We Need Some Help

We need some help. Many of you have met Art and Betsy Knowles who have the beatiful place about 15 miles east of us. We have visited them many times during the seminar and they have opened up the grass runway and home to us and shared their slice of Texas with us all. Their runway is an FAA designated airport, Flamingo Airfield TA59. I met Art and Betsy in the mid 1990s after I moved to Graham and read an article in a magezine about their OX5 powered Command-Aire 3C3-T. They introduced me to antique airplanes and took me to some great fly-ins like the MAAC fly-in at Broadhead and the antique fly-in at Casa Grande. Many an evening I jumped in my airplane and flew out to their place to eat trout, elk or some what ever else Betsy had fixed. Tom Ford and my brother Chris and I still fly out on a weekly basis and visit with them in the evenings.

As you may or may not know many land owners do not own the minerl rights on their property. In Texas the mineral rights owner can drill on your land and there are laws about how close to your home and other things. This has not been a problem for Art and Btsy in the past, when a local oil company wanted to drill on their place and aggrement was made and both parties agreed. Recently Brigadier Oil Company drilled a well west of Art and Betsy's place and now they want to drill one east of them. Last week they came on the property with warning and started flagging a road between the two locations across the runway. Last night when they arrived hom they discovered that the oil company had bulldozed across the middle of the runway. To say they are devistated is an understatment. Art has put his heart and soul into this place and as I spoke with him this morning I could tell this has effected him greatly. Art is one of those people who is always positive, my favorite quote from him when asking about one of his hunting or fishing trips is always "It was Fantastic." This whole event has made us all sick. I am now on a mission to educate myself on any FAA regulations against this sort of thing. I will let the lawyer dig into the mineral lease etc. but would appreciate any feedback on the legality as far as the FAA on somehing like this. We are all headed out there shortly to place "X"s on the runway and do all that we can do to make a bad situation better. Luckily we fly Super Cubs and don't need the whole runway. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

You're finding out what I've known for a long time----oil doesn't play "nice". I am curious why they can't build the road around the end of the runway?

Start out by sending them a registered letter stating that they have created a liability that they are responsibile for if anyone gets injured landing on a FAA registered airport. That makes it a known liability for there lawyers and insurance people to chew on.

Glenn

It the runway designated as private only, or open to public?

No matter which, yes, there are procedures prior to this type of action, like NOTAM and such. But, unless someone gets hurt they will just go as desired. They do have the attorneys.

It was my understanding that mineral extraction must make allowances to people's property and investment, including use of the property...

Big Bummer.

Oklahoma has an airport protection statute which is monitored/enforced by the Oklahoma Aeronautics Commission these are pushed for by the FAA so Texas may well have it to. Contact the Texas Aeronauticas Commission or whomever governs the distribution of state and federal airport improvement funds.

Steve, check out an "avigation easement".... I have one on my runway and it's supposed to protect it against this sort of garbage. Sorry to hear of this deal...what a mess!

Law daughter tells me the mineral rights contractor can access the site to extract oil but they're required to do minimal surface damage. The rub may be who's definition of minimal surface damage counts. She thinks they need to involve a lawyer.

Did a Chicago mayor move to the area ??????

The accommodation doctrine governing surface versus mineral estate issues was originally developed in Texas in the 1970s, and it continues to this day. Where the surface owner has an existing use and there are reasonable alternatives available to the operator, the operator has a duty under the law to reasonably accommodate the existing use. If the operator knew or should have known of the existing use (which it obviously should have here), failed to consult in advance with the surface owner (which they apparently did), and a reasonable alternative exists (which it appears to), then the operator will be responsible for damages and they could, potentially, be entitled to an immediate injunction requiring the operator to cease any further disruption and/or return the strip to its prior condition. I would be furious too, if I was them. It sounds to me like the company has proceeded in an incredibly stupid manner, and has created a real problem for itself (in addition to the obvious problems they have created for the surface owner).

That said, I negotiate issues like these for a living, and take exception to the generalization that oil and gas doesn't play nice. There are bad actors in every business and there are certain inevitable practical difficulties created by the split estate issue. However, there are legal doctrines that have been developed over time to try and balance the interests of the parties and, when handled correctly by the conscientious types of people I run into every day, reasonable accommodations are made, surface owners are paid for their trouble under surface use agreements negotiated in advance of any disturbance (often at rates of up to $3,000 per acre per year of disturbance, for land you could buy outright for $500 per acre), and this kind of nonsense is kept to a minimum.

The accommodation doctrine is very well-established in Texas, and it should be a fairly straightforward matter for a decent lawyer to handle.

Get a copy of the lease and see what rights they have and what land it covers.

Take Kirbys plane down there and pile it up where they cut the runway.... Then tell them they are in big trouble......

12Geezer2 said:

Did a Chicago mayor move to the area ??????

Click to expand...

Exactly what Art said.

RanchPilot said:

The accommodation doctrine governing surface versus mineral estate issues was originally developed in Texas in the 1970s, and it continues to this day. Where the surface owner has an existing use and there are reasonable alternatives available to the operator, the operator has a duty under the law to reasonably accommodate the existing use. If the operator knew or should have known of the existing use (which it obviously should have here), failed to consult in advance with the surface owner (which they apparently did), and a reasonable alternative exists (which it appears to), then the operator will be responsible for damages and they could, potentially, be entitled to an immediate injunction requiring the operator to cease any further disruption and/or return the strip to its prior condition. I would be furious too, if I was them. It sounds to me like the company has proceeded in an incredibly stupid manner, and has created a real problem for itself (in addition to the obvious problems they have created for the surface owner).

That said, I negotiate issues like these for a living, and take exception to the generalization that oil and gas doesn't play nice. There are bad actors in every business and there are certain inevitable practical difficulties created by the split estate issue. However, there are legal doctrines that have been developed over time to try and balance the interests of the parties and, when handled correctly by the conscientious types of people I run into every day, reasonable accommodations are made, surface owners are paid for their trouble under surface use agreements negotiated in advance of any disturbance (often at rates of up to $3,000 per acre per year of disturbance, for land you could buy outright for $500 per acre), and this kind of nonsense is kept to a minimum.

The accommodation doctrine is very well-established in Texas, and it should be a fairly straightforward matter for a decent lawyer to handle.

Click to expand...

I agree, the lease holders on the north end of the property are great.

The lawyer brought up the accommodation doctrine as well.

Use eaton's plane, It probably needs fabric work anyhow.

There is some very good advise hear and it ain't SteveE's. Ranch Pilot you are an excellent resource and look to be spot on. Also as a former SOFT (Society of Oil Field Trash) member I agree, all Oilies ain't bad.

Sort of like our new 911 communications center. They put an antenna on top of a hill right next to the downwind leg of our pattern for 21. Not a word to anybody. I guess it will be convenient for the first aircraft that tangles with it, talk about Johnny on the spot.

Some how one of my posts didn't post. We all flew out Saturday morning and assisted the Knowles in putting Xs on the runway and started talking about better times. Took a lot of pictures on the way out. Saturday afternoon Betsy called asking for some pictures as they were meeting with the attorney. We went out and uploaded some good pictures showing alternatives that do not effect the runway or the house. A plan was made but just had to see what the otherside thought. Monday morning I called AOPA and though there are no FAA regs effecting things like this they were accessible and helpful. I also called the FAA and left a message but still haven't heard from them. Meeting on Monday morning went well and the runway was saved and there is a claus that they can never interfere with the runway. The cut should be repaired by now and all is good. Really appreciate everyones insight and help.

Glad to hear that all was resolved, and so quickly.

Ralf said:

Sort of like our new 911 communications center. They put an antenna on top of a hill right next to the downwind leg of our pattern for 21. Not a word to anybody. I guess it will be convenient for the first aircraft that tangles with it, talk about Johnny on the spot.

Click to expand...

Did they request an airspace/obstruction study? Federal Law requires one.

Wow! Great news Pierce. I must say I wasn't optimistic.

Art and Betsy are truly wonderful and interesting people. Hated to hear all that was going on. Glad it is ending well!!!

cafi

Good news. So are they going to parallel the runway and hit the road that already goes by the end of the runway? I assume they're going for that circle in the woods that already has a road to it.

They are going to come in using the north entrance to the property which will keep them away from the house.

Ralf said:

Sort of like our new 911 communications center. They put an antenna on top of a hill right next to the downwind leg of our pattern for 21. Not a word to anybody. I guess it will be convenient for the first aircraft that tangles with it, talk about Johnny on the spot.

Click to expand...

Reminds me of an incident that took place in the mid 80s on Alaska's North Slope. Shipping company barging supplies into
Kaktovik placed temporary Loran towers along the coast. CE-206 on floats, returning from a wildlife survey (in less than ideal visibility), clips the top of the tower, which breaks off and punches a football sized hole in the left float. Had the pilot not seen the tower at the last second and raised his wing, it would have hit the lower part (stouter) of the tower which would have taken the wing off. When the pilot landed in the lagoon and realized his left float was sinking, he drove it up on the beach...not a fun day all the way around...