Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Barry on July 28, 2008 at 15:07

That does mean that there is no way he can get the mineral rights back even if there is a producing well.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on July 28, 2008 at 15:30

Barry,
What I mean is that even if there is a producing well he may have mineral rights.
I have a friend that gets about $25 every year or 2 on her property for a well from a few years ago.
Most people wouldn't think it much of letting the minerals go in that case. Especially if it were a deal killer. Of course I am speaking BHS (BEFORE HANYESVILLE SHALE).

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on July 26, 2008 at 16:20

In Texas minerals can be severed from the surface title. Then you have to abstract the mineral title. Texas minerals do not revert back to the surface owner for lack of production.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Blenda T22 on August 1, 2008 at 13:20

Does your land have to be part of a Unitization Act for the "section" info to hold true. The owners of my land back when the area was unitized, did not sign up with it and I have always been under the impression that someone has to actually drill on my specific land for me to get anything. Does anyone know about this?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by st Ds4 on July 29, 2008 at 1:30

How could he get his mineral rights back if he did not retain them with when he sold the property. This took place before the Haynesville Shale announcment. The paperwork has already been sent to the oil company to change the name on the royalty check.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on July 30, 2008 at 7:21

He could NOT get his mineral rights back if he did not reserve them.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by C.H. on July 30, 2008 at 9:44

HUMBLE OPINION HERE: HIRE A LANDMAN!

Most attnys are hiring guys like us to give them mineral opinions

from your friendly neighborhood Landman

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on July 30, 2008 at 16:21

HPB Question for the Landman.

Can a piece of property in one section be hbp by another property in another section? And if so under what circumstances.

If a property in Plain Dealing and a property in Elm Grove are both leased in 1940 and the Elm Grove produces could it HBP the Plain Dealing property?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by C.H. on July 30, 2008 at 17:20

Well Yes and No, this is a reason to have the Pugh Clauses present in the OGLs i.e. Horizontal and Verticle Pughs. It's all how the leases read in the 40s and since the Pugh Clauses did not really exist until the 80s (i think) then it could be HBP, UNLESS other language exists that addressed the issue of productivity and lands to be included (You see this alot in the International Paper leases that cover many acres in different parishes)

Generally speaking: the land must be contiguous to be HBP by a certain unit, but again it all depends on how the lease reads and the agreement between the two parties.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on July 30, 2008 at 17:53

I know enough to know that I don't know it all.

I'm sorry but I keep getting iritated a some of these folks who think they are going to learn how to run title in 5 minutes. Or that someone at the Clerk's office should run it for them. THE CLERK'S OFFICE CANNOT GIVE A LEGAL OPINION.

If they are getting letters to lease they probably own the minerals. If they are not, they don't own them or are not in an area of interest.

I am not saying there is anything wrong with asking questions.

By some of the things that have come up (Colquit Road dispute and Brown dispute), even the professionals can have problems.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on July 30, 2008 at 17:56

Pugh clause vs. depth restriction?

I have the following clause in a lease, is it a pugh clause?

"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, it is agreed and understood by all parties that a well drilled or produced therefrom on any part of the land herein described will extend this agreement beyond the primary term only insofar as to the lands included in or pooled with a producing or proposed unit."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on July 30, 2008 at 17:58

My lease now address it by stating that 100' below production would be released.

This lease was in place before I purchased this piece of property.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page