My family is very curious about the long delay we're experiencing in receiving division orders from Laredo in several sections in Glasscock County. We realize that there is a drilling agreement between Apache and Laredo, though Laredo holds the leases, and have heard rumors that there are some complications of some sort in the agreement. If anyone has any solid information about what is causing the delay in Laredo sending out division orders and payment, it would be most welcome. The delay has been *quite* lengthy, and our last inquiry about the delay has gone unanswered for almost two months.
Anything McClure is involved in is paying off. The wells with only Laredo and Apache, that's a different story. Do you know anything about the situation for the wells in Sections 16, 18, and 20?
Brian Upshaw said:
What wells are you referring to? If it is just the Driver 28 well, they have been paying on that particular one since early 2012.
No, it's exactly the opposite: we are getting *none* of the Laredo/Apache revenue--only getting revenue from McClure, and from Laredo alone in Section 20. Nothing from Laredo/Apache joint ventures in 16, 18, or 20. Nothing from Apache on the wells they have from their buy-out of Mariner. Waiting a year or so is not good, but is within the range of comprehension. However, we're looking at production as far back as 3 years with no division orders, and no payment. *That* is what looks funny to us; we have no problems with McClure; they seem to be taking care of business.
Brian Upshaw said:
So you are getting all of you Laredo/Apache revenue? The McClure agreement has looked funny the whole time. Not exactly sure about it yet, but I will let you know.
I too am interested in Mr. Upshaw's further explanation about Laredo's joint venture with Apache in Sections 16,18,20, and 28. This has nothing to do with McClure. And I am also curious as to how firm Mr. Allen's information is about Apache's buyout of Mariner wells and if there has been no payment on production three years back. Does this included all royalty owners in Section 20? Those that have signed ratifications with Laredo for these sections?
Lynn, here's a link re: Apache's buyout of Mariner: http://investor.apachecorp.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=529067 Also, we were told by a staff member at Apache that we could assume that all Mariner wells are now Apache wells. This all points to pretty "firm", we think.
My family has received no payment at all from either Mariner or Apache in Sections 16, 18, 20, or 28. Per my preliminary exploration of production data on the TX RRC site, there has been production in Section 20 as far back as September 2010; could be more but I've not looked at every well. And in all of this time, neither Mariner nor Apache has *initiated* contact with any of my family members for ratification or division orders. We contacted *them.* We have only ever been contacted by Laredo. There's an interesting story about how we found out about the leases and wells by Apache, and McClure, in these sections--I'll share on the side if you're interested.
But suffice it to say, we're being paid by McClure in 28 & 20, and by Laredo in 28. Nothing from Apache. We have some information that Apache is waiting for title opinion from Laredo, but that confuses us too, because we have ratification from Laredo on all sections, and DOs and payment from Laredo in Section 28. So....what's the holdup about *really*? Inquiring interest-ed minds want to know!
Lynn McFadden said:
I too am interested in Mr. Upshaw's further explanation about Laredo's joint venture with Apache in Sections 16,18,20, and 28. This has nothing to do with McClure. And I am also curious as to how firm Mr. Allen's information is about Apache's buyout of Mariner wells and if there has been no payment on production three years back. Does this included all royalty owners in Section 20? Those that have signed ratifications with Laredo for these sections?
I would be very interested in talking on the side.......how do we do that?
John Allen said:
Lynn, here's a link re: Apache's buyout of Mariner: http://investor.apachecorp.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=529067 Also, we were told by a staff member at Apache that we could assume that all Mariner wells are now Apache wells. This all points to pretty "firm", we think.
My family has received no payment at all from either Mariner or Apache in Sections 16, 18, 20, or 28. Per my preliminary exploration of production data on the TX RRC site, there has been production in Section 20 as far back as September 2010; could be more but I've not looked at every well. And in all of this time, neither Mariner nor Apache has *initiated* contact with any of my family members for ratification or division orders. We contacted *them.* We have only ever been contacted by Laredo. There's an interesting story about how we found out about the leases and wells by Apache, and McClure, in these sections--I'll share on the side if you're interested.
But suffice it to say, we're being paid by McClure in 28 & 20, and by Laredo in 28. Nothing from Apache. We have some information that Apache is waiting for title opinion from Laredo, but that confuses us too, because we have ratification from Laredo on all sections, and DOs and payment from Laredo in Section 28. So....what's the holdup about *really*? Inquiring interest-ed minds want to know!
Lynn McFadden said:I too am interested in Mr. Upshaw's further explanation about Laredo's joint venture with Apache in Sections 16,18,20, and 28. This has nothing to do with McClure. And I am also curious as to how firm Mr. Allen's information is about Apache's buyout of Mariner wells and if there has been no payment on production three years back. Does this included all royalty owners in Section 20? Those that have signed ratifications with Laredo for these sections?
The way that works: if we're "friends" on this forum, we can send private email on this forum, or just exchange our personal emails. I just sent you a friend request. If you'll "friend" me we can chat privately.
Lynn McFadden said:
I would be very interested in talking on the side.......how do we do that?
John, Same problem here with Laredo. Well started producing in December and just got Division Order. it’s 120 days from first sale by state law.
Wade,
I would be interested in knowing what that state law is, what first sale means, and what are the recourses......what if there is no payment in 120 days? Then what? Can you send me a copy of the specific law or site a link? thanks,
Wade Caldwell said:
John,
Same problem here with Laredo. Well started producing in December and just got Division Order. it's 120 days from first sale by state law.
Wade,
In what township, block, and section are you involved with Laredo?
We too need to research how one can pursue payment of interest overdue. In our case, Apache wells (first owned by Mariner) have not been paid to us in *3 years.* As best we can tell, there was no attempt by Mariner or Apache to ever contact our family...we found out about their activity via Laredo.
We have heard some interesting scuttlebutt regarding the Apache/Laredo "joint operating agreement." In a nutshell, the story goes, Laredo holds the lease...somehow Mariner or Apache horned in on the lease...seems most likely that this occurred via a faulty title opinion, but where were the surface owners in all of this, if this is accurate information? It completely stumps us. In any event, for some reason, Apache and Laredo are in some kind of "joint operating agreement", and Laredo has insisted on getting total clarity on ownership in the sections where Apache is involved with them, we assume to correct the mistakes in the faulty title opinions from Mariner/Apache. But it's taken them longer than it should, in our estimation, to make this correction. However, in sections where Laredo has wells and Apache is not involved, we are in pay status with Laredo.
Here is the statute. Interest due is section 403.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/NR/htm/NR.91.htm#91.402
Block 33 T5S, Sec. 12 or 14. Cannot lay my hands on the division order right now.