Just out of curiosity how many people have received a payment from Mach and the deductions or processing fees were attached that were not supposed to be? Also Alta Mesa was still doing wrong on the payments and had it looked into then they did their sell off.
I am also having difficulty. Working on it.
Same here thirty seven cents on the check
Based upon my check statements not matching the bank deposits, this is going to take some unraveling. They may have quite a few of us writing them.
Martha – you have been helping a LOT of mineral interest holders – your input put enough questions before me several years ago so that I have happily avoided pursuing working interest positions.
As to the present. I have minerals in Kingfisher County (SEC 4 T17N R5W) that is a participant in the old N Lincoln Unit (Hinkle as operator) plus 2 newer horizontals completed in 2014 (by Hinkle) and in 2019 (Energy Acquisitions). The recent history is that Alta Mesa distributed revenue from all 3. Starting in April Hinkle changed the N Lincoln over to Martindale Consultants evidently avoiding the Alta Mesa bankruptcy. Then I received notice from Mach Resources dated June 15 that they had purchased Alta Mesa, effective June 20 which was followed on June 30 with a check for the 2 newest wells from what is referenced as the Blanchard Interest, a name totally unfamiliar to me.
Also, as if on Que, there now appears a full spectrum of deductions for processing, compression, plant fuel, gathering, marketing and pipeline loss. Since the improper deducts seems to be the new order of the day, the question becomes how to best put an immediate stop to this? There is not a great deal of money involved at this point with the depressed valuation of HC in general, but what is a good response strategy?
Yes, this is going to be a challenge. I am in the same unit. I think the best thing is to go back to the original division orders from the Unit and dig them out. Compare your Alta Mesa check to the Martindale checks and the BCE checks. Working during the COVID-19 is an issue in some companies. My emails have been unanswered so far, so working on a certified letter next. I am waiting on my first statement from Mach to compare on the new wells.
Once thing to know is that some accounting software packages are pre-set to take out deductions and you have to notify the company that you have none and continue to keep an eye on it since they can sometimes revert back to the default if the software is updated. This could take some time to get straight.
Here is one definition of Blanchard-“Blanchard”-payments by operator of proceeds received from other working interest owners who marketed their own share of gas.
Here is another-Blanchard Interest. Specific to OK royalty owners. OK Senate Bill 168 has more details.
This type of oil and gas interest is specific to the state of Oklahoma and is a result of the 1963 Oklahoma Supreme Court Blanchard Decision. Ultimately, the decision resulted in Oklahoma Senate Bill 168 which established state-wide regulations for payment of gas royalties from communitized or pooled leases.
The 1963 Oklahoma Supreme Court - Blanchard Decision caused what?
This decision caused the “Blanchardizing” of one-eighth of all production from a unitized area. Under this decision, royalty owners received one-eighth of everyone’s proceeds, not just one-eighth of the price for which their lessee sold his or her gas.
(If I remember correctly, it is a 1/8th. Is this for gas?) I think some of mine have several lines on my check stub. The 1/8th portion is labeled Blanchard and if I had more than 1/8th on the lease, such as 3/16ths, the rest of the royalty was labeled RI.
I emailed and called yesterday hope to hear something back. Am so fed up with oil companies.
Thank You Thank You for the background. My initial hinkel well dates to 1966 and passed to the family through inheritance from my grandmother consequently our docs are limited. As for fractional participation the fractions are correct in our new tickets. Our argument is focusing on the deducts. Maybe it is the software, at least we can hope
Continuing with comments re 04 17W 05N in Kingfisher county. – I have been able to trace payments back to the first well (Smith #1) which was placed in the Lincoln North Unit and is the production that held the property (at 1/8 royalty without deductions) through subsequent wells dug by Hinkle Petroleum but became the property of Energy Acquisition. I can show the initial production now in the North Lincoln Unit (now being paid by Martindale for Hinkle) has no deductions starting with the first production in the 60’s. The new horizontal wells though now all have the deductions which are as paid by Mach under the new deal. I do not have a copy of the original lease but drilling was started in 1966 by KirkpatrickOil Co. I do not have a copy of the original lease. I have no feed-back from Mach so my registered letters begin next week. These old leases have to be dug out of the books located in Kingfisher OK – what is the opinion of others re the value of hiring a landman to look up a copy of the initial lease. I have all the legal docs passing ownership to my trust. I am about 1500 miles away so it is not economic for me to go to the County clerk personally.
Some do request payment that way, others by fee.
I am also having a problem with Mach Resources returning emails. They said they would check into a acreage issue I was having. I sent them (via email) all the documents I had for my case and then it is has been email silence. Who would I address a certified letter to? I was going to start looking for the CEO office next week. Operator is Mach III. Thank you!
Your letter needs to be sent to the Division Order/Revenue Department.