I have written extensively on the subject of the unfairness by which the State of North Dakota collects the oil extraction and production taxes and then sends but a pittance back to the oil producing counties.
Until the residents of the oil producing counties start making a stink about the way they are being mistreated by Bismarck, nothing is going to change. On Oct 29, 11:45 am, Offroad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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...- > > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
