Everflow Eastern sale to Chesapeake
I read the recent article in the Vindy about how the sale of the mineral rights to Chesapeake was a "windfall" for the landowners. This is complete and utter b.s. When those leases were entered into 20-25 years ago the intent of the contract was for the shallow gas rights. Eastern Everflow obtained the benefit of its bargain and still after this sale maintains the rights to the shallow gas rights. This "windfall of $35 million belongs to the landowners.
Even more appalling is the suggestion that the landowners should freely sign lease amendment agreements with Chesapeake so as to allow for larger pooling agreement/units and not receive a bonus and the 20% royalty rights that most others are getting.
I have several clients who are not going to stand for this and we are preparing for "war!"
Views: 4765
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Pavlik on -
That is the reason that attorneys in general get stereotyped..because of the type that started this post. It doesn't take long to understand which ones to stay away from and I guess when he saw a "$35 million windfall", I bet he said "I WANT SOME OF THAT!!!"
-
-
Permalink Reply by Marty Yavorcik on
-
Alan the $35 million belongs to the landowners not to anyone else. Eastern Everflow keeps their shallow rights as they rightfully bargained for.
As a side note, I have agreed to represent my clients on a contingency basis and any fees to be earned would be if I am able to (1) win; (2) secure them a signing bonus; and (3) obtain any royalty percentage above their already existing 12.5%. Have a nice day and try to be a little more positive :-)
-
-
Permalink Reply by 0i7okn54zwbdo on
-
Everflow Eastern drilled the wells. They took the risk, they paid leases that they never ended up being able to use, they drilled dry holes and had to eat the cost of that. They did the work, they get the rewards. I'm sorry that people like you believe the president's "you didn't build that" bullshit. But the fact is that someone was willing to take a business risk, survive through some pretty terrible market cycles and now they get to achieve a level of success that most only dream of.
-
-
Permalink Reply by jb379 on
-
Marcus,
You are making too much sense here....stop it. If you keep on spewing out this logic I am going to have to go have a beer to calm my nerves.
JB
-
-
-
So let me get this straight....let's say I am a contractor hired to renovate a house and I cut a deal with the home owners that I get to keep any materials I remove from the house as part of my compensation for the project. I begin renovations and remove from a wall inside the house a stash of a Million dollars that the homeowners never knew was there. Following your logic I get to keep the money?
I took the business risk that the materials may not be worth anything right? So I pocket a cool million b/c money is simply "paper" and could be construed as "material". I don't think so.
-
-
-
Your analogy, much like your grasp of the English language, understanding of how businesses make money, basic contract law and criminal law, is a lousy one. If you sign a contract that gives someone rights to something you don't get to complain when they monetize the assets obtained from said rights. A better analogy would be as follows:
Client X--despite his better instincts and a dearth of evidence to suggest it is folly--goes to Attorney Marty Cafaro Yavorcik for a personal injury case. Marty tells Mr. X that his claim should be worth $100,000. They agree to a 15% contingency fee. After a battery of tests and thorough, rigorous investigation by X's doctors, they find irreversible brain damage that will cause long term health issues. Instead of settling the case for $100,000 they end up with $10,000,000. Instead of having to shell out $15,000 for your "services" (most of which were actually performed by a doctor) Mr. X now owes you $1,500,000. X claims that this is egregious and questions how in the world you earned that money. X refuses to pay you, despite the fact that you have a contingency fee agreement and you were both satisfied with the contract. Is Marty a.) going to accept the $15,000 because he's a swell guy or b.) sue the pants off Mr. X until he is paid what is contractually owed to him? You had a deal, it ended up being worth far more than originally thought and you want what is yours. There's zero chance that you'd take answer 'A'. Zero.
-
-
-
My analogy is dead on as it turns on what was the intent of the parties at the time of the contract and what is a reasonable interpretation of the term "materials." Your lame attempt at attacking me once again has failed and only exposed you to be a very jaded and jealous person of a very successful businessman in our local community.
I wonder who has more business acumen Mr. "Grayson" or the owner of one of the most successful development companies in the USA??? Hmmmm I think it is obvious. You really need to be more positive and not so envious of others.
-
-
-
"As for me I practiced with and along side the Bull Moose for many years."
Oh good Hell, that explains everything. Don Hanni could spot bullshit because his entire life was about producing and aggregating bullshit. You'd hope after duping people for decades he'd have learned how to manipulate young, impressionable trial lawyers like yourself. Still, driving drunk into a Post Office is a Hell of a wicked legacy. Sadly in the Valley that's considered a good legacy.
"We know by all your posts on here you are all knowing, all powerful, always right about everything."
There you go again. No matter that what you say is preposterous and entirely without merit, as long as it fits your narrative.
" If sticking up for landowners who might have been screwed makes you mad then you clearly are in the pockets of the O&G companies OR are a lawyer who feels threatened b/c you have your own personal interests at heart."
If I end up being caught in the pockets of O&G companies can you counsel me on how to get out of it? You seem to have some experience slithering out of such situations."Anyone who uses terms such as "pedestrian ability", "righteous indignation", "populism" and "malcontents" is either trying really hard to sound smart or is really just that lame."
Jesus man, the chip on your shoulder must have a chip on its shoulder. Educated people are "lame"? Look, I'm sorry that you have such disdain for people who have opened up a book (no, Marty, Penthouse Letters doesn't count) at some point in their lives, but I promise you that the educated folks who walk amongst you are not the enemy.
-
-
-
Oh Marty, I harbor no jealousy to those who have been successful. Rather I celebrate achievement and hope that more people follow the lead of successful businessmen and women. You, on the other hand...Everflow doesn't deserve success because, well Marty doesn't think it's fair. At some point in your childhood someone should have told you that life wasn't fair. Think that your friends have never made deals that were good for them and not so good for others? That's why they're good developers. They find markets where their services are needed and they fill them as cheaply as possible. But you know all that already. No, your outrage isn't at me (though you've done a Hell of a job at trying to paint me as jealous and envious, which shows your absolutely pedestrian ability to argue). No, your righteous indignation exists because it may somehow drum up business for you and make you look like a champion of the people. I've got news for you: nobody's buying what you're selling. You're not the Mahoning Valley's legal version of Robin Hood and populism is the stuff of hacks and malcontents. To learn more about being a hack Google Betras, Dave.
-
-
-
When you are done walking on water please let us all know so we can come worship at your feet. We know by all your posts on here you are all knowing, all powerful, always right about everything. If sticking up for landowners who might have been screwed makes you mad then you clearly are in the pockets of the O&G companies OR are a lawyer who feels threatened b/c you have your own personal interests at heart.
As for me I practiced with and along side the Bull Moose for many years. I had trials with him and he taught me the best quality of a great trial lawyer is......the ability to spot bullsh*t. You my friend have made the b.s. meter go through the roof. Anyone who uses terms such as "pedestrian ability", "righteous indignation", "populism" and "malcontents" is either trying really hard to sound smart or is really just that lame. Either way I wish you the best. You can watch from the sidelines when we file suit. Maybe we win and maybe we lose, but I am not afraid to try!
Have a good day Turbo!
-
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Martinelli on
-
This is interesting.....I've always thought that these old shallow well leases should be declared non binding for the development of the deep shale horizontal drilling......nobody would have ever signed one of these leases if they ever dreamed a well pad would be the size of the pads today....and the use of water to boot.
The litigation has just begun, there is going to be a ton more coming.
-
-
Permalink Reply by elliemae82 on
-
I have to applaud marty on this one. this is something that everyone with an old leases should be looking into. If they didn't have this technology when a lease was signed they should only have the rights to what their intentions were. even if the landowners lose I think we should fight to the end. Or you can sit back and let the oil companies continue to screw us as usual!!!
-
Top Content
Latest Activity
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
