Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Lynn Wigglesworth on September 3, 2010 at 7:34am

My neighbors got caught in that scam, and the thought did hit me that East could do it again. I don't trust them. There should be some penalty for them not honoring their lease, but there isn't....it isn't binding on them until they file it with the courthouse, but it's binding on the landowner the second they sign it.

Permalink Reply by Brian Day on September 3, 2010 at 9:01am

Actually, in all fairness to East as I recall, when they couldn' pay the bonus on the leases in the alotted time of the contract, they informed the landownersthat the land owners did have the right to tear up those contracts at that time. No one did. A golden oppornutinty was lost. East came back a little later and offered half the bonus money and 3% more royalty and most people took it.

Permalink Reply by Josie on September 3, 2010 at 9:04am

What excuse did East use for not paying the Bonus?...........

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on September 3, 2010 at 10:26am

"“Because recent economic conditions in the nation’s financial markets have reduced our ability to obtain extensions of credit, we are at this time not in a position to make payment to you.”
http://hancockgaslease.com/?tag=leases

Which I think was true, until KKR bailed them out.

Permalink Reply by Josie on September 4, 2010 at 12:17pm

Well that makes sense...East had no credit but went forward anyway knowing that they had no credit gambling with the lives of land owners and hoping they got credit before they had to make payment. Now there is a good healthy batch of Greed for ya.

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on September 3, 2010 at 9:51am

Possible, but imo unlikely. The main reason being that it's now Shell and Shell does have their retail brand name to protect. And, while the TTLC didn't commit to an auction date, wasn't it the general expectation that it would have already happened? The easiest, and maybe even cheapest, way for Shell to lease the TTLC land would have been to sit back and wait for the auction. But, say, Shell had a date by which they wanted to get it done. When the TTLC moved the sign-up date back, Shell decided to deploy the landmen instead. No, I'm not claiming that's what happened. But it is "possible".

Permalink Reply by MIneral Right on September 3, 2010 at 10:20am

Ann: Interesting concept. However, consider this: What if East/Shell's O&G Exploration Division runs that operation seperate from the retail end of the business and has learned over the many many years that there are so few landowners involved in gas leasing that they can do pretty much what they want to and it has no affect on the public perception at the retail pump.

And, what if East feels threated by the potential Lease sale and that is their primary motivation for placing 60 new boots on the ground within the past 30 days.

Did you see what Simitomo has agreed to pay Rex Energy Corp in Butler County? if I am not mistaken it is $10K per acre with an additional $1K per acre management fee.

http://twintlc.com/Documents/Rex%20Energy%20Corporation.pdf

There is a lot of big money being passed about right now in the Marcellus and it would way too soon to count the Twin Tiers Lease Sale out of the game.

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on September 3, 2010 at 12:42pm

But this is the Internet Age, not "many" years ago. (And many, many years ago, there wasn't even TV). I doubt BP would be spending all those $$ on national "We'll make it right" TV ads if part of the objective wasn't to protect their brand.

What Cannon Lavare just posted was: "I currently have 30+ East landman on the ground ...", not that they are "new" or "more". There might or might not have been more out before the orignal June 8 signup deadline.

Yes, I had read about the Rex/Sumitomo deal. But I don't see how a joint venture that includes existing wells and other facilities can be compared with a "raw" lease sale in a different part of the play.

Of couse the TTLC is still in the game.

Permalink Reply by James L. Mitchell on September 4, 2010 at 12:04pm

The $10,000 per acre paid by Sumitomo cannot be compared to an individual lease as many expenses Rex Energy has on leases they have bought up.

Permalink Reply by Josie on September 4, 2010 at 12:13pm

My point is and was that there is huge value in our acres, not that someone was going to pay $10K per acre.....the info I posted about Rex/Sumitomo is simply more evidence about the value we sit on. However James, you might consider the Friendsville in Bradford county example of what can be had per acre if your acre is much more enriched with gas than most of Tioga county gas; $5750 per acre aint that far away from $10 per acre is it now?

Given the fact that East has raped Tioga county gas owners for years.....I think Mineral Right has a good point.

Permalink Reply by James L. Mitchell on September 4, 2010 at 12:19pm

josie.Thanks for the helpful info. Jim Mitchell

Permalink Reply by Mike C. on September 3, 2010 at 12:01pm

Let's think about this. If East could simply negotiate with the coalition and obtain that acreage for 1500 and 15% why would they be trying to obtain acreage now and incur the additional landman expense? This makes zero sense. Clearly East knows there will be other players vying for this acreage "I know of at least two others" and the price will be higher and they may lose out on top of that. if the lease is fair I see numbers closer to Friendsville than current Tioga prices.

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