Replies to This Discussion

landownerPermalink Reply by North LA on July 8, 2011 at 10:33

I was a little confused. Did he say they were going to develop this play slowly over the next five years or is it a play a year over the next 5 years?

• ▶ Reply

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on July 9, 2011 at 2:03

In the early days of the Haynesville Shale Play a number of smaller companies such as Cypress Operating, Camterra, Stroud Petroleum, Long Petroleum, Franks Operting and others formed HA units with no intention of drilling wells.  Others such as J-W and Samson Contour formed units and drilled a few wells but assigned the bulk of their unit rights to others.  At one time Samson had over 100 HA units and 6 wells.  These companies held drilling rights to the Haynesville because they had shallower existing production that HBP'ed the leasehold.  The unitization process was relatively simple, affordable and placed them in a better position to bargain with those companies who might wish to acquire their rights.  In LA. a unit order from the state allows the applicant to be the operator or to assign another company as the operator.  In these cases unitization for the Haynesville was a sales tool, not a genuine expression of intent to develop on the part of the applicant.  I suspect that AR. regs may allow for this same option.

• ▶ Reply

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on July 9, 2011 at 3:19

If mineral owners got half as motivated in support of mineral code reform as they do over a modest bonus rental offer, they and the state would reap a huge benefit.  A 500% penalty is beyond punitive to the point of being ludicrous.   And in the case of unconventional reservoir development, any amount in excess of say 125% would be unreasonable.  The one factor that seems to be consistently overlooked by mineral owners is that each mineral acre out there is likely connected to a half dozen voters.  And lessor rights and the significant economic impact at stake should be of interest no matter whether that acre is rural, suburban or urban.

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by North LA on July 9, 2011 at 4:30

Sorry Tony. Sounds like Arkansas is in need of serious reform.

landownerPermalink Reply by North LA on July 9, 2011 at 2:18

Great find Tony! Thanks for sharing. I hope they're right about the 650/day.

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by obed w odom on July 9, 2011 at 5:52

Thanks Tony. Looking at the plats for these wells, it seems that J-W has proposed a total of 4 horizontal wells adjacent to each other in Sections 28, 29, 32, and 33 of T19S R17W.

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by john ware on July 9, 2011 at 2:55

Y'all boys calm down! I know the East haynesville very well. Keep an I on sec6 and 7 23n- 5w! Allso sec 11-12 23n-7w tucker

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by North LA on July 9, 2011 at 3:01

What do you mean john? You think they will drill wells there soon?

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by john ware on July 9, 2011 at 3:18

Man It would be nice! Hard for Hunt not to be happy with Tucker in sec 12-23n-7w. Ass for sec6-7 23n-5w was told to watch.

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by North LA on July 9, 2011 at 3:42

You're right Tony. I was reading 7W but 23n 5w sec 7/6 is where the TSDI well will be drilled in Claiborne parish Lick Creek field.

• ▶ Reply