SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
According to the news-site Seattle P-I, a battle that started in the late Cretaceous period between a Tyrannosaurus Rex and a Ceretopsian "entwined in a death match" has resulted in a more modern form of combat.
in 2005, in central Montana
amateur paleontologist Clayton Phipps discovered a 22-foot-long (7-meter-long) carnivorous theropod and a 28-foot-long (9-meter-long) plant-eating ceratopsian believed to have died 66 million years ago. Imprints of the dinosaurs' skin were found in the sediment.
When the Murrays went to sell the "dueling dinosaurs" for what they hoped would be at least $6 million, potential buyers wanted assurances they owned the fossils. The Murrays sought a court ruling.
And that's where the controversy began, winding back and forth through the courts since 2013
Mary Ann and Lige Murray own the surface rights and one-third of the mineral rights on the ranch near the tiny town of Jordan, while brothers Jerry and Robert Severson own two-thirds of the mineral rights after a 2005 property sale. Neither side expected to find fossils on the property, and they're not mentioned in the contract, court documents show.
Eric Wolff, an attorney for the Seversons, contends
that the fossils in this case are composed of minerals and are valuable and are therefore part of the mineral estate.
conversely, according to attorney Harlan Krogh,
"Montana has never recognized dinosaur fossils as a mineral" like it has oil, coal or gold, he said, adding that fossils are not mined, processed, milled or smelted.
Recent law in Montana clarified this situation when
lawmakers unanimously passed a measure that says dinosaur fossils are part of the surface estate unless there's a contract saying otherwise.
However the law does not apply to pre-existing litigation, so the battle rages on.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RandomFactor on Sunday November 10 2019, @03:43PM (6 children)
Defining a mineral [ox.ac.uk]
Basic definition [wikipedia.org]
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 10 2019, @04:36PM
This definition is obviously irrelevant in the case of "mineral rights", which is defined by law. There is no dispute that mineral rights include oil which is organic, frequently found as a liquid, and was made from plants and animals.
(Score: 2) by fishybell on Sunday November 10 2019, @04:39PM (1 child)
I look at that definition and would argue that because the bones themselves (which are not a mineral as they were made by a living animal) are not what is being fought over, that the fossils are indeed minerals. Abiotic means filled in the area that was once a bone with a mineral. Of course, that's just my opinion man.
Laws don't seem to care at all about actual scientific definitions though. For example, did you know pizza is a vegetable [thejournal.ie]? Oil is not, scientifically speaking, a mineral, but is always included in mineral rights. If I were the judge I would want to rule on whether fossils were part of mineral rights, not on whether fossils were minerals.
Not knowing the political leanings (or even how the political leanings would lean in this particular case) of the judges, I wouldn't place my bet one way or another. I would however place my bet that if the judges in this case were more liberal that the ruling would be overturned in the supreme court. It's somewhat disheartening how much politics ends up playing into almost every decision appellate courts make.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Sunday November 10 2019, @04:56PM
Sure, the bones themselves are obviously not minerals. But the bones vanished long ago, fossils are the mineral deposits that formed in the scaffolding originally provided by the bones (or plants, footprints, etc.)
(Score: 5, Informative) by maxwell demon on Sunday November 10 2019, @04:44PM (2 children)
From the summary, emphasis by me:
"Montana has never recognized dinosaur fossils as a mineral" like it has oil, coal or gold, he said
Doesn't hold for oil. Nor for coal.
Doesn't hold for oil. Nor for coal.
Indeed not even for limestone: [wikipedia.org]
The primary source of the calcite in limestone is most commonly marine organisms.
Doesn't hold for oil.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday November 10 2019, @04:58PM
Also doesn't hold for natural gas.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday November 11 2019, @01:26AM
In Montana, it holds.
It is true that both oil and coal could result from life forms over millions of years, but clearly in our case they were made by God some 6000 or so years ago. (grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford