Replies to This Discussion

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by The_Baron on September 12, 2011 at 4:34

Its standard language. I wouldn't worry about it.

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on September 12, 2011 at 4:41

No.  The bonus, royalty and depth limitation appear to be fine.  Just make sure the other lease clauses cover your needs.  I'm sure the Harrison County members would like to know the general location of your minerals and the company offering the lease if you would care to post it.  Good Luck.

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on September 12, 2011 at 6:33

If you are concerned... have an attorney look over your lease and discuss the depth clause with you.  Free legal advice on Go Haynesville Shale is worth what you paid for it.

landownerPermalink Reply by DJG on September 12, 2011 at 7:30

You should definately clarify with them whether this is for the Cotton Valley sands or the Cotton Valley LIME.     The Lime actually is directly below the the Haynesville/Bossier Shales in E.Texas.    

landownerPermalink Reply by Joe Aldridge on September 12, 2011 at 20:23

jr,

That "standard" lease wording scares me to. I'm going to try to get a lease with the statement, "to the base of". Some of these unconventional productive formations lie right under the more common productive formations. There is no 100 ft separator. That standard wording is a problem waiting to happen.