I wonder how many people are going to the meetings on Tuesday?

How many landowners were affected by the Halcon decision? What will CX energy talk about since they only have 2 hours between meetings? Will they allow landowners to leave the group and search for leases on their own? I dont know what they could say or do to make landowners believe or trust them again?

Views: 2143

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by james on September 16, 2012 at 4:52am

I am planning on going to the meeting since I live only a few miles from the school even though this didnt affect me because I signed with Hilcorp through Western Land and received all of my money with no problems at all. I want to see what CX has up their sleeves.

Permalink Reply by Elnathan Cory on September 17, 2012 at 7:00am
I am going because I want to find out how to break my agreement with CX ASAP.
Permalink Reply by Samuel J. Orr on September 17, 2012 at 7:39am

I would suggest patience. I would suggest everyone stay with the group for now. You have signed a "lease" or perhaps an "option to lease". If Halcon is legally obligated to pay, they have committed no legal wrong until the so called "due diligence" period has expired. At the very least the group should stay together until that time. If you do not believe me, call a lawyer of your choice. I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong. Not saying you do not have every right to be angry, but I think if you can calm down a little bit, things will work out better for you. If you wish to be angry, be angry with Halcon. Unfortunately, I believe other O&G companies are doing, or  will try to do exactly what Halcon is doing. It is not clear to me whether Halcon can legally decline to pay for any acreage in your group. I am not saying that is is clear that they do have to pay for it either. I am trying to give you wise advice. Were I in your shoes, I would also be very upset. Being upset is not going to help you. Do you think the big wigs at Halcon are bothered that you are upset? I have been I think too critical of M&P/CX energy. Whatever errors they made, if any, I believe they are trying their best for all members of the Mount Jackson 4 group. You, Elnathan, need to be a part of the solution, and not part of the problem, in getting a satisfactory or semi-satisfactory solution in the end. 

Permalink Reply by Samuel J. Orr on September 17, 2012 at 10:48am

Fang: I have had no contacts with Halcon? I am not a member of the Mount Jackson 4 group. I am not a client, employee, or agent for M&P/CX?  I do know that about 700 angry people who belong to the group believed that they would be paid if they had good title.  It ispretty clear that M&P/CX energy thought this was true. It is clear that M&P/CX energy had done multiple projects successfully in several states, and that all members of those groups to the best of my knowledge were paid. I have two cousins who attended M&P/CX energy meetings and their understanding was that if their title was good, they would be paid. There were multiple postings by other clients of M&P/ CXenergy expressing the same view. I have conceded in multiple posts that it is possible under the written terms of the documents purporting to be "leases" that Halcon may legally be able to do exactly what they say they are going to do....not pay bonus money to a lot of landowners who thought they had entered into a valid lease. I do not think Halcon's actions are morally or ethically defensible, though they may be legal. The legality or illegality may have to be determined by the courts. The problem of course is that the landowners are the little guys who may not have the money to battle Halcon in court even if hypothetically they had an ironclad case. It is assuredly clear that no sane person would have signed the lease if they thought that Halcon could decline to pay them for any reason or no reason. I do not think there is any dispute whatsoever that M&P believed Halcon had to accept and pay bonuses for all of the properties in the Mount Jackson 4 group if in fact the title was good, and that if there were no other government regulations or laws that would prevent Halcon from extracting gas/oil from beneath the "leased" properties. Now that you have my answer, are you an agent, employee, or representative of Halcon? What contacts have you had with Halcon, their agents, employees, or representatives, or with  Adapt or any other surrogate who has been acting on behalf of Halcon. It is not that I am suspicious, but questions to me beget questions to you.     

 

Permalink Reply by Kathleen on September 17, 2012 at 1:09pm
If the leases don't have an "out clause" and enough landowners are effected why wouldn't the attorney general jump in? Isn't that their job to protect the citizens in their state from being manipulated and mislead from a large co that an average citizen could never fight on their own to get justice.
Than of course there's the class action lawsuit lawyers.
Permalink Reply by p umpjack on September 17, 2012 at 1:11pm

it was not only a lease but a sales and marketing agreement you are with c-x and mopo for awhile......

Permalink Reply by j. rick on September 17, 2012 at 10:00am

I understand elnathans position fully. i do not think elnathan and anyone else thats bashing cx energy understands defamation of character. you can be sued for this beings multiple people are going to run scared and not only cx but other members of other groups are then going to lose also.along with the un comfortable position they put all of the people attending the meeting. dont be surprised to see the boys in blue present at tuesdays meeting.

Permalink Reply by Mike C. on September 17, 2012 at 11:09am

If you read the CX contract and the Halcon deal there are no guarantees anywhere.  So the main issue is that CX made verbal guarantees when their paperwork made no such guarantee and in fact they go out of their way to state they are not liable for the O&G company backing out.  With that said what elnathan is complaining about is the reality that each one of the CX people he spoke with lied to him about a guarantee.  Maybe this is M&P's master plan.  They create a complete disaster and then they can represent CX when they are sued.  Since the claims would be falsely based they could then claim attorney fees from the landowner.  This is really a brilliant plan by M&P.

Permalink Reply by Oliver Perry on September 18, 2012 at 1:34am

I hope there are boys in blue at the meetings tonight. It sounds to me like Elnathan is ready for a rumble if he doesn't get the answers he's looking for. I wish I could be there!!

Permalink Reply by Mike C. on September 17, 2012 at 12:56pm

The problem is the landowners gave them 6 months.  A lot of these folks signed up near the end so they will be on the hook for about 3 more months.  It does not make specific reference to a one and done type situation.  Landowners should have added this at the time of signing.

 

It is set up similar to an oil and gas lease.  If the term is 5 years the O&G company can drill dry holes all day long.  They just need a good one before that 5 year term is up.

0i7okn54zwbdoPermalink Reply by 0i7okn54zwbdo on September 18, 2012 at 1:43am

If Halcon is not going to take many of these leases why don't landowners left out of the deal simply ask CX to terminate their marketing agreement?

Permalink Reply by Elnathan Cory on September 18, 2012 at 2:17am

Defamation of character would be only if something was a lie about someone and clearly I have told the truth. CX, M+P, and their reps lied to everyone in the MT Jackson 4 group. Besides that this is an internet forum where this kind of bashing is the norm. This is not the Wall Street Journal. Maybe folks should remember that Larry Flint published an advertisement for whisky in his magazine (Hustler) that included Jerry Falwell's endorsement. It also included an inteview that Falwell had sex with his mother in the outhouse. Of course this ended up in court and eventually at the Supreme Court of the U.S. The Supreme Court sided with larry Flint and Hustler magazine.

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell   

 It is called feedom of speech! The first amendment! The decision was 8 - 0 in favor of Flint.

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service