Acquisition of mineral rights

2020 ◽  
pp. 72-113
Author(s):  
Evaristus Oshionebo
Keyword(s):  
Mineral Rights

Split Estate and Wyoming’s Orphaned Well Crisis: The Case of Coalbed Methane Reclamation in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn Bills Walsh
Keyword(s):  
Natural Gas ◽  
River Basin ◽  
Technological Innovation ◽  
Coalbed Methane ◽  
Powder River Basin ◽  
Gas Wells ◽  
Mineral Rights ◽  
Split Estate ◽  
Legal Condition

This case presents the stakeholder conflicts that emerge during the development and subsequent reclamation of abandoned natural gas wells in Wyoming where split estate, or the separation of surface land and mineral rights from one another, occurs. From 1998 to 2008, the Powder River Basin of northeastern Wyoming experienced an energy boom as a result of technological innovation that enabled the extraction of coalbed methane (CBM). The boom resulted in over 16,000 wells being drilled in this 20,000 square-mile region in a single decade. As of May 2017, 4,149 natural gas wells now sit orphaned in Wyoming as a result of industry bankruptcy and abandonment. The current orphaned wells crisis was partially enabled by the patchwork of surface and mineral ownership in Wyoming that is a result of a legal condition referred to as split estate. As the CBM boom unfolded in this landscape and then began to wane, challenges emerged most notably surrounding stalled reclamation activities. This case illuminates these challenges highlighting two instances when split estate contributed to issues between landowners and industry operators which escalated to litigation.

scholarly journals PAYING THE PIPER (IN PRAESENTIA) Xstrata South Africa (Pty) v SFF Association 2012 (5) SA 60 (SCA)

Obiter ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
PJ Badenhorst
Keyword(s):  
Mining Industry ◽  
Mineral Resources ◽  
The State ◽  
Mining Operations ◽  
South Africans ◽  
Old Order ◽  
Petroleum Resources ◽  
Mineral Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
Mining Right

This decision is an appeal from the decision of the South Gauteng High Court in SFF Association v Xstrata (2011 JDR 0407 (GSJ)). The court a quo decided incorrectly that the holder of an old-order mining right, which was converted into a (new) mining right in terms of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 (the “Act”), remains liable upon conversion for the payment of (contractual) royalties in terms of a mineral lease, which was concluded prior to enactment of the Act. The appeal was upheld by the Supreme Court of Appeal (“SCA”) (2012 (5) SA 60 (SCA) par 27). The decision was rendered by Wallis JA with the other judges concurring with his judgment. Prior to the Act mineral-right holders could grant a mining right to a miner against payment of royalties or other forms of consideration. At issue on appeal was whether the obligation to pay royalties in terms of a mineral lease “survives the introduction of the new regime in respect of mining rights brought about by the Act”. As indicated by the SCA, the Act fundamentally changed the legal basis upon which rights to minerals are acquired and exercised. Previously mineral rights were vested in the owner of land or the holder of mineral rights, which rights could be exercised upon acquisition of a statutory authorization to exploit the minerals. In terms of the new regime, common-law mineral rights were destroyed and “all mineral resources vested in the state as the custodian of such resources on behalf of all South Africans”, whereupon the state could confer the right to exploit such resources to applicants. Upon granting a mining right in terms of the Act (statutory) royalties have become payable to the state since 1 March 2010 of the Act and the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Royalty Act 28 of 2008. In order to prevent disruption of the mining industry, provision was made in the Act for the continuation of old-order rights for different transitional periods ranging from one to five years and conversion of such rights during the periods of transition. The transitional arrangements in Schedule II of the Act (“transitional arrangements”) inter alia ensured security of tenure of prospecting rights and mining rights and enabled holders thereof to comply with the Act. In particular, an old-order mining right remained valid for five years “subject to the terms and conditions under which it was granted” (item 7(1) of the transitional arrangements) and could be converted into a new mining right (item 7(2) of the transitional arrangements) if certain requirements were met. The applicant had to have: (a) met the requirements for lodgement of application for conversion; (b) conducted mining operations in respect of the mining right; (c) indicated that he would continue to conduct such mining operations upon conversion of the mining right; (d) had an approved environmental management programme; and (e) paid the prescribed conversion fee (item 7(3) of the transitional arrangements). To recap, the Xstrata decision dealt with an old-order mining right that had been converted into a (new) mining right and the effect of these statutory changes on rights to royalties which accrued to a former holder of mineral rights by virtue of a mineral lease. 

scholarly journals Nationalization of Mineral Rights

Nature ◽  
1945 ◽  
Vol 156 (3970) ◽  
pp. 667-667
Author(s):  
L. DUDLEY STAMP
Keyword(s):  
Mineral Rights

Property

2018 ◽  
pp. 144-147
Author(s):  
V.C. Govindaraj
Keyword(s):  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
Mineral Rights ◽  
The Law

Property may be movable of immovable. The law that governs movable property is the law of domicile of the party, that is, lex domicilii. The law that governs immovable property is the law where it is situated, that is, lex situs. Immovables not only mean lands, but include all estates, interests and charges in and over lands. They include freehold and leasehold interests, freehold lands subject to a trust for sale though the sale has not taken place, rent charges, mineral rights, and also the interests of a mortgagee. However, rent charges arising out of an equitable claim, based on a contract between parties, partake of the character of a movable property, which can be recovered by an action in an Indian court, the presence of the defendant within its jurisdiction being the condition precedent. There is yet another well-established principle of conflict of laws that municipal courts refrain from exercising jurisdiction in respect of title to, or any kind of right or interest in, foreign immovables.

The Politics of Free, Prior and Informed Consent: Indigenous Rights and Resource Governance in Ecuador and Yukon, Canada

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 336-356
Author(s):  
Roberta Rice
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Indigenous Rights ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
Resource Governance ◽  
Mineral Rights ◽  
Natural Resource Development ◽  
The Right ◽  
Surface Mineral ◽  
Hybrid Regime

What are the institutional arrangements required to implement a genuine process of free, prior and informed consent (fpic)? This article provides a comparative perspective on the politics of consent in the context of relations between Indigenous peoples, states and extractive industries in Canada and Latin America. The case of Ecuador is presented as an emblematic example of a hybrid regime in which Indigenous communities have the right to free, prior and informed consultation, not consent, concerning planned measures affecting them, such as mineral, oil and gas exploitation. In the case of Yukon, Canada, the settlement of a comprehensive land claim with sub-surface mineral rights has provided the institutional basis for the implementation of a genuine fpic process, one that includes participatory decision-making power over natural resource development projects. The article concludes with a discussion on the necessary conditions for moving governments from a consultation to a consent regime.

scholarly journals The Impact of Reclamation on Acceptable Strip Mining Royalty Payments

1977 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 29-36
Author(s):  
John Otte ◽  
Michael Boehlje ◽  
Lowell Catlett
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Strip Mining ◽  
Energy Prices ◽  
Federal Policies ◽  
Crucial Problem ◽  
Mineral Rights ◽  
Energy Independence ◽  
Surface Mineral ◽  
The Impact

Rapid increases in energy prices, federal policies of energy independence and further projections of energy shortages are encouraging development of sources of energy such as strip mining for coal. A key issue faced by the owner of surface and sub-surface (mineral) rights to land is determination of the price or fee (royalty) that should be extracted from a miner who wants access to the subsurface resource. This is a crucial problem because productivity and income potential of the surface resource may be altered during the mining process. Although extracting coal through strip mining is an obvious example of this phenomenon, the same issue is confronted in surface extraction of other minerals or in placement of easements or restrictions on land use options available to surface property-right owners.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document