Hunting Fishing Discussions

Featured Outdoor Businesses


Forums Home > Off Topic Discussions
Share on Facebook subscribe feed
27 Replies | Page 1 of 212 Next Page >> | Top of Page | Bottom of Page

HB 1241, replacement for SB 2131??

by Allen , Posted to Fishing Buddy on 01/17/2011 08:36 AM | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
Allen

Joined: 01/09/2002
Location: ND

Seems a little complicated in the formula writing, but is an obvious step in the right direction. 

p.s.  For all of my detractors on opposing the Senate's Bill 2131, for what it's worth, this elitest does not own mineral rights under anyone else's surface acres. 




11.0043.01000

Sixty-second

Legislative Assembly

of North Dakota

Introduced by

Representatives Kempenich, Drovdal, Steiner

Senators Andrist, Wardner

A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact section 38-11.1-04 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to minimum damage and disruption payments for oil and gas surface damages.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF NORTH DAKOTA:

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT.

Section 38-11.1-04 of the North Dakota Century Code is amended and reenacted as follows:

38-11.1-04. Damage and disruption payments.

TheSubject to minimum damage and disruption payments, the mineral developer shall pay the surface owner a sum of money equal to the amount of damages sustained by the surface owner and the surface owner's tenant, if any, for loss of agricultural production and income, lost land value, lost use of and access to the surface owner's land, and lost value of improvements caused by drilling operations. The amount of damages may be determined by any formula mutually agreeable between the surface owner and the mineral developer, but the minimum amount of damages payable to the surface owner is twenty - five times the appraised value per acre of the property as determined by the most recent appraisal. When determining damages, consideration must be given to the period of time during which the loss occurs and the surface owner may elect to be paid damages in annual installments over a period of time; except that the surface owner must be compensated for harm caused by exploration only by a single sum payment. The payments contemplated by this section only cover land directly affected by drilling operations. Payments under this section are intended to compensate the surface owner for damage and disruption; any reservation or assignment of such compensation apart from the surface estate except to a tenant of the surface estate is prohibited. In the absence of an agreement between the surface owner and a tenant as to the division of compensation payable under this section, the tenant is entitled to recover from the surface owner that portion of the compensation attributable to the tenant's share of the damages sustained.

Page No. 1 11.0043.01000
“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain
Re: HB 1241, replacement for SB 2131??
by wales on 01/17/2011 09:56 AM | Reply #1 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
wales
Joined: 06/09/2003
Location: ND
Mineral developer?  Oil company , right, & not the mineral owner??
Re: HB 1241, replacement for SB 2131??
by Geothermal on 01/17/2011 11:48 AM | Reply #2 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
Geothermal
Joined: 07/14/2009
Location: ND
It looks like they put less thought into this than 2131.



  
Re: HB 1241, replacement for SB 2131??
by Geothermal on 01/17/2011 12:05 PM | Reply #3 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
Geothermal
Joined: 07/14/2009
Location: ND
I wonder if  the mineral owner be expected to pay the land owner damages for a dry hole ?    I bet there have been more dry holes than  oilwells drilled in North Dakota.  





p.s.  For all of my detractors on opposing the Senate's Bill 2131, for what it's worth, this elitest does not own mineral rights under anyone else's surface acres


+1    
Re: HB 1241, replacement for SB 2131??
by Tim Sandstrom on 01/17/2011 12:11 PM | Reply #4 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
Tim Sandstrom
Joined: 07/14/2003
Location: ND
geo,

I think drill success in the Bakken is around 98%.




 
Kirsch's Outdoor Products | Fargo, ND | 701-261-9017 | koutdoorproducts.com
Risovi Taxidermy Studio | New Rockford, ND | 701-947-2048 | risovitaxidermystudio.com
Jig-em-Up Guide Service | Grand Forks, ND | 701-739-9198 | jig-em-up-guide-service.com

 
Re: HB 1241, replacement for SB 2131??
by Geothermal on 01/17/2011 12:57 PM | Reply #5 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
Geothermal
Joined: 07/14/2009
Location: ND
yes, 98%   sounds right for Bakken.  Rolette  county is 0 % sucess rate but they still  punch a few dusters over that way once in a while.           Like  I felt about 2131, Setting the laws for  the Bakken wells and lumping the rest of the oilfield in the same set of laws just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.       The way this one looks to me is that if Ole  owns  the land and Sven has the mineral rights and is living from paycheck to paycheck when  Chevron comes along and drills a dry hole   on Ole's land,    Sven,   would have to take out a loan to  pay Ole for surface damage.
Re: HB 1241, replacement for SB 2131??
by Geothermal on 01/17/2011 1:10 PM | Reply #6 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
Geothermal
Joined: 07/14/2009
Location: ND
Re: HB 1241, replacement for SB 2131??
by Tim Sandstrom on 01/17/2011 1:20 PM | Reply #7 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
Tim Sandstrom
Joined: 07/14/2003
Location: ND
Geo,

Does a dry hole matter?

Put aside the oil field past, lets just talk current (which I think is entirely what any legislation is about).




 
Kirsch's Outdoor Products | Fargo, ND | 701-261-9017 | koutdoorproducts.com
Risovi Taxidermy Studio | New Rockford, ND | 701-947-2048 | risovitaxidermystudio.com
Jig-em-Up Guide Service | Grand Forks, ND | 701-739-9198 | jig-em-up-guide-service.com

 
Re: HB 1241, replacement for SB 2131??
by Geothermal on 01/17/2011 1:29 PM | Reply #8 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
Geothermal
Joined: 07/14/2009
Location: ND
In the current oilfield there is still surface damages to pay on a dry hole.   So yes,  In my opinion a dry hole still matters.


Re: HB 1241, replacement for SB 2131??
by Allen on 01/17/2011 2:39 PM | Reply #9 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
Allen
Joined: 01/09/2002
Location: ND
I would think dry holes still count.  As does that last sentence in the bill.  The "tenant" can now go after the surface owner to collect damages to his operation as well if it's not spelled out in the cash rent agreement.  Interesting. 

A person may start seeing some new language in cash rent agreements.  Wonder how P.O.'d the surface owners who rent out there land are going to be when their tenants come after them for some (all???) of the compensation paid to the land owner by the oil company?
“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain
Re: HB 1241, replacement for SB 2131??
by gst on 01/17/2011 3:03 PM | Reply #10 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
gst
Joined: 03/12/2009
Location: nd
Allen Said:
I.  Wonder how P.O.'d the surface owners who rent out there land are going to be when their tenants come after them for some (all???) of the compensation paid to the land owner by the oil company?

Probably as POd as some mineral owners on here got about the original bill.  I'd imagine it would be tied to how long the fella wants to keep renting the land. I would guess it would be best if the surface owner included crop and other damages in the "formula mutually agreable". This bill still allows for the oil company to say take it or leave it and you either go to court or mediation to settle it. A simple set per year payment that the well and damages exist would seem to make sense.
Re: HB 1241, replacement for SB 2131??
by wales on 01/17/2011 3:42 PM | Reply #11 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
wales
Joined: 06/09/2003
Location: ND
Again, mineral developer-who is it???  The  oil company or the mineral owner/owners pay?????
If its the mineral owners it won't fly.  Here's why my friends:
Surface owner at some point deeded out minerals w/ a mineral deed.  Mineral deed's read:  in a cursery manner-- convey (quantity) interest in oil, gas & other minerals, together with the right of INGRESS and EGRESS at all times for the purpose of drilling, etc said lands for oil, gas, & other minerals.
Lets say the surface owner deeded out his minerals 60 years ago & we have a new surface owner with no minerals.  He bought the land knowing this and is bound by the mineral deed which somewhat encombers his land.  Same thing if you buy some land & the previous owner has granted an easement to a telephone company, etc.  You are bound by it, so fricking get over it.  The original SB 2131 was nothing but MOST/SOME surface owners trying to get something they have no right to, that being royalties from the well.  If they feel they are getting cheated or shortchanged for the surface they give up for drilling, they better talk to their State Reresentative or the oil company. 
Thats it-nuff said.
Re: HB 1241, replacement for SB 2131??
by Superfreak on 01/17/2011 3:50 PM | Reply #12 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
Superfreak
Joined: 02/04/2009
Location: ND
Whatever Wales!
Re: HB 1241, replacement for SB 2131??
by Geothermal on 01/17/2011 3:53 PM | Reply #13 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
Geothermal
Joined: 07/14/2009
Location: ND
I am all for fair compensation to the land owner.    I just think we are barking up the wrong tree.
Re: HB 1241, replacement for SB 2131??
by Allen on 01/17/2011 4:10 PM | Reply #14 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
Allen
Joined: 01/09/2002
Location: ND
Still on the same side here as Wales.  Tough to change a deal/contract/bill of sale after the fact.
“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain
Re: HB 1241, replacement for SB 2131??
by gst on 01/17/2011 4:38 PM | Reply #15 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
gst
Joined: 03/12/2009
Location: nd
I asked a question in the SB 2131 thread no one answered, here it is again. 

From a legal standing,  If you lease your "property" to some company with the full knowledge and understanding that by leasing your "property" to this company someone elses property will be damaged, are you liable for a part or all of said damages?

I don;t know the answer, I am asking.
Re: HB 1241, replacement for SB 2131??
by Jay S on 01/17/2011 5:45 PM | Reply #16 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
Jay S
Joined: 12/24/2003
Location: ND


gst,
not yet!!!!  If you lease, you have actually given your oil and gas rights to whomever it was that you leased to except of course for the terms of the lease.  the oil company having the well drilled is for all practical purposes the mineral developer and so looks to be holding the liability.

The arrogance of the present is to forget the wisdom of the past.
Re: HB 1241, replacement for SB 2131??
by Allen on 01/17/2011 5:46 PM | Reply #17 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
Allen
Joined: 01/09/2002
Location: ND
gst Said:
I asked a question in the SB 2131 thread no one answered, here it is again. 

From a legal standing,  If you lease your "property" to some company with the full knowledge and understanding that by leasing your "property" to this company someone elses property will be damaged, are you liable for a part or all of said damages?

I don;t know the answer, I am asking.
I'd suggest that the language put forth by Wales in the deed to the surface lands pretty much says no in his case.  To all cases of severed minerals, that I don't know.

I'd also suggest that under that same premise, a landowner who leased his hunting rights to someone on the understanding they were only in it to harvest one or two trophy bucks a year could be liable for all the damage the extra deer in the neighborhood cause to neighbor's vehicles.  That was something I had been wondering and asked a few times on here what other's thoughts were on that scenario.  Several years back I knew a fella who wasn't very happy about just such a situation.  Haven't heard if he and his leasing neighbor have found a way to ensure more does were taken.


This also goes to another topic you and I have hashed about on here before.  If the livestock producers in rural ND succeed in getting a packing plant in not-so-rural Burleigh county, are they responsible for the lowering of the neighbors property values?  Like you, I am just asking.  As a rural Burleigh resident, of course. 


“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain
Re: HB 1241, replacement for SB 2131??
by gst on 01/17/2011 9:47 PM | Reply #18 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
gst
Joined: 03/12/2009
Location: nd
Allen, I would guess that where ever this packing plant goes it will be in an area zoned industrial. If you beleive it has a negative affect on residential property values, that would be something you would have to take up with the zoning committee. You see there in lies the difference. the packing plant example you give has to go thru a permiting process whereby you as a resident of the city can have your voice heard, the issues of "damages" weighed and a vote is taken, . In the case of mineral owners, there is no vote and no one elses voice is heard. State law PROHIBITS anyone from preventing the mineral owner from accessing his property regardless of damage to anyone elses.

The issue here is the fact EVERYONE knows there will be damages in the recovery of the oil to a specific individual, the surface owner. In the case you site of the deer, maybe a car gets hit maybe it doesn't, maybe if the driver slows down they do not hit a deer, maybe the county or state puts up a deer crossing sign and lowers the speed limit, maybe the G&F issues a bunch of depredation tags reducing deer numbers, MAybe we have a hard winter all the deer die and the problem disappears . ect.....

But in the case of oil extraction EVERY time there is a well drilled damage is done, and EVERYONE involved knows it will be and the way state law is the surface owner is at a disadvantage to everyone else when it comes to negotiating an equitable settlement .

Re: HB 1241, replacement for SB 2131??
by Allen on 01/17/2011 10:16 PM | Reply #19 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
Allen
Joined: 01/09/2002
Location: ND
gst Said:
But in the case of oil extraction EVERY time there is a well drilled damage is done, and EVERYONE involved knows it will be and the way state law is the surface owner is at a disadvantage to everyone else when it comes to negotiating an equitable settlement .


No need to keep pointing out the obvious.  I believe pretty much everyone who has weighed in on this has agreed that surface owner rights and compensation from the oil company needs to be revisited in ND.


However, a mere point of contention with some of the other stuff. 

1.)   I  cannot vote in Bismarck elections. 

2.)  Do you really think this is going to get squeezed into the existing areas that are zoned industrial?  I am generally familiar with the zoning of Burleigh county and I don't and I don't think there is a Burleigh county resident who would believe that either.  It is going to require a rezoning of some land from current rural residential or rural agricultural into an industrial zone.  Heck, I am pretty sure the articles on it have even stated that it would be in a rural area.  

Therein lies the rub.  If you are of the opinion that a rural landowner gets steamrolled by big oil, what do you think is the likelihood a rural residential citizen has of getting fairly compensated by "big livestock" in ND?  
“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain
Re: HB 1241, replacement for SB 2131??
by pigsticker on 01/17/2011 10:40 PM | Reply #20 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
pigsticker
Joined: 05/04/2005
Location: ND
wales Said:
Again, mineral developer-who is it???  The  oil company or the mineral owner/owners pay?????
If its the mineral owners it won't fly.  Here's why my friends:
Surface owner at some point deeded out minerals w/ a mineral deed.  Mineral deed's read:  in a cursery manner-- convey (quantity) interest in oil, gas & other minerals, together with the right of INGRESS and EGRESS at all times for the purpose of drilling, etc said lands for oil, gas, & other minerals.
Lets say the surface owner deeded out his minerals 60 years ago & we have a new surface owner with no minerals.  He bought the land knowing this and is bound by the mineral deed which somewhat encombers his land.  Same thing if you buy some land & the previous owner has granted an easement to a telephone company, etc.  You are bound by it, so fricking get over it.  The original SB 2131 was nothing but MOST/SOME surface owners trying to get something they have no right to, that being royalties from the well.  If they feel they are getting cheated or shortchanged for the surface they give up for drilling, they better talk to their State Reresentative or the oil company. 
Thats it-nuff said.
Mineral developer is the majority operator who is trying to extract the minerals (ie. companies like EOG, Brigham, Hess). Therefore if EOG has leased your minerals under a tract of land and they are drilling the well they are the mineral developer. If you own minerals and do not lease to a company and elect to participate in a well with the driller/developer of minerals then you too are the developer and are responsible for any costs/liabilities associated with the percentage of mineral acres you own under the spacing development.




This is my BOOMSTICK!!!

27 Replies | Page 1 of 212 Next Page >> | Top of Page | Bottom of Page
Posted By: Allen
Posted On: 01/17/2011 08:36 AM
882 Views, 27 Comments

Tags: 0, 1, replacement, bill, formula, seems, senate, little, writing, obvious
More Tags: North Dakota, Legislative Assembly, oil and gas surface damages, Senate, EnvironmentLaw_Crime
Region: Minnesota

Categories: Other > Other Off-Topic
Rate This ForumTopic
  • Currently 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0/5 (0 votes cast)

Share and Save This ForumTopic

You must be signed in to comment on this topic




Forums Home > Off Topic Discussions
Start a New Topic in "Off Topic Discussions




Total Outdoor Network
TON Sites | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use



North Dakota Fishing and Hunting | Minnesota Fishing and Hunting | Wisconsin Fishing and Hunting | Nebraska Fishing and Hunting | Walleye Fishing | South Dakota Fishing and Hunting | Alaska Fishing and Hunting |

submit feedback / bug report