I read the Mineral code back and forth, however I located a deed that my parents had sold a small portion of land in 1985. At the conclusion of the deed I noticed a section that stated ** Seller retains One-Half (1/2) of the Mineral Rights on the property herein conveyed. So is possible the mineral rights could be held since, this was allowed by the Judge to include this caption. All ears for answers.

Views: 14

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of GoHaynesvilleShale.com to add comments!

Join GoHaynesvilleShale.com

Comment by Dion Warr, CPL on September 13, 2009 at 20:18

A little late, I know, but I have checked into this section. I did not see any familiar names on the plat for the first well that you mentioned. It may help if you had a description for this land, or at least pin it down to a quarter-quarter. Anyway, the first well would have held the minerals until no later than 9/11/2001, as the entire section was unitized as a CV D unit (Order 270-B-10). The next well was not spudded until 4/30/2007. Any mineral servitude would have prescribed before then, unless some portion of the land was contiguous property lying in another productive area, and there was a provision in the mineral reservation which stated that good-faith attempts at production, operations or production on any portion of the land sold would serve to extend the servitude as to the entirety.
Comment by Stephen Cole on July 16, 2009 at 23:46
After doing some other checking on sonris site I located 5 wells were permitted after the sale of the land. which showed SN# 211801 6-5-90 permit 08/18/90 spud and dry and plugged on 9-11-91, (2) wells SN# 234485 11-13-06 permit , spud 4-30-07 and dry and plugged 6-4-08, Does the dry and plugged wells help extend the mineral rights on the property beyond the ten year as described.. AS for the other property owned should some one have leased teh property be for drilling.
Comment by Dion Warr, CPL on July 12, 2009 at 23:30

First, one would need to know where the land is located, as a mineral and production history would need to be established in order to determine whether the mineral reservation is still in effect. Freddie corrects alludes to the fact that mineral reservations affecting immovable property of any kind are subject to a ten-year period of non-use prior to prescribing to the surface owner. Being that the servitude was created twenty-four years ago, there would have needed to be at least a good-faith attempt (or two) within the intervening years in order to have kept this servitude in effect. Post some particulars, or feel free to email me with any info you would not want to post ot the general public.

© 2021   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service