You're welcome. See also the Amended Proclamation for the 8th Special Session: http://app6.websitetonight.com/projects/1/2/1/5/1215402/uploads/SpecialSessionProclamation10.10.13.pdf and Allegations against the Chief: http://app6.websitetonight.com/projects/1/2/1/5/1215402/uploads/Motion_for_Select_Committee_of_Inquiry.pdf
What's all this about the report not being made public? Also if any witnesses do object, their names and job positions or any other identity information could be blacked out? Is this a for real investigative deal or just more amateurish play pretend government nonsense and irresponsibility on the part of the Osage Nation Congress?
Oh boy this better not pan out to be the truth....This is to to be made public........We will picket and sign a petition. We shouldn't have to go to this point.
To 10.20.2013 @ 11:12 am***Well, I agree with Patricia and I have a few choice words for the other three. Melvin Core has 30 years experience with the BIA. Dudley Whitehorn has spent a good part of his life in Osage politics, and Curtis Bear is apparently just along for the ride. I’m not sure what his claim to fame is. All 3, plus Cynthia Boone, screwed up royally by accepting money from the producers for the trip to Washington to ask that we be paid LESS for our oil than what BIA is proposing. As far as I’m concerned, this disqualifies all 4 of them for further service to the Osage Shareholders. And it’s a good thing that Myron Redeagle didn’t go on that trip, or he would be on my s%*t list too.
So the fact that the oil producers negotiated for their leases in good faith before these new CFRs came about means nothing to you at all? To hell with them all so to say?
The thing that bothers me beside these four travelers who have been bought and paid for by the oil producers (in my opinion), is that all dealings with the oil producers are done in Executive Session (behind close doors). This way of doing things came from Galen. I have told him in the past it was very rare that the negotiating went on behind close doors. Galen said “Oh they talk about sensitive issues.” Bull!!! What is so sensitive about discussing Ladd Drummond putting a gate across a county road? We need to keep our eye on the four travelers, to make sure they don't give the oil and gas away for nothing. I hope the four are smart enough to figure out, nothing is free and pay backs are hell! It is coming close, so look for the headlines of a shareholder and her walker being arrested for not leaving when asked.
To SMH, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:00 AM===The royalty rates have been grandfathered in going back to 1916. That will never change. Even the 12 1/2% ones. EVERYTHING ELSE is subject to the CFR’s, including the 20% royalty established 5 or 6 years ago on all new leases. Too bad you don’t live downwind from one of those h2s wells. So to say
Absolutely agree that the meetings with the oil producers should be open to the public. This is an important matter to the shareholders and you are among many others who are concerned about it. Galen is wrong and these should be opened back up. Thanks Patricia for mentioning it in your comment.
Agree too that gates are a foul too. Isn't the wife the one on that cooking channel? They need to know that her husband is doing things to stop the oil producers from getting on the land in the best way possible which likely has reduced the income for the Osage and specifically for a whole group of Osage Indian Seniors. We need to cry foul as a group with a loud outcry.
We didn't need new CFRs to up the royalty rate to 20% back a few years ago. If need be, they can be raised again to accommodate for not getting the NYMEX rate. Yes????
Wow, we need to get our M/C to move on these important matters that I was not aware of how wide spread it was. This should not be happening period... enforcement is needed where violations occur in such nature if the simple equation of resolve by the creation of opening up a dialogue fails and the further delay to stone wall the delay of the development for further production is cause for removal of the person on said property or bring in the authorities with the proper paper work....Sorry enforcement and lets set the precedent for the future of our M/E.
We are talking about the base price for the royalty oil sold here. No one is trying to raise the royalty rate that I can see. We could raise the royalty rate to 100%, and if the price paid by the purchaser was $-0.00-, then we would get zero $ for our royalty. That won’t get it. We Osage Shareholders need and deserve a fair market price for our percentage of that oil. The producers can give their share away if they want to. Maybe those supporting the Osage Producer’s Assoc. should contribute their headright checks back to the OPA. That should make them want to stay. Just don’t give them mine!!!
RED ALERT--IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT: In view of the plethora of inexplicable choices that the elected officials of the Osage Nation have made during their tenure for the last seven years, the most recent of which was reported by Congressman Raymond Redcorn in his Update #170: "For employees, the full $1.4 ($1.5) million salary adjustment increase also made the cut, along with the full 3% Merit funding attached to salaries.", the Osage Blog is announcing its NEW Election Initiative that we are calling the Osage Surge for Candidates to come forward from outside of Osage County and the State of Oklahoma to run in the upcoming Osage Nation elections; "The Osage Surge" for short. We need boots on the ground, Osage members, to turn around the policies and spending practices of the Osage Nation government to one that is sensible and reasonable that includes ALL Osages no matter were they reside which was promised to us if we were to support a new Osage Constitutional government. We need to reestablish a proper balance from the top down and the bottom up! Please join this initiative and if you can, run for office in the upcoming Osage Nation elections in 2014. Since they won't, each one of us need to stand up and take responsibility and BE RESPONSIBLE for what our new government does in the future. Now IS the time for all good Osages to come to the aid of their new Constitutional government.
Do you have any Ideas as to how you want to generate a better responce? The Clock is ticking I have the man power lets set up campaign. I will donate a large sum of money to the campaign for the Osage People who matter......and I have the man power to push this surge. But I need a little help. Are you ready to take ths to another level?
Bus, but there is a lot we can do as a team we can accomplish what is needed for the Osage Surge. We start with e-mails and sending out flyers.....will come back tomorrow.
The real contest is being diversities, picket why? you need to get together withj your picks for the Chief,AC, Congress and M.C. then take on the rest. If your candidates won't stand with you get another..
All works in progress. Picketing is a form of speech and if something more comes from a form of protest is the Laws will be changed which really is the intended consequence and there of......We do not know how many pics for Chief and AP and Congress is a let down if I ever seen failure for lack of diligence but thats a dif. story all together and then again really not.....The real will be with the executive and so far we have one person who has announced his canadacy and in no way will I vote for him.....He is a part of the long list of problems and each and everyone involved are complicit even if it's guilty by association......Pics for the Mineral Council ah I'm running and I'm running towards the Shareholders......When the right time comes I will be there to announce....Yeppi ki yay.
I just checked out Ray McClain’s web site and found the presentation that Councilman Galen Crum gave to the Mineral Council Meeting this past Wednesday. It makes a lot of sense, and gives very good reasons why the NYMEX royalty oil pricing should go forward. How anyone on that Council could say no to NYMEX is a mystery to me, unless they are on the Oil Producers side and we all know if they could get away paying us five cents a barrel, they would do so. Crum says they all had this information and it included the identification of 16 of the producers they chose to use, to get an average. Again if the Oil Producers weren’t making any money they would have left along time ago. Also Cynthia reminds me of Chicken Little! Instead of “the sky is falling, the sky is falling”, she is yelling “the producers are leaving, the producers are leaving”. No one that I know has left! For Ray’s web site go to: http://www.Osages-You-Need-To-Know.com
And Patricia, this is exactly what I have been saying all along the scare tactics will not work as evidence the producers are still here. And how the role of the Council is to represent the true facts as presented with accoutability and transperency and we will get that as long as we stand united for the shareholders and the protection of the M/E. DO YOU AGREE?
You all want to concentrate on who went to Washington D.C. but the real question is, WHO did they go with? If the producers weren't unhappy about the new CFRs why did this meeting even take place? You're like the new government wanting to win that tax lawsuit but never taking a look at the unintended consequences and as a result we've lost our Federal reservation designation. Drummond wouldn't have done what he did with the gate if that lawsuit hadn't been successful for the Oklahoma Tax Commissioners. Don't get stupid. We've got enough problems with that right there right now as it is already.
Smh, get the feeling you are having a hard time expressing yourself...What is it exactly you are or not understanding..and then you go off on another subject that has no relation to what you are asking...can you be more precise. Or why is it you keep reminding us of who what or where about the Washingtom Trip? Are you worried that we have forgotten, This is why there has to be an Osage Surge or Purge however which way but in a urgent way....I have to laugh somethimes my keys stick and sometimes my computar gets slow, but when I was visiting my son and useing his computar I really couldn't type. Wanted to slam the keys but realized I just had to go tap tap..lol I am one if it works and then it does not need replacing...but I do need to upgrade...one of these days...Sometimes this stuff just gets heavy... and you have to take a breather and everything will work out....But we need trust worthy and not just that someone who is willing to the necessary.... but see the people the Osage for who they are...and bring back integrity to our Tribe....The Osage Tribe..
What is it that YOU don't understand? The new CFRs involve the NYMEX rate in the lead comment that we all are responding to and the producers came in under the old CFRs having negotiated leases on the basis of those regulations. They don't like having their partners change everything that they have been doing in the past. If they pull out as a result and your checks dry up, who are you going to blame? I hope yourselves. Is all this being motivated by greed that you are villainizing the oil producers like this? Only you would know where this is coming from. Without the oil producers there is no income in the mineral trust for distribution in the headright checks. Surely that can't be what you want.
She’s talking about allowing the producers to continue to run wild, with no up to date regulations governing operations, never plugging abandoned wells, blowing h2s all over the place, not measuring half the gas produced, and not paying us the full amount of royalty due us. THAT’S what SMH is talking about. She must like it that way.
Right poster oct 23 2013 9am.....Thats why I am confused but not to say there won't be other issues sure to arise if they havn't already been exposed we may be worse off than we are.....There's going to be more arguement with a 4 billion dollar Estate but this is why establishing a line of communication with your stakeholders or keeping them comprised is a start. And that is one of the many goals that I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HAPPEN AND NOT JUST ONE SIDE WITH CAUSE AND EFFECT.....The pro's and con's. We need to regulate bottom line...And we have 8 council members that if there first job if they have a first job takes a seat to the M/E and we need to establish a Core and then you devlelope your PPP'S and so forth.....We need to stay realative and remember not everyone is going to understand in a lot of ways what we are expressing...and sometimes better explained in terms they can understand....I'm not sure but I'm guessing some are afraid of change after what we see has already taken place and then there are those that just don't trust period and change is hard....Trust and Integrity for the Osage M/E and let the Surge begin here....after all, the beginning started here and we can hit start all over again,... it is time we bring faith and hope to our Tribe.....everything else will fall into place....The World is a better place when you care.....We all want the same thing really...we want the M/E to be abound.....And to Patricia Spurrier Bright I more than qualify to be on the M/C AND CHIEF....but the Hub is the M/E.....that's where I will be better posted.....and hope is what you are going to see and much much more......
Almost 90% of this "run wild" stuff that you claim is already handled under the current CFRs. If the BIA can't manage to enforce the old ones how are they expected to handle the new ones? There is also a large concern among people who understand such things that under the new CFRs that the BIA has let itself out of much if not all of its fiduciary obligation to both the Osage Tribe under the 1906 Act, the Osage Nation and the Shareholders. If you all think that that's OK, then you couldn't be more wrong. You can't have a managed and administered government trust with with a Trustee and no fiduciary obligation involved in the relationship. That's a legal conflict if there ever was one. And it's SIR not HER if you please!!!!!
Said that already but with the 6 to 7 man power hired for the Agency along with a Million dollars will help with some of the redundacies. But you have to remember all in due time. What we can do is to be sure we follow through on those reduncies to make this M/E efficient and prosper....Not eveything is covered by the CFR's we need to track for the future of the M/E. The BIA is not going to do everything for us as evidence proven...and once again this has been discussed already it's like your taking excerps from what I had already made apparent a while back lol sorry but I am thinking of ways to circumvent in the future from this sort of thing from happening all over again and in addition outside of the box, so this will at a much later date be discussed....We need action action whats your function.....and by golly we are going to get it this coming election.....without futher a du, keep on posting....
To SMH, October 23, 2013 at 1:00 PM….If you could show me just one word, sentence, paragraph, or section number in the proposed CFR changes that would cause anyone to think the BIA is being excused from their fiduciary trust responsibility, I would be on your band wagon quick. But you can’t do that! This is more scare tactics being generated by the OPA. I think you will be tooting your horn all alone before too long.
The members of the Oklahoma Delegation have communicated in writing with the Secretary and Assistant Secretary of the Interior about this very concern because of the absence of the fiduciary relationship and responsibility on the part of the BIA under the new CFRs. Now why would they write, sign, and send such a letter if it was not the case? I believe that there has been more than one letter written about this developing situation. I have seen one of them myself. Accountability is at the very foundation of a fiduciary relationship and one of the statements reads, "...there are inadequate safeguards to ensure that current and future BIA managers are held accountable for mismanagement of the estate." Another reads, "It should also contain specific steps to hold the Agency itself accountable for its actions." I don't know what more you need for a delay and further review but I want everything spelled out and all of the t's crossed and the i's dotted making sure that the BIA is on the hook for everything it does while managing the Osage Mineral Estate from now on. Anything less is short sighted and we've had more than enough of that from our own Osage Nation government.
The Oklahoma Delegation signed and sent the letter to appease their financial supporters, who have been legally stealing our royalties for years and want very much to continue to do so. The OPA probably wrote it for them. It looks to me like accountability and enforcement by BIA has been enhanced a great deal in the new cfrs. No wonder the OPA wants delays. The new cfrs have nothing removed or added that makes BIA any less accountable than before, and I see much in them that improves accountability and enforcement 10 fold. Enough of this whining. Let’s all get back to work, and do the job correctly from now on.
When the elections come then the work will get done. It is said that to much Retorich or Arguement is getting in the way of real Progress. The signing of a letter of which the Oklahoma Delegation signed just because one was sent does not mean it's binding or that they are right....and especially who ever created the HPP was stupid but then again not, this did not allow for all the cash flow to the Shareholders.....do you uderstand smh? Now I'm begining to wonder if you are a Shareholder. Not one person should have to go to the depth to explain....and put simply....
Nobody is whining. You sound like you work for this new Osage government and that makes a lot of sense because accountability, transparency and oversight are things you guys know nothing about and appear to want to know even less than that. Use any excuse you want but I have a lot more respect the members of the U.S. Congress when they talk and write about such things than I do for you when you do or any employee or elected official of the Osage Nation government. You want more money and you appear to want to go to any length to get it despite the fact that it might seriously impact your total yearly income if the oil producers pack up and leave. But you're not the only one involved that gets a headright check though you certainly behave like you're the only game in town.
I’m still waiting for that “just one word, sentence, paragraph, or section number in the proposed CFR changes that would cause anyone to think the BIA is being excused from their fiduciary trust responsibility”.**** Looks like I’ll be waiting awhile for you to look that one up.
Are you for real? Now try and think. It's not what's in the new CFRs as written, it's what ISN'T included in the CFRs that excuse them from their fiduciary trust responsibility. To REPEAT--there are inadequate safeguards to ensure that current and future BIA managers are held accountable (in writing) for mismanagement of the estate AND it (the new CFRs) should also contain specific steps (in the words, sentences, and paragraphs) to hold the Agency itself accountable for its actions. If you can't understand what I am trying to convey here, then it's like a former member of the 30th Tribal Council used to say, "You can bring them to the well of knowledge, but you can't make them think."
That’s what I thought. Generalities, rhetoric, and no specifics or solutions to your imaginary problems. No one could understand what you are trying to say here. Since you bring it up, isn’t the 30th Council the ones who gave a 20 year concession to an operator, with no drilling commitments, very little bonus, and no way out of it. Seems to me that their well of knowledge was full of salt water for the Osages.
SMH there is no point in trying to reason with people who are incapable of logic and can't think. Clearly he believes he's the smartest guy in the room. You're up against that herd mentality that exists in Osage County and when they get an idea about what they want do as a group they're like pit bulls with a stew bone. In this way, they are the most self destructive people I've ever had dealings with and that makes them dangerous to the future of the Minerals Estate. Never mind that over 450 letters of concern about the proposed CFRs were sent to the BIA in Muskogee. Undoubtedly he'll have something inane to say about that, like every one of them who sent letters were bought off by the oil producers too. LOL!!!!!!! Sounds like whoever it is must have been one on the 30th Council to know so much about that concession.
I agree. After their last remark, whoever it is, isn't capable of being reasoned with on this issue. It happens. I just hope they don't have a seat on the Minerals Council.
I have been reading all these comments and would like to know how many of you have actually read the CFR changes and additions, or are you making your comments on what someone else has told you?
When the elections come then the numbers 444 will be involved. A famous Sioux just this Spring passed at 4:44am, I received 444 votes this Spring.total 11,11 is 4 , 2x2=4, 1+3=4,11-11-2013, three 444. So keep your eyes open for the fours, they will make the difference. Hjf
Would again ask all of you that are interested, Ray McClain has just posted on his web site the proposed revisions to the CFR's. For Ray’s web site go to: http://www.Osages-You-Need-To-Know.com/
Ray thanks for the report...and Galen thanks for the charts.....so....How is it that The IBIA can allow for these changes without any consultation with the M/C ? or there of to the Major Stakeholders? The Osage Shareholders? and if we are so different because of the ties that binds us directly with Congress how did the status quo change in the first between Osage and the IBIA? Understanding This translates and goes back even further and further more deeper....to the 30th M/C....as to delving deeper into? But it is easy to understand the Shell Game and you will see them disappear and if not already with the changes to the CFR'S. UGG....to this day this translates to 2 more years of this since the HPP case was settled and we are at square one but not for long.....and this is why I have been saying all along the Competitive must be in favor of the OSAGES, THE OSAGE TRIBE.....AND this is why we must track and follow through so this does not happen again....and not just leave it to the BIA.....it is clear and evident that this is needed to protect the future of the M/E there are those and it is obvious that they do not want us to do exactly what needs to be done......and it is clear even more so who reflect a persona non grata and can not be trusted and it is the four who went to Washington.....they must be removed.....I'm wondering if anyone person here understands and how this has translated for the Osage and who was watching at the helm for the Shareholdes in the first back in 1996 shows, incompetency all around or that the shenanagans was served on a platter hopeing we wouldn't taste the foul as I liken to call FOUL.....would be interesting to hear the naysayers on this blog....facts as they are in black and white and the Numbers do not lie, People do.
These documents shown below are also downloadable at http://osagenation.co/government/congress/ Select Committee of Inquiry Report Part 1.10-28-13 Select Committee of Inquiry Report Part 2.10-28-13 Statement of the Select Committee of Inquiry 10-28-13
Absolutely stupendous work from the SCOI. Beyond a doubt this goes much deeper than one member of Congress being out to get the Chief. Reactions and impressions? In view of the report and the documentation, should the Chief resign and not put us through a formal trial since he has openly admitted during his testimony to having broken the law?
"Congress announced its ninth special session will be held Thursday Nov. 14 to consider a motion on whether a removal trial should be held for Chief Red Eagle." See http://osagenews.org/article/scoi-recommends-removal-trial-chief-red-eagle
WOAH! BREAKING OSAGE NEWS: Osage Nation Principal Chief John Red Eagle has filed suit in the ON Supreme Court against ON Congressional Speaker Raymond Red Corn and Congresswoman Alice Buffalohead... See https://www.facebook.com/OsageNews
The Chief has filed a restraining order against the upcoming 9th Special Congressional Session that starts tomorrow, the 14th, that the Osage Nation Supreme Court has not yet ruled on along with the Summons filed by the Chief against Raymond Red Corn and Alice Buffalohead less than a week ago. See more about this: "UPDATE: As of 4:30 p.m...." at https://www.facebook.com/OsageNews
The 9th Special Session begins at 10:00 A.M., tomorrow, November 14, 2013 in the Osage Nation Congressional Chambers. The only item on the Agenda is "Consideration of a Motion for Removal of Principal Chief Red Eagle." Don't miss this historic day of deliberations of the Osage Nation Congress. This meeting should be streamed live via the internet as well.
A motion for removal of Chief Red Eagle was made and seconded. Congress will vote at 9 tomorrow morning. We'll see what happens then. They need 8 votes of the twelve members to say yes to the motion to remove the Chief then it moves forward to trial. If they can't get that number of affirmative votes, it dies right there on the floor of the ON Congress.
Can't argue with that! Also, the ON Supreme Court dismisses the restraining order. See http://osagenews.org/article/supreme-court-dismisses-chief-red-eagle’s-request-restraining-order
Why would the Chief not hand over the M/C accounting to the M/C. The M/C is charged by the 1906 ACT to handle our affairs and really whats the harm in having copies? The Chief is the tie breaker and thats that. So as I like to classify that their are issues and someone does not want you to know the truth about our Money and the M/E...as I have said before the truth always reveals itself...The M/E accounting does not belong to the Executive it belongs to the Mineral Shareholders the STAKEHOLDERS and we want our accounting to be placed with this seperate agency so we know exactly what has transpired in the last 7yrs and before and by law this has not happened and it is our right to our records and to delvelope the M/E as we see fit. http://www.nativetimes.com/index.php/news/tribal/9206-osage-committee-issues-report-recommendations-for-chief-s-removal...........Shame on the Chief....
There will be no monopoly by any company with regards to the M/E...any one will be held liable if an investigation is opened and can be by anyone of us.....Shareholders. After reading the findings of the report against the Chief lets be loud and clear on this matter.......
In light as we near the time when finally and once and for all the Nation can now hand over our Accounting Records and truly we will be able to see what has been going on in the last seven years and will know how to go forward for the future of the M/E...We will need a Vision and Strategy of the M/E that will communicate with their Major Stakeholders, the Osage Shareholders....yes it is a 4 billion plus Estate. We need to eliminate all conflicts of Interest, that means the four who went to Washington and especially Cynthia....She has proven to the Stakeholder by her own actions she cannot be trusted....and not just that it is a conflict of interest to support the Producers not the Stakeholders but she also proved she is not a team player time after time....but her Husband is a officer as well and sits on a Commitee for the life of me can't understand what it is and why we have an OSA...when they have been less than truthfull in many instantces proven in their own writing....and at a much later date I would like to see an investigation on the matter if at possible how the pricing OF OUR OIL changed to the bottom end as opposed to the top end? Everyone in accounting knows this is a trick that is pulled all the time to hide the true realized price that could be had....and so forth...Just an example of we need to be more hands on..Good leaders demonstrate this through and through and this is how you build your Agency's foundation built on integrity...everything else will speak for itself.....We need not hire imcompetency but be mindful that we will train team players, and understand the PPP'S. Those who have been delivering us this info...Galen Crum and laws bee Mr. McClain.....sometimes I think this organization is a two man act and yet we have eight council members. And McClain doesn't even sit on the Council and has dedicated his devotion to the Shareholders. It is clear who are the team players and who are not and this is not a Politcal Game here and should never be...This is a Agency charged by the one and only the 1906 act...and the M/C should only be here for the Shareholders and we do this by communication. Long gone is History's past, should we learn and prosper. Long Gone is the croynism that has monopolized and plagued our M/E, should we grow now..... Long live the Osage Tribe. Alliance for the Osage Shareholder and let the Osage Surge for integrity bring light to our Tribe....
I think those 450 shareholders who wrote letters to the BIA disagree with you. You're getting like a broken record with the four members of the minerals council. Just saying. Harping on them isn't going to make a bit of difference. Give it a rest. Osage Surge is good so we can change the mix to get others with a different vision for the Osages who know right from wrong and won't cross the line all the time.
To Oct. 31 @ 1:03 AM---What 450 letters? Where is your authority on that? This is more of your B.S. There are about 100 members of the producers assoc. and only about 25 are truly active. I have no doubt that 450 form letters were probably mailed out to them, since you seem to do things over and over and over again. The producers need to drop their petty B S and unite with the MC and the BIA to educate the OK Atty Gen on how to mind his own business. If the state is allowed to control the Osage water rights, every politician in the state legislature will be telling you when you can drill, which will be NEVER. *THAT WILL* make the producers consider leaving for sure.
I'm going to jump in here. For your information, a family member of mine received a hand written thank you note from one of the Minerals Council members that specifically referenced that number of letters from individual shareholders that were hand carried to Eddie Streater at the BIA. In addition, the comment period has been extended to November 18, 2013. See comment above and web page at http://journalrecord.com/2013/10/28/comment-period-on-osage-co-rules-extended-energy/#.Um-1XvTtSTI.email Sounds like you need to do some catching up on what is going on with this situation. Attempting to further establish our water rights in court, beyond what we already have established, might further the damage that has been done by the tax/reservation lawsuit. The State and Federal Courts in Oklahoma are not our friends and probably looking for any excuse to beat us back down since the flap over that EPA Bill that Jim Gray busted out with inside a year of his becoming Chief of the Osage Nation Constitutional government that appeared to scare the pants off of everyone in the legal profession in the State of Oklahoma. Getting back in court to establish our rights is now at the level of an unacceptable risk and this time the people in power in this new Osage government had better listen and take heed to the warning instead of blowing off every bit of good advice on this that they hear from constituents. Establishing aspects of our Sovereignty in court is not like it used to be. And I wouldn't alienate the Oklahoma Delegation either if you've still got the sense God gave you. If push comes to shove, you may come to need them in the future for more Federal legislation associated with protecting us from the challenges we are seeing in regard to our mineral rights. And I am specifically referring to the wind farm and the Drummond situation.
450 to 5000 shareholders sounds like a dismal numbers, if that were the case and did you count my letters in support of the CFR's. I SENT 500 TO everyone. And of which these accounts, poster at 1:03 AM and if I sound like a broken record that's ok with me.......because I will not let this die...this is what moves us do right by and by for the major stakeholder the Shareholder and I can tell you I'm one of them and I am serious as a jUDGE ON THESE MATTERS....now if I SOUND LIKE A BROKEN RECORD then we wouldn't be here having this conversation if these issues keep getting swept under the rug so to speak and for the lack of accountability and hoping these issues will correct themselves, they won't and this is why from time to time I will remind those, other Shareholders that an alliance is a must and we must orchestrate our will dilegetly and be proactive....and I do this because there are Shareholders that find some ethical behavior in question, wrong, as I do....and we need a voice for the Shareholders. My fervor for the truth will not waiver for the Shareholders of this 4 billion dollar estate....so if I SOUND LIKE A BROKEN RECORD LET ME REMIND YOU DURING THE ELECTIONS I will be posting sign remember me I'm the one who sounded like a broken record.....now we have a broken record with some of our Council members and if I am elected to the position lots will happen and hop! I've been listening and I hope I get elected....We need to address the conflict of interest and there are huge ones that exist. Less should we forget as a reminder to those who do not want these issues to be gone from time to time I will remind you I have not forgot..
Thank you OsageBlogger, let me ask you on this hollow eve, and this is a serious matter of which each and everyone of us better be paying attention here....Since in nature we are classified as a Seperate Agency, leading to the question, whats the next recourse? Yes Jim Gray lost our Reservastion Case....If we lose the water rights....Which there are Mineral Compounds....and we own the sub-surface rights then you would think this is a easy in and out.....But....lets come to some resolve soon on these matters...lets hope...The Question is because of the Nations Actions, cause and effect....and we know what could happen, what do you suggest the next step would be is to sue the Nation.....?
"CURRENTLY, 25 CFR 226.24 states oil producers need only the approval of the Superintendent of the Osage Agency when using water from streams or natural watercourses. Producers cannot diminish the supply below the requirements of the surface owner from whose land the water is taken, according to the CFRs." You want to change that one do you? To what the State Solicitor General of Oklahoma wants you to? Look at the article at http://osagenews.org/article/solicitor-general-says-nation-does-not-have-rights-water-osage-county
Really, now. SMH, I thought you knew everything. 25 CFR 226.24 is exactly what the OK AG wants to do away with. Then you will be asking instead of telling the landowners where you want to drill. Be sure to remind them they will get damages, but no Royalties, FOREVER too. They really like that part, and will be sure to cooperate. We MUST NOT give up 226.24.
You misread the intention of my comment. It's about Osages who believe that changing the CFRs can only be a bad thing in the end. I am in support of the post just ahead of mine.
See what your HPP lawsuit settlement has done --- http://newsok.com/article/3898957 This CFR rules changing committee is fast turning into a can of worms in every way it can.
If this goes forward by the State in a Court of Opinion my guess would be the State would win just in Osage County and the M/E will not be touched by and by the true Reservation would be as intended by thte 1906 Act the Osage M/E....and or by the way I like how the NEWPAPERS coin the M/E the Nations when acturally the 2229 original allotees own the M/E now Ours to protect. Osage surge for our beloved Osage Tribe....Just an opnion..And Ray McClain posted a comment in the OKnews...www.Oknews.com.He basically said and not in so many words , We don't need state agencys to advocate what we have been doing for over a 100 yrs and the M/E has never depleted the water supply....and has complied to the rules set forth...and by the 1906 act allows us to Govern our own M/E. Stay away....State Agencys
CFR changes were part of the bargaining chip..... the mistake was made when the MC allowed a Lobbyist to represent the NATION.....to settle a lawsuit which belonged to the Shareholders.
For your review see Osage Headright Holders Comments on Leasing of Osage Reservation Lands for Oil and Gas Mining at http://edigital.iserver.net/osages/ohh_comments.pdf
Submitting Comments: Search for Regulations.gov or just go to http://www.regulations.gov In the Search Box, enter “BIA-2013-0003” Ignore the “Osage Mineral Negotiated Rulemaking” – DOI is being stupid in managing the docket You will see: Leasing of Osage Reservation Lands for Oil and Gas Mining Proposed Rule by BIA on 08/28/2013 ID: BIA-2013-0003-0002 Comment Now! Click that blue “Comment Now!” button. You must write something in the box, so if you attach a file, just put down “Please see attached.” Recommended: Write in whatever word processing program you use and then copy the text and paste into the box. Supporters can say that they support the “Osage Headright Holders Comments on Leasing of Osage Reservation Lands for Oil and Gas Mining submitted by the Honorable Charles O. Tillman, Jr., Dudley P. Whitehorn, Joanna Barbara, Joe Hall, and others, on October 26, 2013.” Regulations.gov has not provided a comment document number (see receipt), so we just need to make clear the subject and whose comments are supported. You don’t need to provide your name (but certainly should if representing an organization). If you want to provide contact information, checking the first box opens those fields. Clicking the second box opens a field for the organization’s name. You can populate the “Category” field with things like “Industry” etc., but I like to see specific entries, like “Headright Holder” or “Oil Producer in Osage County” etc. When done, click “Your Review” at the top and it will show you the comment information. Then you must check “You are filing a document into an official docket. Any personal information included in your comment and/or uploaded attachment(s) may be publicly viewable on the web. I read and understand the statement above.” Click “Submit” and it will give you a receipt for your comment.
This comment letter is stuffed full of lies and misrepresentations. These lawyers have written in some nice things, and then they slip in the lies and misrepresentations when they are the least expected. That’s how lawyers do it. They have certainly generated a huge bill for the producers to pay. I see lots of “billable hours” here. The problem is, it’s almost all hogwash. The BIA would need to hire 700 more field inspectors to keep up, and then they would need to send them out on leases where the h2s gas would get them, because using this mess, there is still nothing regulating the h2s.
I can see how they have tried to logically rationalize this passage but it's still very confusing: "In sum, DOI’s trust responsibility for the Osage Mineral Estate lies to the Osage Tribe, as reconstituted as the Osage Mineral Council, and the statutory headright holders. The Osage Nation, as a political and cultural sovereign and organization is separate from this unique trust responsibility." If the Osage Tribe has been reconstituted as the Osage Mineral Council, then the mineral rights are reserved to it and not the Osage Nation as the surviving legal entity to which those rights must pass. This has the potential to be a dangerous passage because the current OMC is a creation of the ON Constitution under the umbrella of an also created Minerals Agency. The Minerals Council of today owes its fiduciary obligation including loyalty and responsibility to the Osage Nation as agents of this newly created ON Constitutional agency. Therefore, the DOI's trust obligation is still owed to the parent Osage Nation government under which the Minerals Agency owes its very existence and the same can be said to be true of the current ON Minerals Council that is organized under this Minerals Agency. The old Minerals Council under the 1906 Act no longer exists as a legal entity today and to presuppose that it has been somehow legally "reconstituted" from the Osage Tribe is wrong. If the new Minerals Council cannot inure to those mineral rights because it no longer exists as it was under the 1906 Act then neither does the reservation of the mineral rights because, in the absence of the Osage Nation, those rights have no legal entity now in existence in with which to pass if the Minerals Council created by the ON Constitution is the only legal entity left. We certainly don't want to go there because under the ON Constitution, it isn't viable for such a transition.
It's a good comment. The way they have the Osage Constitution set up it's like a octopus which has arms that stay dormant until something starts to move. When it does then the arms catch it and wrap up around it with those suckers on the bottom until it can't get away or even move. It's really clever.
My friend, you are not nearly as confused as you might think. Please allow me to pick at your very eloquent summation just a little. The Osage Tribe was “reconstituted” as the Osage Nation as of 2006. Within the Osage Nation, is a quasi-independent agency known as the Osage Mineral Council, which handles all matters pertaining to the Mineral Estate, and its 8 members are independently elected only by the “statutory headright holders” of the Mineral Estate. The Minerals Council of today owes its “fiduciary obligation including loyalty and responsibility” to these “statutory headright holders” while still remaining under the sovereignty umbrella of the Federally recognized Osage Nation. Therefore, the DOI's trust obligation is still owed to the “parent” Osage Nation, but inures directly to the shareholders of the Mineral Estate.*****Confused Osage, we shareholders desperately need obviously educated “thinkers” like you to be more involved in the operations of our Mineral Estate.
To confused Osage you really almost got the conflict of interest spelled out....and I like how you used the word presuppose...and somewhere as I would call in your assertation is key to the answer we are all asking. And not so fast...the 1906 act and the M/E is the Reservation....and anything less would undermine the 1906 act would you not agree?
I thank you for your complimentary remarks. Though I am in agreement that the MC should be acting with an agency relationship to the Shareholders, I've talked to attorneys and other Osages who, like myself, are very concerned about the way that the Osage Nation Constitution has everything constructed. The BIA should have objected to the way things were put together especially how the Minerals Council has been drawn up. Under the 1906 Act, it was like a business board representing the interests of the Shareholders. The Solicitor at the BIA should have seen a flag on the play as soon as he saw the Minerals Agency and the new agency relationship of the Minerals Council placed under it. This completely changed the legal fiduciary relationship of the BIA to the Minerals Council and the Council to the shareholders. Keep in mind that the CIA and it's agents don't owe you loyalty or fealty as a citizen of the United States, that's owed to the U.S. government. The same is true of the FBI and the National Security Agency (NSA). This came about, I am certain, because the National Council failed when they made a move to take over the Minerals administration and Chief Tillman took them to court and the 10th Circuit Court thew the NC out on its ear. The OGRC had to come up with something to stop such an event from ever happening again but they played a little too fast and loose when they let everyone vote in the Referendum Election and didn't pay attention to how the vote came out on about half of the questions where they involve the provisions of the Osage Constitution. Then they allowed those who were not legal members of the Osage Tribe to vote in the Constitutional election. P.L. 108-431, the reaffirmation Act of 2004, determined verbatim that it was the Osage Tribe that had the right to determine its own form of government. The Osage Tribe was then made up of legal Osage headright owners and at the time, all other Osages were not technically yet ushered into membership until the form of government had been officially chosen by a vote of the Osage Tribal members offering them a choice between the then current resolution style of government or the more complicated constitutional form which never actually happened in the ballot box. Within the first three months of its existence, the new government then turned around and made the Chief Gray signed membership card a requisite to be a member effectively tossing out every single legal member of the Osage Tribe that didn't have one and they did it by merely referring, in the membership legislation, to a Tribal Council resolution number that had previously prohibited any Osage from voting without one in the first new government election. I believe that there are Osages out there who get a payment check that don't yet realize that they are not still members. Nasty politics and bad government policy going in where the Osage people are concerned any way you cut it. The last thing you want to do is to compromise trust and integrity as a new government starting out and that's the very first thing the Osage Nation did to the Osages. It's had the feel of a coup d'état from the very beginning and most non-headright owners have been as put off by it as the shareholders, as have most Osage members as group that it has purported to "serve." The U.S. has been very practiced at coup d'état replacement governments using tactics similar to this under the title of Nation Building. I never thought I'd see the day when the Osages would do a thing like this to one another. That's what's so ugly about it and governments that are formed this way rarely ever stand the test of time. If you don't have the people on your side, eventually such governments, and their operators, live to rue the day they ever came into existence.
I got the play book along time ago though you are right in every sense here.....There is going to be some rude awakenng coming to the Nation and it will implode from with in....because they are not playing with a full deck of cards so to speak and we know this...We know without A doubt voting for this GOV. we abesentee voters and some 600 was not counted back in 2006 what happened? and or was not an accident. My vote did not get registerred period, had I known this was going down I would have been their to protest or I would have stressed put the Constitution that these knuckle heads put together and let us all vote on these matters and that did not happen becuase I did not subscribe to a news paper at the time and I did not even know oone existed so how was I to get the memo? And I being a major holder my voting rights what happened who drop the ball...There;s no accountability , no accident there. I can assure you that The Nation Lost the RESERVATION CASE LET THEM DEAL WITH THE WATER RIGHTS IN OSAGE COUNTY AND LET THE OSAGE TRIBE M/E for the Shareholders and the Major Stakeholders vote on these very important issues....as the Governing body the M/E charged by the 1906 Act....Yes the Nation, the Parent company, thought they would get control of the M/E by creating this auspices Govt...and the Nepotism and Crony Capitalism that plague the M/E and the role it has played on the Nation is sure not to end anytimw soon, not so much the Nepotism.....I fine the similarties curious as well wth our Commander in Chief how little respect he the Oath and Ofice our Chief had little respect for....and watch the U.S about to say enoungh Of Obama... Coinencidence? Timing was everything so our administration could begin and like I said no accident that I did not get my vote. And was a coup yes it was. We have a defacto gov...Time is on our side. OSAGE NO LONGER CONFUSED....When you break it down it's jaw dropping. And this is why the fat cats need not come knocking on our door but the Nation keeps up opening up a can worms and before they know it the feds are going to come in say what the heck are you doing? Get that per-cap to the Osages and give a 50 dollar gift cert. to all Osages....We are Osages and we want whats best for our people and yet we have a Gov. that wants to tax you and take and take and this was not supposed to be this way.....We are already taxed to death in the "real" world....and you are right This Gov. if it does not perform in the way the Constiuency thought or beleived then that Osage Constitutional Convention might be the only way to save face and bring back the integrity to our People it this Gov. started with one phone call and that phone call should have gone out to the Shareholders as well with a Memo explaing what was going to happen and we did not get that call or the memo and maybe we should do the same to them and let them the Nation understand to Score....so to speak...
IMPORTANT NOTE: Apparently, the comment period has been extended to November 18, 2013 by mail to: Mr. Eddie Streater Designated Federal Officer Bureau of Indian Affairs P.O. Box 8002 Muscogee, OK 74402 e-mail at osageregneg@bia.gov with 1076–AF17 in the subject line or hand delivery to Eddy Streater's office. I tried to get in on the web site listed in the instructions and got the same thing as an OPEN subscriber who contacted us about the http://www.regulations.gov web site listed in the comment above as to the contact instructions online and found that the comment period is showing as closed.
CFR changes were part of the bargaining chip..... the mistake was made when the MC allowed a Lobbyist to represent the NATION.....to settle a lawsuit which belonged to the Shareholders.
Part of the bargaining chip? With whom? Certainly the majority of the Shareholders had no idea that the CFRs involving the leasing of Osage reservation lands for oil and gas mining were even on the table when the terms and conditions of the HPP settlement were being negotiated. The vote that was was structured by the BIA took place BEFORE the settlement agreement was ever finalized. If the shareholders had known what the elected officials, the attorneys, the BIA and the court were up to, the vote would likely have gone the other way. You people keep pushing for change and soon, you will have an empty oil patch and nothing ($0) in your quarterly headright checks. Why is the Federal government so big on financial full and complete legal disclosure with EVERYBODY ELSE in the USA but the Osages? Does the word bunco mean anything to anybody out there?
Bargaining chip with the government to settle our lawsuit. The shareholders were asked to vote and accept or reject the settlement WITHOUT being given the terms of the settlement.
Why is it "unethical" for a MC member to go to Washington. We MUST have the producers...if we do not have the producers....no oil is drawn and we get ZERO in our checks. There is a balance which has to be achieved. Many times when Resolutions are written, they do not contain what was discussed or the is an addition which defeats the purpose. "These men" who have allowed a lobbyist to represent the NATION....to settle our HHP suit should be ousted faster than greased lightening. They are buying smooth talk and have from the beginning. SHAREHOLDERS: We MUST have the producers......
To Anonymous November 4, 2013 at 5:49 PM***Just what part of the settlement did the Shareholders not get, except for atty fees and expenses?
To Anonymous November 4, 2013 at 5:43 PM***Our Council members MUST NOT accept money from the producers!! Now the producers have these people in their pocket. They had 5 votes supporting the trip and could have called an emergency meeting to approve the travel. But oh no, they had to do it the “Boone way.” Now they are in deep, deep doo doo, with no way out.
To poster Nov.4th on 7:17 pm I do not understand why people do not understand it is counterproductive to the mineral estate to side with the producers period and not the Stakeholders. DO DO IS A UNDERSTATEMENT , THEY The four should do the do and step down and do what right is right and step down.
You're making quite an accusation about the taking of money by the Minerals Council and their being in the pocket of the oil producers. Can you prove such an accusation on an individual basis?
Inviting them on a lobbying junket to Washington D.C. is a far cry from being bought and in the pocket of the oil producers. Standing Bear wants these regulations put through, I'd be willing to bet. These particular passages are ominous: What orders and notices can BIA issue? (a) In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), after consultation with the Osage Minerals Council, is authorized to: (1) Issue and make effective in Osage County oil and gas orders or notices to lessees (NTLs); or (OR ???) (2) Adopt onshore oil and gas orders, NTLs, or related oil and gas regulations ISSUED by the Bureau of Land Management. (???) (b) Adoptions by the Bureau of Indian Affairs shall remain in effect according to their terms and shall not be modified by any action of the Bureau of Land Management unless the Director (of what? The Bureau of Land Management? or the BIA?) issues further orders to that effect in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. (What does the Administrative Procedure Act involve?) From day one, the head of our Trust is the Trustee, the Secretary of the Interior. It's the Trustee who gives the marching orders because this is an Estate Trust set up by the 1906 Allotment Act that has been created by an Act of the U.S. Congress not some sort of oil business opportunity that the Feds have involved themselves in to help out a group of Indians. YES? The 1938 Act to Amend the 1906 Act states verbatim: ""The Secretary of the Interior and the Osage Tribal Council are hereby authorized and directed to offer for lease for oil, gas, and other mining purposes any unleased portion of said land in such quantities and at such times as may be deemed for the best interest of the Osage Tribe of Indians." The 1978 act to Amend the 1906 Act states, "The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to establish rules and regulations under which oil and gas leases producing from a common source of supply may be unitized." I take it that this passage has authorized the CFRs now connected to the BIA hence http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/25/226 and in particular, "Any and all bids shall be subject to the acceptance of the Osage Tribal Council and approval of the Superintendent". § 226.2 Sale of Leases. (b) at http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/25/226.2 As to NTLs, "Notices and orders issued by the Superintendent to the representative and/or operator shall be binding on the lessee." at http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/25/226.45 I don't see that the Trustee of the Trust has maintained it's fiduciary obligation by handing off supervision in part to the BLM outside of the auspices of the BIA that has the predominant responsibility for the government to government relationship with the Indian Tribes. Unless I'm missing something here, it seems to me that adopting NTLs and OTLs coming direct from the BLM that are subject to change from an unspecified Director could lead in a direction where there are a lot of unknowns and that could prove to be a big problem at some point in the future.
I do not understand when those who have been elected to represent the Shareholders in dealing with the Oil Producers (who want our gas and oil), choose to go to Washington to lobby for the Oil Producers and continue to lobby for them. Don’t you all remember that we sued the US Government (BIA) because they were not looking after our best interest and we WON. Not only did we all get a nice piece of cash, but the Judge ruled that a committee be put together to tighten up the rules (CFRs), so this doesn’t happen again. Look folks, it does not take a law degree to know that if the Oil Producers were paying us a fair price and not ripping us off, we wouldn’t have won the lawsuit!!! Again if they were plugging the wells and cleaning up their sites when they finished, we wouldn’t need to change the CFRs. Those Producers who are yelling the loudest are probably the ones who were (are) ripping us off the most. I understand there are some gas producers that even bypass the meters. If you all understand this, then you can see why I am so upset with those who were elected to the Mineral Council wanting us to give our oil/gas away for nothing. The Oil Producers are trying to blackmail us, by saying if you change the current rules, then we are leaving. And I say they have been screwing the Indians long enough, they don’t like the new CFRs, then leave! I will leave you with a side note, sitting out in the lobby a few years ago, I actually heard one of the producers call us “Dumb Indians” as he came out of the Council Room.
I know. I'm worried about your last remark too. One of the things that worries me most as well are the unknowns in the fine print of all of the changes that we have been going through since 2006. As an example, the simplest language in the ON Constitution can be made to mean something far different than one which a reasonably prudent person would think that it means. The same is true of more and more regulations associated with the Federal government and yes it will be good to be paid more but looking at the bottom line, how much are the hard costs going to be to meet the overall price of the new regs? Are we going to be nickeled, dimed and dollar after dollared to death? As far as I can tell, few if any Osages who I have ever known are really capable of what is known in the real world as "forward thinking" and dealing with all this, it's a VITAL set skill to have in the tool box. These new regs won't come about for free, nor will they come cheap and they are full of unknowns as is indicated in my post above. Furthermore, I suspect that they will cost a pretty penny when all is said and done. If the trust account in the U.S. Treasury bleeds out and is eaten alive with all of the future costs of doing business under these new regs that you all seem to be hell bent for leather to have in place, will you be screaming, "We're getting paid more for our oil, why aren't our payments higher?" I believe that the answer to this question is YES. You will! Are you capable of incorporating doubt in your assessment of the future scenario as it plays out under these new CFRs?
Osageblogger I would rather shut the wells down, then give the oil away for nothing. This oil/gas isn't going to last forever, so should we get as much as we can for it. We had a very narrow door, with the Chief and all of Congress agreeing to change the Constitution by revising the Amendments to the Constitution so that the Mineral Council was out from under the Constitution. The Mineral Council passed a Resolution to support the vote, that is all voted for except Cynthia and friends. She went around campaigning against voting for the change. It caused confusion and the Amendments failed. I don't understand Cynthia because she doesn't want to be under the Constitution either. The only thing I can figure is Cynthia is for the Jech Lawsuit, now called the Tillman/Dudley lawsuit. They want the Nation to go away and go back to the old Mineral Council system. Isn't going to happen. Have you gone to Ray McClain's web site? He has Galen Crum's chart that shows we have already been receiving the higher posted price from a good number of the producers. Read the CFR changes again. They aren't going to nickel and dime the producer. The bottom line is, if they weren't making a lot of money here, they would have left a long time ago. Everyone needs to use a little common sense and don't over think this.
To Osage blogger: I don't usually get involved in your discussion here, but you make a couple of assertions in this thread that really beg to be corrected. First, the BLM is given no authority over any part of the Osage mineral estate by the proposed CFR changes. The onshore orders you mention are referenced as documents only that contain technical standards that the BIA can adopt and enforce in the Osage. They convey no authority to the BLM. Indeed it would be impossible to do so, as the Osage are specifically exempted from BLM oversight by Federal law./////// The second area that needs to be addressed is that in your latest post you seem to infer that the 0sages are charged in some way for BIA functions. This is completely false. All BIA service is provided free as part of their trust responsibility.
Thank you too Galen for your comment, but you haven't quite read my post right. I can't go into it now. I will have to get back to you on this later on today.
BLM technical standards that the BIA can adopt and enforce in the Osage? If they involve clean up or any regulatory matter that may cost the Osages money, where will it come from? After the $1 million drawdown has been spent, if there is a balance outstanding due, it won't be long until an approval for a larger amount of drawdown will be in order, to be authorized by the U.S. Congress. In addition, once the BIA is authorized by the new CFRs and has the ability to draw upon BLM technical standards without a clarification as to how far the BIA can go toward incorporating them, you might be looking at a lot of unanticipated cumbersome regulations where the orders and notices to the lessees are concerned. Don't give the BIA carte blanche with any of the rules or regulations of the BLM. It's naive to open this door and not expect the BIA to walk through it. It's not blackmail in my book to be a business owner that has negotiated an oil lease/s in good faith and have the BIA and the Tribe change the entire business landscape with the adoption of new regulations right out from under you. If you were them you would undoubtedly be crying foul too and pick up and leave a lot faster than they ever will. I fail to see why you all are villainizing the oil producers who are currently doing business in the Osage and refuse to comprehend the whole of this situation other than just your own point of view. Such an approach lacks depth and maturity.
To Osage blogger:: I am not vilifying the producers., I continue to have a very good working relationship with all of them. We just completed a very successful oil summit that was well attended and very upbeat in spite of the attempted boycott of the event by the oil producer's association leadership., Several of them even expressed dissatisfaction with the extremely negative and unproductive tactics that has been taken by that leadership. These are business people and most understand that changes had to be made in the Osage and that while they may not be thrilled with some of them, they now would like to just get back to business. As one put it to me "the misinformation about the proposed regs and the uncertainty until they are finally approved is hurting his ability to operate far more than anything in the new regs." There were several new companies at the summit that were enthusiastic about expanding their operations into the Osage and were happy to hear we now had good tracts available for lease. Also, nothing in the technical standards can impose a financial responsibility on the Osages for cleanup or anything else. And the process for adopting any additional onshore orders would require a similar federal process to what is occurring now with the CFRs, consultation with the minerals council and an open comment period.
Galen I fail to see how the "the missinformation about the proposed changes" would affect anyone's operations on the field. But if that is all then on both parts having a healthy sceptisism is good. This process though arduous the learning curve for some, This Shareholder understood what had to be done....listening to the Scaretactics and etc...still came out learning something from all of this...lets move forward with forward thinking for the future of the M/E.....thanks Galen.
Galen, you people in this new government consistently appear to twist, ignore or misinterpret the language of anything associated with laws, rules or regulations that apply directly to you. Now the fact is that the statement is written verbatim; (the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), after consultation with the Osage Minerals Council, is authorized to:) (2) ADOPT onshore oil and gas orders, NTLs, or related oil and gas regulations (currently) ISSUED by the Bureau of Land Management. (b) Adoptions by the Bureau of Indian Affairs shall remain in effect according to their terms and shall not be modified by any action of the Bureau of Land Management unless the Director (of the BLM?) issues further orders to that effect in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. Just because the BIA consults with the Mineral Council does not necessarily mean that you can stop them from adopting any of the BLM OTLs and NTLs! There is nothing in this language that says that you have a vote in the matter whatsoever. Consultation to them probably means that they have notified you in person at a MC meeting or in writing of the fact that they are going to adopt whichever BLM OTL or NTL that they want to. Provide us a list of the BLM OTLs and NTLs that are CURRENTLY ON THE BOOKS that other oil producers are having to abide by in other areas. I would be willing to bet that you have never even seen such a list in your life but you are willing to open the door to such technical standards that the BIA can adopt and enforce in the Osage without even knowing what you are getting yourself into and more importantly, the shareholders whom you were elected by in the ballot box. Have you looked at the text of even one of the OTLs or NTLs that come from the BLM? What the language is also saying is that the "adoptions" of the current OTLs and NTLs ONCE THEY HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THE BIA can't be changed arbitrarily by the BLM without compliance and accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. And you would let this fly without even knowing what is contained in these BLM technical standards? You've got a lot of homework to do before you even decide to go in this direction and make this recommendation to give the BIA such open ended options. This looks and feels like a BLM Trojan Horse to me, Galen and you had better know what you're getting the shareholders into where their income is at stake on this provision of the CFRs alone with undoubtedly a quite a few more just like it. Here, let me help get you started; go here and start clicking on the links and begin reading and report back with what you find after you've finished: This is the list: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/onshore_oil_and_gas.html And you can begin here: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/Onshore_Order_no1.html For the sake of the shareholders who elected you to office, please be thorough. I think once you have finished that it will be a reasonably prudent thing to to say that you are stepping into a gapingly large sinkhole here Galen.
To osageblogger November 8, 2013 at 2:18 PM The following 2 paragraphs taken from the revised cfrs should alleviate your problems. It is very clear that there is no such problem.
§ 226.36 Control devices of wells.
(f) IF APPLICABLE given the circumstances, lessees shall conduct activities in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Bureau of Land Management Onshore Order 6, Hydrogen Sulfide Operations, and any amendments thereto.
§ 226.39 Measurement of gas.
(a) All gas, required to be measured, shall be measured in accordance with the standards, procedures, and practices set forth in Bureau of Land Management Onshore Oil and Gas Order 5, Measurement of Gas, and any amendments thereto. To the extent that Onshore Oil and Gas Order 5 conflicts with any provision of these regulations, THESE REGULATIONS WILL CONTROL.
Where in the CFRs does it say that the BIA can't eventually apply all of the BLM OTLs beyond Orders 5 and 6? See http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/energy/oil_and_gas.Par.98955.File.dat/Onshore%20Order%20No.%206.pdf and http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/energy/oil_and_gas.Par.28029.File.dat/Onshore%20Order%20No.%205.pdf You haven't addressed the NTLs either. I still would like to hear from Galen.
Nice try Patricia. We're talking about the terms, conditions and provisions of the new CFRs. You know exactly what is going on here. If not, please get up to speed.
To anonymous: the reference to the misinformation spread by the OPA leadership and some Minerals Council members causing him problems were his words not mine. But I can relay that the conversation at the time was about the wasted time and effort he had spent ferreting out truth from fiction. And he even had to calm a lender that had been made nervous by the lies that are being circulated.
To Osage blogger: you loose your bet about my knowledge of BLM onshore orders and ntls. I spent many days studying them, talking to BLM personnel, and taking trips to their offices, all to determine what might be helpful in the Osage and what would not. Giving the BLM any control over the Osage was never an option, but we borrowed the technical, industry standard guidelines on gas metering and safely handling H2S gas as documents only. Over the years they had developed very good guidelines on these subjects and we saw no need to reinvent the wheel. And once again I stress that these are documents only and convey no BLM authority in the Osage. That can't happen under existing Federal law. This will also be true if the Osage and BIA decide in the future to borrow any other technical language from the BLM.
I'll have to take your word for it but all this looks very complicated and involved to me. I hope you know what you're doing, Galen because I don't see anything in this summary that could stop the BIA from going past BLM Orders 5 & 6 right through them all. That's a lot of rules and regs to saddle the oil producers with on balance. Though it's good that the BIA is in control, the end result remains the same. It's BLM orders and notices that will prevail in these CFRs. If there is a flight out of the Osage oil patch, you will be the first one to be blamed for it. What lender are you referring to and in reference to what loan? To the Minerals Council? For the purpose of purchasing what?
Many words - nothing said correcting real problems:
1. BIA hasn't clue on running a $4 Billion Mineral Estate. Never had - never will.
2. OMC & BIA both have acute long time shortages of qualified experienced individuals watching the store.
3. Mrs. Crum is an excellent writer of nonsense by Mr. Crum
4. That hissing sound heard in Osage County - is large volumes of hemorrhaging natural gas & related liquids sold without BIA collecting Osage Royalty, and small producers shorted equitable gas pay: Hissing day and night, year around while OMC and BIA have food fights over NegRegs CFRs!
To Osageblogger: Why I asked, is that you keep talking about the BLM getting involved in our business. I don’t know how many times it has to be explained that only 2 regulations are going to be taken from the BLM’s regulations. One is how to meter gas, as we really don’t have many regulations and absolutely nothing addressing the modern digital equipment now being used, so why reinvent the wheel because the BLM regulation is what is being used nationally. The second is handling the H2S gas, which we have no regulations at this time and it is needed. Both new rules say the regulations will be only used where applicable. I believe your friend has misinformed you. She picked up a BLM book of regulations that was laying by her in-box and after reading them, came in the MC meeting ready to pick a fight. After the rest of the Councilmen figured out what she was talking about, it took practically the whole meeting to try to explain to her that only two regulations were being used. She is the only one who thinks the BLM is coming in and going to take over, so I know where you probably got your information. This 798 page page stack of regulations that the producer’s have been waving around is all rhetoric. There is about 20 pages or less of each subject, which makes 40 pages at the most. I guess they should have just copied the passages of the language they wanted to use and not told anyone where it came from. Would you have been happier with that? So why don’t you calm down and try to understand what Galen Crum is trying to tell you. He knows what he is talking about. How many Rulemaking meetings did you attend? How many field trips did you make to learn about what was being proposed? Please reframe from speaking about what you don’t know anything about. Maybe I spoke out of turn. Do you have any experience in the Oil/Gas business?
Patricia we are not talking about one single isolated regulation for each area (Orders 5 &6) that comprises one sentence or two. If you would go to the trouble to copy and paste these two URLs into your browser, you will see that what comprises this so called "regulation" in two instances is VOLUMINOUS for both of the regulation orders coming directly from the BLM web site: 1) http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/energy/oil_and_gas.Par.98955.File.dat/Onshore%20Order%20No.%206.pdf and 2) http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/energy/oil_and_gas.Par.28029.File.dat/Onshore%20Order%20No.%205.pdf Keep in mind that the BLM is under the umbrella of the Department of the Interior and the Secretary of the Interior is the Trustee of the Osage Mineral Estate Income Trust. Order 5 comprises 26 pages and Order 6 comprises 30 pages of regulations associated with these Orders and this says nothing of the Notices to Lesses. One or two sentences in the new Osage CFRs opens up to quite a few actual regulations that the oil producers are going to have to abide by. We know of two BLM Orders so far and that says nothing of the rest. It is being obtuse not to acknowledge this reality if the new CFRs are adopted and put in place in Osage County.
Let me make this quite clear, I am not concerned about the BLM running things. I am concerned about the BIA adopting and enforcing rules and regulations that come from the BLM. I will be just as concerned if they are coming from rules and regulations adopted by the BIA that are from the EPA.
Someone had better be concerned about the BLM coming into the Osage. All we heard at the NEG REG was the fact that the BIA can't do the proper accounting without the BLM taking it over because BIA can't afford to even buy the software updates or the computers to operate the program. Why do you think that there were so many BLM employees on the Government Caucus? Wasn't Darrel the only BIA guy? What does that tell you? DOES anyone on here, Crum included even know what a NTL is or what it means? It is a BLM baseball bat to whack operators any time that they feel like doing it. Osageblogger certainly quoted it all correctly, read the REGS and tell me that BLM is not going to be the puppet master of the whole show? Google all the Indian Lands up north that the BLM is controlling and let me know how long it takes to get a drilling permit, (over 365 days, that is a YEAR), not to mention all that you have to do BEFORE you can even GET A PERMIT, how many rigs are drilling there and how happy those royalty holders are with the BLM. Go look at Fort Berthold that is currently suing the BIA for more of their mismanagement: http://buffalosfire.com/mha-tribal-citizens-file-suit-in-federal-court-alleging-interior-department-failed-in-role-as-trustee/ Are you seeing a common thread here? BIA MISMANAGED the OSAGE Mineral Estate, the producers are not the bad guys, READ the Settlement Agreement! Also INQUIRE of our Minerals Council as to why the COURT MANDATED Bi-Annual Meetings to correct the OPERATIONAL issues of the BIA are not being held and NOT being reported upon every February either! How can you correct a problem, a huge one given the $380 Million Settlement when you don't even have the mandatory meetings to discuss what is wrong with the system? Where is the February 2011 Written Meeting Notes, and the 2012, and what about the 2013? How many meetings have been held THIS YEAR for the 2014 Report? I can tell you, NONE! It is all well and good to blame the big bad oil companies for not paying correctly (which is untrue) but when did the true villain in the play get to skate on THEIR HUGE ROLE in this Settlement? Did you see where the Court ever said that it was the Operators fault? If you read it you saw where it was the mismanagement of the BIA, under qualified, understaffed, and what has changed? Other than the revolving door of the Supt. office, with the 3rd one in place THIS YEAR, and the 3rd Deputy Supt. too, what NEW staff is there? Charity who came over from the Minerals Council is the only NEW staff that comes to mind. Ben Daniels is on loan until the first of the year and then he goes back to Muskogee. They lost their IT expert, and cartographer Pete Fish retired so there have been NO UPDATES to the PLAT BOOKS which is the Bible of the Oil and Gas business since about June... I believe that there are SIX gaugers when there were 9 that are gauging about 15 TANKS per month to judge if the 2,500 Tank Batteries in the Osage are being properly measured! That was NOT 15 each, that was total, POINT 6% PER MONTH. Now the BIA is getting an extra Million to fix some of these problems but given how long it takes to even hire a new employee that is not going to happen very fast either. Do you still believe that the BLM is not going to have anything to do with the Osage? TWO ORDERS and NTL carte blanche with only having to "consult" with the OMC to implement them. This doesn't bother each and every one of you? It doesn't bother you that the BIA could not enforce the 35 half page booklet of the past but can do such a swell job with 56 EXTRA PAGES of BLM REGS on top of the new ones too in the CFR and then add the NTL that gives them the authority to implement anything the Supt. (whoever that finally ends up being) decides that they want to shove down the operators throats but also the OMC who don't get a Veto Power?
THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! AD INFINITUM.... I was seriously beginning to despair that other than a few on the MInerals Council that are taking a beating every single day for not supporting this insanity, that there wasn't a single person involved with this situation that has a lick of common sense. Again and again, THANK YOU! Anyone who doesn't understand what a sweet deal we have in the Osage with the old CFRs and wants to substitute this regulatory death knell for oil production in Osage County ought to have their heads examined. And I mean every single word in this comment. Naivety where the Federal government is concerned backed up by stubborn dug in self destructive decision making is not the way to go for those who are elected that are negotiating this situation for Shareholders who depend, to one degree or another, on the income produced from the oil and gas in the Osage. And that's all there is to it!
What I'd like to know is how the first OMC under the new Osage government actually raised the royalty percentage rate without changing the CFRs. Also, what exactly do you mean by this statement Galen? "This will also be true if the Osage and BIA decide in the future to borrow any other technical language from the BLM." More of the BLM Orders and Notices beyond 5 & 6 not specifically listed in the new CFRs? Yes? HERE WE GO...
Reading all this Galen, I don't think you are being forthcoming with the Headright owners about what all these CFR changes are really about and how much things are going to be different. That's not fair or right of you or Abbot, Red Eagle or Yates not to tell us what you are up to with all these changes. You people need to put your cards on the table and tell the truth about how much things are going to change. You need to have a hearing in Pawhuska run by MC elected officials to go over every bit of this and put it out there for us to comment on. Thank God for osage blogger who always seems to be on your scent night and day.
The Royalty Rate can be changed at the whim of the Osage Minerals Council. It was 3/16 and then was raised to the current 20%. The OMC has always had the authority to regulate the royalty rate based on their negotiation skills and what is needed which is a valuable tool when you are dealing with businesses who need to have a unique situation addressed to best develop the Minerals Estate. That is another reason that we don't want it declared in the CFR, written in stone, only able to be increased or decreased by another CFR Revision. IF the BLM has no authority or ability to come into the Osage, why did the highly compensated attorney and the equally overrated "expert" not just cut and paste as they did so frequently in other parts of the Revisions (rather badly in some instances)? Why incorporate it by reference which will also change with the whim of the BLM changing theirs, which WE have NO CONTROL over in the future? If we are in fact UNIQUE then why would we want to cookie cutter anything into our new CFR? We paid enough to that team of "experts" that we should have bought and paid for our OWN CFR and not the BLM's! The BIG difference is that the Royalty Rate would be changed for leases from that point forward, so that any reputable business wishing to do business in the Osage is fully aware of what the new rate would be. NOT like NYMEX which is a game changer in the middle of the game and effectively increased the Royalty Rate to an unattainable level for ALL producers and MOST Purchasers, and essentially has changed the LEASE CONTRACT which cannot be done unilaterally! The BIA has tried to do the blame shift from their incompetencies (which were considerable given the Settlement Amount and the Court Ordered Mandates to clean up their act) to it being all the Operators fault. If we think that we can attain NYMEX then buy our own transports, take the royalty in kind, pay the cost of trucking to CUSHING at the Terminal and sell our own oil for NYMEX! Of course, that requires 1,000 bbl increments and transportation charges, terminal charges, storage charges, etc. OH we did that, it was known as PLAINS and they ended up owing us MILLIONS of DOLLARS too! Didn't come out near as well on that deal and I wonder where the money went on that one???
Great post....and we are aware of the blame game that has transpired but needless to say let's get this business started and move forward. We have a lot on our plate to address. Can you explain Plains?
To the best of my knowledge the Plains Deal was the following: Several years ago before the Osage Nation was formed the Osage Tribe decided to invoke their CFR 226.11 (3) Royalty in kind. Where the Lessor demands to take their oil in kind not in money. "Lessee shall furnish free storage for royalty oil for a period not to exceed 60 days from date of production after notice of such election." The special twist was that they actually demanded that all the oil operators sell to Plains Marketing instead the free enterprise system of selling to the Purchaser of the Operator's choice. This was met with opposition from the Operators who were getting higher prices from their own deals, or who did not have the storage, etc. It was finally agreed that the Operator would sell their oil to their choice of Purchaser and the Purchaser would make the exchange of the barrels instead of royalty and Plains would take delivery. It is my understanding that somehow Plains did not pay the Osage properly for the oil and it amounted to about $10 Million by one calculation. There were some negotiations after the fact and the amount that was finally settled was far less than what was supposedly owed. (Sound familiar?) I could ask some of the Old Timers exactly what transpired but suffice it to say that it was not a good deal. It was fortuitous that not ALL the oil (as was previously demanded) was sold to Plains or there would have been an even larger loss to the Osage Shareholders and to the Mineral Estate and all the oil could have been tied up for years to come and paid for $.10 on the $1!
To Anonymous Nov 4, 7:17 - Our HHP suit was conservatively estimated to be worth more than 3 BILLION dollars.......the MC allowed a lobbyist to represent the suit, even though the lobbyist was working for the Nation, not the Shareholders but the Nation........which would be a third part. the lobbyist had no oil and gas experience. His first court appearance was concerning our HHP. The lobbyist argued to Judge Hewitt that OUR money belonged to the NATION.....not the Shareholders. After the dust settled, we get $350 MILLION. Really???? I attended several BIA meetings. They snookered the novice lobbyist and walked away smelling like a rose. We literally were cheated out of: 1. fair representation 2. and were saddled with an attorney who had ZERO experience in this field.
I originally heard that it was worth $10 BILLION and that was only for the oil. Osages were never paid for the GAS which is still hemorrhaging and NO ONE is minding the store! You will never get an argument out of me over the "experts" in this suit either. Then they turn around and hire them to advise them on the CFR NEG REG Changes and an attorney who couldn't even cut and paste to plagiarize properly? I bet the government licked their lips over that one, too. Same EXPERT that advised them that they could receive NYMEX for the oil because CUSHING was only 15 MILES from the OSAGE! He also recommended the Gas Pricing that an Osage Shareholder that is an EXPERT GAS MARKETER proved to everyone at a closed meeting that his method would net LESS money than what the Industry Standard would get them... She has a brain and almost 30 years of Gas Marketing experience but the OMC refuses to hire her to consult with them and show them where the Gas Contracts are inequitable and need to be addressed? Do all the Shareholders agree that the money would not be well spent to hire another Shareholder to review all of the gas contracts since the BIA approved contracts that were not to the benefit of the Osage? Gas has been said to be the New Oil and Osage is missing the boat in this respect.
Thank you for explaining the Plains what a monopoly if I ever saw a game played and our M/C could not see this? Something does not smell right? Something stinks to high kingdom come and not a day late. Really.....this was no accident. And indeed there is no arguement we were short changed by the HPP case as well and I do remember the Nation frothing at the mouth to get their greedy hands on that cash and recall Judge Hewitt saying this is and will be going to the Shareholders after all this is Shareholders Revenue .....and this is why it is so critical to pay attention.....I would like to hear more on this Women with 30 yrs experience has to say about why cotracting gas contracts is out dated? and I know where this is going but to change the way the M/C thinks we must vote as a whole and not independent of each other with the Greater Outcome is to represent the Stakeholder who put you in your official capacity to Govern and if they cannot get off the pot then we steamroll full ahead with someone who is going to bring innovation of technology and wisdom to the forefront of the 21st Century....I know what needs to be done to meet the expectations of the Shareholders and if we do not have that kind of representation then I suggest to the M/C to be looking for another Job and maybe with the exception of a few.....If we have to purge to get the right mind set then so be it.....It's not that hard to do....I along with just a couple of people implemented a set of standard of which each dept. could live with for a motto defined by a set of rules to follow streamlined right into a 5 star with in three weeks from the time the implementation started to end which was unheard of. Normally a 4 month process....Why did this work? Because we said everyone must be a team player or be replaced......
The Shareholder offered to contract with the Osage Minerals Council to go into the BIA and to read all the current Gas Contracts to see if they were fair and equitable and met Industry Standards. They refused her offer and told her maybe in a couple of years... HOW long do these Gas Contracts have to go on that are LESS THAN 50%, the best is around 80% Contracts? That means that we are selling 100% of our gas and getting paid on less than 100%. This has been going on for years with the blessing of the BIA because THEY MUST approve any Gas Contract that comes through and then it is passed to the OMC to be approved. In 2008 a GAS EXPERT came in, contracted with the OMC and went into the field to test 15 of the "Cream of the Crop Meters". He found that at that time there was a 10% to 15% loss of gas due to bad metering in those BEST meters. There was coal dust and water in some and others were not measuring to ANSI standards. At that time that was equal to $100,000 to $150,000 PER MONTH lost and that was almost FIVE YEARS ago! That is $SIX MILLION to NINE MILLION DOLLARS to date just on the ones that he inspected! Supt. Melissa at the BIA said that she didn't believe it was true (what she based that on is beyond common sense because she was obviously NO EXPERT and was not aware of any of the issues that were discovered in the field. Of course, if she admitted it WAS true then the BIA was just opened up for yet another mismanaging, unqualified staffing issue...) Now why would the OMC not HIRE an expert who is also a Shareholder to do what they can't or won't do, oversee the competency of the BIA? There is a Million Dollar Budget to manage the Osage Minerals Estate, wouldn't you rather fund this than some of the other money drains that have been paid for in the past? That "expert" and "hot shot little attorney" that sold those CFR's to less than half of our Minerals Council had a stiffer price tag and what did it buy us?
Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=BIA-2013-0003-0002 where the new CFRs are detailed and in a more positive direction, let's review these them which are the point of beginning of the latest disagreement among the Shareholders.
Time is of the essence: if you have the ability to contact those in your area who participated in the Strategic Plan events just after the new government was formed, please contact them and tell them about The Osage Surge to have those outside of the Osage run for office in the upcoming election. Remember, the filing period to run for Chief and Assistant Chief is December 16, 2013 to January 6, 2014 and for the Osage Nation Congress the filing period is March 15, 2014 to March 31, 2014.
Part I--Boone's Bulletin 11/8/13 From the desk of Councilwoman Boone: I purchased a storage unit from the Pawhuska Mayor. He had purchased it at a storage unit auction. It was speculated that the contents of this particular storage unit contained Osage Minerals Council (OMC) documents. My private business was brought up for discussion at a regular OMC meeting. The bottom line is that anything in the unit that might have been OMC documents would just be a copy of an original document stored at the tribal archives in Hominy. Chairman Yates abused his power to allow anyone to question me about my personal purchase. I guess he never saw the TV show "Storage Wars." It's one thing to have a private conversation about a situation. It's another thing to use your position to allow others to try to scorn or humiliate someone in a public meeting. After discussing that the storage unit had been sold for non-payment of rental fees, Chairman Yates stated "we didn't know anything about it." Every budget the Osage Minerals Council received had a line item identified as storage rental. Councilmen Crum and Redeagle wanted this matter investigated by the police. This matter was published in the Bigheart Times newspaper as well as my letter to the editor.
Part II--Boone's Bulletin 11/8/13 In another matter, some of the OMC wanted tribal Congress to bring ethics charges against 4 of us, who went with some oil men to Washington D.C. Those who went were Councilmen Bear, Core, Whitehorn and me. The other OMC were told that the oil men paid our way. Whitehorn and I paid our own way. We had an Oil and Gas Summit on November 5 and 6. The oil men paid for our mileage, food, drinks, snacks, banquet dinner, hotel rooms and Pendleton blankets. Chairman Yates did not stay in a regular room. He and his wife stayed in a suite, compliments of the oil men. Should we all be brought up on ethics charges? Looks like a double standard to me. I believe we are an independent agency and tribal Congress doesn't need to be in our business but Councilman Abbott contacted Osage Nation Congressman Geoffrey Standingbear to discuss a possible ethics violation.
We recently voted for raises for our staff. When I'm in the office, I hear the company cell phones ringing mostly, not the office desk phones. I reviewed the two staff's company phone bills for one month and this is what I found: One employee's company phone bill was 22 pages long. There were 564 calls made, 339 of them were made after hours, texting was 5,348 minutes. If this employee is this busy using the company cell phone to text and make so many phone calls, how much times does she spend working for us headright owners? The other employee phone bill was only 1 page: 5 calls were made for a total of 19 minutes. Texting was only 11 minutes. Councilman Red Eagle said we need to set a precedent. Councilman Abbott said they deserve a raise. What do you think? We didn't vote of each employee separately. I voted no. One of our employees hasn't even passed her probationary period.
One of our headright owners asked for our attorney's legal opinion on the Osage Nation Open Records Act. The chairman said she could have it but then realized it stated attorney/client privilege. I brought it to a vote of the council that the attorney opinion could be shared with our headright owners and it passed. The bottom line is that the Osage Nation Open Records Act does not apply to the Osage Minerals Council.
The public comment period of the Negotiated Rule Making for our oil and gas rules has been extended. There were over 450 letters submitted by headright owners to protest the proposed rules. In addition, the Oklahoma State Congressional delegation, the Oklahoma State Attorney General, landowners and oil men submitted comments asking for the process to be restarted. You still have time to submit your comments. The deadline now is November 18.
Copies of any of the documents discussed here are available upon request. I can be reached at 918-698-3314 or e-mail your request to tom@cowboy.net.
Any opinions made herein are our own and not that of the total Minerals Council. Remember our veterans on Veterans Day and have a Happy Thanksgiving.
Cynthia your nose must be six feet long by now. It is an out and out lie that you paid your way to Washington, when you went to lobby for the Oil Producers. I have a disk of the meeting when you and Curtis admitted to going, with the Producers paying, and both of you saying would do it again. Then Dudley saw what was going on and threw you both under the bus, by saying he paid his own way. Then by the next meeting you said you paid part of the trip and now you say you have paid your whole way. Give me a break. As nobody believes you, the only thing I would like to say to you and Dudley, is show us the receipts dated with the time the trip was taken and your names on them. Ms. Boone once you have been caught in a lie, it is very hard for people to believe you. The second thing I would like to address is your statement that the about the members of the mineral council attending the Oil and Gas Summit. Did you attend? Did you eat? etc. You know nothing about putting on or financing meetings or summits or conventions. I put a conference on once a year, for twenty five years, all over the county. If they are done properly the cost of having the council as guests, is folded into the registration and display fees charged. Also a sizeable amount is collected from supporters for advertising in the program and from the exhibitors. You are carrying on like the Oil Producers Association financed the whole thing. This is another preposterous LIE. When you block a group of rooms at a hotel, the hotel gives you a suite and several free rooms depending on how many you block. I always gave my free suite to the guest of honor or the Chairman of the Board and stayed in one of the free rooms to keep my cost down and the others went to the VIPs. A word of advice, if you don’t want to look like a fool, you really need to keep your statements to yourself, because most of the time you don’t know what you are talking about.
Where do you think that the carryover of over $100,000 for the Summit originated? It came from the careful administration of past Summits and was directly donated by the OIL AND GAS OPERATORS! Why don't you trace the budget and source of all the income and get back to us on that fact? Why was Crum in a suite, he is not the Chairman/Speaker of the Minerals Council and he was not even on the Steering Committee. I believe that if you would go back and listen to the tapes of the OMC meetings you would hear someone say that the ONLY contributors at that time were CEP, Chaparral and Lawco... ALL OPERATORS. I believe that there appeared to be well over THIRTEEN of the Committee Members, plus numerous volunteers benefitting from the donations of the Operators, correct? Since every year the Operators were the contributors for the Summit isn't that a HUGE CONFLICT OF INTEREST to accept all of these gifts? It appears that the only OMC member that wasn't there was Sonny Abbott, who probably had his own reasons for not attending. As for the advertisers paying for it, there were only 4 that were NOT Operators too. As far as operators were all there and happy, exactly how many in attendance were actually Operators Vs all the Freebies? In past years, the Open Bar Reception on the first night was completely paid for by the OPA, too. I am sure that no one drank all the booze because it was tainted too? As for the Washington Trip, in the past the Operators and the Council were considered PARTNERS in the Osage. After the NEG REG when not only were the Partners EXCLUDED from the Negotiations, but the Osage Nation, nullifying it as a government to government caucus, and the landowners who were certainly an interested party if nothing else, and don't forget that OUR FULL OSAGE ELECTED MINERALS COUNCIL was also excluded, partnership was voided for all concerned. Why shouldn't they go to DC to discuss the facts of the Osage? Especially since the FULL MC had already voted and passed a Resolution by a MAJORITY to not send the CFR to DC? Do you get to cherry pick which Resolutions are acted upon and which ones are ignored? Isn't it time to stop this petty bickering and get to the business of managing the $4 Billion Mineral Estate, if it is still in fact even worth that much now with EnCana and Chaparral throwing back their Concessions, Chaparral laying off at least 3 of their Upper Field Management, Halcon has laid off almost all of their field staff in the Osage and has NO PLANS for drilling, Devon MAY drill a well in Feb. only to keep their Concession in place, and rumor has it that Spyglass has sold or is about to, also. Does this sound like they are beating your door down to produce in the Osage? And NO, I DON'T see anyone that is clawing their way to be in the Osage either. You keep reiterating that YOU don't need them, there will be more to take their place, how many leases were nominated for the SALE that didn't happen this year after the fiasco of last year's?
Patricia, you are right about Cynthia Boones comments and admissions is witnessed by many....and now a different story....I will say one thing, when a lie becomes a truth......you know you are in trouble in little China...The Squeeky will and I mean will is getting greased alright...and maybe feeling a little heat...but why lie? There is no self preservation in that or for that matter a moral compass exists? Unbelievable, but maybe not....Because I certainly believe that it would have been just more than prudent but ethical to the Stakeholders, view it would be better said to be honest, if she had gone with her great Storage War bid "Lol' and had given the M/C opportunity to puchase in the first as opposed to doing the complete opposite and gloated....really a lack of character and unfortunately once you lose that first perception of someone, that trust is hard to get back unfortunately and you just can't forget...all you can do is be accountable at this point as Presiden Obama. Even though she is entitled to her opinion one way or another whether it is the truth it's her truth and she has owned it....and the unintened consequence is yet to be revealed.....and maybe with this Osage Surge we can get some truth to the matter of how not deflect, but direct instead and show leadership, In my opininion,..... the M/E and The Stakeholders exists because of the 1906 Act....does not give the atonomy to the M/C not abide by the OPEN RECORDS ACT....The STAKEHOLDERS , THE SHAREHOLDES, AS A AGENT THE M/C AND TIE BREAKER CHIEF....IS A REPRESENTATIVE ON BEHALF OF THE STAKEHOLDERS AND REPRESENTATIVE OF THE 1906 ACT WILL AND SHOULD NOT VIOLATE THE TRUST OF THE STAKEHOLDER BY THE OATH THEY TOOK IN OFFICE......NOT ONE OFFICIAL IN THIER CAPACITY SHOULD HAVE COMPLETE ATONOMY OF THE RECORDS IN REGARDS TO THE FINANCIALS OF THE M/E. We voted you in...and I believe would be a conflict of interest to the first as in regards to the Major Stakeholders rights the M/E SHAREHOLDERS? Not that I am putting the horse before the cart but say it isn't so? And Cynthia is right there were others who atteneded the Washington trip....but I will say one thing she likes to deflect and she's not that good at it or a good liar , maybe she meant to mean it another way her circumstance but she brought this attention to herself....flattering not. And in any Corp. you get rid of the weakest link...Corp's want team players and doers who create inspiration....and are not self motivated..but motivated by success...Our Success is we believe in Our M/C.....I am not to far from where the apple falls from the tree when I speak of this....Positive begets Positive./// Long Live the Osage Tribe and the future of our M/E. And I don't know how to see this situation any different....the truth is the truth and you can not undue a truth..
How many showed up for the oil & gas summit? Wasn’t the reservation $100 each? That’s probably $10,000 in registrations. I saw a program, and quite a few producers were advertising in it. That’s maybe another $10,000. Just how much could it have cost to put this on? I would bet that share holder and visitor contributions through registrations and advertising amounted to just as much as what the producers contributed. No one was holding a gun to these producers’ heads demanding contributions, were they? All of the MC office personnel working there were probably on the time clock, too. According to what I read on Ray McClain’s web site, the Osages must have done the entire opening ceremony. They surely had expenses. Who paid them? I can tell you right now, if any of them were on the Osage payroll somewhere, they didn’t lose 1 minute of time on their pay check either. Nor should they have. No Cynthia, the Osages paid their own way for this summit and from what I’m told, the producers damn sure got their money’s worth. These people worked their butts off to put on a show for the producers benefit. The Osages will only reap 17% (avg. royalty rate according to Mr. Crum) of the rewards. And all you can do is bitch about it. NOBODY gets a “good job, thanks” from Cynthia Boone. But the producers DID pay 100% for the Washington trip, and that’s a completely different thing. This was a payoff in advance for favors in lease negotiations, and this is graft and corruption in its worst form by everyone involved. Did you thank them for that? I hope they don’t get their money’s worth there. As for lease sales, councilman Whitehorn told us about a year ago that nearly everything was leased up. That sounds good to me. How do you have a successful lease sale if there’s nothing available but proven, dry hole leases to sell? The only thing you try to sell is garbage to us on this blog.
Aint the oil summet for oil producers? So the ones who registered were clowns coming to a clown conventtion or was it oil men looking to produce oil and gas in OC? Why did they advertise for contribbutions to be given to the MC before the oil summet even started up????? You got a few of your facts wrong there buddy.
From the looks of your post, you have a lot of experience in “wrong”.
Also, as for the boycott of the summit this year by the Osage Producers’ Association leadership alleged by Mr. Crum, it shows us exactly who doesn’t want to leave. If they were trying to sell out, they would have been there trying to get someone interested. They are in the best place in the world to produce oil and they know it. They just don’t want any rules. Well, every game has rules, so Mr. Producer, suck it up, pay us what your owe us, and get on with the business of producing oil. And in the future, please plan on keeping records on your activities for at least 6 years. We may want to do the “Trust but Verify” routine described by President Ronald Reagan.
Well, it looks like Cynthia Boone is trying to maintain her usual standards, of running people off and making life miserable for the employees of the council. I’m betting that if the truth about the phone bills were known, it would look a lot different to us. And such a glowing report on the Oil and Gas Summit, I have never before seen. Maybe next year they will give you the suite, Cynthia. You didn’t get the suite last year, either did you? I’d be mad, too. Be sure to keep bashing and slashing at your counterparts up there. You are really something we Osages can be proud of. I heard Abbott and Yates were planning on co-chairing your campaign next year, and that Standing Bear planned to contribute what he has left over after he wins. Hope you don’t make them want to leave, too.
You are doomed for failure, and you are trying to drag everybody within reach down with you. Just say’in....
Really beats the heck out of you that Cynthia continues to be right and has the following to back her up. I predict that the same thing will happen in the next election with all those boys on the MC today who are buddy buddy with the members of Congress who would sell you all down river to get that Mineral Estate in their hands, subdivide it and throw all the shareholders out of their shares and start over with all their friends and family in Osage County. This has been the ONO plan with this new Osage Nation government and you are playing right into their hands or maybe not. I think you're one of them. HA HA HA HA HA- GOTCHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CAnn Norris. Question for you. Are you for sure about the intentions of your Bigheart country cuz Patricia what she thinks about your payment that ships out to California? Ask her if she's an ONO too cause she sure acts like one more n half the time. HA HA HA HA HA- GOTCHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To Anonymous-November 9, 2013 at 9:39 PM. I don't know. It looks like employment standards for the employees to have to meet in order to get a raise are really hard for you to take. You must work for the ON govt. They have the same set of nonstandards too. Funny how crap like this blobs over to everything everywhere on the hill.
I checked and those phone bills were from all the phones assigned to the Mineral Council. Cynthia again putting her spin on things. Those phone calls made during working hours that she was complaining about, - include hers, wherever she is calling from during the day.
Anonymous posting at 12:37 PM, is backing the wrong horse. And if she is the one who put this blog together, why did she make it so you don't know who is posting, that is except for her and she won't even use her own name. That was a big complaint about the old blog. People who don't have the courage to stand up for what they have to say and hide behind anonymous
I put up this Blog and it's well known that I am the one who has created it and furthermore, I purposely made it work so that those who are employed by the ON can post here without recrimination from the higher ups just like Kent Radcliff did with his OSA Discussions Blog. I don't know you and I don't know the CAnn in the post either. You're speculating in the wrong direction, Patricia. You keep focusing your attention on Cynthia instead of the issues directly associated with the CFRs and people are going to start wondering why and come out of the woodwork at you for it. Not my fault, so don't look in my direction to vent your vitriol. Nobody is fooled by the way you focus on her in the attempt to deflect the shareholder's attention away from what is important and by that I mean what is involved and contained in the changes in the proposed CFRs.
osageblogger sorry for misreading your reasons for setting up your blog this way. On the old blog, I wouldn't respond to those who wouldn't sign their names. This is what I am trying to do - If you read the CFRs they are basically good. Most of the new ones are trying to cover the areas that aren't regulated now. The Producers don't want regulations, because if we have these regulations, they won't be able to rip us off anymore! Don't you understand? Cynthia doesn't really care about the Shareholders, she is for her friends the Gas Producers. I have just been told some disturbing news along this line and as soon as I have it verified, I will write about it. Please people don't take what Ms. Boone says as fact - check it out for yourself and then decide what the truth is, that is all i ask. I have proven that she does lie! You don't hear or see what goes on after the recorder is turned off or what goes on behind the camera, so to speak. It is not all what it seems to be. You are listening to a person, who is not very nice. I have never liked the bullies of this world and growing up I always stood up to them and tried to protect their target. This is why I am posting!!!!!
Patricia, I see where you are going and what your motivation is and I respect and understand it. However, we need to stop focussing on people and get down to the language of the new CFRs. I can see that new regulation in certain respects is good and needed but what I don't see, is any power for the Minerals Council to vote against new regulations that may come down the pike in the future. THIS MUST BE IN PLACE and I am taking a position that is intractable on this particular issue. We need advocates and they cannot have their hands tied behind their backs by these new CFRs especially if the Feds are in a position to fluff off any concern that the Shareholders and their representatives (the MC) have about them. This must be in place, in writing and in the new CFRs. In other words, "after consultation and WITH AN OFFICIAL VOTE OF APPROVAL BY RESOLUTION OF 6 OF THE 8 MEMBERS OF THE OSAGE MINERALS COUNCIL,..." You get my drift.
In any important dealings, this Council couldn’t agree on a brand of toilet paper, much less get a 6 to 2 vote on anything. This is part of my complaint. So much time is spent snipping at each other, instead of taking care of business and you know who I am talking about. This is also what happens, when you have the majority of the Council members laking experience in not only the oil business, but any type of business at all. The majority do not know what they are doing and I beginning to think that is why we have all these personal attacks, to cover up the fact they don’t know what they are doing. I believe after the Rule Making Meetings, with the people from Washington, they can see this too, so any thing said from here on out will go straight into the “comment file” alongside the 450 form letters the producers wasted their time on. These statements also cover your comments about putting more control in the Mineral Councils hands. As long as the voters are going to vote for inexperience people for office because they are a relative or their BFF, we are always going to have problems. We need the BIA and it worries me that some of the people here that are going to be running for other offices, want to get rid of them, Jim Gray and Tim Tallchief for two. Until the Mineral Council can get in a position to command respect, we aren’t going anywhere. This respect isn’t going to happen overnight and at least we can start with the next election.
Granted, the Minerals Council needs to develop skills in order to get along at least during the time that the meetings take place. It appears to be very unprofessional and I believe would make professional oil people nervous to do business in Osage County. See the post on today's date by Anonymous on November 12, 2013 at 7:53 AM that talks about unilaterally changing the contracts on the leases and the royalty rate. So much is coming to light of late that I am still of a mind that we need to take a wait and see position for as long as possible, especially if the royalty rate is in stone: "OMC has always had the authority to regulate the royalty rate based on their negotiation skills and what is needed which is a valuable tool when you are dealing with businesses who need to have a unique situation addressed to best develop the Minerals Estate. That is another reason that we don't want it declared in the CFR, written in stone, only able to be increased or decreased by another CFR Revision." Look at the difficulty this current revision in the CFRs has been and what it has brought about. Will those with leases negotiated before the new CFRs seek relief in the Courts because of breach of contract? This just gets more and more complex and, from my point of view, uglier by the day. As to your remark about professionals in office, if you tie the hands of those who are unprofessional today, you do the same thing to those who ARE professionals tomorrow and the OMC must have a voting place at the table on these BLM regulations. That's all there is to it Patricia. Self determination for any government is important and you don't want to make it easy for the Feds to run away with and take advantage of an open door on Federal oil production regulations in the Osage. If the BLM should adopt regulations in their Orders from the EPA that are then adopted by the BIA and we have no voice or vote on such an arbitrary one sided decision taken, how will you feel about it then?
I’m sure the lack of professionalism demonstrated by some on this mineral council DOES make those who must negotiate with them quite nervous. Last year, a producer offered us $5 million to lease up an entire concession. 6 voted yes, 1 voted no, and 1 abstained. The very next month, 3 of our “professionals” voted to not allow this producer to assign these leases for development. Disingenuous crap like this certainly cannot be what our council should be doing!! I cannot find a post by Anonymous on November 12, 2013 at 7:53 AM on my computer, but nothing being done is changing the basic contracts and certainly nothing is raising anyone’s royalty rate. They are simply establishing a base line for the true value of Osage oil and enhancing accountability. The 10% and 12 ½% royalty negotiated 90 years ago on much of the production will still be there and can never change unless that lease must be renegotiated for some reason. The current 20% royalty initiated by MC1 four or five years ago and approved by the Feds, is finally now appearing in print. That little “payoff trip” to Washington is a perfect example of why the royalty rate MUST be etched in stone. There are many ways to address “unique situations” without giving away half of the farm
I was under the impression that negotiated Osage Mineral Estate leases cannot be sold or assigned to a third party. I heard about one situation where the lessee negotiated for a lease/s and then turned right around and either sold or assigned it to a third party who paid twice to three times as much as the original lessee paid to the Osage Tribe. What is interesting here is the wide range of points of view that in some instances are the complete opposite of one another. As such, it's hard to determine the truth. Federal regulations where private industry is concerned can be questionable because of how burdensome they can become. A perfect example is this Obamacare law that everyone is coming off of faster than a blue streak of lightening. If the rollout of the new CFRs goes anything like like this new healthcare legislation you will be looking at bedlam in the Osage oil patch. Royalties in stone? You'll never sell that one. Explain what you mean by, "...giving away half of the farm." As for the comment on November 12, 2013 at 7:53 AM by Anonymous, I am reprinting it as follows: "The Royalty Rate can be changed at the whim of the Osage Minerals Council. It was 3/16 and then was raised to the current 20%. The OMC has always had the authority to regulate the royalty rate based on their negotiation skills and what is needed which is a valuable tool when you are dealing with businesses who need to have a unique situation addressed to best develop the Minerals Estate. That is another reason that we don't want it declared in the CFR, written in stone, only able to be increased or decreased by another CFR Revision. IF the BLM has no authority or ability to come into the Osage, why did the highly compensated attorney and the equally overrated "expert" not just cut and paste as they did so frequently in other parts of the Revisions (rather badly in some instances)? Why incorporate it by reference which will also change with the whim of the BLM changing theirs, which WE have NO CONTROL over in the future? If we are in fact UNIQUE then why would we want to cookie cutter anything into our new CFR? We paid enough to that team of "experts" that we should have bought and paid for our OWN CFR and not the BLM's! The BIG difference is that the Royalty Rate would be changed for leases from that point forward, so that any reputable business wishing to do business in the Osage is fully aware of what the new rate would be. NOT like NYMEX which is a game changer in the middle of the game and effectively increased the Royalty Rate to an unattainable level for ALL producers and MOST Purchasers, and essentially has changed the LEASE CONTRACT which cannot be done unilaterally! The BIA has tried to do the blame shift from their incompetencies (which were considerable given the Settlement Amount and the Court Ordered Mandates to clean up their act) to it being all the Operators fault. If we think that we can attain NYMEX then buy our own transports, take the royalty in kind, pay the cost of trucking to CUSHING at the Terminal and sell our own oil for NYMEX! Of course, that requires 1,000 bbl increments and transportation charges, terminal charges, storage charges, etc. OH we did that, it was known as PLAINS and they ended up owing us MILLIONS of DOLLARS too! Didn't come out near as well on that deal and I wonder where the money went on that one???"
To: Osage Blogger…Leases have always been bought and sold among the producers. Without this being possible, an operator could never borrow a dime from a legitimate lender. As for selling a lease for more than they paid for it, I’m sure that happens. That’s what the oil business, or any other business, is all about. Making money. We just got out smarted when we let the lease go that cheap. It is the mineral council’s and the BIA’s job to know what these leases are worth to start with. Many times in the past, the council has put leases in a lease sale that were sold for the minimum bid of 3 or 4 thousand dollars, when the lease had a history of high production and good seismic potential. We have let hundreds of thousands of dollars in bonus’s get away like that, and to this day, the council still has no way to know what a lease might be worth without asking the BIA. The BIA at Pawhuska will be focused on their own problems as they reorganize the agency, so don’t expect a lot of help concerning lease values from them for quite a while. As for comparing the cfrs to Obama Care, you are really grabbing at straws for analogies, aren’t you? As for giving away half of the farm, stop and think about the producers offering money for expenses to over half of our council. Then tell me that the royalty rate should be at the whim of the council. Those producers are expecting a huge return on this investment too. The leadership of the OPA is leading their followers down a dangerous path. Due to the obvious graft and corruption involved in this offer, there is a widening split in the ranks at OPA as many are saying that it’s just not worth the problems its causing just to save a few pennies. They just want to get back to work and make some good money.
No, actually, I'm not grabbing at straws in regard to this situation. I really think it might be possible. There's another thing that I find rather astounding. Are you serious when you say that the price of a single one or two day trip to Washington, D.C. could buy these four members of the MC? I mean, come on. That's pretty insulting if you think about it. You honestly believe that they could have been bought that cheaply? Also, if basic contracts can't be breached, why did Melissa Currey, former Superintendent of the Osage Agency, have complaints made to Federal Investigators about her concerning exactly that?
Getting back to work to make some good money is just an excuse to attempt to gloss over that corruption has happened and suspect we will find out more as time, in a very short period, we will know from the fall out of the Fletcher Case has yet to reveal and once we get a look at the profile of our said M/E accounts....I can tell you fines were not levied against a leese's when payment was not on time? I have proof of this....and this is why I want to know why the M/C is divided when they should be United...somthing is amiss. And it's no accident. It is insulting to the Osage Shareholder that even this type of Business was considered legal. Buying leases on the Down low to get top dollar from another buyer sounds like bate and switch tactics to insider trading? That's our Money and if this has been going on with a blind eye then we must get a New M/C....they took the Oath to represent the M/E and Shareholders.
P.s from 11:38 I agree with Osageblogger imcompetency is showing all over the place.....has been for a long time...and yet we are still at square one since 2006....and we know this to be true before 2006....The Federal Gov. recognizes this......it's one thing to understand the necessary changes but to implement change is another...we need leaders not belley itchers. Why wouldn't we change the royalty rate that would reflect the loss on said current purchases of oil to reflect the diffence how we are getting paid? Didn't I read that we are not getting paid not from the top end of the Barrel like we should and yet we are getting paid from the bottom end after every one has taken their share? Old trick....in accounting and how did this happen?
To Osage Blogger Nov. 13, 1:07 AM___My point is, they HAVE been bought that cheaply, and two have admitted it in MC meetings. And, they said they “would do it again”, so they can be bought some more. Their hands are dirty. They are now beholden to the producers. This will always be a dark shadow over their character. Who knows what will be in an envelop they might find lying in their back seat some day. Think they will tell us if that happens? There’s a thousand ways they can be paid off, and no one would ever know. They will live the rest of their lives under this shadow. Cynthia Boone won’t even tell us what MC documents she bought that came out of the storage locker. No morals, no ethics, and they aren’t very smart either. But we elected them to run our business didn’t we. I guess we are not very smart either, or maybe just too trusting. We shareholders are the ones who have been insulted. The arrogance they demonstrate is just unbelievable.
The Osages have never paid (to my knowledge) for anything at the summit. Money comes from sponsors (oil and gas producers), registrations, and exhibitors. Set ups for the exhibitors cost almost as much to build their exhibits as they pay, and then they get a free registration per booth, so no money is made on them. Never sold advertisements those "ads" are usually posted in the Brochure because they sponsored the Summit. There was announced that there was a $100,000 carryover from the wise management of the Producer donations in the past. The Donors this year were CEP, Chaparral, Devon, LAWCO and Spyglass at varying amounts of donations. There were NO DONATIONS listed from the other Concession Holders, BGI, Performance, Grand Resources, Sullivan, EnCana or Halcon or any other Producers as there was in the past. The OSAGE did not spend a dime on the Summit with the exception of the Casino being a Gold Supporter. There were a lot of volunteers that also ate at the Producer's tables, however. There appeared to be about 50 Producers present at the Summit, and booths of support people like electrical, archeological, geological, etc. but not nearly as many as in years past when they filled the Ballroom instead of lining the hallway. So since it has been proven that the Producers paid for this Summit, as they have always done in the past, is this not a Conflict of Interest for the OMC to accept these rooms, breakfasts, lunch and dinner, refreshments, and suites of rooms not to mention that Open Bar? What is the difference between flying to DC and splurging at the Cherokee Hardrock Casino on the Producer's dime? If not for the carryover there would not have been enough funds to have had the Summit this year. The Bar Tab alone in the past has been as much as $40,000+! There were fully half as many Producers at the Summit this year Vs. last year I would guess. Raging success? Hardly. They would not have been there to sell their leases as one post pointed out... they can't sell leases at the Summit, and obviously we can't either since there WAS NO SALE this year although Chaparral signed off on their Concession Acreage in time to make all that acreage available yet there were only a couple of leases nominated for a Sale. The last Sale (which in the past was held quarterly, I believe) was at the Summit last year and it failed just as miserably but at least there was not the embarrassment of NO BIDS this year. Looks like they are beating a path to our door for that great oil doesn't it? Not a problem, Producers are real happy? Want to borrow some of Galen's rose colored glasses?
To poster Nov 13, 2013_______great post...points to ponder with, is Concessions the way to do business? Doesn't Concessions tie up rather than permit? not really in favor of the M/E? Why not guarntees? other than tieing up the land for what?
The Osage Floor Show!!! Watch as she (Libbi) smites the MC for not getting to the bottom of what really happened with Melissa Currey's reassignment and doing their J-O-B according to the Constitution. The added value Bonus not to miss is how she tries to sneak up on planting the idea of compacting the Mineral Estate. Wasn't her husband the one who was Chief in 2004 when Melissa Currey became the BIA Superintendent? If there was something wrong like her lack of education which should have disqualified her from being hired for the job, why didn't he catch it and complain to the BIA in Muskogee then before it got so bad? How much money did your husband waste on lawsuits while he was Chief that were dropped after he failed get reelected to office? Wasn't he the One who thought the Mineral Council, first and foremost, worked for the Osage Nation not those shareholers? Aren't you getting a little off message? Oh, and what did you start out as Libbi? See it all right here >>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6PBMcpQ2fU
Libby. we will in absolute no terms compact......absolutely not....it is bad enough we have a M/C divided. and a Federal Gov.The BIA out of sorts at the Administration level and is trying to rectify the issue with more man power and puting in the state of art IT and in additon a Million dollars..You get the pic. As a Major Stakeholder after seeing how this Gov. was formed and please do not take this personal.....because I do like your Husband and I find your heart is in the right spot...but you cannot help noticing Melissa Curry's incompetency as recognized, and her complacency was her failure in her ability to require a certain amount of dilligence to do this J.O.B and has cost the Shareholders a dollar, not earned and another day late, AND... in my records spells a negative. Unfortunately someone is the fall quy possibly. And the bottom line lets get to business and we don't do this by getting more hands into the bucket sort of speak by compacting....We know where the heart of the Problem exists....That's a easy remedy....to the recipe...get the M/C in shape or ship out.....we should be a lot further in developement than we are and you have to ask why and research the problem and this as a Shareholder I am finding to be, that a problem exists....And really we have bigger issues Libby that need to be addressed....Talking Points. The changes to the CFR'S for example? Ah let me see. Why not talk about The Water rights issue....or how about. Where are our financial records? Or talk about the fletcher case or talk about the conflict of interest having two members of a family sitting as Officers side by side?....Boone and Boone. How does that happen? or for that matter the four who went to Washington on behalf of the Producers as opposed to supporting the STAKEHOLDERS IN THE FIRST. Get the drift? You just can't in a middle of a sentence talk about compacting then not explain why this would be beneficial to the M/E...Get on Facebook, get on blogs and listen...to spread someone's ideology is disingenuous especially when we know where this came from.....I was not apart of the hook line and sink crew when this Gov. was formed Libby...had I known, I would have been apart of the process in the DEVELOPEMENT OF THE OSAGE CONSTITUTION and you bet I would have made sure every Shareholder and every Osage Indian they would have had a copy, known and would have a say so and not just that I would have had my Lawyers take a Ghander and the waste has continued....so if you excuse me for not wanting to listen to any of your husbands Ideas or recommendations and etc//// and so forth...he's done some harm and has created a division of which I hope it does not conquear and devide even futher..and as far as the land owners go they signed the dotted line and know we have the Right of Way....as Standard. And yes has their crys fallen on death ears by the M/C because after all if their rights have been violated and if we find out this was just to stone wall the drilling on their property because all of a sudden they have buyers remorse is not going to cut it and what other recourse can the M/C take as far as fines levied against the Home Owner? not that this has happened but what if we find out differently? We meaning the M/C have the right to make sure this does not happen and should follow through with the BIA.....What I see is lack of organization within and must be resolved......//// Today not tomorrow. The M/C has had two years since the HPP to structure the M/C to be equipped with the technology to operate a functioning M/C for he sake of the M/E/STAKEHOLDERS, so what are they doing?
I just finished posting this on Facebook's Osage Shareholders Group. Thought you might want to know what is going on
Andrew Yates, Chairman Mineral Council went back to Washington DC with the Chief and the two of them have an appointment to talk to Sen. Washburn. It seems the Wind Farm people without permission or permits have started construction on the Wind Farm. They couldn't have picked a worse place to do it. More later on this. The Shareholders have spent around a half million in legal fees fighting the Wind Farm people over the years. And good old Ms. Boone voted against funding the trip for Andrew. What is interesting that Andrew had less time before his trip to call and get a phone vote to fund the trip. Makes you question why Cynthia didn't do this before her trip to Washington.
Don't be silly. Why should I have to go elsewhere to find out the amount if you know what it is. What about a little respect and common courtesy for the readers here?
Thought you might want to know what the payment consisted of, besides the amount. Knowing the amount isn't going to get you a thing today, you still have to wait for payment.
OSA Shareholders annual Turkey Dinner will be Nov 17, at Dave Landrum Center at 1 p.m. Bring a dish vegetable, salad or dessert. Report on Oil and Gas Summit will be discussed...we need you!
"The soundness of the Osage Nation will rest on good laws, backed by a government that demonstrates a willingness to enforce them." Kugee Supernaw has a new "Notes to the Nation" out as of tonight about the 9th Special Session that starts tomorrow morning at 10:00 A.M. If you are not on his e-mailing list contact him at supernaw@flash.net and he will include you. See also the comment posted earlier on today.
The incompetency was and is running pretty deep around the BIA (Pawhuska) and some of the Mineral Council. That is why I have been doing all this posting. I want the Shareholders to be aware and when people sign up to run for the MC in June, the first thing out of your mouth should be: What qualifies you to run? What experience in the Gas and Oil business do you have? What experience in the business world do you have? And lastly what do you hope to accomplish if you win a seat?
If we get good positive answers to the above questions, then we have to worry how they feel about the role of the BIA, and if they want to get rid of them. We also have to worry about Congress and them wanting to compact the MC. We need to protect the 1906 Act and ourselves as Shareolders.
You have seen the big mess we have now, that is why we must be very careful we don't repeat ourselves.
Congress will not compact with the O.M.C....or the other way around.....The ON has proven time after time they want to take Control of the M/E and the last thing is we need them to tell us how to run a successful M/E when they need to look in there own back yard The Osage llc and in no way this will happen....It's obvious contracting is outdated....The Neccessary and fundamental steps in order to move ahead with The M/C for the expansion of the M/E lies with the M/C as per charged by the 1906 as ammended 15 million times..// and look where we are at square non bar non....and really you went over board with your rants but even when you said you didn't understand, then you would come back with an answer to your own questions, half the time and you were kind of all over the place. but I listened though most of this was said already in between you had some good questions..the incompetency....change all this needs to narrowed and come forth and this happens with leaders and good leaders. Leaders who are team players....integrity restored and accountabity....The role of the BIA will exist to high kingdom come along with the fed. gov....this will not change Patircia no matter how you toss the dice it has to be....it's not what they can do for us it's what the M/C can do for the OSAGE STAKEHOLDERS....They are our Reliable Source..They owe the Stakeholders or be voted out or removed ,if they cannot uphold the Oath they took....so simple.// In any outcome regardless of personal feelings the outcome must be at all costs be always in favor for the Major Stakeholders in the first and that is you and I......and now we are seeing the fruit of the labors in true color with different spectrums. We are a developing story and we have the chance to make clear that we are serious as a heart beat what needs to happen with our M/E and rid the Monopoly....and the joke has been on us now it's time to turn the tide sort of speak.....with a surge of willing bodies to do what it takes to get back the trust of the Shareholders....we need to get rid of the cancer.....the weekest link with advocates advocating for the Shareholders..// Long live the 1906 act and the Osage Tribe..keep blogging I'm listening as sure as others....I hope I get your vote....
Remember I will be asking you the same questions whoever you are. If you are going to run, why are you hiding behind anonymous?
I have always believed that the BIA is a necessary evil. We need them and the power that comes behind them. However you better watch Congress and Maria Whitehorn. She has already talked to us about a Bill she is working on, the bottom line is that you will have to ask Congress before you compact. do contracts etc. I asked her if she was going to remove or exempt the Mineral Council and she said no.
I believe that the 1906 Act has been amended only 12 times. At least that is the number I have and read.
My rants have gotten your attention. I hope I am getting my message across to our people - we need to clean up our act! We are wasting too much money and we have very little to show for it on one side, and on the Mineral side we have Producers who, over the years have taken advantage of us. We Osages need to get back into the drivers seat! One can not just look at the Mineral Estate, we have to look at the whole Nation and what everyone is doing.
Why do you keep calling Shareholders - Stakeholders? I personally prefer to be called a Headright owner!
I hate to burst your bubble, but a majority of the Shareholders only care about their check. One of the reasons why so few of them vote.
Patricia I'll be the first person who will hug you and you will know who I am that's a promise.....along with everything mentioned on these blogs do we realize the extent of how serious this is....I have listened to each one of you and still amassed with mass thought not so cumbersome when your heart is with the Tribe and with the 1906 Act, goes back to the trail of tears my realatives endured in 1830.....My hope is with my management experience and accounting experience and leadership skills will prove to be asset as opposed to the complete opposite meaning to team work.....as I've said before I'll bring my own note pad and water and pay for my gasoline and my travel expenses. This is not about me this is about the business of the M/E no longger will we allow slackers to do what and where for the Shareholders today. We want M/C members who are pro-active with the incentive to develope and know how...anyless take a back seat....we should expect nothing less from our M/C. The M/C success is our success...and we do this with change for the Positive.
Reminder: ON Congress 8th Special Session begins this coming Monday. The SCOI is also back in action at 2:00 p.m., on the same day.
ReplyDeleteLooking forward. Thank you.
DeleteYou're welcome. See also the Amended Proclamation for the 8th Special Session: http://app6.websitetonight.com/projects/1/2/1/5/1215402/uploads/SpecialSessionProclamation10.10.13.pdf and Allegations against the Chief: http://app6.websitetonight.com/projects/1/2/1/5/1215402/uploads/Motion_for_Select_Committee_of_Inquiry.pdf
DeleteWhat's all this about the report not being made public? Also if any witnesses do object, their names and job positions or any other identity information could be blacked out? Is this a for real investigative deal or just more amateurish play pretend government nonsense and irresponsibility on the part of the Osage Nation Congress?
DeleteOh boy this better not pan out to be the truth....This is to to be made public........We will picket and sign a petition. We shouldn't have to go to this point.
DeleteKeep up with the Congress at http://osagenation.co/government/congress/
DeleteTo 10.20.2013 @ 11:12 am***Well, I agree with Patricia and I have a few choice words for the other three. Melvin Core has 30 years experience with the BIA. Dudley Whitehorn has spent a good part of his life in Osage politics, and Curtis Bear is apparently just along for the ride. I’m not sure what his claim to fame is. All 3, plus Cynthia Boone, screwed up royally by accepting money from the producers for the trip to Washington to ask that we be paid LESS for our oil than what BIA is proposing. As far as I’m concerned, this disqualifies all 4 of them for further service to the Osage Shareholders. And it’s a good thing that Myron Redeagle didn’t go on that trip, or he would be on my s%*t list too.
ReplyDeleteSo the fact that the oil producers negotiated for their leases in good faith before these new CFRs came about means nothing to you at all? To hell with them all so to say?
DeleteThe thing that bothers me beside these four travelers who have been bought and paid for by the oil producers (in my opinion), is that all dealings with the oil producers are done in Executive Session (behind close doors). This way of doing things came from Galen. I have told him in the past it was very rare that the negotiating went on behind close doors. Galen said “Oh they talk about sensitive issues.” Bull!!! What is so sensitive about discussing Ladd Drummond putting a gate across a county road? We need to keep our eye on the four travelers, to make sure they don't give the oil and gas away for nothing. I hope the four are smart enough to figure out, nothing is free and pay backs are hell! It is coming close, so look for the headlines of a shareholder and her walker being arrested for not leaving when asked.
DeleteTo SMH, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:00 AM===The royalty rates have been grandfathered in going back to 1916. That will never change. Even the 12 1/2% ones. EVERYTHING ELSE is subject to the CFR’s, including the 20% royalty established 5 or 6 years ago on all new leases. Too bad you don’t live downwind from one of those h2s wells. So to say
DeleteThis last part of your comment I disagree with....Sorry but anybody who builds on the M/E understands the right of way. They can move.
DeleteAbsolutely agree that the meetings with the oil producers should be open to the public. This is an important matter to the shareholders and you are among many others who are concerned about it. Galen is wrong and these should be opened back up. Thanks Patricia for mentioning it in your comment.
DeleteAgree too that gates are a foul too. Isn't the wife the one on that cooking channel? They need to know that her husband is doing things to stop the oil producers from getting on the land in the best way possible which likely has reduced the income for the Osage and specifically for a whole group of Osage Indian Seniors. We need to cry foul as a group with a loud outcry.
DeleteWe didn't need new CFRs to up the royalty rate to 20% back a few years ago. If need be, they can be raised again to accommodate for not getting the NYMEX rate. Yes????
DeleteWow, we need to get our M/C to move on these important matters that I was not aware of how wide spread it was. This should not be happening period... enforcement is needed where violations occur in such nature if the simple equation of resolve by the creation of opening up a dialogue fails and the further delay to stone wall the delay of the development for further production is cause for removal of the person on said property or bring in the authorities with the proper paper work....Sorry enforcement and lets set the precedent for the future of our M/E.
DeleteWe are talking about the base price for the royalty oil sold here. No one is trying to raise the royalty rate that I can see. We could raise the royalty rate to 100%, and if the price paid by the purchaser was $-0.00-, then we would get zero $ for our royalty. That won’t get it. We Osage Shareholders need and deserve a fair market price for our percentage of that oil. The producers can give their share away if they want to. Maybe those supporting the Osage Producer’s Assoc. should contribute their headright checks back to the OPA. That should make them want to stay. Just don’t give them mine!!!
DeleteRED ALERT--IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT: In view of the plethora of inexplicable choices that the elected officials of the Osage Nation have made during their tenure for the last seven years, the most recent of which was reported by Congressman Raymond Redcorn in his Update #170: "For employees, the full $1.4 ($1.5) million salary adjustment increase also made the cut, along with the full 3% Merit funding attached to salaries.", the Osage Blog is announcing its NEW Election Initiative that we are calling the Osage Surge for Candidates to come forward from outside of Osage County and the State of Oklahoma to run in the upcoming Osage Nation elections; "The Osage Surge" for short. We need boots on the ground, Osage members, to turn around the policies and spending practices of the Osage Nation government to one that is sensible and reasonable that includes ALL Osages no matter were they reside which was promised to us if we were to support a new Osage Constitutional government. We need to reestablish a proper balance from the top down and the bottom up! Please join this initiative and if you can, run for office in the upcoming Osage Nation elections in 2014. Since they won't, each one of us need to stand up and take responsibility and BE RESPONSIBLE for what our new government does in the future. Now IS the time for all good Osages to come to the aid of their new Constitutional government.
ReplyDeleteDo you have any Ideas as to how you want to generate a better responce? The Clock is ticking I have the man power lets set up campaign. I will donate a large sum of money to the campaign for the Osage People who matter......and I have the man power to push this surge. But I need a little help. Are you ready to take ths to another level?
DeleteI think many of us are ready to take it to the next level. What exactly do you mean?
DeleteBus, but there is a lot we can do as a team we can accomplish what is needed for the Osage Surge. We start with e-mails and sending out flyers.....will come back tomorrow.
DeleteAll talk, no action !!
ReplyDeleteHomer If this is the case then we take it to another level and we picket for justice...
DeleteThe real contest is being diversities, picket why? you need to get together withj your picks for the Chief,AC, Congress and M.C. then take on the rest. If your candidates won't stand with you get another..
DeleteAll works in progress. Picketing is a form of speech and if something more comes from a form of protest is the Laws will be changed which really is the intended consequence and there of......We do not know how many pics for Chief and AP and Congress is a let down if I ever seen failure for lack of diligence but thats a dif. story all together and then again really not.....The real will be with the executive and so far we have one person who has announced his canadacy and in no way will I vote for him.....He is a part of the long list of problems and each and everyone involved are complicit even if it's guilty by association......Pics for the Mineral Council ah I'm running and I'm running towards the Shareholders......When the right time comes I will be there to announce....Yeppi ki yay.
DeleteI do not know who you are, but are you qualified to run for any of the offices?
DeleteFletcher case is back on http://barnsdalltimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/10_circuit_fletcher_reverse.pdf
ReplyDeleteMaybe a reversal on one part of the 10th Fed.Dist. Court opinion only, you need to read whole 25 pages, Ok.
DeleteRead them and understand.
DeleteI just checked out Ray McClain’s web site and found the presentation that Councilman Galen Crum gave to the Mineral Council Meeting this past Wednesday. It makes a lot of sense, and gives very good reasons why the NYMEX royalty oil pricing should go forward. How anyone on that Council could say no to NYMEX is a mystery to me, unless they are on the Oil Producers side and we all know if they could get away paying us five cents a barrel, they would do so. Crum says they all had this information and it included the identification of 16 of the producers they chose to use, to get an average. Again if the Oil Producers weren’t making any money they would have left along time ago. Also Cynthia reminds me of Chicken Little! Instead of “the sky is falling, the sky is falling”, she is yelling “the producers are leaving, the producers are leaving”. No one that I know has left! For Ray’s web site go to: http://www.Osages-You-Need-To-Know.com
ReplyDeleteAnd Patricia, this is exactly what I have been saying all along the scare tactics will not work as evidence the producers are still here. And how the role of the Council is to represent the true facts as presented with accoutability and transperency and we will get that as long as we stand united for the shareholders and the protection of the M/E. DO YOU AGREE?
DeleteYou all want to concentrate on who went to Washington D.C. but the real question is, WHO did they go with? If the producers weren't unhappy about the new CFRs why did this meeting even take place? You're like the new government wanting to win that tax lawsuit but never taking a look at the unintended consequences and as a result we've lost our Federal reservation designation. Drummond wouldn't have done what he did with the gate if that lawsuit hadn't been successful for the Oklahoma Tax Commissioners. Don't get stupid. We've got enough problems with that right there right now as it is already.
DeleteSmh, get the feeling you are having a hard time expressing yourself...What is it exactly you are or not understanding..and then you go off on another subject that has no relation to what you are asking...can you be more precise. Or why is it you keep reminding us of who what or where about the Washingtom Trip? Are you worried that we have forgotten, This is why there has to be an Osage Surge or Purge however which way but in a urgent way....I have to laugh somethimes my keys stick and sometimes my computar gets slow, but when I was visiting my son and useing his computar I really couldn't type. Wanted to slam the keys but realized I just had to go tap tap..lol I am one if it works and then it does not need replacing...but I do need to upgrade...one of these days...Sometimes this stuff just gets heavy... and you have to take a breather and everything will work out....But we need trust worthy and not just that someone who is willing to the necessary.... but see the people the Osage for who they are...and bring back integrity to our Tribe....The Osage Tribe..
DeleteWhat is it that YOU don't understand? The new CFRs involve the NYMEX rate in the lead comment that we all are responding to and the producers came in under the old CFRs having negotiated leases on the basis of those regulations. They don't like having their partners change everything that they have been doing in the past. If they pull out as a result and your checks dry up, who are you going to blame? I hope yourselves. Is all this being motivated by greed that you are villainizing the oil producers like this? Only you would know where this is coming from. Without the oil producers there is no income in the mineral trust for distribution in the headright checks. Surely that can't be what you want.
Deletesmh, what in the world are you talking about?
DeleteShe’s talking about allowing the producers to continue to run wild, with no up to date regulations governing operations, never plugging abandoned wells, blowing h2s all over the place, not measuring half the gas produced, and not paying us the full amount of royalty due us. THAT’S what SMH is talking about. She must like it that way.
DeleteRight poster oct 23 2013 9am.....Thats why I am confused but not to say there won't be other issues sure to arise if they havn't already been exposed we may be worse off than we are.....There's going to be more arguement with a 4 billion dollar Estate but this is why establishing a line of communication with your stakeholders or keeping them comprised is a start. And that is one of the many goals that I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HAPPEN AND NOT JUST ONE SIDE WITH CAUSE AND EFFECT.....The pro's and con's. We need to regulate bottom line...And we have 8 council members that if there first job if they have a first job takes a seat to the M/E and we need to establish a Core and then you devlelope your PPP'S and so forth.....We need to stay realative and remember not everyone is going to understand in a lot of ways what we are expressing...and sometimes better explained in terms they can understand....I'm not sure but I'm guessing some are afraid of change after what we see has already taken place and then there are those that just don't trust period and change is hard....Trust and Integrity for the Osage M/E and let the Surge begin here....after all, the beginning started here and we can hit start all over again,... it is time we bring faith and hope to our Tribe.....everything else will fall into place....The World is a better place when you care.....We all want the same thing really...we want the M/E to be abound.....And to Patricia Spurrier Bright I more than qualify to be on the M/C AND CHIEF....but the Hub is the M/E.....that's where I will be better posted.....and hope is what you are going to see and much much more......
DeleteAlmost 90% of this "run wild" stuff that you claim is already handled under the current CFRs. If the BIA can't manage to enforce the old ones how are they expected to handle the new ones? There is also a large concern among people who understand such things that under the new CFRs that the BIA has let itself out of much if not all of its fiduciary obligation to both the Osage Tribe under the 1906 Act, the Osage Nation and the Shareholders. If you all think that that's OK, then you couldn't be more wrong. You can't have a managed and administered government trust with with a Trustee and no fiduciary obligation involved in the relationship. That's a legal conflict if there ever was one. And it's SIR not HER if you please!!!!!
DeleteSaid that already but with the 6 to 7 man power hired for the Agency along with a Million dollars will help with some of the redundacies. But you have to remember all in due time. What we can do is to be sure we follow through on those reduncies to make this M/E efficient and prosper....Not eveything is covered by the CFR's we need to track for the future of the M/E. The BIA is not going to do everything for us as evidence proven...and once again this has been discussed already it's like your taking excerps from what I had already made apparent a while back lol sorry but I am thinking of ways to circumvent in the future from this sort of thing from happening all over again and in addition outside of the box, so this will at a much later date be discussed....We need action action whats your function.....and by golly we are going to get it this coming election.....without futher a du, keep on posting....
DeleteTo SMH, October 23, 2013 at 1:00 PM….If you could show me just one word, sentence, paragraph, or section number in the proposed CFR changes that would cause anyone to think the BIA is being excused from their fiduciary trust responsibility, I would be on your band wagon quick. But you can’t do that! This is more scare tactics being generated by the OPA. I think you will be tooting your horn all alone before too long.
DeleteThe members of the Oklahoma Delegation have communicated in writing with the Secretary and Assistant Secretary of the Interior about this very concern because of the absence of the fiduciary relationship and responsibility on the part of the BIA under the new CFRs. Now why would they write, sign, and send such a letter if it was not the case? I believe that there has been more than one letter written about this developing situation. I have seen one of them myself. Accountability is at the very foundation of a fiduciary relationship and one of the statements reads, "...there are inadequate safeguards to ensure that current and future BIA managers are held accountable for mismanagement of the estate." Another reads, "It should also contain specific steps to hold the Agency itself accountable for its actions." I don't know what more you need for a delay and further review but I want everything spelled out and all of the t's crossed and the i's dotted making sure that the BIA is on the hook for everything it does while managing the Osage Mineral Estate from now on. Anything less is short sighted and we've had more than enough of that from our own Osage Nation government.
DeleteThe Oklahoma Delegation signed and sent the letter to appease their financial supporters, who have been legally stealing our royalties for years and want very much to continue to do so. The OPA probably wrote it for them. It looks to me like accountability and enforcement by BIA has been enhanced a great deal in the new cfrs. No wonder the OPA wants delays. The new cfrs have nothing removed or added that makes BIA any less accountable than before, and I see much in them that improves accountability and enforcement 10 fold. Enough of this whining. Let’s all get back to work, and do the job correctly from now on.
DeleteWhen the elections come then the work will get done. It is said that to much Retorich or Arguement is getting in the way of real Progress. The signing of a letter of which the Oklahoma Delegation signed just because one was sent does not mean it's binding or that they are right....and especially who ever created the HPP was stupid but then again not, this did not allow for all the cash flow to the Shareholders.....do you uderstand smh? Now I'm begining to wonder if you are a Shareholder. Not one person should have to go to the depth to explain....and put simply....
DeleteNobody is whining. You sound like you work for this new Osage government and that makes a lot of sense because accountability, transparency and oversight are things you guys know nothing about and appear to want to know even less than that. Use any excuse you want but I have a lot more respect the members of the U.S. Congress when they talk and write about such things than I do for you when you do or any employee or elected official of the Osage Nation government. You want more money and you appear to want to go to any length to get it despite the fact that it might seriously impact your total yearly income if the oil producers pack up and leave. But you're not the only one involved that gets a headright check though you certainly behave like you're the only game in town.
DeleteWelcome the Deflect shall not fall prey....but thank you for the compliment....
DeleteI’m still waiting for that “just one word, sentence, paragraph, or section number in the proposed CFR changes that would cause anyone to think the BIA is being excused from their fiduciary trust responsibility”.**** Looks like I’ll be waiting awhile for you to look that one up.
DeleteAre you for real? Now try and think. It's not what's in the new CFRs as written, it's what ISN'T included in the CFRs that excuse them from their fiduciary trust responsibility. To REPEAT--there are inadequate safeguards to ensure that current and future BIA managers are held accountable (in writing) for mismanagement of the estate AND it (the new CFRs) should also contain specific steps (in the words, sentences, and paragraphs) to hold the Agency itself accountable for its actions. If you can't understand what I am trying to convey here, then it's like a former member of the 30th Tribal Council used to say, "You can bring them to the well of knowledge, but you can't make them think."
DeleteThat’s what I thought. Generalities, rhetoric, and no specifics or solutions to your imaginary problems. No one could understand what you are trying to say here. Since you bring it up, isn’t the 30th Council the ones who gave a 20 year concession to an operator, with no drilling commitments, very little bonus, and no way out of it. Seems to me that their well of knowledge was full of salt water for the Osages.
DeleteSMH there is no point in trying to reason with people who are incapable of logic and can't think. Clearly he believes he's the smartest guy in the room. You're up against that herd mentality that exists in Osage County and when they get an idea about what they want do as a group they're like pit bulls with a stew bone. In this way, they are the most self destructive people I've ever had dealings with and that makes them dangerous to the future of the Minerals Estate. Never mind that over 450 letters of concern about the proposed CFRs were sent to the BIA in Muskogee. Undoubtedly he'll have something inane to say about that, like every one of them who sent letters were bought off by the oil producers too. LOL!!!!!!! Sounds like whoever it is must have been one on the 30th Council to know so much about that concession.
DeleteI agree. After their last remark, whoever it is, isn't capable of being reasoned with on this issue. It happens. I just hope they don't have a seat on the Minerals Council.
DeleteI have been reading all these comments and would like to know how many of you have actually read the CFR changes and additions, or are you making your comments on what someone else has told you?
DeleteThank you Patricia but I have a feeling there are some posters here that are not shareholders. And it couldn't be more clear....
DeleteSee http://www.osagetribe.com/minerals/news_story.aspx?news_id=3100
DeleteWhen the elections come then the numbers 444 will be involved. A famous Sioux just this Spring passed at 4:44am, I received 444 votes this Spring.total 11,11 is 4 , 2x2=4, 1+3=4,11-11-2013, three 444. So keep your eyes open for the fours, they will make the difference. Hjf
ReplyDeleteI believe you Homer, weird my numbers collate with yours......
Delete"Fore!"
Deletehttp://www.indianz.com/News/2013/011547.asp
ReplyDeleteWould again ask all of you that are interested, Ray McClain has just posted on his web site the proposed revisions to the CFR's. For Ray’s web site go to: http://www.Osages-You-Need-To-Know.com/
ReplyDeleteRay thanks for the report...and Galen thanks for the charts.....so....How is it that The IBIA can allow for these changes without any consultation with the M/C ? or there of to the Major Stakeholders? The Osage Shareholders? and if we are so different because of the ties that binds us directly with Congress how did the status quo change in the first between Osage and the IBIA? Understanding This translates and goes back even further and further more deeper....to the 30th M/C....as to delving deeper into? But it is easy to understand the Shell Game and you will see them disappear and if not already with the changes to the CFR'S. UGG....to this day this translates to 2 more years of this since the HPP case was settled and we are at square one but not for long.....and this is why I have been saying all along the Competitive must be in favor of the OSAGES, THE OSAGE TRIBE.....AND this is why we must track and follow through so this does not happen again....and not just leave it to the BIA.....it is clear and evident that this is needed to protect the future of the M/E there are those and it is obvious that they do not want us to do exactly what needs to be done......and it is clear even more so who reflect a persona non grata and can not be trusted and it is the four who went to Washington.....they must be removed.....I'm wondering if anyone person here understands and how this has translated for the Osage and who was watching at the helm for the Shareholdes in the first back in 1996 shows, incompetency all around or that the shenanagans was served on a platter hopeing we wouldn't taste the foul as I liken to call FOUL.....would be interesting to hear the naysayers on this blog....facts as they are in black and white and the Numbers do not lie, People do.
DeleteComment period extended>> http://journalrecord.com/2013/10/28/comment-period-on-osage-co-rules-extended-energy/#.Um-1XvTtSTI.email
DeleteSCOI Report available some time tonight! See https://www.facebook.com/OsageNews
ReplyDeleteOPEN will send you copies of these documents if you send an e-mail requesting them to osage_election_news@comcast.net
DeleteThese documents shown below are also downloadable at http://osagenation.co/government/congress/
DeleteSelect Committee of Inquiry Report Part 1.10-28-13
Select Committee of Inquiry Report Part 2.10-28-13
Statement of the Select Committee of Inquiry 10-28-13
Absolutely stupendous work from the SCOI. Beyond a doubt this goes much deeper than one member of Congress being out to get the Chief. Reactions and impressions? In view of the report and the documentation, should the Chief resign and not put us through a formal trial since he has openly admitted during his testimony to having broken the law?
Delete"Congress announced its ninth special session will be held Thursday Nov. 14 to consider a motion on whether a removal trial should be held for Chief Red Eagle." See http://osagenews.org/article/scoi-recommends-removal-trial-chief-red-eagle
DeleteWOAH! BREAKING OSAGE NEWS: Osage Nation Principal Chief John Red Eagle has filed suit in the ON Supreme Court against ON Congressional Speaker Raymond Red Corn and Congresswoman Alice Buffalohead... See https://www.facebook.com/OsageNews
DeleteTo review the Supreme Court Summons against Red Corn and Buffalohead, go to http://edigital.iserver.net/osages/SCS.pdf
DeleteThe Chief has filed a restraining order against the upcoming 9th Special Congressional Session that starts tomorrow, the 14th, that the Osage Nation Supreme Court has not yet ruled on along with the Summons filed by the Chief against Raymond Red Corn and Alice Buffalohead less than a week ago. See more about this: "UPDATE: As of 4:30 p.m...." at https://www.facebook.com/OsageNews
DeleteThe 9th Special Session begins at 10:00 A.M., tomorrow, November 14, 2013 in the Osage Nation Congressional Chambers. The only item on the Agenda is "Consideration of a Motion for Removal of Principal Chief Red Eagle." Don't miss this historic day of deliberations of the Osage Nation Congress. This meeting should be streamed live via the internet as well.
DeleteA motion for removal of Chief Red Eagle was made and seconded. Congress will vote at 9 tomorrow morning. We'll see what happens then. They need 8 votes of the twelve members to say yes to the motion to remove the Chief then it moves forward to trial. If they can't get that number of affirmative votes, it dies right there on the floor of the ON Congress.
DeleteCan't argue with that! Also, the ON Supreme Court dismisses the restraining order. See http://osagenews.org/article/supreme-court-dismisses-chief-red-eagle’s-request-restraining-order
DeleteWhy would the Chief not hand over the M/C accounting to the M/C. The M/C is charged by the 1906 ACT to handle our affairs and really whats the harm in having copies? The Chief is the tie breaker and thats that. So as I like to classify that their are issues and someone does not want you to know the truth about our Money and the M/E...as I have said before the truth always reveals itself...The M/E accounting does not belong to the Executive it belongs to the Mineral Shareholders the STAKEHOLDERS and we want our accounting to be placed with this seperate agency so we know exactly what has transpired in the last 7yrs and before and by law this has not happened and it is our right to our records and to delvelope the M/E as we see fit. http://www.nativetimes.com/index.php/news/tribal/9206-osage-committee-issues-report-recommendations-for-chief-s-removal...........Shame on the Chief....
ReplyDeleteThere will be no monopoly by any company with regards to the M/E...any one will be held liable if an investigation is opened and can be by anyone of us.....Shareholders. After reading the findings of the report against the Chief lets be loud and clear on this matter.......
ReplyDeleteIn light as we near the time when finally and once and for all the Nation can now hand over our Accounting Records and truly we will be able to see what has been going on in the last seven years and will know how to go forward for the future of the M/E...We will need a Vision and Strategy of the M/E that will communicate with their Major Stakeholders, the Osage Shareholders....yes it is a 4 billion plus Estate. We need to eliminate all conflicts of Interest, that means the four who went to Washington and especially Cynthia....She has proven to the Stakeholder by her own actions she cannot be trusted....and not just that it is a conflict of interest to support the Producers not the Stakeholders but she also proved she is not a team player time after time....but her Husband is a officer as well and sits on a Commitee for the life of me can't understand what it is and why we have an OSA...when they have been less than truthfull in many instantces proven in their own writing....and at a much later date I would like to see an investigation on the matter if at possible how the pricing OF OUR OIL changed to the bottom end as opposed to the top end? Everyone in accounting knows this is a trick that is pulled all the time to hide the true realized price that could be had....and so forth...Just an example of we need to be more hands on..Good leaders demonstrate this through and through and this is how you build your Agency's foundation built on integrity...everything else will speak for itself.....We need not hire imcompetency but be mindful that we will train team players, and understand the PPP'S. Those who have been delivering us this info...Galen Crum and laws bee Mr. McClain.....sometimes I think this organization is a two man act and yet we have eight council members. And McClain doesn't even sit on the Council and has dedicated his devotion to the Shareholders. It is clear who are the team players and who are not and this is not a Politcal Game here and should never be...This is a Agency charged by the one and only the 1906 act...and the M/C should only be here for the Shareholders and we do this by communication. Long gone is History's past, should we learn and prosper. Long Gone is the croynism that has monopolized and plagued our M/E, should we grow now..... Long live the Osage Tribe. Alliance for the Osage Shareholder and let the Osage Surge for integrity bring light to our Tribe....
ReplyDeleteI think those 450 shareholders who wrote letters to the BIA disagree with you. You're getting like a broken record with the four members of the minerals council. Just saying. Harping on them isn't going to make a bit of difference. Give it a rest. Osage Surge is good so we can change the mix to get others with a different vision for the Osages who know right from wrong and won't cross the line all the time.
ReplyDeleteTo Oct. 31 @ 1:03 AM---What 450 letters? Where is your authority on that? This is more of your B.S. There are about 100 members of the producers assoc. and only about 25 are truly active. I have no doubt that 450 form letters were probably mailed out to them, since you seem to do things over and over and over again. The producers need to drop their petty B S and unite with the MC and the BIA to educate the OK Atty Gen on how to mind his own business. If the state is allowed to control the Osage water rights, every politician in the state legislature will be telling you when you can drill, which will be NEVER. *THAT WILL* make the producers consider leaving for sure.
DeleteI'm going to jump in here. For your information, a family member of mine received a hand written thank you note from one of the Minerals Council members that specifically referenced that number of letters from individual shareholders that were hand carried to Eddie Streater at the BIA. In addition, the comment period has been extended to November 18, 2013. See comment above and web page at http://journalrecord.com/2013/10/28/comment-period-on-osage-co-rules-extended-energy/#.Um-1XvTtSTI.email Sounds like you need to do some catching up on what is going on with this situation. Attempting to further establish our water rights in court, beyond what we already have established, might further the damage that has been done by the tax/reservation lawsuit. The State and Federal Courts in Oklahoma are not our friends and probably looking for any excuse to beat us back down since the flap over that EPA Bill that Jim Gray busted out with inside a year of his becoming Chief of the Osage Nation Constitutional government that appeared to scare the pants off of everyone in the legal profession in the State of Oklahoma. Getting back in court to establish our rights is now at the level of an unacceptable risk and this time the people in power in this new Osage government had better listen and take heed to the warning instead of blowing off every bit of good advice on this that they hear from constituents. Establishing aspects of our Sovereignty in court is not like it used to be. And I wouldn't alienate the Oklahoma Delegation either if you've still got the sense God gave you. If push comes to shove, you may come to need them in the future for more Federal legislation associated with protecting us from the challenges we are seeing in regard to our mineral rights. And I am specifically referring to the wind farm and the Drummond situation.
Delete450 to 5000 shareholders sounds like a dismal numbers, if that were the case and did you count my letters in support of the CFR's. I SENT 500 TO everyone. And of which these accounts, poster at 1:03 AM and if I sound like a broken record that's ok with me.......because I will not let this die...this is what moves us do right by and by for the major stakeholder the Shareholder and I can tell you I'm one of them and I am serious as a jUDGE ON THESE MATTERS....now if I SOUND LIKE A BROKEN RECORD then we wouldn't be here having this conversation if these issues keep getting swept under the rug so to speak and for the lack of accountability and hoping these issues will correct themselves, they won't and this is why from time to time I will remind those, other Shareholders that an alliance is a must and we must orchestrate our will dilegetly and be proactive....and I do this because there are Shareholders that find some ethical behavior in question, wrong, as I do....and we need a voice for the Shareholders. My fervor for the truth will not waiver for the Shareholders of this 4 billion dollar estate....so if I SOUND LIKE A BROKEN RECORD LET ME REMIND YOU DURING THE ELECTIONS I will be posting sign remember me I'm the one who sounded like a broken record.....now we have a broken record with some of our Council members and if I am elected to the position lots will happen and hop! I've been listening and I hope I get elected....We need to address the conflict of interest and there are huge ones that exist. Less should we forget as a reminder to those who do not want these issues to be gone from time to time I will remind you I have not forgot..
Delete500 to everyone? I see...
DeleteThank you OsageBlogger, let me ask you on this hollow eve, and this is a serious matter of which each and everyone of us better be paying attention here....Since in nature we are classified as a Seperate Agency, leading to the question, whats the next recourse? Yes Jim Gray lost our Reservastion Case....If we lose the water rights....Which there are Mineral Compounds....and we own the sub-surface rights then you would think this is a easy in and out.....But....lets come to some resolve soon on these matters...lets hope...The Question is because of the Nations Actions, cause and effect....and we know what could happen, what do you suggest the next step would be is to sue the Nation.....?
Delete"CURRENTLY, 25 CFR 226.24 states oil producers need only the approval of the Superintendent of the Osage Agency when using water from streams or natural watercourses. Producers cannot diminish the supply below the requirements of the surface owner from whose land the water is taken, according to the CFRs." You want to change that one do you? To what the State Solicitor General of Oklahoma wants you to? Look at the article at http://osagenews.org/article/solicitor-general-says-nation-does-not-have-rights-water-osage-county
DeleteMust be awful for some of you people to have to deal with Osages who actually know a thing or two including what they are talking about.
DeleteTo Anonymous October 31, 2013 at 11:20 AM & SMH
DeleteReally, now. SMH, I thought you knew everything. 25 CFR 226.24 is exactly what the OK AG wants to do away with. Then you will be asking instead of telling the landowners where you want to drill. Be sure to remind them they will get damages, but no Royalties, FOREVER too. They really like that part, and will be sure to cooperate. We MUST NOT give up 226.24.
You misread the intention of my comment. It's about Osages who believe that changing the CFRs can only be a bad thing in the end. I am in support of the post just ahead of mine.
DeleteSee what your HPP lawsuit settlement has done --- http://newsok.com/article/3898957 This CFR rules changing committee is fast turning into a can of worms in every way it can.
ReplyDeleteState agencies object to proposed energy production rules in Oklahoma and want to run things in Osage County? This can't be right. What a damn mess.
DeleteIf this goes forward by the State in a Court of Opinion my guess would be the State would win just in Osage County and the M/E will not be touched by and by the true Reservation would be as intended by thte 1906 Act the Osage M/E....and or by the way I like how the NEWPAPERS coin the M/E the Nations when acturally the 2229 original allotees own the M/E now Ours to protect. Osage surge for our beloved Osage Tribe....Just an opnion..And Ray McClain posted a comment in the OKnews...www.Oknews.com.He basically said and not in so many words , We don't need state agencys to advocate what we have been doing for over a 100 yrs and the M/E has never depleted the water supply....and has complied to the rules set forth...and by the 1906 act allows us to Govern our own M/E. Stay away....State Agencys
DeleteCFR changes were part of the bargaining chip..... the mistake was made when the MC allowed a Lobbyist to represent the NATION.....to settle a lawsuit which belonged to the Shareholders.
DeleteFor your review see Osage Headright Holders Comments on Leasing of Osage Reservation Lands for Oil and Gas Mining at http://edigital.iserver.net/osages/ohh_comments.pdf
ReplyDeleteSubmitting Comments:
DeleteSearch for Regulations.gov or just go to http://www.regulations.gov
In the Search Box, enter “BIA-2013-0003”
Ignore the “Osage Mineral Negotiated Rulemaking” – DOI is being stupid in managing the docket
You will see: Leasing of Osage Reservation Lands for Oil and Gas Mining
Proposed Rule by BIA on 08/28/2013 ID: BIA-2013-0003-0002
Comment Now!
Click that blue “Comment Now!” button.
You must write something in the box, so if you attach a file, just put down “Please see attached.”
Recommended: Write in whatever word processing program you use and then copy the text and paste into the box.
Supporters can say that they support the “Osage Headright Holders Comments on Leasing of Osage Reservation Lands for Oil and Gas Mining submitted by the Honorable Charles O. Tillman, Jr., Dudley P. Whitehorn, Joanna Barbara, Joe Hall, and others, on October 26, 2013.”
Regulations.gov has not provided a comment document number (see receipt), so we just need to make clear the subject and whose comments are supported.
You don’t need to provide your name (but certainly should if representing an organization).
If you want to provide contact information, checking the first box opens those fields.
Clicking the second box opens a field for the organization’s name.
You can populate the “Category” field with things like “Industry” etc., but I like to see specific entries, like “Headright Holder” or “Oil Producer in Osage County” etc.
When done, click “Your Review” at the top and it will show you the comment information.
Then you must check “You are filing a document into an official docket. Any personal information included in your comment and/or uploaded attachment(s) may be publicly viewable on the web.
I read and understand the statement above.”
Click “Submit” and it will give you a receipt for your comment.
This comment letter is stuffed full of lies and misrepresentations. These lawyers have written in some nice things, and then they slip in the lies and misrepresentations when they are the least expected. That’s how lawyers do it. They have certainly generated a huge bill for the producers to pay. I see lots of “billable hours” here. The problem is, it’s almost all hogwash. The BIA would need to hire 700 more field inspectors to keep up, and then they would need to send them out on leases where the h2s gas would get them, because using this mess, there is still nothing regulating the h2s.
DeleteFor once in your life, will you pot-shotters BE SPECIFIC!!!!!! Where EXACTLY in these comments are the lies and misrepresentations????
DeleteI can see how they have tried to logically rationalize this passage but it's still very confusing: "In sum, DOI’s trust responsibility for the Osage Mineral Estate lies to the Osage Tribe, as reconstituted as the Osage Mineral Council, and the statutory headright holders. The Osage Nation, as a political and cultural sovereign and organization is separate from this unique trust responsibility." If the Osage Tribe has been reconstituted as the Osage Mineral Council, then the mineral rights are reserved to it and not the Osage Nation as the surviving legal entity to which those rights must pass. This has the potential to be a dangerous passage because the current OMC is a creation of the ON Constitution under the umbrella of an also created Minerals Agency. The Minerals Council of today owes its fiduciary obligation including loyalty and responsibility to the Osage Nation as agents of this newly created ON Constitutional agency. Therefore, the DOI's trust obligation is still owed to the parent Osage Nation government under which the Minerals Agency owes its very existence and the same can be said to be true of the current ON Minerals Council that is organized under this Minerals Agency. The old Minerals Council under the 1906 Act no longer exists as a legal entity today and to presuppose that it has been somehow legally "reconstituted" from the Osage Tribe is wrong. If the new Minerals Council cannot inure to those mineral rights because it no longer exists as it was under the 1906 Act then neither does the reservation of the mineral rights because, in the absence of the Osage Nation, those rights have no legal entity now in existence in with which to pass if the Minerals Council created by the ON Constitution is the only legal entity left. We certainly don't want to go there because under the ON Constitution, it isn't viable for such a transition.
DeleteIt's a good comment. The way they have the Osage Constitution set up it's like a octopus which has arms that stay dormant until something starts to move. When it does then the arms catch it and wrap up around it with those suckers on the bottom until it can't get away or even move. It's really clever.
DeleteTo: Confused Osage November 2, 2013 at 2:34 AM
DeleteMy friend, you are not nearly as confused as you might think. Please allow me to pick at your very eloquent summation just a little. The Osage Tribe was “reconstituted” as the Osage Nation as of 2006. Within the Osage Nation, is a quasi-independent agency known as the Osage Mineral Council, which handles all matters pertaining to the Mineral Estate, and its 8 members are independently elected only by the “statutory headright holders” of the Mineral Estate. The Minerals Council of today owes its “fiduciary obligation including loyalty and responsibility” to these “statutory headright holders” while still remaining under the sovereignty umbrella of the Federally recognized Osage Nation. Therefore, the DOI's trust obligation is still owed to the “parent” Osage Nation, but inures directly to the shareholders of the Mineral Estate.*****Confused Osage, we shareholders desperately need obviously educated “thinkers” like you to be more involved in the operations of our Mineral Estate.
To confused Osage you really almost got the conflict of interest spelled out....and I like how you used the word presuppose...and somewhere as I would call in your assertation is key to the answer we are all asking. And not so fast...the 1906 act and the M/E is the Reservation....and anything less would undermine the 1906 act would you not agree?
DeleteI thank you for your complimentary remarks. Though I am in agreement that the MC should be acting with an agency relationship to the Shareholders, I've talked to attorneys and other Osages who, like myself, are very concerned about the way that the Osage Nation Constitution has everything constructed. The BIA should have objected to the way things were put together especially how the Minerals Council has been drawn up. Under the 1906 Act, it was like a business board representing the interests of the Shareholders. The Solicitor at the BIA should have seen a flag on the play as soon as he saw the Minerals Agency and the new agency relationship of the Minerals Council placed under it. This completely changed the legal fiduciary relationship of the BIA to the Minerals Council and the Council to the shareholders. Keep in mind that the CIA and it's agents don't owe you loyalty or fealty as a citizen of the United States, that's owed to the U.S. government. The same is true of the FBI and the National Security Agency (NSA). This came about, I am certain, because the National Council failed when they made a move to take over the Minerals administration and Chief Tillman took them to court and the 10th Circuit Court thew the NC out on its ear. The OGRC had to come up with something to stop such an event from ever happening again but they played a little too fast and loose when they let everyone vote in the Referendum Election and didn't pay attention to how the vote came out on about half of the questions where they involve the provisions of the Osage Constitution. Then they allowed those who were not legal members of the Osage Tribe to vote in the Constitutional election. P.L. 108-431, the reaffirmation Act of 2004, determined verbatim that it was the Osage Tribe that had the right to determine its own form of government. The Osage Tribe was then made up of legal Osage headright owners and at the time, all other Osages were not technically yet ushered into membership until the form of government had been officially chosen by a vote of the Osage Tribal members offering them a choice between the then current resolution style of government or the more complicated constitutional form which never actually happened in the ballot box. Within the first three months of its existence, the new government then turned around and made the Chief Gray signed membership card a requisite to be a member effectively tossing out every single legal member of the Osage Tribe that didn't have one and they did it by merely referring, in the membership legislation, to a Tribal Council resolution number that had previously prohibited any Osage from voting without one in the first new government election. I believe that there are Osages out there who get a payment check that don't yet realize that they are not still members. Nasty politics and bad government policy going in where the Osage people are concerned any way you cut it. The last thing you want to do is to compromise trust and integrity as a new government starting out and that's the very first thing the Osage Nation did to the Osages. It's had the feel of a coup d'état from the very beginning and most non-headright owners have been as put off by it as the shareholders, as have most Osage members as group that it has purported to "serve." The U.S. has been very practiced at coup d'état replacement governments using tactics similar to this under the title of Nation Building. I never thought I'd see the day when the Osages would do a thing like this to one another. That's what's so ugly about it and governments that are formed this way rarely ever stand the test of time. If you don't have the people on your side, eventually such governments, and their operators, live to rue the day they ever came into existence.
DeleteI got the play book along time ago though you are right in every sense here.....There is going to be some rude awakenng coming to the Nation and it will implode from with in....because they are not playing with a full deck of cards so to speak and we know this...We know without A doubt voting for this GOV. we abesentee voters and some 600 was not counted back in 2006 what happened? and or was not an accident. My vote did not get registerred period, had I known this was going down I would have been their to protest or I would have stressed put the Constitution that these knuckle heads put together and let us all vote on these matters and that did not happen becuase I did not subscribe to a news paper at the time and I did not even know oone existed so how was I to get the memo? And I being a major holder my voting rights what happened who drop the ball...There;s no accountability , no accident there. I can assure you that The Nation Lost the RESERVATION CASE LET THEM DEAL WITH THE WATER RIGHTS IN OSAGE COUNTY AND LET THE OSAGE TRIBE M/E for the Shareholders and the Major Stakeholders vote on these very important issues....as the Governing body the M/E charged by the 1906 Act....Yes the Nation, the Parent company, thought they would get control of the M/E by creating this auspices Govt...and the Nepotism and Crony Capitalism that plague the M/E and the role it has played on the Nation is sure not to end anytimw soon, not so much the Nepotism.....I fine the similarties curious as well wth our Commander in Chief how little respect he the Oath and Ofice our Chief had little respect for....and watch the U.S about to say enoungh Of Obama... Coinencidence? Timing was everything so our administration could begin and like I said no accident that I did not get my vote. And was a coup yes it was. We have a defacto gov...Time is on our side. OSAGE NO LONGER CONFUSED....When you break it down it's jaw dropping. And this is why the fat cats need not come knocking on our door but the Nation keeps up opening up a can worms and before they know it the feds are going to come in say what the heck are you doing? Get that per-cap to the Osages and give a 50 dollar gift cert. to all Osages....We are Osages and we want whats best for our people and yet we have a Gov. that wants to tax you and take and take and this was not supposed to be this way.....We are already taxed to death in the "real" world....and you are right This Gov. if it does not perform in the way the Constiuency thought or beleived then that Osage Constitutional Convention might be the only way to save face and bring back the integrity to our People it this Gov. started with one phone call and that phone call should have gone out to the Shareholders as well with a Memo explaing what was going to happen and we did not get that call or the memo and maybe we should do the same to them and let them the Nation understand to Score....so to speak...
DeleteIMPORTANT NOTE: Apparently, the comment period has been extended to November 18, 2013 by mail to:
DeleteMr. Eddie Streater
Designated Federal Officer
Bureau of Indian Affairs
P.O. Box 8002
Muscogee, OK 74402
e-mail at osageregneg@bia.gov with 1076–AF17 in the subject line
or hand delivery to Eddy Streater's office. I tried to get in on the web site listed in the instructions and got the same thing as an OPEN subscriber who contacted us about the http://www.regulations.gov web site listed in the comment above as to the contact instructions online and found that the comment period is showing as closed.
CFR changes were part of the bargaining chip..... the mistake was made when the MC allowed a Lobbyist to represent the NATION.....to settle a lawsuit which belonged to the Shareholders.
DeletePart of the bargaining chip? With whom? Certainly the majority of the Shareholders had no idea that the CFRs involving the leasing of Osage reservation lands for oil and gas mining were even on the table when the terms and conditions of the HPP settlement were being negotiated. The vote that was was structured by the BIA took place BEFORE the settlement agreement was ever finalized. If the shareholders had known what the elected officials, the attorneys, the BIA and the court were up to, the vote would likely have gone the other way. You people keep pushing for change and soon, you will have an empty oil patch and nothing ($0) in your quarterly headright checks. Why is the Federal government so big on financial full and complete legal disclosure with EVERYBODY ELSE in the USA but the Osages? Does the word bunco mean anything to anybody out there?
DeleteBargaining chip with the government to settle our lawsuit. The shareholders were asked to vote and accept or reject the settlement WITHOUT being given the terms of the settlement.
DeleteWhy is it "unethical" for a MC member to go to Washington. We MUST have the producers...if we do not have the producers....no oil is drawn and we get ZERO in our checks. There is a balance which has to be achieved. Many times when Resolutions are written, they do not contain what was discussed or the is an addition which defeats the purpose. "These men" who have allowed a lobbyist to represent the NATION....to settle our HHP suit should be ousted faster than greased lightening. They are buying smooth talk and have from the beginning. SHAREHOLDERS: We MUST have the producers......
ReplyDeleteTo Anonymous November 4, 2013 at 5:49 PM***Just what part of the settlement did the Shareholders not get, except for atty fees and expenses?
DeleteTo Anonymous November 4, 2013 at 5:43 PM***Our Council members MUST NOT accept money from the producers!! Now the producers have these people in their pocket. They had 5 votes supporting the trip and could have called an emergency meeting to approve the travel. But oh no, they had to do it the “Boone way.” Now they are in deep, deep doo doo, with no way out.
To poster Nov.4th on 7:17 pm I do not understand why people do not understand it is counterproductive to the mineral estate to side with the producers period and not the Stakeholders. DO DO IS A UNDERSTATEMENT , THEY The four should do the do and step down and do what right is right and step down.
DeleteYou're making quite an accusation about the taking of money by the Minerals Council and their being in the pocket of the oil producers. Can you prove such an accusation on an individual basis?
DeleteIt doesn’t have to be proved. 2 of them admitted it in a open council meeting/
DeleteInviting them on a lobbying junket to Washington D.C. is a far cry from being bought and in the pocket of the oil producers. Standing Bear wants these regulations put through, I'd be willing to bet. These particular passages are ominous:
DeleteWhat orders and notices can BIA issue?
(a) In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), after consultation with the Osage Minerals Council, is authorized to:
(1) Issue and make effective in Osage County oil and gas orders or notices to lessees (NTLs); or (OR ???)
(2) Adopt onshore oil and gas orders, NTLs, or related oil and gas regulations ISSUED by the Bureau of Land Management. (???)
(b) Adoptions by the Bureau of Indian Affairs shall remain in effect according to their terms and shall not be modified by any action of the Bureau of Land Management unless the Director (of what? The Bureau of Land Management? or the BIA?) issues further orders to that effect in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. (What does the Administrative Procedure Act involve?)
From day one, the head of our Trust is the Trustee, the Secretary of the Interior. It's the Trustee who gives the marching orders because this is an Estate Trust set up by the 1906 Allotment Act that has been created by an Act of the U.S. Congress not some sort of oil business opportunity that the Feds have involved themselves in to help out a group of Indians. YES? The 1938 Act to Amend the 1906 Act states verbatim: ""The Secretary of the Interior and the Osage Tribal Council are hereby authorized and directed to offer for lease for oil, gas, and other mining purposes any unleased portion of said land in such quantities and at such times as may be deemed for the best interest of the Osage Tribe of Indians." The 1978 act to Amend the 1906 Act states, "The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to establish rules and regulations under which oil and gas leases producing from a common source of supply may be unitized." I take it that this passage has authorized the CFRs now connected to the BIA hence http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/25/226 and in particular, "Any and all bids shall be subject to the acceptance of the Osage Tribal Council and approval of the Superintendent". § 226.2 Sale of Leases. (b) at http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/25/226.2 As to NTLs, "Notices and orders issued by the Superintendent to the representative and/or operator shall be binding on the lessee." at http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/25/226.45 I don't see that the Trustee of the Trust has maintained it's fiduciary obligation by handing off supervision in part to the BLM outside of the auspices of the BIA that has the predominant responsibility for the government to government relationship with the Indian Tribes. Unless I'm missing something here, it seems to me that adopting NTLs and OTLs coming direct from the BLM that are subject to change from an unspecified Director could lead in a direction where there are a lot of unknowns and that could prove to be a big problem at some point in the future.
I do not understand when those who have been elected to represent the Shareholders in dealing with the Oil Producers (who want our gas and oil), choose to go to Washington to lobby for the Oil Producers and continue to lobby for them.
DeleteDon’t you all remember that we sued the US Government (BIA) because they were not looking after our best interest and we WON. Not only did we all get a nice piece of cash, but the Judge ruled that a committee be put together to tighten up the rules (CFRs), so this doesn’t happen again. Look folks, it does not take a law degree to know that if the Oil Producers were paying us a fair price and not ripping us off, we wouldn’t have won the lawsuit!!! Again if they were plugging the wells and cleaning up their sites when they finished, we wouldn’t need to change the CFRs. Those Producers who are yelling the loudest are probably the ones who were (are) ripping us off the most. I understand there are some gas producers that even bypass the meters. If you all understand this, then you can see why I am so upset with those who were elected to the Mineral Council wanting us to give our oil/gas away for nothing. The Oil Producers are trying to blackmail us, by saying if you change the current rules, then we are leaving. And I say they have been screwing the Indians long enough, they don’t like the new CFRs, then leave! I will leave you with a side note, sitting out in the lobby a few years ago, I actually heard one of the producers call us “Dumb Indians” as he came out of the Council Room.
I know. I'm worried about your last remark too. One of the things that worries me most as well are the unknowns in the fine print of all of the changes that we have been going through since 2006. As an example, the simplest language in the ON Constitution can be made to mean something far different than one which a reasonably prudent person would think that it means. The same is true of more and more regulations associated with the Federal government and yes it will be good to be paid more but looking at the bottom line, how much are the hard costs going to be to meet the overall price of the new regs? Are we going to be nickeled, dimed and dollar after dollared to death? As far as I can tell, few if any Osages who I have ever known are really capable of what is known in the real world as "forward thinking" and dealing with all this, it's a VITAL set skill to have in the tool box. These new regs won't come about for free, nor will they come cheap and they are full of unknowns as is indicated in my post above. Furthermore, I suspect that they will cost a pretty penny when all is said and done. If the trust account in the U.S. Treasury bleeds out and is eaten alive with all of the future costs of doing business under these new regs that you all seem to be hell bent for leather to have in place, will you be screaming, "We're getting paid more for our oil, why aren't our payments higher?" I believe that the answer to this question is YES. You will! Are you capable of incorporating doubt in your assessment of the future scenario as it plays out under these new CFRs?
DeleteIt never hurts to have a healthy skepticism.
DeleteOsageblogger I would rather shut the wells down, then give the oil away for nothing. This oil/gas isn't going to last forever, so should we get as much as we can for it. We had a very narrow door, with the Chief and all of Congress agreeing to change the Constitution by revising the Amendments to the Constitution so that the Mineral Council was out from under the Constitution. The Mineral Council passed a Resolution to support the vote, that is all voted for except Cynthia and friends. She went around campaigning against voting for the change. It caused confusion and the Amendments failed. I don't understand Cynthia because she doesn't want to be under the Constitution either. The only thing I can figure is Cynthia is for the Jech Lawsuit, now called the Tillman/Dudley lawsuit. They want the Nation to go away and go back to the old Mineral Council system. Isn't going to happen. Have you gone to Ray McClain's web site? He has Galen Crum's chart that shows we have already been receiving the higher posted price from a good number of the producers. Read the CFR changes again. They aren't going to nickel and dime the producer. The bottom line is, if they weren't making a lot of money here, they would have left a long time ago. Everyone needs to use a little common sense and don't over think this.
DeleteTo Osage blogger: I don't usually get involved in your discussion here, but you make a couple of assertions in this thread that really beg to be corrected. First, the BLM is given no authority over any part of the Osage mineral estate by the proposed CFR changes. The onshore orders you mention are referenced as documents only that contain technical standards that the BIA can adopt and enforce in the Osage. They convey no authority to the BLM. Indeed it would be impossible to do so, as the Osage are specifically exempted from BLM oversight by Federal law./////// The second area that needs to be addressed is that in your latest post you seem to infer that the 0sages are charged in some way for BIA functions. This is completely false. All BIA service is provided free as part of their trust responsibility.
DeleteThank you Galen Crum....for putting an end to some questions that I had concerns over as well....Thanks for chiming in....
DeleteThank you too Galen for your comment, but you haven't quite read my post right. I can't go into it now. I will have to get back to you on this later on today.
DeleteBLM technical standards that the BIA can adopt and enforce in the Osage? If they involve clean up or any regulatory matter that may cost the Osages money, where will it come from? After the $1 million drawdown has been spent, if there is a balance outstanding due, it won't be long until an approval for a larger amount of drawdown will be in order, to be authorized by the U.S. Congress. In addition, once the BIA is authorized by the new CFRs and has the ability to draw upon BLM technical standards without a clarification as to how far the BIA can go toward incorporating them, you might be looking at a lot of unanticipated cumbersome regulations where the orders and notices to the lessees are concerned. Don't give the BIA carte blanche with any of the rules or regulations of the BLM. It's naive to open this door and not expect the BIA to walk through it. It's not blackmail in my book to be a business owner that has negotiated an oil lease/s in good faith and have the BIA and the Tribe change the entire business landscape with the adoption of new regulations right out from under you. If you were them you would undoubtedly be crying foul too and pick up and leave a lot faster than they ever will. I fail to see why you all are villainizing the oil producers who are currently doing business in the Osage and refuse to comprehend the whole of this situation other than just your own point of view. Such an approach lacks depth and maturity.
DeleteTo Osage blogger:: I am not vilifying the producers., I continue to have a very good working relationship with all of them. We just completed a very successful oil summit that was well attended and very upbeat in spite of the attempted boycott of the event by the oil producer's association leadership., Several of them even expressed dissatisfaction with the extremely negative and unproductive tactics that has been taken by that leadership. These are business people and most understand that changes had to be made in the Osage and that while they may not be thrilled with some of them, they now would like to just get back to business. As one put it to me "the misinformation about the proposed regs and the uncertainty until they are finally approved is hurting his ability to operate far more than anything in the new regs."
DeleteThere were several new companies at the summit that were enthusiastic about expanding their operations into the Osage and were happy to hear we now had good tracts available for lease.
Also, nothing in the technical standards can impose a financial responsibility on the Osages for cleanup or anything else. And the process for adopting any additional onshore orders would require a similar federal process to what is occurring now with the CFRs, consultation with the minerals council and an open comment period.
Thank you Galen Crum....will respond to your post later../// Great work.
DeleteGalen I fail to see how the "the missinformation about the proposed changes" would affect anyone's operations on the field. But if that is all then on both parts having a healthy sceptisism is good. This process though arduous the learning curve for some, This Shareholder understood what had to be done....listening to the Scaretactics and etc...still came out learning something from all of this...lets move forward with forward thinking for the future of the M/E.....thanks Galen.
DeleteGalen, you people in this new government consistently appear to twist, ignore or misinterpret the language of anything associated with laws, rules or regulations that apply directly to you. Now the fact is that the statement is written verbatim; (the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), after consultation with the Osage Minerals Council, is authorized to:)
Delete(2) ADOPT onshore oil and gas orders, NTLs, or related oil and gas regulations (currently) ISSUED by the Bureau of Land Management.
(b) Adoptions by the Bureau of Indian Affairs shall remain in effect according to their terms and shall not be modified by any action of the Bureau of Land Management unless the Director (of the BLM?) issues further orders to that effect in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act.
Just because the BIA consults with the Mineral Council does not necessarily mean that you can stop them from adopting any of the BLM OTLs and NTLs! There is nothing in this language that says that you have a vote in the matter whatsoever. Consultation to them probably means that they have notified you in person at a MC meeting or in writing of the fact that they are going to adopt whichever BLM OTL or NTL that they want to.
Provide us a list of the BLM OTLs and NTLs that are CURRENTLY ON THE BOOKS that other oil producers are having to abide by in other areas. I would be willing to bet that you have never even seen such a list in your life but you are willing to open the door to such technical standards that the BIA can adopt and enforce in the Osage without even knowing what you are getting yourself into and more importantly, the shareholders whom you were elected by in the ballot box. Have you looked at the text of even one of the OTLs or NTLs that come from the BLM? What the language is also saying is that the "adoptions" of the current OTLs and NTLs ONCE THEY HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THE BIA can't be changed arbitrarily by the BLM without compliance and accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. And you would let this fly without even knowing what is contained in these BLM technical standards? You've got a lot of homework to do before you even decide to go in this direction and make this recommendation to give the BIA such open ended options. This looks and feels like a BLM Trojan Horse to me, Galen and you had better know what you're getting the shareholders into where their income is at stake on this provision of the CFRs alone with undoubtedly a quite a few more just like it. Here, let me help get you started; go here and start clicking on the links and begin reading and report back with what you find after you've finished: This is the list: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/onshore_oil_and_gas.html And you can begin here: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/Onshore_Order_no1.html For the sake of the shareholders who elected you to office, please be thorough. I think once you have finished that it will be a reasonably prudent thing to to say that you are stepping into a gapingly large sinkhole here Galen.
To osageblogger November 8, 2013 at 2:18 PM
DeleteThe following 2 paragraphs taken from the revised cfrs should alleviate your problems. It is very clear that there is no such problem.
§ 226.36 Control devices of wells.
(f) IF APPLICABLE given the circumstances, lessees shall conduct activities in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Bureau of Land Management Onshore Order 6, Hydrogen Sulfide Operations, and any amendments thereto.
§ 226.39 Measurement of gas.
(a) All gas, required to be measured, shall be measured in accordance with the standards, procedures, and practices set forth in Bureau of Land Management Onshore Oil and Gas Order 5, Measurement of Gas, and any amendments thereto. To the extent that Onshore Oil and Gas Order 5 conflicts with any provision of these regulations, THESE REGULATIONS WILL CONTROL.
Where in the CFRs does it say that the BIA can't eventually apply all of the BLM OTLs beyond Orders 5 and 6? See http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/energy/oil_and_gas.Par.98955.File.dat/Onshore%20Order%20No.%206.pdf and http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/energy/oil_and_gas.Par.28029.File.dat/Onshore%20Order%20No.%205.pdf You haven't addressed the NTLs either. I still would like to hear from Galen.
DeleteOsageblogger, What in the world are you talking about?????
DeleteNice try Patricia. We're talking about the terms, conditions and provisions of the new CFRs. You know exactly what is going on here. If not, please get up to speed.
DeleteTo anonymous: the reference to the misinformation spread by the OPA leadership and some Minerals Council members causing him problems were his words not mine. But I can relay that the conversation at the time was about the wasted time and effort he had spent ferreting out truth from fiction. And he even had to calm a lender that had been made nervous by the lies that are being circulated.
DeleteTo Osage blogger: you loose your bet about my knowledge of BLM onshore orders and ntls. I spent many days studying them, talking to BLM personnel, and taking trips to their offices, all to determine what might be helpful in the Osage and what would not. Giving the BLM any control over the Osage was never an option, but we borrowed the technical, industry standard guidelines on gas metering and safely handling H2S gas as documents only. Over the years they had developed very good guidelines on these subjects and we saw no need to reinvent the wheel. And once again I stress that these are documents only and convey no BLM authority in the Osage. That can't happen under existing Federal law. This will also be true if the Osage and BIA decide in the future to borrow any other technical language from the BLM.
I'll have to take your word for it but all this looks very complicated and involved to me. I hope you know what you're doing, Galen because I don't see anything in this summary that could stop the BIA from going past BLM Orders 5 & 6 right through them all. That's a lot of rules and regs to saddle the oil producers with on balance. Though it's good that the BIA is in control, the end result remains the same. It's BLM orders and notices that will prevail in these CFRs. If there is a flight out of the Osage oil patch, you will be the first one to be blamed for it. What lender are you referring to and in reference to what loan? To the Minerals Council? For the purpose of purchasing what?
Delete
DeleteMany words - nothing said correcting real problems:
1. BIA hasn't clue on running a $4 Billion Mineral Estate. Never had - never will.
2. OMC & BIA both have acute long time shortages of qualified experienced individuals watching the store.
3. Mrs. Crum is an excellent writer of nonsense by Mr. Crum
4. That hissing sound heard in Osage County - is large volumes of hemorrhaging natural gas & related liquids sold without BIA collecting Osage Royalty, and small producers shorted equitable gas pay: Hissing day and night, year around while OMC and BIA have food fights over NegRegs CFRs!
To Osageblogger: Why I asked, is that you keep talking about the BLM getting involved in our business. I don’t know how many times it has to be explained that only 2 regulations are going to be taken from the BLM’s regulations. One is how to meter gas, as we really don’t have many regulations and absolutely nothing addressing the modern digital equipment now being used, so why reinvent the wheel because the BLM regulation is what is being used nationally. The second is handling the H2S gas, which we have no regulations at this time and it is needed. Both new rules say the regulations will be only used where applicable. I believe your friend has misinformed you. She picked up a BLM book of regulations that was laying by her in-box and after reading them, came in the MC meeting ready to pick a fight. After the rest of the Councilmen figured out what she was talking about, it took practically the whole meeting to try to explain to her that only two regulations were being used. She is the only one who thinks the BLM is coming in and going to take over, so I know where you probably got your information. This 798 page page stack of regulations that the producer’s have been waving around is all rhetoric. There is about 20 pages or less of each subject, which makes 40 pages at the most. I guess they should have just copied the passages of the language they wanted to use and not told anyone where it came from. Would you have been happier with that? So why don’t you calm down and try to understand what Galen Crum is trying to tell you. He knows what he is talking about. How many Rulemaking meetings did you attend? How many field trips did you make to learn about what was being proposed? Please reframe from speaking about what you don’t know anything about. Maybe I spoke out of turn. Do you have any experience in the Oil/Gas business?
DeletePatricia we are not talking about one single isolated regulation for each area (Orders 5 &6) that comprises one sentence or two. If you would go to the trouble to copy and paste these two URLs into your browser, you will see that what comprises this so called "regulation" in two instances is VOLUMINOUS for both of the regulation orders coming directly from the BLM web site: 1) http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/energy/oil_and_gas.Par.98955.File.dat/Onshore%20Order%20No.%206.pdf and 2) http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/energy/oil_and_gas.Par.28029.File.dat/Onshore%20Order%20No.%205.pdf Keep in mind that the BLM is under the umbrella of the Department of the Interior and the Secretary of the Interior is the Trustee of the Osage Mineral Estate Income Trust. Order 5 comprises 26 pages and Order 6 comprises 30 pages of regulations associated with these Orders and this says nothing of the Notices to Lesses. One or two sentences in the new Osage CFRs opens up to quite a few actual regulations that the oil producers are going to have to abide by. We know of two BLM Orders so far and that says nothing of the rest. It is being obtuse not to acknowledge this reality if the new CFRs are adopted and put in place in Osage County.
DeleteLet me make this quite clear, I am not concerned about the BLM running things. I am concerned about the BIA adopting and enforcing rules and regulations that come from the BLM. I will be just as concerned if they are coming from rules and regulations adopted by the BIA that are from the EPA.
DeleteSomeone had better be concerned about the BLM coming into the Osage. All we heard at the NEG REG was the fact that the BIA can't do the proper accounting without the BLM taking it over because BIA can't afford to even buy the software updates or the computers to operate the program. Why do you think that there were so many BLM employees on the Government Caucus? Wasn't Darrel the only BIA guy? What does that tell you? DOES anyone on here, Crum included even know what a NTL is or what it means? It is a BLM baseball bat to whack operators any time that they feel like doing it. Osageblogger certainly quoted it all correctly, read the REGS and tell me that BLM is not going to be the puppet master of the whole show? Google all the Indian Lands up north that the BLM is controlling and let me know how long it takes to get a drilling permit, (over 365 days, that is a YEAR), not to mention all that you have to do BEFORE you can even GET A PERMIT, how many rigs are drilling there and how happy those royalty holders are with the BLM. Go look at Fort Berthold that is currently suing the BIA for more of their mismanagement: http://buffalosfire.com/mha-tribal-citizens-file-suit-in-federal-court-alleging-interior-department-failed-in-role-as-trustee/
DeleteAre you seeing a common thread here? BIA MISMANAGED the OSAGE Mineral Estate, the producers are not the bad guys, READ the Settlement Agreement! Also INQUIRE of our Minerals Council as to why the COURT MANDATED Bi-Annual Meetings to correct the OPERATIONAL issues of the BIA are not being held and NOT being reported upon every February either! How can you correct a problem, a huge one given the $380 Million Settlement when you don't even have the mandatory meetings to discuss what is wrong with the system? Where is the February 2011 Written Meeting Notes, and the 2012, and what about the 2013? How many meetings have been held THIS YEAR for the 2014 Report? I can tell you, NONE! It is all well and good to blame the big bad oil companies for not paying correctly (which is untrue) but when did the true villain in the play get to skate on THEIR HUGE ROLE in this Settlement? Did you see where the Court ever said that it was the Operators fault? If you read it you saw where it was the mismanagement of the BIA, under qualified, understaffed, and what has changed? Other than the revolving door of the Supt. office, with the 3rd one in place THIS YEAR, and the 3rd Deputy Supt. too, what NEW staff is there? Charity who came over from the Minerals Council is the only NEW staff that comes to mind. Ben Daniels is on loan until the first of the year and then he goes back to Muskogee. They lost their IT expert, and cartographer Pete Fish retired so there have been NO UPDATES to the PLAT BOOKS which is the Bible of the Oil and Gas business since about June... I believe that there are SIX gaugers when there were 9 that are gauging about 15 TANKS per month to judge if the 2,500 Tank Batteries in the Osage are being properly measured! That was NOT 15 each, that was total, POINT 6% PER MONTH. Now the BIA is getting an extra Million to fix some of these problems but given how long it takes to even hire a new employee that is not going to happen very fast either.
Do you still believe that the BLM is not going to have anything to do with the Osage? TWO ORDERS and NTL carte blanche with only having to "consult" with the OMC to implement them. This doesn't bother each and every one of you? It doesn't bother you that the BIA could not enforce the 35 half page booklet of the past but can do such a swell job with 56 EXTRA PAGES of BLM REGS on top of the new ones too in the CFR and then add the NTL that gives them the authority to implement anything the Supt. (whoever that finally ends up being) decides that they want to shove down the operators throats but also the OMC who don't get a Veto Power?
THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! AD INFINITUM.... I was seriously beginning to despair that other than a few on the MInerals Council that are taking a beating every single day for not supporting this insanity, that there wasn't a single person involved with this situation that has a lick of common sense. Again and again, THANK YOU! Anyone who doesn't understand what a sweet deal we have in the Osage with the old CFRs and wants to substitute this regulatory death knell for oil production in Osage County ought to have their heads examined. And I mean every single word in this comment. Naivety where the Federal government is concerned backed up by stubborn dug in self destructive decision making is not the way to go for those who are elected that are negotiating this situation for Shareholders who depend, to one degree or another, on the income produced from the oil and gas in the Osage. And that's all there is to it!
DeleteWhat I'd like to know is how the first OMC under the new Osage government actually raised the royalty percentage rate without changing the CFRs. Also, what exactly do you mean by this statement Galen? "This will also be true if the Osage and BIA decide in the future to borrow any other technical language from the BLM." More of the BLM Orders and Notices beyond 5 & 6 not specifically listed in the new CFRs? Yes? HERE WE GO...
DeleteAgain, as to the other BLM Orders beyond 5 & 6 see http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/onshore_oil_and_gas.html
DeleteReading all this Galen, I don't think you are being forthcoming with the Headright owners about what all these CFR changes are really about and how much things are going to be different. That's not fair or right of you or Abbot, Red Eagle or Yates not to tell us what you are up to with all these changes. You people need to put your cards on the table and tell the truth about how much things are going to change. You need to have a hearing in Pawhuska run by MC elected officials to go over every bit of this and put it out there for us to comment on. Thank God for osage blogger who always seems to be on your scent night and day.
DeleteThe Royalty Rate can be changed at the whim of the Osage Minerals Council. It was 3/16 and then was raised to the current 20%. The OMC has always had the authority to regulate the royalty rate based on their negotiation skills and what is needed which is a valuable tool when you are dealing with businesses who need to have a unique situation addressed to best develop the Minerals Estate. That is another reason that we don't want it declared in the CFR, written in stone, only able to be increased or decreased by another CFR Revision. IF the BLM has no authority or ability to come into the Osage, why did the highly compensated attorney and the equally overrated "expert" not just cut and paste as they did so frequently in other parts of the Revisions (rather badly in some instances)? Why incorporate it by reference which will also change with the whim of the BLM changing theirs, which WE have NO CONTROL over in the future? If we are in fact UNIQUE then why would we want to cookie cutter anything into our new CFR? We paid enough to that team of "experts" that we should have bought and paid for our OWN CFR and not the BLM's! The BIG difference is that the Royalty Rate would be changed for leases from that point forward, so that any reputable business wishing to do business in the Osage is fully aware of what the new rate would be. NOT like NYMEX which is a game changer in the middle of the game and effectively increased the Royalty Rate to an unattainable level for ALL producers and MOST Purchasers, and essentially has changed the LEASE CONTRACT which cannot be done unilaterally! The BIA has tried to do the blame shift from their incompetencies (which were considerable given the Settlement Amount and the Court Ordered Mandates to clean up their act) to it being all the Operators fault. If we think that we can attain NYMEX then buy our own transports, take the royalty in kind, pay the cost of trucking to CUSHING at the Terminal and sell our own oil for NYMEX! Of course, that requires 1,000 bbl increments and transportation charges, terminal charges, storage charges, etc. OH we did that, it was known as PLAINS and they ended up owing us MILLIONS of DOLLARS too! Didn't come out near as well on that deal and I wonder where the money went on that one???
DeleteGreat post....and we are aware of the blame game that has transpired but needless to say let's get this business started and move forward. We have a lot on our plate to address. Can you explain Plains?
DeleteAgreed!
DeleteTo the best of my knowledge the Plains Deal was the following: Several years ago before the Osage Nation was formed the Osage Tribe decided to invoke their CFR 226.11 (3) Royalty in kind. Where the Lessor demands to take their oil in kind not in money. "Lessee shall furnish free storage for royalty oil for a period not to exceed 60 days from date of production after notice of such election." The special twist was that they actually demanded that all the oil operators sell to Plains Marketing instead the free enterprise system of selling to the Purchaser of the Operator's choice. This was met with opposition from the Operators who were getting higher prices from their own deals, or who did not have the storage, etc. It was finally agreed that the Operator would sell their oil to their choice of Purchaser and the Purchaser would make the exchange of the barrels instead of royalty and Plains would take delivery. It is my understanding that somehow Plains did not pay the Osage properly for the oil and it amounted to about $10 Million by one calculation. There were some negotiations after the fact and the amount that was finally settled was far less than what was supposedly owed. (Sound familiar?) I could ask some of the Old Timers exactly what transpired but suffice it to say that it was not a good deal. It was fortuitous that not ALL the oil (as was previously demanded) was sold to Plains or there would have been an even larger loss to the Osage Shareholders and to the Mineral Estate and all the oil could have been tied up for years to come and paid for $.10 on the $1!
DeleteTo Anonymous Nov 4, 7:17 - Our HHP suit was conservatively estimated to be worth more than 3 BILLION dollars.......the MC allowed a lobbyist to represent the suit, even though the lobbyist was working for the Nation, not the Shareholders but the Nation........which would be a third part. the lobbyist had no oil and gas experience. His first court appearance was concerning our HHP. The lobbyist argued to Judge Hewitt that OUR money belonged to the NATION.....not the Shareholders. After the dust settled, we get $350 MILLION. Really???? I attended several BIA meetings. They snookered the novice lobbyist and walked away smelling like a rose. We literally were cheated out of: 1. fair representation 2. and were saddled with an attorney who had ZERO experience in this field.
DeleteI originally heard that it was worth $10 BILLION and that was only for the oil. Osages were never paid for the GAS which is still hemorrhaging and NO ONE is minding the store! You will never get an argument out of me over the "experts" in this suit either. Then they turn around and hire them to advise them on the CFR NEG REG Changes and an attorney who couldn't even cut and paste to plagiarize properly? I bet the government licked their lips over that one, too. Same EXPERT that advised them that they could receive NYMEX for the oil because CUSHING was only 15 MILES from the OSAGE! He also recommended the Gas Pricing that an Osage Shareholder that is an EXPERT GAS MARKETER proved to everyone at a closed meeting that his method would net LESS money than what the Industry Standard would get them... She has a brain and almost 30 years of Gas Marketing experience but the OMC refuses to hire her to consult with them and show them where the Gas Contracts are inequitable and need to be addressed? Do all the Shareholders agree that the money would not be well spent to hire another Shareholder to review all of the gas contracts since the BIA approved contracts that were not to the benefit of the Osage? Gas has been said to be the New Oil and Osage is missing the boat in this respect.
DeleteThank you for explaining the Plains what a monopoly if I ever saw a game played and our M/C could not see this? Something does not smell right? Something stinks to high kingdom come and not a day late. Really.....this was no accident. And indeed there is no arguement we were short changed by the HPP case as well and I do remember the Nation frothing at the mouth to get their greedy hands on that cash and recall Judge Hewitt saying this is and will be going to the Shareholders after all this is Shareholders Revenue .....and this is why it is so critical to pay attention.....I would like to hear more on this Women with 30 yrs experience has to say about why cotracting gas contracts is out dated? and I know where this is going but to change the way the M/C thinks we must vote as a whole and not independent of each other with the Greater Outcome is to represent the Stakeholder who put you in your official capacity to Govern and if they cannot get off the pot then we steamroll full ahead with someone who is going to bring innovation of technology and wisdom to the forefront of the 21st Century....I know what needs to be done to meet the expectations of the Shareholders and if we do not have that kind of representation then I suggest to the M/C to be looking for another Job and maybe with the exception of a few.....If we have to purge to get the right mind set then so be it.....It's not that hard to do....I along with just a couple of people implemented a set of standard of which each dept. could live with for a motto defined by a set of rules to follow streamlined right into a 5 star with in three weeks from the time the implementation started to end which was unheard of. Normally a 4 month process....Why did this work? Because we said everyone must be a team player or be replaced......
DeleteThe Shareholder offered to contract with the Osage Minerals Council to go into the BIA and to read all the current Gas Contracts to see if they were fair and equitable and met Industry Standards. They refused her offer and told her maybe in a couple of years... HOW long do these Gas Contracts have to go on that are LESS THAN 50%, the best is around 80% Contracts? That means that we are selling 100% of our gas and getting paid on less than 100%. This has been going on for years with the blessing of the BIA because THEY MUST approve any Gas Contract that comes through and then it is passed to the OMC to be approved. In 2008 a GAS EXPERT came in, contracted with the OMC and went into the field to test 15 of the "Cream of the Crop Meters". He found that at that time there was a 10% to 15% loss of gas due to bad metering in those BEST meters. There was coal dust and water in some and others were not measuring to ANSI standards. At that time that was equal to $100,000 to $150,000 PER MONTH lost and that was almost FIVE YEARS ago! That is $SIX MILLION to NINE MILLION DOLLARS to date just on the ones that he inspected! Supt. Melissa at the BIA said that she didn't believe it was true (what she based that on is beyond common sense because she was obviously NO EXPERT and was not aware of any of the issues that were discovered in the field. Of course, if she admitted it WAS true then the BIA was just opened up for yet another mismanaging, unqualified staffing issue...) Now why would the OMC not HIRE an expert who is also a Shareholder to do what they can't or won't do, oversee the competency of the BIA? There is a Million Dollar Budget to manage the Osage Minerals Estate, wouldn't you rather fund this than some of the other money drains that have been paid for in the past? That "expert" and "hot shot little attorney" that sold those CFR's to less than half of our Minerals Council had a stiffer price tag and what did it buy us?
DeleteExactly my Point and now the picture is becoming more clear and I thank you.....Who's manning the Boat? or?
DeleteGo to http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=BIA-2013-0003-0002 where the new CFRs are detailed and in a more positive direction, let's review these them which are the point of beginning of the latest disagreement among the Shareholders.
ReplyDeleteIf that web site is down, you can find it at http://www.Osages-You-Need-To-Know.com
DeleteGo to 2013-8-28 CFR’s Proposed Rule Changes
Thank you. I had to refresh the page at the regulations.gov web site about three or four times before it would finally come up for me.
DeleteTime is of the essence: if you have the ability to contact those in your area who participated in the Strategic Plan events just after the new government was formed, please contact them and tell them about The Osage Surge to have those outside of the Osage run for office in the upcoming election. Remember, the filing period to run for Chief and Assistant Chief is December 16, 2013 to January 6, 2014 and for the Osage Nation Congress the filing period is March 15, 2014 to March 31, 2014.
ReplyDeletePart I--Boone's Bulletin 11/8/13
ReplyDeleteFrom the desk of Councilwoman Boone:
I purchased a storage unit from the Pawhuska Mayor. He had purchased it at a storage unit auction. It was speculated that the contents of this particular storage unit contained Osage Minerals Council (OMC) documents. My private business was brought up for discussion at a regular OMC meeting. The bottom line is that anything in the unit that might have been OMC documents would just be a copy of an original document stored at the tribal archives in Hominy. Chairman Yates abused his power to allow anyone to question me about my personal purchase. I guess he never saw the TV show "Storage Wars." It's one thing to have a private conversation about a situation. It's another thing to use your position to allow others to try to scorn or humiliate someone in a public meeting. After discussing that the storage unit had been sold for non-payment
of rental fees, Chairman Yates stated "we didn't know anything about it." Every budget the Osage Minerals Council received had a line item identified as storage rental. Councilmen Crum and Redeagle wanted this matter investigated by the police. This matter was published in the Bigheart Times newspaper as well as my letter to the editor.
Part II--Boone's Bulletin 11/8/13
DeleteIn another matter, some of the OMC wanted tribal Congress to bring ethics charges against 4 of us, who went with some oil men to Washington D.C. Those who went were Councilmen Bear, Core, Whitehorn and me. The other OMC were told that the oil men paid our way. Whitehorn and I paid our own way. We had an Oil and Gas Summit on November 5 and 6. The oil men paid for our mileage, food, drinks, snacks, banquet dinner, hotel rooms and Pendleton blankets. Chairman Yates did not stay in a regular room. He and his wife stayed in a suite, compliments of the oil men. Should we all be brought up on ethics charges? Looks like a double standard to me. I believe we are an independent agency and tribal Congress doesn't need to be in our business but Councilman Abbott contacted Osage Nation Congressman Geoffrey Standingbear to discuss a possible ethics violation.
We recently voted for raises for our staff. When I'm in the office, I hear the company cell phones ringing mostly, not the office desk phones. I reviewed the two staff's company phone bills for one month and this is what I found: One employee's company phone bill was 22 pages long. There were 564 calls made, 339 of them were made after hours, texting was 5,348 minutes. If this employee is this busy using the company cell phone to text and make so many phone calls, how much times does she spend working for us headright owners? The other employee phone bill was only 1 page: 5 calls were made for a total of 19 minutes. Texting was only 11 minutes. Councilman Red Eagle said we need to set a precedent. Councilman Abbott said they deserve a raise. What do you think? We didn't vote of each employee separately. I voted no. One of our employees hasn't even passed her probationary period.
One of our headright owners asked for our attorney's legal opinion on the Osage Nation Open Records Act. The chairman said she could have it but then realized it stated attorney/client privilege. I brought it to a vote of the council that the attorney opinion could be shared with our headright owners and it passed. The bottom line is that the Osage Nation Open Records Act does not apply to the Osage Minerals Council.
The public comment period of the Negotiated Rule Making for our oil and gas rules has been extended. There were over 450 letters submitted by headright owners to protest the proposed rules. In addition, the Oklahoma State Congressional delegation, the Oklahoma State Attorney General, landowners and oil men submitted comments asking for the process to be restarted. You still have time to submit your comments. The deadline now is November 18.
Copies of any of the documents discussed here are available upon request. I can be reached at 918-698-3314 or e-mail your request to tom@cowboy.net.
Any opinions made herein are our own and not that of the total Minerals Council.
Remember our veterans on Veterans Day and have a Happy Thanksgiving.
Cynthia your nose must be six feet long by now. It is an out and out lie that you paid your way to Washington, when you went to lobby for the Oil Producers. I have a disk of the meeting when you and Curtis admitted to going, with the Producers paying, and both of you saying would do it again. Then Dudley saw what was going on and threw you both under the bus, by saying he paid his own way. Then by the next meeting you said you paid part of the trip and now you say you have paid your whole way. Give me a break. As nobody believes you, the only thing I would like to say to you and Dudley, is show us the receipts dated with the time the trip was taken and your names on them. Ms. Boone once you have been caught in a lie, it is very hard for people to believe you. The second thing I would like to address is your statement that the about the members of the mineral council attending the Oil and Gas Summit. Did you attend? Did you eat? etc. You know nothing about putting on or financing meetings or summits or conventions. I put a conference on once a year, for twenty five years, all over the county. If they are done properly the cost of having the council as guests, is folded into the registration and display fees charged. Also a sizeable amount is collected from supporters for advertising in the program and from the exhibitors. You are carrying on like the Oil Producers Association financed the whole thing. This is another preposterous LIE. When you block a group of rooms at a hotel, the hotel gives you a suite and several free rooms depending on how many you block. I always gave my free suite to the guest of honor or the Chairman of the Board and stayed in one of the free rooms to keep my cost down and the others went to the VIPs. A word of advice, if you don’t want to look like a fool, you really need to keep your statements to yourself, because most of the time you don’t know what you are talking about.
DeleteWhere do you think that the carryover of over $100,000 for the Summit originated? It came from the careful administration of past Summits and was directly donated by the OIL AND GAS OPERATORS! Why don't you trace the budget and source of all the income and get back to us on that fact? Why was Crum in a suite, he is not the Chairman/Speaker of the Minerals Council and he was not even on the Steering Committee. I believe that if you would go back and listen to the tapes of the OMC meetings you would hear someone say that the ONLY contributors at that time were CEP, Chaparral and Lawco... ALL OPERATORS. I believe that there appeared to be well over THIRTEEN of the Committee Members, plus numerous volunteers benefitting from the donations of the Operators, correct? Since every year the Operators were the contributors for the Summit isn't that a HUGE CONFLICT OF INTEREST to accept all of these gifts? It appears that the only OMC member that wasn't there was Sonny Abbott, who probably had his own reasons for not attending. As for the advertisers paying for it, there were only 4 that were NOT Operators too. As far as operators were all there and happy, exactly how many in attendance were actually Operators Vs all the Freebies? In past years, the Open Bar Reception on the first night was completely paid for by the OPA, too. I am sure that no one drank all the booze because it was tainted too?
DeleteAs for the Washington Trip, in the past the Operators and the Council were considered PARTNERS in the Osage. After the NEG REG when not only were the Partners EXCLUDED from the Negotiations, but the Osage Nation, nullifying it as a government to government caucus, and the landowners who were certainly an interested party if nothing else, and don't forget that OUR FULL OSAGE ELECTED MINERALS COUNCIL was also excluded, partnership was voided for all concerned. Why shouldn't they go to DC to discuss the facts of the Osage? Especially since the FULL MC had already voted and passed a Resolution by a MAJORITY to not send the CFR to DC? Do you get to cherry pick which Resolutions are acted upon and which ones are ignored? Isn't it time to stop this petty bickering and get to the business of managing the $4 Billion Mineral Estate, if it is still in fact even worth that much now with EnCana and Chaparral throwing back their Concessions, Chaparral laying off at least 3 of their Upper Field Management, Halcon has laid off almost all of their field staff in the Osage and has NO PLANS for drilling, Devon MAY drill a well in Feb. only to keep their Concession in place, and rumor has it that Spyglass has sold or is about to, also. Does this sound like they are beating your door down to produce in the Osage? And NO, I DON'T see anyone that is clawing their way to be in the Osage either. You keep reiterating that YOU don't need them, there will be more to take their place, how many leases were nominated for the SALE that didn't happen this year after the fiasco of last year's?
Patricia, you are right about Cynthia Boones comments and admissions is witnessed by many....and now a different story....I will say one thing, when a lie becomes a truth......you know you are in trouble in little China...The Squeeky will and I mean will is getting greased alright...and maybe feeling a little heat...but why lie? There is no self preservation in that or for that matter a moral compass exists? Unbelievable, but maybe not....Because I certainly believe that it would have been just more than prudent but ethical to the Stakeholders, view it would be better said to be honest, if she had gone with her great Storage War bid "Lol' and had given the M/C opportunity to puchase in the first as opposed to doing the complete opposite and gloated....really a lack of character and unfortunately once you lose that first perception of someone, that trust is hard to get back unfortunately and you just can't forget...all you can do is be accountable at this point as Presiden Obama. Even though she is entitled to her opinion one way or another whether it is the truth it's her truth and she has owned it....and the unintened consequence is yet to be revealed.....and maybe with this Osage Surge we can get some truth to the matter of how not deflect, but direct instead and show leadership, In my opininion,..... the M/E and The Stakeholders exists because of the 1906 Act....does not give the atonomy to the M/C not abide by the OPEN RECORDS ACT....The STAKEHOLDERS , THE SHAREHOLDES, AS A AGENT THE M/C AND TIE BREAKER CHIEF....IS A REPRESENTATIVE ON BEHALF OF THE STAKEHOLDERS AND REPRESENTATIVE OF THE 1906 ACT WILL AND SHOULD NOT VIOLATE THE TRUST OF THE STAKEHOLDER BY THE OATH THEY TOOK IN OFFICE......NOT ONE OFFICIAL IN THIER CAPACITY SHOULD HAVE COMPLETE ATONOMY OF THE RECORDS IN REGARDS TO THE FINANCIALS OF THE M/E. We voted you in...and I believe would be a conflict of interest to the first as in regards to the Major Stakeholders rights the M/E SHAREHOLDERS? Not that I am putting the horse before the cart but say it isn't so? And Cynthia is right there were others who atteneded the Washington trip....but I will say one thing she likes to deflect and she's not that good at it or a good liar , maybe she meant to mean it another way her circumstance but she brought this attention to herself....flattering not. And in any Corp. you get rid of the weakest link...Corp's want team players and doers who create inspiration....and are not self motivated..but motivated by success...Our Success is we believe in Our M/C.....I am not to far from where the apple falls from the tree when I speak of this....Positive begets Positive./// Long Live the Osage Tribe and the future of our M/E. And I don't know how to see this situation any different....the truth is the truth and you can not undue a truth..
Delete
DeleteTo Anonymous November 9, 2013 at 8:09 PM
How many showed up for the oil & gas summit? Wasn’t the reservation $100 each? That’s probably $10,000 in registrations. I saw a program, and quite a few producers were advertising in it. That’s maybe another $10,000. Just how much could it have cost to put this on? I would bet that share holder and visitor contributions through registrations and advertising amounted to just as much as what the producers contributed. No one was holding a gun to these producers’ heads demanding contributions, were they? All of the MC office personnel working there were probably on the time clock, too. According to what I read on Ray McClain’s web site, the Osages must have done the entire opening ceremony. They surely had expenses. Who paid them? I can tell you right now, if any of them were on the Osage payroll somewhere, they didn’t lose 1 minute of time on their pay check either. Nor should they have. No Cynthia, the Osages paid their own way for this summit and from what I’m told, the producers damn sure got their money’s worth. These people worked their butts off to put on a show for the producers benefit. The Osages will only reap 17% (avg. royalty rate according to Mr. Crum) of the rewards. And all you can do is bitch about it. NOBODY gets a “good job, thanks” from Cynthia Boone. But the producers DID pay 100% for the Washington trip, and that’s a completely different thing. This was a payoff in advance for favors in lease negotiations, and this is graft and corruption in its worst form by everyone involved. Did you thank them for that? I hope they don’t get their money’s worth there. As for lease sales, councilman Whitehorn told us about a year ago that nearly everything was leased up. That sounds good to me. How do you have a successful lease sale if there’s nothing available but proven, dry hole leases to sell? The only thing you try to sell is garbage to us on this blog.
Aint the oil summet for oil producers? So the ones who registered were clowns coming to a clown conventtion or was it oil men looking to produce oil and gas in OC? Why did they advertise for contribbutions to be given to the MC before the oil summet even started up????? You got a few of your facts wrong there buddy.
DeleteFrom the looks of your post, you have a lot of experience in “wrong”.
DeleteAlso, as for the boycott of the summit this year by the Osage Producers’ Association leadership alleged by Mr. Crum, it shows us exactly who doesn’t want to leave. If they were trying to sell out, they would have been there trying to get someone interested. They are in the best place in the world to produce oil and they know it. They just don’t want any rules. Well, every game has rules, so Mr. Producer, suck it up, pay us what your owe us, and get on with the business of producing oil. And in the future, please plan on keeping records on your activities for at least 6 years. We may want to do the “Trust but Verify” routine described by President Ronald Reagan.
Hooorah! Great post Nov. 10th, 2013 at 2:15.
DeleteOoops meant at 2:19
DeleteWell, it looks like Cynthia Boone is trying to maintain her usual standards, of running people off and making life miserable for the employees of the council. I’m betting that if the truth about the phone bills were known, it would look a lot different to us. And such a glowing report on the Oil and Gas Summit, I have never before seen. Maybe next year they will give you the suite, Cynthia. You didn’t get the suite last year, either did you? I’d be mad, too. Be sure to keep bashing and slashing at your counterparts up there. You are really something we Osages can be proud of. I heard Abbott and Yates were planning on co-chairing your campaign next year, and that Standing Bear planned to contribute what he has left over after he wins. Hope you don’t make them want to leave, too.
DeleteYou are doomed for failure, and you are trying to drag everybody within reach down with you. Just say’in....
Really beats the heck out of you that Cynthia continues to be right and has the following to back her up. I predict that the same thing will happen in the next election with all those boys on the MC today who are buddy buddy with the members of Congress who would sell you all down river to get that Mineral Estate in their hands, subdivide it and throw all the shareholders out of their shares and start over with all their friends and family in Osage County. This has been the ONO plan with this new Osage Nation government and you are playing right into their hands or maybe not. I think you're one of them. HA HA HA HA HA- GOTCHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DeleteCAnn Norris. Question for you. Are you for sure about the intentions of your Bigheart country cuz Patricia what she thinks about your payment that ships out to California? Ask her if she's an ONO too cause she sure acts like one more n half the time. HA HA HA HA HA- GOTCHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DeleteTo Anonymous-November 9, 2013 at 9:39 PM. I don't know. It looks like employment standards for the employees to have to meet in order to get a raise are really hard for you to take. You must work for the ON govt. They have the same set of nonstandards too. Funny how crap like this blobs over to everything everywhere on the hill.
DeleteI checked and those phone bills were from all the phones assigned to the Mineral Council. Cynthia again putting her spin on things. Those phone calls made during working hours that she was complaining about, - include hers, wherever she is calling from during the day.
DeleteAnonymous posting at 12:37 PM, is backing the wrong horse. And if she is the one who put this blog together, why did she make it so you don't know who is posting, that is except for her and she won't even use her own name. That was a big complaint about the old blog. People who don't have the courage to stand up for what they have to say and hide behind anonymous
I put up this Blog and it's well known that I am the one who has created it and furthermore, I purposely made it work so that those who are employed by the ON can post here without recrimination from the higher ups just like Kent Radcliff did with his OSA Discussions Blog. I don't know you and I don't know the CAnn in the post either. You're speculating in the wrong direction, Patricia. You keep focusing your attention on Cynthia instead of the issues directly associated with the CFRs and people are going to start wondering why and come out of the woodwork at you for it. Not my fault, so don't look in my direction to vent your vitriol. Nobody is fooled by the way you focus on her in the attempt to deflect the shareholder's attention away from what is important and by that I mean what is involved and contained in the changes in the proposed CFRs.
Deleteosageblogger sorry for misreading your reasons for setting up your blog this way. On the old blog, I wouldn't respond to those who wouldn't sign their names. This is what I am trying to do - If you read the CFRs they are basically good. Most of the new ones are trying to cover the areas that aren't regulated now. The Producers don't want regulations, because if we have these regulations, they won't be able to rip us off anymore! Don't you understand? Cynthia doesn't really care about the Shareholders, she is for her friends the Gas Producers. I have just been told some disturbing news along this line and as soon as I have it verified, I will write about it. Please people don't take what Ms. Boone says as fact - check it out for yourself and then decide what the truth is, that is all i ask. I have proven that she does lie! You don't hear or see what goes on after the recorder is turned off or what goes on behind the camera, so to speak. It is not all what it seems to be. You are listening to a person, who is not very nice. I have never liked the bullies of this world and growing up I always stood up to them and tried to protect their target. This is why I am posting!!!!!
DeletePatricia, I see where you are going and what your motivation is and I respect and understand it. However, we need to stop focussing on people and get down to the language of the new CFRs. I can see that new regulation in certain respects is good and needed but what I don't see, is any power for the Minerals Council to vote against new regulations that may come down the pike in the future. THIS MUST BE IN PLACE and I am taking a position that is intractable on this particular issue. We need advocates and they cannot have their hands tied behind their backs by these new CFRs especially if the Feds are in a position to fluff off any concern that the Shareholders and their representatives (the MC) have about them. This must be in place, in writing and in the new CFRs. In other words, "after consultation and WITH AN OFFICIAL VOTE OF APPROVAL BY RESOLUTION OF 6 OF THE 8 MEMBERS OF THE OSAGE MINERALS COUNCIL,..." You get my drift.
DeleteIn any important dealings, this Council couldn’t agree on a brand of toilet paper, much less get a 6 to 2 vote on anything. This is part of my complaint. So much time is spent snipping at each other, instead of taking care of business and you know who I am talking about. This is also what happens, when you have the majority of the Council members laking experience in not only the oil business, but any type of business at all. The majority do not know what they are doing and I beginning to think that is why we have all these personal attacks, to cover up the fact they don’t know what they are doing. I believe after the Rule Making Meetings, with the people from Washington, they can see this too, so any thing said from here on out will go straight into the “comment file” alongside the 450 form letters the producers wasted their time on. These statements also cover your comments about putting more control in the Mineral Councils hands. As long as the voters are going to vote for inexperience people for office because they are a relative or their BFF, we are always going to have problems. We need the BIA and it worries me that some of the people here that are going to be running for other offices, want to get rid of them, Jim Gray and Tim Tallchief for two. Until the Mineral Council can get in a position to command respect, we aren’t going anywhere. This respect isn’t going to happen overnight and at least we can start with the next election.
DeleteGranted, the Minerals Council needs to develop skills in order to get along at least during the time that the meetings take place. It appears to be very unprofessional and I believe would make professional oil people nervous to do business in Osage County. See the post on today's date by Anonymous on November 12, 2013 at 7:53 AM that talks about unilaterally changing the contracts on the leases and the royalty rate. So much is coming to light of late that I am still of a mind that we need to take a wait and see position for as long as possible, especially if the royalty rate is in stone: "OMC has always had the authority to regulate the royalty rate based on their negotiation skills and what is needed which is a valuable tool when you are dealing with businesses who need to have a unique situation addressed to best develop the Minerals Estate. That is another reason that we don't want it declared in the CFR, written in stone, only able to be increased or decreased by another CFR Revision." Look at the difficulty this current revision in the CFRs has been and what it has brought about. Will those with leases negotiated before the new CFRs seek relief in the Courts because of breach of contract? This just gets more and more complex and, from my point of view, uglier by the day. As to your remark about professionals in office, if you tie the hands of those who are unprofessional today, you do the same thing to those who ARE professionals tomorrow and the OMC must have a voting place at the table on these BLM regulations. That's all there is to it Patricia. Self determination for any government is important and you don't want to make it easy for the Feds to run away with and take advantage of an open door on Federal oil production regulations in the Osage. If the BLM should adopt regulations in their Orders from the EPA that are then adopted by the BIA and we have no voice or vote on such an arbitrary one sided decision taken, how will you feel about it then?
DeleteI’m sure the lack of professionalism demonstrated by some on this mineral council DOES make those who must negotiate with them quite nervous. Last year, a producer offered us $5 million to lease up an entire concession. 6 voted yes, 1 voted no, and 1 abstained. The very next month, 3 of our “professionals” voted to not allow this producer to assign these leases for development. Disingenuous crap like this certainly cannot be what our council should be doing!! I cannot find a post by Anonymous on November 12, 2013 at 7:53 AM on my computer, but nothing being done is changing the basic contracts and certainly nothing is raising anyone’s royalty rate. They are simply establishing a base line for the true value of Osage oil and enhancing accountability. The 10% and 12 ½% royalty negotiated 90 years ago on much of the production will still be there and can never change unless that lease must be renegotiated for some reason. The current 20% royalty initiated by MC1 four or five years ago and approved by the Feds, is finally now appearing in print. That little “payoff trip” to Washington is a perfect example of why the royalty rate MUST be etched in stone. There are many ways to address “unique situations” without giving away half of the farm
DeleteI was under the impression that negotiated Osage Mineral Estate leases cannot be sold or assigned to a third party. I heard about one situation where the lessee negotiated for a lease/s and then turned right around and either sold or assigned it to a third party who paid twice to three times as much as the original lessee paid to the Osage Tribe. What is interesting here is the wide range of points of view that in some instances are the complete opposite of one another. As such, it's hard to determine the truth. Federal regulations where private industry is concerned can be questionable because of how burdensome they can become. A perfect example is this Obamacare law that everyone is coming off of faster than a blue streak of lightening. If the rollout of the new CFRs goes anything like like this new healthcare legislation you will be looking at bedlam in the Osage oil patch. Royalties in stone? You'll never sell that one. Explain what you mean by, "...giving away half of the farm." As for the comment on November 12, 2013 at 7:53 AM by Anonymous, I am reprinting it as follows: "The Royalty Rate can be changed at the whim of the Osage Minerals Council. It was 3/16 and then was raised to the current 20%. The OMC has always had the authority to regulate the royalty rate based on their negotiation skills and what is needed which is a valuable tool when you are dealing with businesses who need to have a unique situation addressed to best develop the Minerals Estate. That is another reason that we don't want it declared in the CFR, written in stone, only able to be increased or decreased by another CFR Revision. IF the BLM has no authority or ability to come into the Osage, why did the highly compensated attorney and the equally overrated "expert" not just cut and paste as they did so frequently in other parts of the Revisions (rather badly in some instances)? Why incorporate it by reference which will also change with the whim of the BLM changing theirs, which WE have NO CONTROL over in the future? If we are in fact UNIQUE then why would we want to cookie cutter anything into our new CFR? We paid enough to that team of "experts" that we should have bought and paid for our OWN CFR and not the BLM's! The BIG difference is that the Royalty Rate would be changed for leases from that point forward, so that any reputable business wishing to do business in the Osage is fully aware of what the new rate would be. NOT like NYMEX which is a game changer in the middle of the game and effectively increased the Royalty Rate to an unattainable level for ALL producers and MOST Purchasers, and essentially has changed the LEASE CONTRACT which cannot be done unilaterally! The BIA has tried to do the blame shift from their incompetencies (which were considerable given the Settlement Amount and the Court Ordered Mandates to clean up their act) to it being all the Operators fault. If we think that we can attain NYMEX then buy our own transports, take the royalty in kind, pay the cost of trucking to CUSHING at the Terminal and sell our own oil for NYMEX! Of course, that requires 1,000 bbl increments and transportation charges, terminal charges, storage charges, etc. OH we did that, it was known as PLAINS and they ended up owing us MILLIONS of DOLLARS too! Didn't come out near as well on that deal and I wonder where the money went on that one???"
DeleteTo: Osage Blogger…Leases have always been bought and sold among the producers. Without this being possible, an operator could never borrow a dime from a legitimate lender. As for selling a lease for more than they paid for it, I’m sure that happens. That’s what the oil business, or any other business, is all about. Making money. We just got out smarted when we let the lease go that cheap. It is the mineral council’s and the BIA’s job to know what these leases are worth to start with. Many times in the past, the council has put leases in a lease sale that were sold for the minimum bid of 3 or 4 thousand dollars, when the lease had a history of high production and good seismic potential. We have let hundreds of thousands of dollars in bonus’s get away like that, and to this day, the council still has no way to know what a lease might be worth without asking the BIA. The BIA at Pawhuska will be focused on their own problems as they reorganize the agency, so don’t expect a lot of help concerning lease values from them for quite a while. As for comparing the cfrs to Obama Care, you are really grabbing at straws for analogies, aren’t you? As for giving away half of the farm, stop and think about the producers offering money for expenses to over half of our council. Then tell me that the royalty rate should be at the whim of the council. Those producers are expecting a huge return on this investment too. The leadership of the OPA is leading their followers down a dangerous path. Due to the obvious graft and corruption involved in this offer, there is a widening split in the ranks at OPA as many are saying that it’s just not worth the problems its causing just to save a few pennies. They just want to get back to work and make some good money.
DeleteNo, actually, I'm not grabbing at straws in regard to this situation. I really think it might be possible. There's another thing that I find rather astounding. Are you serious when you say that the price of a single one or two day trip to Washington, D.C. could buy these four members of the MC? I mean, come on. That's pretty insulting if you think about it. You honestly believe that they could have been bought that cheaply? Also, if basic contracts can't be breached, why did Melissa Currey, former Superintendent of the Osage Agency, have complaints made to Federal Investigators about her concerning exactly that?
DeleteGetting back to work to make some good money is just an excuse to attempt to gloss over that corruption has happened and suspect we will find out more as time, in a very short period, we will know from the fall out of the Fletcher Case has yet to reveal and once we get a look at the profile of our said M/E accounts....I can tell you fines were not levied against a leese's when payment was not on time? I have proof of this....and this is why I want to know why the M/C is divided when they should be United...somthing is amiss. And it's no accident. It is insulting to the Osage Shareholder that even this type of Business was considered legal. Buying leases on the Down low to get top dollar from another buyer sounds like bate and switch tactics to insider trading? That's our Money and if this has been going on with a blind eye then we must get a New M/C....they took the Oath to represent the M/E and Shareholders.
DeleteP.s from 11:38 I agree with Osageblogger imcompetency is showing all over the place.....has been for a long time...and yet we are still at square one since 2006....and we know this to be true before 2006....The Federal Gov. recognizes this......it's one thing to understand the necessary changes but to implement change is another...we need leaders not belley itchers. Why wouldn't we change the royalty rate that would reflect the loss on said current purchases of oil to reflect the diffence how we are getting paid? Didn't I read that we are not getting paid not from the top end of the Barrel like we should and yet we are getting paid from the bottom end after every one has taken their share? Old trick....in accounting and how did this happen?
Delete
DeleteTo Osage Blogger Nov. 13, 1:07 AM___My point is, they HAVE been bought that cheaply, and two have admitted it in MC meetings. And, they said they “would do it again”, so they can be bought some more. Their hands are dirty. They are now beholden to the producers. This will always be a dark shadow over their character. Who knows what will be in an envelop they might find lying in their back seat some day. Think they will tell us if that happens? There’s a thousand ways they can be paid off, and no one would ever know. They will live the rest of their lives under this shadow. Cynthia Boone won’t even tell us what MC documents she bought that came out of the storage locker. No morals, no ethics, and they aren’t very smart either. But we elected them to run our business didn’t we. I guess we are not very smart either, or maybe just too trusting. We shareholders are the ones who have been insulted. The arrogance they demonstrate is just unbelievable.
The Osages have never paid (to my knowledge) for anything at the summit. Money comes from sponsors (oil and gas producers), registrations, and exhibitors. Set ups for the exhibitors cost almost as much to build their exhibits as they pay, and then they get a free registration per booth, so no money is made on them. Never sold advertisements those "ads" are usually posted in the Brochure because they sponsored the Summit. There was announced that there was a $100,000 carryover from the wise management of the Producer donations in the past. The Donors this year were CEP, Chaparral, Devon, LAWCO and Spyglass at varying amounts of donations. There were NO DONATIONS listed from the other Concession Holders, BGI, Performance, Grand Resources, Sullivan, EnCana or Halcon or any other Producers as there was in the past. The OSAGE did not spend a dime on the Summit with the exception of the Casino being a Gold Supporter. There were a lot of volunteers that also ate at the Producer's tables, however. There appeared to be about 50 Producers present at the Summit, and booths of support people like electrical, archeological, geological, etc. but not nearly as many as in years past when they filled the Ballroom instead of lining the hallway. So since it has been proven that the Producers paid for this Summit, as they have always done in the past, is this not a Conflict of Interest for the OMC to accept these rooms, breakfasts, lunch and dinner, refreshments, and suites of rooms not to mention that Open Bar? What is the difference between flying to DC and splurging at the Cherokee Hardrock Casino on the Producer's dime? If not for the carryover there would not have been enough funds to have had the Summit this year. The Bar Tab alone in the past has been as much as $40,000+! There were fully half as many Producers at the Summit this year Vs. last year I would guess. Raging success? Hardly. They would not have been there to sell their leases as one post pointed out... they can't sell leases at the Summit, and obviously we can't either since there WAS NO SALE this year although Chaparral signed off on their Concession Acreage in time to make all that acreage available yet there were only a couple of leases nominated for a Sale. The last Sale (which in the past was held quarterly, I believe) was at the Summit last year and it failed just as miserably but at least there was not the embarrassment of NO BIDS this year. Looks like they are beating a path to our door for that great oil doesn't it? Not a problem, Producers are real happy? Want to borrow some of Galen's rose colored glasses?
DeleteThat's exactly what I thought. Good to get the truth out there once and for all.
DeleteTo poster Nov 13, 2013_______great post...points to ponder with, is Concessions the way to do business? Doesn't Concessions tie up rather than permit? not really in favor of the M/E? Why not guarntees? other than tieing up the land for what?
DeleteHas the December payment been posted yet?
ReplyDeleteNo, not officially. It will be over $10,000. Hope at the Next meeting on the 15th, Jim Swan will have the number officially. Stay tuned!
DeleteFunny the Osage website is very outdated does not even have September's payment listed and oil process have not been updated since July
DeleteThe Osage Floor Show!!! Watch as she (Libbi) smites the MC for not getting to the bottom of what really happened with Melissa Currey's reassignment and doing their J-O-B according to the Constitution. The added value Bonus not to miss is how she tries to sneak up on planting the idea of compacting the Mineral Estate. Wasn't her husband the one who was Chief in 2004 when Melissa Currey became the BIA Superintendent? If there was something wrong like her lack of education which should have disqualified her from being hired for the job, why didn't he catch it and complain to the BIA in Muskogee then before it got so bad? How much money did your husband waste on lawsuits while he was Chief that were dropped after he failed get reelected to office? Wasn't he the One who thought the Mineral Council, first and foremost, worked for the Osage Nation not those shareholers? Aren't you getting a little off message? Oh, and what did you start out as Libbi? See it all right here >>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6PBMcpQ2fU
ReplyDeleteToilet humor is unappreciated. Thank you.
DeleteLibby. we will in absolute no terms compact......absolutely not....it is bad enough we have a M/C divided. and a Federal Gov.The BIA out of sorts at the Administration level and is trying to rectify the issue with more man power and puting in the state of art IT and in additon a Million dollars..You get the pic. As a Major Stakeholder after seeing how this Gov. was formed and please do not take this personal.....because I do like your Husband and I find your heart is in the right spot...but you cannot help noticing Melissa Curry's incompetency as recognized, and her complacency was her failure in her ability to require a certain amount of dilligence to do this J.O.B and has cost the Shareholders a dollar, not earned and another day late, AND... in my records spells a negative. Unfortunately someone is the fall quy possibly. And the bottom line lets get to business and we don't do this by getting more hands into the bucket sort of speak by compacting....We know where the heart of the Problem exists....That's a easy remedy....to the recipe...get the M/C in shape or ship out.....we should be a lot further in developement than we are and you have to ask why and research the problem and this as a Shareholder I am finding to be, that a problem exists....And really we have bigger issues Libby that need to be addressed....Talking Points. The changes to the CFR'S for example? Ah let me see. Why not talk about The Water rights issue....or how about. Where are our financial records? Or talk about the fletcher case or talk about the conflict of interest having two members of a family sitting as Officers side by side?....Boone and Boone. How does that happen? or for that matter the four who went to Washington on behalf of the Producers as opposed to supporting the STAKEHOLDERS IN THE FIRST. Get the drift? You just can't in a middle of a sentence talk about compacting then not explain why this would be beneficial to the M/E...Get on Facebook, get on blogs and listen...to spread someone's ideology is disingenuous especially when we know where this came from.....I was not apart of the hook line and sink crew when this Gov. was formed Libby...had I known, I would have been apart of the process in the DEVELOPEMENT OF THE OSAGE CONSTITUTION and you bet I would have made sure every Shareholder and every Osage Indian they would have had a copy, known and would have a say so and not just that I would have had my Lawyers take a Ghander and the waste has continued....so if you excuse me for not wanting to listen to any of your husbands Ideas or recommendations and etc//// and so forth...he's done some harm and has created a division of which I hope it does not conquear and devide even futher..and as far as the land owners go they signed the dotted line and know we have the Right of Way....as Standard. And yes has their crys fallen on death ears by the M/C because after all if their rights have been violated and if we find out this was just to stone wall the drilling on their property because all of a sudden they have buyers remorse is not going to cut it and what other recourse can the M/C take as far as fines levied against the Home Owner? not that this has happened but what if we find out differently? We meaning the M/C have the right to make sure this does not happen and should follow through with the BIA.....What I see is lack of organization within and must be resolved......//// Today not tomorrow. The M/C has had two years since the HPP to structure the M/C to be equipped with the technology to operate a functioning M/C for he sake of the M/E/STAKEHOLDERS, so what are they doing?
DeleteI just finished posting this on Facebook's Osage Shareholders Group. Thought you might want to know what is going on
ReplyDeleteAndrew Yates, Chairman Mineral Council went back to Washington DC with the Chief and the two of them have an appointment to talk to Sen. Washburn. It seems the Wind Farm people without permission or permits have started construction on the Wind Farm. They couldn't have picked a worse place to do it. More later on this. The Shareholders have spent around a half million in legal fees fighting the Wind Farm people over the years. And good old Ms. Boone voted against funding the trip for Andrew. What is interesting that Andrew had less time before his trip to call and get a phone vote to fund the trip. Makes you question why Cynthia didn't do this before her trip to Washington.
Thank you, Patricia. This is good information to know about.
DeleteCheck out Ray McClain's website for the Official payment and what it includes. A nice Christmas. http://www.Osages-You-Need-To-Know.com/
ReplyDeleteDon't be silly. Why should I have to go elsewhere to find out the amount if you know what it is. What about a little respect and common courtesy for the readers here?
Delete$10,265, I don't know what the big secret is about it?
Delete
DeleteNow look who’s being silly.
Thought you might want to know what the payment consisted of, besides the amount. Knowing the amount isn't going to get you a thing today, you still have to wait for payment.
DeleteOSA Shareholders annual Turkey Dinner will be Nov 17, at Dave Landrum Center at 1 p.m. Bring a dish vegetable, salad or dessert. Report on Oil and Gas Summit will be discussed...we need you!
ReplyDelete"The soundness of the Osage Nation will rest on good laws, backed by a government that demonstrates a willingness to enforce them." Kugee Supernaw has a new "Notes to the Nation" out as of tonight about the 9th Special Session that starts tomorrow morning at 10:00 A.M. If you are not on his e-mailing list contact him at supernaw@flash.net and he will include you. See also the comment posted earlier on today.
ReplyDeleteSee the results of the motion brought today in comments posted higher on this page.
DeleteOsage Nation Election Office Update available at http://osageblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/osage-election-information-for-general.html
ReplyDeleteThe incompetency was and is running pretty deep around the BIA (Pawhuska) and some of the Mineral Council. That is why I have been doing all this posting. I want the Shareholders to be aware and when people sign up to run for the MC in June, the first thing out of your mouth should be: What qualifies you to run? What experience in the Gas and Oil business do you have? What experience in the business world do you have? And lastly what do you hope to accomplish if you win a seat?
ReplyDeleteIf we get good positive answers to the above questions, then we have to worry how they feel about the role of the BIA, and if they want to get rid of them. We also have to worry about Congress and them wanting to compact the MC. We need to protect the 1906 Act and ourselves as Shareolders.
You have seen the big mess we have now, that is why we must be very careful we don't repeat ourselves.
Congress will not compact with the O.M.C....or the other way around.....The ON has proven time after time they want to take Control of the M/E and the last thing is we need them to tell us how to run a successful M/E when they need to look in there own back yard The Osage llc and in no way this will happen....It's obvious contracting is outdated....The Neccessary and fundamental steps in order to move ahead with The M/C for the expansion of the M/E lies with the M/C as per charged by the 1906 as ammended 15 million times..// and look where we are at square non bar non....and really you went over board with your rants but even when you said you didn't understand, then you would come back with an answer to your own questions, half the time and you were kind of all over the place. but I listened though most of this was said already in between you had some good questions..the incompetency....change all this needs to narrowed and come forth and this happens with leaders and good leaders. Leaders who are team players....integrity restored and accountabity....The role of the BIA will exist to high kingdom come along with the fed. gov....this will not change Patircia no matter how you toss the dice it has to be....it's not what they can do for us it's what the M/C can do for the OSAGE STAKEHOLDERS....They are our Reliable Source..They owe the Stakeholders or be voted out or removed ,if they cannot uphold the Oath they took....so simple.// In any outcome regardless of personal feelings the outcome must be at all costs be always in favor for the Major Stakeholders in the first and that is you and I......and now we are seeing the fruit of the labors in true color with different spectrums. We are a developing story and we have the chance to make clear that we are serious as a heart beat what needs to happen with our M/E and rid the Monopoly....and the joke has been on us now it's time to turn the tide sort of speak.....with a surge of willing bodies to do what it takes to get back the trust of the Shareholders....we need to get rid of the cancer.....the weekest link with advocates advocating for the Shareholders..// Long live the 1906 act and the Osage Tribe..keep blogging I'm listening as sure as others....I hope I get your vote....
DeleteRemember I will be asking you the same questions whoever you are. If you are going to run, why are you hiding behind anonymous?
DeleteI have always believed that the BIA is a necessary evil. We need them and the power that comes behind them. However you better watch Congress and Maria Whitehorn. She has already talked to us about a Bill she is working on, the bottom line is that you will have to ask Congress before you compact. do contracts etc. I asked her if she was going to remove or exempt the Mineral Council and she said no.
I believe that the 1906 Act has been amended only 12 times. At least that is the number I have and read.
My rants have gotten your attention. I hope I am getting my message across to our people - we need to clean up our act! We are wasting too much money and we have very little to show for it on one side, and on the Mineral side we have Producers who, over the years have taken advantage of us. We Osages need to get back into the drivers seat! One can not just look at the Mineral Estate, we have to look at the whole Nation and what everyone is doing.
Why do you keep calling Shareholders - Stakeholders? I personally prefer to be called a Headright owner!
I hate to burst your bubble, but a majority of the Shareholders only care about their check. One of the reasons why so few of them vote.
Patricia I'll be the first person who will hug you and you will know who I am that's a promise.....along with everything mentioned on these blogs do we realize the extent of how serious this is....I have listened to each one of you and still amassed with mass thought not so cumbersome when your heart is with the Tribe and with the 1906 Act, goes back to the trail of tears my realatives endured in 1830.....My hope is with my management experience and accounting experience and leadership skills will prove to be asset as opposed to the complete opposite meaning to team work.....as I've said before I'll bring my own note pad and water and pay for my gasoline and my travel expenses. This is not about me this is about the business of the M/E no longger will we allow slackers to do what and where for the Shareholders today. We want M/C members who are pro-active with the incentive to develope and know how...anyless take a back seat....we should expect nothing less from our M/C. The M/C success is our success...and we do this with change for the Positive.
DeleteThis thread is now closed. Go to: http://osageblog.blogspot.com/2013/11/osage-shareholder-matters-november-2013.html
ReplyDelete