Well, I'll Be Fracked!!!

I haven't read the article, but I believe what is being referred to is mineral rights.

Yes, that's exactly what it is. I just now stumbled across this, but it's appearing as if the home buyers were unaware of it, at the time of purchase.........................although I'm sure it was in the fine print.

It's fairly clear cut, what's being done................and apparently in other state's too.

My primary reason for posting was just a heads up for anyone here that might be looking to purchase a home in the US. I would imagine that if fracking operations commenced, the home's value would go down the toilet.

As a secondary question..................my well is 250' underground. Is there a standard for how far down I own?

* Side note to admin: Is there an easy way to add frack, fracking, etc. to the spell checker?

"Is there a standard for how far down I own?"

All the way.

To China?

I think I'm safe here. One of the Raleigh water supply reservoirs is just about in my back yard..................so fracking probably won't be happening too close.

If I were one of these homeowners, (and not informed of it), I'd be livid. They'll never be able to sell them.

All the way in the sense that your holdings would stop at the theoretical center of the earth in a single point.

I wouldn't worry about anything deeper than a mile or two down.

This goes into more detail on how they're doing it. Looks like the local and state government is smelling money too.

http://clarioncontent.blogspot.com/2012/04/fracking-in-durham.html

"All the way" only in USA

In most European countries 4m down

In Australia (most states and Territories) just the surface and 1m down

(Please check if these rules are STILL valid as they may have changed over the years)

In reading and speaking with locals on the topic of the Centralia PA mine fire, I was under the impression that subsurface rights in most of the USA are not with the land owner, but with the state or some other agency? This was not the case in Centralia - so there is a conspiracy theory that the fire keeps burning so the mineral rights can be taken from the locals...

In Canada, a miner can come and stake a claim on your 'soil' regardless of how long you have owned it, if there's some mineral or other resource they want to mine from there. Strange but true.

"Is there an easy way to add frack, fracking, etc. to the spell checker?"

Are you planning to do some fracking around here in the near future?

Oh Doorman. I think you've been around long enough to know that I only get fracking crazy on the weekends.

Not unheard of, at all.

Fair? Nope. Legal? Yep.

E Pubulus Consortium. Let the buyer beware!!!!

Well, I think it would be fair if it was clearly spelled out to the buyers, but it's not looking like it was.........................at least not here.

you mean 'Caveat emptor'

The original land owner probably sold the mineral rights to some oil company, then sold the land to some developer on the cheap...

"The five elements of a mineral right are:

1. the right to use as much of the surface as is reasonably necessary to access the minerals,
2. the right to execute any conveyances of mineral rights,
3. the right to receive bonus consideration,
4. the right to receive delay rentals and
5. the right to receive royalties.

The owner of a mineral interest may separately convey any or all of the above-listed interests, if the rights are the owner's to convey. Minerals may be possessed as a life estate, which does not permit a person to sell them, but merely that they can own the minerals so long as they live. After this, the mineral rights revert to a predesignated entity, such as a specific organization or person.

It is possible for the mineral right owners to sever and sell off the oil and gas royalties from oil and gas wells, while keeping the mineral rights. This conveys to the royalty buyer the rights to the revenue stream from the oil and gas production for a specific lease, but retains the mineral rights. In such case, if the oil lease expires, the royalty owner will have nothing and the mineral owner still owns the minerals."

The original land owner probably sold the mineral rights to some oil company, then sold the land to some developer on the cheap...

I don't think that's the case here. The developers themselves have been snatching up farm land for a few decades.............specifically to build subdivisions. The notion of fracking in NC is relatively new, and hasn't been completely cleared yet, but it looks like it will.

I think the developers smelled potential money underground when fracking came up, and snuck in a provision where they retain the mineral rights. Possibly duping the home buyers in the process. Fracking is a new enough concept here, that they may not have even had to, (by law), include the disclosure in the contract.

Well if it's D R Horton you're talking about, they have a subsidiary DRH Energy that probably gets these mineral rights....This probably is all about fracking, but the mineral rights include the water rights, so if you need a well, you'll have to buy the water....The land would have to be dirt cheap(oh yeah), it would seem, for anybody to buy...

Yeah. DR Horton's energy company gets the mineral rights. DR Horton also handles the financing in many cases, as well as the closing attorney for both them and the buyers. Pretty convenient set up.

The Spanish set it up this way. The laws of Mexico were honored by the USA as the northern parts of Mexico were ceded in the mid eighteen hundreds.

It certainly demonstrates how important it is, to read the small print during the tedious process of signing the documents during the process of purchasing a home.

I hate lawyer speak.

How about bold print that says:

By the way. If we find any valuable stuff under your house..........oil, gas, gold, diamonds..............anything at all, we can come drill for it whenever we want. None of it is yours...........it's all ours.

Whine whine whine whine! Think of the glass as half full!

I used to live around Pittsburgh where houses would fall into the ground after being undermined. Anti-mining forces would try to make this seem like a problem, rather than the benefit is obviously was. Bland, ordinary houses were turned into exciting, fun exploration sites.

You can see that there are aesthetic and functional benefits too. This house now has a nice two-tone effect, and ready access to a much-enlarged basement. The mining company charged the homeowner nothing to do these mods: all free of charge!

And the homeowners were provided with an opportunity to upgrade to a nicer home.

Wow!!! Next you're going to tell me that the fine state of PA was kind enough to help out by applying eminent domain, and helping these people out, by paying them pennies on the dollar of their purchase price.

Have you considered a career in real estate?

Here in Aus, the separation of mineral rights and surface ownership have been known to be separate for many years. The surface rights covered the top 6 feet and below that is covered in the mineral rights.

Water (like for wells etc) is regulated all the way. Each well has to be logged as dug/drilled and the results lodged with the necessary state/federal agencies. The drilling companies will not even move the rig onto site until you have the necessary permits.

There is another "tennure" in Aus. "Fossiking" rights can be obtained and these allow you to "stake a claim" and explore for potential minerals. Ownership is restricted to a small area and is a legacy from the gold rush times.

In one State over here in the late '80s, the government separated the coal rights from the mineral rights and confiscated ownership. (So they could make the profit from sales rather than isolated property owners.)

Wherever there is prolonged prospect of big money, greed will follow close, finding a way to exploit.

"The meek shall inherit the Earth, but not its mineral rights". J. Paul Getty

In the UK, the usual valuables (Coal, Oil, Gold, and something else I forget) are owned by the crown). Here is clip I found whilst checking the UK situation;

" http://www.bgs.ac.uk/mineralsuk/free_downloads/home.html#GUIDE

The rights to non-fuel minerals in Great Britain, with the exception of gold and silver, are mainly in private ownership although a significant proportion is owned by the Crown and by Government departments and agencies. Uranium and other prescribed minerals relating to the production of atomic energy belong to the mineral rights owner, but may be compulsorily purchased by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry with compensation under powers granted in the Atomic Energy Act 1946. Although mineral rights are generally held by the surface landowner, they may have been retained by a previous landowner when the surface freehold was sold, particularly in areas with a long history of mining such as south-west England. There is no national register of mineral rights, but the Land Registry may have details of surface ownership and current ownership of mineral rights. The registers are open for public inspection."

The link seems to be dead, but the clip may be useful to Brits.

Interesting.

This thread may turn out to yield some useful information for our members.

You don't know if you own the mineral rights on your land. See here.

Yet another thing that I never put any thought into. I think I own my own mineral rights here................although it's unlikely they'll ever be used.

I've lived in Texas and Louisiana for the better part of 50 years, and I have never lived on land that included the mineral rights. They were always sold off long before I arrived.

The first house I bought the mineral rights were held by Imperial Chemical Industries except the coal rights, which were held by the Duke of Devonshire.

Couldn't get them to dig the garden though.

Sounds like it's fairly common throughout the US and around the world. Probably not a big deal if the buyers are aware of it. Plus it probably rarely turned into an issue.

The fracking, however, being relatively new, is going to open up a big can of worms. I can imagine that, not only will mineral rights be maintained by the developers in the future, but old sites throughout Texas and other places, thought to be spent, (and the homeowners feeling safe), will be revisited to see if they are frackable.

It's not very often you'll here me calling for government oversite, but when it comes to fracking, I think it's essential. We've had plenty of conversations about fracking on here, and I'm still not convinced that this practice isn't going to lay waste to everything in it's path.

Interesting, where was that, Runcorn? I thought the Duke of Bridgewater owned a lot of coal mines in that area. Near Worsley anyway.

Derbyshire. Not far from the town of Whalley Bridge, the most mined area in the UK.

I wasn't allowed to pump or process brine either.

There have been several posts on the possibility of ground water contamination. I found this link to a EPA draft on test done at one site.

http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/wy/pavillion/EPA_ReportOnPavillion_Dec-8-2011.pdf

Personally I am not against fracking just want these companies to disclose what they are pumping in the ground. Its no good to have all this oil and gas if we are going to kill ourselves in the process.

Interesting. I'm getting a broken link or page not found.

But yeah....................find the safest way to do it, and everybody uses the same mix and follows the same rules.

Paste this into navigation tool bar it comes up. Don't see why the link won't work unless the EPA is

http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/wy/pavillion/EPA_ReportOnPavillion_Dec-8-2011.pdf

That's the norm in oil field country. No home owner in the Bradford oil field has the mineral rights under their properties, unless they are the owner of the company that has the rights. Yes - they can come onto your property and drill, and this is usually a good thing especially if they get natural gas - this usually means free gas to the home owner.

I'm not sure if it's necessarily a bad thing. There are many states, (if not most), that mineral rights never came up...................fracking has changed that. Here in NC, a potential home buyer wouldn't even think to be on the look out for mineral rights in their closing documents, nor the implications of not owning them.

I'm not particularly liking the tactic that DR Horton is employing here. Like lyn said, it's legal...................................but

There are very few "individual" properties in the coal mining regions of the US where the homeowner owns the mineral rights. Between 50 and 100 years ago, land agents scoured the coal regions of the US, buying the mineral rights of many properties for an up-front cash settlement, and a guaranteed "royalty" paid on the tons of coal or other product removed from the property. On a different note, I believe the homes being sold in Durham are on "city" water and sewer, and have no need for wells. There is no subsidence related to fracking, and the EPA has had to back down from its earlier reports that said fracking was damaging water quality, when it was clearly shown that the testing methods were tainted. I think the jury is still out on this, but most water wells are less than a thousand feet deep. Whereas most fracking occurs much deeper. And because of the little known thing we call gravity, the chemicals injected at say 2000 feet in depth, can not migrate upward.

Yes. I believe these subdivisions are all on city water and sewer.

And because of the little known thing we call gravity, the chemicals injected at say 2000 feet in depth, can not migrate upward.

Really?

I've got to play devil's advocate here. From what I understand, massive amounts of water, as well as chemicals, are involved in fracking. Fracking is done to get to both natural gas and oil. Fracking is the process of fracturing deep underground rock or shale. Both natural gas and oil are lighter than water and will migrate toward the surface...............floating on the pumped water and chemicals.

You're sure that none of the fracking chemicals will be carried up as well?

Even if they don't, I don't think we want oil and natural gas mixing freely with underground fresh water aquifers.........................even if we don't happen to be using them at the moment, we might need them someday.

Good post. Although, unless people are just outright lying, it doesn't sound like containment is always 100%.

Yes I remember that incident with the school, the natural gas at that time was thought to be useless, and somebody thought instead of just burning it as a waste product, that it might be provided free of charge to heat the school....imagine natural gas being burnt off as a nuisance byproduct.. natural gas being odorless was undetectable when leaking....unfortunately the incident at the school was an accident just waiting to happen... ...This was the incident that prompted the odor additive that we are all familiar with today, Mercaptan....

There might not be many, but my eldest son and his wife live in PA, in a town where she grew up. Her Grandmother lives with them, and through her having deeded her property to them, they have, and receive royalties on, and rent from, a piece of property adjacent to the one their house is on, which is being used as an active ROCK quarry. No minerals are being mined, nor an coal. It's just ROCK, being used by the state for road work, and by public and private entities for construction of all types. But it provides a steady income. Unfortunately, at least from my viewpoint (I don't live there, and they don't mind this, so it's probably one of those "I think I should mind my own business" non-issues) the quarrying company has no obligation to restore the land, fill in the pits, etc., when/if they ever use up the rock seam from the area. But, given that the quarry is about 500 feet up a mountain on which they live, with their house another 500 or so feet higher, and the mountain rising another 1200-1300 feet beyond that, it's likely they won't run out of rock before they run out of land they are allowed to quarry, at least in my lifetime.

But it does strike me that her grandparents must have been pretty shrewd when they owned the whole mountainside, 80 or so years ago, to have retained enough rights to secure that revenue stream for themselves.

I may be moving to PA myself, before long. Thanks to you guys, I'll be checking my deed for rights when I do.

The quarry is mining mineral.

Yap. Guess that would be true. I just usually think of mineral mining as going after a little more esoteric, rarer, more valuable goods. Not precious metals, but more than just ROCK. Have to shift my perspective some, I guess.

Sometimes a Good gravel can be a gold mine

I'm not sure if a little thing called gravity is very comforting. Be sure to click the link to the graphs.

http://www.riverreporter.com/issues/08-12-04/news-fracking.html

If you read the article closely, you will notice they never say will, they say MAY. Most of these articles are looking for a worst case scenario. If we all lived with this methodology, we wouldn't be able to buy hand saws or hammers, because somebody might slip and the hammer would fly through the air and kill someone.

A very good point, Old Coal Man. Cuandrilla (I forget the name) are in a spot of bother over here - fracking induced earthquakes. It's already on CR4. There is some admission, on their part, of possible link, but it will not stop further investigation and development. Taking stuff out of the ground is never without risk, and it's to their credit that they have taken concerns seriously. People will always assume a corporate/government conspiracy (and I suggest that of nobody here), but some times you just have to try things and see.

New technology demands that we consider 'worst case', but that's not the same as saying it's likely. The same people who scream in alarm, will hastily codemn a lack of foresight in invastigating new methods. Right now, we seem to have a lack of communication between technology and concerned citizens. The people in our way are called Politicians.

The fact is that humans have been mining almost since the day God placed us on this planet. What is funny is that we are deluged with claims that mining is going to destroy the world....not so far. Also, we hear that oil in the ocean is going to kill all the wild life and lead to the death of all humans. I know for a fact that oil and tars are continuously released into the ocean through natural cracks in the earth's crust. Also, I know that one "small" volcano releases more greenhouse gasses in one day, than humans have released in the last 200 years. Yet no honest reporter will mention these "facts". Why?

Also, I know that one "small" volcano releases more greenhouse gasses in one day, than humans have released in the last 200 years. Yet no honest reporter will mention these "facts". Why?

Your question pretty well answers itself. Your "fact" is not remotely close to being a fact, so of course no honest reporter will mention it. It is good that you put "facts" in quotes to show that you are writing ironically. Such "facts" are only "facts" to Faux News viewers.

This is the first site that popped up on the issue, but the myth has been around for many years, and is simple to debunk, with just a couple minutes spent in finding out what these emission rates really are. From the relevant paragraph:

• The claim is that volcanic action around the world in one day spews forth more greenhouse gases than all of man's activities in one year. The claim is completely false. In fact, all the volcanic activity over the entire world for one entire year emits 130-230 teragrams carbon dioxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano). In contrast, human activities produce over 7000 teragrams/year (1 petragram=1000 tergrams) (See Figure 3, right). So, volcanoes emit only 3% the amount that humans do. In fact, human activity exceed that of volcanic activity early in the Industrial Revolution (by 1870).
• Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide, Eos (2011) 92: 201-208.

Consider this:

If you were to buy an acre in a developed area. Would you want the person next to you using thier property to drill a gas well? Usually the developer will 'retain' the gas/oil rights so that this type of event doesn't happen.

With a deed transfer, ALL rights are transfered UNLESS exempted on the deed. However, the exemption can go back to the origination of the deed(s) on that property. That is why you retain a Lawyer to search the title. And title insurance is there if something gets "missed" in the title search.

If a developer withholds mineral rights, and gas or oil rights, it's usually for the reason stated above, but they can sell these rights so that the surface rights are retained by the person building a house on the property. In Pa. they are drilling properties and going lateral up to 5000 feet under surrounding properties (while paying royalties to the gas and oil's rightful owners.

I developed fifty acres into single acre lots, passing the rights to the owners, but not allowing drilling or commercial endevors. It was fair to all, as now the owners can unite and lease their rights to a gas company.

We need the energy, if not now, for our children, so use it wisely.

that is a very good point.

A title search is standard, as well as UCC filings, and any other discliamers such as buried gas tanks, dumping and such.

I see your point, but if I bought an acre in a developed area and I owned the mineral rights to everything underneath me, the person next to me would not be able to encroach on anything underneath me, nor would they be able to do anything that could adversely effect my property or anything under me, so the scenario is unlikely.

I haven't checked, but I would imagine that there are local zoning laws that would prevent one individual in a developed area from drilling for gas on their piece of property. The deal that you made with your 50 acres was a good one for everybody. Agreed.

Not so sure about that. Haven't you ever heard of horizontal drilling?

Sure I've heard of it, but I agree with the lawsuit. They should not be able to drill under neighboring property unless they buy leases to that too. Maybe not as much money as they are paying for the land where the drill is set up...................but that's bull$shit.

I'll bet the lawsuit from the club is secondary, because the club is being sued by the surrounding property owners.

I mean mineral rights are mineral rights..............suppose it was gold or diamonds under the neighboring property...............fair?

Man, talk about job security. One thing that will never dry up, is lucrative work for lawyers.

isn't some places I believe in Pennsylvania where they drilled for oil, the amount of oil that was removes actually had effects on the landscape, with that being it settled.

Like this?

I saw that before.......I wonder where?

I live in the middle of the Bradford oilfield (first developed in the 80's - that's 1880's) and I have never seen this. What has happened, was with the old time method of fracking, which was with nitroglycerin. since the oil sands here are only on the order of 800 to 2000 feet deep, the nitro explosion could and did cause some settling in the well head area. The oil is in porous sand stone which has a substantial matrix that supports the over burden quite fine. If you question this, I spent 11 years as a well analyst in western Pa and New York and I have seen the drilled up sands and core samples of such. It is amazing the oil can get out of the pores in this stuff.

Well now that I think about it, the salt wells in mid state New York are circulated with hot water and actually disolve up to 500 vertical feet of rock salt and leave a huge cavern. There is one entirely under Watkins Glen and so far, it hasn't sunk into the ground. The day that collapses, Lake Seneca will be on top of Watkins Glen.

In the movie "There Will Be Blood", Daniel Day Lewis played the part of a man who was quite ingenious at this...

It's an excellent movie...but quite gorey...

Wow! That looks like a good one.

In many areas there is a limit on the ratio of wells to acres of mineral rights owned or leased. In Texas, the Texas Railroad Commission sets the rules. If for instance, you own 20 acres of mineral rights, you may only be allowed one well. In this situation, if you owned 200 acres of adjoining property you would be allowed to drill 10 wells, but you could choose where to put those wells. They might be spread out evenly over the property, around all four edges, along the property line on only one side, or clumped into one corner. If there is a 100 acre lake on this 200 acre ranch, you will not be required to put half the wells in the middle of the lake. Therefore, just because someone else owns the mineral rights under any number of adjacent lots, they may, or not, own enough in total to drill a well, or if there is enough land for 1 or more wells, the well(s) may not be located close to any particular lot.

The laws differ from area to area, but the owner of severed mineral rights is entitled to 'reasonable' access to the surface to develop his mineral rights. But the owner of the surface rights has some control over his land also. Usually this is settled by contracts between the parties, but is also subject to litigation. You have to check the laws in your area.

Never mind about what's already there...what about what people are putting there that you don't want or need? And the effects?

That's weird. Well, I'd think with increased seismic activity, there would be no way to insure that the waste chemicals stayed put.

I'd have to say the increase in earthquakes looks to be real. They are also moving close to Yellowstone. Who knows what that could trigger?

http://coto2.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/fracking-arkansas/

Ouch!

That's getting within less than 100 miles from my vast holdings in central Ark.

Are your holdings anywhere near 'Hare Mountain'? I have ancestors from there many generations ago.

No.

Hare Mt. is in the Ozark National Forest in northwestern Ark.

My holdings are located just outside the Ouachita National Forest, and southeast of Hot Springs, Natl. Park. A great place for water sports and fishing in the summertime. Not to mention Oaklawn Park during racing season.

Yes, it's an endorsement.

You will be fracked all right. Try buying real estate in California. Always read the fine print

this is actually fairly routine, just about every person that buys a tract home in a subdivision does not get mineral rights along with the sale the developer retains them, transferring mineral rights generally requires a lot more paperwork and attorneys and few title companies will do that. in fact there is language in texas real estate title policies that specifically forbids the transfer of mineral rights under their title policy.

Yeah. I see you guys are used to it. It's a new thing here in NC.

This is not new to NC. There was quite a bit of mining in this state in the past. Many properties across NC do not retain their mineral rights. If your grandfather took money from a mining company 100 years ago and bought a new chevy, you can't complain that you aren't getting paid today.

That's true.

In this particular case, I believe it was just last Wednesday, D.R. Horton gave up the mining rights to the properties in question. They had not disclosed to the home buyers that the mineral rights were not theirs.

In response to your other post. I definitely don't fall into the classification of a fracking "chicken little". The amount of energy that we can extract through this method is pretty darned exciting...................if it's safe. I've done a little side research on it, and sure enough, there hasn't been one instance, in which it has been proven or shown, that fracking poisons groundwater.

It pays for people to get educated on things like this though. I also wouldn't want to find out 20 years from now, that we had royally screwed up.

Horton caved to public pressure. The buyers were fully aware they weren't getting the mineral rights to their properties, or should have been. The deeds were clear. When the title searches were done, this was made clear to everyone. Now whether the buyer paid attention or not, or admitted to this when asked, is a different story.

It smells a little fishy to me. I don't think Horton was completely fourthright.

http://www.builderonline.com/commissioning/dr-horton-to-stop-taking-drilling-rights-from-nc-homeowners.aspx