I have not posted anything on here before. I have always just read the comments of others. I thought I would just post some thoughts. After being patient for 8 1/2 months I still have no answers like others in the south east Mercer County area. Is Halcon going to be held responsible for their actions? Are they going to be made to pay for the contracts they signed for? How qualified is M&P when it comes to representing the landowners of group 4 against a company like Halcon with deep pockets. Will we get an honest effort from M&P or will they make it as short as possible and except less than what we deserve to mitigate damages on their behalf. I have just read, in detail, the civil suit against M&P by Terra Energy LLC. Now it seems to me that the landowners not only have to worry about being pushed around by an unethical oil & gas Co, but now we have to worry about the real motives of the law firm we have to represent us. Are they going to treat clients like they treated business partners? I think if given a chance M&P will come back to the land owners after any legal actions against Halcon with a bogus report how they couldn't do much and if we continue it will tie up our lands for years, of course due to a half hearted attempt at getting us what we legally are owed.
I only have this attitude after listening to M&P for 8 1/2 months tell us how important it is to stick together as a group but they will break up the group at the drop of a hat to sign a little chunk to this O&G Co and another chunk to a different O&G Co. This sticking together only benefitted them by having all of us available to them for whatever size of lease they could get from any other O&G Co. After seeing an E-Mail to Terra Energy Advisors LLC from Jack Polochak describing how maybe Terra Energy should get some leases signed by an O&G Co that are less than desirable for landowners to make it look like A Co he was partnering up with was successful in the oil and gas leasing business. That just shows me that he will sacrifice his clients profits to improve his and his associates. I think everyone should read the Lawsuit especially the landowners of group 4. Maybe I am seeing this in a sinister way and I am just swayed by how the rest of the world does things these days. Here is the link to the Lawsuit. I would like to know how many other landowners see it the way I do.
Again. Time for everyone to get their stories straight. Again.
I just checked the federal docket pertaining to the class action suit filed against Halcon, CX and M&P at No. 13-360. The last document listed on the CM/ECF docket is a notice of appeal filed by Halcon on April 12, 2013, objecting to the remand by the federal district court to Mercer County Court of Common Pleas. Technically, the representative was correct when stating that the matter is back in federal court. However, the federal court in this instance appears to be the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. It also appears that the issue to be determined is whether the federal judge correctly remanded the case back to state court. In my experience, appeals to the circuit take on an average of 12 to 18 months to resolve.
So if Halcon's goal is to quickly drill a number of exploratory wells to prove the O&G field and then sell the company lock, stock, and barrel to Shell or Chevron, or other big O&G companiy; it has bought itself time to forget about the lawsuit. If Halcon is absorbed by say Shell, then Shell would become in effect the defendant in the lawsuit. Good news for the landowners if the suit has merit, given that Shell has very deep pockets. Bad news for the landowners if the suit is without merit, given that Shell has very deep pockets to pay very high-powered lawyers to defend the lawsuit. My additional observation is if Halcon's wells in Mercer County all start coming in strong, they may ultimately wish to lease some or all of the properties that they rejected in the Mount Jackson 4 group. This would obviously be good for the landowners. The difficulty here is that Halcon is very thinly capitalized, highly leveraged, loaded with debt, and short on cash. This is my quick and dirty analysis of the situation. Others may have a better take on the situation. If so I look for their posts. Remember that Floyd Wilson's stated goal for Halcon was to acquire a lot of acreage with proven reserves and then sell the company to a larger player. This would follow the exact scenario that he employed with Petrohawk. By the way, Halcon means Hawk in French. I predict that Halcon will be acquired by Shell. When it happens, remember that you heard it here.
Be honest Sam. You're just trying to say anything that'll pump up your HK stock that's sacked you thus far. LOL
JR Ewing is a very funny guy. My experience in the stock market has been entirely negative but fortunately I never invested much. I would not want anyone to buy Halcon based on my post which was only intended as an analysis of what I think is going to happen. I hope that my post reviving the thread stimulates some interesting and enlightening discussions. Mr. Brink"s post is very informative and much appreciated. I do not have enough Halcon to make me much money if it doubles or to cost me much if it goes to zero. The articles and analysis of Halcon stock most recently have been rather negative and possibly appropriately so. DO NOT BUY OR SELL HALCON BASED ON ANYTHING I HAVE POSTED!
Halcon clearly concentrating its efforts in Mercer County which I still think should ultimately be positive for the disappointed landowners in Mount Jackson 4. Suggest that someone with more computer skills than I have update the total number of Horizontal Well permits in the County since Horizontal Drilling in the county began, which companies have how many, and in what townships?? If gas prices continue to rise, lands that looked unattractive for leasing could quickly become attractive. It is vitally important that the Federal Government allow the export of natural gas which would markedly increase demand, and likely revive leasing. One must still consider the horizontal wells in Mercer County as "exploratory wells" whose primary purpose is to establish the extent of the O&G field and the amount of production that an average well might yield. Finally as demand for natural gas rises, necessary infrastructure should develop. See Lawrence County site for Shell's current activities in that County. They have acquired a lot of ROWs there and are obtaining more all the time. They also recently acquire 166 parcels of leaseholds by way of assignment from Hilcorp. Sometimes one can learn a lot about what might happen in Mercer County by looking at activities in adjacent counties. Shell's activities in Lawrence County suggest that they may opt to build the Cracking Facility at the old Horsehead Nickel site in Monaca, Beaver County Pa. Let us all hope that is what they do because it is a hugh construction project and would generate thousands of jobs.
Did you have a lawyer when you signed the lease? This is the first I have heard of anyone signing a lease with Halcon and not getting paid (I did). Sounds like you signed with an agent and probably never had a legal agreement with Halcon and that can get murky. When you sign a lease there are generally very specific terms for when you get paid or are able to void the lease.
You may be technically correct, and still wrong in a sense. The individual members of the landowners' group believed they were negotiating collectively with Halcon. They believed when they signed en masse Halcon that each and every one of the group would have a lease and would be paid. Instead the documents they signed were in reality offers of lease from the individual landowners to Halcon. Halcon then proceeded to pick and choose which of the individual offers it cared to accept. The result, of course, is that some, but not others, of the landowners' group got leases and got paid.
Those who were not chosen feel damaged not only because they did not get a lease with Halcon, but because their O&G rights undoubtedly will be viewed as less desirable by the industry.
The lawsuit is about finding out whether Halcon was committed to lease all of the landowner's properties, or whether anybody or entity is responsible for the diminished value of the rejected landowners' property.
By the way, my sources in the industry tell me there is simply no way any oil production company would have leased the entire area represented by this landowners' group, and certainly not on the terms and conditions offered. A company might lease an area that extensive in place like the Permian Basin (West Texas) where geography aids the cost of production (flat land) and data regarding production and reserves makes business decisions less of a gamble.
WELL - Here is how this really works...CX 'has' THOUSANDS of acres (of *VARYING depths, mind you...) available for scooping by various O/G Co.'s...and usually when a G/O co. 'earmarks' an area...'it's hands off Irene' (unwritten 'rule(?) among the G/O 'brothers...)...CX-Energy makes land aquisition easier | CX Energy - this will give you a start in comprehension...
Let's say 'REXX' is looking at Butler Co. - they pretty much want to have 'drilling blocks' positioned there. If they don't 'own' the rights - they may trade or buy...land lot blocks to get 'eh straight...
THEN once a G/O co. 'picks' an area...the fun begins - circle the wagons! The circus is comin' to town! IF you think well, if company 'x' offers this - we'll see what company 'y' offers. It doesn't tend to work like that - EVEN to think Co. 'x' will buy YOUR landlease & then SELL it to G/O Co. 'y' - Nah-uh. READ > CX-Energy Current Oil and Gas Leasing Landowner Groups | CX Energy
Do not pass go, do not collect $200.... It's a G/O Co. 'world' in this case & THAT is just how they're gonna' keep it. They're the 'big dog'...
*IF* CX was concerned with GOOD leases in the BEST INTEREST of the landowner - they would have wording in the leases that the 'bonus $/acre is to be paid within x' weeks (yes - WEEKS - Specific Date listed...& TIME...). THEN after THAT - that wells are to be initiated within 6 months (again - date & time to be done by) -OR- the lease is null & void AND the landowner keeps the 'signing bonus money'...essentially the G/O co. is 'buying the RIGHT to do what they say they want to do - and by YOU to say...OK - here are the stipulations that you are held to concerning my land...blah, blah, blah....
Bottom Line: Amer-I-CAN Landowners deserve the best (and that doesn't include getting shafted...). This isn't Rompa-Room. As one light lights another, nor grows less - so nobleness enkindles nobleness.
MERCER COUNTY — A Mercer County judge said recently that the claims against an oil and gas drilling company filed by Mercer County landowners can move forward.
Common Pleas Court Judge Daniel P. Wallace noted it still is early and things could change as more information is developed, but he turned aside Halcon Energy Properties’ claims that the suit was legally insufficient to support two counts, and that one count was duplicative of another.
The suit initially was filed Nov. 6, 2012, and pits Jeffry S. Vodenichar of Butler, David M. King Jr. and Leigh V. King of Sandy Lake and Joseph B. and Lauren E. Davis of Stoneboro, all of whom own land in New Vernon Township; Grove City Country Club of Pine Township and Richard Broadhead of Polk, who owns land in Sandy Lake Township, against Halcon and Morascyzk and Polochak, Bridgeville; and Co-eXprise Inc., Wexford.
M&P and Co-eXprise marketed the landowners’ interests to oil and gas companies in return for a fee from the bonuses paid to property owners.
The suit, which seeks class-action status, alleges Halcon entered into contracts to lease up to 60,000 acres of oil and gas rights in Mercer County, the so-called “Mt. Jackson 4 – Stoneboro Group,” agreeing to pay $3,850 an acre and a royalty of 18.5 percent on the fossil fuels pulled from wells.
As part of the agreement with landowners, Halcon had no discretionary right to refuse to lease unless there was a problem with the property’s title or specified “other defect,” the suit said.
According to the plaintiffs, Halcon rejected a large number of leases without specifying reasons and, in many cases, without even doing title searches.
Halcon has flatly rejected the argument, saying it had “the absolute right to refuse to lease the plaintiffs’ properties.”
Halcon also has charged M&P and Co-eXprise with fraud for allegedly modifying contract documents and misleading landowners.
M&P and Co-eXprise agreed with the landowners that Halcon improperly reneged on the contracts, but maintained they did nothing wrong.
In its preliminary objections to the suit, Halcon alleged a count for declaratory relief duplicated a count of breach of contract, but Wallace said he found the two separate counts to be proper.
Halcon also argued that a count of intentional interference with contractual relations does not have enough specifics to pass muster.
Wallace ruled that the count has enough detail “to allow ... Halcon to prepare a defense.”
Wallace added that he is not saying, for instance, that a breach of contract occurred, only that the landowners have “pleaded facts that, if deemed true, would be actionable.”
He added that, while it is too early to say whether Halcon could be assessed punitive damages, it also is too early to say they could not.
Barring any additional filings challenging the sufficiency of the suit, Halcon will not have to file a formal answer to the allegations.