Hunting Fishing Discussions

Featured Outdoor Businesses
Roughrider RVs
Dickinson, ND


Forums Home > Off Topic Discussions
Share on Facebook subscribe feed
180 Replies | Page 1 of 91234567 . 9 Next Page >> | Top of Page | Bottom of Page

Senate Bill No. 2131

by Allen , Posted to Fishing Buddy on 01/10/2011 3:53 PM | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
Allen

Joined: 01/09/2002
Location: ND
 This is an interesting one.  Talk about taking our newfound socialist republic a step further.  Take private property away from one person and give it to another.



http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/62-2011/documents/11-0194-01000.pdf 

11.0194.01000

Sixty-second

Legislative Assembly

of North Dakota

Introduced by

Senators Andrist, Nodland

Representatives Drovdal, Froseth, Onstad, Rust

A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 47-16 of the North Dakota

Century Code, relating to a surface access fee for oil and gas exploration and production.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF NORTH DAKOTA:

SECTION 1.

A new section to chapter 47-16 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows:

Surface access fee for oil and gas exploration and production.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the person obligated to pay royalties under an oil and gas lease or division order shall pay an entry fee from the royalty interest for access to the surface for oil and gas exploration and production equal to eight percent of the oil and gas royalties payable within the spacing unit to all surface owners in the spacing unit in proportion to the surface owner's ownership interest in the surface area covered by the spacing unit.

Page No. 1 11.0194.01000

SENATE BILL NO. 2131
“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: Senate Bill No. 2131
by wales on 01/10/2011 4:37 PM | Reply #1 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
wales
Joined: 06/09/2003
Location: ND
Just plain stupid & probably unconstitutional.  Its farmers(I think Andrist is one of them) who are seeing their land get drilled on & they don't own the subsurface rights(minerals) & they want a piece.  Can't blame them for trying but they bought the surface knowing full well how many mineral acres came w/ the land.   They do get money for surface damages when its drilled on.  
  Is it us that are idiots for electing these nimrods who sponsored the bill, or do they just develop a case of mental ineptitude while serving ND??
This is simply insane.
Re: Senate Bill No. 2131
by fishing farmer on 01/10/2011 5:18 PM | Reply #2 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
fishing farmer
Joined: 01/15/2010
Location: nd
i am for this bill

Re: Senate Bill No. 2131
by Superfreak on 01/10/2011 5:25 PM | Reply #3 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
Superfreak
Joined: 02/04/2009
Location: ND
This bill is a good thing. Unless I'm reading it wrong.
Re: Senate Bill No. 2131
by gonefshn on 01/10/2011 6:03 PM | Reply #4 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
gonefshn
Joined: 12/16/2001
Location: ND

Sounds fair to me.  To get under to your mineral or other rights affects the person who has the property's main ownership's use of it.
Re: Senate Bill No. 2131
by Allen on 01/10/2011 6:50 PM | Reply #5 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
Allen
Joined: 01/09/2002
Location: ND
Really guys?  Take away someone else's property and to give it to someone else is "fair" to you and something you would be "for"?


Just for clarification sake.  This bill proposes to take away 8% of the current mineral owners property and give it to the current surface owner. 

At one point in time, most of those mineral acres were deemed near worthless and the current landowner decided to not spend the extra $$ to ensure the land he bought came with the mineral rights.  SO to allow them to have bought the land for less than they should have so they could take their money and go out and buy more land (without minerals) only so they could later on have the legislature gift them a portion of the minerals, is unbelievable.

One can say that surface owners aren't being fairly compensated, that is always open for debate.  But outright theft by the govt to give to another isn't exactly what I thought this country was about.

Even if it passes, this may have some constitutional issues.  That whole thing about govt taking of private property stuff.  Any legal beagles care to opine?


Put it this way, if this were to pass.  What's to stop mineral owners from demanding 8% of crops planted which thrive based on the "mineral" content of the land?  What a can of worms this would open up...
“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: Senate Bill No. 2131
by 78 on 01/10/2011 7:01 PM | Reply #6 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
78
Joined: 11/14/2009
Location: ND

Just so you know Senator Andrist is not a farmer. 
So you can cross that one off. 

I am for this bill.  I think there are many things that this bill can do for people of this state. 
I do agree that people buy land knowing if minerals do or do not come with it.  You are correct on that.  But..........as already mentioned any oil activity ends up being a surface owner's business as well. 
I am not a land owner, I am not a mineral owner, but I am a farmer. 
The amount paid for surface damages (that I have heard is paid) may sound like alot if you are not a farmer, it could be a tough pill to swallow. 
You have paid your hard earned money to purchase land, and they tell you where the well will be, how much you will get paid, and for the most part all you can do is shrug your shoulders and take the payment, and farm around an oil well forever that you may have no part it. 

I believe it is a good idea. 
It's just my opinion so don't go calling me an idiot or anything.  I have never attacked anyone on this site so please don't do so in return. 

Before this comes up in this conversation...........
If you say farmers are rich the you have never farmed. 
It is a tough business, you lay down more cash in a year than most people paid for their house, then you watch hail storms and everything else pass hoping you will get your money back at the very least but hopefully have a decent year to either (A) catch you back up financially from previous years or (B) finally have the opportunity to update equipment that should have been done 5 years prior.  We gamble everyday. 
There are plenty of other ways to make a living that require a large amount of risk, but I have never tried them.  So I am not saying farming is the toughest thing in the world to do, so please don't attack me on this part of the subject either. 
Re: Senate Bill No. 2131
by fishing farmer on 01/10/2011 7:05 PM | Reply #7 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
fishing farmer
Joined: 01/15/2010
Location: nd
78 Said:

Just so you know Senator Andrist is not a farmer. 
So you can cross that one off. 

I am for this bill.  I think there are many things that this bill can do for people of this state. 
I do agree that people buy land knowing if minerals do or do not come with it.  You are correct on that.  But..........as already mentioned any oil activity ends up being a surface owner's business as well. 
I am not a land owner, I am not a mineral owner, but I am a farmer. 
The amount paid for surface damages (that I have heard is paid) may sound like alot if you are not a farmer, it could be a tough pill to swallow. 
You have paid your hard earned money to purchase land, and they tell you where the well will be, how much you will get paid, and for the most part all you can do is shrug your shoulders and take the payment, and farm around an oil well forever that you may have no part it. 

I believe it is a good idea. 
It's just my opinion so don't go calling me an idiot or anything.  I have never attacked anyone on this site so please don't do so in return. 

Before this comes up in this conversation...........
If you say farmers are rich the you have never farmed. 
It is a tough business, you lay down more cash in a year than most people paid for their house, then you watch hail storms and everything else pass hoping you will get your money back at the very least but hopefully have a decent year to either (A) catch you back up financially from previous years or (B) finally have the opportunity to update equipment that should have been done 5 years prior.  We gamble everyday. 
There are plenty of other ways to make a living that require a large amount of risk, but I have never tried them.  So I am not saying farming is the toughest thing in the world to do, so please don't attack me on this part of the subject either. 

Thank you.
Thanks Senator Andrist. 


great post

Re: Senate Bill No. 2131
by 78 on 01/10/2011 7:05 PM | Reply #8 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
78
Joined: 11/14/2009
Location: ND

The way I read it is the oil company must pay the landowners a share equal to 8%. 
I don't know that they are taking 8% away from others. 
I believe they are just paying more out. 
I appologize if I'm mistaken, this is how I read it. 
Re: Senate Bill No. 2131
by 78 on 01/10/2011 7:07 PM | Reply #9 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
78
Joined: 11/14/2009
Location: ND

Thanks fishing farmer.
Evidently you know where I'm coming from. 

I knew if this subject went much further we'd be reading how rich farmers are. 
Re: Senate Bill No. 2131
by Tim Sandstrom on 01/10/2011 7:13 PM | Reply #10 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
Tim Sandstrom
Joined: 07/14/2003
Location: ND
I'm here to tell ya folks this is on the right track.  A good bill?  Don't know for sure, have to seriously think about it but who guy have no idea how beat to hell the surface owner gets.  The same old story of "you bought the land and knew you didn't have the minerals" is laughable to me.  Do you realize it has been near impossible to buy mineral rights for over twenty years??

The surface owner gets taken to the cleaner.  I guarantee you all the mineral dollars in the world if I was a landowner with all those minerals I would be all for compensation to the landowner.  They deserve compensation for loss of acres (which I must laugh, the mineral owner TAKES land from the surface owner!!!  And I'm not even getting into the easement side of things!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And oh yeah, the surface owner REALLLLLLYYYYYYYY gets compensated.  That might be the funniest thing in oil country.  $9,000 to 11,000 one time payments for busted up roads, loss acreage, easement hand cuffs, dust issue on crops, and the list goes on.  Ha ha, that is highway robbery.

Something needs to change.  The big bad government that is suppose to protect its citizens shaped the century code in a dumb way.  If this wasn't the case, we would need discussion like this.

Gotta think about it a little bit people.  I know it seems odd Allen but of all the people I figured you'd understand.  Then again, there is a disconnect from some or actually many (me included) that do not take into consideration actually living in oil country and owning land in it instead of living else where and owning land in oil country.  This isn't the 1980 oil boom.  This is something else all together.  Landscape is changing.

For the record I am all for drilling but there needs to be surface owner protection.  Right now, there is basically NONE.  And when you fight the oil boys they just giggle and say "we'll win in court."

Word of the wise still not leased or in easement discussion.  DO NOT PEE ON YOURSELF WHEN THEY WAVE A FEW THOUSAND DOLLARS AROUND.  Everything is negotiable in the oil patch...everything.  Get an attorney and hope the oil boys play nice.  If not, well, back to oil hole...




 
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: Senate Bill No. 2131
by Works2Much on 01/10/2011 7:18 PM | Reply #11 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
Works2Much
Joined: 06/02/2005
Location: ND
i don't have any minerals, I don't have land, can I get paid too!  If the land was bought without the minerals, chances are they got a better deal than if they would have bought it with the land.  If you were smart enough to sell the land and keep the minerals, why should you be punished? How about to be fair, the farmers will give landowners 8% of the farm earnings since they bought the land from the mineral owners, only seems fair right!

I don't know who it was, but rumor I heard was that one of the guys who was behind this bill had a son/daughter that got into farming and the minerals were severed(meaning separate land/mineral owners) so they weren't receiving anything other than surface damages.   

What is an acre of land worth on the open market these days?

Another question (you can tell I think this bill is a joke), who gets the 8%, the farmer who owns the 4 acres the location is on, or the farmer who owns the quarter section that the well goes on.  

I agree with you Allen, this is pretty close to socialism! 

Re: Senate Bill No. 2131
by fishing farmer on 01/10/2011 7:27 PM | Reply #12 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
fishing farmer
Joined: 01/15/2010
Location: nd
Allen Said:
Really guys?  Take away someone else's property and to give it to someone else is "fair" to you and something you would be "for"?


Just for clarification sake.  This bill proposes to take away 8% of the current mineral owners property and give it to the current surface owner. 

At one point in time, most of those mineral acres were deemed near worthless and the current landowner decided to not spend the extra $$ to ensure the land he bought came with the mineral rights.  SO to allow them to have bought the land for less than they should have so they could take their money and go out and buy more land (without minerals) only so they could later on have the legislature gift them a portion of the minerals, is unbelievable.

One can say that surface owners aren't being fairly compensated, that is always open for debate.  But outright theft by the govt to give to another isn't exactly what I thought this country was about.

Even if it passes, this may have some constitutional issues.  That whole thing about govt taking of private property stuff.  Any legal beagles care to opine?


Put it this way, if this were to pass.  What's to stop mineral owners from demanding 8% of crops planted which thrive based on the "mineral" content of the land?  What a can of worms this would open up...


the way i read it says equal to 8%  not 8% of oil rights or am i wrong on what i read

Re: Senate Bill No. 2131
by Tim Sandstrom on 01/10/2011 7:34 PM | Reply #13 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
Tim Sandstrom
Joined: 07/14/2003
Location: ND
Yes, I read 8% "access" type fee.

It makes sense to me from the initial reaction but would have to get some opinions.

works,

I'm sorry but you just don't understand.  You need to consult attorneys out in the oil patch to get an understanding of what goes on out there.  It isn't as simple as "they knew they didn't have the minerals."

And why would you get paid anyway?




 
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: Senate Bill No. 2131
by 78 on 01/10/2011 7:37 PM | Reply #14 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
78
Joined: 11/14/2009
Location: ND

The way I read it I don't think anyone is being "punished", except the oil company is paying an extra amount seperately to surface owners. 
I don't think the landowners are getting part of mineral owners shares, they are getting their own portion "equal to eight percent" directly from the oil company. 
That's what I read anyways.

It also says in there to all surface owners in the spacing unit. 
So if the well goes under your property, you get some sort of a small share. 

I could be all wrong.  But wouldn't this just sneak a little more money out of the oil companies??  Which will in turn be put to good use in extra tax dollars to the State of North Dakota, which is used to help roads, schools, hospitals, and even used in the Game & Fish Department that helps us all preserve our fishing & hunting in the state. 
Chances are the rest that doesn't go to taxes would be spent in North Dakota towns that have North Dakota businesses, that employ some North Dakota residents. 

Re: Senate Bill No. 2131
by Geothermal on 01/10/2011 7:41 PM | Reply #15 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
Geothermal
Joined: 07/14/2009
Location: ND
Where the 8% comes from is the big question.  Also to lump the Bakken in with the rest of the wells in North Dakota will hurt areas where production is marginal.      Might as well kiss the Midale and Spearfish wells goodby if the 8 % comes out of the operators pocket.
Re: Senate Bill No. 2131
by Allen on 01/10/2011 7:50 PM | Reply #16 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
Allen
Joined: 01/09/2002
Location: ND
78 Said:

The way I read it is the oil company must pay the landowners a share equal to 8%. 
I don't know that they are taking 8% away from others. 
I believe they are just paying more out. 
I appologize if I'm mistaken, this is how I read it. 
From the bill:  "...shall pay an entry fee from the royalty interest for access to the surface"   Sure sounds like they are taking it from the existing mineral owners. 

Tim Sandstrom Said:
 Do you realize it has been near impossible to buy mineral rights for over twenty years??
BS, there are minerals for sale right now.  They are going for the market rate today just like they were 20 years ago.  Everything is for sale, you just have to be willing to pay what is requested.  If you were to say that mineral acres are no longer given away with the land, then you are correct.  That practice pretty much went out the window in the 1930s and 40s.
“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: Senate Bill No. 2131
by Geothermal on 01/10/2011 7:55 PM | Reply #17 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
Geothermal
Joined: 07/14/2009
Location: ND
I agree with Allen on this one,  I doubt it will ever fly .   There are major issues involved if they plan to take 8% from the mineral owner and give it to the land owner.   
Re: Senate Bill No. 2131
by Superfreak on 01/10/2011 8:03 PM | Reply #18 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
Superfreak
Joined: 02/04/2009
Location: ND
The whole idea of separating minerals from the actual land should have never hapened. Who ever thought of that should be strung up. If they decided to sell their land they should have not been able to keep the minerals.
Re: Senate Bill No. 2131
by Geothermal on 01/10/2011 8:05 PM | Reply #19 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
Geothermal
Joined: 07/14/2009
Location: ND
Superfreak Said:
The whole idea of separating minerals from the actual land should have never hapened. Who ever thought of that should be strung up. If they decided to sell their land they should have not been able to keep the minerals.


Yes Indeed   +1   That should have been against the law from day one.
Re: Senate Bill No. 2131
by Allen on 01/10/2011 8:11 PM | Reply #20 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" |
Allen
Joined: 01/09/2002
Location: ND
Geothermal Said:
Superfreak Said:
The whole idea of separating minerals from the actual land should have never hapened. Who ever thought of that should be strung up. If they decided to sell their land they should have not been able to keep the minerals.


Yes Indeed   +1   That should have been against the law from day one.

Totally agree!

I think this is where the state legislature is actually trying to learn.  In the last legislature, didn't they try to tackle the separation of hunting rights from the land only to table if for more study? 
“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
180 Replies | Page 1 of 91234567 . 9 Next Page >> | Top of Page | Bottom of Page
Posted By: Allen
Posted On: 01/10/2011 3:53 PM
4835 Views, 180 Comments

Tags: 0, bill, senate, assembly, one, person, 62-2011, socialist, further, taking
More Tags: oil and gas exploration, North Dakota, Legislative Assembly, oil and gas royalties, oil and gas lease, EnvironmentBusiness_Finance
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