Living Car Free - Say you inherited oil bearing land

And say it was already in production, what would you do with it?

Not a troll post, a good friend of mine inherited land in Texas last week that is being drilled.

Make sure it's a chain-lube well. :thumb:




My ex inherited some mineral rights on land that they thought had oil. She sat on her rights because they were offering chump change for her interest. I never heard what happened, but I know it hasn't made her money.

Well the first thing you know ol' Jed's a millionaire,
Kinfolk said "Jed move away from there"
Said "Californy is the place you ought to be"
So they loaded up the truck and moved to Beverly.

Hills, that is. Swimmin' pools, movie stars.

Interesting question. Where do you place economics vs. environmentalism?

For me, suppose it would depend on how much it's making.

I just wrote about this in another thread! My family has the mineral rights to land that produces oil. It does not produce much, but it produces more than we use and it make me feel a little less guilty and gives us a little spending money. Apparently it is supposed to be “clean” crude.

Land in the U.S. or somewhere else?

My mother in law could have something similar. Her family a few generations back owned land that was sacrificed to save New Orleans, they took out their levies instead of letting it take out the cities. So eventually an oil company set up shop on that land and now she is in the process of laying claim to it.

It makes me feel less guilty about waiting for her to RIP. :lol:

Land in the U.S. or somewhere else?

Texas

Land in the U.S. or somewhere else?


And say it was already in production, what would you do with it?

Not a troll post, a good friend of mine inherited land in Texas last week that is being drilled.

Anyway, I would try to make as much money from it as possible. *shrug

So, are we talking about land that contains "known oil resources"? If that's the case, then I would have to open it up to production; otherwise, sooner or later, some government puke will throw up the 'eminent domain' argument and take it, anyway. If it's already being drilled, there's no going back -- it's going to come out of the ground. So it may as well go in my pocket as the corporate exec who already has ten figures of liquidity.

Drilling is much cleaner now that even 20 years ago. I'd drill unless the land was environmentally sensitive or there was wildlife that would be endangered. Of course, I'm a native Texan, maybe that makes a difference. Your friend may not have much choice in the matter, depends on who owns or controls the mineral rights and what percentage they own versus your friend. My wife's great grandmother retained mineral rights when she sold land back in the early 1900's. Her heirs all agreed to the drilling...all 30 or so...and the owners of the property had to suck it up.

Get as much money out of it as possible...then use the proceeds to outfit my house with solar panels and my garage with hybrid cars and bikes.

Well in Texas, I'd drill. Any U.S. produced oil is an improvement.

Anyway, I would try to make as much money from it as possible. *shrug

+1

More money = more time touring the world! :D

Get as much money out of it as possible...then use the proceeds to outfit my house with solar panels and my garage with hybrid cars and bikes.

:thumb:

Works for me! :D Except I probably wouldn't bother with the hybrid car

Aaron:)

i would keep it, then get to know the bush family as they too have oil reservations in texas after getting to know the family i would invite them over every sunday for anice bike ride since i hear that president bush is one of the most athletic presidents we've ever had. After everyone is tired we would come back to my place and sit down and enjoy a nice cup of tea. ~END~

Land in the U.S. or somewhere else?

As the OP said, Texas. So it's both. :lol: Texas has been a state and a foreign country.

As the OP said, Texas. So it's both. :lol: Texas has been a state and a foreign country.

A foreign country by the choice of the US, not that of Texas, we did not let them in. Texans tend to forget that.

i would keep it, then get to know the bush family as they too have oil reservations in texas after getting to know the family i would invite them over every sunday for anice bike ride since i hear that president bush is one of the most athletic presidents we've ever had. After everyone is tired we would come back to my place and sit down and enjoy a nice cup of tea. ~END~

Good to see that you are open minded and don't mind who you ride or drink tea with.

Get as much money out of it as possible...then use the proceeds to outfit my house with solar panels and my garage with hybrid cars and bikes.

After catching up on the news last night...seems T. Boone Pickens is doing just that!:innocent: well he is investing in wind power and using his oil money to fund it.

Aaron:)

Enjoy the royalties and do not sell!!!!!!!!!!!.. Natural Gas Shale leases are going up to 10K per acre here in North La. and East Texas. 30 k per acre is not out of reason if in either Barnett or Haynesville Shale area. Do not sell the land or mineral rights!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Lease........

This probably wouldn't be a stretch for some people. A lot of wells around the country that stopped production a long time ago are being tapped again because the high price of oil makes it profitable, even if its only like a barrel a week.

Wouldn't be surprised if someone inherited some land that once produced oil and now could again make some money.

Oh and I definitely would do it and invest the money. Most of the people on this board probably have in some way money invested in oil stocks already through mutual funds or however.

When I lived back in Ohio, my housemate and I had natural gas wells on our property. Columbia Gas paid us a monthly stipend to maintain the access trails to the wells, plus we had free natural gas for our property (2 houses on our land, and we supplied 2 neighbours for free, also.)
We had everything in the house on natural gas: Water heater, range/oven, heat, clothes dryer. Since I moved, my housemate has purchased a natural gas powered generator, and runs his electricity off the (free) gas, too.

If you own it, there's no reason you shouldn't benefit from it.

I agree I'm benefiting from it.

I'm still riding my bike, though.

A foreign country by the choice of the US, not that of Texas, we did not let them in. Texans tend to forget that.

And, IMHO, we should have stuck to it. And at the civil war, we should have said, "Don't let the door hit your collective butts on the way out."

I would lease it out, my grandfather has some land that they drill on. He had a bunch of stipulations wrote into the contract...like they can't access the property between certain hours and only on certain days unless its an emergency (he didn't like seeing them there). He also got money to maintain their access trail, but he made them provide the fuel for the tractor.

My uncle is a "land man" and his job is to basically try and get a lease for as cheap as possible. He said that it even you don't have mineral rights, they still have to get permission from you to access the land. Sometimes they have to go to a property next to the one they want and drill from the side. He told me that he has had some strange requests from people, but most usually agree once you start upping the price of the lease.

If I had a well that produced a significant amount of money, I'd probably start contributing to political action committee's, charities, and other causes that I support.

-Nate

Suck that thing dry! Slightly less dependence on foreign oil is still less dependence.

Personally I would put on a long limbed suit and go around bellowing "I drink your milkshake! I drink it up!"

What matters is what you do with the money.

Land in the U.S. or somewhere else?

He said Texas, so your answer is "somewhere else."

I'd leave the carbon in the ground where it belongs. Morally, it's even worse to sell the crap and profit from it than it is to buy it and burn it in a Hummer.

Already in production? That's a no brainer. I'd milk it for everything I could get.

Proven reserves not yet in production would require some thought. Leaning heavily toward no oil production, and managing the acreage as my private hunting/outdoor recreation preserve.

Definitely sell it. Even from an environmental perspective, you are almost certainly helping. Really; for as much damage as that oil will do, think about how much more damage it would do for that oil to be lost, and replaced by oil that would have to be shipped across oceans. Of course, we have no idea HOW MUCH oil is being talked about, or how much pollution would be caused by international transport, but in any case there is an improvement.

If it makes him feel that horrible, he can donate most or all of the profits to a charity. Then not only is he helping by not requiring additional foreign oil, but he can directly help; be it an environmental agency, or just feeding the starvin' children.

It seems that a lot of people on this forum have bought into the Bush myth that domestic drilling will rescue us from our dependence on foreign oil. It's pretty funny to be reading this stuff on a carfree forum. I thought most here knew better.

Update:

Say it brought you enough cash to secure your retirement, and moderately change your day to day life.
Not hitting the lotto amount of change, but annual overseas vacation kind of change.

Definitely sell it. Even from an environmental perspective, you are almost certainly helping. Really; for as much damage as that oil will do, think about how much more damage it would do for that oil to be lost, and replaced by oil that would have to be shipped across oceans. Of course, we have no idea HOW MUCH oil is being talked about, or how much pollution would be caused by international transport, but in any case there is an improvement.

If it makes him feel that horrible, he can donate most or all of the profits to a charity. Then not only is he helping by not requiring additional foreign oil, but he can directly help; be it an environmental agency, or just feeding the starvin' children.

Last time I read this kind of nonsense was in an Exxon-Mobil magazine ad.

Last time I read this kind of nonsense was in an Exxon-Mobil magazine ad.

One of the rare times I disagree with Roody.
I agree with the suggestion to profit from it, but I would recommend investing the profit in research into clean technology and new energy sources, or conservation methods. We're going into a period of transition to a post-oil economy, and the only way it can happen smoothly and without global strife and mass starvation is if we direct profits from the oil sector into developing true alternatives.

Update:

Say it brought you enough cash to secure your retirement, and moderately change your day to day life.
Not hitting the lotto amount of change, but annual overseas vacation kind of change.
The real world answer is in your tag line. If you don't drink your own milkshake, your neighbor will.

It's not without risk, though. My brother out in West Texas got a super deal on a couple of great farmhouses to be moved off the land. Something went wrong with an oil well out there and it poisoned the water table for miles around.

^^^^
That's my oppenion.

Last time I read this kind of nonsense was in an Exxon-Mobil magazine ad.

Ah, how easy it is to be correct when you don't have to prove your point.

What, exactly, is nonsense?

Is foreign oil magically teleported across the globe to its final destination; producing no pollution and using no (oil derived) energy? Because that sounds pretty nonsensical to me; but that's what you're claiming.

Will domestic drilling reduce our dependence on foreign oil in the USA? Absolutely not.

But something that anyone who claims to care about the environment should know: Local is better. This especially applies to international commerce! The oil that land is producing IS going to be used, whether the oil is produced there or thousands of miles away. However, producing the oil THERE not only keeps MORE oil from being imported, but it also gives the profits to someone who CAN and hopefully WILL put the profits towards charity (or as someone else recommended, alternative energy research/promotion, which is also a great idea).

Is the fact that local is better an excuse to START domestic oil projects? No. That money would be far better invested in other energy sources, and getting people to accept alternative solutions (for example, making the bicycle and clothes lines fashionable again)

Is the fact that oil is bad an excuse to FORCE IT TO BE EVEN WORSE? Absolutely not. And yet that is exactly what you're asking them to do, simply because "RWAR OIL IS BAD GRR ANYTHING RELATED TO OIL IS EVIL".

I'm not even thinking of the oil being bad for the environment. I'm thinking of it being bad karma for the person pumping it or selling it, if he/she knows that it's an evil thing. Would it be OK to sell heroin or poison cookies, as long as you used the profits for some noble purpose?

And yes FEBA, I do think oil is evil. Carbon belongs in the ground, not in the air that we and our descendants unto a hundred generations must breathe. American oil is just as bad as Saudi oil or Nigerian oil or any other oil.

I'm not even thinking of the oil being bad for the environment. I'm thinking of it being bad karma for the person pumping it or selling it, if he/she knows that it's an evil thing. Would it be OK to sell heroin or poison cookies, as long as you used the profits for some noble purpose?

Different scenarios. Poisoning food; yes, a single person not doing that is going to be a HUGE difference in terms of safety. A single person could put hundreds at risk, and not doing it could save those hundreds. However, a single person refusing to sell oil is NOT going to stop that oil from being used and sold. It is merely going to mean it is sold by different people-- in this case, most likely replaced by foreign oil


And yes FEBA, I do think oil is evil. Carbon belongs in the ground, not in the air that we and our descendants unto a hundred generations must breathe. American oil is just as bad as Saudi oil or Nigerian oil or any other oil.

Again, you're ignoring a simple and obvious fact: Importing oil requires that oil to be transported; and transporting that oil requires large amounts of energy (to move tankers and such). In general, is one type of oil better? Not really. However, is it better to use domestic oil PURELY FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL STANDPOINT? Yes. That energy expended in transport makes a difference.

What you are saying is that oil and the pollution is SO EVIL that it rationalizes a completely illogical choice to INFLICT MORE POLLUTION, while denying the opportunity to use something bad to do good. Frankly, that's not even environmentalism, that's religion.

I'm not even thinking of the oil being bad for the environment. I'm thinking of it being bad karma for the person pumping it or selling it, if he/she knows that it's an evil thing. Would it be OK to sell heroin or poison cookies, as long as you used the profits for some noble purpose?

And yes FEBA, I do think oil is evil. Carbon belongs in the ground, not in the air that we and our descendants unto a hundred generations must breathe. American oil is just as bad as Saudi oil or Nigerian oil or any other oil.

So now we compare oil to selling poison cookies? WOW.

Different scenarios. Poisoning food; yes, a single person not doing that is going to be a HUGE difference in terms of safety. A single person could put hundreds at risk, and not doing it could save those hundreds. However, a single person refusing to sell oil is NOT going to stop that oil from being used and sold. It is merely going to mean it is sold by different people-- in this case, most likely replaced by foreign oil

Similarly, it makes no meaningful difference that I--a "single person"--am riding a bike instead of driving a car. Nevertheless.....


What you are saying is that oil and the pollution is SO EVIL that it rationalizes a completely illogical choice to INFLICT MORE POLLUTION, while denying the opportunity to use something bad to do good. Frankly, that's not even environmentalism, that's religion.

Now you're using your noodle. I said in my first post on the subject, and repeated it thereafter, that I was making a moral decision. In other words, it's a religious matter, if that's the language you have to use. However, IMO the OP posed the whole situation as a moral matter, so it's you who's off topic, not me.

Here's a story about a guy in Australia sitting on $5bn worth of a uranium:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/who-wants-to-be-a-billionaire-i-dont/2007/07/13/1183833774711.html

His land adjoins a World Heritage site that is protected from ever being mined. He's trying to get his land added to that World Heritage site to stop anyone from ever coming in to do any mining.

Pretty special, huh?

So now we compare oil to selling poison cookies? WOW.

You're absolutely right. Oil and poison cookies are not comparable. Many more people die from oil than from poison cookies.

Try to think. Using an analogy in a moral discussion does not mean that the two substances are equivalent. The point is that if you knowingly sell a substance that will harm people, you are guilty of something. Heroin is actually a better analogy:


.... a single person refusing to sell oil is NOT going to stop that oil from being used and sold. It is merely going to mean it is sold by different people-- in this case, most likely replaced by foreign oil....


.... a single person refusing to sell heroin is NOT going to stop that heroin from being used and sold. It is merely going to mean it is sold by different people-- in this case, most likely replaced by foreign heroin....

Can you see the similarities? Again, I'm not saying that oil is as bad as heroin. Oil has had many positive effects throughout history. (For that matter, so has heroin, since it's the base for many powerful and useful painkillers like morphine.) However, at this time, oil is known to be very damaging to human life, in fact to all life. As soon as this knowledge was attained, oil "suddenly" became a bad thing, and selling it or producing it "suddenly" became a bad act. It makes no difference morally if that oil on my land will only be replaced by other oil, whether foreign or domestic. All oil is bad, not just some oil.

As for doing good things with the profits, I'm very dubious about that also. If a heroin dealer gives money for a children's wing at a hospital, that's a good act. But it will in no way "undo" the bad act of selling the heroin in the first place. If Exxon-Mobil uses oil profits to fund alternative energy research, that's also a good act. But they haven't "undone" the bad act of selling oil in the first place, and continuing to sell it.

If Exxon-Mobil uses oil profits to fund alternative energy research, that's also a good act. But they haven't "undone" the bad act of selling oil in the first place, and continuing to sell it.


If you get an addict in your psych ward, I assume you don't usually make him go cold turkey - you wean him off. Oil is so entrenched as the basis for our civilization and economy that we all use it, in fact our lives depend on it - even yours, so taking an extreme moral position that you would never sell it is meaningless. If you buy it (or it's by-products) surely you are as immoral as the people who sell it.

If you own land that is already in oil production, the most effective thing you can do is use the leverage that that gives you to change the world. You'll have more impact on social policy and political will as an oil tycoon than as an indvidual who eschews oil.

If you get an addict in your psych ward, I assume you don't usually make him go cold turkey - you wean him off. Oil is so entrenched as the basis for our civilization and economy that we all use it, in fact our lives depend on it - even yours, so taking an extreme moral position that you would never sell it is meaningless. If you buy it (or it's by-products) surely you are as immoral as the people who sell it.

If you own land that is already in oil production, the most effective thing you can do is use the leverage that that gives you to change the world. You'll have more impact on social policy and political will as an oil tycoon than as an indvidual who eschews oil.

That's a very interesting extension of the heroin analogy.

I agree that it wouldn't be a kind act for the oil companies to suddenly cut the people of the world off from oil. It would be altruistic if they firmly announced to the people of the world something like, "Your addiction is killing you, so in 15 years we will absolutely stop selling or producing oil. In the meantime, you must learn how to live without it. WE ARE NOT KIDDING!"

Of course the oil companies aren't going to do any such thing. They're more like the kindly family doctor who keeps writing vicodin scripts for the drug addict so he won't have to go through withdrawal. (Oh--"coincidentally" the kindly doctor is also making big bucks off the addicted patient.)

As for effectively using the leverage, that isn't likely to happen either. It's tainted money, and the first one it taints is the person who has it. Example--Bill Ford was a Sierra Club environmentalist. When he first became president of Ford Motor he even announced that Ford was going to quit making gas-powered cars. A couple years later he proudly announced that the Excursion--one of the largest SUVs ever built--was the wave of Ford's future. Similarly, if your family's wealth, and that annual European vacation somebody mentioned, is dependent on the oil in your land, you're unlikely to give that wealth over for alternative energy research.

I think the main problem with this discussion is that people are trying to weigh the good that could potentially be done with oil money against the harm that is actually being done. And there's no moral calculus I'm aware of that will value a potential good more than an actual harm.

You made a very interesting statement that "Oil is so entrenched as the basis for our civilization and economy that we all use it, in fact our lives depend on it - even yours, so taking an extreme moral position that you would never sell it is meaningless. If you buy it (or it's by-products) surely you are as immoral as the people who sell it."

This is very troubling to me because there's a lot of truth in it. The only thing I can refute it with is the fact that oil used to be harmless, before we learned about it's bad effects, mostly in the last 20 or 30 years. Oil producers didn't set out to be evil. They thought they were doing a good thing for the world at the same time that they were making a lot of money. And of course, a lot of people lost money, and some even lost their lives exploring for oil.

The same is basically true of the users (all of us). We never said, "We should set up the whole world to run on oil. It'll be really cool for us, and we really don't care what it does to our children and grandchildren." No, we honestly thought we were making the world better, and that there would be few if any bad effects.

However, we can't think that way any longer, thanks to Jim Hansen and a lot of other scientists. Now we know that oil is bad, or rather, burning oil is bad. We know that we have to change our ways, and we know this is going to be difficult. From now on, we can't innocently produce, sell or buy oil. But we can't just quit cold turkey either. What a conundrum!

So let's go back to the heroin. Heroin was originally developed and marketed as a medicine that would be more effective than opium (which it is) and also less addictive (which it isn't). The original inventor didn't do a bad thing. The doctors and the company that sold it (Bayer, I believe) did a good thing, and also made a lot of money. However, as soon as it was discovered that it was bad, Bayer and the doctors had to quit selling it, or they would be rightly accused of crimes. Hopefully they weaned their patients gradually but quickly, before too much more damage was done.

I think we're at this point with oil right now. To do anything with it other than wean ourselves off it is wrong. Therefore, pulling more oil out of the your family's ground is wrong. It might not contribute significantly to global warming, and you might even do something good with the proceeds. But it's still wrong because you know it's wrong. Again, this is a moral matter, not a practical one.

I'm sorry to go on so long about this seemingly arcane point, but I think it's somehow at the very heart of this whole carfree thing, at least for me. I have very much enjoyed the discussion, and I hope it continues.

Similarly, it makes no meaningful difference that I--a "single person"--am riding a bike instead of driving a car.
That is where you're wrong. One person riding a bike REDUCES the amount of oil used. One person NOT SELLING OIL simply means that that oil will be procured ELSEWHERE; again, in this case, almost certainly from a source which will cause much more pollution while giving much less back.


All oil is bad, not just some oil.

Nobody disagrees with this. However, looking at the amount of displaced carbon from using locally produced oil and from foreign oil would easily show that local production is better. You're ignoring facts right here that a first grader could understand.

As long as the oil is being SOLD DOMESTICALLY (which is almost certainly is), the OP's case would be a POSITIVE impact, if ONLY by making sure that that oil doesn't have to be brought in internationally. Any charity that would occur is purely a BONUS.

Even speaking in terms of morals, at best here you are encouraging MORE EVIL by denying the land.

To compare it to heroin, let's say that a patient is suffering extreme pain (in the real world, most of the developed world's energy problem). As someone in who practices medicine (has land with oil) you could give them marijuana to help with the pain. Even if you think it's wrong, it's still better than forcing them to buy heroin on the streets; which will do even more damage. You could also lose contact with that patient, making it impossible to help get them back to health (in this case, the inability to give profits to charity or research)

Roody, if you were sick or injured and had to go to the hospital, would you refuse to be transported in an ambulance because it was powered by teh ebil oil?

Roody, if you were sick or injured and had to go to the hospital, would you refuse to be transported in an ambulance because it was powered by teh ebil oil?

Yes.

If two ambulances showed up, one powered by diesel and the other by biodiesel, I would refuse to ride in the diesel one.

Of course I won't get a choice like this in present times. This gets to cooker's point about oil being so entrenched in our society that it's meaningless to say you'll live without it.