Rick I received my division orders on the Williams and I don’t think the percentage is right.
Rhonda,
This has some info on correction lots. Here is a clip of the survey that show some numbers for it.
http://jay.law.ou.edu/faculty/Hampton/Mineral%20Title%20Examination…
GLo website is the best place to get correction section acres without having to look up patent.
http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/search/default.aspx#searchTabIndex=0&…
A relative of mine had leased in 23-1N-1W a while ago, at the time the landman insisted she had 3 net mineral acres although she knew and insisted she had 9. Lease was signed, bonus for 3 nma was paid. Now Continental is drilling and someone figured out she was right about her acreage. She is being told that Continental just has to pay her the additional bonus, that she doesn’t have an option to do anything else (lease to someone else, participate, whatever). She did not strike the title warranty in the initial lease (I know…).
My question – anyone have experience with this that can say whether she is compelled to lease the remaining acreage to Continental on the same terms?
Chris,
On second thought. I think there is some case law that might apply, because of the significant difference between the ownership actually owned and the amount they “leased”. However it might require an attorney. The warranty clause in my opinion is not that big a deal, and would not be relevant here.
Hopefully this will be a significant wake up to her as her cost to fix may be high. It might be worth contacting the CLR landman. Not the land company itself. It depends on what she is actually wants as the outcome. If the overall goal is to participate, you will likely run into a fight. If you want better terms on the other 6 acres, I bet you can get it.
Would the company have to pay her any money which maybe should have been in suspense for her other 6 acres plus interest or does she just lose that which doesn’t seem right?
Also since it is section 7 and 18, correction lots will come into play. I show Section 7 was 634.20 and section 18 was 634.32 acres.
Did you calculate the split for the multi-section in it? Section 8 got 47.3423% and 17 got 52.6577%. So depending on what you did you may have to multiply by .526577 or .473423 depending on which section your ownership is in. PM me with details if you still can’t figure it out.
Rick…how many wells are out there? That’s a huge offer so they must be producing rather nicely.
Here is some really good info I hadn’t seen before. Nothing like a good map. And thanks for the correction lot info!
http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/19/197380/CLR_Sunday…
Rick, There is another granted for 18 & 7 2N 3W
Ed, I don’t see anything on it. What API?
Everett, That is where the snapshot I posted came from. Is that what you are talking about on that site, or is there something else there?
Understand… I was hoping there was something there quicker that I had missed! 
Thanks for posting it.
Rick, I was just putting out the link for others. Not sure how many are aware of the resource.
Karla, I don’t know, but my guess would be because you had that 2 yr option and they could get it a lot cheaper than they could if they had to negotiate a new (higher) rate. You were obligated at a lower amount. Mr Hanson’s lease is probably like mine was, no option included. I don’t know why some got it the first time around and others didn’t though because I certainly didn’t know to negotiate in to the lease @ that time.
Rick, any idea why XTO re leased some and not others?
Does any one know if the Covell has been spud yet in 21,28,33 2N 3W?
Vicki, I don’t see any indication of it yet.
That’s interesting!