February 29, 2008

Mineral Rights Rules Should Be Changed

Response to an editorial in The State Journal Feb. 22, "Let's Not Change Rules During Game":

Should we change the rules in the middle of the game - ABSOLUTLEY!

Why? Because what few sideline spectators realize or refuse to acknowledge but is well known to the surface owners who are in the game is that the other team has forever been permitted to have an unfair advantage.

The intent of Senate Bill 482 and House Bill 4286 is to level a playing field that has perpetually been tilted in favor of the mineral owners. The inequity that exists is simply this - the mineral owner has assumed the right to take for its use part or all of the surface owner's property - there is no such reciprocity for the surface owner.

The assumed right of the mineral owner to take the surface owner's land is often interpreted to take any amount, anywhere, anytime they please without any consultation or negotiation with the surface owner or regard for what the surface owner may have planned for the land. Notification of the taking is done as a requirement and not as a courtesy to the surface owner.

This taking can immediately impact and restrict the surface owner's use of part or all of the land and therefore its potential use value. I recently observed a gas well and attending storage tank sitting on a beautiful knoll above a road in Upshur County. This site could have been sold by the surface owner as a building site for $30,000 in the Upshur County market. However, the gas well has rendered the site worthless to the surface owner. I would call that a $30,000 loss to be absorbed by the surface owner for the benefit of the mineral owner.

The surface owner is sometimes compensated for damage to the surface but never for the perpetual loss of the unrestricted use of the surface taken or the impact the taking has on the value. When they do occur, these meager compensations are typically established by the oil and gas industry and then are presented to the surface owner as what is historically acceptable. Surface land is becoming too valuable and scarce to continue allowing mineral owners to take for their use any part they want of the surface owner's property.

The biblical King Solomon secured his position by marrying brides from the lands of his potential enemies. The oil and gas industries secure their positions through jobs, tax revenues and well-funded lobbying efforts. Their objections to these bills are understandable since no species of animal ever voluntarily relinquishes a favorable position. However, an injustice is an injustice and cannot be tolerated regardless of the benefits some may reap from it - otherwise we would still condone slavery, child labor and present-day exploitation of illegal immigrant labor.

Since the mineral owners can claim continuous, unrestricted, detrimental, devaluing use of the surface owner's property so long as gas flows through the lines, I would suggest and recommend, for the sake of fairness and reciprocity, that the surface owners not only be paid fairly for damages and have a say in where the damage occurs but also be granted an override on wells drilled on a lease that includes their surface. An override is a common practice in the oil and gas business, so why not include the people who are forced to invest their land and the future value of it in this venture? This would provide the reciprocity that is currently lacking in the relationship between the two estates.

Surface owners in general accept the roll of the oil and gas industry and ac- , knowledge their efforts. However, it's time to change the rules so we can have a fair game.

George Garton
Surface OwnerIMineral Owner
Jane Le