Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by J B Nabors on February 9, 2009 at 20:05

Hello! I am new to this site, so this topic may already have been covered in exhaustive detail, and I simply don't know how to find it.

Situation: the family owns about 1/2 section which is leased to Long Drilling for the Hosston formation with a Pugh clause for depth. The Hosston is unitized on a 'windowpane' schematic (unit runs 640 acres from center of four adjoining sections). Today we received notice that Chesapeake is asking the Office of Conservation to unitize S25-T12N-R13W. Nobody from Chesapeake has approached us about leasing our minerals- 40 acres - within that proposed unit. I have the following questions (apologies, if they are terribly uninformed):

1. Should we contact Chesapeake about leasing our minerals? -- Or should we wait for Chesapeake to call us?
2. If we wait, and Chesapeake never calls us, what are our rights / obligations pertaining to any minerals discovered and produced?
3. Do we have to lease to Chesapeake, or can we lease to anyone we choose?
4. Does "forced pooling" mean we have to lease at whatever terms Chesapeake offers?

I am grateful for any insight the collected O&G intelligence can provide!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on February 10, 2009 at 4:38

Let them contact you, many units are formed without having the whole unit leased. If you own the mineral rights they will contact you. You can lease to whoever yoy want to lease to. Force pooling does not mean that you have to lease. If you want to research force pooling on this site, just type in force pooling in the search engine at the top right hand corner of the page. There have been many discussions on this matter covered on GHS.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on February 10, 2009 at 4:46

I disagree, those bozos at Twin Cities may not even realize you are unleased. Go ahead and give them a call and see if you can get an offer.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on August 4, 2008 at 1:38

Earl, no scare tactic intended and not sure what diatribe means. I invite you to read RS 30 & 31 and provide your own interpretation of these regulations if you have not done so already. You used the suing term not me.

By the way I believe I was the first person to post that unleased mineral owners are not subject to the same non-consent penalty as other unit owners.

See longer post below for more complete response.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on August 2, 2008 at 4:02

KB,
Isn't it harder for a landman to get a lease signed if the only headache for a "unleased force pooled" owner, is that they will have to hire an accountant to figure out when and how much they will get paid?

Having said that, I believe most would like to lease. If for nothing else than having money sooner and not having wait for the well to pay for itself.

If I person is "force pooled" and would prefer to lease, do you believe they would be in a better position to get an equitable lease?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on August 2, 2008 at 4:59

If you take the money then you become liable. If you don't take the money you are free and clear. By taking to money you are agreeing to participate.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on August 4, 2008 at 1:42

KB, please see my post below for clarification. Sorry, didn't intend for my post to be viewed as a legal opinion but rather just my interpretion of RS 30 & 31.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by drillbit on August 2, 2008 at 4:29

Les B....where are getting your info...how about some backup. I have been a royalty owner, an unleased mineral interest owner and a participating working interest owner. Your statements do no jive with my experiences and my extensive research over the years.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Riley Martin on August 2, 2008 at 4:34

Also would challenge Les B to cite a statute or regulation to support his statement. Otherwise it's just "jive" and calls into question the credibility of Les B's postings through this site.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on August 4, 2008 at 1:52

Riley, suggest you take the time to read RS 30 & 31 and provide your own interpretation. So does this mean you believe everything else posted on this site?

See longer post below.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on August 2, 2008 at 5:11

Drillbit, I for one don't like the term "Forced Pooling" for the State of Louisiana. The word forced is going to make a lot of landowners mad as hell. In Arkansas I think the term would be ok. I try my best to work only in Louisiana but at times I have had to buy leases in Arkansas where I don't know as much about what I am doing. Up there if you don't sign the lease, the clerk of court signs it for you. Your name is not indexed in the records as granting a lease, so the Landman/Abstractor has to run the clerks name also. I got taught this the hard way and bought 5 bad leases because I didn't see the landowners granting OGMLs in the Conveyance Index.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JWS3 on August 2, 2008 at 5:53

A lot of my family has been in the oil and gas business for the last 60 years, like sleeping in a Holiday Inn express, this does not make me an expert. However, there was one previous post that hit on the most importatnt point. If the O&G company has leased 51% of of your section, or much less than 100%, and the owners are holding out. they will drill other sections where their holdings are close to 100%. You will get drilled last, if ever, they will not settle for that much of a reduced return on their investment.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• Next ›
• Page