Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on April 2, 2009 at 8:56

It worked for me, JK.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on April 2, 2009 at 8:57

Jim must have the Conflicker worm. It works for me also.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on April 2, 2009 at 9:14

And what is your opinion TD, about what they are trying to accomplish?

• ▶ Reply

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.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on April 2, 2009 at 9:01

I would appreciate your opinion Jim Krow, once you read the bill.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jon Williamson on April 2, 2009 at 9:08

Note that government owned minerals are not covered by this bill.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink 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.

• ▶ Reply

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.

• ▶ Reply

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.

• ▶ Reply

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

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on April 2, 2009 at 9:17

Thank You.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink 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.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page