Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on November 6, 2008 at 12:01

Interesting question Lawrence. You may need to post it where our more learned members will see and respond. The only thing I know is that I have seen permits for wells named USA A-(abstract #), so that leads me to believe that our gov. does lease it's minerals. Some of the land in the wilderness areas has minerals owned by whoever conveyed to USA and since the mineral estate has dominance over the surface estate in Texas my question would be, "Does that include surface owned by Uncle Sam?".

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on November 6, 2008 at 13:22

Lawrence and Julie. The U. S. Department of the Interior - Bureau of Land Management regulates, permits and does allow for the production of mineral assets beneath publicly owned lands. With so many acres under BLM authority in your area, you might wish to visit the Bureau's website. http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en.html

Permalink Reply by Ron Jon on November 17, 2008 at 6:13

J:

Just realizing the redundancy in my post, below. It should include the event that your surface owner is uncle sam; however, the fed can block E&P in certain situations.

See news on New Mexico's Otero Mesa and battles between public, Fed, & Energy industry

Permalink Reply by Bob on November 6, 2008 at 13:53

First, you need to find out if this is BLM (federally managed) property OR if it is state/parish managed property.
The rules are different for each. The BLM website has a litany of rules re: mineral leasing such federal lands.

Second, not all wilderness areas are public property; for example, in eastern Bienville Parish, Louisiana, there is a wilderness area, yet most of it is privately owned with a surface lease only given to the state to manage the surface. There are wells present within the wilderness area.

Third, assuming the apposite rules preclude all drilling ON the wilderness area itslf, horizontal drilling may be available froma drill site adjacent to the drilling precluded area.

Fourth, sometimes there is land within the wilderness area which is not subject to the restrictions so they also can drill horizontally from those plots.

Permalink Reply by Ron Jon on November 17, 2008 at 6:06

The Fed may own the minerals, they may not. In many places, the minerals under Federal lands are held privately. Seeing as you are referring to E TX, I'd bet at least a portion of these minerals are privately owned.

Generally, oil & gas operations can be conducted on Government lands with very specific rules, regulations, & guidelines.

Remember the mineral estate is dominant; therefore, generally, a surface owner cannot block a mineral owner from exploring and developing his/her minerals.

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on November 18, 2008 at 17:16

I had to go study a little... so, someone correct me please if I don't get this exactly right.

Uncle Sam came in and acquired huge tracts of cut-over land which were "abandoned" by timber companies and other private owners after they removed all of the timber. Most of this land became the "National Forest" system and was multi-purpose, which means they would raise and maintain forests to protect and preserve the plant and animal species native to the area or region. The multi-use part maintains that they can manage and sell timber, and lease/produce/allow to be produced the minerals under the "National Forests" for the greater good of the American people. Sam may or may not own all of the minerals. As Ron Jon said, "In East Texas, that is doubtful".

Later, the "Wildlife Preservation Areas" such as the Moore Plantation in Sabine County were set aside, within the National Forests. Same ground, different rules specific to WPAs.

And there are "Wilderness Areas" which may or may not be contained within the boundaries of a National Forest. In Sabine County, Indian Mounds is a designated "Wilderness Area". If your land got designated as such the Gov. was mandated by Congress to "acquire" your acreage for inclusion by private donations or cash purchases. The minerals may or may not have gone with the surface. And, yes, a different set of rules specific to WAs.

I know of a 20 ac. tract in the Moore Plantation which is privately owned, surface and minerals. If you think you may have one of those old USA Deeds from the '20s or '30s you need to do your research or hire someone to do it for you.

Permalink Reply by Lawrence Edwards on November 19, 2008 at 4:35

My main interest in mineral rights associated with Wilderness Areas concerns the potential added value of private property adjacent to the Wilderness Areas. Wilderness Areas were created as a result of Public Law 88-577, which can be reviewed at the following link:

http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=nwps&sec=legisact

Of particular interest is Sections 2C of this law, which defines Wilderness Areas and places restrictions on their use. Followed by Section 4D (2), which makes special exceptions for "...prospecting for the purpose of gathering information about mineral or other resources...". By my reading these special exceptions seems to have expired January 1, 1984 unless they were reinstated in subsequent legislation. It would be great if any attorney associated with gohaynesvilleshale would weigh in on my interpretation.

Since it would seem that horizonzal drilling has the potential of exploiting oil and gas deposits under Wilderness Areas without encroaching on the surface, it would seem that doing so would be consistent with the protection of surfaces resources in such areas and consequently place a higher value on leases of mineral rights on private property adjacent to the Wilderness Areas from which such horizonzal wells could be drilled.

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on November 19, 2008 at 4:43

I think that you correct in your assumption.

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on November 20, 2008 at 3:39

Two Dogs,

Do you mean the assumptions are correct re: "special exceptions seems to have expired January 1, 1984", or are you referring to "higher value on leases of mineral rights on private property adjacent to the Wilderness Areas from which such horizonzal wells could be drilled" or both.

I own minerals adjacent to National Forest and Moore Plantation Wildlife Area as well as minerals adjacent to and under Lake Rayburn and, historically speaking, they have never brought anything larger than the going rate at the time, as to bonus. It could have been different for land adjacent to Indian Mounds "Wilderness Area" in years past but I doubt it. I know that there have been (and may still be) producing wells within Moore Plantation, so drilling does(did?) happen when conditions warrant it.

My only point for going to the trouble to post about the different areas of "Federal" lands in this county was to point out that each different designation has rules specific to that type of preserve. Yes, they may all be called wilderness but they are not all Wilderness Preservation Areas. There are only six such areas in the whole state.

Why would anyone bother to go to all the trouble to drill under such a highly restricted area when there are thousands of acres available for developement without going to all that trouble and expense?

I am not trying to be argumentative. I only wish to understand in case I am suddenly sitting on the proverbial "Gold Mine" just because of my proximity to any and all Federal Lands in this county, which I honestly doubt. I think, that if I get a lease, it will be at the prevailing rate at that time.

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on November 20, 2008 at 4:06

I was refering to the higher value. You may own the only tract for the drill site. I would think that a company would be in for a long fight to challenge the feds on using the surface in a wilderness area. I have dealt with cell phone tower sites where everything around was national forest and the land owner got a much better deal. When you are the only game in town you have the one up.

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on November 20, 2008 at 10:47

Thanks. Good to know.

Permalink Reply by Lawrence Edwards on November 20, 2008 at 12:15

Thanks for your input on this matter. Your cell phone tower example confirms my thoughts that properties adjacent to Wilderness Areas should have higher value in view of the potential of horizontal drilling to extract minerals from such Wilderness Areas without violating the surface.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page