Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on May 24, 2010 at 9:15

I say rare, because the standards to aquire title make it difficult. Are there plenty of misplaced fences? sure there are, but in order to aquire title you would need to hold the land for thirty years without a objection or claim of ownership by the rightful owner to get title. There is case law that has determined that any form of document making claim to the land filed in that thirty years could be interperted as a claim on the land. For example, a Judgment of possesion would qualify even if the property description was simple (like the SW 1/4 of Section X). A mineral lease would probally qualify as well. Typically, aquisitive title is not used by squatters, but by rightful owners to clear old title defects that might otherwise be impossible to cure (because the original parties are dead or impossible to locate, etc.)

If we are talking about being the owner af a servitude , it would be a whole differnt story. since if the mineral are servered than anyone who makes claim on the porperty anytime thereafer would be aquireing land that had no mineral ownership. The law would not punish a servitude owner for the actions of a landowner who refused to protect his property.

But if land was aquired through thismanner that included the mineral, all the ownership rights of said land would be transfered.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BirdDawg, plain ole' idiot on October 4, 2010 at 6:52

Steve,
In Louisiana even though you have adversley possesed property for over thirty years (under certain conditions) TITLE to the property would only be transferred by the court.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Charlie Day on May 27, 2010 at 14:35

Gary,
If you don't mind my asking, in what TWP/RNG is your acreage located?

Charlie

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gary on May 27, 2010 at 14:49

T11N R15W

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doc L'Herisson on October 4, 2010 at 9:15

Gary, you might try going to the courthouse and looking for the original survey of T11N, R15W.
Look in the patents book.
Also look in the map book. Now you will have the original surveyed acres in your section.
If there is still some disagreement over acres, you could then send CHK a copy of the
original plat and ask them to explain the difference. The original survey should offer enough proof to prove your point unless there are other variables, i.e. navigable water bottoms, etc.
Compare and contrast the CHK unit plat with the original survey. Report the difference to CHK.
If there is some valid reason why the acres are different, then they should be discovered by this process.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gary on October 4, 2010 at 9:58

Doc:

This issue was resolved a few months back. CHK acknowledged their error and agreed to make it right.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Linda Whatley on October 4, 2010 at 6:15

FYI:

I received a Division Order from Chesapeake last Tuesday with what I thought was incorrect information,so I contacted their hotline (877-245-1427) that day and left a voicemail message. I also posted my concerns on this website, and was immediatley contacted by Katie McCullin (their rep - who by the way is very nice). The analyst who prepared the original DO returned my call this morning, and admitted they had made a mistake on the total acreage in the Section, and also made a mistake on my ownership interest. All was resolved in a timely manner, and I'm glad to say my ownership interest has been increased.

Linda Laffitte Whatley

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gary on October 4, 2010 at 10:03

Linda:

CHK acknowledged their mistake a few months back and agreed to make it right.
Also, more recently we received a Division Order for another parcel of land that was in error, and upon contacting them, they promptly corrected and sent corrected Division Order out. Perhaps they are becoming better at dealing with owners and resolving problems than in the past. Lets hope so.

Regards,
Gary

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Linda Whatley on October 4, 2010 at 11:03

Gary,

I'm glad to hear that you got your issue resolved as well. Chesapeake must have more to do than they can handle, so they probably appreciate a little help from us mineral owners.

Linda

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on October 4, 2010 at 12:51

It is easy for laymen to suspect less than ethical intent on the behalf of the industry, especially Chesapeake owing to their less than responsible leasing practices early in the Haynesville Play. Henry's discussion thread concerning the price of natural gas as it applies to the payment of royalty based on lease terms is an excellent example of how a cursory look can reinforce the negative perception of some members who need very little hard facts to reach a conclusion. As more data becomes available it appears that Chesapeake is not as egregious and willful in paying their lessors less than other operators. Maybe the differences are unintentional and Chesapeake corrects their mistakes when a lessor provides sufficient evidence. Or maybe they are a standard business practice that goes on until challenged by a lessor. Regardless it is far too easy for the mob mentality to influence the less informed and much harder to wait for enough facts to make an informed decision. Leasing minerals and receiving royalties as a lessor are a business relationship with an energy company. Those who take the time to become informed and know when to seek professional assistance will reap the benefits for themselves and their heirs. I deal with the industry on behalf of clients on a regular basis and I rarely have a complaint as to ethics. The industry may disagree with my position or actively negotiate the terms and value I assert and defend but that's just business. And I have testified as an expert witness against the industry in a court of law. I would suggest that patience, personal education and, where needed, professional assistance is the best means to accomplishing a goal or resolving a dispute regarding minerals. For those who wish to achieve a satisfactory result, demonizing the industry is not a reasonable means to that end.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ledlights on October 4, 2010 at 14:09

Well reasoned and well stated, Skip. I cannot really take issue with anything you have said. Unfortunately demonization is all too common these days in dealing with many agents of commerce and other spheres. The biggest complaint I have ever had with dealing with the "industry" has simply been slowness of response. And I know that these folks do get busy from time to time. But It still pays to be careful and well informed - as you recommend.

In retrospect it seems that suspecting CHK of hanky panky of a large scale with royalty payments was probably not very logical. They would have been very stupid indeed to have been creating such obvious discrepancies in their gas payments per MCF. It seems to me that the smart way to play that game would be to shave pennies, not quarters, half dollars or more. In the volumes they deal in - BCFs and TCFs, a penny per MCF adds up to real money. And one thing I do not think about the industry is that these folks are dumb.

It is also interesting that the process of Henry's survey helped lead some folks to the recognition of payment miscalculations - one of the benefits of participation here even if passions do go off half-cocked occasionally (more often for some than for others).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack Blake on October 5, 2010 at 1:16

Hats off to Henry cried Jack Blake!!!!!!
Hats off to GHS - the premier Haynesville Shale information center!

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next ›
• Page