LANDMAN JUST STOPPED BY ABOUT 30 MINUTES AGO (CADDO 19-15-36)

TWIN CITIES DEVELOPMENT LANDMAN STOPPED BY ABOUT 30 MINUTES AGO. WANTED TO DISCUSS LEASING OUR LAND. I TOLD HIM I THOUGHT ALL LEASING HAD COME TO A HALT. HE SAID NO THEY WERE INTERESTED IN OUR AREA BUT LEASE BONUSES WERE WAY DOWN. HE OFFERED $2,000 AND 25%. I ASKED HIM ABOUT THE LETTER WE RECEIVED FROM SAMSON CONTOUR ABOUT THE REDEFINITON APPLICATION. I ASKED IF HE REPRESENTED THEM. HE DID'NT SEEM TO LIKE THIS VERY MUCH AND SAID THAT HE WASN'T SURE WHY SAMSON WOULD APPLY FOR THAT WHEN CHESAPEAKE ALREADY HAD 70% OF THAT LAND LEASED. WE THOUGHT WE WERE IN 19-15-36 ACCORDING TO PROPERTY TAX INFO BUT HE SAID WHEN HE PULLED OUR DEED WE ARE ACTUALLY IN 18-15-01 SOME TYPE OF GLITCH AT THE COURTHOUSE. ANY THOUGHTS...

Views: 232

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on November 23, 2008 at 4:38
The landman does't work for you. Does a car salesman offer to lower the price if you don't ask.

The landman will offer what he beleives will close the sale. If you ask for changes not offered and they are acceptable to his client they will add them in.
Permalink Reply by insomniacnla on November 23, 2008 at 5:24
Believe it or not, the only clauses other than the "standard lease" were NEVER offered to me. I had to ask for every single one.

Over the past 5 years, I have had visits from landmen on behalf of JPD Energy (even Mr. Jim Dodson the owner of JPD has showed up at my house), Samson, Chesapeake, Mitchell Company, Palmer, J-W, Camterra, XTO, Petrohawk and there are probably more that are not coming to mind right now.

When I asked one of the landmen about something that he told me that I knew was untrue, he stated "I try and maintain integrity in my personal life but that is not always possible in my professional life". I bet I remember that one for some time to come.
Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on November 23, 2008 at 8:00
Insomniacnla and KB,

No one should forget it as to future dealings either.
Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on November 23, 2008 at 18:27
K B , I'm not trying to be difficult, but I disagree that it proves Buck's point. Chesapeake is Twin Cities' employer. Though I had not heard of the 3/4 % ORRI, if true, Chesapeake has made a business decision to have it be part of the consideration to Twin Cities. It is a form of payment for the job they are employed to do by Chesapeake and it is probably in lieu of a larger cash consideration.
By the way, I posted earlier that I have regrets about calling you out the other day, but in case you miss that post, I'll repeat it here.
Permalink Reply by Snake Stewart on November 24, 2008 at 2:32
Permalink Reply by Spring Branch 7 hours ago
By the way, I posted earlier that I have regrets about calling you out the other day, but in case you miss that post, I'll repeat it here.


Good form Spring Branch.
Just because we may disagree on things doesnt mean we shouldnt do our best to find a less nasty way of getting our point across.

For the times that we feel we must go the nasty route or just blow a gasket, a simple apology will sometimes smooth things over depending on how bad the gasket blew.I sometimes send flowers or candy depending on the size of the grievance but have found very little positive result from the action to be perfectly honest. It may just be because I can get a whole lot more of my foot in my mouth then you can get in yours.

P.S. My hottie wife tells me all the time that if I have to apologize for the same thing more then twice I didnt mean it in the first place ! Good luck! That KB is one tough cookie! :-)
Permalink Reply by The_Baron on November 23, 2008 at 4:40
An overide is a common consideration for Brokers. They don't work for free.

Don't confuse brokers with landmen though. The vast majority of landmen are paid a flat daily rate, plus expenses.
Permalink Reply by insomniacnla on November 23, 2008 at 5:17
My comments were directed towards earlier posts that stated that landmen will fight for leasing terms on behalf of the landowner and that landowners should befriend the landmen if they would like to lease.

Yes, I realize that the landmen have to be paid but my point is that they are paid either by the broker they work for (which broker receives compensation from the o/g company who wants the leases) or the landmen are paid by the o/g company. I do not fault them for having to be paid for their work, everyone should be paid for their work.

My point is that the landmen work to protect the interests of their employer, who is NOT the landowner and that every landowner should remember that.
Permalink Reply by The_Baron on November 24, 2008 at 4:20
a 0.75% overide is not very much, Unless you put together a large block. It allows an exploration company to reduce its up front costs (by being able to offer royalty in leiu of part of the payment to the broker), while still providing adequate compensation to the Broker (who still has to pay his landman).

The basic motivation for the Broker is the same if he were only being paid straight cash. Buy as many leases as possible, at the best terms for his client. But still provide the best compensation to the landowner as possible to prevent competitors from breaking the block.
Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on November 24, 2008 at 4:39
Baron,

I find the only problem with this is that the mineral owner is not aware of the situation. If they were, many would have a better understanding of the motivation of the landman (brokerage).

If you are buying or selling a house, you know that the real estate agent represents "themselves" and that they will be getting their pro-rata share of 6%. It isn't a sliding commission (usually not).
Permalink Reply by The_Baron on November 24, 2008 at 4:58
The motovation of the landman and their broker is the same as anybody else who works a job.

To make money, and to do a good enough job that makes your employer keeps you working.
Permalink Reply by The_Baron on November 24, 2008 at 5:40
The same could be used for polititians and lawyers.
Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on November 24, 2008 at 11:52
By my calculation, $2.34 million per section leased over the life of the Haynesville assuming $6 gas, 6.5B's per well, 8 wells per section. Not an insignificant amount of $$$, but discounted @ 10 % it is considerably less.

RSS

Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com

Top Content 

1 Looking Back At The Haynesville Shale - A Retrospective

Looking Back At The Haynesville Shale - A Retrospective
2 Pending Public Oil and Gas Hearings

Pending Public Oil and Gas Hearings
3 Arkansas Smackover Lithium Play

Arkansas Smackover Lithium Play
4 Comstock October Presentation

Comstock October Presentation
5 Aethon looks for Buyers of its Haynesville Assets

Aethon looks for Buyers of its Haynesville Assets
6 Notice Emails Are Back! Please review how they work.

Notice Emails Are Back! Please review how they work.
7 Arkansas O&G Commission unanimously denies royalty rate application for lithium extraction

Arkansas O&G Commission unanimously denies royalty rate application for lithium extraction

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…

Continue

Posted by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on November 20, 2024 at 12:40

Not a member? Get our email.

Groups



© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service