An interesting day here tomorrow as the citizens vote to push forward the citizens created constitution, which has highlights like removing the state church, giving fish quotas back to the citizens (its been in the hands of a small number of families for decades), giving ownership of Icelands mineral rights to citizens, and allowing citizens to force referendums, etc....
Anyhow they expect a high voter turnout and I'll post the results once they are in for those interested.
The new constitution states that a certain number of the population can call for a referendum on a certain issue. The opposition calls the referendum on Saturday “undemocratic.” The new constitution states that all our national resources shall be commonly owned by the Icelandic people.
And this is the main issue. Some privileged people might lose their privilege. For example, the present quota system in the fishing industry is totally feudal, with 20 sea barons “owning” the un-fished cod in the sea. They do so because “they always have” and because “they bought it from each other.” (Yes, some people have become rich by selling other people the right to fish “their” fish in the sea.) Of course, the sea barons fight the hardest against a new constitution, pouring their money into propaganda newspapers, websites and TV programs. Their lawyers and politicians now try their best to confuse people with lawspeak for lunatics: “What exactly does “commonly owned” mean?” The new constitution also states that in parliamentary elections all votes shall carry the same weight.
In the present system the votes of people living around the coastline carry more weight than people living in the city. The sea barons all live around the coastline.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
Here's the first five questions being put to vote>
Quote:
1. Do you wish the Constitution Council's proposals to form the basis of a new draft Constitution?
2. In the new Constitution, do you want natural resources that are not privately owned to be declared national property?
3. Would you like to see provisions in the new Constitution on an established (national) church in Iceland?
4. Would you like to see a provision in the new Constitution authorising the election of particular individuals to the Althingi more than is the case at present?
5. Would you like to see a provision in the new Constitution giving equal weight to votes cast in all parts of the country?
6. Would you like to see a provision in the new Constitution stating that a certain proportion of the electorate is able to demand that issues are put to a referendum?
Early results show 70% to 30% for 1. which is of course the key question, so far with the exception of 3 every question has YES winning with 60-70%.
#3 was worded very poorly in Icelandic and it looks to be a story of people voting the opposite way they intended, based on polls done over the last few years on that very question of separation of church and state.
It is sadly failing, yes has it in early results with 60% in favor a state church but again this seems to be the story of this vote being that people are very unhappy with how this was worded and the results will probably not be taken very seriously.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following User Says Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
The government owns the mineral rights and leases out those rights to companies or individuals. In some cases there are individuals who own the mineral rights from land purchased prior to the government taking control. Some companies also own rights, I believe Encana and Cenovus do back from CP building the railroad.
The Following User Says Thank You to Suave For This Useful Post:
Interesting fact:
Before oil was discovered in Alberta CP owned the mineral rights to a huge amount of land in Alberta from the land grants they got for building the line. They transferred the land between entities and their clerk didn't bother to transfer the mines and minerals. By the time oil was discovered and the mistake was realized the courts decided that it was too long ago so the rights reverted to the Alberta government.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to GP_Matt For This Useful Post:
Back where I grew up we had a few neighbors that still owned mineral rights. They hit the goldmine when oil/gas was discovered on their land.
Others were not so lucky due to the oil companies supposedly using horizontal drilling methods against unsuspecting landowners. Never really proven, but it was alleged.
Interesting fact:
Before oil was discovered in Alberta CP owned the mineral rights to a huge amount of land in Alberta from the land grants they got for building the line. They transferred the land between entities and their clerk didn't bother to transfer the mines and minerals. By the time oil was discovered and the mistake was realized the courts decided that it was too long ago so the rights reverted to the Alberta government.
And if a private company owns the mineral rights, they don't have to pay royalties? How does that work?
Royalties are paid to the owner of the rights in exchange for the right to recover and sell the product. If the landowner owns the mineral rights then the oil company needs to negotiate a royalty schedule with the landowner. If the company owns the rights then they don't pay royalties, they already own all mines and minerals below the property. They still have to pay the landowner for surface access and taxes to the government but nothing for royalties.
The Following User Says Thank You to GP_Matt For This Useful Post:
The Alberta Crown owns about 81% of the mineral rights in Alberta. The remaining 19% is a combination of freehold (either individual landowners or corporations) and those owned by the Federal Crown.
The Following User Says Thank You to frinkprof For This Useful Post:
Interesting. Thanks for the replies. I suppose the reason the Crown owns so much of the mineral rights is due to the vast majority of our mineral rights being located in remote areas where nobody really lives.
I wonder how many private landowners actually own the mineral rights for their own land. Is there a number of years that you had to own the land before the mineral rights were granted? I know my family never owned the mineral rights to our land, and it was in our name from about 1950 on.
^It has to do with how the land was granted. After 1887 grants to homesteaders were for surface title only, with the mineral title withheld. Therefore, if the homesteader was granted title prior to 1887, they most likely held the mineral title too. Since there weren't many homestead grants prior to 1887, that's why the Crown ended up holding a lot of the mineral titles. If you look at a lot of land titles, they will say on them "excepting thereout all mines and minerals."
A lot of that 19 percent is as a result of the land that was granted to CP Rail, some to the Hudson's Bay Company, and the Federal Crown (mostly due to Indian Reserves and National Parks being Canada Lands).
The Following User Says Thank You to frinkprof For This Useful Post:
Back where I grew up we had a few neighbors that still owned mineral rights. They hit the goldmine when oil/gas was discovered on their land.
Others were not so lucky due to the oil companies supposedly using horizontal drilling methods against unsuspecting landowners. Never really proven, but it was alleged.
That should be a really easy thing to check if you worked in an oil and gas company, and a not difficult thing for an individual to check themselves at the Board. All horizontal wells need to have surveys in order to be allowed, and those surveys are eventually (after maximum one year) public information.
Small, homogenous society makes such radical changes much easier. Not sure Iceland can be an example to anyone else but countries similar in racial/cultural composition.
The Following User Says Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
That should be a really easy thing to check if you worked in an oil and gas company, and a not difficult thing for an individual to check themselves at the Board. All horizontal wells need to have surveys in order to be allowed, and those surveys are eventually (after maximum one year) public information.
They need a survey that would show the bottom hole, but if an oil company was planning to drill a horizontal well a la The Simpsons and steal oil from an area that they did not own I doubt if they would send the plan to the ERCB. There is no requirement that I am aware of to have a down hole survey done unless you are planning to be within 2% of a drilling boundary.
I still can't imagine that a company would do that. The fallout would be pretty huge and you would need a lot of people to be on board to pull it off.
They need a survey that would show the bottom hole, but if an oil company was planning to drill a horizontal well a la The Simpsons and steal oil from an area that they did not own I doubt if they would send the plan to the ERCB. There is no requirement that I am aware of to have a down hole survey done unless you are planning to be within 2% of a drilling boundary.
I still can't imagine that a company would do that. The fallout would be pretty huge and you would need a lot of people to be on board to pull it off.
If it's licensed as a Horizontal well, there must be a survey, as the bottom hole is more than 2% off. No directional company would willingly lie, as they would be jeopardizing their entire company - and they would know what is going on. I don't know of an oil and gas company that has their own directional tools, so they would have to use outsiders.
There is too many people working on that rig who have an idea of what is going on to willfully trespass on someone else's land. Drainage, however...
Like I said it was alleged. I'm not really knowledgeable on the matter, so I had no idea if it was possible or not.
But I know for sure that a few of our neighbors suspected it. Going by the last two posts probably because they didn't know any better and figured it was as simple as going down and over and nobody would know a thing.
Ok so you are for the US government putting the collapse of its financial market on to its citizens? That the massive collapse of its financial sector is the responsibility of the citizens which vote in Bush. Good to know.
As soon as someone attempts to pin all of the blame for the financial crisis on Bush, I realize just how little of the financial crisis they actually understand.
The Following User Says Thank You to Ark2 For This Useful Post:
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Whatever happened to Iceland becoming an international pariah due to "not paying their debts" like so many here predicted? How is the economy doing there, Thor?
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
Unemployment is down to 5%, so thats good news, still our currency is under strict controls but obviously since the crash we have been steadily improving in all areas.
Here's a few recent articles covering the currency controls which is my biggest worry, and a few other good articles on how things are really going.
