Opinion ID: 2824324
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: In the case of solid minerals, there is production from a common vein or seam by the owners of such mineral interest.

Text: d. The mineral interest on any tract is subject to a lease, mortgage, assignment, or conveyance of the mineral interest recorded in the office of the recorder in the county in which the mineral interest is located. e. The mineral interest on any tract is subject to an order or an agreement to pool or unitize, recorded in the office of the recorder in the county in which the mineral interest is located. f. Taxes are paid on the mineral interest by the owner or the owner’s agent. g. A proper statement of claim is recorded as provided by section 38-18.1-04. [¶13] Here, Yesel does not claim the mineral interests related to the Brandon defendants’ royalty interests were abandoned. It is undisputed the mineral interests related to the Brandon defendants’ royalty interests were used within the 20-year period preceding the publication of the notice of lapse because the related mineral interests were subject to numerous leases, were subject to a pooling order issued from the North Dakota Industrial Commission, and were producing oil from at least two wells. Under N.D.C.C. § 38-18.1-03(1), the related mineral interests were being used under subparagraphs (a), (d), and (e). As discussed above, an owner of a royalty interest cannot develop or produce the minerals related to the royalty interest. A royalty interest owner receives a share of the proceeds from the production of the minerals. Therefore, we conclude a royalty interest cannot be considered abandoned if the related mineral interest is being used under N.D.C.C. § 38-18.1-03(1), and find it unnecessary in this case to address whether the abandoned mineral statutes contained in N.D.C.C. ch. 38-18.1 apply to royalty interests. To the extent N.D.C.C. ch. 38-18.1 may apply to royalty interests, we conclude a royalty interest is used if the related mineral interest is used under N.D.C.C. § 38-18.1-03(1). The district court did not err in granting Teigen summary judgment.