Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Steven Kacerski on March 27, 2012 at 8:43am

So much for keeping the terms of the deal confidential as was mentioned at the meeting last night.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ron Eiselstein on March 27, 2012 at 8:49am

Steven,

 Wake up my brother and read the newspapers before you write.  First, I am not a member of the ALOV, secondly, it is plastered all over the business papers.  The secrecy is unproductive.

 

Incidentally, I feel you Trumbull landowners deserve more, it is only going to go up, not to say they (oil giants) won't play games to bring it down sometimes, but in business with daily investments of Global Billions, it will at the end of the day be higher.  But many need the money so lease.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steven Kacerski on March 27, 2012 at 9:46am

Ron,

Actually I did see it in the paper before I logged onto this site, but thanks for the advice. 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ron Eiselstein on March 27, 2012 at 9:49am

Congrats Steve!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steven Kacerski on March 27, 2012 at 9:58am

Thanks Ron.  I wasn't trying to pick a fight with you and didn't know you were not part of ALOV.  I know people were talking about the terms of the deal as they were walking out of the meeting last night, at least that is what the vindicator article stated.  Also 21 was there last night with a car, but not sure if they had anything on the news. Considering the amount of people at the meeting, you would have to expect someone to spill the details of the terms, I thought it would take a little longer than this. 

 I think the price per acres is reasonable based on the unproven production in trumbull county.  I never expected 5000 an acre, like some people thought we should get.  Time will tell.  The offer was better than what some of my clients have been receiving from other groups in Trumbull county, so I'm not going to complain.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ron Eiselstein on March 28, 2012 at 5:36am

Did I read the newspaper correctly, it would take six months before a landowner get's a check?  I was talking to a major landowner in Trumbull and he was telling me by "October."

If this is true, I have a big problem with this.  We all know leases are basically an option until signed and the check is tendered.  Meaning for six months, the oil company can reject the lease for any reason.  What is disturbing is if on the six month you get a letter that they do not like your face and "no check for you."  Or, for that matter, they flip your lease to me and I play the flipping game and you are stuck with a non production entity.  Now most likely this will not happen, but it does not take three months much less six months to wrap up a lease, we all know this.

 

I am thankful to the energy companies for even paying the landowner this kind of money, however delaying payment is really hurtful and a carrot for those hurting and needing money in this bad economy.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Utica Shale on March 28, 2012 at 9:02am

Ron,

 

 "... Meaning for six months, the oil company can reject the lease for any reason ..."

 Are you sure BP can reject the lease for any reason?

 I know of groups that had this clause or similar ...

 "The Driller cannot reject any acreage unless a non-curable title defect is found."

 If the landowner does not legally own the mineral rights then there is no legal way to proceed with a lease with that particular landowner.

 

 "...   Or, for that matter, they flip your lease to me ...

 Can BP actually "flip" the lease to another driller if they have not yet PAID the landowner there Signing Bonus?  I am not sure BP can "flip" a lease they don't yet own. Has this "Flip before Bonus Payment" ever actually ocurred to any member of any landowers group, yet? BP has titles to 84,000 acres to validate, that will takes a tremduous amount of manpower and time.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ron Eiselstein on March 28, 2012 at 9:19am

The leases that my company has negotiated with Shell, CHK and Hilcorp, standard practise is that they do not sign the lease upfront until or within the 90 banking day window.  Therefore it really isn't a contract at all with two parties, only one has signed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Utica Shale on March 28, 2012 at 10:09am

Ron,

 That may be true in your case but that is not what ALOV Trumbull signed because ALOV Trumbull agreed to have at least 75% of the acres signed in April or BP can walk away from the deal.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ron Eiselstein on March 28, 2012 at 10:08pm

So you are saying that all the 100 year mineral searches for 75% of 85000 acres will be completed within the month of April?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Utica Shale on March 28, 2012 at 10:20pm

Ron,

" ... So you are saying that all the 100 year mineral searches for 75% of 85000 acres will be completed within the month of April? ..."

 No, I did not say that.

 I said, "... ALOV Trumbull agreed to have at least 75% of the acres signed in April ..."

 I did not mention anything about BP doing Title searches by April.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by robert vepich on March 31, 2012 at 4:21pm

they can pick and choose what they want out of the group is what i heard.

they can walk from the entire deal if 75% are not signed by the end of April.

and it is a 6 month option.

Basically, if 75% sign by the end of April.  If they get in there and see that Trumbull is a mess concerning title, old wells, reservations, etc. they will most likely take the few blocks that may be clean within the group and walk from the rest.

Dont count your chickens before they hatch....still a lot that could happen.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 10
• Next ›
• Page