One Landowner's Leasing Logic

My strategy with the energy extraction that is already underway in the whole area is to co-opt the Energy Exploitation corp into actively conserving our little plot of water and land by signing a strongly conservation-led non-disturbance lease. They get the gas down there legally (they don't have to steal it, I mean), and agree to not touch the land or water up here. If they do, we can (I believe) fairly easily and cheaply shut em down with an injunction - something not possible without a lease. A lease transfers the weak legal enforceability of conserving land into the strong legal enforceability of honoring an agreement. Just make sure the agreement is right for us!

If they sign this agreement, they have an 80% interest in protecting the covenants of the agreement (they get 80% we get 20%). They don't have to give a shit about the land and water. But in order to get the gas they have to give a shit about upholding the lease, which demands that they preserve land and water.

Mind you, this is a compromise and is only made possible because all our neighbors have already happily sacrificed their rights over control of their own land so the gas guys can put their rig over there and not on our land. Up until then, I was strongly in favor of no leasing, no dialog, no nothing because that kept them away quite effectively. After the entire valley leased, our holding out prevented nothing, preserved nothing, allowed us to control nothing, not even on our own land. That's when it became preferable to me that we create a binding agreement with the Gas co about how our land is affected.

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!