Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by HBP on February 11, 2012 at 10:13

Are the tracts all contiguous (which is possible with the sections named)?  If not, how many different contiguous portions are there? What year did you sell the surface and retain the minerals?  Was it all in one deed or multiple deeds that you sold surface?  These questions will help lead you to how many mineral servitudes your family created and the extent of the servitude(s).  It may be one, or it may be more than one.

The old wells probably do hold the lease agreement (if w/o a pugh or similar language), but that does not necessarily mean the same holds the mineral servitude (or servitudes) created when you sold the land but retained the minerals.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Henry on February 12, 2012 at 2:54

I think you want to  look at RS 31:64.  This governs what happens if your tracts are NOT contiguous.

§64.  Presumption when servitudes created on noncontiguous tracts

An act creating mineral servitudes on noncontiguous tracts of land creates as many mineral servitudes as there are tracts unless the act provides for more.

If your land in Sec 9 IS contiguous with either of the tracts in Sec 8 or 16, then it might be RS 31:63 that applies:

§63.  Presumption arising from separate description of tracts forming continuous body of land

A single mineral servitude is created by an act that affects a continuous body of land although individual tracts or parcels within the whole are separately described.

You might want to look at the mineral code, and see if that helps you to understand.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 12, 2012 at 3:24

James, I suggest that you read The Baron's Blogs on Mineral Servitudes in LA.

http://www.gohaynesvilleshale.com/profiles/blogs/prescription-and-m...

http://www.gohaynesvilleshale.com/profiles/blogs/prescription-and-m...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by HBP on February 12, 2012 at 4:29

I agree, I forget about Baron's blogs. Great place for owners to start when looking at servitude issues.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on February 13, 2012 at 13:20

James:

 

Whether the land is contiguous, and how the land was sold are the keys to this situation.  Each separate sale can create a servitude, even if the land was formerly contiguous.  If a contiguous block of land was sold and minerals reserved, but timely operations (being a good-faith attempt for, or actual production, without a lapse of greater than ten years between such operations) only affected a portion of the property (ie., well not drilled on the property, but a portion of the property unitized therewith), then the servitude would only be held as to that portion of the lands lying within the producing unit or units.

 

There is common confusion as to whether a parcel of land is still under lease, or whether a mineral servitude is still in existence.  The important idea to realize is that a lease is a contract to explore for and/or develop minerals, and is subject to the provisions of that contract as to expiration and/or termination, but it is not, NOT, NOT sufficient to interrupt the prescription of a mineral servitude.

 

Based upon what you have stated, it is very possible that your family's mineral rights have prescribed, but the property remains subject to the old lease (as the lease is a contract placed of record, the purchasers of that property would have acquired same subject to the existing oil and gas lease, which if that lease had no Pugh clause, then production on any portion of the lands described in the lease could have served to hold the entire lease.

 

For those of you familiar with the trials and travails of Kassi Fitzgerald (which played out in part on these pages in the early shale days, and is also documented in part in "Haynesville"), this was the situation that she had run into.  It was discovered (upon some diligent title searches of the properties for which Kassi's group(s) were negotiating) that several tracts of land were held by production under a 1950's era lease (with no Pugh clause) by a well which was the discovery well for Stonewall Field (which later was regrouped into Caspiana Field).  The minerals on much of this acreage had long since prescribed, as they were no operations for many years on much of the lease, however, the mineral rights of the subsequent owners were still under the old lease.  Tragically for their group, this negated the efforts of all of the prior negotiations, leaving these owners subject to the old lease (at a one-eighth royalty, if memory serves), and all of the standard lease provisions of the time, as they was no reason to renegotiate lands that were already under lease.

 

In parting, if you would post what township that your minerals would have been located in, it would help greatly as to trying to answer the question specifically.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by GoshDarn on February 13, 2012 at 16:12

Dion:

Well stated.

Is it just me, or has your writing flow and readability improved of late?

Wonder if KB would agree?  Those friendly and respectable debates are kinda missed, methinks.

Anyway, D.W., when you ink your name to a book, please let us know (or maybe we'll see a Amazon ad for such on GHS).  You have the skills of a serious writer.  Nice read.   

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on February 13, 2012 at 16:30

I have to say that Dion is always one that catches my attention when he  posts. He is at the the top of my respected posters on GHS.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on February 14, 2012 at 6:09

Gee, GD, and to think that started off with a "giant run-on" that I had to sort out after I had spilled a bunch of ideas into the reply box.  Maybe the fact that I have less time to ponder what I'm writing as of late is making me concentrate on being less technically exact and more flow-worthy.  That I am starting to make up words all on my own.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by GoshDarn on February 14, 2012 at 7:16

Dion, so many have been stunted by the inquisition of too many college-formal-essay classes.  A simple, easy-to-read, easy-to-understand conversational style transfers subject matter way, way better than any convoluted technical gibberish.

In other words, if the reader gets lost in the details, what has been achieved?

Thus, vomiting it out, like in a conversation, can, like you say, make legalese much more comprehensible.  

• ▶ Reply