Any information on the sale of EnerVest leases in NE Ohio ?

Views: 4045

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Yes...I would not be entitled to any bonus money due to my lease being held but I am suggesting that the money they "Enervest" would receive through sales (assignment)...for example, I have 10 acre...Enervest sells my lease for 15K per acre..they should give me 1/8 of the 150K they received or 10x1,875 or $18,750.00...understandably , they are not obligated to do so...but ought to be, as that is an amount that a royalty ought to be paid upon..imho...wishful thinking perhaps ,but a good lawyer could make the case that that type of sale is subject to a royalty disbursement on an old lease signed in 1978..
Question..Is the BP lease royalty on Gross production subject to deductions for marketing, preparing, transportation...etc? Just curious...I heard two different things on that. also the 50 acre circle around the well not being payable on acreage?

That's an absurd claim and no lawyer could make even a half-witted case for it.  Royalty is a very specific, defined thing in contract law.  Third party sales do not qualify in any way.

Royalty, by definition> is payments made for the use of ones property..

Sounds like you're trying to renegotiate with them and offering what you think is a real bargain Jim P.
$1.875k per leasehold acre is a far cry from the $4.25k per acre signing bonus others have paid as I hear.
Good luck.
Do the best you can for yourself Jim P.
J-O

I am with you Joe...and I see what you are saying..in all honesty, I am entitled to nothing (per acre)under my current lease as it reads >except for a 12.5% royalty *free of cost* is the way it reads other than a severence tax to any governing body as required by law..so a 12.5% royalty under those conditions may beast 17-18% under new leases that have deductions for various marketing reasons..
I cannot renegotiate anything unless it involves my pooling clause if it should exceed 160 acres for a well..

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with that.  The problem is claiming 12.5% of the sale of an asset that you don't own.  You don't get something for nothing.  You're not the federal government.

Mark D.,

Any news ?

Being it's a little past mid quarter 2013 by some estimates we're due for some info. on the EnerVest sell-off of it's (selected) Utica Acreage.

The results can impact things pretty significantly - especially in my geographic area of interest - far eastern Ashtabula County and a little north of SR 6.

Thanks for your posts.

J-O 

Nobody is dumb enough to pay EVEP what they want for their position.  This will be on sale until they can find a fool who wishes to part ways with his money.

Quite outspoken Mr. Grayson.

I'm not calling anyone dumb or a fool.

We'll have to wait a little while longer and see what their Title Clear / perhaps HBP / perhaps Contiguous Acreage Blocks are actually worth to prospective buyers.

They want $10,000/acre.  Nobody thinks that's a good entry price.  Hell, GPOR has spent nearly that much for their lease position in some of the sweet spots and they still can't make any real profit from their massive gushers.  Anyone who wants to spend $10,000/acre to buy a piece of the Utica is going to demand a premium position.  Most of the EVEP acreage is scattered.  They have JV acreage that is prime, but it's part of a separate deal.  Non-JV acreage is spread out.  A lot.  If you bought their position today you'd have land in Lawrence County and in Ashtabula County.  There are (going north and east) 11 counties in between them.  There are 11 counties where EVEP's non-JV position occupies.  That's really, really unwieldy for pretty much any company that wants to derisk a position.  There's a reason nobody has taken a bite at their package.  

Anybody make any counter-offers to their $10.0 k/acre that you know of ?

I don't know what the potential offers looked like.  I imagine they'd keep that pretty close to the vest.

RSS

Local Groups

advertisements