I don't want to start a debate on who should be President and on rumors. I'm interested to see on based on the information that is out. What kind of effect will Bernie have on mineral right owners. I know he wants to move toward alternative energies and ban fracking.
Most simply put, I believe it would significantly reduce the value of our mineral assets. Preventing the ability to develop or access our mineral interests is essentially "taking" (a legal term) by the government. Taking should not occur by the government without proper compensation. This issue is being discussed currently in Colorado.
What would you expect from a socialist? Even Cruz stated in the debate last nite that he is against subsidies for oil companies.
I just reviewed the Ted Cruz bio on his website. It states his father started a small oil and gas company in his early years but is now a preacher. Does anyone know about this and what is his real position on the business? I know he is for the Keystone pipeline.
IMO a Bernie Sanders presidency would have little to no effect on mineral owners. First consider the difficulty of getting anything through congress. Second, oil is going to dominate transportation for quite some time. Solar and wind of enough capacity to fuel electric cars won't be a threat to the ICE for (take a guess 20yrs?, 40yrs?) although it does seem that all automakers are getting into the segment. Natural gas will continue to displace coal and that is a good thing. The article I link to below has an interesting analysis of the tax credit extenders that were part of the deal to allow for oil exports and the recent SCOTUS decision in favor of FERC on the demand response issue.
I know your question is hypothetical but really what are the chances Bernie will be elected?
He's a Socialist. So, this is a moot question.
I think the "government" will eventually nationalize the energy sector. It will become a national security issue... linked to the current environmental causes... already determined and soon to be enforced as a world-wide security/environmental crisis. Sorry to be so negative... but that's where its headed... i feel pretty certain.
This is a great political issue to pursue; but, I don't think the moderators of this forum want us to get off on all the deep political issues that just happens to have lots of con's and a few pro's on this issue. That leads to too much forum turmoil and we forget the real reason we are here. Don't get me wrong, I would love to get in the middle of this "mud wrestling" discussion if the moderators don't object; but, I don't think it is healthy for our forum.
Bigfoot... you're right. I couldn't help it. Maybe i misunderstood the point of the question.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not a moderator and I love a good "mud wrestling" discussion as much as anyone; but, I do know from experience that this type discussion is deeply seeded in the overall political climate and like it or not there are two different sides and only a few in the middle. I just believe we should stay with the forum as designed and not get too far off base, at least not very often.
Thanks for the follow up.
i thought it to an unusual topic. but i'm ok.
Obviously under socialism or communism the means of production will be publicly owned.
Under Democratic Socialism does Bernie have the right to take the mineral rights from the owners? Will he have to paid compensation to mineral right owners.
Here the Economist looks beyond the labeling.
Yet while Mr Sanders has built his campaign on a jeremiad against wealth inequality and corporate greed, he isn’t, properly speaking, a socialist—or even a democratic socialist. The better term encapsulating Mr Sanders’ positions is “social democrat”, a label that jibes with his rather mainstream embrace of “private companies that thrive and grow in America” and belief that “the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth of America deserve a fair deal”. To clarify matters, Mr Sanders flatly disavows the very heart of socialism as defined by Karl Marx: “I don’t believe government should own the means of production”, he says.
My impressions of Bernie Sanders positions on Fossil Fuels are totally NEGATIVE.
On that basis alone no landowner / mineral owner / lessor ought to vote for him (or Clinton or ANY Democrat) - actually no citizen of our country ought to.
Let's go with Rubio and/ or Fiorina and / or other PRO Energy / Fossil Fuel Development Republican this time.
Any other 3rd Party Candidates will just split the vote giving great advantage and I think the election to the anti-energy plan / anti-fossil fuel development Democrats.
That will sink the country in my humble opinion - don't let it happen.
Why not vote for Cruz, who wants to abolish the RFS, is not pro-global warming?
I just reviewed a speech by Rubio from Sept. 2, 2015 which can be downloaded from his website. The title is "Energy for a New American Century". It is well-written and definitely is supportive of the oil and gas industry and less government regulation. Probably worth a read. Of course voters never know what a candidate will really do when he/she gets elected. Here is the link:
I have eliminated some candidates but am not endorsing Rubio nor anyone else. I think voters need to be well-informed.
I'm kinda concerned about Cruz and ties with Evangelicals myself.
I don't view those ties as a plus.
Rubio picked up Santorum's endorsement when Santorum's bowed out.
Rand Paul left the race too and I wonder who he endorses.
How do you think Republican pro fossil fuel development policies would affect landowners / mineral owners / lessors in the final analysis ? ?
More abuse ? ?
Or would we be better off ? ?
That's the real question.
What good if we aren't also rewarded ? ?
Is there a difference whoever gets elected as far as we're concerned (as land / mineral owners / lessors) ? ?