Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on September 19, 2014 at 15:45

Stick around William and in time you will understand Dion's off point" comment.  As to prescription, I prefer it to the severe penalties and lack of options afforded mineral owners in states where the mineral estate may be severed in perpetuity from the surface.  The difference in practical terms is demonstrated daily in our TMS discussions.  LA mineral owners are developing a new level of appreciation for LA mineral law as they read the comments of our MS members.

As to the "going rate" in SW MS, there isn't one as far as I can tell.  I work for mineral owners and the attorneys and law firms that represent them.  There is a wide variance depending on location and size of mineral interest.  The play has matured to the point where competition is developing.  For those who chart the play those areas are becoming obvious.  Competition always improves lease terms.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by William Howard Pritchartt on September 21, 2014 at 0:57

Unlike some I consider each day as a learning lesson.  There will be tracts in SW Mississippi that I would never even begin to try to lease based on the minerals in Mississippi can be owned in perpetuity when severed from the surface.  I had high hopes just recently of putting a shallow oil prospect together that would be most likely be fully financed by whoever was given presentation of the deal.  When my title man called to tell me the crucial tracts needed involved the George Hunt Trust, I responded by saying well just shut it down and let me know what I owe you this deal is dead as far as I am concerned.

George Hunt years ago bought undivided minerals and the with grantee styled as "The George Hunt Trust".  I have never known anyone to actually find such a trust or certificate of trust to notify the public such a trust existed as required by law in Mississippi.  What you will learn is there are countless mineral owners claiming mineral ownership as successors in title to the original grantees who acquired these interest directly by conveyance by George Hunt years ago.  Most are professional affluent entities both individual and everything including but not limited to estates, trusts, partnerships, corporations, exploration comanys either private or public, etc.  Most require terms of 1/4 royalty and a maximum term of one year which you would be no where near having 100% of these interests acquired with a year as you would not have determined who or how many owners remained due to the complexity and large number of owners involved.  The term of one year is non negotiable to the owners no matter what information you furnish I hopes of negotiating a longer term.  I don't think I need to say more except what a shame it is to know the oil known to be in place will never be produced due to this one of any examples in so many tracts in states with minerals laws allowing ownership in perpetuity.  Good luck on passing a bill as the politicians are also in the George Hunt family and love their family.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andrew on November 20, 2014 at 20:20

The "George Hunt Trust" problems are exactly the sort that are gloriously resolved by prescription in LA. In the early cases that determined Louisiana mineral interests are subject to prescription, the simplification of mineral title and the avoidance of creating dual title systems were major factors in the decisions.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on November 21, 2014 at 2:21

And prescription avoids the need to have the onerous pooling rules that are so detrimental to MS mineral owners.  IMO the TMS development model has only made a bad situation worse.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on September 19, 2014 at 16:19

Howard:

What I was trying to point out to you is that the poster's handle is not only a handle, but a philosophy. Wait until you approach the subject of attempting to get a surface site from him and he proposes that 28% RI is a fair mode of compensation. That was a recent comment.

He also tends to conflate different points in making his own, or devolving into an ad hominem attack when one points out the flaw in his thinking. That hasn't happened to you (yet). Actually, it recently did, as to the former (mineral servitude vs. mineral lease). Wait until you disagree.

This is obviously a difference of opinion upon which we disagree, but I personally like the concept that a party cannot acquire minerals in perpetuity, particularly in a world where one must have rights to the surface in order to access the minerals below. Rather than having the option of cutting the surface owner entirely, one can reserve minerals for as long as one can reasonably maintain use; otherwise, rights revert to the owner of the land (surface). There are relatively few instances where longstanding mineral servitudes meet urban or suburban areas in LA. Going on five generations of perpetual mineral ownership in East Texas has made mineral ownership a mess. I'm also partial to unleased mineral interest owners not being coerced into entering into leases or being subject to risk penalties, as I believe that it contributes to lessors being incentivized to work diligently to acquire leases and vets the strongest prospects of success versus the least defensible attempt to hold the most acreage approvable by the Oil and Gas Board. But, I'm from the Baton Rouge area and you're from the Natchez area, perhaps there is no better explanation than that - we like what we know best.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by William Howard Pritchartt on September 20, 2014 at 5:52

I agree with you completely,  I will give you examples of prescriptive laws in other states which they refer to as the abandonment period.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 1kw6x71km1v37 on September 20, 2014 at 14:30

Why google through mineral law when you can do it the easy way and be a real qualified professional landman instead of just another message board expert:

http://www.western.edu/academics/undergraduate/school-business/prof...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on September 20, 2014 at 19:14

And he lives up to his name again! With the same tired joke! Thank you, and good night! LOL!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by William Howard Pritchartt on September 20, 2014 at 22:28

We know each other with a mutual respect which is obvious as we in complete agreement all of the answers we posted.  I have testified as an expert in my field in hearings at the MSO&GB as well as in US Federal Court and have never been on the loosing side as the records reflect if in doubt as the final decisions rendered was due to the testimony I gave under oath.  'nuff said as the joke is obvious to us but not to the one who laughs the loudest. 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page