Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by SoBoRes on August 5, 2008 at 15:13

Terry,

Mr. Paul Jarrett was the main speaker this evening. I don't have his contact information in front of me but will if needed provide at a later time. I personally wanted to spend a little more time with the folks who attended after Mr. Jarretts discussion as there was probably enough we could have relayed to take up a few more hours of everyone's time. Fortunately, there seems to be quite a few folks in our area that have not leased and I was happy that the retired landman was their to answer many questions that would have stumped many of us.

Once we put in the information (sign-in register) provided during the meeting in a database, we will begin contacting folks through e-mail or contact number provided and letting them know when our next meeting is. Given the standing room only issue this evening, we may want to try to find another location or ensure we have additional seating available.

I would like to thank everyone who attended, those that provided assistance with setting this up and especially the Church who opened their doors to us for the meeting.

Jason

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on August 5, 2008 at 17:32

Hi SoBoRes,

I'm sorry that I could not make the meeting tonight.

A friend called to tell me the landman wants a %. Is this correct?

I thought it was a retired landman.

Permalink Reply by SoBoRes on August 6, 2008 at 0:47

Parker,

If the group decided to use Mr. Jarrett (retired landman) his payment would come from O&G, but based on a % of the bonus not royalty. Example: If we agreed to lease our minerals for 30% and 30K bonus per acre, Mr. Jarrett would receive a payment of $900 (3% of bonus) per net acre from O&G, and we would still get our 30% and 30K.

We did not decide whether or not we would want to utilize his services last night. He obviously came with a wealth of knowledge that many of us couldn't match given our 3-month crash course in shale plays and O&G leases. I am sorry you weren't able to make it, just remember one thing even if Mr. Jarrett's services are used, it will still be up to each individual mineral owner to decide what to accept or walk/run away from.

Hope to get the chance to meet you @ our next meeting.

Jason

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on August 6, 2008 at 4:17

I would think that a lawyer charging a % would be a better option.
At least he has a legal obligation to look out for his clients best interest.
If you were to go with the landman, you still need legal advice. And then if any clauses in the lease are later challenged, an attorney would already be familiar with the intent of the document.
Just my opinion.

Permalink Reply by Terry Allen on August 6, 2008 at 6:26

I'd have to agree with Parker. My sister-in-law's boyfriend is a landman and I forwarded the blogs to him. He believes we need an attorney not an ex-landman.

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on August 7, 2008 at 21:33

All I have received is an offer for $17,000 with 25%. I didn't ask for any other details.
I too have been told by a resident of Plantation Tract that they got $20,000. Another friend just signed for $22,000 for 5 years with 25% for property close to Lake Bistineau and property in Golden Meadows. He would have gotten $20,000 if he chose 3 years.

Permalink Reply by Terry Allen on August 8, 2008 at 4:00

Was it Petrohawk that made him the offer?

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on August 7, 2008 at 21:34

Terry,
I do not know why I cannot reply to you more recent posts.
Have you made any changes to your settings?

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on August 8, 2008 at 5:20

I still cannot reply to your more recent posts. I don't know if this is a problem with the system.


Anyway, no it was Ashley Energy a broker for CHES. They cannot compete with Twin Cities and I am told that they only added his property in GM because they were leasing the Lake Bistineau property at the time.

Permalink Reply by Terry Allen on August 8, 2008 at 10:42

Thanks for the information. I don't understand why we're having such a problem replying to each other. It did the same thing to me when I tried to respond to SoBoRes. I checked the settings and everything is still the same.

Permalink Reply by SoBoRes on August 6, 2008 at 10:54

I am surely not in disagreement. Mr. Jarrett was brought in for the meeting as a "expert" (use that term loosely considering the knowledge of the general population in this area to include myself). To my understanding, we were not trying to push him as the only option. My own personal belief is to have a group of aggressive mineral owners (from the coalition) capable of researching and generating the requirements for our lease and present this to O&G for offers. Once an acceptable lease is presented back from O&G and is agreed on by the majority within the coalition we would then proceed with having an attorney review and provide legal oversight (not the attorney negotiating with the O&G).

Again, this is just my opinion and one that I planned on sharing last night. I am in the process of putting everyone's contact information into a database and will use this as a means to address future meetings/discussions (as well as this site). Thanks all for your valuable input.

Parker, honestly I had hoped and still do hope that you would be one of those who would help generate the requirements for the lease. I value your opinion and believe that you have been a tremendous help to me as well as the others on this site.

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on August 6, 2008 at 12:24

I would love to be involved in anyway that I can. Of course at no fee.

By the reports I heard about the guy that spoke he was not forthcoming about his 4% until the end of the meeting. That sounds a little misleading in and of itself.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• Next ›
• Page