NEW DECLARATION OF POOLING & UNITIZATION on an old clinton well

I was doing some research on my property and recently   under the "title" lease,  was a NEW DECLARATION OF POOLING & UNITIZATION filed,  being I'm in Columbiana county I just cant pull up this document online, 4pgs recorded.    This property is HBP from an existing well from 1986,   the unit filed in 1986 shows 40 acres as required.  The parcel numbers are still the 40 acres in the unit.   It is an enevest/ belden & blake well,  I declined to sign the lease assignment awhile ago, but that shouldnt mean anything

    So any ideas why this would have been filed???

Views: 5773

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Billy Park Whyde on March 1, 2012 at 4:40pm

Looks like they are trying to unitize that acreage into a larger parcel. If the lease did not include a unitzation / pooling clause they can not modify the lease. 

Permalink Reply by Billy Park Whyde on March 1, 2012 at 4:41pm

They are trying to flip it

Permalink Reply by tacoma7583 on March 1, 2012 at 5:01pm

I searched that time frame and Mine was the only lease or pooling that showed up in that period.

"There will be no assignment of the Lease by Lessee without the express written consent of Lessor." Unit is limited to 40 acres per well.

I declined the assignment to Chesapeake, back in October of 2011, I'm wondering also since this 40 has been split by 4 owners now,  who can modify the lease one person or would all need to sign? 

Permalink Reply by tacoma7583 on March 4, 2012 at 10:46am

I contacted Enervest about this and at first was told that they cant provide me with a copy of what was filed, since columbiana county cant be viewed online.  I responded if you filed it you should have a word doc or .pdf  and I didn't permit or sign anything for a revision of the unit size, as required in my lease.     Was told they will be in contact on monday, we shall see.

   Which leads me to another question?   Originally one person owned this farm when the original lease was signed, now this unit is owned as follows:

me  18 acres

others, 8 arces, 2 acres, 12 acres.

Can one signature allow the lease to be assigned or the unit to be modified? or does everyone need to approve each individual property involve? 

Permalink Reply by tacoma7583 on March 4, 2012 at 12:19pm

Yes all mineral rights transferred with the property to me,  just trying to figure some stuff out in case they are trying to pull a fast one on me.   

Permalink Reply by Kathi Albertson on March 4, 2012 at 8:35am
My question is related. Are there any success stories of old HBP leases being renegotiated when the land owner is asked to sign a modification to allow for pooling to a larger unit? Anyone getting a better royalty % or a signing bonus? Change in location of pipelines? It Is my understanding that a request to modify opens the entire lease for renegotiation.
Permalink Reply by Billy Park Whyde on March 4, 2012 at 8:44am

I haven't heard but if it is happening I don't believe the O&G would be broadcasting it.

Permalink Reply by JR on March 4, 2012 at 8:47am

Two different O&G attorneys have also stated future lease negotiation is as an option for us, as we are HBP limited to a 160 acre unit limit from an old Clinton well.  I'd love to learn of someone's experience with this scenario.  

Permalink Reply by matt on March 8, 2012 at 8:36am

jr are lease is 160 acre max also are you in carroll cty?

Permalink Reply by Billy Park Whyde on March 4, 2012 at 9:21am

Mark shame on you! You didn't suggest warning about the door hitting them in the  ^#@ lol

Permalink Reply by hunter4440 on March 9, 2012 at 2:39am

Kathi... I have modified several leases in both Carroll and Stark counties and tried very hard to receive new bonus money and a larger royalty. I have amended both HBP leases and the new Anschutz leases. I beat up on the landman and even went over his head to Oklahoma. I received nothing more than the hope of being in drilling units. That, of course, is the main objective anyway. Just a note on the Anschutz leases, I decided not to join in on the lawsuits because I feel very strong that the attorneys are wrong in suing just for a higher bonus and royalty. These people signed the leases, took the bonus money, and were very happy to do so at the time. These are " paid-up leases". I,too, would like to have the current bonus rate instead of the $25 per acre I received, however, I would rather be in a drilling unit/s then to be tied up in court for years and possibly cheat my neighboring mineral owners the chance of being drilled anytime soon. This has happened in a couple areas in Carroll County and I am one of the owners shutout of a pool because the largest landowner refuses to amend his unitization clause. His greed is hurting his neighbors. 

Jim ShoosPermalink Reply by Jim Shoos on March 9, 2012 at 4:43am

Hunter... thanks for the well reasoned and well expressed sentiments.  I don't necessarily disagree with Mark's comment that the o&g company is getting something, so should the landowner.  In the typical situation the existing lessee isn't the one that will end up developing the land for either Marcellus or Utica.  Shallow operators have no deep horizontal drilling expertise so they sell the deep rights to those that have the know how and the deep pockets to fund the development.  The existing lessee is generally the party that is charged with the responsibility of securing lease amendments since most deep horizontal operators won't touch the deal without having the contractual ability to form larger units required for horizontal laterals.  Yes, the existing lessee is getting paid something for a lease assignment of the deep rights but its not always a simple process of trying to extract something out of them in exchange for a lease amendment.  Call it greed or whatever you want but agreeing to increase royalty percentages either results in the existing lessee getting cut out of receiving any overriding royalty in the assignment of the lease or the net revenue interest going to the deep operator gets too low to make it a viable transaction.  It would be ludicrous to deny that the lessee approaching a landowner for an amendment doesn't present the opportunity to negotiate for something in exchange but as Hunter noted it also can lead to the non development of the prolific Marcellus and Utica rights.  If the negotiations drag out too long the prospective purchaser of the deep rights simply terminates the purchase/sale agreement and moves on to the next opportunity.

As a landowner your are free to contact an attorney and he will tell you the same thing I just did... and that attorney will likely lead you to believe you have a great opportunity to extract something out of the lessee.  Given that the attorney either bills you hourly for his time or he takes a percentage of the bonus/royalty in exchange for his efforts it is logical that he would lead you to believe you can prevail.  From a personal perspective of being on the opposite side of the coffee table from you on these types of negotiations I can assure you that it makes no difference to me whether or not you express these thoughts yourself or you have an attorney acting on your behalf. 

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service