What do you all think about this deal with Antero.  There is a signing next week involving several townships.  somerset, warren, wayne, union, flushing, kirkwood, and goshen.  Does the utica landowners group get money per acre from the 5700?  Im wondering if they are using this big signing to only cherry pick the ones they really want.  I would like to find a company that is gaurenteed to pay instead of forcing us to wait several months and then have to be released because of nonpayment. 

Views: 18179

Replies to This Discussion

Look over the offer VERY closely. I've a friend near Woodsfiled who signed with Antero earlier this year and they never paid up. They just let the offer expire without paying.

Did Antero pay on any of the acreage in the Monroe Co. deal or did the entire deal expire?

Yes they are cherry picking . I tried to deal with them threw Turner oil and gas . The LANDMAN I dealt with was a real JERK  !Check with the KWGD law firm out of Canton and deal with people that can make a decision rather than a money hungry LANDMAN that will LIE to you and try to make you feel like you are DUMB !

I think Antero is a good choice and they have a good record , my advice is don't deal with a PEE ON who thinks he knows everything .

Regarding "many folks" getting paid.   I think the question that people on this discussion are trying to get answered is.

Has anyone that has "clear title" NOT been paid, and if they have not been paid, why would a company lease in the first place if they did not intend on completing the deal?

I am not inferring that this is happening,  I think landowners are just asking the questions so they have information for making the hard decisions.

My friend Chris who has 70 some acres near Woodsfield has clear title and did not get paid. They signed him (with a decent looking lease) earlier this year and then just let the offer expire without paying. He was NOT happy with them and due to his experience I'd be cautious about dealing with them.

Do you know what township of Monroe he was in?  

Regarding: " Im wondering if they are using this big signing to only cherry pick the ones they really want"

Section 50: "Termination of Record and Memorandum of Lease"  Paragraph C.

This Paragraph allows the Lessee to hold your properties under the recorded memorandum of lease for at least 150 days.  There is absolutely no obligation for the Lessee to pay "Bonus Payment" at the end of this period even if you have clear title to your minerals.  

In fact,  this paragraph gives the lessee total control over what properties they actually lease and what they will not.   This is a clear "cherry picking" clause.   

This clause will allow the Lessee to pick and choose exactly what parcels they lease in the end.   It would be completely permissible in this lease, to lease just one parcel in the middle of your acres making the surrounding acres less valuable as they are no longer contiguous.  In addition,  it is possible you will need to seek an attorney to clear you title at the end if you are not paid before you can sign another lease. 

There is a reason for every word in a lease.   I am not an attorney, as such can not provide legal advice.   Please seek the council of a competent attorney that you trust before signing anything.

While I understand that leases will not be 100% in favor of the landowner.   I have heard way too many stories of folks signing leases that they did not understand.

I am looking for a lease that binds the lessee to making the "bonus payment" as long as I provide clear title to minerals.

Good luck to all of you, continue to talk.   Ask yourself,  why are these companies moving east after starting to the west.   

 

I have not heard of any "real" offers presented to date.   I know that the S&G Group is not for profit, therefore has every reason to look out for the best interest of landowners.  I think they have a lot of respect from landowners and oil companies alike, as being straight shooters.

I do not believe that the S&G group would try to push through a lease agreement if they did not think the landowners would get a fair shake in the deal.   You will see these "less than fair" leases get pushed through landmen or for "profit organizations" sometimes masked as landowner advocates,  that only care that a lease signing occurs so they can get their cut.  

S&G does keep the group updated frequently and will share information regarding what offers they are seeing and why they do not feel they are good for the group.

The group in the end decides whether to move forward or not.

Personally,  I do not care who originates or profits from a lease deal,  as long as the landowner gets a fair deal,  and the lease is structured such that a guarantee for bonus payment is made if the landowner delivers clear mineral title.    Contracts must be two sided with obligations from both parties.

I am  a newbie on here so hopefully this isn't a dumb question.  I received an attachment labeled Antero lease in a Troy Sneddon email (for signing this weekend).  It looks to me that it is for BOTH Marcellus layer and Utica.  I highlighted it below. Is that correct?  Don't landowners lease those layers separately?

 

1) That the Lessor, for and in consideration of paid-up annual rentals commonly known as a signing cash bonus of Five Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars ($5,700.00) for each net mineral acre covered by this Lease, paid by the Lessee (the "Bonus"), and of the royalties as provided, the covenants and agreements contained herein does hereby exclusively grant, convey, lease and let unto the Lessee, all of the oil, gas, liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons and their constituents and by-products thereof formations below the base of the Ohio Shale formation (top of the Java formation) at a depth of approximately 4195 feet, as seen in the W J Lydic Inc., Rosenberg #3 Well (API Number 3111122656000) located in Section 11, Malaga Township, Monroe County, Ohio, to a depth of two hundred feet (200’) below the base of the Utica (Point Pleasant) Shale, in and under the Leased Premises,

 

 

The language you provide would contain both Marcellus and Utica (Point Pleasant)  and everything in between.

Regarding if landowners lease those layers separately.   Leases can be written in many ways.   Some leases are for all oil and gas to center of earth,  or be restricted to a specific layer.

The lease is negotiated between landowner and lessee as to which layers are to be leased and the price at which they are willing to lease.

The landowner should understand very clearly what they will be leasing.   They should also know what the fair value of each layer should be.

I am  a newbie on here so hopefully this isn't a dumb question.  I received an attachment labeled Antero lease in a Troy Sneddon email (for signing this weekend).  It looks to me that it is for BOTH Marcellus layer and Utica.  I highlighted it below. Is that correct?  Don't landowners lease those layers separately?

Dumb question!!!   NO

I'm not sure about your precise geology there (I'm in Pa, Washington County) but that includes almost all oil and gas potential. From what I have heard that's about all they lease  now.

Be careful about what holds the lease (HBP), you don't want  "small" well(s) to hold the lease forever. Might try for minimum royality beyond primary term to HBP lease. 

If you want a preview as to how this signing will play out for landowners..... simply read our fellow landowners discussing their Halcon experiences....  It appears that the Halcon lease had a very similar provision that allows the lessee to withhold bonus payment "for any reason".

 

Read the discussion here

Halcon Discussion Link

RSS

© 2019   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service