Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by time will tell on October 5, 2011 at 1:19am

I am in a lease that says my acreage can not be pooled or unitized with out my approval and that I wanted first right of refusal on the well if they sold the company , well guess what they so the company and didn't offer the well back to me and think that they can do what they want on pooling or unitizing .

We all need to realize that the o&g companies are out for them self . We need to focus on good legal terms to prevent this from happening to more people . I think a simple short lease with out a lot extra mumbo jumbo that only complicates matters is best for us .

I think another point we need to look at is the arbitration for disputes . This is in my opinion very tilted toward the o&g company and they know it . Whats wrong with a court or a jury of our peers looking into the disagreement ?

I'm not trying to start trouble just want just want whats best for us the owners of the land and the mineral rights . 

Permalink Reply by Renee Beem on October 6, 2011 at 3:29am

h bo

I'm in the same boat as you with my 70 acres.  My "beef" is that my property made money for my current O&G company, but I did not recieve my 12% of that income.  How is this legal?  My property made money, yet I'm not entitled to it?  My last royalty check was $3.15, so you know they are just holding my land hostage. 

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on October 6, 2011 at 3:33am

When you talk about your 12% are you talking about royalty income?

Permalink Reply by Renee Beem on October 6, 2011 at 4:28am

yes.

 

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on October 6, 2011 at 5:43am

Did they not pay you 12% of the production from your well?

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on October 5, 2011 at 3:02am

Tad,

I'm not sure I follow. I don't understand what the consolidation addendum/clause has to do with having two leases for the same set of oil and gas rights or is this a different issue entirely? Can you post the actual language contained in that clause?

Permalink Reply by Dan on October 21, 2011 at 3:07pm

Finnbear, what Tad is saying is that if you have a current lease that is HBP with a vertical well, but in that lease there is a restriction that says that your parcel can only be pooled into a unit with adjacent parcels with your permission, then given the fact that the parcel is now useless to the lessee for horizontal drilling unless pooled, then it is almost like you have the power to be freed from the lease, because that restriction gives you control.   My take on that situation is that you may indeed have control, and perhaps can ultimately demand a renegotiated lease with a signing bonus or better royalty etc., but that negotiation would have to be with the lessee directly.  This restriction would not give the you the right to go out and lease with someone else.

Permalink Reply by karen brown on October 18, 2011 at 9:14am

Lets start from the beginning.  If, you own 300 acres and have it leased and your adjoining neighbor has leased to the same gas company your neighbor or you can have a well but there is a possibility that all of your 300 acres is not unitized.  Lets say 150 acres of your property is unitized.  After your lease has expired and the gas company has not unitized your remaining 150 acres, you have the right to sign a new lease for your remaining 150 acres.  Not for the 150 acres unitized.   You are not entitled to a new lease or money for any land that is unitized unless the gas company has surrendered the 150 acres that was in the unit.  This is like renting a house to two different parties at the same time and question is "who occupies the house" 

 

Permalink Reply by Blindsquirell on October 18, 2011 at 9:22am

Is this a hypothetical question?  If so.....Your entire 300 ac would be HBP.  The 150 ac not in unit would only be "open" if your lease contained a Pugh Clause which would go in effect at the expire of the term or the OG company actually records a release (which is highly unlikely).  I highly doubt the OG company would not develop the entire 300 ac eventually. 

Permalink Reply by karen brown on October 18, 2011 at 4:22pm

My neighbor has 250 acres, only 100 acres were used in a unit.  His gas lease expired.  My neighbor has a gas broker and he negotiated a new lease.  The company who had the original lease did not offer the best lease or the best terms or money.  My neighbor requested a letter of surrender from the first gas company and they surrendered the 150 acres that they did not unitized.  My neighbor was able to get a second lease to his remaining 150 acres

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on October 18, 2011 at 4:33pm

So he must have had a Pugh clause causing the gas company to release whatever was not unitized at the end of the primary term.

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on October 18, 2011 at 4:31pm

Karen,

What you described is like having a duplex and renting each unit to a different party, not having a house (which implies a single residence) that is rented to two different parties at the same time. Two parties can occupy a duplex at the same time without conflict. Two parties trying to occupy the same single residence at the same time is sure to cause problems.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• …
• 6
• Next ›
• Page