Antero insists on arbitration, force majeure to extend the lease, shut in wells extending the lease, liability for the title. All of these appear not to exist if one is force pooled. The only disadvantage to being force pooled would appear to be having to wait for the bonus payment until you are force pooled. Or am I missing something?
You requested an Addendum to the lease that excluded those items and Antero refused them all?
I own in NM and TX, so I know nothing about your state. And I am no expert. What I believe is: If I am force-pooled in Texas, where there is no risk penalty, I am charged with my fractional share of expenses and I am credited with my fractional share of revenue. I don’t have to actually write a check or pay anything; expenses are charged to my “account” so to speak. After the break-even point, then I start getting paid, and I get my fractional share of the net, i.e., of revenue minus expenses. In NM, there is a risk penalty, and I am charged with THREE times my fractional share of expenses, and credited with my fractional share of revenue, so I won’t get paid anything until revenue from the well has reaches three times the expenses of the well. I am not certain how all this is handled on your tax return. I have avoided taking a working interest, and I have avoided being force pooled. Note the difference between getting your fractional share of your royalty percentage of revenue versus getting your fractional share of 100% of revenue. It’s my understanding that neither working-interest participants nor force-pooled mineral owners get any lease bonus whatsoever.
OK is very different as the force pooled owner gets a range of bonus royalty pairs and gets to pick the one they want. Not a working interest owner nor any penalty. Read the statute for WV.
1 Like
We own a number of interests in WV, so we’re still trying to understand the implications of the law. Yeah it would give less incentive to Operators to lease people in advance especially if they have a large portion of the parcel/unit already leased up and less negotiating ability for owners on their lease rates too.
No I dont think its good for mineral owners. Not the end of the world, but definitely a Pro-Operator law where its implications are still being figured out
This topic was automatically closed after 90 days. New replies are no longer allowed.