Accordingly, an oil well can drain oil from a forty-acre radius, and a gas well can drain gas from a 640-acre radius. Furthermore, mineral reserves can be placed under the ownership of two or more people with different needs and interests with equal rights or exclusive rights to their properties. As a result, some landowners may be interested in drilling and benefiting from mineral reserves, while others may oppose such drilling due to its negative externalities. To resolve these conflicting interests, the use of the “Rule of Capture” has undermined the property rights of a neighbor who is not ready to drill or does not want to drill at all for various reasons. Among these different individuals or groups with competing interests, one may have financial needs, others may have environmental concerns, meaning he or she values ​​clean air and water more than the financial benefit from mineral content. Based on interpretation and use by courts, the Rule of Capture has failed to support the enjoyment of those who do not want their environment adversely affected. If one or more landowners want to drill and others oppose any drilling around their homes, the “Rule of Capture” does not prevent these people from digging and disturbing the residents of the rest of that area. “Even if this individual first digs in his own portion of the earth and once he digs deep under the earth, that person gets under the earth of others and can empty the resources of others. He is the only one who has dug deep under his property, and this creates a low pressure and all the resources flow into his reservoir” (Burness). Therefore, if one of the neighbors can value the extracted oil and wants to be... in the center of the paper... trading all or part of its interests. An individual or group wanting to extract oil could negotiate with the opposing party by offering part of the benefit of the common pool. They could also reach a negotiated agreement to protect air and water quality by producing oil and/or gas in a more careful and environmentally friendly way. In this context, only one or two wells could have been drilled leaving more land for alternative use. In these circumstances, both parties would end up with mutually beneficial terms rather than win or lose terms favored by the courts. In these terms, the resources could also be used more efficiently and the mineral content would be captured to the extent that the technologically feasible quantity could be left in the reservoir compared to the production obtained according to the “Capture Rule”.”.‎