Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on August 18, 2009 at 4:35

I want a check!!

Where do I get one?

Permalink Reply by Tanisha Gladney on August 12, 2009 at 17:41

I don't what to really say about that >But if you wouldn't mind answering a couple of questions that i have are you an landman or land owner from royalties passed down> if so what are the names. i am a single mother of three boys and trying to find out info about an am oun t of land undiclosed amount of acres from several great pasts down to my father through his father side. if you know any murrays, gladney;s and or salone please contact me so i can have peace on earth.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by I aqree on August 13, 2009 at 15:56

Well now I have a question. What about Barksdale AFB, is it in the shale area and are they leasing? Is it all the Feds $ or some kinda split with the state if they lease? Jim

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on August 14, 2009 at 3:26

Electrodynamics:

The enacting of the 1921 State Constitution regulates more than just patents. In essence, any mineral rights that the state acquired after 1/1/1921 would be reserved to the state in perpetuity (save one exception in a specific portion of Terrebonne Parish where a survey discrepancy had been discovered just prior to the constitutional convention if memory serves). This included conveyances, donations of property, and tax sale adjudications that were never properly redeemed. It also included outstanding mineral rights which subsequently prescribed to the state.

One of the 'traps' of not running mineral title prior to 1921 is that title passing into the state would have to be verified to ensure that the minerals did not pass to the state. It was extremely common for 'leasing title' not to be verified back to the 1920s during the height of the leasing boom, as there simply was not enough time, and O&G companies and brokers alike were willing to take the business risk rather than 'lose out' on leasehold acquisition.

How would the title issues be handled? Whomever owns the lease taken from the true mineral owner would have a viable lease. Whomever acquired an errant lease has a bad lease. The companies might sue each other, in which case the court would determine the valid mineral and leasehold title, but the resolution of the title resolves the leasehold issue on a tract basis. Those who took lease bonus money without possession of the mineral rights would be liable to returning the monies paid if the lessor warranted his title (said provision is included in all preprinted lease forms), unless the lease provided that Lessor did not warrant title, or the warranty clause was stricken and properly notated (initialed) or clear intent of striking of said provision was evident upon a court’s examination of the lease. Whether the lessee would pursue the return of such monies would be up to each individual lessee on a case-by-case basis; with the substantial amounts of bonuses paid during 2008, the likelihood of a lessee’s intent to recover such consideration (if available) is high.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on August 19, 2009 at 12:48

Electro:

Chances are that subsequent landmen (leasehounds, or other related ilk) simply updated title from the last lease, assuming that it had been done right the last time. Over the years, the problem perpetuated and compounded itself. Until the problem was discovered (either by an astute title person or title attorney, or the state, hopefully precipitated by due diligence but more than likely the smell of big bucks on the table), no one was the wiser.

It is amazing how many dormant title problems are awakened (in full snafu glory) by the production of several million dollars worth of oil and gas from out of the ground.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on August 14, 2009 at 3:29

I agree:

The feds are more than happy to accept their royalties due to them under federal lands. The Minerals Management Service collects monies on behalf of the federal government. Unlike the OCS, the USA is under no statutory obligation to revenue share onshore proceeds.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by bashle1 on August 14, 2009 at 4:17

I have also heard that agencies or entities acquiring land on behalf of the USA or the state would be the same as if the USA or the state had acquired the property themselves (creating a perpetual mineral servitude). I have also heard that there are exceptions to this. Anyone know how to determine the exceptions?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on August 14, 2009 at 4:31

Bashle:

There are, but it calls for a reading and interpretation of the statutes that if not cited in the document directly require that a legal or judicial determination be made. To further confuse matters, certain types of entities have been ruled to be 'agencies of the state' or 'political subdivisions' and others have not, the determinations of which are not entirely intuitive. Being IANAL (or, I A'iN't A Lawyer), I will defer as to 'rules' determining between the two types of entities.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by bashle1 on August 14, 2009 at 4:38

Thanks, Dion. That's pretty much the same answer I have received from the numerous other people I have asked this question. Leave it to the gov. to make it difficult.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page