Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by kittycatmama on January 10, 2019 at 14:22

Thank you Skip

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by kittycatmama on January 13, 2019 at 5:04

Jay, I wish a lease hound would buy this Unleased acre. They all want leased acres and some want NO COST ROYALTY leases. Picky buyers.  On top of that THREE NEW WELLS were permitted and drilling just started so it will have a great return. I have been receiving checks for about 3 yrs. with monthly documentation

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Herrington on January 10, 2019 at 17:30

I view a small mineral interest very differently...at one acre, your interest is nothing more than a rounding error to the operator.  When EOG was pursuing the potential Goodland Lime play here in East Texas, I had a small mineral interest in their leasing area and held out for a 25% royalty, emphasizing that a 25% royalty was a long-established standard, and they agreed relatively quickly.

You don't need leverage when your interest is small in the great scheme of things...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by kittycatmama on January 11, 2019 at 5:04

Jay I have not found anyone to buy an unleased mineral property even though I have monthly documentation showing that we do get a small revenue for the past 4 yrs. There are 3 new wells permitted in this section so more value coming.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on January 11, 2019 at 11:17

full name, you have an interesting definition of "light".  :-)  Thanks.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by kittycatmama on January 12, 2019 at 6:56

Since we already have a 25% lease with the same operator in this section, would an implied Favored Nation situation apply? Another operator told me it might

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on January 12, 2019 at 7:03

Never heard of an "implied" Most Favored Nation right.  Did the other operator explain how that might work?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by kittycatmama on January 12, 2019 at 14:10

I actually know of a situation where group leased for great leases in a section. Several people leased early for crummy leases. Operator came back in and upped the amount of original people who leased. Both small acreages. I mentioned this to a friend who is with another operator and he said it had to be under Favored Nation clause for that to occur. That was first time I had ever heard Favored Nation. I am wondering personally if the average lease of 25% is "implied" or accepted as average in an area where EVERYONE in that section is leased for that amount. In our case the tiny mineral amt. we have in one section was not leased because owner was so ill at time and in and out of hospital. It wasn't because he CHOSE not to lease. He was just passed over. 90% of people in that section were leased.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on January 12, 2019 at 14:14

The royalty fraction is never implied in a lease, it is clearly stated.  Some mineral lessors with large acreage interests had most favored nation clauses.  And some had to file suit to get operating companies to honor them.  Most favored nation clauses are about as rare as hen's teeth.  The average lessor would not get one.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Thomas C. McKowen, IV on January 12, 2019 at 17:40

Maybe the Operator did that for public relations reasons.  It would be very unlikely that a Favored Nation clause would be involved.  I was in  a similar situation involving a servitude for an electric power line.  An elderly and uninformed distant relative took the original offer.  Subsequently after suit was filed,  all the other landowners in the area negotiated a much higher payment.  The power company paid him the same amount.  Obviously, it had no legal obligation to do so.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve P on January 14, 2019 at 13:07

under most state laws, Favored Nation clauses are rarely, maybe never, implied.  If it is in writing, and from an authorized agent, then you have a good case.  There have been cases (and my knowledge in this area is VERY dated) where a verbal promise of bringing payments up to meet those paid later to another nearby owner can be sufficient leverage to get increased payments for prior contracts.  But, of course, the verbal promise may boil down to “he said, she said” cases.  The other issue, and courts like to ignore this one, is did the person making that promise (landman) have the authority to do so on behalf of the company they are representing.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by kittycatmama on January 15, 2019 at 4:12

I shouldn't have used the word "implied." There are a couple of cases I am aware of from 2008. Individuals leased with a group representing what would eventually become the Operator of that section. Later on a group of mineral owners in that section organized and got a better lease. The Operator went back and offered the ones with the original lease a lease equal to what the group got. Yes I think it was public relations and it did work as those people still think this Operator is great. (Public Notice --this Operator WAS NOT CHESAPEAKE). I too have worked with this "good" Operator and they are great to deal with. In fact I have had really good interactions with all the other operators I have worked with. Most don't want an unleased mineral owner (at least from my experience). If a mineral owner is willing to work with them they usually will work with the mineral owner. One of my best interactions was with Exco.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page