All I want is for everybody in the county to benefit from the oil. The best way is probably for more of the oil extraction tax to go back to the originating county, which could possibly lower property taxes for everyone in the county. The oil impact currently is not beneficial for every person in Mountrail county and some would say it is more detrimental. I believe that it will be good for the county in the long run, but I wish more people could share the benefits that the state is reaping, especially when it affects them directly.
On Oct 29, 10:26 am, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Valuing mineral interest to assess prior to a well actually pumping is > all but impossible. Further, mineral interest generates no income > until the well is drilled. Much simpler to tax the oil when and as it > comes out of the ground. An 11.5 % state tax gives the state nearly as > much income from as the mineral owners of a 1/8th lease get. > > David > > On Oct 29, 9:25 am, Jeff Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Yes but the mineral owner pays through the nose for oil extration taxes > > when the mineral is used!!! If the mineral is not being used why should > > they pay a tax?> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 07:03:49 -0700> Subject: Re: > > Termination of Mineral Interest> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: > > [email protected]> > > The unfair part is that > > mineral owners do not have to pay any property> taxes. The minerals are > > owned and therefore property, so they should> have to bear a percentage of > > the property taxes. They should have a> base percentage like 10% and > > another percentage based on the income> earned from the property. If the > > mineral owners payed a percentage of> the property taxes every year, they > > would never be in danger of> loosing them unless they did not pay the > > taxes.> > On Oct 28, 7:44 pm, Hoof Picker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > > > Does anybody know if surface owners have been successful in gaining> > > > ownership of minerals under North Dakota 38-18.1 NDCC. As I> > understand, > > this law gives surface land owners in North Dakota the> > right to claim > > ownership of minerals on any inactive (unleased) parcel> > where they are > > the owner of the surface. This seems highly unfair as> > many of the > > minerals in Western North Dakota have been in active since> > the late 70's > > or early 80's and naturally they were not under lease> > until the recent > > spike in oil prices and good results in the BAKKEN,> > and thus have been > > inactive for more than 20 years. This law seems> > like it is very unfair > > to mineral owneres and needs to be recinded.> > The law can be viewed at:> > > >> >http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t38c181.pdf.> >> > Please let me know > > your thoughts> > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Want to read Hotmail messages in Outlook? The Wordsmiths show you > > how.http://windowslive.com/connect/post/wedowindowslive.spaces.live.com-B... --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
