Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 8, 2015 at 2:37

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".

Permalink Reply by William Howard Pritchartt on February 8, 2015 at 7:09

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.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 8, 2015 at 7:34

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

Permalink Reply by Bill Mendenhall on February 17, 2015 at 4:37

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.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 17, 2015 at 4:49

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.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page