The blog you were looking for was from an individual who had a very small amount of acreage to lease. His logic was that since the spacing is 1280 acres and his acreage was so small that percentage wise his outlay in cost would not exceed a dollar amount he felt was significant. The gain side is that instead of 12.5 - 25% royalty you get the whole value for the property in royalty. Of course this means you would have to have the capital to pay for the drilling you also have to maintain a % of operating cost intrinsic to every well. Also as some suggested you may have liability issues, North Dakota penalties, the well may not produce and you still have liabilties, etc, etc.
On Sep 27, 2:22 pm, Liz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David-thank you very much for this information, this is exactly what I > needed! > > Liz > > On Sep 27, 10:59 am, Liz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I know this has been covered before, but cannot find the text. I > > would appreciate someone explaining what are the financial > > responsibilities of someone who has not signed a lease for mineral > > acres on which an oil well is being drilled. Also, the pros/cons of > > doing so, in contrast to a lease holder. > > > Thank you so much in advance. > > > Liz- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bakken Shale Discussion" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bakken-shale-discussion?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
