ELEMENTS B POWER POINT SLIDES

1. ELEMENTS B POWER POINT SLIDES Class #26 Monday, November 2, 2015 National Deviled Egg Day

2. Music to Accompany the Bill of RightsGreatest Hits of 1790Philharmonia Virtuosi of New York Conductor: Richard Kapp (1980)featuring Chick Corea, PianoPlace Survey Form on Front Desk(Extra Forms Available There)

3. LOGISTICS CLASS #26 On Course Page Now • Hadacheck & MahonSelf-Quizzes • Comments & Models for Bank of Old XQ2s • Comments on Group Assignment #1: 1B2, 1A1, 1C1 On Course Page Soon • Comments & Models for: • 2007 Q1 (Custom) • 2007 Q2 • Comments on Group Assignment #1: Tie-Breaker Qs Qs on Group Assignment #3?

4. LOGISTICS CLASS #26: The Week Ahead • Sliding Review Problems re Human Gesture Ahead • Wed 11/4: Continue Unit III plus • Review Problem 2G (Q1: Human Gesture & Escape): Prepare Arguments for Each Escape Factor • 1st Fajer Exam Workshop: 12:30 Room E352 • Fri 11/6: (Extendo-Class) Continue Unit III plus • Info of Choosing 1L Elective • Review Problem 2J (Q2: Human Gesture & Escape) (Last In-Class Unit Two Review Problem) • LAST CHANCE FOR Qs on GROUP ASSIGNMENT #3

5. REINSERTING GAS & ESCAPING ANIMALS CASES : Argument By Analogy Gas Companies (G) Reinserting Gas Produces Two Kinds of Disputes: • Hammonds: G v. Owners of Lots Containing Part of Reinsertion Pool • Who owns gas? • If G owns gas, does G have to pay for right to use pool? • If G doesn’t own, can other Owners extract reinserted gas? • White: G v. Owners of Adjoining Pools: If reinserted gas leaks into reservoir not owned/controlled by G, does G lose property rights to gas?

6. REINSERTING GAS & ESCAPING ANIMALS CASES : Argument By Analogy Gas Companies (G) Reinserting Gas Produces Two Kinds of Disputes: • Hammonds: G v. Owners of Lots Containing Part of Reinsertion Pool • White: Leaks(G v. Owners of Adjoining Pools) Note :You could address the two kinds of disputes separately where you thought they raised different issues. E.g., might argue ACs better for leaks than for Hammonds.

7. REINSERTING GAS & ESCAPING ANIMALS CASES : Argument By Analogy • DQ2.33: Arguments from Factual Similarities & Differences (RADIUM) (Last Time) • DQ2.34: Arguments re Usefulness of Legal Rules/Factors (RADIUM) • Arguments re Comparisons to Alternatives • DQ2.35: Oklahoma Statute (KRYPTON) • DQ2.36; Airspace Solution (KRYPTON) • DQ2.37: Overall (ALL)

8. Argument By AnalogyOil & Gas: Escape DQ2.34 (RADIUM): Usefulness of Doctrine (Legal Rules or Factors) from Escaping Animals Cases for “Escaping” Gas Situations (Hammonds Facts; White Facts; Both; Neither) Blackstone/Mullett Factors: ANIMUS REVERTENDI RETURN TO NATURAL LIBERTY ABANDONMENT [+ PURSUIT]

9. Argument By AnalogyOil & Gas: Escape DQ2.34 (RADIUM): Usefulness of Doctrine (Legal Rules or Factors) from Escaping Animals Cases for “Escaping” Gas Situations (Hammonds Facts; White Facts; Both; Neither) Factors from Other Cases: TIME DISTANCE MARKING/FINDER’s KNOWLEDGE PROTECTING LABOR/INDUSTRY

10. Argument By AnalogyOil & Gas: Escape Possible Alternatives to ACs (DQ2.35-2.37) Thinking About Pros & Cons Might Consider: • Importance of Reinsertion & Cheap Fuel • Relative Importance of Landowners’ Interests • Ease of Administration • Public Reaction

11. Argument By AnalogyOil & Gas: Escape Possible Alternatives to ACs DQ2.35 (KRYPTON): Oklahoma Statute (p.101 fn2) • I’ll go through language so you can see what it does • Then ask Kryptons re some pros & cons

12. Argument By AnalogyOil & Gas: Escape Oklahoma Statute (p.101: fn2) “All natural gas which has previously been reduced to possession, and which is subsequently injected into underground storage fields, sands, reservoirs and facilities, shall at all times be deemed the property of the injector, his heirs, successors or assigns ….” = Reinserted gas remains property of Gas Co. (G)

13. Argument By AnalogyOil & Gas: Escape Oklahoma Statute (p.101: fn2) “ … and in no event shall such gas be subject to the right of the owner of the surface of said lands or of any mineral interest therein, under which said gas storage fields, sands, reservoirs, and facilities lie, or of any person other than the injector, his heirs, successors and assigns, to produce, take, reduce to possession, waste, or otherwise interfere withor exercise any control thereover, …” = … and other owners of pool cannot take reinserted gas or bring trespass action …

14. Argument By AnalogyOil & Gas: Escape Oklahoma Statute (p.101: fn2) “ … provided that the injector, his heirs, successors and assigns, shall have no right to gas in any stratum, or portion thereof, which has not been condemned under the provisions of this Act, or otherwise purchased.” = … BUT G doesn’t have any rights to gas in portions of the pool that it has not paid to use via Eminent Domain ornegotiated agreement .”

15. Argument By AnalogyOil & Gas: Escape Oklahoma Statute (p.101: fn2) (Summary) • (1) Reinserted gas remains property of Gas Co. (G) and other owners (Os) of pool cannot take reinserted gas or bring trespass action , BUT • (2) G doesn’t have any rights to gas in portions of the pool that it has not paid to use. • MEANS: So long as G buys rights through negotiation or eminent domain, Os cannot prevent reinsertion or take gas.

16. Argument By AnalogyOil & Gas: Escape Oklahoma Statute (p.101: fn2) (Summary) Reinserted gas remains property of Gas Co. (G) and other owners (Os) of pool cannot take reinserted gas or bring trespass action , BUT G doesn’t have any rights to gas in portions of the pool that it has not paid to use. • If G doesn’t buy rights from Os, doesn’t own gas in those parts of pool. • Means Os can extract, but not bring trespass action. • Might mean Gs will take risk that small Os can’t afford to extract and not pay them for rights. QUESTIONS?

17. Argument By AnalogyOil & Gas: Escape Oklahoma Statute (p.101: fn2) (Summary) • Reinserted gas remains property of Gas Co. (G) and other owners (Os) of pool cannot take reinserted gas or bring trespass action , BUT G doesn’t have any rights to gas in portions of the pool that it has not paid to use. • If G doesn’t buy rights from Os, doesn’t own gas in those parts of pool. • Means Os can extract, but not bring trespass action. • Might mean Gs will take risk that small Os can’t afford to extract and not pay them for rights. KRYPTON DQ2.35: Pros & Cons v. Escaping ACs (I’ll Post Slide w Some)

18. Argument By AnalogyOil & Gas: Escape Possible Alternatives to ACs DQ2.35 (KRYPTON): Oklahoma Statute (p.101 fn2) PROS& CONS: Include • Injecting Gas Cos. have more control than in Hammonds; keep property rights so long as they pay for space; can choose to risk not paying small surface owners. • Owners of large surface plots likely to be paid for use of space. • Easier to Use than Full ACs Analysis • Higher costs of storage than Airspace Solution (both costs of purchasing space & admin. costs of negotiation or EmDom) • Smaller surface owners might get nothing.

19. Argument By AnalogyOil & Gas: Escape Possible Alternatives to ACs: Airspace Solution Possible State Regulation: • Reinserted gas stays property of Gas Co.(G) • BUT Surface Owners have no right to trespass action even if Gs haven't leased/bought space • Like rule about airspace over surface: above certain height, no rights. Here, below certain depth, Surface Owner has no rights (once gas extracted). KRYPTON DQ2.36: Pros & Cons v. Escaping ACs (I’ll Post Slide w Some)

20. Argument By AnalogyOil & Gas: Escape Possible Alternatives to ACs DQ2.36 (KRYPTON): Airspace Solution PROS & CONS: Include • Injecting Gas Cos. have complete control of space. • Lower costs of storage than Oklahoma or White. • Easier to Use than Full ACs Analysis • Owners of surface plots likely get nothing. • May result in Takings Litigation • May Result in Negative Political response

21. Argument By AnalogyOil & Gas: Escape Possible Alternatives to ACs DQ2.37 (ALL): Best Solution? • White Rule: Reinserted Gas = Property of Gas Co. • Hammonds Rule: Reinserted Gas = Unowned (Simplified ACs) • More Complex ACs (Consider marking, control, etc.) • DQ 2.35 Oklahoma Statute (White footnote 2) • DQ 2.36 “Airspace Solution to Hammonds problem.” • Other??

22. EXAM Q2 (1st Possession): REVIEW PROBLEM 2IHow Good Are 1st Possession ACs as Tools to Resolve Disputes re Ownership of Uninhabited Islands KRYPTON: • Fact Similarities & Differences • Applicability of Doctrine RADIUM: - Comparing Usefulness of Alternatives

23. Argument By AnalogyReview Problem 2I (KRYPTON) Arguments re Usefulness of Pierson/Liesner/Shaw/Swift from Factual Similarities between Hunting Wild Animals Generally & Taking Ownership of Uninhabited Islands

24. Argument By AnalogyReview Problem 2I (KRYPTON) Arguments re [Lack of] Usefulness of Pierson/Liesner/Shaw/Swift from Factual Differences between Hunting Wild Animals Generally & Taking Ownership of Uninhabited Islands

25. Argument By AnalogyReview Problem 2I (KRYPTON) Pierson/Liesner/Shaw/Swift: Rules/Factors that Would Work Fairly Well (and Why) re Taking Ownership of Uninhabited Islands

26. Argument By AnalogyReview Problem 2I (KRYPTON) Pierson/Liesner/Shaw/Swift: Rules/Factors that Would Be Hard to Use (and Why) re Taking Ownership of Uninhabited Islands

27. Argument By AnalogyReview Problem 2I (RADIUM) Alternatives to 1st Possession ACs re Taking Ownership of Uninhabited Islands? • Any Party Gets Ownership of as Much of the Island as They Are First to Use (Possible Split) • First Party to Take Resources Gets Whole Island • “Owner” of Nearest Inhabited Land Gets Whole Island OTHERS?

28. Argument By AnalogyReview Problem 2I (RADIUM) Pros & Cons: 1st Possession ACs v. Selected Alternatives • Any Party Gets Ownership of as Much of the Island as They Are First to Use (Possible Split) • First Party to Take Resources Gets Whole Island • “Owner” of Nearest Inhabited Land Gets Whole Island

29. Introduction to Unit Three : Constitutional Protection of Private Property LECTURE & KRYPTON (DQ3.01-3.04)

30. Unit Three : Constitutional Protection of Private Property State Regulations of Land Use Frequently Limit What Landowners Can Do With Their Land and/or Reduce Its Value. Under What Circumstances Does the U.S. Constitution Require that the State Compensate the Landowner for These Effects?