Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Cyhaynes on June 29, 2012 at 10:52

Where is the well in diapute?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by smith1 on June 29, 2012 at 11:27

GoshDarn, You seem to have explained it best to me.............But I don't understand (1) why they paid us a HUGE  bonus in 2008 without determining this (2) why they paid us for almost 8 months before realizing this  (3) why other landowners are still being paid.............but still all we can do ............is wait for our attorney to advise us.....As always,,,,I appreciate everyone's comments here.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by adubu on June 29, 2012 at 13:36

smith1--- sorry my comments were of no help to you so I will sign off from this tread and leave it to GoshDarn to answer you last 3 questions-- good luck

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by smith1 on June 30, 2012 at 1:14

adubu. your comments were very helpful, I've actually done several things you mentioned! again, thanks.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by adubu on June 30, 2012 at 4:49

smith1-- your welcome--hope you get problem resolved

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by GoshDarn on June 29, 2012 at 14:44

smith1:

I can only guess, but such isn't that totally uncommon.   Happens more than you would think, and I speak from having experienced it recently myself (yet not involving the laws governing lake minerals).  And lucky for me (and my family), the operator finally admitted the mistake after five months of error.  We'd also been in pay, but with the new horizontals, the operators have to go back and make sure they have each title trace nailed down -- and sometimes the abstractors and lawyers can make mistakes.  

So specifically, I would assume that your situation involves the complexity of interpreting the laws as to the mineral rights of property right next to the lake and the issue of cyclical cycles of up and down water levels being a determinate on ownership (again, just guessing).

So, an abstractor or title lawyer could've made a mistake and missed it the first time (in your favor).

Now, the other landowners may have servitude that's set fractionally back, even a few feet -- so as to not make it an issue; and this is quite possible when it comes to complex old state title laws as it involves bodies of water.

Thus, it's best to assume the negative and prepare for the worst (or at least prepare for an extended fight).  Plus, you need to try to nail down the wording of the law yourself and really, really get a good map as to where your land is and where the shoreline is (or whatever is the legal determinate of mineral servitude in this case).  Take the time and try to understand the water levels.

Note:  I know very, very little about such "water" legalities, and I'm only generalizing per basic common sense via applying a basic understanding of La. mineral law.  (And I mean very, very basic, too.)  So don't put much worth in my advice.

Ergo, you absolutely need a good lawyer.

Oh, back in the early 60's -- those camps around the west shore of Lake B. were fun hangouts for rambunctious young teens.

The stories I could tell.

Best of luck.

 

 

  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by HBP on June 30, 2012 at 14:57

I am familiar with this same situation and even if technically allowed (not commenting on your situation, just saying "if") it is still unfortunate on the company's part.

As GD said, it is not uncommon to lease for big money in the Haynesville only to later find out that some may be in suspense. Lease title and division order title opinion title are two different animals. But the issue that bothers me about this suit and the specifics of Bistineau is that the companies involved know the lines that have been in dispute in this case and are basically behind surveying them out and deciding which acreage they are willing to pay and which they are not.

Now the State and Fed have settled as to one contour line but I believe the issue now is that the Fed's are preserving a claim up to another line further inland which is causing conflicts between private owners and the Fed in title and therefore royalty in suspense. IMHO, the companies could have been out front on this and at minimum not put themselves in the position of reversing or adjusting already paid royalty.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by smith1 on July 1, 2012 at 2:03

But what is so frustrating is that no one (and it's been almost a month since we received the certified letter), can tell us any specifics,,,,,,the landman that we got the letter from keeps telling us he will email us, but we have heard not a word from anyone. We call and no one calls us back! Seems like Petrohawk could at least give us an explanation WHY they just suddenly stopped paying royalties? We had already paid $$$'s out for that deposited check from Petrohawk. And for them just to reversed the deposit without so much as a notice to us ---well that just seems like---not real decent (that's the only word I could think of?).

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by GoshDarn on July 1, 2012 at 7:19

smith1:

HK (Petrohawk) was recently acquired by BHP Billiton (i.e., a huge mega conglomerate out of OZ {Australia}).

There's been some consolidation and upheaval in the workforce to achieve worker-bee efficiencies.

Note:  BHP's online royalty interface (which includes HK and KCS) has been being farmed out to PDS Energy (a TX company located in Austin, the last time I spoke to 'em).

So, there's a lot of musical chairs (bad term) going on with HK right now (more or less).

Sidebar note:  When it comes to legal cases, sometimes employees are specifically instructed not to go on the record per the legalities of doing so.  But that may not be the issue in your case.  It just might be the whirlwind of delay in the overall pullback and money crunch that operators are presently facing per low NG prices (along with the BHP consolidation) (but this is truly just a general guess and not a nailed down fact).

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by smith1 on July 1, 2012 at 9:01

That makes sense........

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Larry T on July 1, 2012 at 14:49

can you please advise section / township / range etc. we have well 16n-10w, section 28, that is mostly in lake bed. I have several properties, some in the lake bed and some not. when HK surveyed for the actual acerage the new lake bed level was used and several persons found out they did not have near the land that they thought and in fact are paying taxes on.

 

so far as far as i know our royalty payments have been steady. but after hearing your story, nothing would surprise me, as we have fought this battle over titles, mortgages etc with some property in the new lake level / changing elevation line.

 

thanks

 

larry

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by smith1 on July 2, 2012 at 0:39

Larry T, I sent you a private message.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page