Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ben Elmore on June 12, 2012 at 9:23am

Technically no, but any new lessee may mistakenly believe you are still under the old lease, so it is good to get a release filed.  Oftentimes, the new lessee will know that the old lease has terminated given that there is no lease or unit well holding your property, so they will come to you even though no release is on file.  Ultiamtely, the new lessee will want a release and will typically either ask you to get it from Atlas or they will get it themselves.  Your Atlas lease should contain a provision referencing the filing of a release.  Under that provision, you can demand they record one

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Shoos on June 12, 2012 at 10:22am

As a last resort... assuming you aren't getting paid any royalties by Atlas (or anybody else), file an "Affidavit of Non-Production" which simply provides a statement that you aren't receiving any royalties, shut in payments or any other payment that would serve to have perpetuated the previous Atlas lease. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kenny on June 12, 2012 at 2:28pm

We won't buy a lease for our client with an old un-released lease on it until they provide us a filed release from the original operator.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 1w1vl8clda7t4 on June 12, 2012 at 3:37pm

We have one of the top attorney's in the State of Ohio and he filed what is called a "affidavit of non-compliance," and he said 80-90 percent of the drillers will except this...and the rest you probably dont want to deal with anyway.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kenny on June 12, 2012 at 3:43pm

Part of the issue we have been seeing is landowners not properly complying with the procedures set out in the Dormant Mineral Act to get their non producing leases released.  If a landowner comes to the table with a properly filed release of a prior lease, I have told my landmen to sign the lease.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 1w1vl8clda7t4 on June 12, 2012 at 3:55pm

The "affidavit of non-compliance" has nothing to do with the dormant minerals act. It is basically stating that the landowners never had a well or any production...it doesn't have to be 20 years before you can file it...it's a lot cleaner, less expensive, and doesn't involve the original lessee.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kenny on June 12, 2012 at 4:29pm

Not true, look up the Revised Code 5301.332.  It covers leased mineral interests.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/5301.332

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 1w1vl8clda7t4 on June 12, 2012 at 4:35pm

With all do respect...I'll believe the attorney that I'm paying $350 an hour and who has 30 plus years in oil & gas law in the State of Ohio!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kenny on June 12, 2012 at 4:41pm

All I did was quote what the revised code was for the State of Ohio.  If your attorney thinks there is a different approach then that is on him.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 1w1vl8clda7t4 on June 12, 2012 at 4:51pm

Your right you "quoted" the ORC...you didn't interpret it. Great attorneys use different aspects of the law, not just one, and mold them to fit the out come they desire.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 0i7okn54zwbdo on June 12, 2012 at 5:14pm

BGJ is right, the Dormant Minerals Act that you posted a link to deals specifically with leases and rights thereto when there was a mineral conveyance.  To file an affidavit of non-production on land that you own both the surface and minerals mitigates the need to use such act.

Permalink Reply by 1w1vl8clda7t4 on June 12, 2012 at 5:29pm

And I'll add this last tidbit... in order to file under the "dormant minerals act" 20 years need to pass, and it is designed for landowners who are locked into a lease perpetually where the lessee has not performed any drilling activities during said timeframe.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page