Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Wildflower on August 18, 2008 at 10:14

Section 21, Township 16 North, Range 13 West.... below Overton Brooks.

Today we received a flyer in our mailbox from someone in our section wanting to organize to join this suit! Funny thing is we had all organized two months ago to get a great deal for those of us just about to come out of a 3 year lease in August. Most of the rest of the section is still under a lease signed when no one was getting anything....just the way the ball bounces.

I've never heard of any Glen Rose wells in our section and no info appears anywhere that I'm aware of. SONRIS still shows no permit for our well though Camterra is beginning pad clearing below the dump off of Norris Ferry Rd.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Marvin Garcie on August 18, 2008 at 10:45

I would love to know about this as well.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by mike wilson on August 18, 2008 at 10:50

Any elderly people that were taken advantage of and their lease terms are greatly different from the average would have and SHOULD have a case.
But take an example like this:
A company wants to drill a well and their reserve calculations are 100 Billion cubic feet of gas for one well ( there are more than a few wells in Louisiana that produced over 100 BCF of gas all by their lonesome) and they need to lease 640 acres for their deal. The price of NAtural gas is selling for $10/mcf and after land owner royalties they can profit over $600,000,000. They estimate their cost to drill, complete, operate, pay taxes and then reclaim the land at say $200,000,000. They will profit $400,000,000 over say a ten year period of time. They send their landmen out their to buy the land and give them a $150/acre maximum bonus purchase amount. They get 80% leased at the first run and the rest lease for an average of $300/acre. The average landowneer gets 20% royalties. Are you saying that this is wrong in some way? The answer is that the argument for being manipulated in some way will not hold up in court as most JUDGES who own land and minerals in the state of Louisiana have gotten rich in some cases based just on this scenario except for the exceptional well that I used as an example. Its done everyday.

On the other habd if the oil company is paying "at the same time" a neighbor $20,000/acre and another neighbor $500/acre you may think they have an argument.
The Plaintiffs lose and they pay court costs and attorney fees In My Opinion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grillin' - MmmMmm on August 19, 2008 at 2:26

I was with you all the way to the last paragraph, 1st sentence. Just because I pay your neighbor $20,000, why is it "wrong" to only pay you $500? If I can get away with it, I'd like to pay both of you $100, but if you put up a little fight, I'll give you $500. But maybe your neighbor puts up a bigger fight.

Bottom line: just because one person gets $20,000/acre, that doesn't set the minimum floor price for everyone thereafter...not legally nor morally. Every landowner is a new starting point. I always go back down to my starting offer when moving on to a new mineral owner, no matter what I paid the previous one.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grillin' - MmmMmm on August 19, 2008 at 8:06

That would go to the definition of "fair"!! In my mind, $300/acre is fair, regardless of what is being paid to others. If asked that question, I would reply that fair is in the mind of the seller and that what I think is fair and what others think is fair are 2 different things. So, given that it is subjective, I wouldn't answer the quesiton.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grillin' - MmmMmm on August 20, 2008 at 2:28

Even if someone answered "yes I think $300 is fair", but fully knowing that they paid someone else $20,000, I'm not so sure there is a legal problem here. Any lawyers here? Seems like in court you could argue all day about what "fair" means. Or "is".

Again, I just don't understand what one party is paid has anything to do with what I'm bound/required to offer to another party...unless someone has a favored nation clause in their lease. Now, EVERY O&G company knows to never ever sign a lease with that clause in it, so there.

Any who.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by insomniacnla on August 20, 2008 at 2:32

Some o/g companies do agree to a Favored Nations clause, including Caruthers and JPD Energy, who may be the subject of the suit. I have not read it yet but I know first hand the types of information their landmen give to landowners.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grillin' - MmmMmm on August 21, 2008 at 2:56

First, those companies are nuts.

Second, it doesn't matter what a landman tells you if you have that clause; they will have to pay you the going rate. But, it is your responsibility to hold them to it. You'll have to find out if they aren't doing so.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on August 18, 2008 at 12:30

It's a good thing these are legal deals happening in a civilized society! Imagine if these deals were illegal drug deals and as lop sided as the land lease deals? The governor would probably have to call in the National guard to quell the violence, huh?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grice on August 18, 2008 at 13:09

I think there are two major considerations that should be evaluated:

1. Evidence of a preexisting medical condition. The evidence would have to be documented prior to the signing of a legal document. A simple letter from a doctor would not be evident, without the supporting medical records to satisfy such claim.

2. Evidence of non-equality conduct. If other owners in the area were offered higher rates than the plaintiff(s) were. However, this could be difficult to make satisfactory to the courts, as leases were signed at separate times. Unless there is a gross indifference, the time structure would almost make discrimination a mute factor.

If there is no prior (documented) symptom of mental incapacity, and if others within the immediate area were offered the same rate, then claiming an injustice would be difficult to prove.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by insomniacnla on August 18, 2008 at 14:02

Wouldn't it be that if a person had been previously deemed by a Court as incapable of handling their own affairs, had an Interdiction proceeding, that the lease would have to be recinded because it is not a valid lease? If that is the case, then the terms of the other leases in the area would not matter. There would be no lease to begin with and the person appointed by the Court to handle the landowner's affairs would be free to sign a new lease.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by RAY on August 18, 2008 at 14:36

BINDING contracts....the lawsuit would be civil: and the O & G boys might decide to up the bonus money for whatever reason......but the contracts are legal.

• ▶ Reply

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