Ironically, during the most recent previous administration, there was a

>conspiracy theory that they, too, might do something in order to encourage
>or force landowners out of that same area to take control of it. That was
>sparked by the government's less-than full-hearted response to devastating
>flooding caused by a tropical storm.

A conspiracy.. so we are in the right conference.. B)

Yes, can't trust the gov't if there's money to be made or important resources. I'm pretty sure here you don't get the mineral rights
when you buy land and, if the gov't decides they want it, they
pay you supposedly market value for your land but you can't refuse
to sell it to them..

Here in the USA, I am not 100% on how mineral rights work, but I do know
that someone can own them that doesn't own the land on top of them. I
found that out when I was younger and my father and grandmother were
talking about selling the mineral rights underneath of some land they
planned to keep.


* SLMR 2.1a * A preposition is what you don't end a sentence with. Um.
--- SBBSecho 3.28-Linux
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)

Yes, can't trust the gov't if there's money to be made or important

>> resources. I'm pretty sure here you don't get the mineral rights
>> when you buy land and, if the gov't decides they want it, they
>> pay you supposedly market value for your land but you can't refuse
>> to sell it to them..

Here in the USA, I am not 100% on how mineral rights work, but I do know

>that someone can own them that doesn't own the land on top of them. I
>found that out when I was younger and my father and grandmother were
>talking about selling the mineral rights underneath of some land they
>planned to keep.


Coincidentally I was just reading a book and they were talking about
that in Wyoming where people owning farms would sell their mineral
rights, which are often picked up by huge developement companies even
when there's no reason to want them yet. It's more in case something
is found later that can be exploited. In this case there were natural
gas deposis in played out coal areas, gas that used to be almost
worthless but later became very valuable,

Normally those rights are slod for 20 or 50 or so years and they
later revert back to whoever currently owns the land, but that
means you might buy land ad find those rights may be already under
someone else's optional control, sold by the previous owners.

---
* SLMR Rob * Don't scald your tongue in another man's soup
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)

Hello Rob!

** On Tuesday 12.05.26 - 07:48, Rob Mccart wrote to MIKE POWELL:

... I'm pretty sure here you don't get the mineral rights
when you buy land and, if the gov't decides they want it, they
pay you supposedly market value for your land but you can't refuse
to sell it to them..

I've read/heard the opposite. Apparently there *is* a process whereby you can stake claims to mineral rights - especially under your own property - but it requires citing a key/rare precident law and application that you file with your deed. And.. it could require court appearances to defend your claim - but the process is "simple" in that you defend your claim that the precedent civil law out-rules the lessor/subsequent law.. something like that.

Most people don't bother [there is a few hundred dollars to file] cuz they assume that buying most any existing land now has already been explored/ tested for important minterals from years ago and their properties are safe from external forces exploiting the land all over again.

--
../|ug

--- OpenXP 5.0.64
* Origin: My Westcoast Point (1:153/757.21)

... I'm pretty sure here you don't get the mineral rights

> when you buy land and, if the gov't decides they want it, they
> pay you supposedly market value for your land but you can't refuse
> to sell it to them..

I've read/heard the opposite. Apparently there *is* a process whereby you

>can stake claims to mineral rights - especially under your own property - but
>it requires citing a key/rare precident law and application that you file
>with your deed. And.. it could require court appearances to defend your
>claim - but the process is "simple" in that you defend your claim that the
>precedent civil law out-rules the lessor/subsequent law.. something like
>that.

Most people don't bother [there is a few hundred dollars to file] cuz they

>assume that buying most any existing land now has already been explored/
>tested for important minterals from years ago and their properties are safe
>from external forces exploiting the land all over again.

I see.. although that does sort of back up part of what I said,
that you do not automatically have the mineral rights to your
own property..

I suppose like most things in life, long before the ordinary
person finds out there is money to be made on something, some
rich person has already beat you to it. Mineral rights here
but also in things like the stock market where by the time
the ordinary small investor hears about some big change coming
that could make or cost them a lot of money, the rich people
have already taken advantage of it..

---
* SLMR Rob * Drop your carrier... We have you surrounded
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)

Hello Rob!

** On Tuesday 19.05.26 - 08:56, you wrote to me:

Most people don't bother [there is a few hundred dollars to file] cuz
they

assume that buying most any existing land now has already been explored/
tested for important minterals from years ago and their properties are
safe from external forces exploiting the land all over again.

I see.. although that does sort of back up part of what I said,
that you do not automatically have the mineral rights to your
own property..

It's not right. Ownership of the land *should* be for all aspects of it. The notion that you own the land, but not what is underneath it is totally artifical - and obviously designed to benefit exploiters.

But we don't even have total control of the "surface" of the land to prevent the heavy mining equipment access!


--
../|ug

--- OpenXP 5.0.64
* Origin: My Westcoast Point (1:153/757.21)

I see.. although that does sort of back up part of what I said,
that you do not automatically have the mineral rights to your
own property..

It's not right. Ownership of the land *should* be for all aspects of it.

>The notion that you own the land, but not what is underneath it is totally
>artifical - and obviously designed to benefit exploiters.

But we don't even have total control of the "surface" of the land to prevent

>the heavy mining equipment access!

No, but we all know if you have something the gov't thinks they should
control for the 'general good of the people', they will find a way to
get it. At least here they usually compensate people to some extent
rather than just seize it..

You hate that if it's your property but if one person can stop
something that will benefit the public is that such a good thing?
Highways would never get built, or pipelines, electrical grids.. etc..

---
* SLMR Rob * Now, the Australian sequel... Dances with Sheep
* Origin: Capitol City Online (1:2320/107)