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 hunter4440 on March 9, 2012 at 5:11am

Thanks for your response. On the HBP leases, I do take some exception to the operators which do not have the ability to develop the deep zones, selling "our" rights for a very large amount of money. That is a legal issue however. They have the right to do so, generally without the lessor's consent. But as I earlier stated, if the leases get drilled, the number one objective for me is met: royalties! 

Jim ShoosPermalink Reply by Jim Shoos on March 9, 2012 at 5:51am

I understand the perceived windfall that the shallow operator obtains, but with all due respect, when that operator took the lease many many years ago they did so with the sole expectation that they would drill for what they knew existed in the shallower intervals.  Both parties had the right to negotiate a lease that would have terminated as to leasehold rights below the base of the deepest formation that was being produced at the end of the primary term... that is referred to as a "vertical pugh clause".  Clearly neither the lessor or the lessee perceived of a set of circumstances at the time that would have warranted the insertion of such a clause in the lease.  That said, a contract is a contract and if you think that this shallow gas operator could see 20 years down the road and know that he was sitting on top of a potential gold mine you are mistaken.  As they say, it's better to be lucky than good sometimes. 

Jim ShoosPermalink Reply by Jim Shoos on March 9, 2012 at 10:44am

I'm not sure where you are getting your information that the operator believes his lease doesn't cover the deep rights???  If that were true, how would that operator be proposing to sell the deep rights to somebody else... that doesn't make much sense.

Permalink Reply by hunter4440 on March 9, 2012 at 11:01am

Jim... your point is well taken. Hind site is always 20/20

Permalink Reply by Kathi Albertson on April 26, 2012 at 2:33pm
I realize that this discussion seems to have ended some time ago but I have a new twist on the question. Ok, so the O &G company isn't going to increase the royalty % and maybe the main issue is to get the well drilled and get more royalties. However, when asked to amend a lease to allow pooling into a larger unit, is anyone asking for a guarantee that all of the acres in the original lease are going to be included in the new larger unit? Any success with such a request?
Permalink Reply by Kathi Albertson on April 26, 2012 at 3:23pm
Any one heard of neighboring landowners sticking together and making similar demands as a landowner group with land that is HBP but making no money off of it? We are exploring the possibility and wonder if others have tried it.
Permalink Reply by tacoma7583 on March 8, 2012 at 6:33am

Here is an excerpt of what they sent back to me, see attachment.   Does this now mean I'm free to lease anything below, the Clinton sands?

Attachments:
Permalink Reply by Blindsquirell on March 9, 2012 at 1:48am
Formations 100' above the BOTTOM of Clinton. = everything from surface to 100' above the bottom of Clinton NOT below Clinton.
Permalink Reply by tacoma7583 on March 9, 2012 at 4:18am

This is the key part I'm reading in this "INSOFAR AND ONLY INSOFAR as said leases cover, affect, and pertain to those formations lying one hundred feet (100') above the bottom of the Clinton sands.  "


I'm reading this as the lease now only covers anything in the Clinton strata and above.  Remember this well was originally drilled in 1986, and cant be pooled or assigned without my written consent.  This document was just filed in jan. 2012  and noted as a lease in the recorders office.  

   Chain of events on July 19, 2011 I declined assignment to CHK, The drafted date on the document is Sept 19, 2011 and my last royalties check had a sale date of Sept. 5, 2011. 

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on March 9, 2012 at 4:09am

It looks like they are unitizing everything above the Clinton on the 40 acre parcel they mentioned. Without seeing the lease, Exhibit A, and Exhibit B, it impossible to understand the whole picture from this excerpt.

Permalink Reply by Blindsquirell on March 9, 2012 at 5:44am

Unless the lease is specific to a deepth/formation or contains a pugh clause (releasing ac outside the unit after the expire of primary term), the lease is binding to all deepths/formations (surface to core). This Declaration of Pooling is notifying the 40 ac OGM Owner of a lease effective December 1, 1986 and being placed into a single unit - (somewhere) 100' above the bottom of the Clinton.

Permalink Reply by JR on March 9, 2012 at 3:45am

Matt, we are in Tusc. county.  The company thats keeping us HBP hasn't sold our lease yet.  Starting to wonder if they missed the boat.  

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service