Consent to assign lease

Anyone have any comments on the following letter:

 

Gentlemen:

Pursuant

to an agreement by and between Chesapeake Exploration, L.L,C. ("Chesapeake"), EnerVest Energy

institutional

Fund lX, 1.P., EnerVest Energy Institutional Fund lX-Wl, L.P., EnerVest Energy Institutional Fund

Xl-A,

1.P., EnerVest Energy Institutional Fund Xl-Wl, 1.P., CGAS Properties,1.P., Belden and Blake Corporation

{coliectively "EnerVest"},

Chesapeake and EnerVest, collectively Sellers, and TOTAL F&p USA. lNC. {"Total"},

as

Buyer, (i) Chesapeake intends to assign an undivided twenty-five i25%) percent of all of its interest in the

above-referenced lease

{the "Lease"); and {ii) EnerVest intends to assign an undivided twenty-five \25%t

percent

of all of its interest in the Lease, insofar and only insofar as to all rights below the stratigraphic

equivalent of

300 feet beiow the top of the Queenston Formation, to Total. These assignments do not affect

the terms

of the Lease.

ln this

regarci, Chesapeake and EnerVest respectfully request your consent to the respective assignments to

Total,

Please evidence your consent by signing in the space provided below and returning by facsimile to

405-849-8138

within 15 days of receipt. Failure to respond within 15 days of receipt will be deemed consent

Views: 3274

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

0l1a6laz7smpfPermalink Reply by 0l1a6laz7smpf on January 25, 2012 at 1:15pm

WLW...most contracts do not require the landowner (lessor's) permission to 'assign' but evidentally this one in the discussion does.   I think it is a good thing so the lessor is aware of a sale of their lease and whom it will be going to...also if the clause could also be negotiated with a percentale or amount going to lessor at the 'assign/sale' then it is another way to recoup some funds as the oil companies surely are making a profit of selling their shares of the leases that some Lessors did not do well in negotiations (most because it was all so new).

But the assigns is important and the oil company makes a lot of its profit off just that...so in your area those Enervest transferred leases most likely was business as usual if they didn't have a 'transfer or assigns clause' that stipulates the Lessor's involvement.

You can liken it to a 'builder's rep' that negotiates for a contract with an option or sale for land/or home with land....they usually have an 'assigns ' clause as they sometimes are not the actual builder/contractor.   A good real estate agent wouldn't want to discourage such for the seller cause the land needs sold...and a buyer being a builder typically will come thru and knows the market...but to ensure that for the seller's wellbeing of the sale  the real estate agent will most likely require more details in the 'assigns clause' for the Seller's interest typically the name of whom it is expected to transfer to or they will encourage a fee to be paid at that time of assigns, etc....thereby if there is any default the Seller isn't stuck with just the upfront option money or down payment for all their effort.   Many times the actual builder isn't the buyer but an agent in the contracting business who makes their monies  in finding land/homes that builders will buy  the contract from them.

Permalink Reply by WLW on January 25, 2012 at 1:45pm

VG

The lease in question on my land was signed clear back in 1989 and assigned in less then 2 months to the Clinton Gas company. I understand this as being a business need but, the assignment that was made added a bunch of trash that was never agreed to by the landowner. Which amounted to some kind of Farmout Agreement that was made with someone else in 1984.

I cannot see No way possible that this kind of assignment could ever hold up in a court of law. With NO consent from the landowner of the lease. The lease also had the Unitization clause removed from it before the landowner would sign it. So I see it as being of no use to Chesapeake. I have contacted Enervest but my attorney is having some health issues at this time and has not been able to respond.

My past dealings with Enervest have not went well, but are about to change when the current weather straightens out. They seem to be like the last company that bought a bunch of wells or leases and never looked at what they bought. But they now feel they have bought the whole farm, which is not the case.

If anyone else out there is having issues with Enervest, please speak up, as there is strenght in numbers. The last bunch that wanted to be the bullies here, now own nothing and are finally gone for good. Amen

Permalink Reply by WLW on January 25, 2012 at 2:53pm

When re-reading the PARTIAL ASSIGNMENT, BILL OF SALE AND CONVEYANCE that was filed by Enervest to Chesapeake on September 12, 2011, it says it was dated July, 1, 2010. It was filed 14 1/2 months later??

Which then says it was assigned to Anschutz clear back on March 1, 2008 again without NO notification.

The stack, and I mean stack, of paper trail that has been filed by Enervest over the last 2 years at our local courthouse is almost 3 inches tall. I haven't counted the pages nor do I want to.

But it does appear, again I say appear, that the Landowner is going to get 18%, BUT that is only 18% of 7.5% that is left over after they take what they want.

Has nobody else seen this kind of paper work filed at their local courthouse. IF and I say IF this turns out to be true, how many happy landowners will there be????

If anyone else has noticed these kinds of filings happening, please respond.

Is it any wonder the enviromentalist feel they can beat us, if we won't even stand up for what we OWN???????? 

0l1a6laz7smpfPermalink Reply by 0l1a6laz7smpf on January 26, 2012 at 3:23pm

Hi WLW...I sure hope someone with a situation with Enervest shows up to speak with you in this discussion...yet the discussion post title doesn't really invite those with the issue that you are speaking of.  You might want to start a discussion and copy and paste your comments here to get a discussion going.

 

Permalink Reply by Bob Guehl on February 13, 2015 at 11:58am

There have been several cases in Columbiana County upholding the consent to assign clauses. CHK just settled with a landowners group on Patriot leases, with better lease terms (53 new) and increased compensation. Atty. Mark Hutson in Columbiana is handling any new cases.

Attachments:

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service