Payment cancelled by Shell

Has anyone else had this happen? The title to my property had no deficits (according to the Cambridge Office). I called Amegy bank today to see when the check would be sent and I was told that it was “cancelled per land department directive”.

I called Shell in Cambridge and they have no idea what is going on. Any thoughts?

Views: 40758

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by ANONOMOUS! CUZ I CAN BE! on May 23, 2012 at 6:01am

Well I just got a phone call from the people at Holland Services, stating that my lease will be months, not weeks or days to be processed.  After the people in Cambridge said that my lease was in Ft. Worth, This Grant Irvin from Holland said my lease is still in cambridge?  He said I could email him for a release.  Doubt that me or alot of other landowners will be paid at this point.  I know of 1/2 acre parcels being paid and I have over 5 acres?  Sounds like cherry picking to me.  Everyone really needs to spread the word about how people are taking one dry and hateful for their OWN property

Permalink Reply by Landowner Guernsey County on May 23, 2012 at 6:13am
That's who called me was a Grant Irvin I think this whole thing is shady and the lawyer representing us is just as shady being that he wont return phone calls to people
Permalink Reply by ANONOMOUS! CUZ I CAN BE! on May 23, 2012 at 9:15am

Well after making a few calls today..Found out that Gulfport is no longer leasing in Guernsey county as well as Anadarko is no longer leasing new clients in guernsey county and Carrizo is only looking at Noble county.  Guess that means its either Shell or bust?  Im thinking bust is a better option at this point.  Anybody have any companies accepting new leases? I would imagine there would be a flood of new leasing due to Shell's ridiculousness.....Any thoughts?

Permalink Reply by Landowner Guernsey County on May 23, 2012 at 11:03am
That's a great idea Cindy because I have seen where people have posted that they can not get into contact with him either after leaving multiple messages
Permalink Reply by Mirabelle Dictu on May 23, 2012 at 11:27am
My thought is obvious: we have been treated outrageously. I had a chance to go with another group for a lot less than Shell was supposedly offering. Of course I chose not to go with the other group because I was assured on at least two occasions by someone involved with helping to run the Crislip group that my acreage WOULD be accepted. I am not saying that person deliberately lied to me. I think it's likely that they were also lied to. What I'd like to know is exactly who DID know all along what was going on?
Permalink Reply by Hoodwinked2 on May 23, 2012 at 1:03pm

I would agree with you that lies were told, but that was evident to several individuals when the group attorney and the group organizers could not be reached for clarification when the time limit was up . Many individuals attempted to reach all of the organizers but without success. Perhaps they did not want to represent us as a whole , at the risk of losing their own personal chances? So much for standing together.

Permalink Reply by Faith Johnson on May 23, 2012 at 3:09pm

This is scaring the hell out of me i am due to be paid at the end of this month, i have 5acres in Madison Township Guernsey County also a part of the original group!! Not so sure now!! if i dont get paid i am in too!!!

Permalink Reply by Marc on May 23, 2012 at 6:59pm

Is someone a point person for people who think Shell has ripped them off? Hoodwinked: you mentioned 28 people. Should we assume that you are personally in touch with 28 people who are in this situation? I would like to know how many are in Muskingum, because that's where my family's land is.

I keep hearing this distinction between "landowner group" and "walk-ins", however, I have not seen it spelled out what lease language is different between the two versions. Would someone like to fill me in? I have seen at least one version of this SWEPI lease and now I am wondering whether it was landowner group or walk-in lease.

Personally, I would be interested to see a copy of both leases posted as attachments assuming they differ. The one version I saw was clear that marketability was the only acceptable grounds for non-payment.

As for attorneys and landowner groups, let's just say the only attorney that has spent the past year truly representing landowners as opposed to grabbing easy money by brokering mass signings and that's Owen Beetham...

Everybody knows, or should know, the Jewett Sportsman Club case against Chesapeake, where the club was threatened with $100,000 fines/day and stood strong and won. Funny thing there was a huge picture of him walking the Sportsman pad in an article in the Columbus Dispatch a few weeks back, but since the Dispatch is not distributed in many of the counties in the core of the play, it ends up being rural landowners who are left in the dark about who will promise you $100,000 from CHK and not come through on the one hand, and who will defend you rights against threatened fines of the same magnitude but pull through and deliver at the end of the day, get CHK shut down from where they don't have a right to horizontal drill.

Nothing against attorneys as lease brokers, they serve their purpose so long as they approach it with a basic sense of ethics.  But no matter who you are talking about there has really only been one attorney out their representing landowners on this level. It's not an endorsement, just a recognition that if representing landowners is what we all want, we need to recognize the few people who actually did that while ignoring all the fast money. And the fact that not everybody appreciates the magnitude of the Sportsman Club case and how many other landowners are gonna end up benefiting from it. 3,000 acres, more or less, I think it is.

Permalink Reply by Mirabelle Dictu on May 24, 2012 at 3:43am
Our land is in Noble Co. On the line bordering Guernsey. I specifically asked whether our acres were certain to be allowed in the group, because of their location. I was assured the answer was yes, and we were made part of the group. When the map was sent out showing the various parcels in the group, ours was on that map.
Permalink Reply by Marc on May 24, 2012 at 1:26pm

Cindy, allow me to be clear on a couple points:

1. There were Muskingum County people in the group. Not many as a percentage of whole group but more than a few I understand.

2. I was not referring you to anybody. I was making the point that attorneys who have become brokers are not necessarily interested into going after companies on behalf of the landowners who truly get "screwed" as a part of their deals. Some, maybe, but others not. Mosser seems to fall into the category of attorneys who wanted to facilitate a deal where most people get paid, not worry that some people get ripped off and call it a career with whatever per acre commission you get.

3. The problem really is the same - finding an attorney who is willing to take on industry if they are ripping off landowners, when there may be more/easier money to be made in greasing wheels and making things easier for industry. That's the crux of the problem. The specific legal questions are both based on arguing the interpretation of a mineral deed or mineral lease, so actually not so very different.

4. What's the deal with the people who founded the group? Maybe you need an attorney to go after them. If the people who made you think they were looking out for your aren't then obviously it's time to look somewhere else.

Permalink Reply by Imelda stanley on May 24, 2012 at 3:18am
where was the land that received notice that they were outside the interest area? I spoke with Grant Irvin on Tuesday concerning the amendment to correct the typos on our lease. He told me it would be Fedx to me the end of the week or first of week. Our property is in Richland county. I will kelp you posted on our progress. I have two friend in Richland who received releases in the last two weeks and signed with Carizzo.
Permalink Reply by Hoodwinked2 on May 24, 2012 at 4:08am

Carizzo is still seeking leases in Richland Twp. Everyone else has left the area.

The twps that have been refused by Shell include Center,Oxford,Wills,Valley,Jackson and Spencer. Each were assured that all would be taken. Different reasons were given, three stating outside of interest area.

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service