Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by rob on December 26, 2011 at 2:49pm

Just curious, what / who is North American Coal Royalty. I couldn't find anything on them with a google search.

Permalink Reply by Dan on December 26, 2011 at 3:04pm

That's who owns the minerals under the club.

Permalink Reply by rob on December 26, 2011 at 3:47pm

I know, never heard of it. Out of state hedge fund? Private group, etc?

Permalink Reply by Dan on December 26, 2011 at 5:57pm

These days it's a subsidiary of NACCO Industries, Inc, which is a holding company based out of Cleveland, and traded on the NYSE as "NC".  NACCO is diversified now, but its history started back in the 1920's with coal mining, and until recently coal was the entire portfolio.  At the time that North American Coal Royalty Company was acquiring the minerals under the Sportsman's Club, they were buying up coal companies and their holdings in over half a dozen states from North Dakota to Pennsylvania.  Now coal makes up a smaller percentage of NACCO than its other holdings, like Proctor-Silex/Hamilton Beach and  Yale/Hyster forklifts, but that may change now that these old and perhaps all-but-forgotten mineral titles are suddenly very lucrative for them again for shale gas and oil.

A history of the company can be read here:

History of NACCO Industries, Inc.

I found it pretty interesting.  Also, on their company website under the North American Coal Corp subsidiary page, business highlights section, it states that one of its "Other Income Streams" is "Mineral royalty streams from North American Coal’s non-operating properties."  They don't act like it is a very big deal to them right now, and perhaps it's not for a company that large.  I guess it depends how many acres of minerals they still own.

Permalink Reply by Philip Brutz on December 27, 2011 at 2:55am

Great info on NACCO.  Do you know anything about Capstone Holding Co?  They own hundreds of acres right next to my property in Guernsey.  They used to be Seaway Coal Co.

Permalink Reply by Dan on December 27, 2011 at 11:29pm

Sorry Philip, I don't know about Capstone.

Permalink Reply by 1s7k1qp9wk1t7 on January 20, 2012 at 6:01am

looks like they should have grabbed the 54K they were offered

 

http://www.reviewonline.com/page/content.detail/id/551395/Judge--Dr...

Permalink Reply by Paul Martinelli on January 20, 2012 at 8:21am

not necessarily....looks like CHK can ony disturb the land with efforts to extract minerals/oil/gas under the parcel surface.....they can't drill there and extract from under other parcels.   So...CHK may want to locate the pad elswhere .....giving the Sportsman's club want they wanted.

Permalink Reply by Dan on January 20, 2012 at 5:24pm

Yes, that is an interesting ruling, saying if they drill on the Sportsmans Club property they can only extract gas and oil from under that property.   If the ruling stands, Chesapeake is not going to want to drill there, because their proposed horizontal lateral was going to extend far beyond the Sportsmans Club, going under State Forest land and other private landowners.  If they did drill there they would have to stop their lateral at the property line according to Judge Nunner.

Permalink Reply by 1s7k1qp9wk1t7 on January 20, 2012 at 5:36pm

How big could the penalty be even if they apply the intent that was meant for mining of coal to gas and oil....the club has no rights to the gas & oil under their propery so they wouldn't have any rights to gas and oil harvested from property that wasnt theirs either......good luck beating a 16 BILLION dollar company....maybe you can twist chesapeak's arm for a couple of new tree stands and some fishing poles....ahahahaha

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on January 22, 2012 at 8:20am

By Ohio law, it could be argued that the lateral would have to stop 500ft short of the JSC property line as OH law indicates 500ft to be the minimum setback to prevent drainage from adjacent parcels. This would limit CHK even more and be an even larger enticement to drill elsewhere.

Permalink Reply by 1s7k1qp9wk1t7 on January 22, 2012 at 8:25am

wouldn't that 500 foot setback only come into play if CHK did NOT have the adjacent parcels signed?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• …
• 9
• Next ›
• Page