Harley, I only have minerals just south of 90A on 53l and on CR 307 what used to be the Mont Olive area.
The great philosopher Foghorn Leghorn probably has some gems of wisdom to impart about idle chatter. Idle, that is.
Seriously, I’ve got nothing that hasn’t already been said here:http://www.mineralrightsforum.com/forum/topics/cypress-sanchez-leas…
J Michael, The comment box only shows up if you are logged in to the site. Check at the top to see if you are logged in.
Cypress will not be drilling out the Witing area. They assigned 50 % of over 5000 acres in that area to Sabine. Sabine will be the one to drill and they will be there within the next 2 years. You might be getting a letter stating that Cypress assigned your lease, not sure if they have to tell mineral owners on assignments that are not 100%. This is a GOOD deal since Cypress is horrible at drilling any Eagleford wells. SAbine will do it right…let’s hope this area comes in HUGE…I have property around there as well.
Thanks, Mr. ML.
Download the 11.19.13 PVA Analyst Day Presentation from the link below. Open in Adobe Acrobat Reader and scroll down to page 23 of the presentation that shows their proposed drilling locations at that time. If you have it open in Acrobat Reader, you can zoom into your farm if you know the general whereabouts. You can even see proposed lease names if you zoom in to about 800%.
http://amda-1pyqvm.client.shareholder.com/common/download/download…
how do i find out if my farm is one of the 1400+ wells penn virginia will be drilling in the coming years? thanks
interesting, but i had no reference points so i was lost. thanks anyway mr. l
We are off 77A and CR 173 by Mustang Creek had a 2YR option in Feb. but guess they didn’t renew along with my neighbors.
Any word out in the field as to how good/poor the recent PVA or Sabine wells are doing?
Which wells are you referring to specifically.
I have been told that there is a Texas Court of Appeals case that allows an oil company to deduct from royalty the costs of production, transportation, treatment, etc, in spite of language to the contrary in the lease. Apparently there is a way to avoid that result. Does anyone here know how?
Mr. Fairey, you can’t use cost free or free of cost language, as that has been reinterpreted to mean that you don’t have to pay for the well, as if anyone would lease if they had to pay for the well anyway.
You must say there will be no deductions other than taxes, describe all the deductions that will NOT take place and I have heard extra language to the effect that if charges for transport, gathering, separating, dehydrating, compressing or transport are deducted, they must be added back in before your royalty is calculated.
Personally I think you could still wind up having to sue the operator, or at least threaten to because they know that if you don’t have a huge amount of acreage, the lawsuit would not be worth the effort to you. I believe it’s worth a try though. I’m not a lawyer and I didn’t put it in legalese, it’s enough that you can tell your lawyer and he should at least know what you are wanting.
Thanks Mr. Kennedy. Do you know what court or other entity reinterpreted
that clause?
I reduced my comment to less than 300 characters. I would like to respond to your effort. Thank you,
I have misplaced it myself and it might be a long search.
Thanks Buddy. I think I vaguely recall a later case, possibly within the last 3 years. I can’t put my finger on it though. Possibky a result of one of the Chesapeak lawsuits which were spurred by Chesapeake’s reinterpreting their lease language and they started charging for everything but the kitchen sink.
You are right on the CHK case. It was tossed based on the Heritage v NationsBank case.
Buddy
Bob,
You are close. The court rejected the non-cost bearing language in Heritage Resources v NationsBank on the ground that since market price was set at the wellhead, then the no-deduct language became mere “surplusage.”
There are many other ways to set the price for a product that the NationsBank case did not get in the way of. Sort of amazing that we are still talking about a case decided in 1996 of so.
I have a lease in which the first term expires on 9/14/14. Have not heard
about the two year renewal option there after. Lease is in northern part of
Lavaca county near St.John. 86 acres. Any body in a similar situation?