Ohio surface owners with old reservations: You might own your mineral rights

In 1989 Ohio passed  code 5301.56 which dealt with dormant mineral rights. This law was also updated in 2006 which is what most people might be familiar with. The original law passed in 1989 listed saving events that had to happen in order for the mineral rights not to vest back with the surface rights. It required no notification or action to be taken by surface owner. If you own surface rights to a  property  that had no saving events between 1969 and 1989 you could possible own the mineral rights right now. A surface owner used this argument in 2010 after the 2006 amendments to the dormant mineral rights acts had passed requiring notification to mineral owner. The surface owner proved through title and affidavits no saving event occured between 1969 and 1989 and therefore they now owned the mineral rights and the judge ruled in their favor. Case is Wiseman vs Potts. THe defendents in case tried to argue the amended  statue required notification but  plantiffs argument was successful because the mineral rights had automatically vested back in 1989.

Views: 13105

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on January 24, 2012 at 1:29pm

That makes no sense.

If the original lease was limited to 3999' and above, and Wellington kept 3999' and above, what is left over for Exxon to acquire?

It sounds like the original lease was for all depths and Exxon just bought the rights from 4000' down.

Permalink Reply by Jarrad Stephens on January 24, 2012 at 1:55pm

Yeah....you are right. Exxon bought the rights below and the original was for all depths. At first I thought that the original lease was only to depths of 3999 feet. I was later informed that it was for all depths...Unforunately. The leaseholder (Strata/Wellington) sent us some paperwork a few months ago trying to get us to sign some papers for a $100 an acre before Exxon aquired the lease. I think he was trying to get us to pool all the acreage but everyone refused and did not sign. So now the attorney is going to talk with Exxon. Hopefully something comes out of it but who knows.

 

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on January 24, 2012 at 1:59pm

Is there an acreage specification related to unitization/pooling on the original lease?

Permalink Reply by Jarrad Stephens on January 24, 2012 at 2:23pm

There is no specific acreage related to pooling utilization. The lease actually states "subject to" pooling and utilization agreements 

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on January 24, 2012 at 7:59pm

It says that in the body of the lease-correct?

Is there an addendum sheet that may spell out what those "pooling and unitization agreements" are?

Permalink Reply by Jarrad Stephens on January 24, 2012 at 8:20pm

Correct....I have not seen any additional addendums. He was trying to get everyone together and nobody would sign.

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on January 24, 2012 at 9:39pm

If there are no addendums, it would appear that Exxon has everything they need already - no need to go back to the landowners.

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on January 27, 2012 at 10:04am

More reading on the subject in the attached file.

Attachments:
Permalink Reply by Marc on January 29, 2012 at 4:31pm

I would not trust anything Vorys Sader has to say. Didn't they just lose the Sportsman's Club case in Harrison County to Owen Beetham? Beetham essentially stopped the next "Buell well" in its tracks until Chesapeake actually pays for the rights they need to drill horizontals. What kind of advice was Vorys giving that Chesapeake spent lots and money and created a PR disaster?

Little did Chesapeake know they would have been better off hiring Owen Beetham as their Ohio counsel. Glossly PDFs and expensive Columbus offices do not count for much when the other guy knows the law better.

Permalink Reply by Marc on January 29, 2012 at 5:22pm

For those unfamiliar with the case, here is a link to a video from WTVO that gives a general background. It was decided two weeks ago and now Chesapeake cannot drill a horizontal from the pad they invested in heavily unless they open their wallets to the club.

http://www.wtov9.com/news/news/sportsmens-club-energy-company-court...

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on January 29, 2012 at 6:24pm

I've been trying to find more information on the ruling but have come up short. The video clip above is from Dec 21. Anyone have links to newer information on this case?

Permalink Reply by AT on January 29, 2012 at 6:29pm

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service