Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by 0l1a6laz7smpf on December 5, 2011 at 5:55am

Some states/counties regognize the term 'minerals' as inclusive of gas and oil...and some do want those items listed in the lease if leasing for gas and oil is what I learned when speaking to a courthouse clerk in Pa.  Again when being presented with a lease or sale, make sure what they are really asking you to do...cause they may have everything subsurface on the contract being presented and they may only be telling you that it is for gas/oil...so identify what you are negotiating.   I didn't know that and the contract was signed with 'all the oil, gas and coalbed methane and other minerals (not inc. coal or hard minerals)' and then it continues with all the inclusions to what is mined out or in gob areas.  We should have spent more time discussing that clause.

    What I see from reading all of this is that there is a clarification that needs to be made regarding the terms 'mineral lease' and 'mineral deed'.  A lease is not the same as a deed.  And conveyance of products derived and sold at market by 'lease' is not giving ownership of the products while they are still subsurface...but a deed conveyance would.

For when the original owner of both subsurface and surface is doing the first lease of subsurface which still retains ownership of the subsurface rights for the owner of both but the Lessee is leasing what is on the contract subsurface and only owns what they take out of the ground with a percentage going to the Owner (Lessor) and  it is only  for the term of the lease and only by the terms of the lease  that the Lessee has ownership of the products being taken to market  but only for the term of the lease and it is not considered a 'mineral DEED'.

  Then the other situation is if an landowner (whether under a lease or not) decides to sell their interests in all the subsurface or partially (if identified seperately) of the minerals creating a 'mineral deed' then the Owner no longer owns or can lease the subsurface or mineral rights to the land according to what they deeded over in that mineral lease (you see there are some mineral deeds that do not cover certain types of minerals and even with windmills one has to consider what type of lease/deed that would be)....that then is considered a 'sale of the mineral rights pertaining to what was sold".  If there is a Lessee on contract at the time that a 'mineral deed' is done (whether the Lessee is the new owner being conveyed the mineral deed or not) then whomever purchases or receives the right to the 'mineral Deed' becomes the new owner of the minerals outlined in the mineral deed. 

What we have being presented in this bill is only talking about those 'mineral deeds' that have been neglected ...it is not making reference to a lapse in neglect of 'mineral leases' which clearly is needful for those present owners of surface lands who do not even know clearly if they bought their land with mineral rights as most of them thought they did til they discover an old 1927 lease in the title search, etc.   It is these abandoned 'leases' that the senator needs to identify in his bill being presented.

Now about those abandoned 'mineral deeds'...clearly if there were taxes to be paid yearly on those deeds of sale then that abandonment needs identified and resolved....for the present owner to be able to purchase back the mineral rights that were originally sold seperately in the history of the land then a presentation in the bill could be done if those 'mineral deeds' were effectively really abandoned.   Some oil companies may or may not be billing for taxes on those 'mineral deeds'...yet clearly it is the whether or not each county of each state even bills taxes for 'mineral deeds'.   If taxes have been unpaid then perhaps there may be a way for the present owner to recoup the mineral rights back into the surface property ownership...that is what needs done.  Yet if the taxes are up to date and paid...then the owner of the 'mineral deed' still owns the minerals of that property as identifed in the mineral deed.

A 'mineral deed' is not the same thing as a 'mineral lease'....and this really is more clear to me now about such, I hope what I have explained helps you also...clearly something to consider if you still own the mineral rights as a surface owner.

here is a helpful website page...

http://oilandgas.uslegal.com/

p.s.   I am thankful that we even have a senator interested in this subject....really!  Though all of this should have been discussed before the oil companies sent landpeople to sign leases in all the counties of the Marcellus and other shale areas.  This is definitely like going to Home Depot to purchase items before you have even laid out the plan of what you are building and what will be needed and how it will affect other situations in the building of such.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Little Cougar on December 5, 2011 at 6:10am

VG. 

Good try on your part to explain all these legalese/pyscho babble rab...but I still say this is a bad bill and I don't trust any politician at this point.  He has something more to gain then just a vote...maybe this politician has surface rights and not sub-surface rights and is trying to pull a fast one.  I say leave well enough alone...its a bad bill...a very bad bill.  And just like I said earlier...most of the leases in Greene Cty go by the old farm name...not necessarily the current owner.  They had to find me because my name is not on the well...the old farmer from 1924.  So you see how this could hurt many in Greene County...I'm an heir to my great grandmother's mineral and G&O rights farm and heir to my grandmother's and grandfather's mineral and O&G rights yet my name is not listed in the County Clerk's office.  But they found me real quick...they have people that do this for a living come in and search these deeds.

Enough from me...I have said my piece but you can bet you sweet bippy I will vote NO or at least bombard my representative's office with calls and emails and letters.  And if Laurel wants to be heard, I say ALL OF US MINERAL RIGHT OWNERS IN PA BETTER START SCREAMING LOUDER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OR SOME DAMN POLITICIAN WILL BE GETTING RICH OFF OF OUR LEGACY!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 0l1a6laz7smpf on December 5, 2011 at 6:23am

Little Cougar...as always thanks for your input here.   I agree that the bill is not clear as stated in the bill proposal and after doing this research now I am in favor of the Senator pulling his bill and reidentifying just what he is doing (I think he is presenting that because of lapsed leases)....yet I am thankful that we have at least one state senator 'trying' to mind the shop!  yet , it appears to me that Senator Yaw hasn't fully identified what he is trying to accomplish for he needs to fully interpret just what the difference is between the 'mineral lease' and the 'mineral deed' before approaching this effort.

I have written him and given him this link to this discussion if it will help at all.

I see a need for those who have purchased land with expecting both surface and subsurface rights to the land and discovering that an old lease was done years back and has been abandoned but is still a cloud on the rights of the owner in doing a lease today or even doing a mineral deed.   Clearly that is regarding abandoned 'LEASES".

Now if indeed a 'mineral DEED' was purchased many years ago and has been abandoned as to not on the public records (no taxes being paid) then if the present owner could in any way purchase back the mineral rights by deed then it would be helpful to know to whom that owner of the mineral deed is....and if it takes legislation to find out who the owner is...then you know that taxes most likely haven't even been either billed or paid.  This is like selling your mom's favorite dinner plate and not knowing at what yard sale it ended up at but whoever bought the plate became the new owner....yet after 20 years the great grandchildren go out looking for that plate in hopes to find it...and they discover the plate but not the owner and don't know how to legally claim it again.   (I know that this isn't the best example...but the one I just thought of..lol)

In fact...some of you here that have discovered that your mineral rights were purchased on your land many years back....take a look at your land sale of contract (fee simple?) and then find out if the person that you say has the mineral rights purchased on those rights of the royalty for the terms and length of the lease....or if they truly have a bonafide 'mineral deed'.

If they only have the right under the terms of the lease...then you most likely still are the owner of your subsurface...To become a 'mineral right owner with a DEED" would give that owner full possession to the subsurface properties under the ground identified in that deed.

A lawyer that has knowledge in this area and is attentive to the use of 'lease' or 'deed' involved in the sale of royalty interests, etc. would be someone that could hopefully help you identify just what you have.   Another excellent suggestion is to go to a reputable title agency that does title searches and get some advice there in interpreting just what kind of contract you have or the owner in question that may or may not really have a mineral deed.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by brian kulp on December 6, 2011 at 5:26am

well said couger wish they would leave us alone if you dont own the rights when you got the land sorry life sucks now lession learned i guess. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Omerzo on December 5, 2011 at 6:53am

And how would this bill  affect folks who sold their land 15 years ago much lower in price keeping the oil and gas reserves and mineral rights knowing there is gas.  Wanting to leave there yougins the hope someday there will be drilling, but no OG Co comes a calling until 22 years later? And NC and Ky figure hey if there is gas there is taxes.  Every county will speculate there is gold in them there hills. I am a strong NO, NO, NO for bill SB-445.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 0l1a6laz7smpf on December 5, 2011 at 7:33am

Michael, pls make comment to Senator Yaw...

http://gomarcellusshale.com/forum/topics/do-you-have-a-mineral-leas...

I am sure he would appreciate hearing from you.  Send him the discussion as it appears to me that you have a land sales contract reserving your rights (as a right of deed) that somehow needs identified as you the owner.   I think that is one of the reasons  why Senator Yaw has introduced the bill....some counties may not have recognized that you and others who did these land sales with exclusion of mineral rights (oil and gas reserves) have become separate owners regarding the taxing of the parcel...so a tax bill might not have been sent out as there was no identification of your ownership except for the recording of the land sales contract (if it was recorded) for a tax billing would have confirmed your ownership in the legal identification of such in county records.  You should call your county record dept. and see if they list your ownership of that gas,oil, and mineral reserves in any document.  If the senate bill passes then you should file claim immediately for you have a sales contract to identify that you do own these resources.  If someone lives in the area then they would know of the marcellus shale event....yet some may have rights of ownership to these gas, oil, minerals but live in areas outside of this natural gas gold rush and how would they know that a bill is being introduced that only gives them 3 months to claim their ownership?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Omerzo on December 5, 2011 at 7:50am

VG.  The way things are right now are okay for the majority.  there is no reason to change anything.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on December 5, 2011 at 8:04am

There does need to be some reform on how to handle various rights with no discernible ownership. Ohio has an abandoned rights law as I am sure other states also do. But it doesn't appear that this version does a good job of dealing with the issue.

They need to have the relevant committee study how other states handle this issue and then draft proper language to correct ownership issues when they are discovered.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 0l1a6laz7smpf on December 5, 2011 at 8:05am

Michael, tell that to the US senator...cause that bill could be passed without any attention to people like you unless you speak up to the senator.

Otherwise you will have to follow up on the senate bill, cause if it passes you would need to file a 3 month claim (that was the way I understood the bill)...  For your family there has already passed 15 years of the 21 years... You see, you are a part of this forum and are learning about this bill...what about the family that doesn't even know that their mineral interests in a property may be lost to them as a result of this bill? because they may not have even heard of it.    Of course maybe the counties will send out info for the general public per tax payer about this...but I don't think so.

 I read in an earlier post that the taxes for just owning the mineral rights by deed  are not that much if no production and royalties are being given.  I am learning though that if a land sale excluding mineral rights is done then the owner retaining such rights should have a mineral deed done at the sale and recorded in the public records....don't think they have been doing that though...did they with you Michael?   Were you given a bonafide mineral deed persay...just asking cause I am new to this and wondering if 15 years ago they even were doing mineral deeds on paper when an owner was excluding the mineral rights from the surface rights via a land sale.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Omerzo on December 5, 2011 at 9:14am

I reserved my G&O and minerial rights and recorded at the time of sale and i just called Pa County recorders office and assesment office and everything is recorded and there is no tax except on coal.  People will not no what is going on with this bill that is not on this web page.  Very sad. Do people think this is fair without representation.   No, No, No to SB-445

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 0l1a6laz7smpf on December 5, 2011 at 10:34am

thanks Michael...I am glad to know that the deed was propertly recorded for your ownership rights..even done 15 years ago...so there is a system for doing that when a land is sold and the owner is excluding the mineral (gas, oil, mineral) rights to the house/land sale.   Perhaps taxing the owners with such ownership is only in certain states/counties as you say they have no tax for you to pay for just having the ownership of mineral gas/oil rights.

I still think there should be a bill to find a way to cover old leases that were recorded at one time but do not know where they are because of assignments or companies out of business that did the orig. lease....but a mineral 'deed' shouldn't be their business if non-attended as that is seperate from leasing for a lease term.  But this Senate bill 445 is actually calling out 'mineral deed' owners...not those with old leases.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ireland on December 5, 2011 at 4:58pm

I contacted Senator Yaw thru his website about SB445 and received a phone call back today.

The bill is not to give back the mineral rights to the surface owner, well let me explain more. Its for people who own the surface and/or mineral rights who someone years ago sold or leased their land/and or rights to coal companies, etc.

Some of these companies are now out of business yet still hold the lease. The bill is to get the surface or mineral rights owner back there property so they can develop as they would like.

I was also told they are working on a bill that would define "held by production". They are trying to get it so held by production would be a producing well, not by punching a hole in the ground or putting a bulldozer on the property. How nice would that be??? If your lease is up and you are not getting royality checks they would have to resign or you could sign with another company. I only hope!!!!

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Next ›
• Page