Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by DJG on October 23, 2009 at 6:25

J.,

If what your are saying is correct, why would there be motivation by the O&G companies to offer ANY compensation to the MO? They could just draw up their units and chose not to offer any reasonable lease terms to any MO in the unit.

So how do you reconcile what you are saying with the RRC's ruling last August on the Finley Resourses versus Unlease MO case in the Barnett?

http://www.oilandgaslawyerblog.com/2009/05/expanded-use-of-mineral-...

The mineral owners effected by Finley's force pooling of the unit did not end up with nothing.

Instead they ended up with 20% royalty + 4/5 working interest - ultimately amounting to a 58% stake in that particular units production.

It is not my intention to remain unleased, but at least this Finley ruling does offer some protection - as I read it - to mineral owners.

Permalink Reply by Adam on September 17, 2009 at 1:35

OK so you are using the term Rule 37 to imply that the tract will NOT be unitized. I cant grasp that.

The cold hard truth is that tracts get unitized all the time with unleased interests. As long as the drillbit doesnt cross it, or as you say, come within 438 feet of it, there is nothing the mineral interest owner can do about it.

Permalink Reply by Todd M. Baker on September 17, 2009 at 3:59

Adam:

Correct. But if you aren't leased to the operator or a party that the operator decides can participate in the unit and the drill bit doesn't encroach on this 437', you get paid exactly $0.00.

Just because the tract your minerals are under has been unitized doesn't mean you receive royalty.

TMB

Permalink Reply by Eric Camp on September 18, 2009 at 12:33

Yes the mineral interest owner can. It's called the Mineral Interest Pooling Act. Operators aren't the only ones who can force pool. See Chapter 102 of the Texas Natural Resources Code.

Permalink Reply by ogmladvisor on September 21, 2009 at 3:00

Statewide spacing is 467', unless there are special field rules designating otherwise. Rule 37 lease line spacing applies to any interest not "owned or controlled" by the operator, such as unleased interest, or leasehold held by a party not participating in the well.

And can anyone tell me how many Shelby County unleased mineral owners have successfully force pooled themselves recently using the MIPA? My guess is exactly zero, but I am really not sure. It might sound easy, but it's not, and therefore rarely happens.

Permalink Reply by Crandell Addington on October 26, 2009 at 5:19

Adam:

For black letter law on this subject, I suggest that all of you who are interested in the topic of "forced pooling" in Texas by mineral owners read "Ruiz v. Martin". You can probably find it online.

Permalink Reply by Charmine on October 21, 2009 at 4:37

Hi Todd- My family still owns the rights on about 37 acres, and my share is just over 4 acres.

Permalink Reply by Douglass Marc on October 22, 2009 at 5:05

Hi Charmine. I am wondering if we may be related. I too was recently contacted by a landman about an interest I have in 36.75 acres in Shelby county, I believe the Neuville area. Where are your mineral interests? I think I am probably one of hundreds of heirs to this, which goes back to the Holt family. Douglas

Permalink Reply by Charmine on October 28, 2009 at 10:27

Hi douglass, I am part of the West Family Heirs and we are in the John Forsythe Survey just north of Center. So probably not, but I'm glad you checked!

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page