Sabine Parish - GoHaynesvilleShale.com2024-03-29T08:40:32Zhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/forum/topics/sabine-parish-1?feed=yes&xn_auth=noJames Funk, Jr.is a 1/2 inter…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2014-07-28:2117179:Comment:33534742014-07-28T23:39:11.033ZTwo Dogs, Piratehttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/ThomasRScarbrock
<p>James Funk, Jr.is a 1/2 interest owner in some of the tracts they own, there are several and encompass a large area. If this holds true for this tract then he has 40 acres of a 80 acre tract. Well worth the price of an O&G Attorney. Mr. Funk,is one of my Lessors and when Aubrey announced the Haynesville Shale around Easter of 2008, I called Mr. Funk and told him that he needed to watch out for snakes that were crawling around in the area.</p>
<p>James Funk, Jr.is a 1/2 interest owner in some of the tracts they own, there are several and encompass a large area. If this holds true for this tract then he has 40 acres of a 80 acre tract. Well worth the price of an O&G Attorney. Mr. Funk,is one of my Lessors and when Aubrey announced the Haynesville Shale around Easter of 2008, I called Mr. Funk and told him that he needed to watch out for snakes that were crawling around in the area.</p> Maybe. We really don't have…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2014-07-28:2117179:Comment:33529192014-07-28T17:37:12.148ZSkip Peel - Mineral Consultanthttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/ilandman
<p>Maybe. We really don't have sufficient facts to form an opinion. The new law alluded to earlier in this thread would make it easier for lessors to receive royalties when there is a legal dispute between a Working Interest (their lessee) and the well operator. Did the other co-owners also receive releases but simply failed to file them in the public record? Is the mineral interest small in size and the individual owners have fractions so small that they don't care to incur costs to get…</p>
<p>Maybe. We really don't have sufficient facts to form an opinion. The new law alluded to earlier in this thread would make it easier for lessors to receive royalties when there is a legal dispute between a Working Interest (their lessee) and the well operator. Did the other co-owners also receive releases but simply failed to file them in the public record? Is the mineral interest small in size and the individual owners have fractions so small that they don't care to incur costs to get the situation straightened out? Does the back dating of the one release create an obligation on the operator to pay for past production? Does the three year statute of limitations apply? Does the operator have any obligation other than what the state requires for UMI's in producing units? This is all headed down a path where conjecture without facts is a waste of time and depending on those facts may be sufficiently complex to require an experienced O&G attorney and possibly litigation.</p>
<p>IANAL</p> UMI's should request quarterl…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2014-07-28:2117179:Comment:33529132014-07-28T17:27:22.203ZSkip Peel - Mineral Consultanthttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/ilandman
<p>UMI's should request quarterly reports from the operator as provided by in LA mineral law. If the well has paid out and the operator has filed for their severance tax exemption, the well cost will be covered in the report form in the database.</p>
<p>UMI's should request quarterly reports from the operator as provided by in LA mineral law. If the well has paid out and the operator has filed for their severance tax exemption, the well cost will be covered in the report form in the database.</p> Seems what Mr. Funk may be mi…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2014-07-28:2117179:Comment:33529112014-07-28T17:23:32.999Z1kw6x71km1v37https://gohaynesvilleshale.com/xn/detail/u_1kw6x71km1v37
<p>Seems what Mr. Funk may be missing the most is a notarized affidavit of the cost of drilling, completing and equipping the well in question as required by LRS 30:103.1.</p>
<p>The UMI must initiate the above response by providing the operator with a request for such and giving his name and address. It's all right here:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=86910" target="_blank">http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=86910</a></p>
<p>Until he knows how much he…</p>
<p>Seems what Mr. Funk may be missing the most is a notarized affidavit of the cost of drilling, completing and equipping the well in question as required by LRS 30:103.1.</p>
<p>The UMI must initiate the above response by providing the operator with a request for such and giving his name and address. It's all right here:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=86910" target="_blank">http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=86910</a></p>
<p>Until he knows how much he owes, we are just shooting in the dark here.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p> If the co-owners did not rece…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2014-07-28:2117179:Comment:33527302014-07-28T17:17:41.536Zobed w odomhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/obedwodom
<p>If the co-owners did not receive a release, shouldn't they be getting royalty payments from the well? I would think they would be in a better position than Mr. Funk.</p>
<p>If the co-owners did not receive a release, shouldn't they be getting royalty payments from the well? I would think they would be in a better position than Mr. Funk.</p> Yes, really. Mr. Funk is a U…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2014-07-28:2117179:Comment:33527042014-07-28T15:51:40.787ZSkip Peel - Mineral Consultanthttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/ilandman
<p>Yes, really. Mr. Funk is a UMI and is being treated as such by Encana. He states as much early in the discussion thread. <em>"They send me the quarterly reports on production and expense but does not look good for us." </em>That is what the law requires, no more..no less. Encana is unlikely to approach Mr. Funk with a lease offer at this time but he is free to contact them. Any recourse he would have would be against his lessee, not against Encana.</p>
<p>The incidence of UMI's with…</p>
<p>Yes, really. Mr. Funk is a UMI and is being treated as such by Encana. He states as much early in the discussion thread. <em>"They send me the quarterly reports on production and expense but does not look good for us." </em>That is what the law requires, no more..no less. Encana is unlikely to approach Mr. Funk with a lease offer at this time but he is free to contact them. Any recourse he would have would be against his lessee, not against Encana.</p>
<p>The incidence of UMI's with minerals in Haynesville Shale units with unit wells that have not paid out is quite common. Regardless of how a mineral owner got in that predicament, and there are a number of ways that has happened, they should signal a willingness to lease and attempt to get in pay as early as possible. The lessors in all those non-commercial Haynesville wells have been receiving royalty on production since they had a valid lease and the well was turned to sales. The operator may not have recovered their well cost but the lessors are getting paid.</p> <A quarter royalty and alt…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2014-07-28:2117179:Comment:33526972014-07-28T15:37:23.585Z1kw6x71km1v37https://gohaynesvilleshale.com/xn/detail/u_1kw6x71km1v37
<p><A quarter royalty and alternate unit well production is the best scenario for income over the life of the unit production>>></p>
<p>Really? My banker will never buy into that, LOL.</p>
<p>Mr. Funk is getting ripped off in all probability. Half-a-million dollars paid out for tangible and intangible well costs and he does not have a revenue stream off the well in question raises a big red flag, namely while the statute quoted by Skip Peel does indeed protect the UMI, one may well…</p>
<p><A quarter royalty and alternate unit well production is the best scenario for income over the life of the unit production>>></p>
<p>Really? My banker will never buy into that, LOL.</p>
<p>Mr. Funk is getting ripped off in all probability. Half-a-million dollars paid out for tangible and intangible well costs and he does not have a revenue stream off the well in question raises a big red flag, namely while the statute quoted by Skip Peel does indeed protect the UMI, one may well have to go to court to get that protection. A ten-year payout format could turn out to include the 100% risk charge in addition legitimate costs.</p> Mr. Funk need not wait to neg…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2014-07-28:2117179:Comment:33527792014-07-28T15:20:59.815ZSkip Peel - Mineral Consultanthttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/ilandman
<p>Mr. Funk need not wait to negotiate a lease. He has been able to do so since he received his release and it was filed of record. He might have a better position to negotiate when Encana permits alternate unit wells but that is unknowable from the facts provided. If the individual tracts cited are small it is possible he would do better leasing now if ECA is amendable. The days of big Haynesville lease bonuses are history. The royalty revenue should be the focus, along with the basic…</p>
<p>Mr. Funk need not wait to negotiate a lease. He has been able to do so since he received his release and it was filed of record. He might have a better position to negotiate when Encana permits alternate unit wells but that is unknowable from the facts provided. If the individual tracts cited are small it is possible he would do better leasing now if ECA is amendable. The days of big Haynesville lease bonuses are history. The royalty revenue should be the focus, along with the basic beneficial and protective lease terms we often discuss. A quarter royalty and alternate unit well production is the best scenario for income over the fife of the unit production.</p>
<p>Like Two Dogs, my concern is for the co-owners who did not receive a release.</p> Guys this sounds like the fol…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2014-07-28:2117179:Comment:33528682014-07-28T14:57:33.053Zshorty Townsendhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/shortyTownsend
<p>Guys this sounds like the following scenario: When a Lessee decides to go non consent on a well that gives the operator a vested interest (sounds like 200% in this case - prior to the most recent change of RS 30:10). If the non consenting lessee releases their interest that doesn't change the vested interest of the operator. In this scenario Mr. Funk's only claim is against the original lessee. When a lessee goes non consent it doesn't relieve them of their obligation to pay royalty to…</p>
<p>Guys this sounds like the following scenario: When a Lessee decides to go non consent on a well that gives the operator a vested interest (sounds like 200% in this case - prior to the most recent change of RS 30:10). If the non consenting lessee releases their interest that doesn't change the vested interest of the operator. In this scenario Mr. Funk's only claim is against the original lessee. When a lessee goes non consent it doesn't relieve them of their obligation to pay royalty to their lessor and even if they have released the lease Mr. Funk still has a claim since he is in a 200% penalty scenario.</p>
<p>On the positive side the most recent change to RS 30:10 helps folks in Mr. Funk's situation. Given some time hopefully the operator will want to drill alternate wells in this section and then Mr. Funk will be in a position to negotiate a good deal and possibly square up with the operator on royalties that he missed out on.</p> http://www.gohaynesvilleshale…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2014-07-28:2117179:Comment:33524512014-07-28T13:15:05.796ZKeith Mauck (Site Publisher)https://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/Haynesville_Shale
<p><a href="http://www.gohaynesvilleshale.com/group/sabineparishnetwork" target="_blank">http://www.gohaynesvilleshale.com/group/sabineparishnetwork</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.gohaynesvilleshale.com/group/sabineparishnetwork" target="_blank">http://www.gohaynesvilleshale.com/group/sabineparishnetwork</a></p>