Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Gary on May 19, 2010 at 12:18

I'm a bit green on the which legal document trumps which. Seems you are stating that a survey somehow superceeds a Deed. The deed verbiage is quite simple and states we own the west half of the southeast quarter of the section. I would infer that this statement alone implies our ownership of the Section is 0.125 of the total section size. Apparently there are other possible interpretations which I would dearly like to understand. You are correct, in that I have access to our deed as our legal ownership only. I have NOT asked for a copy of their survey. I can request that, if it can help resolve this issue. Can you point me to some info to help me understand how a survey can supersede a clearly declared unambiguous deed? I realize I do not yet have all the facts, and am eager to learn.
Thank you for your assistance,
Gary

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 19, 2010 at 12:26

Gary, any experienced O&G attorney can tell you that the deed description you are relying on is the least specific and is trumped by a metes and bounds description and/or a survey. I suggest that you ask for a copy of the survey first, then look for a deed with a metes and bounds description and consider investing a little money in having a qualified professional figure the acreage from it. That qualified professional can also tell you that your situation is quite common and that if you wish to contest CHK's D.O. acreage, you will need your own survey. Not an inconsequential expense.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on May 19, 2010 at 23:08

Gary, I'm not an attorney, but I'd guess that as far as acreage count is concerned, a survey would trump a mineral deed, especially if there was no metes and bounds description. Does your mineral deed say you have 80.000 acres or does it say you have the West 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4? More than likely, if it has an acreage count, it will be followed by the words, "more or less".

Also, remember that I can prepare a mineral deed for your signature. Inaccurate mineral deeds containing errors are filed at the Courthouse all the time.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gary on May 22, 2010 at 16:35

FYI: The_Baron discovered that our property in the W/2 of the SE/4 is actually 80.16 (the correct amount) but the E/2 of the SE/4 has the identical size being claimed by CHK (79.28 acres). CHK (or whomever provided the info to them) referenced the incorrect plot of land.
I am still unable to get anyone at CHK to return my calls, but am now pursuing with vim and vigor.

Regards,

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on May 22, 2010 at 23:02

Bet the other guy is not too happy!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on May 24, 2010 at 3:29

Gary, I would suggest a certified lettter. CHK is hard to deal with on the phone.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve P on May 23, 2010 at 18:18

Maybe your issue is resolved, but if the operator had an actual survey performed on the ground, any encroaching fences on your track by a neighbor could also lead to the loss of some acreage.

This string raises a very interesting point which is likely new to rural parts of NW La. Historically, land has been pretty cheap. Litigating a boundary dispute in court is very expensive. Thus, the economics generally have not supported such battles. Today, that may need a second look. If there really will be 8 wells per section for the HS and X number of wells for the Bossier, then a lost (or gained) acre here and there can get to be worth something. Anyone calculated the Net Present Value of an acre of minerals based upon some projections of production and cost of gas? Timing for future wells would be a big factor, but for the sake of argument, one could assume a flat line production curve (as a well declines, the story is that another well will be drilled in the same section, and did I just commit some error by using both the phrase "flat line" and "curve" to describe the same thing?).

Many years ago I had a family member who lost a fair number of acres to an aggressive neighbor who moved his fence over onto the family land based upon a survey. Not worth the dollars to fight back then, but today could be a different story.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on May 24, 2010 at 2:44

I've heard that you can lose rights to your land if there is a fence in the wrong place, but does that apply to minerals as well as surface use?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on May 24, 2010 at 3:23

In Louisiana, its possible, but rare.

It is called "aquisitive prescription"

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lorissa Gail on May 24, 2010 at 3:41

Would the same principle hold true for Texas?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on May 24, 2010 at 5:05

I don't know.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve P on May 24, 2010 at 5:41

My Louisiana property law is rusty, but the likelihood of losing minerals ... depends. If you are the surface owner and not actively producing the minerals and someone encroaches on your land with a fence, then I think that they are "acquisitvely possessing" all aspects of ownership, including mineral rights (which, after all follow the surface owner unless specifically carved out). So I'm not sure why you would say that it is rare.

If you are merely a mineral owner, then I agree that it would be rare for someone to adversely possess those.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 7
• Next ›
• Page