OWNERSHIP, not the royalty RATE,
as many had been misled to believe.
Therefore, mineral owners could get much
more than the minimum 12.5% royalty on a
tract with no deductions and no maximum
limit, depending upon negotiations or what
the West Virginia Oil & Gas Conservation
Commission would decide.
HB 2688 would also have provided
for changes to the West Virginia Oil &
Gas Conservation Commission. The
first change would be the addition of two
members to the Oil & Gas Conservation
Commission, as many felt the current make
up was slanted toward the oil and gas
industry. One of the new members would
represent surface owners and be from the
largest agriculture organization in the state;
the other would represent mineral owners.
Neither would be allowed to be affiliated
with the oil and gas industry. Second, the
bill allowed for an appeals process if parties
are not in agreement with the Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission decisions. Also,
the state Geologist would be included as a
member of the commission.
Many people were unhappy because
they believed HB 2688 did nothing to
address the problem of minerals that have
been separated from the surface - but this
was not true. The bill did provide for the
eventual reuniting of the minerals of lost and
unaccountable owners by the surface owner.
Many asked why transparency issues with
the oil and gas industry were not addressed
(i.e., record keeping, timeliness of royalty
payments, tax issues). Addressing these
in the same bill would have required the bill
to be “triple referenced” – meaning it would
have had to go through and be approved
by several committees before it could be
introduced on the floor. In most cases, this
causes a bill to die because the process
simply takes too long.
10 West Virginia Farm Bureau News
Another misconception pushed by
opponents of the bill was the threat of
losing property – which was completely
untrue. No one was at risk of losing their
land. They would continue to own the
surface. NOTHING in this bill threatened
their ownership.
The key thing – for people interested in
personal property rights – is that this bill
gained more for deep wells th [