I agree with you, interesting times are on the way. I think we need some young energetic candidates with good ideas. Some of these good ol boys have had the job too long and need to go. It appears they have trouble seeing the big picture. But I think some potentially good candidates shy away from seeking pubic office because it seems like these incumbents would be impossible to defeat. I disagree, the last few years has seen our city grow and grow. More smart, hardworking young folk come everyday. It won't be long until the new outnumber the old. I personally know a couple individuals, barely 30 that would make great public servants(Ricky Someday?). Fresh ideas, open minds and the energy to see the people get what is best for them. Someday
No topic should be sacrosanct...Heisenberg, I am hopeful that you will come back to this page, as your recent posts are perfect examples of logical, thoughtful, opposing viewpoints; whether or not we agree, is a secondary issue. We have a collective opportunity, maybe even a duty, to share our insight and thoughts. Those who are in agreement, those who are not, and those who simply read for the entertainment factor, will ultimately be mentally stimulated by the discourse, possibly even to the point of interjecting their own perspective. Lets have some more please.
I agree with you, interesting times are on the way. I think we need some young energetic candidates with good ideas. Some of these good ol boys have had the job too long and need to go. It appears they have trouble seeing the big picture. But I think some potentially good candidates shy away from seeking pubic office because it seems like these incumbents would be impossible to defeat. I disagree, the last few years has seen our city grow and grow. More smart, hardworking young folk come everyday. It won't be long until the new outnumber the old. I personally know a couple individuals, barely 30 that would make great public servants(Ricky Someday?). Fresh ideas, open minds and the energy to see the people get what is best for them. Someday
I would have posted on this issue earlier had I known this site existed. We should question everything our elected officials do on our dime. They should operate in full view of the public and provide easy access to all information. We must not feel bad for questioning their actions because they are accountable to US. They should have hired a lawyer to handle the leasing process because this guy should not have been in charge of negotiating this deal.
In that case, and by all means, let's continue the discussion. Even though it is a little old news per se....there will be elections coming up in the not-so-far future and this is the sort of topic that people can ask questions about...
The response of the various candidates to tough questions of all sorts will be a telling factor in identifying the true characters of those who run.
We are going to be entering some very, very, challenging times in coming years, and those who lead our community are going to have some very big responsibilities. They will need to be challenged, and tested to see if they are prepared to meet those challenges. The old days are gone....
I would have posted on this issue earlier had I known this site existed. We should question everything our elected officials do on our dime. They should operate in full view of the public and provide easy access to all information. We must not feel bad for questioning their actions because they are accountable to US. They should have hired a lawyer to handle the leasing process because this guy should not have been in charge of negotiating this deal.
Your going to tell me K & A initially paid $500 for the lease. Ran title to confirm ownership and then spent time to shop the lease around to other companies with the intent of returning the profit to the park board? And they did this out of the kindness of their hearts? Sorry, no they did not. I'm sure K & A initially hoped no one would notice they had taken the lease. If people caught wind there is no doubt that the shady deal would be exposed for what it was. When this happened the only way to avoid a full blown scandal was to have all profits returned to the park board which is the amount they probably would have recieved had a auction taken place. Then Grondahl talks about override and shows his ignorance. Overriding Royalty(ORR) is reserved(thus created) when one company assigns interest in a lease to another company. The company selling the lease will usually keep a ORR as part of their compensation for being middlemen. In this case the only way ORR would be created is if K & A reserved it when they assigned their interest in the lease to the company that purchased it. But if the plan the whole time was for everything to go to the Park Dist. then why even bother with ORR, just give the Park Dist. more landowners royalty on the front side. Because ORR and landowners royalty are basically the same thing. The reason they didn't just up the Landowners royalty is because at some point K & A fully intended on taking the ORR for themselves. There is no other explanation. ORR is a big part of what K & A does.
...hah! ...and Jeez louize....where were you when I was getting slapped around by just about everybody in town for having the temerity to question any decisions made by the Williston Park Board. This is old news. The Park Board announced this as a win-win situation for everybody. My question then, which I kept to myself, is what was the win percentage? I guess a 50-50 win win is pretty good, but was it a 60-40, a 70-30, an 80-20 win, or what?
I have known the "A" part of K&A since he was a kid and have always liked him...still do. Have not had enough contact and interaction with the "K" Part to form an opinion of him. I do know, unequivocally, that they are good businessmen.
You are obviously way more knowledgeable than I could ever be about minerals, and the leasing of, but on the face of it...this would be a perfect example of crony capitalism. But I don't know, I wasn't privy to what decisions and deals the Park Board made in this case.
Alls I did was ask why it wasn't bidded out mon....
Your going to tell me K & A initially paid $500 for the lease. Ran title to confirm ownership and then spent time to shop the lease around to other companies with the intent of returning the profit to the park board? And they did this out of the kindness of their hearts? Sorry, no they did not. I'm sure K & A initially hoped no one would notice they had taken the lease. If people caught wind there is no doubt that the shady deal would be exposed for what it was. When this happened the only way to avoid a full blown scandal was to have all profits returned to the park board which is the amount they probably would have recieved had a auction taken place. Then Grondahl talks about override and shows his ignorance. Overriding Royalty(ORR) is reserved(thus created) when one company assigns interest in a lease to another company. The company selling the lease will usually keep a ORR as part of their compensation for being middlemen. In this case the only way ORR would be created is if K & A reserved it when they assigned their interest in the lease to the company that purchased it. But if the plan the whole time was for everything to go to the Park Dist. then why even bother with ORR, just give the Park Dist. more landowners royalty on the front side. Because ORR and landowners royalty are basically the same thing. The reason they didn't just up the Landowners royalty is because at some point K & A fully intended on taking the ORR for themselves. There is no other explanation. ORR is a big part of what K & A does.
Williston Park Board president LarryGrondahl wanted to
clarify the leasing of land rights in Spring Lake Park to local
company Kasmer and AafedtOil, Inc. The leasingwas originally
reported onApril 23.
"We've didn't have it put out for bids because how do you bid
out a donation,"Grondahl said. "They asked us to come on
board with them.We thought it would be a good deal with us
only having 77 acres.When they go out and sell it,we get $500
an acre from them right now, but if they go out and sell it for
$1,500 an acre, they're giving us all that money back, the whole
$1,500 an acre. The biggest thing people need to understand is
we're getting all the money off the sale of the lease,we're getting
all money off of any overriding royalties. Basically, K and
A are giving us everything they would make off that thing if
they were going to lease it off us normally.When we talked to
two different leasing companies, they expressed no interest it
at all. (The company) is donating back everything they would
make off our acres."
It was on the bottom of Page 2 under "Clarification," although it still doesn't state who the 2 other companies were that they talked to.
I saw this too. I guess my only concern is that there are a question or two not answered yet, but they likely will not be.
Item #4 on the "side letter" as listed by Dave Slette makes reference to the instance in which K & A decide to drill their own well on the 77 acres in which they have to pay another $500 up front to the Park District before spudding in. If they drill their own well, or participate in the drilling of a well with an oil company on those 77 acres, who is going to get the money from the production on those 77 acres? Will they pay mucho money to participate and then give all their share of the oil to the Park District or what? It is kind of confusing.
And...of course, how long is the lease for?
On top of this, I know of at least a couple of leasing companies that would be interested in the project but neither was aware of the possibility.
I would still like some clarification on those items....I don't believe the Herald clarification clarified it.
Nice avatar, Jib. Would that be the original group that raised that well or is that just the group that came up for the picture?
No, those fellas are just stand ins for the picture. The real soldiers have been re-assigned to raise wells just off-shore these days.
Well Boys
...if you were to ask me, I would say the flag is wrong....American soldiers raising an oil rig in war zones should probably have a Chinese, Russian, or French flag on them cause they are getting pretty much all the oil, not us... ;o)
With no response.... I'll quit asking rhetorical questions such as "Do you think that it's ok to give a private entity something based on something they've done?".
Darcy, Dave, thanks for clearing up my concerns as far as the deal itself was laid out. I do think you've done a good thing for the district. Again, sorry for the choice in language. If you want to slap me next time you see me I'll give you a free shot... only one... You TWO are doing a great job and I'm glad you're in there.
Nice avatar, Jib. Would that be the original group that raised that well or is that just the group that came up for the picture?
__________________
Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. – Philippians 2:3-4
With the horizontal technology companies have now, the rig can be up to two miles away and retrieve the oil under the park.
Good to know, but then they really wouldnt have a need to lease the mineral rights, because 2 miles to the east is still on the golf cours land (and I am betting Eagle Ridge would not let them drill on their land) and the fair grounds, North is houses, south is businesses, and west is a museum/business/houses/high way. They would have to drill either on top of the park area, or near it. Maybe I am just blonde , but I still do not understand how they will be able to drill with out drilling in the park. And yes, I knew they could horizontally drill, my husband is a driller, and even he couldnt figure out how they would be able to do it without going on any of the park, there just wouldnt be enough room any where.
Thank you NDGirl, I can't believe (well, maybe I can) there are not many people raising questions about the environmental AND aesthetic impact to one of Williston's most beautiful out of doors locations. This is a legitimate concern!
__________________
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." -Dr. Johnson
Due to certain people's dislike for the game of candyland, I have been; and greatfully accepted: a reprimand from the moderator. With the most humble heart, I ask for your forgiveness if you've been offended by the most vicious statement I have put forth!
That being said, obviously the post has been read, processed and thought through. I still have not received an answer or clarification on the statement previously mentioned. In the immortal words of whoever the Indian talk show host was on Slum Dog Millionaire... "Senor Presidente (which is Spanish for Mr. President... I don't want to offend anyone), your answer please."
Candyland truly is a fun game but.... I'm sure you already know that!
Sue Nobody from our board met with any oil company. Two of our Park Board commisioners met with two local lease companies to inquire about our options. They were the ones that informed us that this was a great opportunity for our district.
__________________
Today is a great day to be a Yankee........Yogi Berra
Just a quick question: Who were the other oil companies contacted that stated this was the best deal the park could get? I am sure they are fairly well known and must be well respected in order for the board to have relied on them in their decision making process.
__________________
Our ELECTED officials are our employees. These individuals asked for this job. We must govern our employees.
With the horizontal technology companies have now, the rig can be up to two miles away and retrieve the oil under the park.
Good to know, but then they really wouldnt have a need to lease the mineral rights, because 2 miles to the east is still on the golf cours land (and I am betting Eagle Ridge would not let them drill on their land) and the fair grounds, North is houses, south is businesses, and west is a museum/business/houses/high way. They would have to drill either on top of the park area, or near it. Maybe I am just blonde , but I still do not understand how they will be able to drill with out drilling in the park. And yes, I knew they could horizontally drill, my husband is a driller, and even he couldnt figure out how they would be able to do it without going on any of the park, there just wouldnt be enough room any where.
I have one question that I have yet to see addressed. Say they do find oil under spring lake park, and say they drill. What is going to happen to our park? My family enjoys spending quite a bit of time out at spring lake park. From what I understand about drilling, people are not aloud around the drilling with in so many feet. Does this mean we will loose our park? Even if they donot find anything below the park, and drill anyway, we loose a section of the park, and who will pay to fix it, obviously the parks district does not have the money. The oil companies only have to return the soil to its origional state, not the park. Please enlighten me, so I understand everything correctly.
The lease will now be put out for bids for other oil companies. We talked to other leasing companies about the deal and they said we would never get a deal like that from anyone. It said in the paper that Grondahl talked to a couple other Oil Companies. They were actually other leasing companies.
Kasmer and Aafedt will not gain anything on the 77 acres at Spring Lake Park!!! They leased it from us to tie in with other acreage they own to the south. It makes our little bit of acreage more marketable. To me it was a favor to us to help get the Park District more money. One of the Tea Partiers at our meeting called it a "donation" . If they lease the land for $1000/acre we get another $500/acre. The park district will also get the royalties (from the 77 acres) and the percentage could go up depending on the lease.
We also talked with our attorney about the whole process. Please don't act like we just followed suit of the city just to get a couple of dollars. That was not the case! I know the paper tries to do the best job they can, but sometimes the facts aren't always clear. I talked to a gentleman the day the article came out and he asked me the same thing. "What are you guys thinking??" I explained the situation to him and all he could say is WOW. He didn't understand what really happened from the Herald.
I hope I cleared some things up.
Darcy
Darcy,
In answer to my earlier question, it was explained to me today, very clearly and in no uncertain terms, that, and I quote... " all of the money for the sale of the leases and 100% of the overriding royalties" (for the 77 acres) will be given to the park district. I see where you stated that in your earlier post which I quoted above, but was confused by the part where you say the royalties could go up depending on the lease. That seems to clear it up. K&A will not receive a red cent from the park lands and the only benefit they would get is the appreciation in value of their own leases.
If this is in fact, a fact (I have not seen the actual agreement)...then I am very happy to say that K&A has exhibited a high level of selflessness and are extremely magnanimous to contribute in such a way to the benefit of the Park District. If this had been explained earlier, and as simply, succintly and bluntly, I would have shut up a long time ago. I was seeing so many conflicting perspectives that it was becoming confusing.
thanks for your patience
...please continue to educate those of us in the public sector who have questions.
IF you guys had put out an RFQ already in the paper, and there was no interest (which the attorney and leasing companies that I talked to said there should have been quite a bit of interest...) then I am sincerely sorry for insisting it be put out on bid... AGAIN... and I am the "ignorant" one. I would like to read how it was stated in the request for bids in the paper though.
So then in my eyes, if the deal will make the districts leases more valuable, great. If K and A make a bunch of money, great, as long as they make the districts land more valuable. Then the only real issue is still the statement that was made.
So then this question is directed at El Presidente... ? : Do you think that it is okay to award a private entity a contract because they have done something for the district?
You're quoted in the paper saying just that so please clarify your statement. I personally believe that you find nothing wrong with it, which is why you said it.
A good friend of mine put it this way, "Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks".
Darcy, Dave, if you did put it out for bid already and no one replied, thanks for showing me... the error of my ways.
Ricky Waitman
-- Edited by rickywaitman on Monday 26th of April 2010 08:08:36 PM
One thing I'm going to agree on, Darcy...the Yankees do indeed suck. Sorry Dave.
So here's what I'm getting from this awesome conversation...just a re-cap.
1. Parks puts out information in the paper that they want to bid out Spring Lake Park. I'd like to see a copy of that from the Herald. I don't get the Herald so I missed it.
2. An article in the paper makes a statement that only one company has chosen to pursue the lease at Spring Lake Park. Problem is, a comment about doing one particular company "a favor" has struck a nerve with some people. Fine line here, but I can understand Ricky's and Randy's point.
3. You guys are getting $500 per acre currently...that's guaranteed. 77 acres...$38500 was paid out to the Parks and Rec by K and A. So now they go out and re-bid the minerals? Pretty much sub-lease those minerals. Is this a one year lease? So then if K and A sub-lease for $1000 an acre (I'm a phy ed major, math isn't my strong suit) they will give you guys $500 more per acre. How do they get their intitial $500 per acre back? As it stands, K and A are out $38500. If they sub-lease for $1000 and give you the other $500 they didn't recoup their initial investment. That doesn't sound very smart. Might need to set me straight on that one.
Looks like a good deal for you guys. So my next question...if a well is put out there that hits a good chunk of oil, will it make the one cent tax a tougher sale?
The question was asked, "what is there to put out to bid?" Darcy, this land is your land...this land is my land...you cannot talk to....just any land man... Sorry, it's midnight and my mind is playing tricks on me.
Just so you guys know, I appreciate this dialogue. There are way more people than you realize that are getting a good education on what has taken place with this issue which was my intentions for this board when I first started it. Thanks to you all...thank you, thank you, thank you.
__________________
Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. – Philippians 2:3-4
I am sorry, but I am done!! It was put in the paper over a month ago that we were thinking of leasing out Spring Lake Park. We didnt recieve any calls from anyone else that was wanting to lease this land. What we did was turn over our rights to bid the best lease out. Nothing more and nothing less. If they lease the land for more money we get it!! What is there to bid??? I do not understand what you are looking for!
Please if you have any other questions on the lease call me!
There was at least one interested party... K and A. At that point a simple RFQ in the paper would have sufficed to negate any "appearance of evil". If no one wanted to bid then fantastic! We have one bid with a great offer.
Again, the fact that the comment was made that "they've been good to the district" which is why we gave this to them is setting up a terrible precedent. That again is the issue!
I agree that this deal has the potential to make the district more money for the acreage off of this deal. Could this deal not have been set up in a bid process. If I asked people to bid, chances are it wouldn't be beat?
I still will feel that way no matter what. I do wanna say nice work for finding a way to increase the intake of the district. It is a heck of an idea.
Just to make it clear, I thought the Brigham offer for the city was a heck of a deal too... and IT should have been bid out from the beginning as well.
I didn't know anything about the offer until I read about it in the paper ( who I agree,) did you no justice with the description of the process. Otherwise, I would have been there.
If it's an unbeatable offer then it shouldn't be outbid...
-- Edited by rickywaitman on Sunday 25th of April 2010 08:16:28 AM
This was an awesome exchange. I hope that the three of you are realizing that you are breaking ground. Regardless of the actual outcome of the discussion, you have been exchanging ideas, using persuasive and innovative arguments to support your position, explaining how you got to where you got, using the English language in a creative manner, and instituting a logical methodical process for your posts.
This sort of debate and sharing is what this forum is supposed to be about. Personally I have learned something from each post you guys put out.
Please continue to do so. I know, from experience, that occasionally your tempers and blood pressure will rise, but you are educating the rest of us who read this page...and that is really the whole point.
I am sorry for not making myself clear earlier!!! Why would anyone want to bid on this land??? Please bid and by the way you get no financial gain what-so-ever!! I am not sure if you understand the lease or not. Apparently not!!! What is there to put out for a bid?? We basically turned over our 77acres to K&A to bid our mineral rights over. What happens if nobody wants this land to drill on?? We made $38,000(out of K&A's pocket). What happens if they want to lease this land(not sell) for $2000/acre we get an extra $115,000 for the park district. And after all of this what does K&A make off of our land NOTHING!!!!!!!!! I guess I dont understand what the big deal is? Did we make a behind close door deal? NO!!
Please read the lease agreement before you try and judge what we did. Don't think there wasnt alot of concern about everything that happened with the city. Our attorney looked at it along with alot of other people before we made the decision we made.
With this much interest I would have thought we would have seen you at last weeks meeting. Then you would have had this info.
The Side Letter Agreement has 4 points
1. K and A will pay the Park District 100% of the proceeds when selling the lease.
2. K and A will give the park District 100% of any overriding royalty reserved when selling the lease again
3. If K and A decide to drill themselves they will pay the Park District an additional 500.00 per acre before well is spudded
4. Noone can drill on the surface of Spring Lake Park without consent of Park Board.
Rick Im sorry that you dont see things the way we at the Park Board do.
Two of our members had meet with lease people prior to our Tuesday meeting who expressed there confidence in this and we as a board did what we thought was best for Williston.
I guess we have to agree to disagree.
__________________
Today is a great day to be a Yankee........Yogi Berra
Sounds good! Still didn't answer... WHY NO BID PROCESS? Just answer that. That was all I wanted to know. That's all it would have taken. If they drill their own well what happens? What happens if they don't lease it? They get it for $1000/acre? I've seen a lot of deals in this town that start with the best of intentions that morp into something else.........
Simple fact is: we wouldn't be having this conversation if you put it out for bid! They could have won the bid and done the same thing. This will give them a chance to prove how willing they are to still stand up and "do the right thing" by bidding and still give the same deal.
No matter how you color it, you can't change the fact that if you had put it out on bids, there would be NO PROBLEMS>
I guess if people think we as a board should have gone to lease companies and asked them to lease it from us, Give us 100 percent of all the money they had for a profit on those acres. And give us the royalties .Plus give us 100 percent of the profit on those acres if they sell them for more than they purchased them for, thats what we should have done.
__________________
Today is a great day to be a Yankee........Yogi Berra
You've already said that this would make their land more valuable. I think that's "giving back to them". Do I think it's smart? Yes! If it'll make more money for the district... great! I compliment you on the thought process there. It should have been bid out from the get go though. So to answer your question with another question... Why wasn't it bid out?
-- Edited by rickywaitman on Saturday 24th of April 2010 05:10:56 PM
To reiterate... the decision WAS ignorant. That's why it was changed. The idea was great. I applaude you and K and A for finding a way to help the community. That's smart on their part to line the districts pockets as well as their own. If K and A will not benefit on the 77 acres, only on their own acreage, and they'll give back all the proceeds and royalties to the district, AWESOME! If they drill their own well hows that work again?
I think it's a very inginuitve way to get more money for the district (if they lease it out).
THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE PRECEDENT THAT IS BEING SET IS THAT IF YOU HAVE BEEN GOOD TO THE DISTRICT THE DISTRICT WILL BE GOOD TO YOU. If I donate some money to the district can I have a no bid contract for weed spraying? I doubt it. I wouldn't want it. I know that this is a bit over dramatic but that is the precedent that's being set. Even if all the intentions were above board and for the best of the community, by not putting it on a bid process, that's not the appearance that was given.
I appreciate you Darcy. I'm glad you're on the board. You have a level head and have stood up for what you thought was right in some difficult situations. I DO NOT THINK YOU ARE IGNORANT. I think the decision to do this without a bid was.
Thanks for taking the time to give back to the community!
Ok, I must not have made myself clear. K&A will not make one penny off of the Park Districts 77 acres. If they lease it out for $3000/acre we get the other $2500/acre. We have secured $500/acre that does not mean that is all we WILL get. The only thing that helps them is the whole area is more marketable to the Oil companies. If they can lease the section with fewer mineral owners the easier it is on them as opposed to having 50 different people to negotiate with.
I understand you guys are trying to jump on the park board (for totaly different reasons), but for everyone else that i have talked to that understands the lease, have all said that we have done the right thing. After everything that has happened lately I am sure everyone will keep coming up with reasons to tell us how wrong we are!
And we thank you Ricky for informing us that our decision was ignorant. We all saw what happened with the city so we went and talk to enough people, that actually deal with these types of things, and they all said we were in a very good position on this deal. Don't think that we just showed up to the meeting and voted on it.
I say more power to them!!! If they make a huge profit, awesome. I'm all for making a large profit, especially when there's a large risk. If you think he could sell those acres for $3000 per acre, why would you sell it for $500/acre? Do you really need to ask why the people in Williston always need to "look for something fishy"? Backroom deals and side letter agreements take place, and have been taking place at places like the River's Edge over lunch for years and years. The name of the bar was different but the people were the same...
I hope that K and A make a ton of money. I think it was a heck of an idea. I also think that using the reason "K and A have done a lot for the district so we think it's a win win..." to make this deal is as ignorant as it gets. The board just set a precedent that, if you make a donation, if you do anything "for the district", you will get something back or we'll take care of you.
I have nothing against the idea or concept. I think it's great. It's the process and the reasoning I have an issue with and I believe you should too. You should have put it up for a bid in the first place and it would have been a moot point. I appreciate that you've realized the error of your ways and done just that.....
K and A do not need the districts 77 acres to make this deal. They are offering us this as a opportunity for the district to make things happen. We as a board would be foolish to let it slip by. If they were to turn around and sell it for 3000.00/acre. The park district would recieve 231,000.00. What great things could we do with that?
And also, why should we or anybody else care how much they potentially could make on there 600 acres. That is totally there business. They took the risk to purchase the mineral rights. If they triple there money I say good for them.
Why is it that is is so easy in this world today to try and find something fishy in everything people do. Rather than just sit back and think, "Wow what a great way for someone to donate back to there community"
What you say is true. But...bottom line... if K&A has a chance to make a few bucks off what is currently Park District Land...why should some other company not be allowed the option for a chance to do the same thing?
The value of their 600 acres is also enhanced by the addition of our 77... Why could not the Park Board simply sell it themselves and negotiate their own royalties...
..we could extrapolate these things until the cows come home, but it is really a moot point.
Darcy said that the lease issue would be put out to bids by other companies. So... the process will be executed in a proper and orderly manner which no one could take exception to. I'm in favor of that.
I don't think anybody has denied that the concept is well intended...just that the original outcome was ill-advised. Your Board, should again, be commended for thinking outside the box.
I am not the Devil. This is twice now, in recent months, that I have expressed an "attaboy" to the Park Board; once for the vision of a one cent tax extension which in some version could benefit the park district and community, and now for the vision of financial benefit to the community for mineral leases. I think these are innovative concepts, I just don't agree with some of the preliminary proposals. I have not been trying to fight with anyone, rather simply to share ideas in a constructive manner. I am very excited that you and Darcy have taken the time to explain and present your perspectives in a fair exchange of ideas. That is what I have been hoping for.
If K&A should be the high bidders, good for them and I hope they make a bunch of money. ...and now no one can complain about the fairness....
K and A do not need the districts 77 acres to make this deal. They are offering us this as a opportunity for the district to make things happen. We as a board would be foolish to let it slip by. If they were to turn around and sell it for 3000.00/acre. The park district would recieve 231,000.00. What great things could we do with that?
And also, why should we or anybody else care how much they potentially could make on there 600 acres. That is totally there business. They took the risk to purchase the mineral rights. If they triple there money I say good for them.
Why is it that is is so easy in this world today to try and find something fishy in everything people do. Rather than just sit back and think, "Wow what a great way for someone to donate back to there community"
__________________
Today is a great day to be a Yankee........Yogi Berra
Good clarification. That makes a bit more sense. The problem still lies with the comment "K and A have done a lot for the district, so I felt is is a win win".That is a HUGE problem. That comment is extremely telling and is the real issue behind this whole fiasco. Why on Earth would it be okay to do something for one particular group/company solely because they alledgedly have been good to us? In an elected position, delegating out the taxpayers money/property, you can't have that premise for deciding who gets what. Everything being equal; if another company made the same offer, then by all means... give it to the "friend of the district". All that had to happen to avoid the whole mess was to put it out on bids. Larry knew that. You guys had to have known that. So I'm just curious, why wasn't it bid out? I've tried to figure out any negative ramifications for putting it up for bid and can't seem to find any but you're more informed on the issue than me. Is there a reson it wasn't bid out?
So after reading your post, K and A really won't profit on this land at $500/acre? If they drill their own well on the land, they've leased out proven land for $1000/acre, that's pretty stinking good. If they re-sell the leases, they won't negotiate a percentage of the royalties to keep for themselves on the 77 acres? As much as I like to think the best of people, it's highly unlikely anyone would put the time and effort into something like that for no personal gain... nor would they put in a provision for drilling their own well unless they were looking at it. I may be a conspiracty theorist but I do believe there is more to the story!
I appreciate the clarification though. Thanks for taking the time.
Ricky Waitman
-- Edited by rickywaitman on Saturday 24th of April 2010 01:34:46 PM
-- Edited by rickywaitman on Saturday 24th of April 2010 01:48:12 PM
The lease will now be put out for bids for other oil companies. We talked to other leasing companies about the deal and they said we would never get a deal like that from anyone. It said in the paper that Grondahl talked to a couple other Oil Companies. They were actually other leasing companies.
Kasmer and Aafedt will not gain anything on the 77 acres at Spring Lake Park!!! They leased it from us to tie in with other acreage they own to the south. It makes our little bit of acreage more marketable. To me it was a favor to us to help get the Park District more money. One of the Tea Partiers at our meeting called it a "donation" . If they lease the land for $1000/acre we get another $500/acre. The park district will also get the royalties (from the 77 acres) and the percentage could go up depending on the lease.
We also talked with our attorney about the whole process. Please don't act like we just followed suit of the city just to get a couple of dollars. That was not the case! I know the paper tries to do the best job they can, but sometimes the facts aren't always clear. I talked to a gentleman the day the article came out and he asked me the same thing. "What are you guys thinking??" I explained the situation to him and all he could say is WOW. He didn't understand what really happened from the Herald.
I hope I cleared some things up.
Darcy
Thanks Darcy...I absolutely was NOT trying to stir this or that or the other thing up. I was not there a the meeting. I took the one snippet because it was the one thing that stood out. I want to be educated on the issues that I am interested in and this is one of them.
I kind of understand what you are saying, and you state that Kand A stand to gain absolutely nothing, other than the 500/acre and maybe a total 1000/acre if they lease it to someone else? The Park Department will get all of the royalties negotiated, and K and A as a corporation and John and Dean individually, will not get any monies or percentages from royalties on those 77 acres or any other monetary compensation from that 77, even in the event that they drill their own well?
Is that correct?
Thanks a lot for helping explain the circumstances. I appreciate the work you are doing.
Randy
-- Edited by rwaitman on Saturday 24th of April 2010 01:31:46 PM
The lease will now be put out for bids for other oil companies. We talked to other leasing companies about the deal and they said we would never get a deal like that from anyone. It said in the paper that Grondahl talked to a couple other Oil Companies. They were actually other leasing companies.
Kasmer and Aafedt will not gain anything on the 77 acres at Spring Lake Park!!! They leased it from us to tie in with other acreage they own to the south. It makes our little bit of acreage more marketable. To me it was a favor to us to help get the Park District more money. One of the Tea Partiers at our meeting called it a "donation" . If they lease the land for $1000/acre we get another $500/acre. The park district will also get the royalties (from the 77 acres) and the percentage could go up depending on the lease.
We also talked with our attorney about the whole process. Please don't act like we just followed suit of the city just to get a couple of dollars. That was not the case! I know the paper tries to do the best job they can, but sometimes the facts aren't always clear. I talked to a gentleman the day the article came out and he asked me the same thing. "What are you guys thinking??" I explained the situation to him and all he could say is WOW. He didn't understand what really happened from the Herald.
There may be some that aren't aware of what took place with the city. Can you give a little more detail as to what happened there?
Well, I was not at the meeting, and only know what was written in the Williston Herald, but the gist of it was that a number of local independent oil and gas men and real estate developers spoke out and appeared to be generally of the opinion that it was wrong to give out any blocks of minerals of 40 acres or over, without a bid. Most telling was the comment below which I cut and pasted from the Herald Article.
'John Kasmer, President of Kasmer and Adfedt Oil Inc. of Williston, agreed with Powers and expressed his concerns about the process. He said he'd spoken with city officials, and felt that the best way to get the most profitable deal for the city of Williston was to allow it to go up for bid.'
There may be some that aren't aware of what took place with the city. Can you give a little more detail as to what happened there?
__________________
Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. – Philippians 2:3-4
Before anyone presumes I am attacking someone or something, I am NOT. I am simply, as is my right as a citizen, discussing the issue and expressing my opinion. Please do not see it as any sort of attack.
I am disappointed that the Park Board, particularly after we just went through this same sort of thing with the City Commission, chose to make the same mistake. The City, after a great hue and cry, chose to go back and re-visit their actions with an individual company, to ensure that there was no appearance of impropiety.
The Park Board should follow their lead and do the same. In the event that K&A wins such a bid, then good for them;
I am not accusing the Park Board of wrong doing, just suggesting that such a move as they have taken is ill-advised.
If K and A Properties, despite whatever other good things they might have done, stands to gain anything of monetary value, or has the potential to gain anything of monetary value, from this sweetheart deal, then it simply should not have been allowed. The Leases should have been placed out on bids. Period. It sets an unhealthy precedent.
Any number of citizens and companies in this community have done good things for the Park Board, why would we single out one entity for a win-win situation and not the others?
, but I still do not understand how they will be able to drill with out drilling in the park.
Might need to set me straight on that one.
