Hello All From Kurt Kleinstick

[Kurt A Kleinstick]

Hi All

This is Kurt (Kleinstick) & I just wanted to introduce myself - I spoke with George on the phone yesterday & he invited me here to the Sigvart Petersen Family web site to join in the conversation

One question I can currently answer is that "yes" - as PR (Personal Representative) for mom & dads estate I have signed a Purchase & Sales Agreement with Arkoma Bakken LLC through Rial Genre as the agent working for Arkoma Bakken LLC

However - the finalization of this Purchase & Sales Agreement is contingent on being able to provide "clear" title to the mineral acers of the Purchase & Sales Agreement --- which is where the problem (at least seems) to arise

From my understanding (which is "somewhat" limited) the estate of Viola Hanson/Tveden was never properly probated &/or at the very least that portion concerning mineral rights 

This is where it all gets a bit confusing but I will do my best to explain it --- if the mineral rights are not properly probated - then the title to them is not "clear" --- however - that does not change the fact that the mineral rights are still owned by the heirs - they are - which is what allows companies to "lease" those mineral rights from the heirs (in this case - the heirs being the children of Viola Hanson/Tveden) --- on the other hand companies that "purchase" mineral rights want (&/or need) the title to be "clear" because that is in fact what they are buying --- the "title" to the mineral rights

So - this is where Aunt Ellen comes into the picture AND why Rial Genre is trying to contact her - Ellen is the only living child of Viola & therefore first in line to act as PR (Personal Representative) for the estate of Viola to allow for proper probate of the mineral rights needed to clear the title to the mineral rights - OR - Ellen can pass PR for the estate of Viola on to another family member - along with the agreement of family members with the choice of PR for the estate of Viola

To be clear - the PR - whether it be Ellen - or someone else appointed & agreed to - has NO authority beyond that of the purpose of closing the matter of probate - which gives clear title to the mineral right --- in other words - the PR has no right to do anything with the mineral rights - other then those specific to his/her "portion"

So - the reality here is that although Rial Genre is in fact contacting others in the family to see if they are interested in "selling" their mineral rights - at the foundation of those inquiries he is first & foremost trying to see if Ellen - &/or some other family member is willing to act as PR for Viola - in order to get the mineral rights properly probated - in order to clear the title(s) so individuals - such as Keith & I can choose to sell that "portion" passed down by inheritance

As a side note - According to North Dakota law - mineral rights (in North Dakota) MUST be probated in North Dakota & the probate MUST be handled by a North Dakota attorney --- which is probably why the mineral rights of Viola were never properly probated in the first place

So on a personal note - because Keith & I are in fact trying to sell our portion of mineral right as a part of our inheritance through mom - we would certainly like to see this part of the problem (someone acting as PR for Viola) resolved so proper probate can be closed giving clear title to the mineral rights --- having "clear title" simply put - improves the options in dealing with these mineral rights - without obligating anyone

For the record - I have not only spoke with Rial Genre "many" times on the phone but I have actually stopped in at his home & sat down & spoke with him in person --- in the 8 years I was at home taking care of mom & dad - & of the many, Many, MANY offers I saw to lease &/or buy moms mineral right - IMO - the offer Rial is making for Arkoma Bakken LLC is BY FAR the best I have seen - & I will attempt to explain why in future postings

Otherwise - if anyone has any questions please feel free to ask here & I will do my best to answer them --- &/or feel free to call me - my number is 715 - 613 - 0774 --- you may need to leave a message on your first call but I will call back ASAP

Kurt

  

[Kurt A Kleinstick]

Ok - today I will try to answer some of the questions brought up in the more recent discussions 

First --- Karen  posted - "Gail and I have been scratching our heads about exactly what mineral rights Sigvart passed along to his children because the original Patent for his homestead dated June 13, 1914, was only for 240 acres in Section 23, T150N, R97W. So to also have mineral rights in Section 20, 29 & 32 is mind-boggling. Where did those come from?"

The reason the family has an interest in mineral rights on properties in sections other then the original "homestead" 240 acres in section 23 is because Sigvart acquired these properties as a result of other failed homesteads - Keep in mind that back then - "homesteads" had to be "proven" before the government granted the homesteader the deed on the land patent - in other words the homesteader was required to meet certain improvements on the land over a given period of time before the land patent was actually granted (deeded) to them --- many homesteaders failed in "proving" their homesteads - &/or failed to pay their taxes after patent - &/or went bankrupt & so flat out abandoned their homestead - in these case's the homesteads then reverted back to the (gov.) land office making them available for purchase --- Sigvart took advantage of this thereby adding to his land holdings beyond his own original homestead

In fact - it is my understanding that Sigvart at some point went bankrupt himself & lost his holdings (&/or at least some) but was then able to buy his holdings back (&/or at least some) 

An interesting note here; - to my understanding - when homesteaders lost their homesteads back to the land office - when they were then bought (by someone like Sigvart) the government "retained" part of the mineral rights (50% I believe) --- this will (I believe) play out later in the discussion

Gail posted; - "Interesting thing about this land patent is that it is forever granted to Sigvart Peterson and his heirs and assigns."

Correct - but only to "a point" --- that point being that the land is ONLY "forever" the families (original homesteader - then heirs - then assigns) provided it is passed down by way of inheritance - however - "patented" land (like any "deeded" land) can certainly be sold - whether it be done by the original patent holder (in this case Sigvard) or to settle the estate of heirs &/or assigns - at which point it "the land" is no longer owned by the family

I underlined "the land" above because it is important to understand that we are "in fact" NOT talking about land here --- NONE of us have any interest what so ever in "land" in North Dakota - the land was long ago "sold" out of the family by ether Sigvard (&/or his wife) or the result of settling the estate of Sigvart  - OR - at best - through inheritance - some members of the family "may" retain an actual ownership of actual land - but - otherwise "none of us inherited & or own any actual land in North Dakota - IF - it was in fact land that we are talking about - "the land" would have been lost long ago due to taxes not being paid on the land

Rather - what we are talking about here - & what has been (apparently) retained & passed down to the Sigvard family - is the mineral "rights" that went along with "homestead land patents" back when the push to "settle" the land was taking place --- at that time - the "rights" to things like water, timber, & minerals went along with the homestead land patent - & although those right went along with the original land patent - each one of those things are considered items (or commodities) each there own - each of which could/can be sold in part or in whole - separate or in conjunction --- in other words - you could sell the land along with all the rights - or sell the land & keep the rights - or sell the rights & keep the land - or any combination/portion there of

When it comes to the mineral rights - because they (originally) went with the land patent - they have the same "property" (property being different then land) description as the land even though they are two separate things - that is why in all the lease/purchase contracts you see the reference to "mineral acres" &/or net "mineral acres"

Mineral acre(s) is a reference of the "right" to the minerals - which may - or may not - include the "real property" description of the land --- we have mineral rights (acres) --- but NOT real property (land) acres --- you can't go to North Dakota & build a house on your mineral acres because you don't own the land - you (we) only own the right to the minerals on, in, or under the real property (land) description

My time for today has run out but will try to post again tomorrow &/or for sure within the next couple days

Kurt 

[Kurt A Kleinstick]

Now then – to pick up where I left off yesterday --- however – before continuing I should say that I most certainly “do not” have all off the answers – what I am posting is “to the best of my knowledge/understanding”

 

Gail posted; - “  Karen believes what is clouding the title is that they are not aware of Niles Hanson dying January 14, 1991 prior to Viola's death, June 30, 1991. “

 

Per the underlined – as I mentioned in my first post – what is clouding the title is that it has never been probated – therefore the title has not been made legally “clear” by the courts --- as clarified by Karen when she posted --- “By way of clarification, according to the partial paperwork provided by Molly to Gail about Viola's "clouded title" seems to have mostly to do with her dying intestate--no will, no probate, no issuance of Personal Representative Deeds”

 

Gail posted; - “I'm questioning the need for probate when it should be going to the heirs according to Montana intestate and North Dakota intestate laws”

 

Correct - & it does go to the heirs – the problem is that when a relative dies “intestate” (has no will - &/or has a will but the will is not probated) it gives rise to the question of “who are the heirs” --- in other words – without probate (which gives legal closer & thereby clear title) there is a/the open ended question of “who in the (greater) family is entitled to what ??? --- & without that being settled (probate) the question of title can fall into dispute

 

The following is ONLY meant as an example & being posted ONLY as a hypothetical example --- in NO WAY am I suggesting anyone in the family would do this !!!

 

Viola died without a will so the “assumption” is that each of her children have inherited an equal part of her mineral rights - & because none of her children “disputed” that – it has stood as an assumption (but not “fact”) --- now then – my mother dies (a child of viola’s) so again the assumption is that her mineral rights now pass on to her spouse &/or childern – BUT – because moms ownership to those mineral rights is only assumed (not fact – no probate – no clear title) therefore – the passing on of those mineral to moms spouse &/or children can fall into dispute – in other words – a/the child/children of Viola could come forward & file suit with the claim that – hold on – mother (Viola) intended for those mineral rights to stay in the hands of her children – so we the children of Viola are entitled to Vivian’s  mineral rights – not the Kleinstick family

 

Now then – this dispute would “eventually” be sorted out in the courts – which would then essentially be the same as probate

Soooo – this brings us to the problem(s) we as a family &/or heirs of Sigvard are currently being faced with --- which is – what do we actually have ? --- Just how fractured is it ? --- And therefore who is entitled to what ? --- And/or just how much power/authority do any of us have to actually make decisions &/or make deals ? --- And/or what is it actually worth whether in whole &/or in part ?

 

And those are just some of the ??????

 

As a final note for today – as I understand it – apparently – companies that lease are allowed to do so because there is at least a validity to the “family ownership” of the mineral rights whether there is clear title or not – were as a company that purchases needs clear title because they are buying the title

 

However – as I understand it – there is also a loop hole – wherein it is up to the discretion of the  company (leasing &/or pumping) as to whether or not to pay out on royalties once oil is being pumped --- something to do with the “cloudy title” thing --- in other words they can opt to withhold royalties until title is clear to insure payment is going to actual owner & not find themselves in a court dispute – or they can opt to pay on the royalties & cross any court dispute bridge if &/or when it happens

 

I could be wrong about that – but – it would somewhat explain why royalties have been paid/received by some companies &/or why royalties have not been paid/received by other companies

[Kurt A Kleinstick]

Gail posted; - “I know when my dad passed my mom filled out the information regarding his death and sent a certified death certificate to the oil company including the names of the 3 of us as heirs.  I don't know what happened to mess up this succession to the rightful heirs.”

 

OK – I first have some questions to ask here --- did your dad have a will ? – if so was the will probated ? If there was a will & it was probated where the oil rights made know & therefore  included in the probate ?

 

I ask these questions because first – if there is no will &/or if there is a will but its not probated &/or the will is probated BUT the mineral rights somehow got missed in the probate --- then the paper work your mom filled out was more then likely what is called an “Affidavit Of Heirship”

 

When my mom died – even though she had a will we did not probate it because the estate was not big enough to “require” probate --- as a note – keep in mind that the mineral rights part of the estate MUST be probated in North Dakota BY a North Dakota attorney

 

So – when mom died – I called XTO (who was paying her royalties) to inform them of her passing away & because we where not probating the will an Affidavit Of Heirship is what XTO sent me to fill out – which I DID NOT fill out & return to XTO

 

The reason I did not fill out & return the Affidavit Of Heirship to XTO is that it in fact does not actually solve any of the problems originating back to Viola’s passing intestate – in fact it compounds that very problem & here is why

 

An Affidavit Of Heirship does not give a “clear” definition to just exactly who the intended heirs are like probate does – rather – it provides a list of ALL “assumed” potential heirs

 

I will use my moms case to explain this --- my moms will states - that should she die before her husband – then all her property &/or assets are to go to her surviving husband -  but if her husband should die before her then her property & any assets shall be equally divided between Keith & myself (as a note Karl was written out of the will) --- so by way of probate – the mineral rights would have gone to dad in “fact” meaning – had we probated moms will it would have established that “in fact” dad was (at that time) the sole heir of her mineral rights thereby establishing that dad was the sole beneficiary to the royalties XTO had been paying to mom

 

Had I filled out the Affidavit Of Heirship (which in fact I can’t do – because it can NOT be filled out by anyone that stands to benefit from the estate – so it needs to be filled out by an attorney or other party that will not benefit) the Affidavit Of Heirship “requires” that ALL “potential” heirs be listed & what that does is establish the “assumption” that ALL potential heirs are entitled to an equally divided share of the assets --- the following is the potential heirs asked for & that “must” be listed in the affidavit

 

Any &/or ALL spouses & whether the termination of marriage was by death or divorce

(meaning a divorced spouse “may” be entitled &/or may be “assumed” to be entitled)

ALL children born to or adopted by

For mom the above is where the listing stops --- however – depending on circumstances the affidavit goes on to ask for other relatives to be listed – which may or may not be the case with other family members (in other word I don’t know enough about Mel so don’t know how this fits in his part of this – nor do I know how the second marriages of Ray or Ellen fit in)

 

The point being – in my moms case – had I filled out the Affidavit Of Heirship – it would have fractured her mineral rights into 4 equally divided parts – based on the assumption each – dad, Keith, Karl & myself being entitled to an equal share --- rather then the (un-probated) intent of her will for it to go to dad & then to Keith & I according to dads will

 

Consequently – because I have not sent ether an Affidavit Of Heirship nor a probated will they are currently holding moms royalties in suspension

 

Enough for this post – in my next post I will talk “real” numbers (based on what mom was getting in royalties from XTO) & why Keith & I are currently letting the matter ride thereby allowing XTO to hold the royalties in suspension  

 

Also – I am sorry this is turning out to be so long – but I do want to cover the base’s as much as possible based on my understanding which stems from correspondence with multiple other companies that contacted mom about interest in her mineral right including Rial & Arkoma as well as correspondence with XTO as well as discussing it with our estate attorney & mom & dads CPA

 

Kurt      

[Kurt A Kleinstick]

The following numbers are based on what mom was receiving from XTO in monthly royalty payments (the ONLY company to the best of my knowledge she actually ever received royalty payment from)

 

Those payments for the most part ran between $25 - $35 per month (for the first “few” months they ran a bit higher like $45 - $50 but then dropped off due to the drop in price per barrel of oil in the longer run)

 

So lets average (the $25 - $35 per month) to $30 per month – so – lets say under “current” circumstances (mom & dad have both passed away) & I went ahead & sent in the Affidavit Of Heirship XTO would (legally) assume that each Keith Karl & I are entitled to 1/3 of her royalties – so I would start receiving a royalty payment of plus/minus $10 a month (depending on price of oil going up or down)

 

At $10 per month I would receive $120 per year

 

However – I am also currently being offered $7,500 (actually 2,700 “ per net mineral acre --- & I will refer back to this later – its likely going to be more then $7,500) but lets go with that $7,500

 

Again – if a fill out the Affidavit Of Heirship we would divide the $7,500 by 3 (Keith, Karl & I) would mean my portion of the $7,500 is $2,500 as a “lump sum” payment --- so – doing some more math I divide the lump sum number of $2,500 by (the other option of) $120 per year & that comes to 20.8 years --- to see the same $2,500 I am being offered as a lump sum payment

 

So I look at this & go – Hmmm – lets see – what can I do with an extra $10 per month – NOTHING (except maybe pay for my pack to a pack & a half a day cigarette habit – so it would pay for about one day of my smoking habit – or maybe cover my coffee drinking for a week) no matter how I look at it - $10 a month is not going to make or brake me --- on the other hand – a lump sum of $2,500 I can actually do something with --- in fact there is a whole list of things I can think of to do with $2,500 including but not limited to – “better” financial investment of the money, pay down debt, personal comfort (home repair, new furniture, etc.) personal pleasure (trip/vacation, tools I would “like” to have etc.) etc. etc. etc. --- the point being a few dollars per month for the next 20 years is not going to change my life in any seeable way --- but a lump sum will !!!

 

Side note; - also – keep in mind that because this is an inheritance – it is tax free – capital gains tax does not have to be paid on it

 

The problem here is that in order to close the deal to “sell” & get that $2,500 lump sum  - the title also needs to be cleared (probated) which cost money – AND – for that matter – Continental has (& possibly other “lease” contracts) been withholding royalty payments until the title(s) are cleared – AND – this is its own can of worms because I can tell you it is not as simple as just probating Viola’s estate --- I will leave it at that for right now & will come back to this later

 

First I want to talk about the “lease thing” some more because based on my talking with George on the phone the other day – there seems to be some confusion in what these lease agreements actually say &/or how they are set up

 

Opps – out of time for now – so will pick up on this lease thing in my next posting to clear up why “in fact” they don’t have to renew the lease --- hint – its in the “fine” print

 

Kurt

[Kurt A Kleinstick]

Kristie Posted; - “Don't sell out yet!!! I'm a dog with a bone this time around.  Let's learn what we've really got and make a wise decision to lease not sell.”

 

Also – the other day when I talked to George on the phone he made the comment that – “these lease’s are supposed to be renewed every year & I have done some “rough” calculations & figure that the family is owed “around” (plus/minus) some thing like $250,000 in un-paid lease renewal payments

 

And – I thought the same thing when I “first” read moms contract(s) - & it is true that on the front page – the page with the “large” print – the contract has the stipulation in it giving the leasing company the “first option” to renew the lease in a given time period (which could be 1 – 3 years depending on the company &/or contract)

 

However – this “option” to renew is “in fact” conditional – AND – you have to read the “other” 1 or 2 page(s) of “FINE” print written with a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo to find out that there is “also” a condition in the contract to “forever” hold & maintain control of the lease “without” the need to renew

 

First of all – these companies that “lease” mineral right look for & lease ONLY undeveloped/untapped mineral acres --- that is because mineral acres that are already tapped are already under some sort of contract & therefore no longer available --- so they look for acres that are undeveloped & not under contract in order to lease with the intent to develop (drill/tap) them – but – getting them developed takes time so they give themselves the stipulation in the contract to be able to have “first” option to renew the lease after a given period of time to protect them selves in the event they have developing in the “works” – but – “actual” development has not started --- in other words – they want first option to renew the lease so they don’t loose what they are working on &/or intend to tap – but have not yet actually tapped

 

BUT – they also have a stipulation “hidden” in the legal mumbo jumbo fine print (that makes your head spin when you try to read it) that says once it is tapped & oil is being pumped the lease contract is “forever” binding (or at least as long as oil is being pumped) & that is because the lease is now being paid (automatically being renewed) by the royalties being paid under the (hidden) fine print terms of the lease contract – AND – EVERY lease contract has this stipulation in it

 

Trust me – get your contract(s) out & read “every” word & read it till you find it because I can assure you it is in there – its in EVERY contract --- I know I had to read moms contract(s) “multiple” (head spinning) times before I went  --- ah ha – so – the dirty bastards got you “locked” in once oil is being pumped

 

In other words – once oil is being pumped – there is NO SUCH THING as re-negotiating terms for a better deal – &/or leasing to another company - &/or being owed money because you were not sent a new lease to sign at the end of the time stipulated in the large print “part” of the contract to renew -   because in the “whole” of the contract the terms say that you agree to except royalties “in lieu of” contract renewal

 

What that means – is that if you have a signed lease contract – AND oil is being pumped – you are STUCK with only 2 options --- option 1 is to except the “fact” that your locked into a contract in which the “only” thing the company holding the lease is obligated to &/or that you are entitled to is the continuation of receiving the decimal percentage royalty payment for oil pumped agreed to in the terms of the (signed) lease contract – or -----

 

Option 2 --- “sell” the actual title of the mineral rights to a company “willing” to buy the title – which then gives them ownership of the mineral acres – which then passes the lease – long with the terms of the lease to the buyer – which in turn passes the decimal royalty payments to them (the buyer)

 

So – because the only two options we really have concerning the already leased mineral acres is to (option 1) stay “locked” into excepting the decimal royalty payments under the terms of the lease(s) or (option 2) sell the actual ownership of the mineral acres to a “willing” buyer --- lets next talk about IF &/or why selling may (or not) be the best option

[Kurt A Kleinstick]

Before I continue I want to make it clear that what I am posting here (starting with my first post) has NOTHING to do with trying to convince anyone that they should sell – rather – it is simply my intent here to post as much as possible – information I have learned &/or discovered as a result of going home to take care of my mom & dad for the last years of their life (it was ether December of 2008 or 2009 that I made that move – I forget now but they both died at home) --- in other words I simply want to put as much information out here as I can “to the best of my knowledge” --- so the family – whether as individuals or jointly – are as informed as possible for the purposes of discussion, consideration, & conclusion as to how to deal with these mineral acres   

 

Anyway – like the rest of you – my mom on a regular bases would receive “offers” to lease &/or buy her mineral rights from different companies (in this post we are going to be talking about the companies offering to buy)

 

When you receive these “first” letters of “offer to buy” it is an offer they are making (X dollars per mineral acre) because they have discovered that you own mineral acres – but that is all they really know because at first all they look for is to see who has mineral acres

 

If you take the bait & send back to them that “yes I am interested in selling” – their next step is to send you the “Purchase And Sales Agreement” to sign & send back --- it is not until you send back this agreement that they actually take the time to research what you actually have (& they have left them selves room to back out)

 

Two or three times mom & dad decided to pursue the offer to buy (because the offers were at the “high” end of such offers) & in ALL of these case’s  - after sending in the signed Purchase And Sales Agreement the company sent back a letter saying they were no longer interested & they were backing out --- their reasons for doing so were ------------

 

(1)    The mineral acres you have are to small/less then we are interested in buying (the amount of mineral acres most of these companies want very from “at least” 20 to “at least” 100)

(2)    Your decimal royalty interest/payment is to low/not enough because someone else also has an interest &/or is receiving some of the royalyies --- (will touch back on this in a bit)

(3)    There is not a clear title because it has not been probated & when they factor in the cost to probate it is no longer worth their while

Concerning point 2 --- this could be the result of – but not limited to the following possibilities --- the government retaining a part of the mineral rights when they got back failed homesteads & then re-sold them (as mentioned in an earlier post - &/or Sigvard (or someone) having already sold a part (but not all) of the mineral rights - &/or the company(s) holding leases also having a decimal interest

 

Concerning point 3 --- there are 2 options – ether we can pay for having the probate done to clear the title(s) & hope that cost does not suck up most - &/or all - &/or even cost “more” then the value of the offered purchase price --- or find a company willing to pay the probate cost AND also willing to pay a “reasonable” net mineral acre purchase price

 

A note needs to be made here; - it is NOT any longer just a matter of probating Viola’s estate & that is because at this point all of Viola’s children – with the exception of Ellen – have now also passed away

 

So now not only does Viola’s estate need to be probated but also the death of each of her children - &/or their spouse’s --- &/or their spouse depends on who died first --- as in example – again using my moms case – my mom died before dad – so her will needs to be probated giving the mineral rights to dad & now that dad has also passed on his will has to be probated to give Keith & I clear title (so 2 probates in addition to Viola’s) – on the other hand had dad died before mom it would then be just a matter of probating her will in addition to Viola’s

 

So in my (& Keith’s) case the cost of probating is times 3 – Viola’s – moms & then dads

 

This brings me to the point where I made the comment in one of my earlier post that the current offer being made by Rial Genre & Arkoma Bakken LLC is BY FAR the best offer I have ever seen in the MANY past offers made – ALL of which ultimately ended in being turned down

 

Kurt

[Kurt A Kleinstick]

Keren posted; - “The only "offer" I've heard is the $7500 oral one from Mr. Genre”

 

First I need to clear this up ---  the offer of $7,500 is an “estimated” purchase offer for the “estimated” total mineral acres --- I say estimated (as does the Purchase & Sale Agreement) because remember what I said earlier about these companies only looking to see who has mineral rights when they “first” send out these offers – but not actually knowing the “full” extent of what you have – because they don’t (take the time) to fully research it until you send back the signed agreement saying yes you are willing to sell --- meaning – the “actual” mineral acres  can go up – or – down after further research AND along with showing “clear title” of “actual” mineral acres

 

So what the Purchase & Sale Agreement actually says (in this case with Rial & Arkoma Bakken) is that they (the purchaser) agree to pay $2,700 “per net mineral acre” with an estimated total price of $7,500 on the “assumed” total mineral acres of 2.735 – but the Purchase & Sale Agreement also goes on to say that the actual full purchase price ($7,500) will be adjusted up or down based on actual acres (at $2,700 per mineral acre) according to that proven by clear title

 

Now then – because I did sign this Purchase & Sale Agreement with Arkoma – Rial has in fact looked into it a bit more & the last time I talked with him he told me the $7,500 purchase price will likely be going up because he has found what appears to be more mineral acres – and he is still looking

 

So – for the sake of discussion – one number I have seen in other offer(s) mom received was 3.3 mineral acres – so – say that turns out to be the actual minerals acres (& though it could be less – there is a “real good” chance to be even more) means the actual purchase price would be on the 3.3 acres X $2,700 per mineral acre  = $8,910 as the actual final purchase price

 

AND – here is the kicker in why I believe the offer by Arkoma Bakken is “by far” the best offer I have ever seen --- Arkoma Bakken has also agreed to cover ALL costs in order to clear title(s) & close the purchase/sale --- which means Arkoma Bakken is the “one & ONLY” company to come along “willing” to pay a fair market price for the mineral acres – but ALSO pay any cost associated in clearing the title in order to close the sale --- this includes but not limited to the cost of probate(s) --- & keep in mind – it is no longer just Viola’s probate but also the probates of her children &/or their spouses that need clearing

 

However – there is also the stipulation that says Arkoma Bakken gets to keep any royalties being held in suspense by companies pumping oil --- in other words any unpaid royalties – held by companies pumping oil – because they won’t pay the royalties until they see a clear title – Arkoma Bakken gets to keep – in order to “at least” recover some of the cost they agree to cover ---- & lets look at the “potential” cost we are talking about

 

Keren posted; - “ Molly, who contacted Gail on Mom's behalf first called me trying to convince me to pay $2000 to probate Viola's estate so we could get the money Continental is holding in abeyance awaiting proof of "clear" title”  

 

So – we can “assume” the cost of probate to be “at least” $2,000 “per probate” --- so starting with Viola $2,000 – then in the case of Keith & myself $2,000 to probate moms will plus $2,000 to probate dads will - equals $6,000 – plus any/all other cost (including but not limited to recording cost) AND that’s just the cost to clear the title of moms part in this --- so you can also add in the cost of clearing the title of other family members that have passed away (children of Viola &/or their spouses) that Arkoma Bakken is “willing” to shoulder the cost of – should other family members also agree to sell

 

Meaning Arkoma Bakken is “the one & ONLY” company to come along willing to cover the cost that would other wise NEED to come out of our pockets AND at the same time pay a reasonable market value per net mineral acre !!!

 

And as another note – if we tried to tackle this can of worms on our own we (or least I) have no idea where to start in trying to figure out just what exactly we have (or don’t have) so we would also have to hire someone to actually research the “fully extent” of what is out there & that would be a cost on top of probate(s)

 

Consequently – based on what I have seen from dealing with moms mineral acres as well as based on the time & extent I have spent looking into this --- I simply have not nor do I foresee a better offer coming along then the one being made here by Rial Genre & Arkoma Bakken

 

However – that “does not” mean that I am right – therefore I would like to suggest an actual get together where in we could sit down together to further discuss this matter more fully --- & if nothing else I think it would be really cool as a family get together – I know my brother Keith would be interested if for no other reason then that of meeting other members of the family

 

So – for starters – I just recently moved to John Day Oregon which is about a 6 – 7 hour drive to Spokane & I would certainly be willing to make the drive for a meeting at George’s place --- &/or I am open to any other suggestion even if it requires a ticket to fly there

 

And finally – once again – if anyone has any question &/or input about what I have posted here please feel free to call me at 715 – 613 – 0774 – or – email me at --- [e-mail]

 

If you call you will most likely need to leave a message but I will call back ASAP --- due to solicitors &/or robot calls I only answer calls from numbers programed in my phone & only return calls when a message is left

 

Kurt