Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mary Alison Anders Knighton on June 4, 2010 at 10:12

Tony,
My landmans name is Paul Yarbrough.. I just spoke with him..as I would not give out a number unless it was Ok. so all is well..his Cell # 713-419-4527 Landline # 318-281-5536. He is a Geologist and a Landman. He is very honest.

Wish you well,
Alison

Permalink Reply by Marc Stepman on March 28, 2011 at 3:39

Hi Alison

 

Do you know if Paul is still working in this area?  Thanks

Permalink Reply by Glen Bays on September 24, 2010 at 3:46

318 274-0044
318 278-7293
e-mail markd9873@gmail.com

Permalink Reply by Mary Alison Anders Knighton on June 10, 2010 at 11:50

Pinebelt is not a speculative corporation. They have done the geographical work. They know what is what. So, in my opinion I hold them to their honesty and concern with trusting landowners. I know they will do what is right and they will always honor any agreement they make or have made. I trust them and look forward to doing business with them in the future. I do not totally know, but I believe that there is something in this area...if not I would not be wasting my time. I am blessed to have been allowed the opportunity to be a steward of my Grandaddy's land and look forward to keeping it for generations to come. If i don't know, I will find out!.

Thank You,
Mary Alison Knighton :-)

Permalink Reply by John Brewster on September 29, 2010 at 3:54

Mary Alison:
I am glad that you obviously had a good experience with Pine Belt. Just to clarify, however, they are a lease broker. They do not evaluate oil and gas prospects. They are hired by an E&P company (in this case thought to be EOG Resources) to buy leases from mineral owners. In most cases, the lease broker knows little more than what is on this blog (i.e., a speculative lease play hoping that technology will allow recovery of oil from the Brown Dense/lower Smackover). The client gives them buying limits - how much they can offer. Typically they start with lower offers and gradually offer more as the leasing continues. Sometimes, however, in large projects, the range of offers is not great. The more speculative the play, the less likely they are to sweeten the offers - unless there are some areas deemed more desirable than others (such as drillsites). If some of the rumors last summer are true, and a company like EOG is the lessee, they want as many acres as possible for the best terms possible (makes sense-nothing wrong with that). The point is, they may not negotiate as hard to get a specific tract - it's about getting control of a large geographical area for attractive returns if the play is successful. Chesapeake is a master at this. The two founders are landmen - their business model is just this: Find a prospective area and lease as much of it as possible keeping offers low before fully testing what they think will work. When a good well is drilled and that news gets out, their lease costs will skyrocket. As mineral owners with an opportunity to lease, our quandry is: Do we take the terms now ("a bird in the hand"), or decline to lease and take the risk that the play will work - making our minerals much more valuable in the future. The other way we can control our destiny if we think/hope the technology will be successful is to ask for less bonus money and more royalty. That's what I do in established areas. Here, as I suggest above, the terms may not be very negotiable until the industry has some drilling success. Having said all this, $175 and 3/16ths is pretty strong for an area thought to be depleted. Those numbers suggest to me that the company (not Pine Belt) is quite confident about this idea.
All the best,
John

Permalink Reply by John Brewster on October 7, 2010 at 5:56

Thanks for the clarification, Baron. It is a common tactic for landmen to ask lessors not to reveal the terms of their lease. In fact, I would not be surprised if Pine Belt instructs all of their brokers to make that request. Having been in the industry for >30 years, we prefer that lessors not know what our best terms may be - the effort is to buy leases for the lowest possible cost.

It's kind of like buying an airplane ticket and discovering when you get on board that the guy sitting next to you paid half as much as you! The brokers start by offering everyone the same terms (as low as possible), then negotiate better terms for some lessors as necessary to lease their target area. They want mineral owners to think that everyone got the same deal. If that is not true, that is helpful information to have for those still in the leasing process.

My comment was that this request is self-serving and generally not enforceable as a legal matter. They can ask, but you have no obligation to agree or even to honor that agreement. You are a party to that contract (lease). Eventually, absent the use of a memorandum of lease, all of the leases will be filed of record (in the public domain). I have rarely see an OGML with a provision that prevents a lessor from disclosing the terms of his lease in a manner that would be enforceable. Once a lessor has signed a lease, he or she can decide what information might be shared with neighbors or others who are similarly situated.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on October 7, 2010 at 6:21

I believe this is the same prospect. See Section 10.

http://www.aogc2.state.ar.us/Hearing%20Applications%20Archive/2010/...

Permalink Reply by John Brewster on October 7, 2010 at 7:49

Skip: Thanks for sending the AOGC order that would force pool based upon $200, 1/5th, and 1 year primary term. That does appear to contemplate a Smackover well in the Dorcheat field, so the play may be the same. However, I'm trying to determine the best terms for Union County. So far, I've not confirmed any leases bought for better than the $175, 3/16ths, 4/4 terms than I've been offered. I'm looking.
John

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on October 7, 2010 at 8:17

I don't know about that Skip, theres still some 3/16 going around.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on October 7, 2010 at 10:33

Yes, I've run across one myself but the mineral owner that I performed research for referred the lease offer to his attorney and the offer was immediately amended to one fifth. The pooling agreement had been made public by then and I imagine anyone with a good size holding didn't have to pull teeth to get a fifth. The bonus means little to this mineral owner so he'll wait to see a completed well and will likely require a quarter under any circumstance.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 28, 2011 at 5:33

It's a viable bench mark for any where in the Play. Don't get too stuck on your county or field. Read through all the threads for Union Parish, Claiborne Parish, Union County, Columbia Count, shoot even Lafayette County. I personally know land owners who have been offered leases at a fifth royalty. The bonus may vary $50 here or there but three-sixteenths is history.

Permalink Reply by cpj on March 29, 2011 at 2:06

I've kept close tabs on this leasing for more than a year.   For quite a while no one has signed for less than $300 per acre and a fifth royalty.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• …
• 16
• Next ›
• Page