Can't We All Just Get Along?
My concern is the amount of inflammatory rhetoric that I have both witnessed and experienced as of late. Particularly, my concern is to how quickly such give and take can devolve into the personal or petty, or both. To some, it may seem odd that such a comment may come from me - with all of my best intentions to maintain good manners, when I feel someone steps over the line with me, another longtime member or someone offering good or well-intentioned advice, and don't get the hint, I've been known to throw an elbow or two. Not exactly the shrinking violet. Recently, I've had such a dustup with another member who I feel has extended an olive branch in the form of a post that also revealed reasons and motivations that rang true with some of the earliest themes that were discussed on this forum.
Why did most of us end up here in the first place? Certainly they were some then, as I am sure is the case now, that came here purposefully to advance a particular agenda, or to gain some intel from "the folks" that were and are part of this community. One would hope that these elements remain at the fringes as they have in the past. Most of us did come wanting to share our knowledge and experience and perhaps learn something from others, as well as gain some larger perspective. As an industry person that had some friends and in-laws in the broader HS area, I fielded some questions and gave advice to those who reached out to me. Like many people, I was impressed at the speed which the leasing unfolded once the lease boom began, and amazed at the level of competition which led to increasing bonuses to stratospheric levels. I was irked by the many stories of misinformation, mistreatment of lessors, disregard for their interests and lack of professionalism and ethics shown by some, albeit some of that originating from lack of experience shown in many people that suddenly claimed the title "landman". Unfortunately, many successful lease acquisitions were made possible by a combination of such activities and behavior and a lack of knowledge on the part of many prospective lessors, some of which were being counseled by other nearly-as-experienced "experts". I felt drawn into this community to hopefully educate and inform in a pragmatic manner, albeit one informed by industry experience and perspective.
I was kept "drawn in" by some of the amazing personalities and discussions that I have had the privilege to interact with and participate in. Even when becoming involved in heated, passionate discussions, the variety of perspectives and substance of the discussions yielded mountains of information, which benefitted the community as a whole, but most of all supplied those looking for information and education a great place to come, and join, and be.
I for one would hate to lose that spirit here. I realize that the Haynesville is not necessarily the "hot hand" as it was five years ago, but I still would like to encourage others and support this forum as a continued "go to" place. I am disappointed at some of the departures of other regular contributing industry members, but I can understand it, particularly in light of some bashing of industry professionals seemingly for the industry affiliation. I would like to extend an invitation to some of those folks to return, realizing that it would be a difficult request if, upon their return, they become the subject of renewed personal attacks.
Obviously, this isn't my site, or should I say, it's not just my site. It belongs to all of us, for as long as we keep it alive and foster good discussion and good content. I have been part of online forums that deteriorated into "flame fests" - they sometimes reboot or reincarnate, but many just end up folding, which I obviously would not want to happen to GHS. So, I realize recalling Rodney King's famous phrase post-LA riots may come across dated and corny, but... Please?
Views: 2436
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on
-
Steve:
In replying to you and somewhat dovetailing with what Skip has written, many mineral agents and attorneys have designed their own customized lease addendums which they more or less insist on being added onto virtually every lease for lessors that they represent, much as my O&G clients place a primary importance on designing a "standard offer" using a standard lease form and/or other add-on provisions via a lease addendum.
It is true that within the last few years with advancing software designs and other technologies, it is easier to create a "customized" lease form that does not require a base pre-printed form (e.g., Bath, Producers forms) with a "standard" lease addendum in order to advance a lease offer to lessors at the field level (look at Totaland or iLandman for examples). However, I still have contact with many professional landowner representatives that want the standard Bath form with preset lease schedules which modify specific paragraphs in the standard form. For one thing, the "standard form" represents a standard set of provisions to be modified and tailored to the specific situation; for another, it keeps the representative from having to analyze every word of every paragraph and every reference to ascertain to what the lessor and lessee have (or will attempt to) agree. Put another way by way of a specific example, many N LA attorneys "know" what is in a Bath 14-BR1-2A-PX PAID UP - they look to the lease schedule to direct as to "when we talk about shut-in payments in Article 5, we now agree to the following...". It's a comfortable framework to use and modify as necessary.
Without naming names, there is a particular area in which I have worked repeatedly where a group of landowners is represented by an attorney who I know for a fact will always send me a five or six-page Schedule "A", which he tweaks on a regular basis as a matter of course and evolving case law, and further tweaks given a particular set of circumstances. There is not much negotiation above discussions of the merits or travails in advocating on behalf of my particular client and a mutual agreement to retool or revisit certain provisions (with the occasional striking of a provision or two), but most everything that he asks for is GOING to be in there, or it's not a "go". In areas where I will deal with this particular attorney time and again, our negotiated form becomes the standard form - there is just not much reason to waste everyone's time by starting from some base form that would fly no further than if you folded it into a paper airplane and tossed it across the room.
Even in areas where few landowners enjoy professional representation, I would always advocate to a client that we hammer out additional provisions that we anticipate would become "standard", given the nature of the operations to be conducted and the prospect area, and stated objectives. I don't always get my wish either; some clients just want to communicate an "entry level" offer to the owners, and then let the process evolve from there. Even if a discussion occurs prior to a "rollout" of offers, clients generally want to (realistically) minimize their investment in lease acquisition, minimize the time required to acquire leases, and desire to have a maximum amount of flexibility in developing their prospects (be it land use, subsurface use, etc.) and in maintaining their leases. This necessitates the broadly used, "standard offer".
When I advise and/or negotiate on behalf of landowners / mineral owners, conversely, the terms become very specific. Their lands are their own, and the quantity and quality of the individual tract(s) is/are sharply defined. Use surface here, but NOT here; yes, you can drill from A to get to B; no, you can't run the pipeline just wherever you want, etc. The exception would be for large landowners and/or corporate or institutional landowners, where the philosophy is largely the same as most lessees: they wish to manage their lands in terms of defined principles and policies designed to maximize their use(s) for maximum returns from their investment.
As a result, "fair" becomes necessarily subjective: the owner that owns five sections has no problem with surface operations on a forty, the owner who owns 80 acres that lives and plays on one forty and works the other as a livelihood would have a serious problem with the same surface operations. To the O&G client, one upland forty is as good as the other, unless one forty is sitting over the prime BHL and the other is a significant distance away, and many have a hard time understanding - "why are these lessors being so obstinate?" or "why can't you get the leases [I] need?"
-
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on
-
No hurt feelings here as I have been advising mineral owners to seek professional assistance on GHS for five years. My concern is that generic industry bashing often leads to mineral owners making poor decisions when they negotiate on their own without professional help. I've seen that occur a number of times with GHS members.
-
Permalink Reply by adubu on -
To all on this thread --- this discussion is what makes GHS a great site IMO --- read with open mind and after several years on site learning the back ground of each individual person posting ( with time you know who commits you trust or disregard) replies it continues the education for the novice mineral owner to help manage their minerals especially if they are lucky to get leased and become Royalty Owner with that wonderful thing called "mailbox income " having your leased reviewed by honest knowledgable oil & gas Attorney is best money you can spend before signing a business contact that could stay in place for generations into the future for your heirs
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com
Top Content
Blog Posts
The Lithium Connection to Shale Drilling
Shale drilling and lithium extraction are seemingly distinct activities, but there is a growing connection between the two as the world moves towards cleaner energy solutions. While shale drilling primarily targets…
ContinuePosted by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on November 20, 2024 at 12:40
Not a member? Get our email.
Groups
-
Livingston Parish, LA
34 members
-
San Augustine, TX
386 members
-
Miller County, Arkansas
27 members
-
Sabine Parish, LA
455 members
-
South Caddo Parish Group
440 members
-
Natchitoches Parish
400 members
-
Bienville Parish, LA
244 members
-
Fayetteville Shale
149 members
-
North Caddo Parish
358 members
-
Central Texas Gas
63 members
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
