Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by intrepid on March 16, 2013 at 8:23

HB100 poses a threat to property rights across the board. It was clear from testimony in the House Energy Resources Committee that one major beneficiary of this bill would be CO2 companies and one in particular was pushing it hard. Their main point was that they had problems putting together one unit because of a few mineral owner holdouts. Their solution is to go to the Legislature to get this bill passed so that they can then force those pesky mineral/landowners into their project and at their dictated terms. They even want to go so far as to dictate by law what they feel is "fair" and "enough" for your minerals!

This is absolutely absurd!

But, beyond that, where does this type of thinking stop? So, a business wants a sweet heart deal from the Legislature to compel timber owners to sell at the price the company wants to pay rather than strike a voluntary and negotiated deal with the owner? Pipeline companies, we all know, would probably love to expand their already very lucrative position in dealing with landowners.

Essentially any company who can make an argument that what they are trying to do could be 'made more efficient and cost effective' and would 'benefit the public' through enhanced tax revenues would be able to use this as a stepping stone precedent.

This bill, HB 100, is a very dangerous bill for ALL private property rights. PLEASE CONTACT YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVE TO OPPOSE HB 100.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by adubu on March 16, 2013 at 9:29

Intrepid---who's the Co. That's pushing this Bill?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by intrepid on March 16, 2013 at 11:55

These guys were lobbying heavily for it. They had a high ranking corporate type and one of their head landmen testify.

http://www.denbury.com/Home/default.aspx

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by adubu on March 16, 2013 at 12:36

Intrepid--- makes sense -- CO2 is their primary business -- they want more work -- with all new shale oil fields and drilling new plays then secondary etc recovery placed on back burner --their business declining--Sandridge big CO2 plant in Overthrust project out in West Texas also losing money

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by adubu on March 16, 2013 at 14:25

Intrepid ---DAM Denbury has Van Taylor in their pocket check out HB 1496 also --- Van Taylor spend $1million of his own money to get elected --salary of house rep $7200 per session go figure. Google Van Taylor and relationship with Denbury Resources He ran as Tea Party man but he is Corrupt as politic get it appears

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by intrepid on March 16, 2013 at 20:35

I wouldn't characterize it exactly that way. But anyone can draw their own conclusions from facts they individually confirm. I haven't looked at the angle you are describing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by adubu on March 16, 2013 at 13:33

Intrepid---- Is Denbury purchasing these old fields and then becomes the operator of tertiary recovery in the unitized large units. So they need State legislature to help allow the units to be unitized favorable to them. Is this their deal? Heavy Lobbyist PAC. Wonder how much Denbury contribution was to Van Taylor Campaign fund? Denbury first Texas CO2 project Oyster Bayou Field they made comment they need state legislators help to support rules to allow large units for tertiary recover.it's all about money and best bet is to let legislators know if State Mineral Exempt then must not be good for citizen mineral owners. If bill can be amended for state tomOK maybe OK

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by intrepid on March 16, 2013 at 20:37

I don't think this bill would ever be good for Texas citizens individually or for the State of Texas as a whole for the reasons already stated.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by G. Knomes on March 19, 2013 at 6:07

The NARO/TLMA,etc. postion is flawed - they should be in favor of it.  I am a small mineral tract owner and an Oil & Gas Operator and I can assure you that everyone will benefit from forced pooling of secondary and teriary recovery projects.

It will not affect lease trade terms (bonus, roy, etc), it will lead to fewer wells being drilled and few surface tank, compressor, etc facilities being built and the result will be a much "cleaner" extraction system and higher royalty revenues.  This will benefit the land & mineral owner. 

The only "diminishment" that will occur will be that a few owners that simply do not want to EVER lease - will have to particpate. So the bottom line is that - now - a neighbor (that maybe doesn't need the money) can stop the efficient secondary development of an old field.  This has been a problem in Texas for generations.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by adubu on March 19, 2013 at 10:28

G. Knomes--- Can you please explain then Why the State of Texas desires to be Exempt from Force Pooling of their minerals and land under this bill

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 1kw6x71km1v37 on March 19, 2013 at 10:36

<So the bottom line is that - now - a neighbor (that maybe doesn't need the money) can stop the efficient secondary development of an old field.  This has been a problem in Texas for generations>>>

It's a problem only because under TX law, the surface owner actually owns the minerals in place. You can't legally take something someone owns if they don't convey it to you. This law is a legal fiction that will not go away in the near future, and the results of it will continue to produce absurd results, like the current bill under discussion. Since it still rolls downhill in Texas, landowners, the more impecunious the better, will receive the brunt of the abuse.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by adubu on March 19, 2013 at 11:49

cheap shot-- today most minerals have been separated from land for years and in most cases the surface owner DOES NOT OWN THE MINERALS in TEXAS.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next ›
• Page