.
On Oct 29, 6:50 pm, "Sweet, But Crude" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 -- 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
