Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Lynn Wigglesworth on September 1, 2011 at 5:27am

Thanks, Brian, for pointing out that link. The whole matter is up to Shell for now. I did email my contact again and told her that my ex is sure that we had initialed the Addendum, and if the one submitted wasn't initialed by us, it wasn't what we signed. If the landman hadn't been honest enough to give me a copy of the changes he made, he would have gotten away with it until my lease was processed and they sent me a copy sometime in the distant future. I suppose he may still get away with it.

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on September 1, 2011 at 6:13am

It would be interesting to know if anyone has actually gotten your original non-surface clause ... or if it's some kind of bait-and-switch scam. 

Have you asked your contact if Shell has any documentation on what their definition of "operations concerning drilling an oil and/or gas well" does/doesn't include? 

Permalink Reply by Lynn Wigglesworth on September 1, 2011 at 6:28am

I was wondering exactly the same thing. I just got a call from someone else at Shell. Apparently my emails are flying around Warrendale. Haha. He wants to make everything right. He's contacting Long to send out a landman (a DIFFERENT one) to bring a new lease and all the old paperwork so we can 'sort this out'. I'm curious to see if the original Addendum will be there.

The guy said that Shell had approved my non-surface, no problem But does he mean the non-surface in the first addendum or the second one?? I wonder if the landman made up the first non-surface and it wasn't acceptable to Long/Shell/whoever?

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on September 1, 2011 at 8:26am

Lynn:  (I've run out of indents.)

That's progress.  Perhaps the landman didn't come up with a plausible alternative reason for stopping by again after the signing.

 

Have you considered what additional addenda you would want if the original non-surface was a "mistake"?   What comes to mind is pipeline and probably utility line r-o-w.  The pipeline construction hazard to cattle is obvious.  The gathering line ditch I go by every week or so is still open a month in.  Not so obvious is that any r-o-w will probably be maintained by manufactured herbicides, a no-no if you have or are working toward organic certification.  Another risk to cattle is the cyanide in wilted leaves from herbicide damaged or felled cherry and apple species.  .   

 

 

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on September 1, 2011 at 4:55am

I don't find any notation that an addendum exists on the lease ERM offered me a year ago.  (A 2009 Talisman lease I have does have the notation.)

Permalink Reply by Lynn Wigglesworth on September 1, 2011 at 5:30am

It was handwritten into the copy I signed (we had to initial it). AND it doesn't appear in the copy I was given to keep; none of the handwritten stuff does. Sigh. Lots of irregularities here.

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on September 1, 2011 at 3:56am

"Which brings up something that makes me uneasey ... the policy of some OG companies to record only a Memorandum rather than the full lease.  Particularly if a lease has Addenda, it's too important a document not to be part of the public record.   (With the possible exception of financial terms, if agreed to by both parties.) "

http://gomarcellusshale.com/forum/topics/recording-og-leases

 

Permalink Reply by Lynn Wigglesworth on September 1, 2011 at 4:23am

It also makes me uneasy that the Addendum, arguably the most important part of the contract, isn't signed or notarized. Every other piece of paper was signed and notarized, and we had to initial everything that was hand written in. But the Addendum? We did initial it, but it wasn't signed or notarized...so the landman could discard ours and insert a different one.

 

I'm trying frantically to keep the bogus Addendum from being 'processed' at Shell. My contact said she'd contact me after it was processed and 'in the system'. The last thing I want is that fraudulent document entered into their system. I'm getting heavier in my threats, using "fraudulently altered" in every other sentence. I'm trying to void the whole lease. If they want to start over, they'd better not send that landman.

Permalink Reply by Brian V. on September 1, 2011 at 4:30am

Actually the addendum becomes part of the lease and is subject to the notorizaction of the lease with the notation at the end making it a part of the lease.

Permalink Reply by Lynn Wigglesworth on September 1, 2011 at 4:36am

Well that didn't stop him from tossing the one we signed and adding his own. I've contacted the company the landman works for and informed them. It may have been their idea, but I don't want them to think it's OK.

Also, the addendum is a separate piece of paper, not attached to the lease...that in itself should have gotten my spidey-sense tingling.

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on September 1, 2011 at 3:32am

No, it says concerning drilling (of a well).  Absent a clear definition, it means what the courts have decided it means. 

In the industry, drilling is a separate phase of the development process than production or pipeline construction.  Otoh, a zoning category might cover everything having to do with the process.  But it does seem that permitted ancillary rights like gas storage and sequestering CO2 have nothing to do with drilling an o/g well. 

Permalink Reply by Lynn Wigglesworth on September 1, 2011 at 8:16am

Another update (my life is sounding like a soap opera): I got a call from the new landman. He's coming out on Saturday morning to assure me that what will be filed is the ORIGINAL addendum that I agreed to. We are going to initial everything (again). Should be interesting. I'm still not 100% sure that we are all on the same page as to what 'non-surface' agreement we are talking about.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next ›
• Page