Comments by "MarcosElMalo2" (@MarcosElMalo2) on "Wind Turbines Built w/o Permits Ordered Torn Down at a Cost of $300M" video.

  1.  @wendwllhickey6426  That’s one of the issues. The company was notified it didn’t have the right to install the turbines, told to halt the work, and they went ahead anyway.
    14
  2. Just curious, how much did you pay for the mineral rights and how much for the property (surface) rights? If you don’t feel comfortable giving out that information, can you give us a percentage? Did you also acquire water rights?
    14
  3.  @Allangulon  Did you watch the video? The rights holders contacted the company. The company refused to enter into an agreement with the rights holders.
    12
  4.  nunyabidness3075  The downside is that you’re paying more for your land than you would if simply bought the surface rights. In some cases it will be worth it, in other cases it won’t.
    10
  5. The excavation of soil and the anchoring of the turbines interferes with the tribe’s right to exploit the mineral rights. Sorry, you lose.
    5
  6. Atsa spicy meatball.
    4
  7.  @TheSimba86  They didn’t. They began demanding a leasing agreement to permit the work back in 2013. Sorry, you lose.
    3
  8. Try to watch the video before posting ignorant comments.
    3
  9. It depends on how deep you are excavating. How deep do you need to remove dirt to build a basement? The company needed to excavate deep holes to install piles capable of anchoring the turbines. This infringes in the rights holder to exercise their rights in the future. Worse, they used the material excavated to construct the foundations. That’s the part that qualifies as mining. The worst case scenario for a home builder is requesting and paying for a permit to excavate a basement. The company refused to do this. They basically told the rights holder to go to hell.
    3
  10. The land was leased from private owners. The private owners didn’t own the mineral rights. So you can’t blame the tribe for that.
    2
  11.  @GraytechOne  And when they were notified that the needed an accommodation from the tribe’s mineral trust, they told the tribe to take a hike.
    2
  12. A lot of the commenters didn’t watch the video, don’t understand the law, and prefer to base their opinions on “common sense” bereft of facts and logic. I really don’t know why they watch law related channels. Perhaps it’s a way of fueling their need to feel outraged.
    2
  13. It’s not clear what depth limitations, but they exceeded the volume and they put the excavated material to use as construction material (such as breaking rocks into gravel to help make concrete). Turning your foundation holes into an impromptu quarry fits the legal definition of mining.
    2
  14. They used the materials to make the concrete, which saved them the cost of buying the materials off site and shipping them to the site. Reducing the cost of the project means more profits. This is not materially different than if they sold the building materials they extracted.
    2
  15.  @miniskunk  That’s incorrect. Your knowledge of the law is incomplete if not entirely lacking.
    2
  16.  @exigy.  In this case it wasn’t building permits that the company failed to secure. It was permission (permits) from the tribe’s mineral council that the company failed or refused to acquire.
    2
  17. Is that a problem? You go to the mineral council and ask for an excavation permit for your planned construction. They tell you how much and you pay it. You don’t tell them to go to hell and build anyway. Or if you’re unaware of the requirement, you pay up when they inform you. It seems like normal construction business processes are throwing you for a loop.
    2
  18. It depends on the tribe’s and the mineral council’s motivations. If it’s purely about the money, the tribe might contract with another company to operate the wind farm. If they really don’t want the wind farm there, the wind farm company will have posted a removal bond as part of the building process.
    2
  19.  @artstrology  Thank you!
    2
  20. Steve isn’t a fan of turbines. 😉
    2
  21. I would hope that your hypothetical developer would acquire permissions, permits, and leases from ANY and all rights holders. If they didn’t, they’d be pretty stupid developers. You can’t just “art-of-the-deal” your way through this.
    2
  22. That’s not “win-win”. One side (the company) lost. When you say “win-win”, that means that everyone benefited from the outcome.
    1
  23.  @tstodgell  They didn’t bring in sand and gravel because they were ignorant of the law.
    1
  24. It’s not. The company was notified by the tribal mineral council (co-administrator of the mineral rights) that they needed mining permits to proceed with construction. The company ignored them.
    1
  25. That’s what you get for signing a contract without reading it. That was a really dumb move on your part, wasn’t it.
    1
  26. Watch the video and find out.
    1
  27. The company had leased the private property, which gave them rights to build on the surface, so I don’t think the company is liable for that. It depends on the leasing agreement.
    1
  28. If the materials saved the company construction costs, how is that materially different from profit?
    1
  29. Watch the video and you’ll learn the answers to your questions. I hope that’s not too hard.
    1
  30. Apparently you also have trouble watching the video, because your opinion seems a huge stretch for someone with the knowledge of the facts and law that you would get from watching it.
    1
  31. I think there is a couple of other arguments that the tribe used or could have used, but this was the most clear cut violation.
    1
  32. No. Did you watch the video before commenting?
    1
  33. Watch the video. It answers your question.
    1
  34. Did you even watch the video?
    1
  35. No.
    1
  36. One of the limitations on use is 5,000 cubic feet per year. I’m not 100% about depth limit for non-mining purposes (such as building a basement), but if a builder’s proposed basement exceeds the depth limit (if defined) or the volume limit, they request a permit from the mineral council and pay for it. I imagine that the depth required to anchor a wind turbine must be pretty deep in that part of the country. They’d definitely be going into stable subsoil.
    1
  37.  @graceyee9067  Building a slab for a house doesn’t impinge on mineral rights. The court’s decision relied on the definition of mining, but interference with the right to exploit subsurface minerals (which the company did by excavating and pouring the anchoring foundation did do). Basically, the company refused to negotiate for a lease (or permit/permission) with the mineral rights trust. They thought it would be cheaper to fight it in court. I’ll speculate it was because they didn’t hire attorneys with expertise in mineral rights.
    1
  38.  @thomassoderstrom6369  It’s similar to paying for a building permit. Let’s say you’re the builder of tract housing. If building basements impinges on the mineral rights, you pay for the permit and tack on the cost to your house price. There might be a set price or you might need to negotiate for permission to excavate however many basements you want. Have you ever tried to build a house without building permits in a jurisdiction that requires permits? Your construction will be halted and if you continue anyway, your house will get torn down and you’ll likely pay a fine.
    1
  39.  @ianbelletti6241  It’s also the contractor’s job to understand the limits of legal construction. Do you mean it’s not the legal responsibility? I’d agree to that.
    1
  40.  @ianbelletti6241  Interesting point. I’ll concede it. 😅
    1
  41.  @shawnsmith9512  You know, you could easily clear up your befuddled understanding by watching the video?
    1
  42. Watch the video.
    1
  43. That’s the case in most jurisdictions, but it’s not the issue in this case.
    1
  44.  @johnhouchins3156  Their ability to exploit their mineral rights would also be affected by the deep turbine foundations. This all could have been avoided if the company simply paid for the mining permits. They didn’t understand the law and thought it would be cheaper to fight it in court.
    1
  45. I admire the confidence you have, posting your opinion with no knowledge of the case or law, which you could all learn from watching the video.
    1
  46. Steve already answered that question in the video. You might want to watch it before posting any more comments.
    1
  47. So if you watch the video, you can avoid getting your crack all sandy and irritated.
    1
  48.  @markalexander832 if we’re talking about literal pie, that’s sad. I love pie. 🥧
    1
  49. No, you don’t. Watch the video.
    1
  50. If you think that’s asinine, did you realize that a majority of the commenters on this video didn’t watch the video and are making dumb comments like yours? That’s asinine!
    1
  51. Don’t they read contracts?
    1
  52. They’ll be forced to disgorge the profits if that’s necessary to pay for the removal. If they just walk away, there’s nothing to stop the mineral council from contracting with another company to operate the wind farm. The wind farm company screwed itself by ignoring the rights of others.
    1
  53. That’s great that you’re involved in drafting, but you really should watch this video that contains the facts and the pertinent law.
    1
  54. Watch the video. You obviously didn’t listen to the sounds that came out of Steve’s mouth.
    1
  55. I guess you could watch the video and clear up those questions of yours.
    1
  56. If you want answers to questions, do you need to watch the video? Try it! Then you don’t have to be in the dark.
    1
  57.  @artstrology Good on you re:Monsanto. I’m not against genetically modified organisms, but I’m 100% against Monsanto’s predatory business practices (which exploit their ability to modify organisms and call it intellectual property).
    1
  58. That depends on the lease between the company and the (surface) property owners, no?
    1
  59. This was the appeal. Did you even watch the video?
    1
  60. It’s possible that the council just wants them removed. If it’s just about the money, the company can negotiate with the council for the mining permits/leases. Which they should have done in the first place instead of telling the council to go to hell.
    1
  61.  @DustinDonald-cz9ot  You might not classify rocks, gravel, or sand as mining, but you have very little knowledge in the area while also having a lot of unsupported opinion.
    1
  62. Did you watch the video?
    1
  63.  @tarotbullnews9999  How deep do the pilings go? That’s tornado country, so I imagine the excavation was also pretty deep.
    1
  64. If they had done that, it would have negated the tribe’s mineral council’s strongest argument. That doesn’t mean the tribe doesn’t have other legal arguments, but they are less clear cut.
    1
  65. Apparently you need to post a removal bond to cover the cost of removal, before starting construction.
    1
  66. Did you watch the video? It seems like you didn’t or that you had your volume turned off if you did watch it.
    1
  67. When the mineral rights and water rights are separated from the surface rights, it makes the surface rights cheaper. If you want all the rights, you pay more (and likely have to negotiate separate deals with all the rights holders, assuming they are willing to sell).
    1
  68. The second thing you wrote.
    1
  69. Steve isn’t a fanboy.
    1
  70. Watch the video and learn the difference.
    1
  71. Your house can be removed if you post a comment or question without watching the video.
    1
  72. Watch the video.
    1
  73. They avoided paying for the construction materials they would have had to buy and bring to the site. They profited from extracting the materials.
    1
  74.  @sonictech1000  If you’re worried, watch the entire video so you can learn the facts and the law. I suspect that will allay your fears.
    1
  75. Did you actually watch the video? If so, watch it again, but this time also listen.
    1
  76. No. Which you would know if you watched the video.
    1
  77. No, the surface rights were owned by private owners. Did you watch the video before commenting? You might give that a try and avoid embarrassment.
    1
  78. The company should have negotiated with the mineral council before they built anything. They could have agreed to profit sharing and if the council wanted too much, the company could have decided to build elsewhere. It’s really simple. Now the company is on the hook for removal of the structures.
    1
  79.  @dougjones9493  Apparently they had to post a bond equal to the cost of removal.
    1
  80. Did you know that you can clear up your ignorance on this situation by watching the video?
    1
  81. As compared to what?
    1
  82. The video answers your questions. I don’t know, maybe watch it?
    1
  83. That was covered in the video, if you had bothered to watch. Your definition doesn’t match the legal definition in this case, which is unambiguous.
    1
  84. Good luck with that.
    1
  85. So you want to interfere with property rights? If I own the surface rights, mineral rights, and water rights of a property, it should be within my rights to unbundle those rights as I see fit, and sell or lease them to others. This benefits society as a whole, because it makes property less expensive—you just buy what you need. You don’t have to pay extra for mineral rights you don’t need. Some people want the peace of mind and will pay for extra rights. That’s also their right.
    1
  86. Did you watch the video? It answers your questions. You could watch it or you could continue in ignorance. Your choice.
    1
  87.  @miniskunk  Not according to the laws regulating mineral rights in this case. Sorry, but you really out to watch the video before resorting to your “common sense” based on lack of information.
    1
  88. That’s not the issue. The issue is that the company violated the rights of the mineral rights holder.
    1
  89. Possibly. It would have undercut the Tribe’s strongest argument, but it’s not the only argument that the tribe could make.
    1
  90. The reparation is removal of the construction and legal costs.
    1
  91.  @Allangulon  The nation of India has nothing to do with this case. These people with the mineral rights aren’t dot-on-the-head Indians, they’re Native American Indians. No wonder you’re all over the comments posting nonsense. You don’t know your rear end from a mining operation.
    1
  92. I think there are other arguments that could be used (and might have been used in court), but this was the strongest argument that won the case. It’s seems very clear to me the company unambiguously violated the rights of a rights holder.
    1
  93. Why is it hard to understand that securing rights, permits, and permissions is a normal part of large scale developments? People are acting like this is bizarre, and it’s not. What is strange is that the wind farm company refused to secure all the necessary permissions, deciding to fight it in court rather than pay money to all the rights holders.
    1
  94. Yes, that is a good argument. The argument that won the case was that the wind farm company had engaged in mining operations during the construction of the wind farm.
    1
  95. Tell us all about your extensive experience with copyright and native Americans.
    1
  96. Watch the video and be enlightened.
    1
  97. Did you even bother to watch the video?
    1
  98. Watch the video and you’ll have less need to ask dumb questions.
    1
  99. Watch the video.
    1
  100. Have you considered taking the addd step of watching Steve’s video?
    1
  101. That might be difficult to apply eminent domain if a sovereign nation or different political entity owns the mineral rights, as is the case here. The state of New York cannot seize property in Texas under eminent domain.
    1
  102. The answers to your questions are in the video that Steve recorded and posted. Have you considered watching it?
    1
  103. Watch the video. It will answer your questions.
    1