Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Martin on January 26, 2020 at 13:04

Thanks, Skip!

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on January 26, 2020 at 15:54

You're welcome, Martin.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on January 28, 2020 at 11:34

The Haynesville rig count has been as high as the upper 40's and has likely averaged mid-40's for the last year or two.  A fairly high number of directed rigs compared to say the Marcellus which is much larger in areal extent.  39 rigs remains pretty aggressive in my mind considering the price of natural gas and the prospects for continued depressed prices.  Keep in mind that the sub-$2/mmBtu prices we are experiencing now are during the winter (withdrawal) season.  Since prices are not expected to average more than ~$2.20/mmBtu/month for all of 2020, I will periodically post these rig counts so we can monitor development levels.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 1, 2020 at 5:45

Updated:  2/1/20.

LOUISIANA (27 - increase of 1)

Bienville: Aethon - 2.

Bossier:  Covey Park - 2, Aethon - 1, Comstock - 1.

Caddo:  Aethon - 1, Trinity - 1, Comstock - 1.

DeSoto:  Indigo - 3, Vine - 2, Aethon - 1, Chesapeake - 1, Goodrich - 1.

Natchitoches:  Indigo - 2.

Red River:  Aethon - 2, Vine - 1.

Sabine:  Vine - 1, Indigo - 1, GEP Haynesville - 2.

Webster:  Comstock - 1.

TEXAS (14, same as previous week corrected)

Harrison:  Comstock - 1, Sabine - 1, Rockcliff - 1, Tanos - 1.

Nacogdoches:  BP America - 3.

Panola:  Rockcliff - 4, R Lacy - 1.

San Augustine:  Aethon - 2.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 8, 2020 at 4:15

Updated: 2/8/20

LOUISIANA (25 - decrease of 2)

Bienville: Aethon (3)

Bossier:  Comstock (2), Aethon (1), Covey Park (1)

Caddo:  Aethon (1), Trinity (1)

DeSoto:  Aethon (1), Comstock (1), Vine (2), Chesapeake (1), Goodrich (1), Indigo (2)

Natchitoches:  Indigo (2)

Red River:  Aethon (1)

Sabine:  GEP Haynesville (2), Vine (1), Indigo (1)

Webster:  Comstock (1)

TEXAS  (13 - decrease of 1)

Harrison:  Rockcliff (1), Tanos (1), Sabine (1), Comstock (1)

Nacogdoches:  BP America (3)

Panola:  Rockcliff (3) R Lacy (1)

San Augustine:  Aethon (2)

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 15, 2020 at 3:59

Updated: 2/14

LOUISIANA (25 - unchanged)

Bienville:  Aethon (4)

Bossier:  Aethon (1), Comstock (1)

Caddo:  Trinity (1)

DeSoto:  Comstock (2), Vine (3), Indigo (2), Aethon (1), Chesapeake (1) Goodrich (1)

Natchitoches:  Indigo (2)

Red River:  Aethon (1)

Sabine:  Indigo (1), Vine (1), GEP Haynesville (2)

Webster:  Comstock (1)

TEXAS (14 - increase of 1)

Harrison:  Rockcliff (2), Tanos (1), Comstock (1), Sabine (1)

Nacogdoches:  BP America (3)

Panola:  Rockcliff (3) R Lacy (1)

San Augustine:  Aethon (2)

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 23, 2020 at 10:04

Updated: 2/21

LOUISIANA (26 - increase of 1)

Bienville:  Aethon (4)

Bossier:  Aethon (2)

Caddo:  Comstock (1), Trinity (1)

DeSoto:  Chesapeake (1), Goodrich (1), Comstock (2), Vine (3), Indigo (2), Aethon (1)

Natchitoches:  Indigo (2)

Red River:  Aethon (1)

Sabine:  Indigo (1), Vine (1), GEP Haynesville (2)

Webster:  Comstock (1)

TEXAS (14 - unchanged)

Harrison: Rockcliff (1), Tanos (1), Comstock (1), Sabine (1)

Nacogdoches:  BP American (3)

Panola:  R Lacy (1), Rockcliff (4)

San Augustine:  Aethon (2)

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 24, 2020 at 2:37

Aethon has been the most aggressive driller of Haynesville Shale for a little over a year now and I have no idea why they are maintaining this many deployed rigs.  I guess it's about time for me to invite my Aethon contact to lunch.

Permalink Reply by James W Funk on February 24, 2020 at 6:06

Great information.  Thanks      Can you identify the sections for the wells in Sabine Parish?

I was the one who got taken by GEP as non-leased and do not want to happen again.   As I own the land and minerals, thinking of taking action for trespass on my land as way to recoup some of our loss from minerals taken.

Any thoughts on this idea??

Jim

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 24, 2020 at 6:51

Jim, I can tell you where the rigs are drilling by section but the state unitization regulations do not support claims of mineral trespass by unleased mineral owners.  Operators always get surface rights from private land owners for their surface locations.

Permalink Reply by Steve P on February 24, 2020 at 11:50

a few months ago, Andrew sent me a La Court of Appeals decision from some years ago that held that an operator has "the right" to a surface location for a unit well, with or without a lease or other agreement with the surface owner.  Once the Commissioner approves a surface pad location, the case indicated that the landowner was SOL unless there was some contractual basis to alter that. That case wasn't a perfect analogy to Mr. Funk's position, but I wouldn't count of making up much loss of royalty payments with a surface damages payment.

I agree with Skip that operators generally don't want to run over and flatten an unleased landowner, but the case Andrew cited was about the right to drill from a designated location within the unit.

Would be very interested in anyone has contrary court rulings.

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on February 24, 2020 at 15:46

Steve P:

If memory serves, that court ruling does not allow for a surface location for a unit well unless the surface owner has contracted to provide one (so long as the mineral owner is either "paid" or his proportionate ownership in the well bears the costs specified in LA R. S. 30:10 to payout.  Otherwise this would be a trespass (IANAL).

At present, current regulations on well permits require an affidavit from the applicant evidencing an agreement with the surface owner and/or mineral owner to receive approval for a permitted location.  As to tracts where the mineral rights have been severed from the surface, the surface owner is also the owner of the subsurface - so long as the mineral rights are not being captured (e.g., wellbore perforated along its interval as same traverses the tract).  This is what allows E&P companies to drill wells off-unit through use of surface agreements and/or subsurface easements.

Functionally, I am not aware of a company at the moment that has routinely attempted to drill through and produce from mineral tracts not under lease.  In most cases, companies have tried to actively avoid doing so as to avoid the possibility of mineral trespass, opting instead to drill units with unleased mineral interests using wellpaths which specifically traverse and/or have perforated intervals only on leased property.  While the units may in fact have unleased interests force pooled within them, they form only a portion of the unit and are not "wellbore tracts".

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 11
• Next ›
• Page