I think its usually probably smart for the seller to make sure that the new surface oner gets a small % of the mineral interest to prevent thses sorts of conflicts. Even 10 % would be plenty to ensure that the surface owner and mineral interest holder's interests coincide.
On Nov 7, 11:38�am, "Rufus O'Malley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Teegue, > Quite a story, but while truly serious, couldn't help to break a grin. > You painted quite a visual-- but your last paragraph really nailed it. > Knowing how my own father/grandfather would have reacted under similar > circumstances, no notice, no negotiating access or comp, it's a good > thing Murphy got some Suface Owner legislation passed that averts > (most of) this...for everyones sake. > > On Nov 6, 11:10�pm, Teegue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Personal experience here being run off a property with the surveyors > > by the landowner and son sporting rifles, and again when the machines > > moved in to build the location. �Had to get the sheriff to allow > > things to proceed. Things were eventually settled in court regarding > > damages, but access couldn't be denied or drilling stopped in the > > meantime as the lease was near expiration. �Got chased off property a > > few times when the machines moved in to start moving dirt, but only > > once did it involve rifles and the sheriff. �The point is that the > > surface owner can hem and haw, but courts have no problem granting > > injunctions to prevent interference with drilling operations. > > > Some of this occurred before the surface owner act was passed in ND in > > the early 80's (led by Rep. Jack Murphy of Killdeer, who had his own > > run-ins with the oil companies) that required advance notice to > > surface owners before operations started and damage payments. �It > > could be quite a surprise not to know anything about a well on your > > property and have unannounced bulldozers appear overnight and start > > building a road through the wheat field (and always the best wheat > > field, as the story goes). > > > On Oct 29, 6:11�am, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > In a word, "No". > > > > He COULD try to negotiate an overly high price for the land and > > > damages from the driller, but at some point a court could have to > > > decide what the driller is paying is fair. The legal wrangling could > > > delay the spud date, but not stop the driller from drilling. But, as > > > owner of the minerals you have the legal right to get them drilled. > > > > To prevent these conflicts, its sometimes wise to sell the surface > > > owner a small percent of the minerals when the land is sold, or > > > negotiate that as part of the sale price. That way, the surface owner > > > will have an interest as you do in getting your minerals drilled. The > > > percent could be as small as 5% or so. > > > > David > > > > On Oct 28, 10:48 pm, montanaswede <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I'm new here, and posting this question again--I think I goofed up > > > > earlier and attached it to an old post. > > > > > Anyway--the surface owner hates my brother and me, who have leased the > > > > minerals rights we retained on our dad's former farm in eastern > > > > Montana. He cheated our dad, and hates how we've publicized it. The > > > > question: can he prevent an oil company from drilling? We picture > > > > him trying to block it just to hurt us. (He doesn't live on the land; > > > > it's just CRP and rented cropland and pasture.) Thanks for any help; > > > > I've learned a lot from this blog!- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
