Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Markus on February 17, 2013 at 10:04pm

Good luck to all of you that will be signing on the dotted line during the signing period that starts today in Watertown.

Even after all that has been posted about this deal, I really do hope it works out for you. If it indeed works out as you hope, it will be good for everyone not only in Washington County but the neighboring areas as well.

Maybe Mr. Popejoy will even be there to shake your hand, look you in the eye, and thank you for your commitment. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Samuel J. Orr on February 18, 2013 at 4:04am

Wonder if the local TV station or newspaper has picked up on this story. Or do they even have a newspaper or TV station in this county. I note that Attorney Wells, who is apparently the big local honcho promoting DUX, has never responded to the invitation on this site to answer any of the legitimate questions raised about DUX. Does anyone have his name and address? If so maybe some research needs to be done on him ?!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Samuel J. Orr on February 18, 2013 at 7:36am

Michael, I disagree. Certain people are out hustling people to sign with this apparent fly by night company and they do not want to answer questions. This should tell you something! I posted to the Washington County group that readers should notify their neighbors, friends and their local newspaper about all the red flags that have raised on this siteabout DUX Unless the answers are all very negative, those promoting DUX including this attorney should have answers, and should want to be forthcoming. This is no witch hunt. It's an attempt to prevent naïve people from being screwed over by a very questionable company in this very dirty O&G gas leasing business.. I did not see one reference to DUX on the Washington County, Ohio site. Strange!?? I felt compelled to start a thread referring them to this site! 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kathleen on February 18, 2013 at 1:31pm

Wow, double wow!
I get that the offer of big money can cloud ones vision but I find this situation more than a little unsettling.
Haven't we all been warned in life that if a co. doesn't have a phone number or active email than extreme caution should be taken? This co. is hiding something IMO or they would have a call service if nothing else to answer the phone. Hey how about having just a voicemail to make yourself look more legit.
Maybe some mineral owners think what's the worst that can happen, I just don't get paid. So much more could happen. Just because the lease does not say they can not put a lease on your deed does not mean they will not. CHK did it to me even though the lease said it could not happen (i was paid weeks later). If that happens with a DUX lease its not just about not getting paid, now its trying to prove they didn't pay you to get it off your deed. Wait they also held your minerals for 120 days.
All I read are excuses of why DUX is not showing any leases in the courthouse. One quick call to that courthouse would clear that up. I bet the recorders office would take it personally that people used them as part of this game. If DUX had that many leases than some would be recorded by now or at least the courthouse would know this co and its reps.
Also such a new co leasing all this land with no record of it from news articles, blogs, or just chit chat? If my numbers are right they got about 9-10 thousand acres a month in their 3 1/2 month existence and again not one lease is recorded! Boy has this one guy been busy. Can one person even contact all those people that fast?
Now we hear there could be a rule no one can talk. You can not make all those people be quiet, just ask BP how that went for them?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Seeker on February 19, 2013 at 9:35am

Kathleen, your observations about all the excuses why DUX had not recorded leases with the Washington County Recorder appear to be spot on.

In an earlier post one of the strongest supporters of the DUX deal wrote:

“If it is true that DUX has recently purchase many acres of leases in Washington County, OH I am not surprised that they are not available on the recorder's website yet. It often takes months after the closing of the deal before they can be uploaded to the public databases.”

According to the Washington County Recorder’s landaccess.com site when Reed Energy closed deals to acquire leases from shallow well drillers they were recorded within days. When PDC did deals to acquire leases from other drillers they were generally recorded within two weeks. Even when PDC acquired leases from a driller that was known to have “questionable” leases that needed extra scrutiny, those assignments were recorded in four weeks or less.

When a company acquires leases from another driller they do their due diligence before signing the deal, in contrast with leases they get from individual landowners where the company needs 90 – 120 days to do title searches on all of those leases.

According to the Washington County Recorder leases are viewable on the public access computers at the Recorder’s office within two days of being filed. They are available on the landaccess.com site within two weeks.

The Recorder’s office stated on February 15 2013 that they have never heard of DUX  Petroleum and have never recorded a single lease for DUX Petroleum.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Samuel J. Orr on February 19, 2013 at 9:51am

They will never be recorded until DUX has a chance to flip the leases likely for more bonus money than they have agreed to pay and likely for a royalty over-ride. The only way DUX will get the $160,000,000 to bay the bonus money is by flipping. A landowner who signs with any thinly capitalized company that appears to be a flipper needs to have a covenant in the lease that prohibits said company from assigning the lease without the landowner's consent. I am betting that the DUX leases have no such covenant for rather obvious reasons! Perhaps Michael Householder who has a more positive view of DUX can tell us if the leases have such a clause??

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Samuel J. Orr on February 19, 2013 at 7:46am

Apparently many people in Washington County leased with DUX. Many say that the DUX lease is excellent. With DUX's financials unavailable I pose the following question. DO THE DUX LEASES PROHIBIT THE ASSIGNMENT OF ANY PARTICULAR LEASE WITHOUT THE LANDOWNER'S CONSENT?Please read your lease? If such a clause was not included, please ask why it was not? If it was not please consult an independent attorney for his opinion of whether you have signed a good lease. If we know nothing else about DUX, we know that they are not BP, CHEVRON, ANANDARKO, ANTERO, SHELL, or GULFPORT. My personal opinion is that none of you have been well-served  if your lease does not have the clause I suggested! I think almost every attorney familiar with O&G leasing would agree with my thoughts on this especially given all the red flags that have been raised on this site about DUX!  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ron Webb on February 19, 2013 at 1:24pm

Sam,if you go to Southern Ohio Energy Consultants L.L.C. website, thats who represents Watertown group, Read frequently asked questions it says that typically it is a good thing when another company is assigned your lease. It usually means they are going to drill and put your minerals to work for you.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Samuel J. Orr on February 19, 2013 at 2:07pm

You really do not get it, do you. The reason you as a landowner want any assignment to require your signature as landowner is that you do not want the "flipper" obtaining a windfall at your expense. Let us assume that DUX has info that BIG OIL CO. is coming to town and will likely offer $6000/acre within 2-3months. If you as landowner sign with DUX and your consent is not required for the assignment DUX collects $6000/acre  bonus money for your land and pays you $4050/acre. In that situation you have screwed yourself royally. If the lease to DUX requires the landowner's consent, the landowner can negotiate with DUX as to on what terms the landowner might consent to the assignment. If I were the landowner, I would want almost all of the $6000/acre. Now if BIG OIL CO comes to town and wants your land, they don't care if they pay $6000/acre to you or $6000/acre to DUX. Nobody has said one credible thing on this whole thread that should induce any reasonably prudent landowner to sign with DUX especially if the DUX leases do not require the landowner to consent to any assignment. I think any lawyer who would have you sign such a lease with DUX without such a clause has SOLD YOU DOWN THE RIVER. But if you don't believe me go see an independent attorney knowledgeable in O&G leasing and see what he says!  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ron Webb on February 19, 2013 at 3:10pm

Sam, I get it,I just thought it ironic,that everything you was saying, S.O.E.C. is saying different.

I am not represented by them. I leased with PDC last summer with a lease I can live with. I knew I was leasing with a driller.

This 4050 per acre is more than anyone has offered in this area, which is not a proven area. I instantly smelled a rat. Maybe someone out there knows something to offer this much money. Someone big has to be behind Dux or they are not legit. I posted on Feb.1st that I could not find anything about Dux and I would be watching what happens come 120 days. This is way more money than any of the flippers has ever paid in this area.

 I do hope they are legit,and everyone gets paid. It will help all our area down here. It wasnt very long ago all the maps and everyone said we were too far south,or west.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Samuel J. Orr on February 19, 2013 at 3:43pm

To Ron Webb; I am glad you smell a rat also. I am dumbfounded by some of the posts on this site. Sometimes I wondered if my posts were only making sense to me. None of the information that has been produced on the site by Jay and others about DUX is reassuring. One poster said DUX has signed up 40,000 acres in Washington County. This may or may not be accurate. If it is true, it is scary. I apologize for misinterpreting your posts. I agree that assignment of leases can benefit landowners, but they have no leverage at all if their lease does not require the landowner's consent to any assignment. I would hope that someone from the Office of the Ohio Attorney General might read this thread and perhaps launch an investigation. Best wishes to you. My posts are designed to raise important questions. In this business an ounce of prevention may be worth 10 pounds of cure! Best wishes to you for good results with your lease. In fact I hope for good results for all landowners in eastern Ohio and in western Pennsylvania.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by searcherone on February 19, 2013 at 3:57pm

Ron

IMHO and with thirty years of dealing with leases for shallow wells on family property it was not or never will be a good thing for your lease to be assigned without the landowner's consent.  All that assigning can happen without your knowledge, under meaningless company names, and tracking it down is/was a nightmare.  Consult a lawyer, well, IMHO, few, few are knowledgeable and fewer still inclined to honestly assist the landowner.  So just because a lawyer says it is a great lease doesn't always mean its true.  Folks, please sign with a company that people have heard of and can find credible information about. 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• …
• 15
• Next ›
• Page