New State of Texas pending legislation HB 834

Some Erath County yahoo cogressman is really trying to muck up things. Requires all mineral owners (those who own minerals which have been severed from the surface estate) to file a report in the county where the minerals are located. It's funny to me seems as though there is already a report, being the signed deed or document which conveyed the interest. This is just another example of our government getting involved in things they have no right to be involved in.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/pdf/HB00834I.pdf

Views: 236

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on April 2, 2009 at 8:56
It worked for me, JK.

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on April 2, 2009 at 8:57
Jim must have the Conflicker worm. It works for me also.
Permalink Reply by jffree1 on April 2, 2009 at 9:14
And what is your opinion TD, about what they are trying to accomplish?
Permalink Reply by jffree1 on April 2, 2009 at 8:59
It's not just the filing that bothers me. It looks like they are trying to institute prescription in Texas, which would end mineral ownership in perpetuity.
Permalink Reply by jffree1 on April 2, 2009 at 9:01
I would appreciate your opinion Jim Krow, once you read the bill.
Permalink Reply by Jon Williamson on April 2, 2009 at 9:08
Note that government owned minerals are not covered by this bill.

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Alan on April 2, 2009 at 9:04
Actually, from a Landman's point of view, there ought to be legislation requiring all severed mineral owners to file updated addresses in the counties where the minerals are owned. In light of the fact that reservations are perpetual in this state, alot of time and expense goes into tracking down and trying to find these mineral owners in order to obtain signed leases and often times involves national and yes even international research.
Permalink Reply by jffree1 on April 2, 2009 at 9:07
I don't have a problem with that, at all. It's a good idea. I do, however, have a problem with presciption of non-producing mineral rights.
Permalink Reply by Jon Williamson on April 2, 2009 at 9:12
No problem here at all with filing an updated address as I share your pain with regard to locating owners. I do think however mineral owners should have some personal responsibilty, and solving this problem thru legislation seems like over reaching.
Permalink Reply by Todd M. Baker on April 2, 2009 at 9:14
If the prospect is not worth the time and expense, it shouldn't be a prospect. We don't need more intrusion into our lives by government agencies of anykind. There are sufficient laws on the books now.

I will fight against this legislation with my time and money and everyone should do the same. If they take this stance and win, what will they do next? Not allow absentee surface owners?

TMB
Permalink Reply by jffree1 on April 2, 2009 at 9:17
Thank You.

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on April 2, 2009 at 9:18
Then one day they will not need a Landman to do the work.

RSS

📧 Want email updates on new discussions?
Click Forum and scroll down past the last discussion and click the "Follow" button.

Top Content 

1 Haynesville Deep Phase 1 3D Seismic map

Haynesville Deep Phase 1 3D Seismic map
2 More Natural Gas for the Gulf Coast Market with Low Breakeven costs

More Natural Gas for the Gulf Coast Market with Low Breakeven costs
3 Standard Lithium vs GeoFrame vs T5

Standard Lithium vs GeoFrame vs T5
4 Billion dollar changes in the Haynesville Shale, energy prices expected to stay high

Billion dollar changes in the Haynesville Shale, energy prices expected to stay high
5 Rockcliff III Counters Haynesville Inventory Concerns with Shelby Trough Push

Rockcliff III Counters Haynesville Inventory Concerns with Shelby Trough Push
6 Request For Assistance

Request For Assistance
7 The Curious Case of SAMSON CONTOUR

The Curious Case of SAMSON CONTOUR

Groups

© 2026   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service