Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Catfish on July 30, 2009 at 2:32

I agree, interesting they didn't include Chk.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on July 30, 2009 at 3:41

I wonder what "Wiggle" clauses TC used to get out of the agreement?

I mean if someone should change their mind in the middle of a real estate transaction, there could be some financial liability issues.
What makes this different?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LP on July 30, 2009 at 5:22

The article says that the homeowners "voted" to lease and/or accept the TC offer. Then the article says that TC notified the homeowners that it would not be "honoring the lease" (according to the article).
Did those homeowners actually sign a lease with TC or just agree to the terms of the lease with the intention to sign?
Just curious.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Henry on July 30, 2009 at 4:02

I say let's wait and learn the details before evaluating the chances of this case being a success. There are enough posts on this site about shady dealings from TC, that I am surprised everyone immediately thinks the Dogwood petition has no merit.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jerry Stanton on July 30, 2009 at 4:10

I doubt Burchett would of taken this case if he didn't beleive he was going to win it. Hes one of the sharpest legal minds around when it comes to land rights and minerals. Hes one of only a few attorneys in the state that fought big oil in the 70's that had any success. Its good to see hes going back after them again.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jon Williamson on July 30, 2009 at 6:12

Big Oil is evil, must fight them, must make them pay, must put them out of business.....your president

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grillin' - MmmMmm on July 30, 2009 at 11:04

Jon: good one!! Unfortunately, that is a very true reflection of Mr. Obama's true feelings. However, you could substitute "Business" for "Big Oil"...he hates all business. Just look at all of the actions he's taken to date?

One point to disagree on: I don't like the man as much as anyone...maybe more...but he's OUR president. Don't know if that "your president" was implying anything but like it or not, he's OUR president. Excuse me, just threw up in my mouth! We must respect the office! Too bad the Dem's didn't abide by that over the last 8 years!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jon Williamson on July 30, 2009 at 14:09

You raise good points Mmmarkkk. I said that almost sarcastically directing it somewhat at some of the members on this site. Some can't sit back and think that the oil companies are actually their partners. Greed is an amazing thing. Let's wait for 25k an acre bonus. Wait all you want, see if it will get you a well drilled.

If I decide to buy your Suburban, but the day we meet with the title, gas goes up to $5, what damages do you have if I say hold up let's rethink this in lieu of the economical changes.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jerry Stanton on July 30, 2009 at 14:34

You guys havn't read the lawsuit have you? I have, you can check it out on the Shreveport Times. The lawsuit alleges that Dogwood signed the lease offer but after the documentation was received by Twin Cities they decided not to honor it. Sounds like Twin Cities is between a rock and a hard place. Not to mention Dogwood has one heck of an attorney representing them.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on July 30, 2009 at 15:10

Jerry, could you post a link to the pleading so the members can read it?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jon Williamson on July 30, 2009 at 15:44

So Jerry

Again what are their damages? I have never read a lease offer that didn't give the Lessee a chance to bail. Was this offer any different? Do you have a copy of the offer/draft/letter/lease? Read Suburban scenario above.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Digger1 on August 1, 2009 at 16:42

Waste of time and good money, chasing shadows.

• ▶ Reply

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