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
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/pdf/HB00834I.pdf
Views: 224
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on -
Jim must have the Conflicker worm. It works for me also.
-
Permalink Reply by jffree1 on
-
And what is your opinion TD, about what they are trying to accomplish?
-
-
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 Jon Williamson on
-
Note that government owned minerals are not covered by this bill.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan on
-
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.
-
-
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.
-
-
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
-
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 Two Dogs, Pirate on
-
Then one day they will not need a Landman to do the work.
Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com
Top Content
Blog Posts
The Lithium Connection to Shale Drilling
Shale drilling and lithium extraction are seemingly distinct activities, but there is a growing connection between the two as the world moves towards cleaner energy solutions. While shale drilling primarily targets…
ContinuePosted by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on November 20, 2024 at 12:40
Not a member? Get our email.
Groups
-
San Augustine, TX
386 members
-
Miller County, Arkansas
27 members
-
Sabine Parish, LA
455 members
-
South Caddo Parish Group
440 members
-
Natchitoches Parish
400 members
-
Bienville Parish, LA
244 members
-
Fayetteville Shale
149 members
-
North Caddo Parish
358 members
-
Central Texas Gas
63 members
-
Cass County, TX
119 members
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
