ndert2
Follow us on Facebook

Latest Comments

ND Outdoors Sites

FishingBuddy
NoDakOutdoors

Featured Link

Meanwhile

Login Form



Support NorthDecoder

Search This Site

Loading

Feature Stories

Personal
The Low Road

Amazon Search

JoomlaWatch 1.2.12 - Joomla Monitor and Live Stats by Matej Koval
A New Look At A Couple Of Old Problems PDF Print E-mail
Written by Jim Fuglie   

(Cross-posted, with permission, from The Prairie Blog.)

SURFACE OWNER PROTECTION

Okay, I know I said I was done writing about this “Special Places” thing Wayne Stenehjem has going, but people keep bringing it up to me and there always seem to be some new ideas floating around, so I’m going to take one more whack at it. Not that I really think it will help, but every idea should at least be looked at.

So here’s a suggestion for Agriculture Commissioner Doug Goehring, who maintains that Stenehjem’s search for a common sense solution to stop the oil industry from just putting oil wells, and the roads that lead up to them, and the infrastructure it takes to service them, any damn place they want to put them, is trampling on private property rights: You might want to consider Stenehjem’s proposal in a different light, Doug. If it is really farmers and ranchers you are worried about, you might want to consider Stenehjem’s ideas as surface owners’ protection.

Because it’s a pretty well-known fact that most landowners don’t own the minerals under their land. And that leaves them vulnerable to the absentee mineral owners who don’t give a shit about our farmers and ranchers, who don’t care if an oil well is going to get plunked down in the middle of their winter pasture, or if the road being built to accommodate a thousand fracking trucks is going to run right past their feedlot.

I’ve read that only 25 per cent of landowners in North Dakota actually own the minerals under their land. And in North Dakota, mineral ownership trumps surface ownership. So if you’ve inherited the minerals under a section of land that grandpa left to you when he quit farming and sold the land to someone else, you can go get your oil no matter what the guy who’s now farming the land says.

But under Stenehjem’s proposal, if you’re a rancher and you own land that is near one of the 18 places he’s picked out for special consideration in the siting of an oil well, or a road, or a tank battery, you’re going to get some help from the Game and Fish Department or the State Historical Society in deciding where the oil well is going to be located, and where the road is going to be built. I’d think the state’s Agriculture Commissioner would be pretty happy about that. Because under Stenehjem’s proposal, no one is going to be told that they can’t go get their oil. But they are going to be told where experts think the best location for that oil well is. And it’s a darned good bet that those experts are going to consult the rancher who is going to have to live with that well before they sign off on a drilling permit application. The oil company and the absentee mineral owner may or may not do that, but you can bet the biologists for the state’s wildlife agency are going to ask the rancher if there is some critical wildlife habitat on their land that they’d like protected.

So this bullshit Goehring is arguing about, taking the protection of private land out of Stenehjem’s proposal, is just plain goofy. What makes a rancher’s private land less valuable than the public land next door? The rancher is likely grazing cattle on both of those parcels. Why shouldn’t they be afforded equal protection? Doesn’t it just stand to reason that if the Oil and Gas Division is going to offer some protection to a parcel of public land but not to the private land next to it, that the oil companies are just going to plunk down that well and build that road on the private land, maybe exactly where the rancher doesn’t want it, but is powerless to stop it? And then the rancher is going to blame the government for protecting the public land, but not his land.

And as long as we’re talking about surface owner protection, do we need to re-examine all our surface owner protection laws to make sure that the state is doing all it can to help our farmers and ranchers who don’t own the minerals under their land? Right now, an oil company has to notify the farmer or rancher that they want to put a well on his property, but if the rancher doesn’t want the well there, he has no recourse except to go to court to try to stop it. Uh huh. Do you know how many lawyers those oil companies have? And how much they get paid? Good luck with that.

But if the Industrial Commission had a policy like the one Stenehjem is proposing for special places, dealing with ALL drilling permits, protecting ALL private land, wouldn’t the rancher have a little bigger hammer when dealing with the oil companies? And didn’t Goehring say recently that “all of North Dakota is special?” Well, then, let’s treat it all the same. Let’s give our farmers and ranchers who actually DO live here all the tools we can to deal with the people who own the minerals under their land but DON’T live here.

So it seems to me Goehring’s got it backwards. Seems to me he’s out to please the oil companies at the expense of his real constituents. Or just spouting the right wing drivel we’re all getting really, really tired of.

And maybe Stenehjem ought to consider renaming his idea the Surface Owners Protection Policy.

JUST MAKES SENSE

Oh, and before I go, I want to pass along a suggestion from someone who really is concerned about our Agriculture Commissioner. After reading the other day that Doug Goehring was forced to take one of his young female staff members up to his motel room to walk on his back when he was away with some staff on a business trip, a friend of mine suggested that really shouldn’t have been necessary. If the Agriculture Commissioner was having that kind of back pain, and the back-walking thing was what cured it, my friend says that he should have been able to get professional help for that and not have to rely on an inexperienced young staffer to help him. My friend says that it looks like poor old Doug fell through a crack in the health care system, and maybe there ought to be a provision in Obamacare for just such a thing, and that insurance companies should be required to pay for that. And that way Doug could have gotten the relief he needs, provided by a professional, and covered by insurance. I don’t know if there really are professional back-walkers, but if not, it could lead to a whole new cottage industry—Obamacare could take credit for creating a whole bunch of new jobs. I think my friend is on to something.


Comments (3)add comment

Pontius.G said:

Problems
There are always so many issues concerning these things. When people want to drill for oil they need to make sure that things are done right so that the land owners do not feel trampled on or taken advantage of. It can be a fine line but land owners should never feel the need to do something that they are not totally in agreement with for anyone.

 

 

Problems when playing Pokies

On the homepage of Titancasino you will find tabs right at the very top of the page that you can click on to find out any information that you might need to know. You can easily checkout how to download the games, find out what deposits are offered, read their blog, get support, or find out any other information that you require when you have problems with pokies. As you can see, the ease of use of this casino is something that can keep you coming back to this casino in the future to play some of the most amazing pokies on the Internet.

Titancasino offers various other casino games as well and is even getting into the 'live dealer' action so that if you want to play other games besides the pokies you can do so with a live dealer right from your computer screen. It is important for any online casino to keep up with all the changes in technology and it would appear that Titancasino does this very well. The site loads easy and it certainly seems to be one of the best of the best on the Internet.

 
February 11, 2014
Votes: +0

nimrod said:

Health Care Cracks
I like how Jim's friend picked up on the health care angle. Clever.
 
February 13, 2014
Votes: +0

Steve C. said:

...
I think too much credit is given to Stenehjem in all this hoopla. One forgets that he too is republican, anti-regulation, and not effective on the enforcement end of law breakers,(Blundt for example). As part of the Industrial Commission, someone had to be outspoken, (even if it was just a whisper), to give the impression that not all republicans drink the koolaid. Stenehjem just drew the short straw, and was quite possibly the smartest of the three amigos, to draft something that makes it look like he is "genuine" about the special places, while leaving a way out for himself. When republicans ever talk any nonsense about "regulation", it is for the purpose of regulating anyone's opposition to their master plan!
 
March 12, 2014
Votes: +0

Write comment

security image
Write the displayed characters


busy