- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: OT oil tycoons that have property with oil/gas leases, a question:
Posted on 5/15/14 at 9:55 am to saltybulldog
Posted on 5/15/14 at 9:55 am to saltybulldog
You probably just own land, NOT the mineral rights. The chances of you having mineral rights in the State of Texas (especially anywhere in the Western half of the state) are slim and none.
If you only have land rights then you'd better take what they're offering because all they need is a majority of the mineral holders go-ahead and they can drill, with or without your consent.
Lawyer up.
If you only have land rights then you'd better take what they're offering because all they need is a majority of the mineral holders go-ahead and they can drill, with or without your consent.
Lawyer up.
This post was edited on 5/15/14 at 9:57 am
3
Posted on 5/15/14 at 9:59 am to GaryMyMan
quote:
A standard lease pays 3/8 these days
Yea, a MINERAL lease.
Chances are we're talking strictly land.
Land includes the water table too though in most cases so he'll probably get decent money when they suck up all his water to frac the wells.
This post was edited on 5/15/14 at 10:00 am
Posted on 5/15/14 at 10:05 am to Corkfather
quote:
You probably just own land, NOT the mineral rights. The chances of you having mineral rights in the State of Texas (especially anywhere in the Western half of the state) are slim and none.
What?
Did you miss the part where he said "inherited" in his OP? As in, it probably came from his fathers father? Owning mineral rights is not a far fetched idea...
Also, I don't know of many leases given strictly for the surface. I'm sure the land service company did their title work...
Posted on 5/15/14 at 10:08 am to Corkfather
If he inherited it there is a decent chance it can't with some minerals. Mineral rights weren't a huge deal down there when we bought our place in '99.
Posted on 5/15/14 at 10:09 am to Clyde Tipton
quote:
Did you miss the part where he said "inherited" in his OP? As in, it probably came from his fathers father? Owning mineral rights is not a far fetched idea...
Have you done much business in West TX?
Those parcels were sold in the early-1900's, sometimes even late-1800's.
I've seen many a landowner that inherited land thinking he had mineral rights, only to find out his great-great-great-great grandfather sold them off for a horse and a mule in 1908 because the crops were bad that season or he was in some other financial bind.
This post was edited on 5/15/14 at 10:11 am
Posted on 5/15/14 at 10:11 am to MillerMan
quote:
Mineral rights weren't a huge deal down there when we bought our place in '99.
Down where?
Posted on 5/15/14 at 10:11 am to saltybulldog
quote:
"Lessee shall pay Lessor as royalty, 1/4th of the net amount received by Lessee for the gas so sold, less its proportionate share of all taxes, costs of transportation, compression, processing, treating, [i]all all other costs of marketing.
That is a common clause - you are being asked to bear the burden of moving your share of the oil and gas to market. You should ask for a cost free royalty...specifically excluding those costs, except your share of taxes. CHK has used the cost royalty to frick over their lessors by charging back exorbitant transportation/gathering fees on gas. So yes it can be problematic.
As for the location of your property. Atascosa county is getting into fringy EF but a decent area for the Pearsall shale. But you need to know what these guys are targeting. If non-EF or Pearsall, you shouldn't look for a big bonus but still ask for a 1/4 RI and be sure to exclude EF and Pearsall from the lease. If it's EF and Pearsall I'd ask for competitive dollars (not sure what that is at this point in this area) and definitely 1/4 RI.
Posted on 5/15/14 at 10:12 am to Corkfather
quote:
I've seen many a landowner that inherited land thinking he had mineral rights, only to find out his great-great-great-great grandfather sold them off for a horse and a mule in 1908.
I wonder who figured that out? Probably the land man seeking the lease...
You shouldn't offer leases until you have abstracted back to the patent or land grant.
I'm not trying to get into an argument, but if he was approached I'll bet he owns some minerals. It may be 3/456ths of 1.4 acres, but I bet he owns them.
Posted on 5/15/14 at 10:13 am to TheIndulger
quote:
Wouldn't 3/8 be better than 1/5 or 1/4
Clearly he meant 1/8.
Posted on 5/15/14 at 10:13 am to Corkfather
McMullen county, a neighboring county to where the OP says his land is
This post was edited on 5/15/14 at 10:15 am
Posted on 5/15/14 at 10:16 am to Clyde Tipton
quote:
I wonder who figured that out? Probably the land man seeking the lease...
You shouldn't offer leases until you have abstracted back to the patent or land grant.
I'm not trying to get into an argument, but if he was approached I'll bet he owns some minerals. It may be 3/456ths of 1.4 acres, but I bet he owns them.
I realize this, but the landman also has to negotiate the surface and water lease with the current landowner as well. It's my assumption that's what we're looking at here.
Either way, I seriously doubt he'll see any real resource royalties in that area of the state. He'll probably get a nice bit for the surface and water depending on how many pads and lease roads they put on it.
Posted on 5/15/14 at 10:16 am to Corkfather
quote:
You probably just own land, NOT the mineral rights. The chances of you having mineral rights in the State of Texas (especially anywhere in the Western half of the state) are slim and none.
If you only have land rights then you'd better take what they're offering because all they need is a majority of the mineral holders go-ahead and they can drill, with or without your consent.
WinTF?
Why would he receive an offer for an OGML if he did have rights into minerals?
Posted on 5/15/14 at 10:18 am to Corkfather
quote:
Have you done much business in West TX?
Those parcels were sold in the early-1900's, sometimes even late-1800's.
I've seen many a landowner that inherited land thinking he had mineral rights, only to find out his great-great-great-great grandfather sold them off for a horse and a mule in 1908 because the crops were bad that season or he was in some other financial bind.
He's not in WTX...he's in Atascosa Cty which is STX near the EF....in that area most folks who owned the land owned the minerals. This wasn't an area of much activity until the EF showed up.
Posted on 5/15/14 at 10:19 am to MillerMan
quote:
McMullen county
That's smack-center of the Eagle Ford, near Tilden and Pleasanton and all that.
Posted on 5/15/14 at 10:20 am to cwill
quote:
Why would he receive an offer for an OGML if he did have rights into minerals?
Nowhere has the OP said that it's a mineral lease.
They still have to pay surface owners for the pads and lease roads, etc.
Posted on 5/15/14 at 10:20 am to cwill
quote:
He's not in WTX...he's in Atascosa Cty which is STX near the EF....in that area most folks who owned the land owned the minerals. This wasn't an area of much activity until the EF showed up.
That's what I was saying
Posted on 5/15/14 at 10:20 am to Corkfather
quote:
the landman also has to negotiate the surface and water lease with the current landowner as well
Yeah, if they are building a pad site and are ready to put a bit on the ground.
quote:
It's my assumption that's what we're looking at here.
I assumed this was preliminary leasing as the topic seems to be new to the OP. If they were negotiating a pad site on his property or asking for water rights, which is probably included on the lease in question anyway, I would assume he would be familiar with the process.
Posted on 5/15/14 at 10:20 am to Corkfather
quote:
I realize this, but the landman also has to negotiate the surface and water lease with the current landowner as well. It's my assumption that's what we're looking at here.
Why would they have included a clause regarding a cost bearing royalty? Do you even know what you're talking about. This thread is filled with misinformation and you're leading the charge at this point.
quote:
Either way, I seriously doubt he'll see any real resource royalties in that area of the state.
You're also not familiar with STX.
Posted on 5/15/14 at 10:20 am to cwill
quote:
He's not in WTX...he's in Atascosa Cty which is STX near the EF....in that area most folks who owned the land owned the minerals. This wasn't an area of much activity until the EF showed up.
This is true. The OP originally said SW Texas, Atascosa is NOT Southwest. I thought he was talking more like Del Rio, San Angelo area.
Posted on 5/15/14 at 10:22 am to cwill
quote:
You're also not familiar with STX.
I realize that, the OP said SOUTHWEST Texas. I was thinking Permian, not Eagle Ford.
So my bad.
This post was edited on 5/15/14 at 10:26 am
Page 3 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News