What legal view do some courts take regarding the nature of oil beneath the ground?

Some courts take the legal view that oil is treated like wild animals based on the principle of "capture." This perspective establishes that oil, like wildlife, is not owned by anyone until it is extracted from its natural location. This concept serves as the foundation for the "rule of capture," which grants landowners the right to extract oil from beneath their property even if that oil migrates from neighboring land.

In contrast, considering oil as a fixed mineral resource would imply that ownership rights to the oil exist before extraction takes place, which doesn't align with the capture principle. Classifying oil as a flowing river suggests a fluid rights system, but it doesn't capture the essence of oil’s movement and ownership implications accurately. Lastly, regarding oil as an intangible asset discounts its physical nature and the legal rights associated with its extraction and ownership, reducing its classification to something not physically extractable.

Thus, the treatment of oil as akin to wild animals is significant in understanding the legal frameworks surrounding rights and ownership in the oil industry.