Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Missy on November 16, 2009 at 16:03

You are right about the age thing. My landman just happens to be young and I am irritated because he has wasted my time. My apologies to the young and not so young landmen who do their jobs with respect and integrity. I suspect these qualities are learned long before they accept any job. I want Skip for my landman!!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on November 16, 2009 at 17:57

I know landmen who have been in the biz for 20+ years and are completely inept,

Never underestimate the power of human stupidity, I guess.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Missy on November 20, 2009 at 15:55

UPDATE: The landman called back and said he wasn't sure why it happened (the reduction in offer) but that since we already had reached an agreement, my check would be forthcoming. I wanted to say, "That's what I thought." but just decided to say , 'Thank you."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cheerleader on November 16, 2009 at 18:36

Retain a qualified MH rated AV attorney and prepare and educate yourself so you know as much as the attorney. There are an abundance of attorneys who are as inept as the landmen you are describing. OR if I can use j's terminology [This is getting scary] There are a lot of attorneys out there who are "idiots"!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David on November 17, 2009 at 9:19

Cheerleader is correct. When you consider the number of attorneys who have suddenly decided to get into this area, caution is demanded.

For those who may not be aware, MH refers to Martinbdale Hubble and, if at all possible, you want an AV rated attorney.

A good attorney at this juncture can, literally, make you more money than their fee.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James on November 16, 2009 at 15:12

The Landman I last talked to (2 weeks ago) named his price per acre but said they are only leasing the larger tracts at this time. He said they will definitely come back around for the smaller tracts. I got all excited and helped him make contact , gather info and arranged a meeting with the large tract owners to sign their leases to make his job easier and maybe get him back around to me a little quicker. I wouldn’t be surprised if the price has dropped by the time he comes back around to me. If that happens, I’ll feel like a BIG SUCKER and will be so disappointed that I will probably tell him to just put me down as an UMI non-participant or whatever you call it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on November 16, 2009 at 18:47

Sounds like a dishonest landman doesn't really have a lot to fear, other than losing the business of well-informed mineral owners.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on November 17, 2009 at 14:36

All you can really go on is your name. It really is a small world. If you're acting unethically other people in the field will seek to remove themselves from your 'circle'.

You might be surprised how quick that gets around.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by lanadan Ds3 on November 17, 2009 at 21:21

Before any the O&G folks get their undies all wadded up, let me say at the onset that I have dealt with more than one landman (and women) in the last several years who have been on the up and up. However, regretably I have also had to deal with some who either just did NOT know what they were talking about, or were simply acing out of ignorance or going forward based on what someone else told them. That said, the following was posted on the LOGA (Louisiana Oil & Gas Association) web site last year. I simply thought it would make for interesting reading here, if nothing else.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2008 Legislation

HB 1128 - ACT 115

It has been brought to our attention that there is some confusion regarding HB 1128 (Act 115) and its effects on landowners. It does not have any effect on land (mineral) owners. It only impacts the working interest owner who has acquired an oil and gas lease from the land (mineral) owner. HB 1128 did not bring about a new law, it only changed the EXISTING LAW from 100% to 200% penalty for entities owning an Oil and Gas lease and having a working interest ownership in a unit. Most surrounding states have the same law, but the penalty is between 300% and 600%. Following is a summary of HB 1128:

HB 1128 (Act 115) does not apply to a private landowner (mineral owner) who has not leased his minerals and it has no impact on a landowner who did lease his land.

HB 1128 (Act 115) applies to the leasehold (acreage leased to oil company or investors) interest owner in a unit that elects to not participate and not pay its share of the attributed costs of the drilling a well.

HB 1128 has no impact on a mineral owner regardless of whether he leases or does not lease.


Letter on HB 1128 (ACT 115) from Representative Henry Burns

If you have any questions about HB 1128, Please contact Gifford Briggs at 225-388-9525.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SUBJECT: Unleased Interest Risk Charge Clarification

Over the past several months I have received numerous calls and inquiries concerning the impact of Act 115 of the 2008 Regular Session on unleased mineral interest. The purpose of the bill, originally introduced as House Bill 1128 by myself, was to make it less attractive for " lease busters " to present themselves as participants and subsequently reneging on paying their part of the terms of the contract creating the royalty. Act 115 accomplished this by doubling the risk of charge for those individuals, and does nothing else. To simply put it, it had no impact, no change concerning unleased interest.

In the statute amended by Act 115, La. R.S. 30:10, specifically states the risk of charge does not apply to unleased interest:

" (e) The provision of Para 2 (b) above with respect to the risk charge SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY UNLEASED INTEREST not subject to an oil & gas and mineral lease. Not withstanding the provisions of Para 2 (b) the royalty owner and overriding royalty owner shall receive that portion of production due to them under the terms of the contract creating the royalty." (A) (2) (e)

Without a doubt it would have helped for clarity's sake for the above paragraph to be included in Act 115. However, as this provision was not amended, it is not in the text of the act.

It should further be noted, if agents of oil & gas companies used Act 115 FALSELY in order to gain a leased of mineral interest, a court may find the consent of the mineral interest owner to enter into the lease vitiated by error or fraud. I would advise such mineral interest owners to consult an attorney.

The Commissioner of Conservation, Mr. James " Jim " Welsh, has been consulted about these deceptive practices. Mr. Welsh and his staff agrees that Act 115 did not affect unleased interest and the unscrupulous individuals claiming otherwise during lease negotiations are engaged in fraudulent behavior.

I want to assure the mineral interest owners of this great state that, I respect their rights to sovereignty as I do their right to freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. These rights sets us apart from many countries and has made this country the Great Beacon of Hope and Freedom and Free Enterprise.

Sincerely,
State Representative Henry Burns

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page