rights” underneath which obligates the family to let them drill even after they tried in the courts to stop it.
Oklahoma law allows the oil companies to drill an unlimited number of wells on only a $25,000 bond. So they just don’t clean up the wells and let the state have the bond because it’s cheaper.
The problem is the state, not the family. Nowhere does it mention the family selling their rights to the minerals underneath or anything like that.
I fail to see how the family is supporting the oil industry.
I actually did read the article, including where the guys parents allowed the companies to drill on their property multiple times and were even paid by the oil company for a small part of what was taken from their land. That’s my point. It was fine before the consequences, but now that the consequences have arrived, it’s some form of tragedy. No. It isn’t. You and your parents were paid for the risk. You don’t get to plead austerity when you salted your own fields with greed decades ago.
This guy and his parents got theirs for over 100 years out of this land and are now crying because their decisions allowed them to destroy it. We need another flood for people like this.
Stan’s 84-year-old parents, Don and Shirley Ledgerwood, have watched oil companies drill multiple wells on their farm, where the family had grown crops and run cattle. The family received small royalty payments from the oil production.
Which still does not say that their parents let them. They received the royalty payments I’m assuming because the law about mineral rights requires the drillers to pay the land owners.
Nowhere in this article does it say they ever gave them permission. From what I understand their parents did not sell the mineral rights.
Can you please cite where it says or implies otherwise?
They didn’t need to sell the mineral rights because they never owned them. They had people on their land, which they did own, and accepted payment instead of chasing them off. Probably even thought it was a good deal at the time. And that’s what I’ve been getting at this whole time. These people are quibbling over who owns what and who should compensate who instead of questioning the bigger issue of mining for hazardous resources immediately adjacent to food production. Nobody gives a shit about anyone down the line. Parents, landowners, oil companies, nobody.
Did you even read the article? Due to the way Oklahoma law works the family owns the land and farm, but the oil companies have the “mineral rights” underneath which obligates the family to let them drill even after they tried in the courts to stop it.
Oklahoma law allows the oil companies to drill an unlimited number of wells on only a $25,000 bond. So they just don’t clean up the wells and let the state have the bond because it’s cheaper.
The problem is the state, not the family. Nowhere does it mention the family selling their rights to the minerals underneath or anything like that.
I fail to see how the family is supporting the oil industry.
I actually did read the article, including where the guys parents allowed the companies to drill on their property multiple times and were even paid by the oil company for a small part of what was taken from their land. That’s my point. It was fine before the consequences, but now that the consequences have arrived, it’s some form of tragedy. No. It isn’t. You and your parents were paid for the risk. You don’t get to plead austerity when you salted your own fields with greed decades ago.
This guy and his parents got theirs for over 100 years out of this land and are now crying because their decisions allowed them to destroy it. We need another flood for people like this.
All the article says about their parents is:
Which still does not say that their parents let them. They received the royalty payments I’m assuming because the law about mineral rights requires the drillers to pay the land owners.
Nowhere in this article does it say they ever gave them permission. From what I understand their parents did not sell the mineral rights.
Can you please cite where it says or implies otherwise?
They didn’t need to sell the mineral rights because they never owned them. They had people on their land, which they did own, and accepted payment instead of chasing them off. Probably even thought it was a good deal at the time. And that’s what I’ve been getting at this whole time. These people are quibbling over who owns what and who should compensate who instead of questioning the bigger issue of mining for hazardous resources immediately adjacent to food production. Nobody gives a shit about anyone down the line. Parents, landowners, oil companies, nobody.