FYI Regarding TG Natural Resources (TGNR)
Fairly recently there have been posts and replies here about owner issues with TGNR, one of them being me. I want to briefly share my recent TGNR experience as an FYI for other TGNR owners who may have had similar issues.
For the past 8 months, I've been trying to transfer ownership regarding a well my sister and I inherited in 2010 currently managed by TGNR. Very long story short, I can say, unequivocally, we have documented, legal proof of ownership in this well but never received royalty payments, and was told years ago it was plugged and abandoned.
This is one of three wells we inherited, all under the name "Kangerga", all managed by TGNR who currently pays us royalties on the other two wells.
I discovered this past spring the well in question has been continually active and producing for decades. I contacted TGNR who at first was fairly responsive. They provided their requirements, which I complied with, and I've provided ample further documentation verifying legal ownership. TGNR has verified they have all required documentation.
After 8 months, multiple emails and calls, and even a "demand" fax, I have been basically ignored. No transfer yet, not even so much as a specific update. I used to get a reply here and there. Once in awhile, a return phone call. Today, I get nothing. The only response, when I'm lucky to get one at all, is: "We have received your documents and forwarded them to our Houston team."
Just yesterday, my attorney sent a demand letter via registered mail. I'm realistic and not expecting anything at this point, just hoping. I've been through the transfer process many times on other wells. So, although I'm just a lowly layperson in the overall scheme, I know enough to know when I'm being taken advantage of. Fingers crossed.
Views: 1020
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jimmy Hamiter on
-
Many, many thanks for sharing this and all the brilliant work you do!
-
-
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on -
You're welcome, Jimmy. I have a thing for tilting at windmills. The occasional success keeps me going.
-
Permalink Reply by full name on -
On another discussion thread, Skip asked for an update on the results of my demand letters to TGNR. I was waiting until I had final resolution but here is what has happened so far. I received a reply to both of my demand letters via UPS exactly 30 days from the date they had received them.
Letter 1 requested payment for TNGR's half of a co-owned section with Exco (Exco was already paying). TNGR sent division orders and stated that they would pay this month. The calculations were correct, however TNGR and Exco do things differently Exco states full well production and divides the royalty agreement in half. TGNR divides the well volume in half and pays based on the full royalty agreement. Same result, two ways to do it. When TNGR first started they divided both resulting in only half payment.
The second letter was for "deductions" taken. Apparently I used the wrong word. It was technically not deductions but a reduction in payment for certain previous months and unlike the other gas companies TNGR does not "show their work" so I can verify it.
Fortunately the reply included a name and phone number and I have had good discussions and sent them additional data. I will update when I actually receive payment.
In a second note. Chesapeake well no 243638 (009-14N-12W) has the wrong survey. I know it is wrong because they sent me the correct one in 2018. Even when they correct the surveys they are apparently not posting them.
Based on previous demand letters I have this theory. Once a company gets one they realize you are serious. The next time you send something to royalty relations and say "I really don't want to go to the trouble to issue another demand letter", someone actually calls or emails you and you can start a real discussion.
-
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on
-
Good to hear, full name, keep on them. Members please be informed that a demand letter must contain some specific information and be clear as to the demand. Many demand letters that do not include those specifics are ignored. Here is a link to the unit survey for Section 16-14N-12W, HA RA SU117 in the Caspiana Field approved and entered in the database on 11-29-2016. Is there a newer, corrected survey that hasn't been entered in SONRIS?
https://ucmwww.dnr.state.la.us/ucmsearch/UCMRedir.aspx?url=http%3a%...
-
Permalink Reply by full name on
-
That's the latest one. How did you get it? When I call up the well (243638)in Sonris and click on the on well number it is not in any of the files.. It was spudded in Section 009 but pulls gas from section 16.
-
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on
-
It is in SONRIS. Go to SONRIS Document Access, scroll down to Surveys, use field code 2360 (Caspiana) and then scroll through the list of unit surveys looking for HA RA SU117. The number in the well name (not the unit designation number) indicates the section being produced while the well is listed in Section 9 because the database architecture was established by surface location before horizontal wells were a thing. Before that wells were drilled on the section that was to be produced with very few exceptions. SONRIS went live in 1999 when horizontal wells were rare.
-
Permalink Reply by full name on
-
Great! As always thanks for your help.
I have been looking at the individual wells for the surveys and wondered why so many were missing.
-
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on
-
The LUW links in SONRIS well files connect to the field orders, not the unit surveys.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com
Top Content
Blog Posts
The Lithium Connection to Shale Drilling
Shale drilling and lithium extraction are seemingly distinct activities, but there is a growing connection between the two as the world moves towards cleaner energy solutions. While shale drilling primarily targets…
ContinuePosted by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on November 20, 2024 at 12:40
Not a member? Get our email.
Groups
-
Rusk County
97 members
-
Livingston Parish, LA
34 members
-
San Augustine, TX
386 members
-
Miller County, Arkansas
27 members
-
Sabine Parish, LA
455 members
-
South Caddo Parish Group
440 members
-
Natchitoches Parish
400 members
-
Bienville Parish, LA
244 members
-
Fayetteville Shale
149 members
-
North Caddo Parish
358 members
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
