Not sure where you read that or whom told you that, but its nowhere close to the truth.
Letâs just leave it to osha
To answer the initial question, a mineral owner is a lessor. They are no different than a landlord in a shopping center who rents out their space to a tenant. To be sued for negligence, the lessor has to owe a duty to a third party. He doesnât. He might owe a duty to the lessee (only) in some limited circumstances. So, for negligence, no. Especially no, if the lessor only owned a mineral interest, and no surface.
There is a federal environmental suit (RCRA) which could be used if the site was some sort of toxic waste dump. However, I know of no time that the federal government sought to impose liability on a landowner.
Correct. But the landowner has a duty to not allow leasehold to violate regs.
The neighbors within 600 feet or 300 ft of edge of location cannot just absorb the depreciation and the nuisance laws. People have different tolerances
Basically an environmental disaster.
I can understand your frustration. People living close to wind power facilities have problems with unrelenting noise and electrical impulses. However, the mineral owner lessor has no real ability to monitor a lesseeâs compliance with state regulations and requirements or to override the decisions of the state agency. The mineral owner does not have access to the oil companyâs internal records or many filings with state agency. A mineral ownerâs direct interference with oil and gas operations without cause or evidence of wrongdoing can lead to a lawsuit by the oil company. Complaints need to go through the state regulatory agency.
2 Likes
Do you have a case to support the idea that a landowner has a duty to not allow leasehold to violate regulations?
The law says otherwise.
If a landlord completely surrenders both possession and control of the premises to a tenant, the landlord is not liable for injury to a third party that occurs on the premises. A landlord owes a duty to third parties only for conditions over which he or she retains control. Thus, in the absence of a statute, covenant, or fraudulent concealment, a landlord who gives the tenant full control and possession of leased property generally will not be liable for personal injuries sustained by other persons lawfully upon the leased property4 where there is otherwise no privity between the victim and the owner.5 A landlordâs right to enter the premises does not, itself, constitute control of the premises so as to impose a duty on the landlord to protect third parties.
Under your theory, the landowner would have to be out there every day monitoring every single activity. They would have to determine whether the company was drilling in a lawful location, whether they were producing from a permitted zone, whether they were properly disposing of waste, etc.
Under this theory, I need to go check on my tenant in my rent house to make sure they arenât violating any number of laws every single day.
As to the depreciation of value, if there is any, the landowner came into ownership knowing or should have known that a well could be drilled on their property, as the mineral estate is the dominant estate.
Hi tennis you are right and correct. Because the pollution crosses property lines it becomes civil law. Guided by federal law. Enforcement federal. Average depreciation 7 to 9 percent depending on distance from location. Itâs lessens insurability and can void mortgage insurance
If u are violating laws you have no insurance. The operators insurance will pay the judgement the sue operator and landowner to recover. Itâs called subrogation it can be very surprising to someone that thought they had insurance
I could be liable if I let it happen
Excellent info sir but I am the neighbor not the lessor
What laws are being violated? The more you post, the more confusing it becomes, did you sign a surface use agreement with the operator or is the well on a neighbors property?
I am 300 ft from location for drill Frac Site. I know what drilling and fracking involves and I donât want silicosis or noise. Is what it is. There is no way they can drill and Frac without violating noise and dust laws for myself and others that live nearby. It canât be done
Well is proposed on neighbors property
It looks like you have a few issues that are bothering you. You may want to go to the OCC website and look at the relevant rules to distance to structures as well as noise levels. That may help to gain some relief. You may want to contact the operator to see if they have a mitigation team to help you.
Right James they know. If they weâre concerned about it they would address I donât have to tell them. I guess they think no one has even been on fracs before
James itâs distance as much as it is noise and dust ongoing nuisance. I donât think the rig and stay under the noise limits much less fracing
I donât think the rig alone can stay under noise nuisance much less fracing
Rural Oklahoma I believe requires a 300â distance from existing homes at the time of drilling. Municipals may have greater requirements. The problem with these minimums is they have not been updated for the large sites and equipment required for horizontal drilling. The OCC needs to implement noise reduction requirements. Good luck.
Yes James exactly they have not been updated for fracin. Not challenging thier right to drill and Frac. Just keep all noise and silicosis on the pad not on neighboring property