Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ed Hill on August 20, 2008 at 3:49

More than likely, the subject lease is an older vintage lease and described several tracts of land. Without seeing the lease, it is probable that this lease did not contain what is commonly called a "pugh" clause. Production was obtained that affected one of the tracts described on the lease. Because of the fact that this lease most probably does not contain a pugh clause, the operator is able to hold the rights to all acreage described on the subject lease even though production is affecting only one of the tracts described on the lease. It doesn't matter if it is only 1 acre that is affected by the production. As long as there is production affecting any portion of any of the acreage described on the subject lease and if the lease does not contain a pugh clause, the the operator can maintain the lease in its entirety.

The Lessee does have an obligation to "fully develop" all of the acreage covered by the lease. Should you feel that they are not fulfilling their obligation to fully develop your lease, you can send a demand letter requesting that they release the remainder of the non-unitized or non-producing acreage.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Guido Truxillo on August 20, 2008 at 4:34

Section 1, t13n,r15w

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ladyoaks on August 20, 2008 at 6:00

Jim-

Can you provide any information for Section 2 of the same Township/Range?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jecs on August 20, 2008 at 10:10

This is not the same area, but do you mind looking at T16 R13 Sec 04. Supposedly Pinnacle has leases held in production, but the production has not been consistient. Thanks.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by bryan on August 21, 2008 at 16:32

Could you comment on the amount offered by PetorHawk on Section 1 (before they determined it was HBP)? Thanks.

• ▶ Reply