Replies to This Discussion

landownerPermalink Reply by cocodrie man on June 5, 2011 at 22:39

yes, I have heard of such from companies.  The attorney I employ in north Louisiana tells me of several lawsuits about this very thing.  Even when the lease requires a spud, it seems that the companies will attempt to forget that requirement.

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by P.G. on June 6, 2011 at 2:04

Imagine someone walking into your house and going through your refrigerator and taking what they want then tossing 50 cents on the table to compensate you for what they took...a call to the local law enforcement would be all it would take to remedy something like that but yet an oil company can do virtually the same thing to a small land owner (only with raiding minerals rather than food) and the land owner's only remedy is to see an attorney and sue...just doesn't seem right...

• ▶ Reply

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by The_Baron on June 6, 2011 at 3:10

It all depends on your lease.

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by DJG on June 6, 2011 at 9:05

Exactly.   This is why it is crucially important that the mineral owner make sure that there is an explicit definition of what is considered "operations" in any lease they are signing.    

• ▶ Reply

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by The_Baron on June 10, 2011 at 5:03

Personally, I like to require that a well is spud by the lease expiration date. This date is public record and easily found on SONRIS. Makes for a good clear cut deadline.

 

I saw one lease that was held by an operator that drilled a water well, then basically drove a dozer around for a week until the rig could move in.

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by aaron naquin on June 10, 2011 at 6:00

they didnt cut a tree,they didnt sign papers for lease of land to drill on until 2 weeks after my lease was up, then they started bringing equiptment in,just started survey before,and it was the second track of land they surveyed,they surveyed one last fall on other section corner and couldnt agree on price.

• ▶ Reply