Patents by the US distinguishing between mineral and oil and gas

Oil and Gas Leasing Help
1

Could someone please explain to me the significance of the following article. What does it mean? Is the Federal Government taking more of our rights away? How does this affect a company who buys and sells oil and gas leases and/or how does it affect a property owner.

Thanks for your help.

For your review:

The United States is making a distinction between ‘oil and gas’ and minerals in these patents.

1) granting 6 ¼ percent of all OIL AND GAS…..not minerals

2)Reserving 50% of all minerals, INCLUDING OIL AND GAS (again the US is making the distinction here)

3)Reserving to the United States…., all OIL AND GAS…..not minerals.

These are 3 examples of the United States making a clear distinction between the word ‘mineral’ and ‘oil and gas’.

2

Can you provide a link to the article? It will help if we understand where the comments came from.

3

No, I'm sorry, that's all I received. Someone must have read some recently filed patents, possibly filed by the Federal Government.

Reagan "R.T." Dukes said:

Can you provide a link to the article? It will help if we understand where the comments came from.

4

Mr. Dukes,

I have learned a bit more about the issue and perhaps can now phrase my question better.

I have been told that the term "mineral rights" has traditionally been defined to mean non-fluids beneath the ground. "Oil and gas rights" (fluids) were included as a separate item on land patents. Recently there have supposedly been cases where governmental entities have begun interpreting the term "mineral rights" to include both non-fluids and fluids. In your opinion is this interpretation legal. Do you know if there have ever been any court decisions establishing a presidence either way?

5

Eduard,

These look like excerpts from reservations made in patents for lands issued by the USA. Without the rest of the sentences, it appears that 2. is all inclusive. With 1. and 3. it depends on the rest of the sentence. So I disagree with the conclusion that the USA is making a clear distinction. In the states where the patents were issued there may be court cases that clarify the matter in those states. Further, if the quotes came from the BLM, keep in mind that they are usually correct but too often they are also BLM interpretation of patents and misplaced on maps. If you are involved, the real truth may be in the original patents and case law.