Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on February 19, 2009 at 15:40

Jay,

I don't know why I have an issue of wanting documentation from a landman, but would you be so kind as to give a citation for this lawsuit as well.

I have one other little question. If an experienced landman says sign a lease so that you won't have to file a lawsuit against the big bad oil and gas company to collect your revenue. And then said landman tells you that a lease was signed and that the big bad oil and gas company won't abide by the covenants of said lease so that he can get the royalty that is due.

DO YOU SEE SOMETHING WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jay Murrell on February 19, 2009 at 15:53

Hi Parker:

Inasmuch as there are other parties involved in the suit I mentioned I will not reveal any more than I already have. Wheather or not you believe that there is such a suit is really immaterial because the civil suit records a full of such contests and I’m sure you can get KB to find you several examples if you ask her.

As to your second point, the law with regard to payment of royalties is COMPLETELY different than with unleased mineral interests. If memory serves a royalty owner can get 3X damages for non payment of royalties…plus, if proper demand is made the court can extinguish a lease if the company doesn’t pay…

Royalty owners = Mucho power

UMI= Goat

Best,

Jay

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on February 19, 2009 at 15:57

UMI = no income for landman.

I CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH UMI.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jay Murrell on February 19, 2009 at 16:07

So, your question is:

Why do I - a person who makes their living from the exploration for oil and gas - have a problem with people that want to use my money to develop their minerals...at absolutely NO RISK TO THEM (the UMI).

I dunno, I'll have to think about that one.


Anyway, did I answer the second part of your question re royalties v. UMI?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on February 19, 2009 at 15:55

parker = usually when one is involved in litigation, counsel's first advice is not to discuss the particulars/specifics of the case, in my experience anyway.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on February 19, 2009 at 16:01

Jay,

I see with all of the helpful advice that you have given to everyone that you have made only ONE FRIEND - SESPORT PERSON.

HOW ODD.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on February 19, 2009 at 16:08

parker - I think I remember someone here telling me some of my friends are zombies. LOL This is a "virtual" world, and the friends are also "virtual."

Do you take exception to who Jay's or my friends are, because I take no exceptions to yours? And, if so, you may be taking exception to some of your own friends. Aren't friends all supposed to get along, anyway?

Feeding wolf #1 - Best, sesport

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on February 19, 2009 at 16:17

Sesport,

I don't always get along with my friends, but I try to treat them in an honorable fashion. I try to have respect for them (virtual or not). None of my friends have ever been refered to as zombies. The friend of yours that you brought bowling was quite a nice lady.

Permalink Reply by sesport on February 19, 2009 at 16:33

Thank you, parker. Yes that friend is one of the most honrable, insightful people I know. And, as I've said when I sent thank you messages, I enjoyed the crowd at the "Tournament."

Honorable, yes I remember my Girl Scout pledges, and even when I don't get along with ANYBODY, I try to step back and remember to be honorable. And if there is anyone here that I haven't treated so, they only need to let me know. My apology with be forthcoming ... as Dion, Mr. Stewart & KB well know. I use the "1 finger pointing, 3 pointing back" analysis model. :0)

Have a good evening - sesport

Permalink Reply by sesport on February 20, 2009 at 1:38

parker - I just realized why you referred to my neighbor. No, I'm not saying the friend who was with me has been referred to as a zombie. It was pointed out to me HERE on GHS one morning that my GHS "friends" had turned into zombies. As in ... unresponsive, cut-off, nobody home ... LOL. Seems they don't "accept" apologies either. Hey, that's what friends are for ... old song. :0)

Now, back to the topic because this was some good stuff. And we were learning immensely.

Permalink Reply by Jay Murrell on February 19, 2009 at 16:35

Hi Parker:

I'm really not trying to make friends, but I would prefer not to make any enemies either. All I'm trying to do is present information that gives another perspective. I have shared some of my own experiences as an independent and company landman and investor. Perhaps my posts will help people weigh all of the options and possible consequences of whatever course the might choose.

I truly believe that what I have posted is honest and correct.

Best,

Jay

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on February 19, 2009 at 16:44

Jay,

I have no problem with the substance of what you post.

I have always been a big proponent of the landman.

I just like documentation when information is presented.

Sorry but no one with good sense will ever just take a landman's word for something again (unless the landman is Two Dogs or Jim Krow).

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• Next ›
• Page