The proposed lease I have been shown, and told it was nearly perfect as leases go---has the land agent listed as lesee, not the land company? And also, isn't it usually customary to have recieved in writing a propoasal of some kind BEFORE having a lease already drawn up and being seriously urged to sign off on?
This seems wrong to me.
Sounds too good to be true, Robin. I recommend you take a month and investigate and get a second or third opinion. If you don’t live on the surface acres there could be a well already and you wouldn’t know it. You could be a partner in a well and not know it. With what you have written here and your other post, I’m hearing warning bells. I think you are also, or you wouldn’t be here. Do your homework and good luck.
Robin: I know there are reasons for non disclosure of the entity or Operating Oil Company as it pertains to leasing. In my situation managing the minerals for a Family Group requires us to require disclosure of an Operator and YES, the Operator, and not the land agent, should be identified in the mineral lease agreement. I don’t have any interest in dealing with “flippers” and also I want to evaluate the Operator’s records of production performance and past history. There are Operator’s that I wish not to deal with for a variety of reasons. There would be no way for me to assess and evaluate an Operator if the land agent keeps it a secret. I tell the land agent up front what our policy’s are in this regard and he can either pursue it or not. This requirement has not prevented us from leasing in the past although I know that the land agent had to seek permission from his/her client to disclose the Operator’s identity.
another weird thing about this was that the lawyer said he couldn't disclose the ID of the oil Co until the lease was signed, even though negotiations were still taking place. Being very naiive in these matters, I signed, only to later find that the oil company name was not who ended up as lessee on the lease, but the land agent.