Wyoming Corner Crossing Defense Fund

[VikingsGuy]

I was thinking about the ad coelum just now; to your point about it being nonsense, in OG law in many (most?) states there is the idea that one mineral owner can't keep an adjacent owner from extracting/ benefiting from their minerals.

With the advent of horizontal drilling it means that if an operator can prove that their pad site and or well configuration doesn't have other technically or financially viable alterative paths, that the operator can trespass (subsurface) but not frack and therefore drain someone's land.

So ad coelum with regard to minerals; you own down to all depths, but if I need to cross your land to get to my land trespassing is totally fine.

The more I think about it I'm a bit surprised this fact hasn't come up in corner crossing arguments, the practice is pretty widespread.

Parallels are good points to raise, some are followed, some are not.

As for other states, some provide an implied access easement, some refuse to allow subdivisioning or sales that result in zero access property so an easement is always there, and some just let the buyer beware. Laboratories of democracy as they say.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Its about time for the naysayers to put a sock in it, IMO.

I’ve called bs on western states property laws from day one, but group think does not help the cause.

 

[Dakotakid]

I’ve called bs on western states property laws from day one, but group think does not help the cause.

Opstay eingbay ayay aysayernay

I think

 

[CPAjeff]

The first one through the wall always gets the bloodiest. A huge thank you to these four hunters for putting up a fight. I will gladly continue to donate to their cause again and again and again. Another huge thank you to all of the folks from the organizations, attorneys offices, etc. who have stepped up in this battle.

 

[Big Fin]

I was thinking about the ad coelum just now; to your point about it being nonsense, in OG law in many (most?) states there is the idea that one mineral owner can't keep an adjacent owner from extracting/ benefiting from their minerals.

With the advent of horizontal drilling it means that if an operator can prove that their pad site and or well configuration doesn't have other technically or financially viable alterative paths, that the operator can trespass (subsurface) but not frack and therefore drain someone's land.

So ad coelum with regard to minerals; you own down to all depths, but if I need to cross your land to get to my land trespassing is totally fine.

The more I think about it I'm a bit surprised this fact hasn't come up in corner crossing arguments, the practice is pretty widespread.

Glad someone with O&G background like you brought this up. The attorneys I have engaged to advise me and who were on the podcast gave me cases to this exact point.

Subsurface is one of the scenarios that is ripe with law and cases when I talk about private landowners suing other private landowners, with one making the case "ad coelum" doesn't apply to surface ownership. Yeah, this is below the surface and airspace is above the surface, but both rely on "ad coelum." I hope these folks keep suing each other. In doing so, they are doing good work on our behalf by debunking the legal theory of "ad coelum."

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

Glad someone with O&G background like you brought this up. The attorneys I have engaged to advise me and who were on the podcast gave me cases to this exact point.

Subsurface is one of the scenarios that is ripe with law and cases when I talk about private landowners suing other private landowners, with one making the case "ad coelum" doesn't apply to surface ownership. Yeah, this is below the surface and airspace is above the surface, but both rely on "ad coelum." I hope these folks keep suing each other. In doing so, they are doing good work on our behalf by debunking the legal theory of "ad coelum."

I'm sure they brought up this, but there is some underlying law that I alluded to that allows for some subsurface trespass, I think basically everywhere. Some states; TX, OK, WY, and CO for sure have gone beyond that and passed force pooling statutes.

Essentially states have said that not only can you not block your neighbor but because oil comes from a common supply, it's basically impossible to leave one persons minerals in the ground while extracting another's. The fix is to create a DSU Drilling Spacing Unit, in WY these are 640 or 1280 based on 1 or 2 sections and allow an operator to develop all the lands in that unit as a group. Owners are then paid their proportion of the royalties based their mineral interest in the unit overall unit.

Long preamble (sorry) for the relevant part, you can force pool a nonconsenting private landowner into a mostly public unit. So if I take a federal lease and there is a landowner that just refuses to lease I can force pool them. This allows me to drill wells under their land and then hand them a check. In addition there is a 150% charge of risk on those royalties meaning I get to re-coop 150% of my costs for drilling that well before I have to pay the nonconsenting landowner a dime.

Here is an example of what this might look like using OnX, say the nonconsenting landowner is the T shaped tract, the operator has the BLM leased, they can force pool, create the DSU (blue) and then drill their wells (red).

*You can't force pool federal lands


IMHO what's really striking here is how far Wyoming citizens have been willing to go to allow and promote resource of extraction. We have had some pretty heated exchanges about private property rights on this thread and about some sort of eminent domain of corners etc. as a fix.

I think it's relevant and important for everyone to understand force pooling, in my mind that's kind of the bar of what we think is reasonable and permissible as far as statutes allowing trespassing.

Also if folks are wondering how common is this... depends on the state, but it's not rare.

 

[NativeIndian]

Looks like it's going to stay in Federal court. Something the landowner didn't want. Maybe now we can get a federal law that says you can't landlock federal public land. https://wyofile.com/judge-orders-co...70c970-a8f329b59d-446103639&mc_cid=a8f329b59d

 

[Dougfirtree]

Forgive me if there's another thread on this going around, but I've been under a rock for a few days and I just read this article. I'd like to hear more about this potential "arms race" and I'm also confused as to how anything but a blanket legalization is going to keep states from just passing laws that make corner crossing illegal. I'm not convinced yet that blanket legalization is a bad thing.

Why Not Legalize All Corner Crossing in the West?

Even the staunchest public access advocates aren't advocating for blanket legalization of corner crossing in the West. But why not?

www.outdoorlife.com

 

[Dougfirtree]

Forgive me if there's another thread on this going around, but I've been under a rock for a few days and I just read this article. I'd like to hear more about this potential "arms race" and I'm also confused as to how anything but a blanket legalization is going to keep states from just passing laws that make corner crossing illegal. I'm not convinced yet that blanket legalization is a bad thing.

Why Not Legalize All Corner Crossing in the West?

Even the staunchest public access advocates aren't advocating for blanket legalization of corner crossing in the West. But why not?

www.outdoorlife.com

Also, was anyone else a little shocked to hear Land Tawney saying that blanket legalization is not a good goal?!

 

[mtmiller]

Also, was anyone else a little shocked to hear Land Tawney saying that blanket legalization is not a good goal?!

No

“We want to make sure that we’re respecting private property rights, while at the same time supporting the public’s right to access their public lands,” Tawney says. “Instead of a ruling that just automatically says everybody can have access, there’s opportunities for us to work with private landowners to think about ways that [these] impacts can be minimized.”

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

Also, was anyone else a little shocked to hear Land Tawney saying that blanket legalization is not a good goal?!

I wasn't surprised, but I don't quite agree with it. I get where they are coming from but I also think we've already tried working with a lot of landowners and some will never want to allow any sort of public access. I think I'd rather make a blanket legalization and risk losing some participation in programs like HMAs and such. Just my opinion though.

 

[Dougfirtree]

No

“We want to make sure that we’re respecting private property rights, while at the same time supporting the public’s right to access their public lands,” Tawney says. “Instead of a ruling that just automatically says everybody can have access, there’s opportunities for us to work with private landowners to think about ways that [these] impacts can be minimized.”

But also: "However, even Tawney and BHA are not calling for an outright legalization of corner crossing across the West. Tawney, a fifth-generation Montanan, says the answer to the corner-crossing dilemma is more about finding compromise solutions than changing the law in one fell swoop."

I think we all want to respect private property rights, but isn't the crux of this issue whether private property rights are being infringed upon in the first place? If the decision is that they're not and corner crossing should be legal, than those rights are not being violated.
Seems to me this is about what we perceive to be a right of every American; to access their public lands. If that's what we believe, a compromise decision would serve to infringe on that right...

And again, if it's not blanket legalization, what's to stop state legislatures from just outlawing corner crossing?

I'm not just blowing steam here, my mind is open to hearing other opinions and I have respect for Land Tawney. I'm just surprised and worried because it sounds like people are ready to compromise on our rights to try to placate landowners who have been profitting (in many cases) from denying access to public land.

 

[Dougfirtree]

I wasn't surprised, but I don't quite agree with it. I get where they are coming from but I also think we've already tried working with a lot of landowners and some will never want to allow any sort of public access. I think I'd rather make a blanket legalization and risk losing some participation in programs like HMAs and such. Just my opinion though.

Seems to me it could incentivize participation in the HMA program in checkerboard areas. 'If the public's going to be in there anyway, I might as well get something out of it.'

 

[rogerthat]

But also: "However, even Tawney and BHA are not calling for an outright legalization of corner crossing across the West. Tawney, a fifth-generation Montanan, says the answer to the corner-crossing dilemma is more about finding compromise solutions than changing the law in one fell swoop."

I think we all want to respect private property rights, but isn't the crux of this issue whether private property rights are being infringed upon in the first place? If the decision is that they're not and corner crossing should be legal, I don't see that we have a problem with respecting those rights.
Seems to me this is about what we perceive to be a right of every American; to access their public lands. If that's what we believe, a compromise decision would serve to infringe on that right...

And again, if it's not blanket legalization, what's to stop state legislatures from just outlawing corner crossing?

I'm not just blowing steam here, my mind is open to hearing other opinions and I have respect for Land Tawney. I'm just surprised and worried because it sounds like people are ready to compromise on our rights to try to placate landowners who have been profitting (in many cases) from denying access to public land.

Corner crossing...biggest infringement of public property rights ever. Time will bear this out but thats where my money is

 

[rogerthat]

At our county debate for sheriff the question was "If elected sheriff, how would you deal with corner crossing trespass?" To me that pretty much sums up the ingrained, traditional view of it across the west. Thats what we are up against and that is the reality BHA is dealing with and why they are treading lightly.

 

[GoGriz]

At our county debate for sheriff the question was "If elected sheriff, how would you deal with corner crossing trespass?" To me that pretty much sums up the ingrained, traditional view of it across the west. Thats what we are up against and that is the reality BHA is dealing with and why they are treading lightly.

I guess I don’t understand this comment. What local people think based on local sentiment has nothing to do with corner crossing being deeded legal on a Federal level. There are plenty of items that local people don’t like, but that has zero bearing on their legality as well as a broad Federal law. I’m not saying that we are going to win a broad Federal thumbs up on corner crossing, but why would BHA “tread lightly” and worry about private property rights? I am usually missing something in these types of chats, but I can’t seem to see their side on this one.

 

[warmer]

I fail to understand why the public has to compromise on this. Someone explain, please.

 

[BuzzH]

I fail to understand why the public has to compromise on this. Someone explain, please.

You don't, but I also don't believe its a good idea to slam the door shut until some legal precedence is set.

This is far from settled.

 

[warmer]

You don't, but I also don't believe its a good idea to slam the door shut until some legal precedence is set.

This is far from settled.

Thanks

 

[Wildabeest]

I wasn't surprised, but I don't quite agree with it. I get where they are coming from but I also think we've already tried working with a lot of landowners and some will never want to allow any sort of public access. I think I'd rather make a blanket legalization and risk losing some participation in programs like HMAs and such. Just my opinion though.

Negotiation is all about leverage. If you don’t have leverage, you will not get much in a negotiation. Not to mention that landowners taking advantage of this have status quo in their favor. The longer they can kick the can down the road, the longer they get to maintain status quo. Pretending they are negotiating is a classic way of doing that.

Get it legalized at the federal level, and then let’s see how much they want to “negotiate” when they don’t have most of the leverage. I’m guessing we’ll hear crickets then.