I was shocked when I found out that when you "own" land in Canada, the GOVERNMENT retains mineral rights. I know someone in Alberta who owns a quarter section. Oil was thought to be in the quarter-section. The government sells a license to an oil company to go get it. The LAND OWNER does NOT get a cut. Oh, they'll pay him a fee for the right to put a rig there, and any improvements to the land (e.g. bridges) stay with the land when the oil is done, but the compensation is roughly equivalent to the property taxes on the land (big whoop). I asked him what would happen if he told them it wasn't worth it. He told me that they would just go on an adajacent piece of land and grab the oil out from under him. It's the same here in the states. We get royalty checks monthly from just this kind of situation. We own the land, the oil companies drilled, we get a small percentage. If we declined their offer, they would just go to another section close by and drill there to get to the oil on our land.
It's the same here in the states. We get royalty checks monthly from just this kind of situation. We own the land, the oil companies drilled, we get a small percentage. If we declined their offer, they would just go to another section close by and drill there to get to the oil on our land. I understand land, mineral rights, etc.
My question,
With this new potential field found in the Dakotas, why can't the Oil Co.s drill on private land and develop the field, whether Congress likes it or not?