Call Our Firm:   605.385.0330

Commercial Transactions & Litigation, Environmental Law, Natural Resources Law, & Energy Law

Archive for the ‘North Dakota Law’ Category

Holding Oil & Gas Leases Past Primary Term

Posted on: December 13th, 2015
by David Ganje

This page has moved to ‘Canceling’ An Oil And Gas Lease

Disclosure of Mineral Interests in North Dakota

Posted on: October 2nd, 2014
by David Ganje

Full property disclosure laws are needed in North Dakota.  Current law does not require that the seller disclose information regarding mineral rights ownership at the time of a closing when selling real property.

Mineral rights affect the sale of real estate and affect its value.  These often go unaddressed when selling property.  The consequences of a failure to address these rights are not pretty. Surprises when doing a real estate deal should not occur.  The era of “let the buyer beware” is long gone. I suggest that putting everything material on the table when doing a real estate sale is the best policy.

The need to protect purchasers through honest and full disclosure of mineral rights has also been borne out in the experiences of other states.  Four years ago, Wyoming adopted a statute which requires sellers of property to disclose whether any mineral rights have been severed prior to a sale.  The reason for the new law, according to the President of the Wyoming Realtor’s Association, was to avoid the unpleasant surprise encountered by people who bought property thinking that they owned the rights to minerals only to find that a third party would appear on their land, and start digging on the property.  By making the buyer aware of the severance of mineral rights, Wyoming’s new disclosure law allows a prospective purchaser to make a more informed decision when purchasing. Recently in Florida a large home builder announced that it will stop severing mineral rights when selling property – after a local newspaper wrote a series of articles investigating the practice of selling property to people who learned of the practice only at the closing table where they felt pressured to consent.

Mineral rights can be severed from surface property rights on the same piece of property in North Dakota and do not automatically pass with title to the land in a sale. A third party can own the mineral rights to land. Title insurance is not the answer to this issue. Title insurance does not insure mineral rights on a property, nor does title insurance cover such things as water permit rights. When doing a real estate deal a purchaser should not assume that the title insurance policy will offer coverage.

            “Full disclosure,” makes for a complete sale in a real estate deal.   Full disclosure is the act of a seller of providing all the facts which the other party should know before the other party decides to buy. Full disclosure is not something I would always do on a first date when I was a young man – but that is another matter.  Full disclosure is akin to the term used by contemporary politicians and pundits known as “transparency.” North Dakota’s property disclosure law should require a seller to disclose mineral associated with a piece of property. 

 

Index to Current Articles & Blogs on this Website as of May 20th, 2014

Posted on: May 20th, 2014
by David Ganje

BLOGS

-South Dakota vs New York ‘Wind Farm Tax’/ Comparison

-The Wind is Transient, Taxes Are Nearly So. A Look At The World of Wind Taxes

-Brownsfield-An Underused Part of North Dakota’s Environmental Law

-Water Systems Security

-AAPL Southwest Land Institute – Oil & Gas Law Presentation

-Foster Care for Unlocatable Mineral Interest Owners

-The Utility and Controversy of Disposal Wells

-Surface Water Drainage Issues – A Legal Perspective

-Waste Water Injection Well

-Article and Presentation of David Ganje on Natural Resources Law

-Surface Water Rights and Surface Water Drainage, A Modern Problem

-David Ganje to Speak at Annual Meeting of American Association of Professional Landmen

-A Second Look at Royalty Interests

-Underground Trespass in the Bakken Oil Patch

-Western States Water Council – Letter Regarding Water Rights

-A New Way to Convey Mineral Rights

-Recent New York State Water Regulations

-Dealing with Environmentally Challenged Property

-Hydrofracking and New York Oil and Gas Law

-Army Corps of Engineers Wrong on Missouri River Water Plan

-Drafting a Choice of Law Provision in a Contract

ARTICLES

-How to Negotiate an Oil Lease

-How to Recover Lost or Orphaned Mineral Rights – Pre 2013

-Starting a Private New Irrigation Project

-The Taxman Never Sleeps

-Commercial Lease Checklist

-Limited Liability Operating Agreement Creation Guide

-Natural Resources and Environmental Issues in Modern Real Estate Deals

The Utility and Controversy of Disposal Wells

Posted on: March 24th, 2014
by David Ganje

                        The Utility and Controversy of Disposal Wells

Greater attention, rightfully, is now paid in the oil patch to our first natural resource: water. From all fronts affected, parties are more aware of the proper stewardship of water.  This stewardship does not come without controversy. That famous Geo-hydro geologist Mark Twain was correct:  Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting. The North Dakota State Water Commission projects the amount of water needed for developing a Bakken Formation well for natural gas production at approximately three acre feet. The required water must come from a freshwater source. With the oil patch growth through 2019, Bakken wells could require as much as 51,000 acre feet (a.f.) of water. The general uses of water in the oil patch include well drilling and completion, well production, the so called use of maintenance water which requires fresh water sources, and after-production. I will focus this article on the management and disposal of used water in the ‘after production phase’ which water is often referred to as produced water or saltwater. The other important aspects of water uses, as well as tribal regulations and water law, will be left for another discussion.

During hydraulic fracturing – commonly known as fracking – water mixed with industrial chemicals and proppants (a mix of sand or ceramic particles) are forced into the well system to release oil and gas. The waste water from the process is the so called produced water or salt water. Produced water is the largest volume by-product from an oil and gas well.  Along with the chemicals used during the drilling produced water is highly saline, usually 10 times that of ocean water. Its improper use or disposal would damage soil productivity or pollute near-surface water aquifers used for irrigation and drinking water. North Dakota statutes specifically prohibit this remaining produced water from polluting any freshwater supply in the state. Disposal wells are the most common final method for removal of unusable produced water or saltwater.  North Dakota currently has 470 active saltwater disposal wells.  The well process involves injecting the produced saltwater and associated wastes into naturally occurring subsurface formations called confining geologic zones.  As technology advances the industry has other non-well options for produced water management. Such technology includes obtaining fracking water from saline groundwater sources, or from municipal waste water. A fresh water source such as an aquifer must be allowed to replenish itself (recharge), so the careful stewardship and use of water in the oil patch continually relevant. Let us look at the current practice of disposal well procedures and issues.

Upon returning to the surface there are two common methods of handling produced water:

  1. Re-injection into the oil-producing formation for enhancing oil and gas production
  2. Injection into an underground formation that naturally contains saltine water. This second method is also known as Salt Water Disposal (SWD) which are also called disposal wells.

SWD is considered the most economic final disposal method. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classify these wells as class II wells used to inject fluids associated with oil and natural gas production operations.

Under the guidelines of the Underground Injection Control Program established by the federal Drinking Water Safe Act, North Dakota has imposed regulations:

(a)              for pits and ponds containing saltwater liquids and brines produced by the hydraulic fracturing operations

(b)              Governing the process of underground injection wells.  A technical permit application is required for these SWD wells.

A disposal well must go through an application and approval process.  This is also called the siting of a well.  The information the state studies from an application is comprehensive and involves detailed geologic data.  A disposal well must also complete a mechanical integrity test before it becomes properly permitted and can operate. Information and data which must be submitted, and reviewed, before the state would approve an SWD well permit application include:

  1. Geologic name of lowest known fresh water zone
  2. A plat depicting the area and detailed description of the location, well name, and operator of all wells in the area of review. The area wide plat must include: nearby injection wells, producing wells, plugged wells, abandoned wells, drilling wells, dry holes, and water wells. The plat must also show seismic faults, if known or suspected
  3. Testing and recording the original bottom-hole injection of the well
  4. A description of the proposed injection program
  5. A quantitative analysis from the two nearest fresh water wells
  6. A written notice to all landowners within the area of review who must be notified of the proposed injection well.
  7. This notice informs the landowners that comments or objections may be submitted
  8. Schematic drawings of the well bore and surface facility construction.

The controversy surrounding salt water disposal wells concern spills, potential leaks and earthquakes. Spills occur. These events are saltwater surface spills not related to the disposal well or to the well integrity of a properly permitted well. Spills happen because of human error and bad equipment.   As with all Bakken oil and gas production procedures, it can be said: most in the industry do it right, but some just do it.  Saltwater spills occur on the surface, and are often a mechanical malfunction or error in human judgment. The risk of a spill from a saltwater disposal well is not from a properly permitted well itself.  When a spill occurs it is usually during the act of storing or delivering wastewater to the disposal well. Consider for example that there are 470 active operating disposal wells in North Dakota, but more than 2100 saltwater pipelines, and it is easier to understand that the ‘getting to the well’ is where problems arise. New rules have recently been promulgated by the Industrial Commission for ‘underground gathering pipelines’.  These regulations will address the construction and deconstruction [shutdown] of saltwater service pipelines.

Do disposal wells contaminate water wells and aquifers? The question is more properly stated:  Do disposal wells fail or leak? Thousands of disposal wells have been permitted in the U.S.  In 2012 a company called Halek Operating ND LLC was fined civilly and charged criminally by the Industrial Commission for illegal action and operating a disposal well after having been ordered to shut-in the well. In that case, among other things, the administrative law judge also found that the company had operated the disposal well without first completing a mechanical integrity test on the well. The state found no damage to aquifers from the illegal activity.  I know of no failures or leaks from properly permitted disposal wells located in North Dakota and South Dakota in my lifetime. And information from both states’ regulatory agencies report that such events have not occurred.

Do disposal wells cause earthquakes? Thousands of disposal wells have been permitted in the U.S. The state of Arkansas is in a region of the continent that has recognized natural earthquake activity. Because the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission thought that disposal wells may have been causing or aggravating earthquakes in the state it ordered a study. After the study was completed in 2011 the state regulatory authority established a moratorium on new and on operating disposal wells in an area that resulted in the closure of 4 of the state’s 700 disposal wells. Natural earthquakes are more likely to occur of course in earthquake-prone geology. A region prone to natural earthquakes is more likely to be the place where a quake caused or affected by a disposal well might occur. The Bakken and Williston basin are not known as  geologically earthquake-prone areas of the continent, and the state permitting process does not authorize active disposal wells near a fault line. I know of no earthquakes caused by properly permitted disposal wells in North Dakota and South Dakota in my lifetime. And information from both states’ regulatory agencies report that such events have not occurred.

 

David Ganje of Ganje Law Offices practices natural resources, environmental and commercial law.     The website:  lexenergy.net           The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and are not intended as legal advice.

A New Way to Convey Mineral Rights

Posted on: February 16th, 2014
by David Ganje

NEW LEGISLATION FAVORABLY AFFECTS MINERAL INTEREST OWNERS

 

Sometimes it actually happens.  Sometimes new laws actually make things better.  No law is perfect and most are problematic.  Some however work to their purpose.  A better method of transferring mineral interests upon death would be good.  North Dakota now provides such a law. And the same legislation is pending in South Dakota which I anticipate will pass this year.  The underlying purpose of the Real Property Transfer on Death Act is to simplify a transfer of real property on the death of the owner.  It is done not by probate and not by a will but by the drafting of a deed. The law as written has a second important benefit in the area of oil and gas interests. Real property rights include mineral rights (oil and gas rights).  Such property rights may be split or “severed” into surface estate rights and mineral estate rights.  Surface rights and mineral rights to one property parcel may be owned by two separate parties.  These different ownership rights may be independently transferred or developed. The new law creates a workable method of transferring mineral interests without the use of a will or without having to go into probate court.  Transfer on Death deeds are a practical way to transfer property to a beneficiary upon death without probate.  Mineral interests and mineral deeds are sometimes mishandled in the context of planning for future use of property and are often overlooked in an estate planning review.  This new transfer law makes these issues easier to address. The law allows for the nonprobate transfer of both real estate and mineral interests by the proper writing and recording of a transfer deed.

 

This law allows an owner of real property, and importantly an owner of mineral interests which are real property in the eyes of the law, to “will” the property or mineral interests to a designated beneficiary.  The transfer takes effect upon the owner’s death without probate.  The property passes at the grantor’s death to the beneficiary by drafting and recording a special deed.  This action does not require the writing of a will or the creating of an estate trust.  During the owner’s lifetime, the named beneficiary in the deed has no interest in the property.  A property owner during his life still keeps the power to transfer the property or mineral interests to other parties or to deal with it for other purposes.  After recording such a transfer deed an owner may during his life also revoke the recorded transfer on death deed.  On the owner’s death, the property passes to the named beneficiary.  The process is similar to but more comprehensive than a traditional joint tenancy ownership of property.

 

Unlike joint tenancy the transfer deed does not convey immediate ownership to the beneficiary.  While the grantor is alive the named beneficiary has no ownership interest in the property.  The grantor may also ‘change his mind’ at any time during his life by in effect changing the terms of the deed. A named beneficiary receives the deeded property subject to any conveyances, oil and gas leases and other contracts that the grantor may have done during his lifetime.  The transfer of such a deed is deemed to have occurred at the time of the grantor’s death, so it is subject to those acts that the grantor took during his life even though he had previously drafted and recorded such a transfer deed.  The transfer law allows the grantor to fully manage the mineral interests, enter into deals regarding the mineral interests during his or her lifetime, and still have a deed recorded which allows the nonprobate transfer of those rights on his death.

 

 

 

 

David Ganje of Ganje Law Offices practices natural resources, environmental and commercial law in North Dakota and South Dakota and has offices in Rapid City.