Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on April 23, 2015 at 1:34pm

Don't know if it's true or not but, a question comes to mind being why would the State do that I wonder ?

Maybe the State thinks that they would be better off being paid taxes by the recipient landowner (especially if the land is leased to Oil & Gas development) instead of having to pay the expense of maintaining it ?

Then, I guess later, they could take it back again if they thought it made financial sense to them, couldn't they ?

Permalink Reply by evan on April 23, 2015 at 2:03pm

No way will that ever happen. Way to many issues.  

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on April 23, 2015 at 2:25pm

Just another or so among many on the table already.

I can't rule anything out judging by everything else I've been reading about.

I keep writing it - I'll write it again here - good luck to all of us - I think we need it.

Permalink Reply by Kathi Albertson on April 23, 2015 at 4:15pm

On a related note, if land owners retained their mineral rights when the state took land through eminent domain for Salt Fork more than 20 years ago, have those rights now passed to the current surface owner (the state) due to the Dormant Mineral Act?

Permalink Reply by Jonathan H on April 24, 2015 at 2:52am

That is a good question - I have read that the DMA cannot be used against the state or federal government; I don't know if they can use it.

Note that under the 2006 version of the DMA, the previous owners must be notified before the surface owner can claim the minerals; it isn't automatic and without notice like the older version.

Permalink Reply by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on April 24, 2015 at 3:06am

Multiple discussions were posted. Please go to this link...http://gomarcellusshale.com/forum/topics/eminent-domain-mineral-rig...