[Rod_Cloutier]

There are numerous threads about fracking on this board; however I saw this video today and it raised a new issue; Non-disclosure issues.

Farmers who have oil drilling on their land are forced to sign non-disclosure agreements or they can be sued. This prevents the open discussion of health, water, and environment concerns from ever reaching into public discussion.

Fracking solutions, being trade secrets are actually full of a cocktail of chemicals, many poisonous that have long term health and environmental effects. When people who are conservative, pro-oil exploration, and pro-development start to complain, then we have reached a new tyranny:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 3keujs#t=1

[rockdoc123]

my understanding is that all the non-disclosure policy does is prohibit individuals from discussing issues related to royalties wells etc with press etc. It does not stop environmental investigations (i.e. the EPA or state regulators can require people to discuss and the non disclosure would not relate. The original reason for non-disclosures was to stop bidding wars with respect to royalties but with all the over the top films being made on the subject companies decided it was in their best interests to deal with issues in the court of law, not the court of public opinion.

In any event it seems to me that land owners have a choice....enter into an agreement or don't. They are not required to lease their lands or rights.

[Rod_Cloutier]

In any event it seems to me that land owners have a choice....enter into an agreement or don't. They are not required to lease their lands or rights.

I believe it is different in Canada; you can own the land but not the mineral rights underneath the land. Companies buying the mineral rights can then drill on the land (no matter if you like it or not), so long as they pay the land owner land disruption fees.

[rollin]

What gets me is not the fossil fuel companies and their employees doing everything they can to not be held responsible for their actions. What gets me is a fellow sitting on his couch, watching his cattle be destroyed, his wife getting seriously ill and his home becoming uninhabitable and saying how he really cannot be angry with the oil companies and drillers because his farm needs the energy. Nor does he seem angry with the governments for stonewalling them.

[AgentR11]

When you get the factual part wrong in your initial post, its hard to take much seriously.

No one is forced to sign an NDA. Signing an NDA may be a prerequisite for being able to lease, develop, and get paid for the mineral assets you own though...

[rockdoc123]

I believe it is different in Canada; you can own the land but not the mineral rights underneath the land. Companies buying the mineral rights can then drill on the land (no matter if you like it or not), so long as they pay the land owner land disruption fees.

Absolutely correct, most land in Canada is Crown land. I don’t think there is any companies wandering around asking people to sign non-disclosures in Canada. Basically there is a standard fee that is paid based on the amount of access damage caused. There are scattered freehold rights in Canada and those are dealt not much dissimilar to the US.

[quote]No one is forced to sign an NDA. Signing an NDA may be a prerequisite for being able to lease, develop, and get paid for the mineral assets you own though...{/quote]

That was my point as well. This doesn’t mean there will be rampant environmental damage simply because these companies are still subject to all laws. A landholder who leases their acreage and signs an agreement can still submit a claim to the company if they feel there has been a problem (this is their constitutional right in the US and you cannot sign that away as far as I know). That claim would be duly investigated by the company and if necessary the regulatory authorities. And they are not signing away their rights to civil action. There is nothing in these non-disclosures that keeps land and rights holders from suing the companies who lease their lands. If there were it would not stand up in a court of law as far as I know. Not a lawyer but I’ve spent a long time dealing with them.

[dinopello]

An NDA to protect trade secrets is OK, but I don't think there should be a way to legally bind someone such that they couldn't report environmental damage or illegal activity.

[ROCKMAN]

Dino - Which is why a NDA has ever prevented a disclosure of any illegal activity or regulatory violation. In fact, in Texas and La. it's illegal for a land owner to not report such breaches for any reason. In fact, I personally know of two land owners that were convicted of conspiracy charges for doing that. Both got hit with substantial fines. One large enough he had to sell his small property to cover his fine. I worked on the mineral evaluation of his property for a company trying to buy it.

And legal eagles correct me but a NDA doesn't not prevent anyone from fully answering any question asked of them when under oath in court.