151 33288 plat.pdf (479.0 KB) I am about to be added to the pay list for well 151 33288. Using the royalty deed I inherited from, my base NPRI is .000071674. I have an interest in abstracts 917 and 1541 but not abstracts 368 and 1261. How do I caluculate the percentage of my interest in the well?
Assuming abstract 1541 is for full interest and covers 235.66 acres.
.000071674 (NPRI owned) x 396.42 (acres owned in A-917 (160.76) + A-1541 (235.66) / 1531.02 (unit size your 2 abstracts + the 2 additional abstracts 1,134.6 acres) = .0000185
1 Like
Thank you Bob77. That is close to what I had calculated. The DO I was offered is less than half of that. I can’t see any way to interpret the plat that comes up with my holdings only being 12% of the production.
I have reached out to the producer with a request for an explanation and have been ignored for a week. I am now trying to determine if I should amend the DO and return it with my signature or sign with what I believe to be a flawed value and then send a certified letter questing the decimal interest.
I may be way off base with this, but I don’t see how acreage figures into this as it is an allocation well, not pooled? Having an interest in it is based on whether it passes through what you own, percentage of ownership (NMA’s), length for which it passes through and total length? # of NRA’s are based from the acreage and percentage which then NMA’s can be calculated. It is said above that the NPRI base is 0.000071674. So this, I would assume is used against the lengths as I described? Just my way of seeing this in my DA brain? MK
1 Like
If this is an allocation well based on the length of productive lateral within each tract, you need to pull the as-drilled plat from the completion report to determine those segments. Your plat is the permit plat which only shows plans. Some allocation wells are based on acreage, but that is less common. Also, Section 6 (A-1541) has multiple tracts which most likely do not have the same ownership. You need to be sure whether your NPRI applies to both Tract 10 and Tract 6. Final question is whether your NPRI differs among the tracts or is uniform. Best to ask the division order analyst how your DOI has been calculated.
2 Likes
Thank you for the responses. Based on the permit plat, I understand this to be an allocation well and it makes sense to me that my well percentage would be based on the length of the well in my holdings vs the total length. Can someone explain to me how to access the as-drilled plat? I spent some time last night trying to find it on the RRC site and had no luck in locating that document.
My ancestor held .0326086 of (3.516818% of .125). Since I am one of 2 heirs, I calculated my base interest as 1/2 of the above product or .0163043 x .0043960225 = .000071674.
My holdings are only in tract 5 and tract 6 on the permit plat. Based on a ratio of well length, I had estimated my well holdings as .313559 of the .000071674 or a final decimal interest of .0000224.
I finally heard back from the DO analyst with an explanation of her calculated decimal interest of .00000918. Her calculations include an extra multiplier of 1/5. She is also now claiming that my decimal interest is only 1/2 of that indicated on the DO and thus is .00000459. Interestingly, if the extra 1/5 multiplier is removed from the calculation, her decimal interest would come to .0000227 vs the .0000224 I had estimated.
I have emailed back and requested she send me a copy of the royalty deed with the verbiage highlighted that justifies the extra 1/5 multiplier or else provide amended DO showing the .0000227 decimal interest.
Am I totally off base here? Is this the best approach?
I don’t know about your numbers but your approach is working because you are communicating. That’s a huge benefit.
1 Like
Go to RRC queries - Then Completion queries - Then enter the 8 digits API (not leading 42 for Texas and no dashes or spaces). One of the completions will be for “Initial Potential” and have a lot of attachments, including the as-drilled plat. A completion for “Well Record Only” is before the frac. There will be lots on information about the well.
3 Likes
Again I may be way off base here? It sounds like the base percentage of the lease owner is 0.0000227 and as a NPRI holder, you and your sibling may only own 1/5th of that percentage, then it is divided by 2 (you and your sibling) to get to the 0.00000459 per each person.
I know I am being the devils advocate here. I am just trying to understand this, as you are. I have an ORRI which is similar, but different to an NPRI in a 1/2 section. My ORRI as a % of 27% of 1/8th for that particular 1/2 section. My question for you is when you say 3.XX% of what? 100% of the 1/8th, or 3.XX% of a fraction, of the 1/8th? Two different things here? Just how I may see it? MK
Since this NPRI is based on a royalty deed, the terms of the ownership are defined by the royalty deed. Our ancestor owned .0326086 of 3.516818% of 1/8 (.125). My 1/2 inheritance is .0163043 of 3.516818% of .125 which equals .000071674. That defines my ownership percentage of all revenue generated from the parcels defined in the royalty deed. The only other legal adjustment I am aware of is how much of the length of the horizontal well is in our parcels compared to the total length. The wording of the royalty deed reserves the 3.516818% of .125 from any future lease, as I understand it.
1 Like
TennisDaze:
Thank you for the info on how to access the as-drilled plat. I was able to access it. Apparently I was trying to put in too many search parameters and failed to try the minimalist approach. Also, for some reason when I tried to view it, it merely downloaded a .tif file that I had to find and display as a separate step.
Reviewing the as-drilled, I found the length segment for each parcel and the total. Interestingly, calculating my well percentage based on those numbers came up just slightly higher than the calculation I made by using a ruler to come up with lengths in inches of my parcels vs total.
1 Like
Cert Ted Weiner 1954 vol 220 pp 297-300.pdf (2.2 MB) This is the royalty deed I am referring to . I am one of two inheritors of Blanche Marie Margro, I see no basis for the extra 1/5 multiplier the DO analyst included in her equation. Is there something I am missing? Any other logical explanation for the addition of a 1/5 multiplier? I am still waiting to hear back from the DO analyst.
1 Like
What I see is that 21 people ( Grantees)are involved in that 3.516818% of 1/8th and there are 5 of those individuals that have 0.0847826 each, of that. Maybe, that is where they are getting the 1/5th multiplier? Just a guess? MK
Is it possible that grantor only owned 1/5 of minerals and therefore the grant is only out of 1/5 minerals? The grant cannot create an NPRI on the minerals which were owned by others.
1 Like
I see where you are coming from TD. Without the full title chain going backward, no one can see how much was divided up of the original 100% of minerals before this document? MK
The 21 grantees each have a percentage of the NPRI and the total of all 21 is 100% or 1.0. So, as I understand it, each grantee’s decimal portion is multiplied by the 3.516818% of 1/8th to determine their ownership of the revenue. I can’t see how 5 people having the same percentage would create a 1/5 multiplier on the others anymore than I can see the 4 owners of .0326087 creating a 1/4 multiplier or the three sets of 2 owners or the set of 3 owners.
In order for the royalty deed to be valid, does not the writer of the deed have to accurately define what is being conveyed? In other words, if they only owned 1/5 of the minerals would that not have to be stated in the royalty deed? Ted Weiner was the grantor of this deed and is the same grantor on other holdings I have. Those holdings do not have a mystical 1/5 multiplier.
Like I said I was guessing on the multiplier as to why the operator may see it that way? It was not an explanation though without asking them.
Now, as far as what Ted Weiner owned, I would think that he would own 100% of what ever he owned? That could be 1/5th of the minerals as TennisDaze stated. That is why what TD said might be determined in a document before the one you have. Therefore, a Title chain going back to the original owners before any severance and division was done may be what you need to do? Just my thoughts after all that has been said and seen? MK
Grantor does not need to state his fractional ownership interest in the minerals. If someone sells 100% of what he owns, then grantee gets only grantor’s share of the property. The grantee cannot take ownership away from the other undivided mineral owners. Texas has a long history of minerals being subdivided through estates or sales. Just like you got 1/2 of Margro’s minerals. So it is important when purchasing any minerals to research the title chain to see how much the seller owns. This is why a title policy is issued when you buy a house, to make sure that the seller owns 100% of the house. This may not be why the division order analyst applied the 1/5 fraction, just a possibility. Ask for the relevant part of the drilling title opinion.
1 Like
Thank you, once again, TennisDaze! I appreciate the info on the drilling title opinion.