Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dave Best on July 8, 2011 at 4:19pm

I can tell you this.  You must be in the presence of the notary who witnessed your signature.  The notary can be in serious trouble.

Permalink Reply by 1feawc4f7m9v7 on September 27, 2011 at 4:57am

Steve who was your original lease with. The company I work for has been very successful at getting landowners out of old leases and into new leases that benefit the landowner and not the gas companies. If you want us to take a look at your lease and see what we can do for you give me a call at 724-359-5035. Ask for John

 

 

 

 

 

Permalink Reply by Lana Boyer on November 2, 2011 at 1:38pm

 I studied a lot of these leases. You are not alone!  Several land man have and continue to ignore the notary law of Pa.  Read it!   I met with an investigator from the state two weeks ago....   I recommend you file a complaint!.  I think they are listening....because the fraud did not end here.  

. 

Permalink Reply by Alan Pavlik on November 11, 2011 at 6:52am

From what I am told, that while a person who has signed a lease and the notary was not present at the time of the signing that lease is however still a binding contract between you and the oil company. I believe this is the view of the oil companies and they will defend the lease on that basis. I do find it interesting that someone would accept rental money for their lease then years later conjure up a reason on how they were wronged at around the same time some new Co is signing leases in that area for a higher price then what they have received. Sounds like greed to me.

Permalink Reply by Lana Boyer on November 13, 2011 at 1:36pm

There was no rental money accepted at the signing of these agreements to discuss further exploration.  This was a whole different ball game.  By the way,  these  are not new companies, they are the same names & just different holding companies to protect their assets.    In several cases the notary was the owner of the company, assigner, recorder, and beneficiary.  The land man just carried out the mission.  When you see the whole puzzle, you wouldn't be so quick to judge the people that signed.  Even with the cash many people repeated the same mistakes by letting the oil companies do the lease???   The money being offered has blinded people  from seeing what they are signing.  Who is to say that people will not regret signing for $3000. an acre next year.   The price already went up again.

Permalink Reply by Alan Pavlik on November 13, 2011 at 11:54pm

I didn't mean to offend anyone nor make a judgement. I have seen this thing play out on both sides of the aisle. Because of the fact that there are a few more zeros behind the checks both The oil co's and landowners have both have been affected by the money. Some of the people I have dealt with in the past and present have let this affect them in a negative way. Its both sides. I think I have a pretty clear picture of what is going on, however it does need to be pointed out that landowners who signed leases at $3.00/acre 5 years ago and accepted their lease payments for several years and then decided that once more money was being paid then they decided at that time they were wronged, i.e. "looking for a way out" is hard for me to swallow. C'mon think about it. The purpose of signing the lease is to allow for the drilling and exploration of oil and gas on the property. Ma'am...It does seem that your are only looking at oneside of the coin, its pretty obvious to anyone reading this page. I just think that both sides are right and wrong. The monetary impact can greatly help our region which has been in a slump for many years lets not let the money corrupt our values before this opportunity has even played itself out.

Permalink Reply by James Brink, Esq. on December 8, 2011 at 5:22am

I have been following this discussion thread.  The one point that hit me is the comment how this development will help your region.  May I ask how?  There is no severance tax.  The gas company is using out of state laborers who send their money back to Texas or Oklahoma.  The rig operators are not local.  About the only benefit I can see directly affecting the area is that the motels are booked and the restaurants are busy.  Maybe a few local dirt and water haulers will be kept busy but will not generate enough tax dollars to build new schools.  Think about it.

On the downside is the fact that your neighbors will be subjected to constant pressures on their land for years to come.  And at a royalty rate barely above, or perhaps below, the statutory limit.  The $3.00 per acre is only one part of the equation here.  We need to think about what is fair and equitable to the folks who are directly affected. 

Permalink Reply by Alan Pavlik on December 9, 2011 at 11:16am

To: Esq.

You ask how development will help our region?

1. There has been millions of dollars paid already to property owners in the area. That helps.

People who generally have more money spend more money in the area.

2. The royalties to be paid in the future-The probability of this is looking good.  There are many landowners who are receiving Hundreds of Thousands of dollars each MONTH in the shale area already. People will upgrade farm equipment homes etc. figure it out its not hard.

3. The oil companies would rather hire local workers instead of bringing them up from the SW, however we don't have enough skilled labor to do the work. People are being train right now for these jobs.

4. The manufacturing jobs are being created "HERE"as we speak for pipe, tanks, etc.

5.You say the downside is the constant pressures on their lands, to me that means that drilling and exploration is taking place on that property that I believe each landowner who has signed the oil and gas lease for exploration wants, why else would they sign a lease to allow this "pressure" to me this equates to royalties being paid the landowner.

The downside would be the increase in taxes these people will have to pay to the State and Federal Govts. That is a good problem to have in my opinion.

Permalink Reply by mike on December 9, 2011 at 12:05pm

I am with you Alen                                                    100+ acre not signed yet Southern Lawrence

Permalink Reply by 2s72s0k9mm8gd on December 9, 2011 at 1:45pm

AMEN Alan!!!

I can't wait to jump up a tax bracket or two!

The only downside to this gas thing is that it is also making a few rich lawyers richer.

So many are so willing to help us poor , ignorant , illiterate country folks.........for a small (?) fee......... Makes me feel all warm & fuzzy.............Man this pie suuuure smells good.................Think I'll eat the whole thing all by myself. HEEEEEEE HAAAAAW!

Permalink Reply by James Brink, Esq. on December 10, 2011 at 1:45pm

Touche, Alan.  Can we meet for lunch in five years? The one who was wrong buys!

Permalink Reply by Alan Pavlik on December 11, 2011 at 2:01am

Esq.

Absolutely and I will buy if I am right too, either way you get a free lunch but this way you will be rooting for me to be right. I will however let you leave the tip!

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page