Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on June 27, 2012 at 1:50am

Reason I ask is because I see no sense in signing up with an outfit and tieing up our land for years and finding out that they aren't paying / drilling and then having to go to court for assistance in voiding the 'agreement'.

Land Banking on behalf of a Lessee isn't necessarily a bad thing - as long as they pay the agreed to 'signing bonus'.

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on June 28, 2012 at 1:00am

I'm thinking all of this 'cloak and dagger' stuff is more than a bit much, however, I think I'm beginning to see through the smoke. What good it does me remains to be seen.

From my perspective as a Landowner, I can see advantage for a 'Marketeer' to not be straight forward and forthcoming regarding who their prospective clients (the developer outfits that they are trying to sell signed Acreage to are) since individual Landowners and competitor 'Marketeers' may choose to contact the same developer outfits thereby undermining their competitive edge.

I can see that the Leasehold Agreement they (some 'Marketeers') are trying to sell is probably in flux and dependent on how many Acres and Landowners they have signed - thereby making it unlikely they (some 'Marketeers') would want to disclose the Leasehold Agreement they are trying to negotiate to prospective Landowner clients (as the Leasehold Agreement up for sale could change during the process of negotiation).

What's troubling is that as I read other posts I'm seeing that the Point Pleasant Utica Shale Play Leasing phase has been going on for quite a while - in other areas of our State actual development is taking place - and that all of these preliminary posturing techniques (by now in my humble estimation) should be practically standard operating procedure and much more efficient.

I find it all totally aggravating and 'Landowner Hostile' by 'abject neglect' playing Landowners as pawns.

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on June 30, 2012 at 1:04am

I think I'm reading too much into the reasons I'm not hearing more about payouts and development action and especially not hearing more about payouts and development action in the 'potentially high yield core areas' of the play. I think I've been giving the land companies and developers too much credit insofar as credibility (in actual development) is concerned.

Plainly said, I think (even at this point in time - seemingly well into things on a chronological basis) it's more about tieing up the landowner's mineral rights and re-selling them at great profit than going after the resources and getting off the foreign oil wagon - no matter who your developer / land company happens to be.

Alot less liability involved in selling a leasehold as opposed to building out the deep vertical and horizontal wells.

If things were different than I suspect, I would expect this post to be loaded with a plethera of listings / good information.

Lessor / Landowner Beware is still my catch phrase of choice.