Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by j garrett on February 5, 2010 at 7:18

Depending on who is offering the Top Lease, you should probably take it, QUICK. Free money that'll be lost if your current lease gets drilled. Acreage included in this new Murray unit also recieved top lease money only a month or two ago. The accepted a ridiculous (low) offer (they apparently don't pay attention to this site!), but, it was still money in their pockets.

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on February 5, 2010 at 8:23

Don't worry, nick. EOG isn't sharing informartion, especially if it's good because they are still leasing. It may be 4-6 months before we know what the IP was.

Permalink Reply by nick waters on February 5, 2010 at 8:39

They took advantage of Miss Willy (92 years old) and offered us 10 times the amount she was paid. I also have to deal with EOG on minerals in Ybarro - A 60, that has not been easy. Through the Sonnera JV they have a lot of acreage to drill to HBP.

J garrett did you see the Rig going up or just being delivered?

Permalink Reply by nick waters on February 5, 2010 at 10:24

EOG paid a lot less than what I have seen mentioned on this thread, sorry.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 7, 2010 at 11:49

Seems this thread draws members who purposely post misleading information on both sides of the mineral value equation. Good intentions and wishful thinking does not mitigate the possibility of inaccurate information informing someone's decision making process. Leading to a negative result.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 8, 2010 at 5:41

5th.GenTexan. My response appears out of place because the discussion thread ran out of "Reply to This" commands at the point I wished to post and the only option is to go to the top of the page and post there. Yes, it can end up in a portion of the thread where it does not appear to belong but those members "Following" the discussion know what it relates to and others, like you in this instance, assume it applies to a different portion of the comments. Not much we can do. In fact since you deleted your previous response I am again posting in the comment box at the top of the page because there is no "Reply to This" command following your comment.

Permalink Reply by 5thGenTexan on February 8, 2010 at 11:31

I deleted my response because it was in the wrong place and reentered in the correct place.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 8, 2010 at 11:36

You did just fine but left me with no "Reply to This" option. LOL!

Permalink Reply by Cheerleader on February 8, 2010 at 9:06

ogmladvisor,
First of all, I do not appreciate you misquoting me. I DID NOT CALL YOU A LIAR !! Manipulative, probably, but I did not call you a liar!
Second, the opinion you are quoting, from Mr. Mcfarland, preceded his opinion on the Finley Resources case. You are taking the opinions out of context.

Permalink Reply by ogmladvisor on February 8, 2010 at 10:08

The opinions have nothing to do with one another. And you might to recheck the dates of the two articles...I think you may have things backwards!

The Finley case was an operator trying to force pool unleased tracts that were causing Rule 37 situations into their unit, making it very difficult if not impossible to permit the well. The operator filed suit, and the operator prevailed...here is a quote from an attorney familiar with the case: “There’s no doubt that as soon as Finley came about a year ago, the landmen negotiating for these companies latched on to it as one more tool they can use, and are saying, ‘Well if you don’t sign a lease we’re going to force pool you anyway"

But somehow you are trying to convince everyone here that this is a wonderful decision for property rights? And I am being misleading?

Permalink Reply by DJG on February 8, 2010 at 14:11

If anyone cares to read the actual case information, here are the links to the docket and rulings from the RRC website:

Finley Resources Case Docket:
http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/meetings/ogpfd/ogpomipa/documents/09-523...


Finley Resources Case Rulings:
http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/meetings/ogpfd/ogpomipa/documents/09-523...


So the FACTS in the case are that Finley petitioned the RRC to force pool a group of mineral owners who were not happy with the "good faith" terms of Finley's "Final Offer".

Finley was hoping to get the holdout interests force pooled along with having the TRRC add a 100% Risk Penalty ON TOP OF all their drilling/well costs.

Finley was successful in getting the holdout minerals pooled, however the TRRC did offer some nice concessions that ended quite favorable to those mineral owners that Finley was forcing into the pool.

Final ruling from TRRC was that they would allow Finley to pool the unleased minearl interests needed in order to unitize that tract, but under the following terms:

A. 20% Royalty

B. 4/5 Working Interest.

C. 0% Risk Penalty


So, in essence, those mineral owners that were force pooled by the Finley Resources case end up getting that 20% royalty from day 1 plus and additional 80% royalty on top of the early 20% once the well hits pay-out. Depending upon the wells final drilling costs, it was estimated that the actual royalty share for these mineral owners would average somewhere in the 60% to 65% range.


Frankly, I wouldn't mind being force pooled at all if that was indeed going to be the final outcome......

Permalink Reply by DJG on February 8, 2010 at 14:26

The thing to consider, however, is that the mineral tracts covered under this Finley Resources force pooling case were all relatively small tracts that were unleased donut holes all within the larger unit boundries.

The TRRC ruling did end up forcing the tracts into the pool so that Finley could develop the unit - but it did so under terms that were favorable and seems to protect those unleased mineral owners interests.

On the other hand, the thing to be really concerned is whether your own land/minerals might be left outside of the unit altogether. If that is the case, then you could end out of luck.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• …
• 11
• Next ›
• Page