As the Smackover (SMK) Lithium (Li) play picks up steam we need to acknowledge that from regulatory and legal standpoints, there will be significant differences between the play in South Arkansas and in East Texas.  Very soon we expect to know more about royalty provisions and regulatory guidelines.  From past experience with dissimilarities between Texas and Louisiana mineral laws and regulatory statutes governing the Haynesville Shale, we hope to limit confusion and make it easier to access the information that will be pertinent to land and mineral owners.

In order to help members and quests to the website and to avoid confusion, we will start two new discussions, one for Texas and one for Arkansas.  There is an abundance of information in the original SMK Lithium discussion threads and members may want to click on them and then save them to their computer bookmarks/favorites to be able to access them in the future as they will eventually rotate off the main page.  After 24 hours, comments in those discussions will be closed but the replies will remain available in the website archive.   Archived discussions are available by using the search box in the upper right corner of all website pages.

GoHaynesvilleShale.com was one of the first resources for mineral owners to learn basics, share information and generally provide a place where mineral owners could become more informed managers of their mineral assets in the age of the Internet.  The website is pleased to continue to provide those services to those who will benefit from the SMK Lithium Play.  Please keep in mind two things.  You are a key part of the on the ground intelligence network by letting your friends and neighbors know about GoHaynesvilleShale.com and encouraging them to participate in site discussions.  And since GoHaynesvilleShale.com is free for all to use, please consider a donation to help keep the website online.

https://gohaynesvilleshale.com/donate

Views: 3270

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

First I have seen info on DLE vs acreage allocation. Basically 10 square miles per DLE

Yes.  I found a number of interesting facts in the news releases.

  • The increased acreage continues to drive PFE towards a scalable project with the

Company’s conceptual estimate of one DLE production pad for every 6,500 acres based

on projects in development elsewhere, indicating the Company’s conceptual

production profile of up to four modules each producing 2,000-4,000 tpa of Lithium

Carbonate.

 

Pantera is obviously eschewing the permanent plant with pipeline system approach being promoted by the bigger players.

 

  • Sub-Surface program fully underway with SLB with first expected results due in four

weeks to identify optimal initial re-entry well. 2D Seismic data has been acquired.

 

Pantera is targeting existing wells to the SMK depth as opposed to drilling new supply wells.  Re-entry of existing wells is much cheaper than drilling new wells but raises questions about the life span of the casings in those existing wells and the volume flow of brine based on the smaller diameter.

Commenting on the new leased acres, Executive Chairman Barnaby Egerton-Warburton said:

“This is an outstanding result as we continue to lease in the United States New Lithium Heartland, the Smackover Play Arkansas. Our exclusive abstract agreement continues to allow us to lease with little to no competition as our focus moves towards drilling, exploration and resource definition. I also note the further validation of the Smackover Lithium Brine Play with the entry of Norway’s Equinor, a world class leading energy company”.

“Exclusive abstract agreement”?  Allows leasing with little to no competition?  I don’t understand this.

One day I hope to see a theoretical "plan" presented showing a "DLE Unit"

Including the actual DLE plus water supply wells plus pipelines and re-injection facilities 

Plus details on per day volumes of water being produced and processed.

I caught "exclusive abstract agreement" as well, and the thought that popped into my mind was to wonder if it was the same thing as how Chesapeake bought several abstract plants (title) during the early Haynesville in order to give them speed in title research to secure leases. They, literally, bought the abstract companies. They'd walk in with a stupid high amount of money and just buy it. I also have wondered if those abstract companies' records were 'lost' forever to Chesapeake. I assume that it is.

A number of early Haynesville Shale operators bought abstract businesses not only to facilitate their title due diligence but to box out competitors.  A windfall for the abstract company owners but a detriment to mineral owners as it reduced competition.  You're right, this could be the same or something similar.

RSS

Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com

Not a member? Get our email.

Groups



© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service