Petrohawk says the 2008 Land Grab is over!
I was at a lunchen today with a speech given by a VP from Petrohawk. It was an infomative talk about the HA. He did say that the Hawk and CHK are partnering up on some wells, and are trying to work together instead of creating competion in the leasing game.
Views: 456
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by RAY on -
Lease Bonuses::
1st............... $100 - $300 / acre leases..................way too low
2nd...............$20,000 & up / acre leases...............evidently too high
Next............. $2500 - $10,000 / acre leases ........seems about right ??
-
Permalink Reply by The_Baron on
-
Totaly depends on where you are.
Also depends on the depth covered. $100/ac for a lease going to the James, maybe ok, to the HA, no way.
-
Permalink Reply by Cary Jerome Marston Huff on
-
After a tax increase, Oil and Gas Producers left Arkansas in droves. But for general knowledge to the Haynesville Shale:
Mineral leases are up to 5/16 in Prime areas in the Fayetteville Shale. Normally 1/5th mineral Interest are given now. Oil and Gas Producers came into Arkansas Fayetteville Shale offering 25.00 bonus and 1/8 mineral lease. Before any wells were drilled, some of the landman were telling the mineral owners that all they could only give them 1/8 mineral interest. The next door neighbors, in the same section, a few weeks later was offered a 3/16 and a 1/6th mineral interest. Same Unit, but different mineral interest.
Prior to Arkansas, in Oklahoma, it was normal to receive a 3/16 Mineral Interest.
The Department of Energy (DOE) gives energy Producers DOE Short Term Outlook. This is a 4 year Outlook. Why are there back to back radical changes to mineral leases in a Shale Play? Ignorance of the Mineral Owners.
Producers will offer 1/8th to the Haynesville Shale Mineral Owners for as long as the Mineral Owner are ignorant and will lease at that Mineral Interest.
Who is out there to protect the Mineral Owners? No one.
A poor mineral owner/ Creek Indian in Henrietta, Oklahoma named Jackson Barnett had serious oil and gas problems. It was so bad, The United States Congress Enacted the Indian Protection Act. It took a while, but something was done. Jackson Barnett's great, great grandson Cary Huff lives in the Arkansas's Fayetteville Shale. He is in a major lawsuit with an oil and gas producer. How this Cross Action lawsuit goes can reflect how mineral owners/ land owners are treated in the Fayetteville Shale - possibly throughout the United States. Like Jackson Barnett there is alot of documented material. There is 73" high of documented material evidence. Jackson Barnett didn't have half this. Justice and a trial by Jury will open up January or February, 2010. Can wrongs be corrected through litigation? Why did it get this far? It is sad things had to go this way. Due Process will unfold in Clinton, Arkansas, and a possibly a Class Action lawsuit will follow. There is no other way to go with this. SEECO/ SWN been a good partner in the Fayetteville Shale Play. As long as Oil and Gas Producers are good partners, and fair, Congress will look the other way.
Cary
-
Permalink Reply by Grillin' - MmmMmm on
-
Claude: are you a lawyer? Partners with Duey and Howe?
-
Permalink Reply by nisie, not a happy camper landowner on
-
What recourse do landowners in a section have when a large landowner drags his feet in signing lease offered by CHK therefore ending any hopes that the 40% who had already signed and the others who hadn't signed because CHK wanted to sign large landowner first of having a well. I was told by the broker that the large landowner was slow in developing his trust account and changing ownership of his company and that was in essence what slowed the deal down and eventually ended it. The remaining landowners waiting to sign lost 1.5 mil in bonuses not even mentioning royalties.
-
Permalink Reply by nisie, not a happy camper landowner on
-
Large landowner has 313 acres. Other leases besides theirs were to handled independently of his.
Not sure if that answers you ? Thanks for the input.
-
Permalink Reply by Grillin' - MmmMmm on
-
Only recourse would be a) friendly neighborly persuasion which generally results in bad neighborhood parties, or b) wait. Maybe your lease will run to term and you'll get another chance to lease again. Painful, but I don't think you can do much.
-
Permalink Reply by nisie, not a happy camper landowner on
-
We tried to sign but CHK wanted to wait til large landowner signed. Myself and my neighbor were not holding out and didn't have a prior lease.
-
Permalink Reply by The_Baron on
-
Sounds like your out of luck. Just as you can hold out, so can they.
-
Permalink Reply by nisie, not a happy camper landowner on
-
The large landowner has not signed for seismic in this section, would that prevent them from doing the planned seismic in January in this area? 16-16-26
-
-
Baron, have you heard if Petrohawk had any problems in the Fayetteville Shale, before they came to the Haynesville Shale. Landman have been complaining that Mineral Lease Contract weren't looked at dilligently. Operations Manager Mike Martin is said to have been removed from his job in the Clinton, Arkansas Office. It seems everywhere Petrohawk has gone in an Arkansas, regardless if it's in Van Buren or Conway County they are in legal action with the lease owners/ land owners. What are some of the things Petrohawk is doing to resolve these issues?
Cary
Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com
Top Content
Not a member? Get our email.
Groups
-
San Augustine, TX
386 members
-
Natchitoches Parish
399 members
-
Cass County, TX
119 members
-
Franklin County, Texas
8 members
-
Rusk County
97 members
-
Vernon Parish
59 members
-
Bienville Parish, LA
242 members
-
Sabine County, Texas
172 members
-
Sabine Parish, LA
455 members
-
Angelina County, TX
87 members
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
