- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
CO Supreme Court rules against "local control" of the O&G industry
Posted on 5/2/16 at 11:16 am
Posted on 5/2/16 at 11:16 am
LINK
For those that haven't been aware, Fort Collins and Longmont tried to set a precedent of local control of the oil and gas industry by banning fracking. The state and industry associations then sued and years of legal battles ensued that ended today with CO's Supreme Court handing down it's ruling. Not only is this important for the O&G industry in CO, it will have effects in other states with local communities trying to take control as well.
For those that haven't been aware, Fort Collins and Longmont tried to set a precedent of local control of the oil and gas industry by banning fracking. The state and industry associations then sued and years of legal battles ensued that ended today with CO's Supreme Court handing down it's ruling. Not only is this important for the O&G industry in CO, it will have effects in other states with local communities trying to take control as well.
quote:
The Colorado Supreme Court today upheld decades of state law that places authority over hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, squarely in the hands of state officials.
The court ruled in a pair of cases, which garnered national attention, aimed at voter-approved bans on fracking in Fort Collins and Longmont.
In the case of Fort Collins, where voters in 2013 approved a five-year moratorium on fracking in the city, the court ruled that "Fort Collin's five-year moratorium on fracking and the storage of fracking waste operationally conflicts with the effectuation of state law. Accordingly, we hold that the moratorium is preempted by state law and is, therefore, invalid and unenforceable," the decision read.
In Longmont, where voters approved a ban on fracking in the city in 2012, the court used identical language. Ultimately finding that "Longmont's fracking ban is preempted by state law and therefore, is invalid and unenforceable."
This post was edited on 5/2/16 at 11:22 am
5
Posted on 5/2/16 at 11:18 am to ColoradoAg03
Natural resource and mineral rights arguments are always a very interesting discussion.
Posted on 5/2/16 at 11:20 am to upgrayedd
quote:
Natural resource and mineral rights arguments are always a very interesting discussion.
Fancy way to say "neat"
Posted on 5/2/16 at 11:22 am to ColoradoAg03
Pesky property rights getting in the way again?
This post was edited on 5/2/16 at 11:22 am
Posted on 5/2/16 at 11:24 am to ColoradoAg03
Let us know when you want to borrow the Texaco flag to fly over your state capital.
Posted on 5/2/16 at 11:25 am to MSMHater
quote:
Pesky property rights getting in the way again?
whose property rights?
the landowners that willingly signs the lease agreement?
or his neighbor?
Posted on 5/2/16 at 11:25 am to ColoradoAg03
This happened in Denton, Tx as well. Lovely to see the will of the people get a big frick you by the next level of "establishment".
Posted on 5/2/16 at 11:28 am to Salmon
quote:
the landowners that willingly signs the lease agreement?
Yea, them. They should be able to execute those agreements without the state gov interfering in this legal commerce.
quote:
or his neighbor?
No, not so much him.
Posted on 5/2/16 at 11:29 am to Salmon
quote:This is what I want to know. When they pump oil out of the landowner's ground, how do they know it's not coming from under the neighbor's land? And how deep does somebody's land go?
or his neighbor?
Posted on 5/2/16 at 11:29 am to MSMHater
quote:
Pesky property rights getting in the way again?
I'm assuming you are coming down on the side AGAINST the ban.
This isn't exactly like an HOA telling you what kind of brick you can have on your home. This is local governments trying to tell private citizens what they can and cannot do with "their" minerals and resources. An outright ban by many people who have no actual interest in the property is absurd. Regulations and safety protocols to protect communities are one thing, but to simply ban it is never going to work.
Posted on 5/2/16 at 11:30 am to slackster
I agree
Posted on 5/2/16 at 11:32 am to ColoradoAg03
Meanwhile, in Boulder...
Posted on 5/2/16 at 11:32 am to slackster
Are you sure it wasn't up for a vote?
Posted on 5/2/16 at 11:32 am to MSMHater
quote:
the landowners that willingly signs the lease agreement?
quote:
Yea, them. They should be able to execute those agreements without the state gov interfering in this legal commerce.
I get the feeling you're not really understanding what the sides were arguing for. A landowner with mineral rights within those city limits would not be able to execute an agreement if the city was allowed to ban fracking, therefore those landowners want state control. And trust me, there are plenty of such landowners that opposed local control because it would infringe upon their mineral/property rights.
This post was edited on 5/2/16 at 11:38 am
Posted on 5/2/16 at 11:33 am to Sao
quote:
Lovely to see the will of the people get a big frick you by the next level of "establishment".
When the will of the people infringe on the rights of the individual, you've got a problem. Our courts and government are supposed to operate in such a fashion that they protect the liberties of the few and other minorities from the rule of the majority.
It is the same basic principles that are applied in these LGBT issues and things like slavery in the past, albeit to varying levels. Like it or not, the rights of the few cannot be infringed upon by the majority. (I'm not advocating for one or the other, just explaining the groundwork at play)
Posted on 5/2/16 at 11:36 am to ColoradoAg03
quote:
I get the feeling you're not really understanding what the sides were arguing for
His OP was a bit ambiguous but I believe he understands the concept. He is implying that individual property rights override the local government's attempt to ban fracking. If the only way to keep those rights is to cede control to the state instead of the local government, so be it.
This post was edited on 5/2/16 at 11:37 am
Posted on 5/2/16 at 11:37 am to Captain Fantasy
quote:
Meanwhile, in Boulder...
There's no drilling in Boulder anyways, that's why no one took them to court.
The only heat they took, other than looking stupid, was a push to get on the ballot a measure that would block Boulder County from receiving their allocation of any state funds whatsoever that come from oil and gas, which is a lot.
This post was edited on 5/2/16 at 11:40 am
Posted on 5/2/16 at 11:49 am to airfernando
quote:
This is what I want to know. When they pump oil out of the landowner's ground, how do they know it's not coming from under the neighbor's land? And how deep does somebody's land go?
1) Because they survey the shite out of these kind of things.
2) Theoretically all the way to the center of the Earth if you have the mineral rights. It is also important to note that landowners are not necessarily mineral rights owners, and the mineral rights only grant you ownership of minerals and other things "of the Earth." For instance, if you owned mineral rights but the landowner dug into the ground and found a treasure chest, the treasure chest is his to keep since it is not a mineral or other product of the Earth.
For good measure, you also own all of the air above your property, but it tends to be pretty useless and you only have real grounds for trespassing in the first 500-1000 feet above your land. I believe there was a case in the 40s where a chicken farm sued the US government for flying over his land at like 80-100 feet above the ground and causing many of his chickens to go crazy and kill themselves by running into the walls and stuff. He won the case because the government infringed on his ability to enjoy his land.
Posted on 5/2/16 at 11:55 am to slackster
quote:
When they pump oil out of the landowner's ground, how do they know it's not coming from under the neighbor's land?
For vertical wells, it's pretty easy and straight forward where the bottom hole location is relative to the surface hole location.
For horizontal wells, yes, they are precisely surveyed before hand and implemented into the drilling plan on the application for permit to drill (APD). Once approved by the state, those drilling plans have to be followed exactly, or a new lateral and bottom hole location must be surveyed and approved. As-drilled X/Y/Z (depth) coordinates must be submitted to the state after the well is drilled. You'd be amazed how accurate drilling is these days. They can hit a basketball 10k ft down and nearly a mile away.
This post was edited on 5/2/16 at 11:57 am
Posted on 5/2/16 at 12:05 pm to airfernando
quote:
This is what I want to know. When they pump oil out of the landowner's ground, how do they know it's not coming from under the neighbor's land?
It likely is. That's when the rule of capture comes into play.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News