Ah Larry your point is valid however all this coming to an end??? Your killing me! We just got going.
-----Original Message----- From: Larry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Bakken Shale Discussion <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 6:37 am Subject: Re: Termination of Mineral Interest ccgif Good points. Keep em coming. Here is another one. Unlike surface land rights that can continue to produce revenues, once the non-renewable oil is extracted it is gone and subsurface rights become worthless. On Oct 30, 10:27?am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > ?Reasons to keep a larger portion of tax's in the counties: > > 1. It's where revenue is generated. > 2. Repair damaged infrastructure. > 3. Improve quality of life for the local's laborer's generating income to the State. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Larry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Bakken Shale Discussion <[email protected]> > Sent: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 6:16 am > Subject: Re: Termination of Mineral Interest > > Offroad > > You made a good argument for keeping oil extraction and production tax > revenue in the county. > > Property tax revenue on the surface land are kept by the county and > not sent to Bismarck. > > What are the other arguments for keeping the oil tax revenue in the > counties? > > On Oct 30, 10:00?am, Offroad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Mineral rights are always real now. ?They never "might" be real. ?They > > always have a tangible value and always can be sold. ?They also are > > always property. ?The property taxes that are payed by surface owners > > are offset by the oil extraction taxes payed by mineral owners. ?The > > problem I have is the oil extraction tax goes mostly to the state and > > not the county. ?If there wasn't an oil extraction tax, the mineral > > owners would certainly have to pay part of the property taxes since > > mineral rights are most definitely part of the property. ?The only > > thing that changes with the prospect of oil and or other minerals is > > the value of the mineral rights. ?They always have value and are > > always property. > > > On Oct 30, 8:03?am, "Sweet, But Crude" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > . > > > > 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 -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
