I am negotiating with a landman representing Winchester in Marion County, TX. I am looking to include language in an exhibit limiting this drilling to the Cotton Valley formation and not the Haynesville Shale, since the Leasing bonus is only $150/acre.

Views: 370

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Sir,if you are on the Haynesville Shale I would include language that asked him not to come back in your yard until he decided he wasn't going to try to rip you off anymore.I wouldn't lease any depth at this time until you know more about where your property is located in regards to Shale depth.It does not run in a straight line nor is it the same thickness throughout the formation.It would be dangerous to even fool with a lease that didn't involve H Sale.Especially for $150 an acre.I personally wouldn't want any activity on my property that wasn't associated with the Shale at this point in the game.I am sure someone smarter then myself could tell you how to do this.I could be mistaken but I think a Pugh clause only frees up depth below lowest producing level.Someone please check me on this.As you can see in the drawing that there isn't a lot of room between Top Cotton Valley and Top Haynesville.Lower Cotton Valley somewhere between the two I think.Good Luck in whatever you decide to do.
Wow, much to consider. I feel as though I am cramming for a final test in an area I don't have much education in...or as much as I would like. I will take some time this evening and try to learn as much as I can in regards to "wellbores". Thanks again!
You're looking for language that reads "stratigraphic equivalent" to the other cotton valley producing wells.
and then add the vertical pugh clause to 100' below the deepest producing interval.
Be very, very careful. The "what is called" cotton valley in Texas is being produced as the same as bossier/ haynesville shale in some cases. Personally, if it were me, I would wait. Just my opinion.
Mr. Williamson,

Part of the reason that I was so harsh about kicking them out of your yard was due to the "Unethical Gas Broker" post on June 16th that you wrote.If this is the same broker that you feel has taken advantage of your family,I would be hard pressed to trust this person.If this is a different person you are dealing with then I apologize for being so crude.But I still would be leary of such a risky move if the Shale is at stake.Pro's may be able to justify, but you and I aren't.Seek the help of a qualified attorney to sort this out for you.
As I stated earlier for clarification purposes,IF YOU ARE ON THE HAYNESVILLE SHALE,none of the other formations matter at this point or are bringing the attention or money that the Haynesville is! If you are in the same boat as I am, trying to find a way to lease part of your property for $150 and not fooling with Haynesville,that you would lease at a later time for more money sounds risky as all get out to me!With the Haynesville Shale Play,why would anybody in their right mind be willing to lease upper depths and not Haynesville.If someone can show me were this is a good idea I will certainly say I am sorry.Especially you Mr.CaddoVisitor as I would like for you to explain to me why you would attempt such a risky play,unless you are far more adept at this then you are letting on.I await your response as I am here to learn.I have another couple of years to wait before I can sign so I am taking this time to prepare myself as best I can.Your obvious knowledge has been long needed on this post.And no,I am not being sarcastic!
Great points to ponder. Thank you.
CaddoVisitor, isn't that what a pugh clause does? I thought it allowed you to collect royalties at different depths. Correct me if I am wrong please.


© 2023   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service