Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joseph on May 29, 2015 at 1:38

Although they may have reported revenue of $1B for 2014, it was recently reported that Halcon had $3.75B in debt at the end of 2014. They are not doing well financially as they have had significant layoffs. Good luck with your problem, I hope that you get it worked out sooner rather than later.

http://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/041415/halcon-resources-...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joyce A. Ott on May 29, 2015 at 5:35

Thanks for this.  I've heard the same from two informed sources.  However, even their most recent financial report for first quarter 2015 to their investors is saying they are in good standing?? 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 29, 2015 at 4:23

Joyce, have you contacted your sheriff or county DA?  I think you are more likely to get assistance from them for simple trespass than pursuing wider claims with the governor or legislators.  Stop the trespass and you may get Halcon's attention as to your surface use agreement and damage claims.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joyce A. Ott on May 29, 2015 at 5:29

This is too much for the mayor and deputy to handle in OSYKA.  The deputy tried to stop some of the trucks when traveling down the road and they passed him by!  Criminal charges may get their attention but the question that has to be resolved is whether there's a public road easement.  We've done a title search and asked for documentation from any- and everyone.  The courthouse in Magnolia MS designates the dirt road that's used by land-bound LA residences as a "private drive".  Trust me I've gotten Halcon's attention and they are threatening to "take me to court" for obstructing the road! 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 29, 2015 at 5:38

How about the DA?  They should be the first step.  Don't get into a tussle with Halcon until you have an opinion from the DA and possibly an order from the court.  Halcon's financial state is irrelevant.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nixon Dow on May 29, 2015 at 6:15

As much as I agree that the situation is wrong they actually might not doing anything legally wrong. Mississippi law regarding surface use/damages is pretty bad for the surface estate land owner. Depending on the wording in the mineral deed, that created the mineral estate, or current lease (if there is one) covering the minerals on that tract, the company may have to the right to do what they are doing. In Miss the mineral estate is the dominate estate. Most of the time paying surface damages and or getting a surface lease from the surface owner is courtesy given by the operator, not a requirement. As you can read in the case I cited below as long they are not doing any more damage to the surface than is needed to produce the minerals they are in the clear. I was actually surprised this was the law myself. Be the case the next and only real step is to go the legislator to get this fixed. 

The argument I would use to plead your case for change would be that way wells were produced and drilled when the law/precedent was established is much different than it is today. Well pads were much smaller and back then (as well as the less daily traffic in and out) and now with some of the pads getting to be 5-10 acres plus along with all the needed facility (as well as the expected life of some these wells) the surface estate owner needs to be compensated.

In a hurry to write this, so sorry for any errors or non-sense that might have occurred.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15770817142506005107&a...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joyce A. Ott on May 29, 2015 at 6:27

Good points Nixon.  Here's the twist.  Greenlaw well is in LA not MS.  We don't have a lease with any oil company - Goodrich I understand would have jurisdiction in this section of MS.  Nor does MS have ANY laws governing cross-state well production except that oil cannot be taken from the MS side of the line.  Complaints to the LA Office of Conservation have gone unanswered.  What has me wondering is why they didn't take advantage of the LA lease holders and build a road from the LA side.  Seems that is was to save money - shortest route to a public road.  I'd love suggestions on how to get protections in MS laws.  

• ▶ Reply