Senate Bill 2316 (Proposed)

AN ACT TO CREATE THE MISSISSIPPI MINERAL RIGHTS REFORM ACT OF 2015; TO REQUIRE REGISTRATION OF SEVERED MINERAL INTERESTS IN THE OFFICE OF THE CHANCERY CLERK OF THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE MINERAL INTEREST IS LOCATED; TO PROVIDE FOR FORFEITURE TO THE STATE OF ANY SEVERED MINERAL INTEREST NOT SO REGISTERED; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.

Link to complete text of bill:

http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2015/pdf/SB/2300-2399/SB...

Views: 2038

Replies to This Discussion

Thanks for the background, William.  I doubt that this issue is going away.  Too much at stake for powerful interests to ignore.  This is where an organization representing mineral owners could play a role in making sure their interests are considered in the debate.  A wise political pundit once said, "If you're not at the table, you're probably on the menu".

Too many in the Mississippi State Legislature owning severed minerals.  I own severed minerals in the state and I am for such a bill becoming state law.  I however, realize minerals owned in perpetuity eventually become owned by large numbers and deter development.  I am just a landman with a little knowledge and common sense.  This disqualifies me or anyone such as myself from becoming a Legislator in Mississippi.

That's a shame...but not a surprise.  The same could be said of the majority of LA legislators. They are an embarrassment.

I would be surprised if such a bill would ever pass the Mississippi House of Representatives, even if it passed in the Senate (which it didn't, of course).  The problem with Mississippi is that it's often impossible to be certain who owns the minerals, even with a search back to the patent.  Louisiana's 10-year "reversion to the surface" statute seems to be a logical approach and clears up much of the uncertainty.

Bill, I agree.  The question in my mind is whether MS mineral owners will understand that if they do not lobby for a statutory change that addresses the problem and protects their rights to a reasonable degree, the industry will be back with future attempts at remedying the problem which may not be in their best interest.  Although the bill didn't make it out of committee this issue is unlikely to go away.  And the problem must be addressed if MS is to be attractive to energy companies going forward.

RSS

© 2020   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service