Your TMS Information Source Since 2012

Have a TMS tip? Share it here and keep up with latest on our Facebook Page or Twitter!


Suggested TMS Rule #2 and Proposed Response

Posted by bernell on September 30, 2014

Well color me red with embarrassment.

I have made a mistake…again. 

The draft document called SUGGESTED TMS POLICIES by the Mississippi Oil and Gas Board actually contains 7 proposed policies rather than 5, as I previously reported.  So, I’m revising my plans somewhat.  I will present proposed policies 2 and 3 tonight, 4 on Wednesday, 5 and 6 on Thursday, and 7 on Sunday evening. 

Friday needs to be dedicated to the Friday report and Saturday to pulling for Mississippi State to defeat Texas A&M.

So, let’s get to it.  Here’s proposed Policy #2.

“In all 100% of “simple” integration dockets filed with the Mississippi State Oil & Gas Board under Section 53-3-7(1), both the Petition and the Landman’s Affidavit shall contain an affirmative statement that the petitioner has made a good-faith effort to negotiate Oil, Gas & Mineral Leases or other appropriate agreements with those owners of drilling rights and rights to share in production in the proposed drilling unit whose identity and addresses are known or can reasonably be determined.”


I fully agree with this proposal.

As stated earlier, however, I ask you to consider placing teeth in the Affidavit requirement.  Absent a penalty and absent the will to enforce the penalty, the Affidavit requirement is meaningless.

Furthermore, the Affidavit requirement, along with the penalty and willingness to enforce the penalty for filing a false Affidavit, should be extended to the 300% or Alternative Risk integration dockets.
I want to support the drilling done by these operating companies in the TMS and hope they are very successful, but the fact is these 300% force integration letters were sent out from almost the beginning and continue to be today without the process of making a reasonable effort to contact and negotiate with mineral owners.

I submit a penalty for falsifying ALL Affidavits and the willingness to enforce the penalty by this board is a reasonable addition to this proposed rule.

What do you think about it?