Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on September 27, 2012 at 3:33pm

Sam; the problem is that you said "we can tell you any lies we want to"  which implies they had intent to mislead people with malice.  Thats a pretty strong statement to make with out evidence of malicious intent. You could make an argument they were incompetent but its too early to tell that as we won't know the outcome for quite some time.

Permalink Reply by Samuel J. Orr on September 27, 2012 at 3:57pm

I never meant to suggest that M&P/CX or any of their employees lied. I think you have read enough of my prior posts to know that since I have said it many times. To the extent that my post suggests that I believe anyone lied, I in no way meant to create such an impression. I agree that most contracts are written and integrated and state that "the writing and only the writing" constitutes the entire contract between the parties. This is normal business practice and it is designed to prevent either party to a contract from asserting some other understanding, or asserting some oral agreement that adds to, or subtracts from what is in the written document. This language is for the protection of both parties to the contract. Nevertheless, everyone concedes that M&P/CX may have been mistaken in their oral repeated assertions to landowners that Halcon could decline payment based only upon defects in title. Assuredly the so-called "leases" do not clearly support this contention, and there is nothing in the Market Placement Agreement between M&P/CX that states this. Therefore the landowners have no recourse against M&P/CX because of any erroneous oral promises made to these landowners by M&P/CX unless those promises were also in the written document. My analysis of the "language" previously set forth is correct. It does not legally matter whether any erroneous statements made by M&P were unintentional mistakes or were deliberate lies. I concede fully that they were NOT lies. I replied to Elnathan some time ago that a person does not lie when he tells you something that he believes to be true even if what he told you in good faith subsequently turns out to be false. I thank you for your post and allowing me the opportunity to clarify what I meant. Its sort of like if I back out of my driveway and accidentally kill a child or I intentionally back out of my driveway and kill a child; from the child's point of view, the harm is the same. I again state my hope that M&P/CX are ultimately correct and that Halcon is forced to pay ALL the landowners.     

Permalink Reply by Mike C. on September 28, 2012 at 1:42am

That is a great position to take either a) we are incompetent or b) we lied without malicious intent. Unreal.

Permalink Reply by Sam Douglass on September 29, 2012 at 8:14am

The clause Samuel Orr refers to is what I call the "Do not believe a word I told you clause."  It is absolutely essential for the Lessee who may assign all or part of his lease and the lessee does not want to worry about who said what to whom a year later when spending millions on wells.

I think it is very unusual that a landman will deliberately lie.  But do not expect him or her to volunteer everything s/he knows or to tell the whole truth.  And plans often change.  And if you have talked yourself into believing something, it is not the landman's job to correct you.  

The Landman's job is to get leases on the best terms possible for the producer.  Whatever you expect, get it in writing.  For the most part the leases that the landman trots around are terrible one sided things.  Do not expect the landman to apologize for that.  Once the "play" for land is over in your area, the landman is likely to disappear, never to be heard from again.  They go where the work is. 

And just because it is in writing does not mean it will happen.  I had a call last week from someone who carefully negotiated the location of a right of way on some currently vacant ground.  A drawing was attached to the right of way agreement leaving little room for error.   The company installed the pipes at least 300 feet from the agreed location with no apologies.

Permalink Reply by Mike C. on September 27, 2012 at 3:14pm

Halcon is not on the hook for this. People need to get that through their heads. I know lots of individuals who signed good leases and have been paid. Strength in numbers works if you are all contiguous. CX signing up acreage all over the county dilutes that strength and in essence creates a weakness.

Permalink Reply by Samuel J. Orr on September 27, 2012 at 3:32pm

Mike: My reason tells me that you are likely correct, but my heart tells me to hope that j. rick is correct about some type of legal document that M&P supposedly has that may yet cause Halcon to pay voluntarily, or if need be after appropriate court action. I do not know how strong Halcon's legal position may be given neither you nor I have seen the "letter of commitment" from Halcon to M&P. A copy of this "magic document" needs to be provided to all the landowners. I certainly agree with you that blocks of contiguous acreage are the most valuable. I further agree that the owners who comprise various large parcels of contiguous acreage will get less if someone markets their land in a bloc that contains a large number of little isolated parcels that cannot be combined into anything useful for drilling purposes. The end result is that owners of these small isolated parcels get more per acre than their land is worth, while those who hold larger parcels of valuable contiguous acreage get less. Nevertheless, I still hope all the landowners in the Mount Jackson 4 group get paid. 

Permalink Reply by Michael P. Davidson on September 28, 2012 at 2:03am

I just keep thinking of the hundreds of people that cx helped with pretty good deals and are very happy with what they got. I do feel sorry for the people that got their hopes up and it fell through. I still think in my opinion cx is their best chance for success.

Permalink Reply by Sam Douglass on September 29, 2012 at 2:30am

Be glad the deal was cancelled.  Look on it as an opportunity to do better next time now that you are free of terms that are less than great.  I hae not seen the old lease, but I have yet to see a lease that explains  in any detail how a fair royalty will be paid on each part of the production after it is separated out and sold.  A lot of leases [in fine print] ask Lessor to give up the obligation to produce - an implied obligation universally imposed by courts on producers to keep them from just sitting on their hands - not producing.

Permalink Reply by the two of us on September 27, 2012 at 3:28pm

Better off to do the deal ourselfs you see
What cx and M&P got you

Permalink Reply by Sam Douglass on September 29, 2012 at 9:04am

I would like to suggest that the "boom" is not gone - just slowed down a bit because of a variety of circumstances.  It is particularly slowed down in dry gas areas since producers have decided to spend the money currently available with the promise of oil or wet gas like that located in and around Crawford County.  The leases there are worth a premium over dry gas areas.  I am not sure why leasing has gone slower in Crawford and can only guess at the reasons.  But some day the real producer will come around and be prepared to offer real value.

Permalink Reply by Linda A on September 29, 2012 at 9:41am

Sam, I read you posts and you make good points.  However, you are very pessimistic as well.

So MY question is this, "will the real producer" wear a sign which says "real value"?  Is that how you will know?

If not, then how do you know that opportunity already knocked and you didn't answer the door.

No one has a crystal ball to predict when the 'boom' is here or is not here.  

Everyone should do their own due diligence, have an attorney review the lease, and then do what is best for you and your family. 

Permalink Reply by gary smith on September 29, 2012 at 10:40am

the boom is here. the pipe and crackers aren't. it will happen.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• 15
• Next ›
• Page