Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Linda A on September 27, 2012 at 8:01am

ok, now I understand - that's better.  Our 90 day offer is not 'exclusive' and if another offer comes along, we are free to do what we want - whoever records the lease first is the winner!  We understand the person leasing is motivated by binding our lease and will ONLY benefit with royalties over 18.5%...

Again, a private non-group... LOL

Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on September 27, 2012 at 8:05am

I am familiar with that offer. I believe that is a company that will flip your lease to an E & P.  If they don't succeed in finding a buyer, they will not pay and the lease you signed expires. Do they put a memorandum on your deed? If so, are they obligated to place a release on your title if/when the 90 days expires?

Permalink Reply by Linda A on September 27, 2012 at 8:31am

don't believe they do - the lease is binding when recorded...

Yes, and we understand it's for a 'flip' and we know it's not binding - but it's an offer and a start.  He's not going door to door for participants either...  We are just all in the same neighborhood and properties adjoin.

Permalink Reply by Samuel J. Orr on September 27, 2012 at 8:26am

I believe Halcon's business dealings in Mercer County were unethical at best; possibly illegal. M&P/CX claim to have been blindsided by Halcon's refusal to pay bonus money to more than 50% of landowners in Mercer County who were part of M&P/CX's Mount Jackson 4. To whatever extent that assertion may be true; any landholder needs to ask M&P/CX to spell out IN WRITING what steps they plan to take in order to prevent a repeat of the Mercer County Mount Jackson 4 debacle. Blindsided or not, M&P/CX recommended that landowners sign "leases" which had so-called "due diligence" language that may ultimately allow Halcon to LEGALLY get away with not paying those landowners. M&P/CX's' Landowners MarketPlace Agreement language is clearly worded to protect M&P/CX's interests and not the landowners who might sign such an agreement. The language is equivalent to saying "we can tell you any lies we want to, but our agreement in writing with you is all that counts"and if something bad happens, you can only rely on our written agreement. Hopefully they learned their lesson in Mercer County, because the  so-called "leases" they negotiated with Halcon in effect may be nothing but "options to lease" which though signed by the landowners on the recommendation of M&P/CX, may allow Halcon to LEGALLY walk away from paying more than 50% of the landowners that comprised Mount Jackson 4. If Halcon pays only the landowners that they propose to pay from Mount Jackson 4, M&P/CX still make almost $5,000,000. This assumes that Halcon proposes to pay on aggregate leases that total only 20,000 acres. The aggregate acreage they propose to pay in Mount Jackson 4 may be greater; but you can ask M&P/CX about that.   

Permalink Reply by Linda A on September 27, 2012 at 8:38am

thanks Samuel - now I have a much better understanding of what happened in Mercer Co. and why SO many people were extremely upset - they 'thought' it was a done deal when it actually was an 'option to lease' deal..  These people are very upset and called it 'a dirty rotten deal' for those 'not accepted'...

Bad PR for Cx.  who is M&P? 

Permalink Reply by the two of us on September 27, 2012 at 8:51am

After seeing the mess that happened to landowners
In mercer and Lawrence county's I will not be
Leasing my land in Crawford county with or
Through CX, M&P, or Halcon

Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on September 27, 2012 at 9:25am

I am in Lawrence county. I and all of my neighbors were paid on schedule.

Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on September 27, 2012 at 9:23am

Sam; what you posted was mostly accurate. Halcon is obligated to pay all Mt Jackson4 members but they appear to be not honoring that agreement. Cx/M&P is looking at all options and will what is in the best interests of group members.

But I must tale objection to the statement "The language is equivalent to saying "we can tell you any lies we want to, but our agreement in writing with you is all that counts"and if something bad happens, you can only rely on our written agreement"    It is standard in all contracts that the contract only covers what is in the contract.  Whether it be us, a landman, a flipper, a car salesman, a homebuilder, or any one entering into any contract with anyone must understand that what is in the written contract over-rides anything said verbally. And stating that so that all parties understand it is good business practices.

We can only wait to see how the Mercer Co situation plays out. I am sure that Cx/M&P will learn from it make needed adjustments to prevent similar circumstances arising in the future.

Permalink Reply by Mike C. on September 27, 2012 at 10:08am

Yes!!!!! Jim is back hyping CX. Halcon is under no obligation to do anything. End of discussion. If you think CX will ever out smart the O & G companies you are sorely mistaken.

Permalink Reply by Samuel J. Orr on September 27, 2012 at 10:17am

I am not questioning your integrity. But in fairness Jim, there are numerous posts on the Mercer County site alleging that M&P/CXenergy or their employees or agents made numerous ORAL promises at multiple meetings that Halcon would pay them the bonus money, if they had good title.  I have conceded that you as an honorable man believed this to be true. I have conceded that you as a non-lawyer had a right to your belief. I have questioned whether M&P as presumably competent lawyers could or should be held to a higher standard concerning the problematic nature of the "due diligence" language. I have repeatedly stated that the broad "due diligence" language needs to be clarified. I have stated that Halcon might ultimately win or lose its argument. I do note that many people smarter than I think Halcon may ultimately prevail. I have repeatedly stated that Halcon's actions in Mercer County were ethically and morally indefensible. Nevertheless, M&P/CXenergys so-called Landowner Marketing Placement Agreement makes it abundantly clear that a signing landowner cannot rely on any ORAL representations made at the M&P/CX energy meetings. As you recall, about 600 or so people in Mercer County relied on ORAL representations by M&P/CX energy that if they had good title, they would be paid. I sincerely hope that they will ultimately all be paid but that remains to be seen. I would hope at the minimum that M&P/CX would never recommend that any of its clients ever again sign a "lease" like the one that M&P/CX recommended to members of the Mount Jackson 4 group in Mercer County. I think my post was generally fair and intended only to protect unsuspecting landowners from another debacle like the M&P/CXenergy Mount Jackson 4 debacle in Mercer County. Hard for me to feel sympathy for M&P/CX energy in Mercer County. Maybe they only make $5,000,000 rather than $10,000,000. The landowners if they don't get paid tied up their land for 6 months for nothing. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I hope that you will post something explaining exactly how M&P proposes to prevent an incident similar to what recently happened in Mercer County. I think that would be good business practice for M&P/CX. 

Permalink Reply by j. rick on September 27, 2012 at 2:36pm

it was my understanding that halcon is held by a letter of commitment. thats binding. but to take it to court would tie up all the land for the people involved 2 to 5yrs. now the oil an gas boom is gone. if for some reason the courts would rule in halcons favor now where are the landowners?with that said let cx and m&p do their job an try to get a deal to take all the owners that were blindsided, when the 6 months are up opt out.do the deal on your own good luck with that when the oil an gas companys beat you down you'll be cryin about that to. strength in numbers works. one on one you will be like a friend who has 361 acres in beaver county that was hard headed still hasnt gotten paid sept 9th was his 1 year anniversary. 90 days came an went. did i mention cx energys land owners were all paid in full.

Permalink Reply by Samuel J. Orr on September 27, 2012 at 3:13pm

I have said multiple times that hopefully M&P/CX have some kind of iron-clad binding contractual agreement with Halcon that can be enforced  in favor of the landowners so that they will all receive payment. The question is what your relationship is to M&P/CX and what is the source of your understanding about this so-called "letter of commitment" from Halcon to M&P?  Perhaps M&P/CX can post the text of this  "magic document" which may ultimately save the disappointed landowners in the  Mercer County Mount Jackson 4 group. If M&P/CX does not want to do that, they should at least provide a copy of the "magic document" to each of the disappointed landowners, who can have said document examined independently by his or her own attorney to see  how much "magic" the document contains. I suspect that M&P/CX have some kind of document and I hope it is 100% effective in ultimately forcing Halcon to pay the disappointed landowners, and to pay them in a timely fashion. Should Halcon do this, then M&P/CX will have have earned their $10,000,000 plus fee for the Halcon deal and not the mere $5,000,000 plus. I really do want a big win for M&P/CX-energy and for ALL the land owners who signed "leases" as part of the Mercer County Mount Jackson 4 project. I also want to state that M&P/CX is not the only group, and Mercer is not the only county where Halcon has decided to decline payment on large amounts of acreage. Neither is M&P the only attorney group whose clients have had Halcon announce an intention not to pay bonuses on large amounts of acreage. My main goal is to make certain that no landowner in the future signs a so-called "lease" containing language that can conceivably be used by any O&G company to even argue that they do not have to pay bonus money for any reason other than a defect in title or for some other clearly stated reason or reasons that are spelled out in the lease.   

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• …
• 15
• Next ›
• Page