Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by lanadan Ds3 on December 18, 2009 at 23:50

nana,

A man up the road on Hwy 84 got paid $4,000 per acre (4 ac) plus some moola for the trees that had to be removed. Hopes this little bit helps. Good luck.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on December 19, 2009 at 6:02

Is that per/year or per/month?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BirdDawg, plain ole' idiot on December 19, 2009 at 7:45

I think per/forever.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Scott on December 19, 2009 at 8:04

Should be a one time payment.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on December 19, 2009 at 19:56

So the land owner would lose the use of the land for about forever but still have to pay taxes on it?
I'm not so sure one can even purchase land for that price any more around here can they?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on December 20, 2009 at 0:15

Out in the country, you can buy all the surface you want for $4,000 per acre.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on December 20, 2009 at 4:53

You tried to by any land lately?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by intrepid on December 20, 2009 at 15:30

You bring up a good point about the taxes. The land 'owner' keeps paying them but does not have use of the land.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lee on December 20, 2009 at 3:38

Yes, you lose the use of the land but still pay the taxes. If you've designated in your surface agreement that the equipment will be removed when the production is finished, theoretically the equipment should be removed. Don't count on that happening though. In my experience when the land is leased it is leased forever, particularly in Texas. In LA you have more limiting laws, but with the potential of the shale, I'm not seeing production ending anytime soon. Think of it as forever.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on December 20, 2009 at 5:00

I think if they wanted to lease my land, I'd do so on monthly or annual terms.
Liability insurance and taxes on land has never been a one time deal, neither should a lease be..

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by intrepid on December 20, 2009 at 15:31

Keep in mind that if you don't own the minerals the mineral estate is superior to the surface estate.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack B2 on December 20, 2009 at 6:01

If it were my land the first thing I would do is to determine the location of the well site. Property with road frontage is more valuable than land locked land and the distance form the highway is a determining factor, as is location to a metropolitan area. Your local realtor can be helpful in determing comparitive price of properties (comps) sold in the recient past in your area, as this is a determination of value at the present. There is future value to consider if residential or commercial developement is migrating your way. Then there is the value of present use to be applied. If it is timber land you have an annual rate of return for volume growth as well as market price. Timber is in the basement now but unlike stocks, it continues to build volume through growth and will rebound in the future, this is where your local forester can provide a service. We do not consider it now, but in the distant future what are we going to be left with at the end of the play? If history repeats it's self, it will most likely be bankrupt companies and abandoned fields. Land in the Minden vicinity with road frontage is going for $10,000 to $15,000 an acre for lots up to one acre and $20,000 to $40,000 plus in or adjacent to the city limits with lot size varying, raw land locked in with no timber I have seen go for $1,500 to $2,500 an acre and with timber add $300 to $5,000 depending on stumpage volume. Unimproved commercial property in the Minden city limits in the $4.00 to $6.00 a squre foot range.

The bottom line here for me is not make a hasty decision because they will be your neighbor for your life time and hopefully your children and grandchildren. Get as informed as you possibly can afford to do because we are only going to have one chance to get it right for the most part.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page