Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Etola on November 17, 2009 at 7:13

The area he asked about is on FM 3172. He thought the lease had expired and didn't know about the option. And yes, my neighbors have hundreds of acres when combined. They should get more because they could be a unit. We(Huxley folks) are more than ready to be players in the Shale!

Permalink Reply by Randy Robertson on November 18, 2009 at 14:56

Petrohawk just paid 1500 /acre in the clever creek area. 1/4 royalty.

Permalink Reply by RBH on November 18, 2009 at 15:06

LEASING ALL DEPTHS? TERM? EXTENSIONS?

Permalink Reply by RBH on November 18, 2009 at 15:05

DOES ANYONE KNOW IF ELLORA SETTLED LAWSUIT WHERE A LARGE MINERAL OWNER WAS CLAIMING ELLORA WAS NOT HOLD ALL RIGHTS--JUST TO JAMES LIME..ARTICLE I READ SAID ABOUT 7000 ACRES OR SO

Permalink Reply by Carter on November 23, 2009 at 13:39

Your probably talking about the Davis family et. al. I donno, much, most of their stuff that I've come across had both depth and horizontal Pugh's in them among many other clauses. A lot of that Ellora stuff would have opened up is my guess, but I don't know if they ever got paid or not from the parties or if they settled.

Permalink Reply by RBH on November 23, 2009 at 13:52

in prospectus 4-21-2009

Shelby County, Texas Deep Rights

Through our wholly owned subsidiary, Ellora Land Holdings, L.P., we filed a lawsuit against Bayou Bleu Farm, L.P., GrandTree, L.C., and certain other named individual defendants (collectively, the "Defendants") in the District Court of Shelby County, Texas (Cause No. 08CV30,195) on August 25, 2008 seeking a declaratory judgment that we are the rightful possessor of the entire mineral leasehold interest acquired through oil and gas leases that we entered into with the Defendants covering approximately 5,100 gross acres (4,150 net acres) located in Shelby County, Texas. In June and July 2008, the Defendants claimed that our interest had expired as to the deep rights of the leased lands, which would have included the Haynesville Shale. We dispute the Defendants' claim and believe that the leases are still in effect for all of the leased lands based upon the terms of the leases. In the lawsuit, we brought claims against the Defendants seeking a declaratory judgment, the removal of the obstruction/cloud of title, slander of title, and attorneys' fees, and related damages.

On or about November 18, 2008, certain of the Defendants filed a counterclaim against us. In their counterclaim, those Defendants asserted claims for breach of contract, slander of title, obstruction/cloud of title, tortious interference with existing and prospective contracts, declaratory judgment, trespass, violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act, attorneys' fees, and damages exceeding $100 million. In the counterclaim, the Defendants allege that we improperly claimed the entire mineral leasehold interest, impeded the ability of the Defendants to lease and develop their minerals, drilled certain wells after the leases had terminated, improperly charged certain transportation costs to them, and failed to make and improperly made royalty payments.

Although we have not specified the amount of damages sought from the Defendants—and are not required to specify that information in our petition—the damages we anticipate seeking to recover on our claims equal or exceed the damages the Defendants' claim. Discovery in this matter is just beginning; however, we believe the claims may by the Defendants are without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend our position and contest the counterclaim.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page