Here’s where I’m coming from: In a small company’s oil lease where it was bought by a bigger one, a friend had been released from the original contract because no production had been started on his land.
There is a Wind Company that leased a lot of land in West Texas. They had “hidden” a term in their contract by the wording of it so well that even a Justice of the Peace and the attorney that reviewed the contract didn’t detect the meaning of one clause. That one clause stated that in 5 years if no Wind Turbine was installed on the leased property, the 29 year lease was canceled…except for one item. That one claused was never discussed with anyone I know. It stated that if there was a distant of “40 times the the length across of the largest turbine rotor’s, land around it would be held. With the size of the planned Wind Turbine, it would be land within 1.1 miles. That held and controled land can be land of many different owners that will NOT recieve any regular income from monthly royality and are told they will never have wind generators on it, but their land retained and the owner has no say. The company is paying a one time fee of about $3,500, with or without the land owners consent for 29 years of unblocked wind passing over it!!! Nothing over 40′ tall can ever be erected, no line of trees can be planted without permission, and it also means that the property can’t be leased by any other competing Wind Company…
The smaller company was purchased by a larger energy company. Would all the small company’s non producing leases become invalid due to that buy-out?
This could have been you, so heads-up, and any information you have is appreciated.
Bill
Edited 5/5/2008 9:23 pm ET by BilljustBill
Edited 5/5/2008 9:47 pm ET by BilljustBill
Edited 5/5/2008 9:50 pm ET by BilljustBill
Replies
I'd like you to clarify who has signed what with whom, under the scenario you're proposing. Are all surrounding properties leased to the same company?
It's 80 acres owned by an 84 year old farmer was leased to first company in Feb. of 2007. All surrounding individual farms are also individually least to the same smaller company. Last October original small company was purchased by a huge international company.
Bill
So it's probably a conspiracy, to defraud the leasees. They'd have to prove intent, in order to get around that clause. Pretty hard to do, which is exactly why the conspirators obscure the whole thing so cleverly.
The leasees aren't legally sophisticated or able to hire the kind of help which would permit them to address this thing and correct it.
Nonetheless "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck". So there's every reason to expect that the state attorney general's office would jump into this deal with both feet, if enough of the leasees were to make themselves heard at that level.
The state attorney general's office is in the business of protecting it's citizens from fraud and deception, as one of it's primary aims. They're able to get prompt legal action with some teeth in it.
I am not sure what the question is.The information in the post does not seem to ask the question that is in the title.But to the title question. Unless there is specific language in the lease then the fact that a company was BOUGHT UP does not change anything, nor if the farmer sold the land.However, it depends on what BOUGHT UP means. If they bought the company lock stock and barrel (and assests and liabilities) then yes.If this was sale or partial assests or maybe bought as bankruptcy then it all depends on the details..
.
A-holes. Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
Leases run with the land....so I would say no.
This is why we all hate lawyers. One would assume that when one company buys another, it buys everything. Assets , Liabilities, goodwill and any existing contracts. But what do i know?
All those who believe lawyers should be used as footings say aye
AYE!
toolman65
well i don't know about footings, but i have heard that lawyers are now being used for testing certain things instead of lab rats!
1. Lawyers are easier to find than rats.
2. The Lab Techs don't get as attatched to the lawyers as they do the rats.
3. There are some things the rats just won't do.
That sounds like an awful small amount of money compared to what they are offering around here.
It does sound like a little fraud may be involved.
But then again what do I know!
. That held and controled land can be land of many different owners that will NOT recieve any regular income from monthly royality and are told they will never have wind generators on it, but their land retained and the owner has no say. The company is paying a one time fee of about $3,500, with or without the land owners consent for 29 years of unblocked wind passing over it!!! Nothing over 40' tall can ever be erected, no line of trees can be planted without permission, and it also means that the property can't be leased by any other competing Wind Company...
So, are you saying that they are claiming that land which they do not own or lease, are precluded from building anything taller than 40'? And that the land-use of older leases are affected by this lease? I'm thinking someone is getting really poor legal advice. If I wanted to plant a tree, I would.
As far as this lease stopping future wind development by other companies? Not if they got bigger lawyers
So, are you saying that they are claiming that land which they do not own or lease, are precluded from building anything taller than 40'? And that the land-use of older leases are affected by this lease?
I'm saying that if no wind generator is placed on the lease in 4 years, all but the unblocked wind rights expire. Except for this ONE CLAUSE "surviving the termanation of the lease", ALL leased property withing 40 times the rotor size distance away from their wind generator...are still retained. (40 X 165 meters) Their planned rotor size for a 1 Mwatt is 165' across....
Older land and mineral leases still remain intact, but other than a tall temporary oil drilling rig, there's no conflict with the wind company.
You see, they get you to lease it for $1 an acre with the promise of having their wind generator, but then they hold those leases they don't put turbines on. It's up the property owner/attorney to read those worded details and understand them. If I were a betting fellow, I'd bet that 75% of the farmers/ranchers have no idea of that clause.
Let me give you another "clause" they have: If they lease your property for that meager $1 per acre lease, and your property has a gravel or Keliche pit on it, they have the right to buy, at market value, that gravel or Keliche....and they DO NOT have to repair or improve the pit from which the material is taken... !!!
If the farmers only knew what they signed !!! Man!! Low lease costs, ability to grab and hold property that will not have wind generator on it, receives Federal Tax Credits towards funding, selling KWHours to big electric companys, and the big international company that bought the American branch with Euro dollars. Being a Foreign company, for 1 Billion Euro dollars, with the devaluation of the American dollar, they got assets worth $1.68 Billion American dollars.
Bill
I think it's all ####. You can put anything you want on a contract, doesn't make it enforceable.
It pays to read