Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on September 29, 2011 at 2:09pm

How can you even sign a new lease with CHK if you are HBP and receiving royalties under an old lease?

Permalink Reply by AT on September 29, 2011 at 3:15pm

Tad, If you know your land is held by production and you are currently receiving royalties, you shouldn't be considering wasting anyone's time by trying to sign a lease with CHK, including your own time. I believe what you are contemplating may even be considered fraud.

Permalink Reply by brat on September 30, 2011 at 1:22am

At- are you a gas/oil lease lawyer?  Working for one of the gas companies?  I certainly don't approve of your insinuation of fraud.  First of all, I never said the lease was mine, secondly I'm pretty sure you haven't read the addendums. 

Permalink Reply by AT on September 30, 2011 at 2:14am

Tad, What I do and who I work for is irrelevant and I certainly don't need your approval for anything. On its face as you presented it, it is what it is, regardless of whether the lease is yours or someone elses. If you, or whoever, are uncertain, seek legal counsel for their advise on the matter.

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on September 30, 2011 at 4:13am

How do the addendums read that would allow you to lease with two companies? Unless the original lease was for specific shallow formations only, you could not lease the same property to CHK. The situation that you presented does not reflect that and the responses you received are appropriate for the information you provided. If there is more to this story, you need to tell the rest of the story if you expect a good answer. We can only work with what we are given.

Permalink Reply by Al Cramblett on September 30, 2011 at 7:27am

Folks, I respectfully request that those posting on this webpage not revert to character assassination. There are other webpages on Go Marcella Shale that have become nasty and have occasionally reverted to one contributor calling others names. I think that to be inappropriate! Secondly, individual post are matters of opinion and are sometimes incorrect in what is being stated (from my perspective). It Is contingent upon everyone reading posts to verify any information obtained here before acting upon it. As an aside, I agree with the message Finnbear and AT are trying to convey..

Permalink Reply by Mark Allen on October 4, 2011 at 2:25am

Al,

This is a discussion that needs more attention. Believe it or not many landowners were paid, even though they had existing production,receiving royalty and or under lease. 

Many folks were so niave in the early parts of November and December of 2010 to file into local meetings and sign documents,that were then sold to the high bidder as a so called landowner friendly lease. These folks were told that it did not matter what their status was pertaining to ownership of minerals,simply sign with the broker and the broker would do the rest.  Some even asked "what if we are already leased'' to which they were told it does not matter,these gas companies are so big and want the leasehold so bad that they will pay possibly without full title search.   Hard to believe but so very true  and guess what,you guessed it they did get paid.

 The documents that were sold,were part of a group purchase and because of time constraints the leasee failed to run full title,took into consideration that the lease contained a provision which says....

'' lessor warrants that he is not receiving payment of any kind,no royalty ,no delayed rentals and that there are no producing wells upon the leasehold''  with this in bold print these misled and uninformed locals were thrown into a situation that will cause many others grief as the units that XYB Company thought they had are now non-drillable because they were under a previous lease.  One may look at this and say that who cares,but it needs looked into farther for many reasons,one being who committed fruad those who paid,those who received payment or those who worked the deal as the middleman.

If you signed it,you show the intent to receive and show that you agreed to the terms of the contract.

 

So foks this is a problem that needs to be discussed openly and we should all beaware that it is extremely important to know what you are signing and not fall prey to those who say, go ahead what do you have to lose.   

Question to you Al and others on here.....If the company asks the lessor  for the return of the monies paid to them, should the lessor return the money or should the lessor say tough luck ,you paid me, it is my money, or then the leasee says sorry we will see you in court, because you[the lessor ]warrantied the fact that there were no producing wells on leasehold,no royalty,being paid,therefore lessor you committed fraud and we have grounds to get our money back.....

Will the company look good in the neighbors eyes if they are sueing their neighbors?....No they would not, but they the leasee would be in the right if they did so.  This is a major situation in Harrison,Guernsey and Belmont counties. 

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on October 4, 2011 at 2:32am

The landowner should NEVER agree to warrant the title in a lease. Let the oil and gas producers do this. They have minions of attorneys who are VERY good at this already, do it every day,  and WILL do it IF you make them.

This situation is one more reason you should never go to sign a lease without knowing exactly what you own and exactly what you are signing. As someone said here earlier, it does basically constitute fraud if you sign a lease that says you warrant title and then you collect a check for O&G lease rights that you end up not really owning. These leases are potentially 6 or 7 figure lifetime business deals and you MUST know exactly what you are getting involved with. It is a wise investment to seek qualified legal counsel and it has a double benefit of being a dollar for dollar tax deduction on the income that results from the transaction.

Permalink Reply by Al Cramblett on October 4, 2011 at 4:02am

Mark, you asked for a reply from me so here goes. First, my post immediately above yours was not an attempt to stifle comment on this thread. It was meant to be a polite request for people not to make personal, derogatory comments about others who are posting. Second, anyone who signs a lease and warrants title has put themselves into a very precarious situation. I think a jury of peers would decide that any such lessee would not only be obligated to return any funds received but would also be liable for the oil and gas companies expenses in doing the title search. That's my opinion. Third, as I understand it, you are the member of a landowner group that has an attorney as an advisor. If this is correct, I'd ask you to present this scenario to him and report back to us his opinion on this matter. Thanks for being one of the contributors on this webpage.

Permalink Reply by Mark Allen on October 4, 2011 at 6:44am

thanks Al for the reply.  I will follow up with said request.

 

Finnbear, would you support the leasee going after the return of his ''bonus money''.

 

To all; if you were the lessor in this situation would you return the money received,knowing that you had committed fraud  or would you beg forgiveness for your ignorance or ignore it all together and just hope it goes away? 

 

 

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on October 4, 2011 at 5:37pm

The lessee is absolutely justified in reclaiming their bonus money in this case. They were essentially defrauded. I personally lay the blame on both the middleman who encouraged people to sign and on the people who signed without having a clue what they were getting in to. In the eyes of the law, the lessor will be held liable because they (knowingly or not) signed a contract in which they agreed to warrant the title.

Permalink Reply by brat on October 4, 2011 at 2:55pm

Finnbear,  Thank you for your consideration.  The 100 acre lease I speak of has an addendum that states that the property can not be consolidated without written permission from the landowner.  It just seems to me that is of some leverage as to whether the property could be used in one of these 640 acre well sites.   Sort of computes down to,,, no money, no permission, no inclusion into the well site.

 

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