T15n R14w sec 19 Kelley ser #239582 - GoHaynesvilleShale.com2024-03-29T06:13:50Zhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/forum/topics/t15n-r14w-sec-19-kelley-ser-239582?feed=yes&xn_auth=noI believe about 5% of the per…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2016-09-28:2117179:Comment:36289022016-09-28T14:49:26.251ZRONNYhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/Ronny
<p>I believe about 5% of the perforated wellbore from the wells in 7 are inside the section 19 line. </p>
<p>I believe about 5% of the perforated wellbore from the wells in 7 are inside the section 19 line. </p> I have seen two CUL AFE's. O…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2016-09-28:2117179:Comment:36288222016-09-28T14:47:34.766ZRONNYhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/Ronny
<p>I have seen two CUL AFE's. One was a tad under 8 million and the other was a tad under 10 million.</p>
<p>I have seen two CUL AFE's. One was a tad under 8 million and the other was a tad under 10 million.</p> Two wells in the middle of 7,…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2016-09-28:2117179:Comment:36286422016-09-28T02:24:45.047ZFrankhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/Frank
<p>Two wells in the middle of 7, cross all the way through 18 and are perforated 330' under the north section line of 19. Well applications show that. Thus, 5 wells are paying in Section 19. This had me puzzled until I saw my royalty statement today. Kelly, of course, is kaput. </p>
<p>Two wells in the middle of 7, cross all the way through 18 and are perforated 330' under the north section line of 19. Well applications show that. Thus, 5 wells are paying in Section 19. This had me puzzled until I saw my royalty statement today. Kelly, of course, is kaput. </p> It's been the case since the…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2016-06-24:2117179:Comment:36129042016-06-24T20:26:48.929ZSkip Peel - Mineral Consultanthttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/ilandman
<p>It's been the case since the state set the rules governing CULs. Some operators have been behind the reporting curve owing to poor original due diligence on unit ownership interests and poor, or in some cases no, "on the ground" unit/tract surveys. Remember last year when many members complained about changes in their decimal interest and operators recouping "over payments"? That was caused by the need to properly allocate CUL production across multiple units and avoid associated…</p>
<p>It's been the case since the state set the rules governing CULs. Some operators have been behind the reporting curve owing to poor original due diligence on unit ownership interests and poor, or in some cases no, "on the ground" unit/tract surveys. Remember last year when many members complained about changes in their decimal interest and operators recouping "over payments"? That was caused by the need to properly allocate CUL production across multiple units and avoid associated litigation..</p> There are 4 different CUL's b…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2016-06-24:2117179:Comment:36126572016-06-24T15:13:32.961ZRONNYhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/Ronny
<p>There are 4 different CUL's being drilled from the well pad in 15n 14w section 30. Two going across the north half of section 30 into and across section 19 and two going across the south half of section 30 into and across section 31. It looks like each sections' (19,30,31) proportion of gas produced is being reported under the original Haynesville well number drilled in each individual section. For example the wellbores for section 30 reported 610550 mcf under Hall ETAL serial #240737…</p>
<p>There are 4 different CUL's being drilled from the well pad in 15n 14w section 30. Two going across the north half of section 30 into and across section 19 and two going across the south half of section 30 into and across section 31. It looks like each sections' (19,30,31) proportion of gas produced is being reported under the original Haynesville well number drilled in each individual section. For example the wellbores for section 30 reported 610550 mcf under Hall ETAL serial #240737 drilled in 2010. Wellbores for section 19 reported under Kelley drilled in 2009, and section 31 gas reported under Burford completed in 2008. I'm speculating this will be the reporting method for CUL's going forward.</p> XTO paid $20,000/acre in nort…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2016-06-19:2117179:Comment:36112452016-06-19T00:31:15.700ZSkip Peel - Mineral Consultanthttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/ilandman
<p>XTO paid $20,000/acre in north Natchitoches Parish but that was also late in the land rush and, unfortunately, too far south. SWEPI picked up a lot of Sabine acreage for less than $800/acre. They got an early start.</p>
<p>I took a trip down memory lane (in the state database) and looked at all the winning bids in the state mineral auction for the 12 months of 2008. The rush was short but entertaining.</p>
<p>XTO paid $20,000/acre in north Natchitoches Parish but that was also late in the land rush and, unfortunately, too far south. SWEPI picked up a lot of Sabine acreage for less than $800/acre. They got an early start.</p>
<p>I took a trip down memory lane (in the state database) and looked at all the winning bids in the state mineral auction for the 12 months of 2008. The rush was short but entertaining.</p> At the very end of the bonus…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2016-06-19:2117179:Comment:36114132016-06-19T00:25:03.669ZMartinhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/jcmagness
<p>At the very end of the bonus bidding war, the $10,000/acre and 25% royalty extended well into north Sabine parish -- Converse/Pleasant Hill.</p>
<p>At the very end of the bonus bidding war, the $10,000/acre and 25% royalty extended well into north Sabine parish -- Converse/Pleasant Hill.</p> You're welcome, Paul. I coul…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2016-06-18:2117179:Comment:36112062016-06-18T13:19:38.590ZSkip Peel - Mineral Consultanthttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/ilandman
<p>You're welcome, Paul. I could post lots of those well cost docs for other operators and they would be in the same range. I can show you how to access them if you would like. Well costs should not include sunk costs such as lease bonus payments, land costs, DO title due diligence, recordation fees, etc. And if someone is adding them to AFEs they are padding the estimate. In my experience CHK didn't pay $30,000 per acre. The highest Haynesville bonus paid in the play was by Petrohawk…</p>
<p>You're welcome, Paul. I could post lots of those well cost docs for other operators and they would be in the same range. I can show you how to access them if you would like. Well costs should not include sunk costs such as lease bonus payments, land costs, DO title due diligence, recordation fees, etc. And if someone is adding them to AFEs they are padding the estimate. In my experience CHK didn't pay $30,000 per acre. The highest Haynesville bonus paid in the play was by Petrohawk and it was slightly over $30,000 ( and a 30% royalty, crazy). The rumors of bonus payments over $20,000 are hugely inflated from the actual but that's pretty normal in a land rush the likes of the Haynesville Shale Play. The area of south Caddo Parish/north DeSoto Parish where CHK and HK (read Aubrey and Floyd) went head to head saw quite a few land owners get $10,000 and some more per acre. And that gets a lot of talk and publicity. The facts are that a large number of leases were taken prior to the April 2008 announcement of the play and those bonuses were $350 to $500. I know, I was contacted by some of those landowners. Yes, the average is likely over $1,000 and a large number owing to the acreage CHK and other major HA players acquired but that is not properly part of well cost calculation.</p> Thank you for the info Skip. …tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2016-06-18:2117179:Comment:36112032016-06-18T11:45:16.176ZPaul Butlerhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/PaulButler
<p>Thank you for the info Skip. I wasn't being sarcastic in my post earlier and I assure you I appreciate all the info you post.</p>
<p>The Application for well status determination does not appear to include Lease acquisition cost.</p>
<p>CHK paid as much as $30,000/acre for some Haynesville acreage so that is a substantial cost. Even if the cost was $1,000.00/acre, it's a large number.</p>
<p>I'll post the AFE's Monday. They are on the computer in my office.</p>
<p>Thank you for the info Skip. I wasn't being sarcastic in my post earlier and I assure you I appreciate all the info you post.</p>
<p>The Application for well status determination does not appear to include Lease acquisition cost.</p>
<p>CHK paid as much as $30,000/acre for some Haynesville acreage so that is a substantial cost. Even if the cost was $1,000.00/acre, it's a large number.</p>
<p>I'll post the AFE's Monday. They are on the computer in my office.</p> We are in same situation in K…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2016-06-18:2117179:Comment:36112982016-06-18T03:58:24.399Zkittycatmamahttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/kittycatmama532
<p>We are in same situation in Keatchie with one tract leased and another we acquired last year was with an UMO. We have that with CULs going in north & south of us. I am HOPING when they apply to drill this section that CHK for offer some type of lease. We are getting small amt. on the UMO but who wants to wait for wells to pay out.</p>
<p>We are in same situation in Keatchie with one tract leased and another we acquired last year was with an UMO. We have that with CULs going in north & south of us. I am HOPING when they apply to drill this section that CHK for offer some type of lease. We are getting small amt. on the UMO but who wants to wait for wells to pay out.</p>