Should land owners be responsible?

[tomfly]

I am not for or against Fracking. Until a dependable cheep alternative solution is found we are stuck with fossil flues. Some say it is safe some say it is an environmental disaster waiting to happen. There is ambiguous evidence to support both sides.

If I as a homeowner (land owner) has an in ground oil tank used as vessel to hold home heating oil. After an amount of time the tank becomes compromised and begins to leak. I as the home owner am responsible for the environmental clean up and subsequent fines that may occur .The cost could be as much as 80 to 100 thousand in remediation costs. The company that supplies the oil is not fined. I am. The same is true for the owner of a Gas station with holding tanks in the ground.

Why should landowners that permit Fracking on their properties be any different? If the land owner is responsible for any unwanted discharge into the environment, this creates a single point of responsibility; just as in the case of the oil tank or gas station. Make them retain an insurance policy. The Gas station owner and home owner with the oil tank have to.
I say if the landowners want to share the wealth. Let them share in the responsibility. If the operations on your land F@@@ up our trout streams or give 5 year old Mary down the road cancer. The land owner should pay for those consequences. Because the Fracking Company may not exist when it come time to pay up.

I know it is easy to say the land is leased the land and the landowner is exonerated from any responsibility. But ask yourself this; Little Mary is down the street drinking and bathing in that well water. Can you ensure her parents that the operations on your land are not going to affect her health in any way. If it does can you look her parents in the eye and say; I only leased the land I had no idea this was going to happen. And can you sleep at night with that knowledge? I know I couldn’t.

I am not against Fracking it just needs to be not 80% not 90% But 100% safe

What say you NEFF.

 

[dcabarle]

If I as a homeowner (land owner) has an in ground oil tank used as vessel to hold home heating oil. After an amount of time the tank becomes compromised and begins to leak. I as the home owner am responsible for the environmental clean up and subsequent fines that may occur .The cost could be as much as 80 to 100 thousand in remediation costs. The company that supplies the oil is not fined. I am. The same is true for the owner of a Gas station with holding tanks in the ground.

You're not comparing apples to apples here but I'll offer my opinion...

As a land owner, I think it would be best to have all of the safety measures spelled out in a contract. As a land owner, I'd hire an attorney to draw up a contract that ensures the company borrowing my land is held 100% responsible for any damages that may incur up to 10 years or so after they leave.

Why should landowners that permit Fracking on their properties be any different? If the land owner is responsible for any unwanted discharge into the environment, this creates a single point of responsibility; just as in the case of the oil tank or gas station. Make them retain an insurance policy. The Gas station owner and home owner with the oil tank have to.

I say if the landowners want to share the wealth. Let them share in the responsibility. If the operations on your land F@@@ up our trout streams or give 5 year old Mary down the road cancer. The land owner should pay for those consequences. Because the Fracking Company may not exist when it come time to pay up.

The oil company doesn't own anything associated with your property such as the oil tank. Why should they be responsible for a faulty oil tank? It doesn't belong to them and I feel as a land owner, if your tank is leaking it's your responsibility to clean it up (as unfortunate as that may be). If the oil company filling the tank happens to damage your property while filling the tank than they should be held responsible.

I know it is easy to say the land is leased the land and the landowner is exonerated from any responsibility. But ask yourself this; Little Mary is down the street drinking and bathing in that well water. Can you ensure her parents that the operations on your land are not going to affect her health in any way. If it does can you look her parents in the eye and say; I only leased the land I had no idea this was going to happen. And can you sleep at night with that knowledge? I know I couldn’t.

Let's say you have a daughter and little Mary sleeps over one night. You ensure the parents that you would safely drive the kids to school the next morning in your leased vehicle. On the way to school a truck smashes into your leased vehicle and kills little Mary. You and your kid are home safe and sound... Since you offered to bring little Mary to school, should you be held responsible? Maybe the leasing company should be responsible, after all, had they not leased you the car, this wouldn't have happened.

I am not against Fracking it just needs to be not 80% not 90% But 100% safe

I'm not against driving and I drive my kids and their friends to each others houses all the time. I know driving is not 100% safe but I drive anyway (by choice).

 

[Future Fanatic]

If I hire a private contractor to come on my property to cut down a tree and the tree falls onto my neighbors garage, am I liable for the damage? Does the contractor have insurance to cover the damages that he causes? (He should have insurance). Is it my duty to make sure he does have insurance? I believe so. I believe that DC is right that the contract I enter into should ensure that this is spelled out. MY attorney certainly will in the future...

 

[Pete]

Aside from any "moral issues" or a desire for revenge, it's just not practical....

A smart lawyer, will generally sue everyone involved, but concentrate on the entity with the deepest pockets. I doubt if that's going to be the average landowner.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As to the legal/moral issues.
You own an office building.
You rent a suite of offices to a financial consultant/broker.
He fleeces his customers.
In the past, some people in his profession have fleeced customers....
Are you responsible?

 

[tompg]

It seems to me that anyone who will be rewarded is taking a risk. No reward without risk, right? Risk takers should be insured and liable. It's the cost of doing business. Dividing up that risk and responsibility is not a task I would want.

To expound on the contractor liability issue...If I hire a temp at my office who harasses people in my company, I am certainly liable. the contractor is also liable but I will certainly be sued. I can even be sued if my vendors contribute to an uncomfortable work environment off site. Maybe it's BS but it the way it is.

About the hypothetical tree mentioned earlier. In Mahwah NJ a few months ago, a man hired a contractor to chop done a few hundred trees so he could have a nicer view. Turns out the trees weren't his to cut down. He has been held responsible for the destruction and not the contractor.

No let's hear about comparing apples to bowling balls. The hairdo would like that.

 

[tomk6251]

If the landowner voluntarily enters into the lease (e.g., not forced into it by govt), they should be responsible along with the lessee. They probably entered into the lease for some form of benefit. With benefit comes risk. The benefit should outweigh the risk. Their land..their responsibility not to cause harm to others, or allow others to cause harm.

 

[Future Fanatic]

They probably entered into the lease for some form of benefit. With benefit comes risk. The benefit should outweigh the risk. Their land..their responsibility not to cause harm to others, or allow others to cause harm.

Not on the original point, but yours...You own a car. You weigh the benefits and the risks. Your vehicle, when used the way it is intended spews various toxins into the air. This causes people sickness and death. Are you responsible for damages?

I hire a surgeon to take my kid's tonsils out. He takes his gall bladder out. Am I responsible for damages to my kid? Does my kid sue me?

This is what mal practice insurance is for, right?

closer?:
You own a house that you rent. Your tenant takes care of the lawn. He spreads a pesticide that kills the neighbors cat. Are you the responsible one?

We need a lawyer... because I'm not one...

 

[tomfly]

Not on the original point, but yours...You own a car. You weigh the benefits and the risks. Your vehicle, when used the way it is intended spews various toxins into the air. This causes people sickness and death. Are you responsible for damages?

I hire a surgeon to take my kid's tonsils out. He takes his gall bladder out. Am I responsible for damages to my kid? Does my kid sue me?

This is what mal practice insurance is for, right?

closer?:
You own a house that you rent. Your tenant takes care of the lawn. He spreads a pesticide that kills the neighbors cat. Are you the responsible one?

We need a lawyer... because I'm not one...

Just by your well thought out argument (not) You would take the money but no responsibility (Typical Liberal thought pattern). You admit it is probably not safe as you would want it to be or you would take responsibility.

Not on the original point, but yours...You own a car. You weigh the benefits and the risks. Your vehicle, when used the way it is intended spews various toxins into the air. This causes people sickness and death. Are you responsible for damages?
Just another justification statement.

You own a house that you rent. Your tenant takes care of the lawn. He spreads a pesticide that kills the neighbors cat. Are you the responsible one?

And yes if a toxic substance was set on you property by a different person other then yourself. You can sue them but you are ultimately responsible for the clean up.

I hire a surgeon to take my kid's tonsils out. He takes his gall bladder out. Am I responsible for damages to my kid? Does my kid sue me?
That is the dumbest statement I have ever read!

 

[tomk6251]

Not on the original point, but yours

Sorry, FF - thought the post was about leasing land for fracking purposes. Leasing a car or your home is commonplace and has been around for many years. Don't think same can be said about leasing for fracking. Guess I s/h started my post IMHO...I'll wait to hear what the attorney GB says, assuming he's not still playing outside with his new dog.

 

[Future Fanatic]

About the hypothetical tree mentioned earlier. In Mahwah NJ a few months ago, a man hired a contractor to chop done a few hundred trees so he could have a nicer view. Turns out the trees weren't his to cut down. He has been held responsible for the destruction and not the contractor.

It seems to me, that the "tree owner" should sue the tree cutter(he did it) AND the guy who hired him. THEN the "tree cutter" should sue the guy who hired him for representing himself as the owner, causing the cutter to do something that caused him a loss(the tree owner suit).

Liability Insurance...

 

[tompg]

Still going with the "everyone else is doing it so why can't I argument?" Does that fly with the kids you teach? Everyone else is beating up the funny looking kid so I can too, right teacher? I hope you don't teach logic, critical thought, or how to tie shoes.

 

[Future Fanatic]

Sorry, FF - thought the post was about leasing land for fracking purposes. Leasing a car or your home is commonplace and has been around for many years. Don't think same can be said about leasing for fracking. Guess I s/h started my post IMHO...I'll wait to hear what the attorney GB says, assuming he's not still playing outside with his new dog.

No need to be sorry...
MY point was that people carry insurance for what they do wrong.
I guess it would be up to the state to determine whether the landowner and/or the contractors and/or the company that leases the land be responsible for the insurance.

But here's a twist. Would it be just the landowner on which sets the drilling pad or all the landowners under which the well bore is drilled? How about those who did not sign a lease? They still receive royalties...

 

[McRiffle]

So still avoiding my question so I'll ask it again here FF.....

Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing Under the Safe Drinking Water Act | Hydraulic Fracturing | US EPA

So I've asked this question before and no one's responded. In particular I'd like to hear what FF or Kilgore have to say about it.

Why was the injection of fracking fluid made exempt from the SWDA (Safe Water Drinking Act) in a few years back?

 

[Future Fanatic]

Keep telling yousel that so if little Mary gets sick you can sleep at night.

So you believe that the homeowner is responsible for his tenant's actions?
A parent is responsible for the doctor's work?
You are responsible for the toxins that come out of your car?

Who cares really. If the state says that landowners are somehow responsible for the drilling companies contractors, the landowners SHOULD just carry insurance OR in the lease, ensure that the drilling company takes full responsibility for their actions.

 

[Future Fanatic]

I'm not avoiding it. You must think that I don't want to answer...

So still avoiding my question so I'll ask it again here FF.....

Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing Under the Safe Drinking Water Act | Hydraulic Fracturing | US EPA

So I've asked this question before and no one's responded. In particular I'd like to hear what FF or Kilgore have to say about it.

Why was the injection of fracking fluid made exempt from the SWDA (Safe Water Drinking Act) in a few years back?

 

[tomfly]

You're not comparing apples to apples here but I'll offer my opinion...

As a land owner, I think it would be best to have all of the safety measures spelled out in a contract. As a land owner, I'd hire an attorney to draw up a contract that ensures the company borrowing my land is held 100% responsible for any damages that may incur up to 10 years or so after they leave.
The oil company doesn't own anything associated with your property such as the oil tank. Why should they be responsible for a faulty oil tank? It doesn't belong to them and I feel as a land owner, if your tank is leaking it's your responsibility to clean it up (as unfortunate as that may be). If the oil company filling the tank happens to damage your property while filling the tank than they should be held responsible.

Let's say you have a daughter and little Mary sleeps over one night. You ensure the parents that you would safely drive the kids to school the next morning in your leased vehicle. On the way to school a truck smashes into your leased vehicle and kills little Mary. You and your kid are home safe and sound... Since you offered to bring little Mary to school, should you be held responsible? Maybe the leasing company should be responsible, after all, had they not leased you the car, this wouldn't have happened.

I'm not against driving and I drive my kids and their friends to each others houses all the time. I know driving is not 100% safe but I drive anyway (by choice).

You are missing my point entirely.

You knowingly allowing some to put toxic compounds into the ground and you exonerate yourself from any possible repercussions from that because you can hide behind a lease agreement . Well if that is not a definition of evil then I do not know what is.

 

[Future Fanatic]

Still going with the "everyone else is doing it so why can't I argument?" Does that fly with the kids you teach? Everyone else is beating up the funny looking kid so I can too, right teacher? I hope you don't teach logic, critical thought, or how to tie shoes.

I don't follow...

Beating up funny looking kids?

 

[Future Fanatic]

You are missing my point entirely.

You knowingly allowing some to put toxic compounds into the ground and you exonerate yourself from any possible repercussions from that because you can hide behind a lease agreement . Well if that is not a definition of evil then I do not know what is.

You knowingly put toxins in the air with your vehicle. Are you evil?

 

[lightenup]

So still avoiding my question so I'll ask it again here FF.....

Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing Under the Safe Drinking Water Act | Hydraulic Fracturing | US EPA

So I've asked this question before and no one's responded. In particular I'd like to hear what FF or Kilgore have to say about it.

Why was the injection of fracking fluid made exempt from the SWDA (Safe Water Drinking Act) in a few years back?

I'm leaning towards money and politics, and money and dirty politics......someone got paid...to leave it out.

 

[tomfly]

So you believe that the homeowner is responsible for his tenant's actions?
A parent is responsible for the doctor's work?
You are responsible for the toxins that come out of your car?

Who cares really. If the state says that landowners are somehow responsible for the drilling companies contractors, the landowners SHOULD just carry insurance OR in the lease, ensure that the drilling company takes full responsibility for their actions.

I never said that.
You just twist it to discredit my beliefs
My point is
Are you ok with allowing someone to put toxins in a well on you property, And you are ok with not sharing any future responsibilities from that action. And if some kid gets sick from those actions. You are perfectly ok with that.

 

[McRiffle]

I didn't call you evil but you obviously are defensively calling me evil but regardless, you still won't answer the question so I will for you.

"Ahem....(clearing alpaca pubic hair from my throat)...

Fracking was made exempt from the clean water act because drilling companies know it is very likely to contaminate drinking water, probably for a few lifetimes at least. Thus it would have been too expensive, in other words not profitable enough, for the drilling companies to make a profit."

How was my FF impersonation?

 

[mbwmn]

So still avoiding my question so I'll ask it again here FF.....

Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing Under the Safe Drinking Water Act | Hydraulic Fracturing | US EPA

So I've asked this question before and no one's responded. In particular I'd like to hear what FF or Kilgore have to say about it.

Why was the injection of fracking fluid made exempt from the SWDA (Safe Water Drinking Act) in a few years back?

ooohhh ooohhhh....mmeee...meee...pick me....i know...pick me...ooohhh ooohhhh....Mr, Kahhh-terrrr....

I prefer to jump on the 2009-2013 bandwagon that blames it on BUSH.

 

[Future Fanatic]

I never said that.
You just twist it to discredit my beliefs
My point is
Are you ok with allowing someone to put toxins in a well on you property, And you are ok with not sharing any future responsibilities from that action. And if some kid gets sick from those actions. You are perfectly ok with that.

Like deja vu...
If my state says the process can be done safely... then I will consider it safe. Could an accident happen? SURE, as it can in MANY other industrial activities... If my state says that I can be held responsible for damages due to negligence of the drilling company or some accident, then of course I would be. I would be sure to protect my self with an insurance policy that would cover any unfortunate accident or contractor error that my state might deem me responsible for.

Of course, how many deaths and sicknesses are attributed to the fracking industry? They've been doing it for sixty years, over a million wells...

 

[Future Fanatic]

I didn't call you evil but you obviously are defensively calling me evil but regardless, you still won't answer the question so I will for you.

"Ahem....(clearing alpaca pubic hair from my throat)...

Fracking was made exempt from the clean water act because drilling companies know it is very likely to contaminate drinking water, probably for a few lifetimes at least. Thus it would have been too expensive, in other words not profitable enough, for the drilling companies to make a profit."

How was my FF impersonation?

Um, I didn't call anyone evil, That was Tomfly saying I fit the definition of evil...

But I guess, given the "alpaca pubic hair" comment, you really don't care for an answer or even the truth, but to just insult me based upon what I happen to do for a living...

 

[McRiffle]

Um, I didn't call anyone evil, That was Tomfly saying I fit the definition of evil...

But I guess, given the "alpaca pubic hair" comment, you really don't care for an answer or even the truth, but to just insult me based upon what I happen to do for a living...

Yes, I was leveling an insult but you left me no choice since you wouldn't answer my simple question. See how it got you to respond? Sorry about baiting you.

And, btw, you can do whatever you want with your alpacas, that's victim-less, but to call it your livelihood probably isn't fair. Maybe "near term livelihood" since you're aching to frack regardless of the obvious risks to your neighbors, and others in your community.

 

[dcabarle]

You are missing my point entirely.

You knowingly allowing some to put toxic compounds into the ground and you exonerate yourself from any possible repercussions from that because you can hide behind a lease agreement . Well if that is not a definition of evil then I do not know what is.

Tom,

Your car runs on gasoline (if you still have one of those oldies). Everytime you start your car, toxic fumes are released into the air. Nobody forces you to put gas in your car but you do. Shouuld you be held responsible for the toxins your car releases into the air?

I'm against fracking too but as I've already mentioned, because it ruins the landscape.

 

[danme]

IMOVHO -- YES if in fact the, and Im not saying it is BUT -- If in fact future testing and Long Term ebviromental impact studies do prove that The Fracking and the fracking fluid is in fact impacting the enviroment with detrimental and long term effect the Land Owner should be as responsible and the company that did the damage. The landwner is making MONEY HAND OVER FIST and No you can not tell me they aren't -- Look at North Dakota for example -- Burger King is offering a 300.00 sign on bonus and 18-20 dollars an hour to flip Burgers because they cant get ANYONE TO WORK THERE, due to the land owners getting RICH off of fracking. They also put a bill up to REMOVE property taxes because of the MONEY the state is making also -- It got Voted down Thank God fro the mere fact it would only last as long as the Fracking Companies lasted.

Look at it this way -- Your in a Multi Car accident -- Your Kid gets hurt -- He HAS TO SUE YOU in order for him or her to sue anyone else because you were driving and you were responsible for his or her safety. Just like a HOMEOWNER who's In ground OIL TANK leaks is responsible for the clean up which could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. The home Owner didnt put the tank in the ground -- A CONTRACTOR DID. Why should this be any different than frocking fluid. If the fracking fluid is actually a TOXIC to the enviroment.

Im not for or against fracking -- I think personally that the risk vs reward is worth the Natural Gas for so many reasons the biggest is NATIONAL SECURITY. Yes the FRIGGING LIBERAL TREE HUGGERS are going to put up all the bullshit arguments against this -- But In actuality it doesn't make peoples water to catch on fire. Natural Gas does that and it has been in peoples wells way before Fracking was ever done

Peace
Dan

 

[Future Fanatic]

Yes, I was leveling an insult but you left me no choice since you wouldn't answer my simple question. See how it got you to respond? Sorry about baiting you.

Stop...you made a mistake...

I responded earlier... And baiting me to respond? How'd that work out for you since I haven't actually given you an answer?...

And, btw, you can do whatever you want with your alpacas, that's victim-less, but to call it your livelihood probably isn't fair. Maybe "near term livelihood" since you're aching to frack regardless of the obvious risks to your neighbors, and others in your community.

Obvious risks... good one.
Of course there are risks.

There are OBVIOUS risks when driving a car. About 35,000 people die and hundreds of thousands are injured and maimed every year in the US in car crashes. YOU weigh the risks, but drive a car anyway. Me too.

Fracking has not killed anyone... (refute me with evidence, please). The EPA has come up with ONE instance in wyoming where they think fracking fluids may have entered groundwater... but even THAT is not conclusive. Can you show me some instances from say PA where a community has been affected by fracking fluids in their water?

It seems to me that my allowing fracking to occur on my property puts my community less at risk than you getting in your car to go to work to make money.

 

[danme]

Yes, I was leveling an insult but you left me no choice since you wouldn't answer my simple question. See how it got you to respond? Sorry about baiting you

No he wont answer your questions but he surely asks alot of them doing exactly what McRiffle did to him -- He tries to BAIT EVERYONE ON THIS SITE -- But he surely doesn't like it at all in fact he despises's it when it's done to him.. Future Fanatic -- Sucks when the game YOU PLAY is turned on you doesn't it


HMMMMMMM -- Food for thought

OWNED AGAIN

 

[lightenup]

Like deja vu...
If my state says the process can be done safely... then I will consider it safe. Could an accident happen? SURE, as it can in MANY other industrial activities... If my state says that I can be held responsible for damages due to negligence of the drilling company or some accident, then of course I would be. I would be sure to protect my self with an insurance policy that would cover any unfortunate accident or contractor error that my state might deem me responsible for.

Of course, how many deaths and sicknesses are attributed to the fracking industry? They've been doing it for sixty years, over a million wells...

You seem to put a lot of faith in an obviously corrupt political system...
The insurance policy sound like a good idea....

Can I get an Alpaca sweater from you?

The state has also been screwing you with unnecessary taxation, they've been doing it for over sixty years and over many trillion dollars......