Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on December 4, 2008 at 6:33

P.G.,

Yes Kassi's group did have the problem you mentioned.

They own the mineral rights because there was no drilling to interrupt prescription, BUT THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THE EXISTING LEASE.

These are two completely different subjects. They are very easy to confuse though.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on December 8, 2008 at 5:34

P. G.:

I very much agree with Parker on this one.

The mere presence of an existing lease DOES NOT AFFECT mineral title, nor does it interrupt prescription. If you become the owner of property in which minerals have been conveyed, or in which minerals prescribe to you due to lack of use, it is quite possible to become the owner of mineral rights SUBJECT TO AN EXISTING OIL, GAS AND MINERAL LEASE (as what happened to Kassi's group).

The specific issue that is going on with Kassi's group is that an old OGML that did not contain a Pugh Clause has been and is being maintained by a well or wells located off of the old lease, but a portion of the lands leased from which their tracts has been created (by subdivision) has been held by production in an existing oil and gas unit. While the minerals may have been sold by conveyance or prescribed due to lack of use, the lease still holds, and their ownership is subject to the lease.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on December 4, 2008 at 6:37

not really PG, we are talking about prescription of mineral rights. This has nothing to do with the fact that the land might be leased or not.

Take this example:

I buy 400 acres from Parker, The land is spread equally over 4 sections (100 acres in each section)Parker keeps his minerals. Parker leases all his minerals the same day.

One year later a well is drilled in one section, not on this land. A unit is formed that includes one of the sections, so 100 acres of my 400 is in the unit. Prescription is interupted on that 100 acres unitized, but not the other 300 acres. Nine years later I get the minerals back on the 300 acres, but not the 100 in the producing unit. But,....parker messed up (sorry Parker, just an example) and didn't get a horizontal pugh, so I'm still covered by his lease.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on December 4, 2008 at 10:03

Just because we're having so much fun... Let me throw this situation into the mix. Buyer and seller may contract to create a servitude (by reservation of minerals) that unit operations affecting all or a portion of the servitude shall serve to extend the entire of the servitude. See La. R. S. 31:75.

If such done in conjunction in the hypothetical sale above, Parker still has all of her minerals.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Snake Stewart on December 4, 2008 at 14:02

Permalink Reply by The_Baron 7 hours ago
Parker leases all his minerals the same day.

Reply by Wilmer Sparks 10 hours ago
The legal definations provided by Mr. KB can be explained.....

For the official record , both Parker and KB are Super Chicks, Haynesville Shale Hussies or some other more respectful form of female title. I also know that both have probably been called other , not so flattering names, but that isnt the point.(chuckle,chuckle) Just kidin' ladies! Wanted to clear the air and give you all the feminine props that I could.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on December 4, 2008 at 8:36

But it is fun to speculate.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Snake Stewart on December 4, 2008 at 12:39

Ah KB, But there have been many fine answers given and many more questions asked and answered alike and I owe you all.......appreciate everything that you guys have done. The fine people afiliated with this site have just poured out $5,000,000 worth of legal advice, knowledge, court proceedings,landman field work,mineral law, hands on experience and deeply thought out scenario breaking horse sense.By being so broad in my question , it allowed the wheels to really turn and to give you room to do what you do. Where as if I had just asked about the land being unitized or about the other owner leasing, we wouldnt have had all of the other scenarios played out.

I wished that I could have been more specific at the time but I am glad that I wasnt now. This discussion has given me, an answer , to the question that caused me to ask you guys in the first place and has given much food for thought as well.

Its kinda like keeping a wild mustang penned up beside the house too long. You guys needed to stretch your legs a little anyway. HA!HA!HA!
Thanks again! Keep it coming.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dorcheated A1 on December 4, 2008 at 13:16

You mean to tell somebody on here takes pot shots, pokes holes, and will also hit you with the dreaded cheap shots. Please introduce me I like to shake their hand.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BirdDawg, plain ole' idiot on December 4, 2008 at 13:44

OK, lets don't take the cheap shots unless they are being a jerk (in somebodys opinion).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Snake Stewart on December 4, 2008 at 13:54

O.K. BirdDawg,
When is someone not being a jerk, in somebodies opinion, at any given time on this site ? (LOL)

Fire away!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on December 5, 2008 at 4:18

If its a good hole....you betcha

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on December 5, 2008 at 4:23

Aren't you just supposed to put in your TP, sprinkle some dirt over it, and leave the hole open, or would that just qualify as temporary abandonment?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next ›
• Page