We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
UNCHARTED WATERS: WHERE WATER IS THE BOSS, THE SURFACE ESTATE MUST OBEY, BUT MUST THE MINERAL ESTATE?: BRIGHAM OIL V. NORTH DAKOTA BOARD OF UNIVERSITY AND SCHOOL LANDS AND DISPELLING INACCURACIES CAUSED BY THE RIPARIAN DOCTRINES TO OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION APPORTIONMENT UNDER COMMUNICATION AGREEMENTS
- Authors
ROGERS, SHANNON E.
- Abstract
This Article explores intricacies and issues of having navigable waterways in the heart of a booming oil and gas extraction industry. This Article explains the potential legal impact riparian doctrines, which are typically associated with the surface estate ownership, can have on mineral estate ownership interests, and the contractual relationships involved in mineral extraction. This Article identifies issues occurring when the riparian doctrines' surface estate-focused policies, are applied to mineral estate leasing practices and the need for different considerations in mineral estate transactions. The first section contains a discussion of Brigham Oil v. North Dakota Board of University and School Lands, a case sent back to the North Dakota Supreme Court for final disposition. There is also coverage of the effects of the public trust doctrine on the authority of the State to grant away mineral estate interests in a navigable shore zone; the original balancing interests held by the state and upland riparian land owner to the shore zone; and the impact that N.D.C.C. § 47-01-15 and the impact of North Dakota Supreme Court's interpretation of said statute in Sprynczynatyk v. Mills, had in modifying the original balance of interests in the shore zone. When writing this Article the case was still under review by the North Dakota Supreme Court and therefore in an attempt to avoid coming to a solid conclusion on the outcome of Brigham Oil, this Article instead focuses on the different areas of law that arise in the determination of the ownership interest in the navigable shore zone mineral estate. However, it is important to note that since this Article went to editing and publication the North Dakota Supreme Court in Reep v. State, determined that the shore zone royalty interest belongs to the state. In the second half of this Article, an analysis of the use of drafting provisions in mineral leasing agreements and communitization/unitization agreements can fix boundaries of mineral estates to avoid the legal consequences of riparian doctrines. Considering the riparian doctrines at the time of initial leasing or communitization may avoid the legal impacts and uncertainties of the riparian doctrines. This Article also examines theremedial approaches of the courts in apportioning ownership interests of accreted riparian surface estates and an argument for applying an alternative apportionment approach to the correlating mineral estate. This Article uses primarily North Dakota and Montana case law.
- Subjects
NORTH Dakota; NAVIGABLE waters -- Law &; legislation; PETROLEUM prospecting; REAL property ownership; RIPARIAN rights; BRIGHAM Oil &; Gas (Company); NORTH Dakota. Supreme Court; JUDGE-made law; ACTIONS &; defenses (Law)
- Publication
North Dakota Law Review, 2013, Vol 89, Issue 2, p299
- ISSN
0029-2745
- Publication type
Article