repeat: stuck in an ancient lease

A question was posted regarding an ancient lease causing a section to be HBP by a well in another section. It got lost in infighting and bickering and very little if any helpful posting was done. I was asked to repost my response as I am also impacted by this lease, so that some helpful input would hopefully come along.
To get back to the origin of Jason's post:
1. In 1955 2 families owned large portions of S25, T15N, R115W, S30, T15N, R14W, S28, T15N, R14W, S19, T15N, R14W.
2. These families leased all of the acreage in one lease to Carter Oil Company in April of 1955.
3. Carter oil spud in a well, which began producing in June of 1955 in S18, T15N, R14W.
4. This oil is still producing today and has only shut down for 2 months 3 times and 1 month 4 times.
5. Section 28 was unitized in 1972.
6. The lands in S25T15NR15W and S30T15NR14W have changed hands multiple times over the years. Thus far I have found no reservation of minerals in any of those transactions.
7. The well started by Carter Oil and the leases attached thereto have changed hands multiple times and are now in the hands of Zadeck Energy.
8. There have been severeal releases filed over the years. We plan to look them up @ the court house tomorrow.
9. The people in S25T15NR15W and S30T15NR14W were informed last Wed. that we may be HBP by this 1955 lease that was discovered while title searches were being conducted for S28T15NR14W. To my understanding. If this is true and the minerals were never reserved with land transactions the people impacted may be able to receive royalties based on the 1955 lease (1/8 or 12.5%) however our hope is there has been a release filed at some poin due to the fact that there was never any development or production in S25T15NR15W or S30T15NR14W.
Those in the group who are not impacted by this have signed their letters of intent and are moving forward. Those of us who are impacted hope to resolve it but feel blessed by the possitive change in our community and the friendships made during this whole process.
Any professional input would be welcome but can we please leave the infighting to another post?

Views: 139

Attachments:

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kassi on August 25, 2008 at 14:16
That is pretty much what we are doing. We are preparing an outline re the chain of ownership as well as the trail of the properties i.e. leasing, assignment of the lease, etc.
Permalink Reply by insomniacnla on August 25, 2008 at 6:10
I have a clause that I did not warranty the title or deed. That is why the o/g company had a very thorough title check prior to executing my lease.

Kassi's group does have a very good o/g attorney I believe.
Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on August 25, 2008 at 6:17
Yes they do. He is AV in his field. You can't get any better than that.

I did not warranty title either, but if they missed something in my lease they wouldn't have lost a lot of money.

I hope it turns out for them.
Permalink Reply by kittycatmama on August 25, 2008 at 14:31
Who is Kassi's attorney. We need a good oil/gas atty
Permalink Reply by Kassi on August 25, 2008 at 14:43
Randall Davidson.
Permalink Reply by Rick on August 25, 2008 at 7:00
Kassi, your post shows the Carter well from 1955 drilled in sect 18, 15N, 14W; if this is the case, wouldn't Sect 18 be HBP in this example?
I went to the DeSoto Clerks office last week to search back over the land I am own and did not find any reserved rights as far back as I could find. Also, 4 different men have contacted me since April offering leases, so if they have researched right, I must have my mineral rights.
I have been told I am the last unsigned L/O in Sect 18 and they have shown a definite increase in interest in my 1.16 acres in the past week since the Nelson 18-H-1 is TD on the vertical and apparently drilling the horizontal now.
Permalink Reply by Kassi on August 25, 2008 at 10:37
It is not the Carter well in 18-14-14 causing us problems. It is the Hall well in 28-15-14. I have been at the court house researching again today. Carter Oil assigned section 28-15-14 to another company in 1958 but never assigned section 30-15-14 or 25-15-5 that I can find. Each land transaction re the sections in question has been traced to present owners and there have been no reservation of minerals. It may be that the assignment of section 28-15-14 without assigning section 30-15-14 and 25-15-15 functions as a severence in which case we are ok. It may also be that it will be considered a sublease because Carter oil (which is not Exxon) reserved a small overriding royalty when they assigned Section 28-15-14. ugh!
Permalink Reply by mooncookie on August 25, 2008 at 11:16
The area might be divided even further depending on the activity of Bayou Nicholas, affecting earlier established mineral servitudes. This is a sticky one....check out any arial photography showing the movement of Nicholas. Water is my forte and it is quite a remarkable solvent!
Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on August 25, 2008 at 11:27
Kassi:

No releases, running Carter Oil and assignees?

Don't forget to check corporation and/or charter books for mergers and acquisitions. Also look at LASOS for name changes, etc.

FYI, did not run a mineral history, but the well to which you refer in 28 is the discovery well for Stonewall Field. The Pettet Lime was unitized immediately following the discovery in 1955 (Per Order 317). Between the dual completion of that well and original, you have more or less continuous production, as you said. The entire section was unitized from 55 forward, and was realigned into Caspiana Field in the mid-70s.

Short of a release, you're probably HBP.

Let me know if you have any further questions.
Permalink Reply by MSE on August 25, 2008 at 12:41
found this on tigerdroppings where people are posting about the Haynesville Shale? does this apply to section 30

The '10 year rule' is nothing but a rule that a mineral servitude prescribes after 10 years of non-use. So if they have been using it the whole time, there is no period of non-use. If the well stopped producing tommorow they would still own the mineral servitude for 10 years from today.

Down here in South Louisiana there are certain companies and families that still hold tens of thousands of acres through production because they severed the mineral servitude in one whole piece and hold it even though the land was sold off in a variety of parcels.

The one way this is not the case: if a state highway or navigable waterway cuts across. Lets say you reserved 20,000 acre servitude, 10,000 on one side of the Red River and 10,000 on the other. Since the state owns the bed of highways and rivers then this is not a contiguous 20,000 parcel, but instead two 10,000 parcels. They would need some production on each, because production on the west side would not count on the east side of the river.

Apart from this, as long as the tract is contiguous then any well anywhere on it will hold production.

Note I said state highway, because parish roads are often just rights of way or servitudes and don't change ownership of the underlying land.

hope this helps
Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on August 26, 2008 at 2:09
MSE:

This also happens in northern, central, and western Louisiana as well. Timber companies typically did this, and many timber companies even spun off different divisions or holding companies designed to retain and develop their mineral rights and mineral servitudes. Tracts to be sold would be moved from the parent company to a one holding company in a whole block, reserving minerals to the whole, then the mineral servitude would be spun to the "petroleum holding company". The first holding company would sell off the block piecewise.

One good example I remember was Long Bell Lumber Company. Long Bell would clear cut a large tract, then transfer the clear cut acreage in a block to Long Bell Farm Land Corp., which would sell off the cutover in twenties and forties to local landowners. Long Bell would send the minerals to Long Bell Petroleum. Every seven to nine years, a well would be drilled to a zone where one would reasonably expect to find oil and gas, and the servitude would be held for another ten years. The company held on to minerals for decades in this manner.

Also, most state hwys. are on ROW as well. When the state "buys" highway (for expansion, etc.), typically their is a mineral reservation in favor of the seller. There are only a few state highways that were "bought" surface and minerals.
Permalink Reply by Susie Brown on August 25, 2008 at 15:13
Dion do you run leases for people professionally? Sec.1 T13n R15w in Desoto has a similar problem to Kassi's group. They too were ready to sign only to find out that they were HBP from a lease signed by Matthews to Ardis & Co in 1965 that pooled several sections; however Sec. 1 has had no production since 1995. Do you mind taking a look at that old lease if you have online Desoto records. Thanks, Susie

RSS

Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com

Top Content 

1 Looking Back At The Haynesville Shale - A Retrospective

Looking Back At The Haynesville Shale - A Retrospective
2 Pending Public Oil and Gas Hearings

Pending Public Oil and Gas Hearings
3 Arkansas Smackover Lithium Play

Arkansas Smackover Lithium Play
4 Aethon looks for Buyers of its Haynesville Assets

Aethon looks for Buyers of its Haynesville Assets
5 Notice Emails Are Back! Please review how they work.

Notice Emails Are Back! Please review how they work.
6 Comstock October Presentation

Comstock October Presentation
7 Haynesville Has 12.5 Years of Sub-$3 NatGas Inventory - Enverus

Haynesville Has 12.5 Years of Sub-$3 NatGas Inventory - Enverus

Blog Posts

The Lithium Connection to Shale Drilling

Shale drilling and lithium extraction are seemingly distinct activities, but there is a growing connection between the two as the world moves towards cleaner energy solutions. While shale drilling primarily targets…

Continue

Posted by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on November 20, 2024 at 12:40

Not a member? Get our email.

Groups



© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service