I hadn't done one in a while, the latest one was complicated but got through it with the title people and their help.
The unusual thing about it was that one of the mineral owners refused the royalty, they said that they didn't want to deal with them. 🙁
Not sure how it was handled, I assume the royalty had to go to someone.
Mighty,
Are you taking about a Mineral Survey retracement, or a survey of mineral rights (PLSSish)?
The two terms are not mutually exclusive, but I'm unclear as to exactly what you mean.
Loyal
Loyal, post: 352576, member: 228 wrote: Mighty,
Are you taking about a Mineral Survey retracement, or a survey of mineral rights (PLSSish)?
The two terms are not mutually exclusive, but I'm unclear as to exactly what you mean.
Loyal
A PLSS type, at one time there was a lot of it to do, most of the time in the big open its all done using record info, but often it's too complicated for that.
I was surprised that someone (a corporation) didn't want the bother of dealing with them, basically donated them to neighbors
Loyal, post: 352576, member: 228 wrote: Mighty,
Are you taking about a Mineral Survey retracement, or a survey of mineral rights (PLSSish)?
The two terms are not mutually exclusive, but I'm unclear as to exactly what you mean.
Loyal
As an aside; the main reason for needing a mineral survey in the area was the irregular boundary in the spacing unit that was created by the corporations holdings.
When they got the property no minerals were reserved by the landowner granting the deed, which means that they were granted any minerals and since the landowners had full mineral rights the corporations acquired them.
There was quite an explosion in the early 2000's for mineral surveys of this type, many got really complex.
These of course aren't the classic "public land" surveys which are a different kinda of survey, staking lode claims and such.
Thanks Mighty,
I have dealt with a few of those critters over the years.
Mineral Estates can get really REALLY complicated (and convoluted). All too often, the Surface Estate bears little resemblance to the Mineral Estate, and sometimes not even when the "descriptions" appear to be the same.
Actions of the Surface Owners, are not [necessarily] binding on the Mineral Owners (who were not parties to said actions), and vise versa!
Fun & Games for sure.
Loyal
Loyal, post: 352655, member: 228 wrote: Thanks Mighty,
I have dealt with a few of those critters over the years.
Mineral Estates can get really REALLY complicated (and convoluted). All too often, the Surface Estate bears little resemblance to the Mineral Estate, and sometimes not even when the "descriptions" appear to be the same.
Actions of the Surface Owners, are not [necessarily] binding on the Mineral Owners (who were not parties to said actions), and vise versa!
Fun & Games for sure.
Loyal
Then the fun begins when it doesn't look like that and mineral severances end up becoming senior lines that a parent has to be retraced to retrace the senior line since they only exist on paper.
Loyal, post: 352655, member: 228 wrote: Thanks Mighty,
I have dealt with a few of those critters over the years.
Mineral Estates can get really REALLY complicated (and convoluted). All too often, the Surface Estate bears little resemblance to the Mineral Estate, and sometimes not even when the "descriptions" appear to be the same.
Actions of the Surface Owners, are not [necessarily] binding on the Mineral Owners (who were not parties to said actions), and vise versa!
Fun & Games for sure.
Loyal
It must really get funky in a M&B state, at least here we have the PLS.:whistle:
I know they did a mineral determination for the Town of Douglas, Some horizontal wells were drilled under it, seems each landowner gets a tiny check, I wonder who did that one?
