Probably state owned land
Maybe, but theyâre held up on leasing, too. I donât know Minnesotaâs deal, but they might have a statutory 20% on state minerals - that would be pretty high for a non-private lease.
The company and state have been talking for years⊠I think they both are well aware where it will shake out. The process ( until formal public process is finalized ) involves the MN executive team approving any leases until that open process. Also and very importantly in my opinion, it requires them to take into account control of adjacent land. I think they would both want some sort of certainty. It was a shame the MN legislature was exactly 50/50 this year so almost nothing got done, not just Gas extraction.
The hold up is in finding who owns the mineral rights. Many cases go back over 50 years so finding the rightful owners is taking a lot of time.
Iâm pretty familiar with that work, and 50 years is no big deal. 
Unless youâre trying to do it super-cheap with no people - that can take a while. Itâs often more expensive to be cheap, though.
In a non-oil and gas state, they probably arenât contending with the kind of fractured royalty and mineral rights that you see elsewhere. But there are probably lots of heirship things to work through.
Finding people to do the work has become difficult. The last downturn killed the land business. Even now, most work is utility ROW, along with carbon, hydrogen & thermal. O&G work is scarce.
The people I know are staying pretty busy in Texas and NM, but they arenât gonna take a pay cut to go chase a short-term project in Minnesota. If the pay was right, he should be able to get people out of North Dakota or the Appalachians.
Landmen used to just go where the work took them, but people donât really do that as much anymore. Of course, companies donât want to pay for travel or increase day rates, either, so thatâs a big part of it.