Download
mineral subsurface interests n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Mineral – Subsurface – Interests PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Mineral – Subsurface – Interests

Mineral – Subsurface – Interests

164 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Mineral – Subsurface – Interests

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Mineral – Subsurface – Interests

  2. Cuius est solum, ejus est usque ad caelum et ad inferos

  3. Exercise of rights possessed may be limited – by the myriad jurisdictions • in which we live State Legislature Legislative Mandate Statutory Law Agency Administrative Law Courts Case Law MINNESOTA LAW We muddle through !

  4. Taconite Operations • Mines • Plants • Port facilities • Industrial Minerals • Crushed stone • Limestone • Peat • Silica sand • Kaolin clay • Granite Mining in Minnesota

  5. Continuing series: Frac Sand Fever (Star Tribune) • FRACKING: Frac sand mining opponents call for statewide moratorium • Frac Sand Mining  (MPR)

  6. Sulfide Mining in Minnesota • Minnesota's mining boom: New riches or new threat? (Star Tribune Sept. 11 2011) • Before open pit copper mine opens in northern Minnesota, the expansion debate has started (Star Tribune Nov. 27, 2013) • PolyMet: Developing the NorthMet Copper, Nickel Mining .. • NorthMet Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement

  7. Iron Mining in Minnesota • History of the Iron Range (Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board) • Mining in Minnesota's Iron Range: Past and Future (Friends of the BWCA) • History of Mining in Minnesota (www.miningartifacts.org) • Minnesota Iron Mining (www.taconite.org) • MPR: A timeline of Minnesota's Iron Range • Iron Mining in Minnesota -1950's - YouTube • Essar Steel Minnesota • Minnesota Ore Operations - Keetac and Minntac Minn.

  8. State Policy • Minnesota Statutes 93.001 Policy for mineral development (1987) • “It is the policy of the state to provide for the diversification of the state's mineral economy through long-term support of mineral exploration, evaluation, environmental research, development, production, and commercialization”

  9. Ownership of subsurface interests – the rights to explore for any minerals, in general or specifically, and to mine • can be possessed by the entities possessing the rights to use the surface • may or may not be specified in the public record – deed – abstract • whether the owner can explore and mine depends on the jurisdiction in which the real estate is located

  10. Ownership of subsurface interests – the rights to explore for any minerals, in general or specifically, and to mine • can be possessed by the entities possessing the rights to use the surface • may or may not be specified in the public record – deed – abstract • whether the owner can explore and mine depends on the jurisdiction in which the real estate is located • can also be possessed by another entity – severed mineral interests – different minerals • may or may not be specified in the public record – deed – abstract • whether the owner of severed mineral interests can explore and mine depends on the jurisdiction in which the real estate is located

  11. Mineral Rights Title Search. How to Find Mineral Rights Ownership (You Tube) How to Verify Land Mineral Rights Ownership (eHow) I May Own Minerals, So Now What? (Mineral Rights Forum) Mineral Rights (Land Title Guarantee Co)

  12. State Imposed Encumbrances to Federal Title to Land donated for the Voyageurs National Park • Reservation of mineral and water power right – state owns mineral rights • Covenant not to exercise those rights

  13. Ownership of Land and Minerals in BWCAW • The Izaak Walton League of America filed suit to determine the extent of the mineral rights possessed by George W. St. Clair and his successors in interest and whether he could exercise of those rights in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area (BWCA) • the Wilderness Act precludes any exercise of St. Clair's mineral rights in land within the boundaries of the BWCA • requested injunctions against the federal and state defendants to forbid them granting St. Clair any permits to explore for, drill for, or remove minerals from the BWCA

  14. This litigation, in the defendant St. Clair's words, was “born of frustration” • Congress repeatedly memorialized to appropriate funds to purchase the private mineral rights – one of the recommendations of the Selke Committee on Review of the BWCA in 1963 to then Secretary of Agriculture Freeman – but has not done so

  15. This litigation, in the defendant St. Clair's words, was “born of frustration” • Congress repeatedly memorialized to appropriate funds to purchase the private mineral rights – one of the recommendations of the Selke Committee on Review of the BWCA in 1963 to then Secretary of Agriculture Freeman – but has not done so • Izaak Walton League of America v. St. Clair 353 F. Supp. 698 (D. Minn. 1973 • St. Clair is not at liberty to explore or prospect without a permit from the Forest Service • Izaak Walton League of America v. St. Clair 497 F.2d 849 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1009 (1974) • The case is reversed and remanded with directions that the Forest Service be allowed to determine, upon proper application, whether a permit should be granted • Wilderness and the Judiciary (2009)

  16. http://waterlegacy.org/sites/default/files/SNFLandOwner_0.jpghttp://waterlegacy.org/sites/default/files/SNFLandOwner_0.jpg

  17. Policy for Mineral Development • Minnesota Statutes c.93 • 93.001 It is the policy of the state to provide for the diversification of the state’s mineral economy through long-term support of mineral exploration, evaluation, environmental research, development, production and commercialization

  18. Will there be taconite plant dominoes?

  19. Minnesota Iron Mining • Tied to steel tracks (Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis) • Minnesota pilot plant (Online Insider) • Iron mining 2002 (MPR) • Surprise revival for iron mines of Minnesota (Christian Science Monitor April 22,2004) • Minnesota iron goes global (MPR May 19, 2005) • In Minnesota, mining makes and comeback (CNN.com Nov 21, 2007) • Session Daily - Mining proposals come under scrutiny (Jan. 25 2008) • New mining era for northeastern Minnesota -- and new environmental worries (MinnPost.com Jan 24, 2008) • Mining (Sierra Club, North Star Chapter)

  20. Financial Aspects of Iron Mining • Minnesota Constitution • Mineral Lands (Minnesota Statutes) • Mining (Minnesota Statutes) • Iron Ore Tax (Minnesota Statutes) Taconite and Iron Mining (Department of Revenue) Mining Tax Guide (Minnesota Department of Revenue) Mineral Taxes (Department of Revenue) Mining Tax Study (Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence) • Minnesota iron mining-our communities, state and nation depend on it (Iron Mining Association of Minnesota) • The Good and Bad News for Minnesota’s Iron Range Employment (Feb. 2011 Positively Minnesota)

  21. Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board • State of Minnesota economic development agency located in Eveleth, Minnesota • Mission - to advance regional growth by stabilizing and enhancing the economy of northeastern Minnesota's Taconite Assistance Area • Services includebusiness development consulting and financial assistance • Business Financing • Low Interest Business Loans • Economic Development Grants • Minnesota Business Opportunities • Tax-Free Commercial Real Estate • History of Agency Iron Range Resources Biennial Report Fiscal Years 2011-2012

  22. Gender Discrimination • North Country • “It was like they'd never seen a woman before” (Guardian Feb 3, 2006) • Lois E. Jenson et al v Eveleth Taconite Co. (FindLaw) Unofficial • Jenson v Eveleth Taconite (Wikipedia)

  23. United States Treatment of Minerals • Minerals & Mining Law (FindLaw) • Intermountain Oil and Gas BMP Project (Natural Resources Law Center) • Mountaintop Mining: Background on Current Controversies (CRS April, 2013) • Mining Statutes (Bureau of Land Management) • Land and Mineral Ownership (BLM)

  24. The Mining Act of 1872 (Wikipedia) • Allowed individuals and corporations access to the public domain lands – lands that had always been owned by the federal government – to prospect for minerals and allow them to make a claim to the minerals they discovered  • This claim gave them the right to extract the minerals and title to both land and minerals could be "patented" by them • The purpose of the legislation was to promote mineral exploration on the federal lands in the western United States • Offered an opportunity for individuals to acquire title to mines that were already being worked

  25. The Mining Act of 1872 • During the 19th century, silver and gold were mined under the provisions of the 1872 Act in Colorado, California, and Nevada • In the 20th century deposits of copper were mined in Arizona and molybdenum and tungsten  in Colorado • One of the primary forces behind the development of copper, silver, gold, lead, molybdenum, and uranium • The 1872 Act continues to provide the structure for much of the Western hardrock mining on public domain lands • Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands (GAO) • Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands (National Academies Press, 1999) • Bureau of Land Management • Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement

  26. Act February 18, 1873 c. 159 (17 Stat. 465) Excluded “deposits of coal and iron” in Minnesota and Michigan from the provisions of the Mining Act of 1872

  27. Mineral Ownership • The right to explore and mine may be owned by the surface owner

  28. Mineral Ownership • The right to explore and mine may be owned by the surface owner • Such rights may not be owned by the surface owner, in which case the mineral interests are severed • typically, mineral interests are retained when the surface is conveyed – in the deed of conveyance the seller reserves all or part of the mineral rights • less frequently, mineral interests are conveyed and the surface rights are retained • Sometimes surface ownership records indicate whether ownership of the mineral interests are severed from the surface interests or not – often they do not

  29. Mineral Ownership • The right to explore and mine may be owned by the surface owner • Such rights may not be owned by the surface owner, in which case the mineral interests are severed • typically, mineral interests are retained when the surface is conveyed – in the deed of conveyance the seller reserves all or part of the mineral rights • less frequently, mineral interests are conveyed and the surface rights are retained • Sometimes surface ownership records indicate whether ownership of the mineral interests are severed from the surface interests or not – often they do not • Such severed mineral rights can be sold or donated by the owner • In Minnesota, they may also be lost through tax forfeiture • Mineral ownership in Minnesota • Kotz, Mark “Who Owns Minnesota’s Buried Treasure?” (Sept –Oct 1990 The Minnesota Volunteer)

  30. How Can I Locate Who Owns the Mineral Rights Under My Land? (MineralHub) • Your Land on Iron Range May Be Gold Mine — for Others (Duluth News Tribune April 2011) • Minnesota Landowners Worried that Mining Companies Will Use Eminent Domain to Take Their Property (Oakdale Patch March 2012) • Mineral rights basics (BusinessNorth.com)

  31. Minnesota’s Mining Laws • Laws on state-owned or administered lands and mineral rights • Laws on regulation of all exploration and mining activities • Laws on taxation of mineral interests • Other mineral related laws

  32. Department of Natural Resources Division of Land and Minerals • Managing state’s mineral resources • Providing real estate services • Managing mineral exploration and mine development on all state owned land (surface, subsurface) to generate income (rents, royalty) for • Permanent School Fund • Permanent University Fund (PUF) • Local communities • General Fund • Ensuring mineral development is environmentally sound • Maintaining the real estate records • Minerals

  33. Metallic Mineral Leasing • Marty Vadis, DNR Division of Land and Minerals (Jan – Feb 2009 Minnesota Conservation Volunteer) • Metallic Mineral Exploration Drilling • Preference rights lease for non-ferrous metallic mineral leasing

  34. Iron Mining - Taconite • Minnesota Taconite Production Doubles in 2010 (Jan 3, 2011 CBS Minnesota) • Taconite is back (March 27, 2011 Iseek.org) • Hill-Rust- Mahoning Mine – a National Historic Landmark (Go Geometry) • U. S. Steel Mine Expansion Project • Taconite By-products • Stockpile Ownership (June 2001 DNR ) • Recycling Mining Materials as Durable Aggregates (Oct. 2010 MNDoT) • The Establishment of a Permit to Mine Administration and Application Fee Schedule (Jan. 15 2009 DNR) • MPR Story: Mainstreet Radio Special: Mining (Oct. 16, 2000)

  35. Iron Range Region (Minnesota Historical Society) • Alanen Arnold R. “The “Locations” Company communities on Minnesota’s Iron Ranges”

  36. Mining Future • Governor’s Committee on Minnesota’s Mining Future (Sept. 2004) • Powerpoint presentations • Mining in Minnesota’s Iron Range: Past and Future Perspectives (Power, Thomas University of Montana) • Power, Thomas “The Economic Role of Metal Mining in Minnesota: Past, Present, and Future” (Oct. 2007 Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy) • Mining into the Future – Development in the Minnesota’s Mining Industry (June 9, 2009 Mining Minnesota)

  37. Non-ferrous Mining • 1981 Report to the Legislature on Copper -Nickel Development (Feb. 8, 1981 State Planning Agency et al.) • Midwest Mining Rush Threatens Water: Part VI: Minnesota: This Land is Your Land, This Land is My Land (Nov 22, 2010 Public Education Center) • New law's effect: Minnesota streamlines pollution (March 11, 2011 Minnpost.com)

  38. Taconite and Asbestos • The classic Reserve Mining case (Aspen Law School) • Huffman, Thomas R. “Exploring the Legacy of Reserve Mining: What Does the Longest Environmental Trial in History Tell Us About the Meaning of American Environmentalism?” Journal of Policy History 12. 3 (2000) • Huffman, Thomas R . “Asbestos and the Reserve Mining Trial” Minnesota History Fall 2005 • The legacy of the Reserve Mining case (Oct 29, 2003 MPR) • Minnesota Taconite Workers Health Study (University MN) • Exposure to Commercial Asbestos in Northeastern Minnesota Iron Miners who Developed Mesothelioma (Nov. 25, 2003 MN Dept of Health) • New cases of asbestos-related cancer to be included in University of Minnesota’s Taconite Workers Health Study (March 30, 2010)

  39. Health Risks of Taconite Mining • Do taconite fibers cause cancer? (MPR March 28, 2003) • Is Taconite Killing Miners? (MPR Aug 7, 2007) • Rule and Implementation Information for Taconite Iron Ore Processing (EPA) • Mesothelioma.net • Minnesota Taconite Workers Health Study (University of Minnesota) • Two Taconite Minnesota Mining Operations Could Be Held Accountable for Exceeding Asbestos Exposure Limits (Asbestos Network April 23, 2008)

  40. Other Environmental Issues • Mercury and Mining in Minnesota (Oct. 15 2003) • National Steel Pellet Company Draft Voluntary Mercury Reduction Agreement(Oct 28, 2011) • Taconite Mining and Processing Industry Profile (Sept 2001 EPA)

  41. Mine Restoration • Iron Ore And Taconite Mine Reclamation And Revegetation Practices On The Mesabi Range In Northeastern Minnesota

  42. The majority of mineral rights in Minnesota, either severed or not, are owned by private entities • However, the state is the largest single owner of mineral rights

  43. The majority of mineral rights in Minnesota, either severed or not, are owned by private entities • However, the state is the largest single owner of mineral rights – at least we think so • How much it owns is uncertain because of the nature of the public record

  44. The majority of mineral rights in Minnesota, either severed or not, are owned by private entities • However, the state is the largest single owner of mineral rights – at least we think so • How much it owns is uncertain because of the nature of the public record • under land surface owned by the state donated by the federal government (state trust lands) • under surface still owned by state • under surface was sold after 1901 when state reserved minerals – severed

  45. The majority of mineral rights in Minnesota, either severed or not, are owned by private entities • However, the state is the largest single owner of mineral rights – at least we think so • How much it owns is uncertain because of the nature of the public record • under land surface owned by the state donated by the federal government (state trust lands) • under surface still owned by state • under surface was sold after 1901 when state reserved minerals – severed • under land surface that is tax forfeited – may be unsevered or severed

  46. The majority of mineral rights in Minnesota, either severed or not, are owned by private entities • However, the state is the largest single owner of mineral rights – at least we think so • How much it owns is uncertain because of the nature of the public record • under land surface owned by the state donated by the federal government (state trust lands) • under surface still owned by state • under surface was sold after 1901 when state reserved minerals – severed • under land surface that is tax forfeited – may be unsevered or severed • under privately owned land surface – severed – and potentially tax forfeitable

  47. The majority of mineral rights in Minnesota, either severed or not, are owned by private entities • However, the state is the largest single owner of mineral rights – at least we think so • How much it owns is uncertain because of the nature of the public record • under land surface owned by the state donated by the federal government (state trust lands) • under surface still owned by state • under surface was sold after 1901 when state reserved minerals – severed • under land surface that is tax forfeited – may be unsevered or severed • under privately owned land surface – severed – and potentially tax forfeitable • Until recently and paradoxically, very little attention paid to the mineral estate

  48. Over the years the ownership of severed minerals has become obscure and fractionalized • Some interests have been divided among so many descendants of the original owner that their fractional interests have become extremely small

  49. Over the years the ownership of severed minerals has become obscure and fractionalized • Some interests have been divided among so many descendants of the original owner that their fractional interests have become extremely small • The question of severed minerals has never been addressed by the Minnesota Supreme Court – the general rule in other parts of the country is that unless otherwise stated in the severance deed, the mineral estate carries with it the right to use so much of the surface as may be reasonably necessary to reach and remove the minerals