Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by intrepid on May 12, 2009 at 3:36

I don't hold it against him. He was just not informed but that really wasn't his fault.
Luckily I found GHS, TLMA, and some other resources and individuals who helped me understand the then current situation a little better. Some of those individuals I've never met and they still post on here and continue helping others every day.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by intrepid on May 12, 2009 at 3:28

Housing is bought for shelter, for the most part. OG&ML's ar bought on speculation that production will result. Two very different markets.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on May 12, 2009 at 3:40

Not just speculation that production will result, but that a profit will be made on said production. I have heard the line, "no dry holes here" so many times, but it is not just a question of making a producing well, but acheiving payout in a reasonable amount of time. If you spend more money than you make, the well is a failure.

Also, in my opinion, If it takes a long time to reach payout, say for example a gas well my employer drilled, that took eight years to pay out, produced marinally for a few more years, then was P&A. Was that well a good investment? No, we could have made more money investing in stocks or bonds.

My point is, when you sell a home or other real property, you can at least see what you are buying.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on May 12, 2009 at 3:58

At least in Vegas you get free drinks, or even a free buffet.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on May 12, 2009 at 4:19

Thats why you always bring your own truck.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on May 12, 2009 at 4:19

Seems funny many local governments have regulations in place in hopes of keeping con men from taking advantage of citizen's ignorance but then back up the O/G industry on this sort of thing.
Why couldn't the Flim Flam folks successfully make the same arguments as this case? I mean it isn't the con men's fault if their pigeons are not smart enough to look out for their own best interests, right?
Maybe the con men would fare better if they'd share a little of their wealth more with government, huh? Seems to work for the OG's!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on May 12, 2009 at 5:16

I'm not sure the con man referance applies here. If a landman is trying to lease you, it is with the expectation that they will drill because the exploration company believes they will find oil or gas. It is obvious that the exploration company is trying to make a profit.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by M. Mcwilliams on May 12, 2009 at 4:19

Another thought about the vast distinctions between housing market and oil and gas leasing market is the inclusion of the mortgage companies into the process. There is no third party providing security to the landowner that wishes to insure its investment as there is in a real estate transaction. Mortgage companies are the driving force behind appraisals, fair market valuation, etc. and their presence in the majority of real estate transactions mean that the price will be as fair as possible.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on May 12, 2009 at 4:31

There are laws (in LA anyway) in place to protect unwitting sellers from getting skinned too badly. Same for buyers if it's found that there were known problems with a property that weren't disclosed to him/her.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by M. Mcwilliams on May 12, 2009 at 4:44

True that there is no need for an appraisal in a cash sale, and it's not necessary in an owner financed sale, either. But my point is still valid - most non-commercial real estate transactions occur with financing through a mortgage holder of some sort, and that mortgage holder is going to make certain that what security it has is based on a fair market value. You can't compare this process to that of entering into an oil and gas lease, where the landowner is on his own to try to ferret out the "value" of the lease.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by M. Mcwilliams on May 12, 2009 at 5:16

Had this case gone to trial, it would have been interesting to see what kind of proof the plaintiff could have brought, considering that this lease was executed in 2007. Much as I am sympathetic to the unsophisticated land/mineral owner, it really does seem a stretch to say that anyone could have known the impact of the Haynesville Shale upon lease bonuses back in 2007.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page