Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Cathaus on March 30, 2009 at 16:16

Chesapeake should drill his land and then withhold his royalties until the courts decide what should be done!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on March 31, 2009 at 4:57

Cat:

That might be a fun thought, but the only way that they (CHK) could reasonably withhhold royalties would be if title had not been vetted by title attorney and a title opinion rendered as of the date of first production, or if there was a question as to mineral ownership. It would appear on first blush that the mineral ownership issue would be a non-starter.

They could drag their feet and make Mr. Creamer jump through some administrative hoops, but eventually CHK would have to come up with a valid reason. "He burned us and we don't wanna pay" is not a valid legal reason to suspend royalties. Then there's that whole legal interest and/or sanctions to consider.

CHK has a real problem here. Jim has (apparently) reviewed the suit file and the leases, so relying upon his recitation of the facts, the Twin Cities lease(s) at point appear to have been filed first. He received bonus consideration for same. Barring some sort of coercion or fraud in the inducement, etc., that is a valid lease, placed of record, and served as constructive notice to third parties. Indications from the discussion would point that both Twin Cities and Basin leased on behalf of Chesapeake (CHK as lessee). The warranty clause would have protected Basin as to title failure, except with CHK as lessee, the 2nd lease would only serve to novate the first.

Just a guess on my part, but my guess is that CHK will seek to bury Creamer in paper for a while just to run up his legal bills (even if he's paying his lawyers with 'their' money), then propose a settlement to let him keep 'some' of the 'double bonus' money he received and have the suit dismissed w/o prejudice. If anything else, it would still allow CHK to demonstrate that they will beat l/o's about the head and shoulders with a law book if they feel that they have been taken advantage of, even if they lose some money and some face on this one.

Thus causing other upstart l/o's to cower while they continually unleash their "World of Good".

Permalink Reply by M. Mcwilliams on March 31, 2009 at 0:57

Jim, the court files are public record, of course, but I was referring to copying and pasting the article from the Inquisitor (or from any other source). I'm convinced that copying an entire article and re-posting it on this site violates the copyright of the author, seems it would be a better practice to link to the original rather than copy and paste.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grillin' - MmmMmm on March 31, 2009 at 9:59

I agree. If you look at most of the news sites, and particularly the subscription sites, there are copywrite clauses on all of them. I am a member of another site whose "owner" got a call from an attorney representing one of the oil and gas trade magazines. His site was posting "cut and paste" copies of their material. Just because something is posted on the www, doesn't make it free and distributable. Since this is a not-for -profit site, there may not be anyone chasing it down. But other sites (ie, Drudge report, etc.) have been threatened with lawsuits. And if a guy like Drudge gives in, there must be some fire where that smoke is coming from. Notice on his site it is all links, no copy of other's material.

If a book is in the library, you can't go in there and copy and post it on the web either.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on March 30, 2009 at 17:52

Old news, this has been discussed in earlier threads.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by RAY on March 31, 2009 at 12:54

if you can "google' it, you can "post"it !!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on March 31, 2009 at 13:37

If he has two leases on his minerals, maybe they should pay him twice on the royalties!
Be funny if that's how some judge ruled, huh?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on March 31, 2009 at 13:44

PG as Jim Krow and Dion have stated it appears to be a novation, substitution of a new contract, debt, or obligation for an existing one.

• ▶ Reply

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