David and I have to respectfully disagree on this issue, I have heard this several times on this blog, but I disagree emphatically. Who's to say that if I sell 10% of my minerals to John Doe today, and John Doe re-sells the surface without that 10%, that still leaves the current surface owner out! There is just absolutely no way to guarantee that any minerals will travel with any surface. Up until 1915, minerals always went with homesteaded parcels. After oil was found in (Tx?) in the late 1800's, and really took off in the early years of 1900-1914, beginning in 1915, the Feds started withholding some or all minerals on many homesteaded parcels. These are some of the minerals that you see being 'auctioned' today on Fed withheld minerals, school tracts, and various BLM lands. In ND, when lands were sold, the minerals never went with the surface, except where denoted in the transfer documents. That is why there can still be descendants of homesteaded lands where minerals were left intact by lack of stipulation in sales transfers. Many of the mineral owners in states with oil were homesteading states. It is just the way it is. In my opinion, it is unwise to consider selling minerals to new surface owners to simply try to 'guarantee' cooperation. And, unless I am mistaken, one cannot mandate by purchase agreement (*legal backcheck me on this, somebody?)that the minerals sold to a current day new surface owner must be again sold to later purchasers of same surface. So exactly 'why' sell them in the first place? Lands are sold and resold, there is no guarantee that the next surface owner will cooperate even WITH any included minerals. And, if your willing to sell 10%, surface owners will start to expect sales to include 15, 20, 25% or more over the course of time. And if that becomes 'standard' for selling surface in the area, it would make it extremely difficult to sell any land without it! It appears to me that there will always, always be surface owners who do not own minerals in states with severed mineral laws and statutes. Non-mineral owners will grumble regardless. No surface owners (without minerals) complained prior to the late 1940's when oil exploration first began in the area,many shrewd farmers and ranchers started buying up minerals for nickels and dimes during the depression because, to those owners, they had no value. Since they are now worth big bucks, everyone wants them back. It just doesn't work that way. My opinion is, don't sell any minerals to guarantee 'cooperation', I would expect more trouble than you have now if you do. Rufus
Nov 7, 2:39 pm, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think its usually probably smart for the seller to make sure that > the new surface oner gets a small % of the mineral interest to prevent > thses sorts of conflicts. Even 10 % would be plenty to ensure that the > surface owner and mineral interest holder's interests coincide. > > On Nov 7, 11:38 am, "Rufus O'Malley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Teegue, > > Quite a story, but while truly serious, couldn't help to break a grin. > > You painted quite a visual-- but your last paragraph really nailed it. > > Knowing how my own father/grandfather would have reacted under similar > > circumstances, no notice, no negotiating access or comp, it's a good > > thing Murphy got some Suface Owner legislation passed that averts > > (most of) this...for everyones sake. > > > On Nov 6, 11:10 pm, Teegue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Personal experience here being run off a property with the surveyors > > > by the landowner and son sporting rifles, and again when the machines > > > moved in to build the location. Had to get the sheriff to allow > > > things to proceed. Things were eventually settled in court regarding > > > damages, but access couldn't be denied or drilling stopped in the > > > meantime as the lease was near expiration. Got chased off property a > > > few times when the machines moved in to start moving dirt, but only > > > once did it involve rifles and the sheriff. The point is that the > > > surface owner can hem and haw, but courts have no problem granting > > > injunctions to prevent interference with drilling operations. > > > > Some of this occurred before the surface owner act was passed in ND in > > > the early 80's (led by Rep. Jack Murphy of Killdeer, who had his own > > > run-ins with the oil companies) that required advance notice to > > > surface owners before operations started and damage payments. It > > > could be quite a surprise not to know anything about a well on your > > > property and have unannounced bulldozers appear overnight and start > > > building a road through the wheat field (and always the best wheat > > > field, as the story goes). > > > > On Oct 29, 6:11 am, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > In a word, "No". > > > > > He COULD try to negotiate an overly high price for the land and > > > > damages from the driller, but at some point a court could have to > > > > decide what the driller is paying is fair. The legal wrangling could > > > > delay the spud date, but not stop the driller from drilling. But, as > > > > owner of the minerals you have the legal right to get them drilled. > > > > > To prevent these conflicts, its sometimes wise to sell the surface > > > > owner a small percent of the minerals when the land is sold, or > > > > negotiate that as part of the sale price. That way, the surface owner > > > > will have an interest as you do in getting your minerals drilled. The > > > > percent could be as small as 5% or so. > > > > > David > > > > > On Oct 28, 10:48 pm, montanaswede <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I'm new here, and posting this question again--I think I goofed up > > > > > earlier and attached it to an old post. > > > > > > Anyway--the surface owner hates my brother and me, who have leased the > > > > > minerals rights we retained on our dad's former farm in eastern > > > > > Montana. He cheated our dad, and hates how we've publicized it. The > > > > > question: can he prevent an oil company from drilling? We picture > > > > > him trying to block it just to hurt us. (He doesn't live on the land; > > > > > it's just CRP and rented cropland and pasture.) Thanks for any help; > > > > > I've learned a lot from this blog!- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bakken Shale Discussion" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bakken-shale-discussion?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
