I took the liberty of having a peek at your question in more depth. I reviewed the original patent, survey and a recent satellite view of your property.
Taking a shot in the dark, and without reviewing title, are they saying you have 6.7425 NMA’s in Section 22-22N-19W?
Your problem is not just a simple title problem. You have river lots. The original survey showed the combined acreage at 53.94 gross acres for lots 2, 9 and 10 of Section 22-22N-19W. In the 150 years since February 26, 1874, when the survey was originally done, the river has changed course significantly. Some of your lots have increased in acreage. Some of your lots have decreased in acreage. As the surface acreage of those lots changed, your mineral acreage also decreased or increased according to how the river moved across your lots.
For your review, please find attached, the KML files for the sections bordering the river, the original patent to your property, and an excerpted copy of the original 1864 survey that covers your section.
The KML files can be viewed in Google Earth a free downloadable application from your friends at Google.
The likely story is that the Landman reviewing title to your tract has proceeded using the patent acreage as the base for your title.1002-2222N19WFiles.zip (4.27 MB)
Thank you so much for helping me understand this problem. I appreciate the documents.
Do you have any idea of what leases are going for in this area?
We know that Tapstone and Devon are the primary Lessee buyers in the area. Bill Irvin Land Services is out there, but they are likely doing work for Devon. From what we are hearing the new Woodard leasing is being reported at between $450 - $1000 per NMA @ 3/16ths. Tapstone has started spudding wells south of the Woodward County line in Dewey, so we will have to see how those wells perform and watch the prices adjust from there.
What have you been offered so far?
Also, I am curious about that shot in the dark. How far off the mark was I?
You were correct on the “shot”. In reviewing old leases I see they contain the language “together with riparian rights and accretions”. I am not sure if this language not appearing in the new lease means any thing with the river changes you mentioned. They are leasing for Devon are offering $500 and 3/16.
It should be in the new leases, but failure to include the language doesn't prevent the owner of your future lease from claiming the entire lot at the time of drilling.
The reason I got the "shot". Based upon your information I assumed that tract had not been split much over time and tried multiplying the gross acreage from the patents against some basic fractions. 1/8th seemed to fit the story you provided too easily. 1/8 * 53.94 gross = 6.7425 NMA's.
If 1/8th holds true and someone was willing to pay for 14 NMA's, the you can reverse the math and estimate that the gross acreage for your tract may have increased to over 112 acres.
On that old oil and gas lease, is there a gross acreage for the tract? When was it signed? I ask for a reason. If there was an old well on your property that produced for a number of years then at some point, someone did a survey. A lucky few mineral owners in your situation will find evidence of this survey in the record.
As for the $500 offer, that seems a bit low. You could negotiate a favored nations clause or if you are on the verge of heading to your local payday loan and simply needed the money real bad then take it as is. If you absolutely need the money today, then you might request place the language, "It being the intent to lease 6.7425 Net Mineral Acres".
If you can afford to wait, I would advise you to do so and begin seeking multiple offers. This is a large developing play. Many operators and lease hounds will be moving into the area.
Hi, M. Story
How are you doing on this spring day…
I am from Colorado….Very old sheep ranch…I really enjoyed ready your comments about Karen’s land and her ?S. Amazing how the river and nature its-self can still play such a huge role, in determining her ownership.
I was wondering if you could help me figure something out? Most likely very simple, I am just plain ignorant when it comes to this level of detail…
We have a lease with a company in Colorado, I took a peek at a map on the COGCC site.
It shows that the some of the sections’s that we own with many other family members… have newer wells on them. There are 3, as far as I can tell. They are located in Moffet co. COLO. 8n-93w sec 23…
I am just wondering how the land is dealt with, when you get down to the division of lots?
Lets say, you own 4 lots in section 23, of Tract 58 T 8nR 92 W, [as well as many other sections in that T ] , and there are 3 diff wells on that one section.
My first question-How do you figure out the lots in each section ? Where can one find that info?
The other question-What happens, how are the lots are dealt with if it is a lateral well?say you own, the section that is, next to the section with the well?
[they are lateral wells, I guess that means each well underground is going thru many diff lots]
geeeee, I hope that made sense….any thoughts on this would be so appreciated,
Its been nice, but busy, so please forgive my delay in responding. I trust things are well on the ranch.
I can answer your first question, but as to the second, I fear I lack the information to adequately answer your question.
Section 23-8N-93W of the Sixth Meridian was originally surveyed under the Jeffersonian survey system as a standard 640 acre section. It has aliquot divisions, but no lots were platted in the original survey. Aliquot is simply a fancy word for a part of something. In Jeffersonian survey aliquot parts are annotated by the quarter portions. For example, the NE/4 NE/4 would be the annotation for the 40 acres in the north east corner of the section, while the SE/4 NE/4 would be the south east 40 acres of the northeast 160 acres. Lots were used in the survey to account for land that didn't fit into neat 40 acres boxes. Lots are most commonly found in correction sections and sections that had rivers running through them.
The tracts and lots you mention have no relation to river lots or correction lots under the Jeffersonian Survey system. I can say that the original land to the NE/4 was patented to a Charles J. Baker and most of the rest (but not all) of your section was to a Pleiades B. Stevenson. It is possible that since the 1920's someone has arbitrarily been naming things by tracts and lots and carving up the land by metes and bounds, but I would not be able to figure out your gross acreage without reviewing your deeds.
To your second question, I have to say I cannot directly answer. At the basic level, Colorado will have established a spacing unit for the three wells you mention. Your portion of the revenue from that well will be determined by your oil and gas lease, your mineral acreage in the unit and total size of the unit.