Surface property and sub-surface minerals do not share the same, tangible reality of being "real, now." The difference is, the surface IS "real, now." It is accessible by any and all means, at all times, whether to lay fallow, to produce crops, keep and raise livestock or provide a homestead. The sub-surface oil and gas MIGHT be real, (granted, it's a great bet that it's real in Bakken). It is also two miles down into the earth's crust. It is highly INaccessible, except by very expensive means, by experts who have a professional grasp of physics, chemistry, geology, seismology and hydrology. It is only REACHED by people willing to risk that is "real, now", when it might not be viable, and when it is "real, now", it is extractred by professionals how own and at a understand very expensive equipment, and possess the knowlege of how to use it.
Offroad, if what you're proposing is fair - that mineral owners should share the annual property tax burden of the surface owners - then the surface owner should annually pay the sub-surface owner 10% of crop/ livestock revenues or land value appreciation amount, whether or not minerals are being prospected or extracted. Tom "Sweet, But Crude" On Oct 29, 9:03 am, Offroad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
