Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on November 1, 2025 at 3:45

I am hoping this is an experiment limited only to stranded unit situations but would like to hear from Ryan and Rock Man.  And any others with an opinion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by w.r. frank on November 1, 2025 at 6:35

I thought the 100' set back on the N & S boundaries was interesting?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hale Yayuh on November 2, 2025 at 1:19

WAIT A MINUTE! How the heck are they doing this? Isn't it 330'?

As for what they are doing, I hate to see this but it doesn't surprise me, as I have commented on this very thing for years now, that they are almost always drilling 4-5 laterals/section rather than 6. But three? That is not good for mineral owners. The operator cares about the bottom line, the MO cares about maximizing ultimate production. Of course, the MO has pretty much zero control over this. I guess one could protest but that'll probably get you nowhere.

In this particular section, I suppose that sometime in the future, if gas prices were to get real high, it might dollar up to drill another lateral between the two legs of this u-lateral, because that is a pretty far spacing. It would be interested to hear from someone as to how far wide a frack can reach. It certainly has limits, else they would just drill one lateral/section!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on November 2, 2025 at 1:30

Hale, this just another example of the state abandoning any regulation that the industry does not like.  In this case, as in others, the 330' unit set back is a hold over from a by gone era of vertical wells producing from conventional reservoirs when drainage outside of established units was the concern.  The state no longer appears to have that concern and only adjacent mineral owners care about being drained without being compensated.

The question regarding future infill drilling in cases such as this is one of how much rock can be stimulated with larger frack cylinders and how much gas an operator thinks was left behind and whether it is worth drilling more wells to recover in the future.  If the volume of un-stimulated rock is not worth the cost of a future well or a re-frack, it will remain un-produced.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hale Yayuh on November 2, 2025 at 3:33

It would surprise me if the state just ignores the 330ft setback rule that has structured the history of the HA shale thus far. I mean, I'm all for 100ft but it just seems odd. Seems that is just trolling for a lawsuit. I would think they could just amend the regulation to change it to 100ft. Why have regulations? Oh, I get it... this is the trump era. Just ignore laws.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on November 2, 2025 at 3:43

The state may have the rational that more gas produced equals more severance tax revenue and they really don't care whose gas it is.  99% of lawsuits are a waste of time with a judiciary that knows little to nothing about the O&G/mineral business but knows that they are major donors to their election campaigns.

Its been a while since I touched on the subject but it bears repeating.  Mineral owners have a decent winning record when suing O&G operators in state courts here in NW LA.  The problem is a Second Circuit Court of Appeals that tends to overturn those rulings.  And that problem has two roots.  An appeals court where judges have little to no O&G/mineral law experience.  And judges who are elected and beholden to the parties that fund their campaigns.  Mineral owner have the votes to elect knowledgeable judges that are not behold to the industry but they are too apathetic to do it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Birdsview on November 21, 2025 at 18:41

Hi Skip, this is Birdsview. Hope things have been going well with you and your family. You have always been great at giving us the information we needed in the past, and you really have a knack for this sort of thing.

I’m not sure if this is the right place to post this — I haven’t been on here in a while — but I’m planning to be back on here more permanently. Our family has been on this site for many years. We own minerals in DeSoto Parish in Section 19 14N, 14W, and we have one well in Section 18. We also have three wells that are across-unit wells from Sections 18 to 19 to 30.

I’m trying to find out if anyone has heard of any new activity down in DeSoto Parish in Holly Field. Ever since Chesapeake partnered with Expand Energy, the checks have been dropping. Today’s check was about $1,000 less per family member, which is just not acceptable.

We talk to the Office of Conservation in Shreveport fairly often, but I had a specific question: Is there any way to get individual meter readings for each well? We want our attorneys and bookkeepers to verify the production numbers and run the calculations themselves. We have just under 100 acres in the Holly Field area, and we’re trying to figure out what’s going on.

Right now, one well is paying around $123, another around $65, a third around $72, and the fourth about $43 per month. These numbers are ridiculous for wells that are running 24 hours a day with the mineral interest we have. This is the worst drop we’ve ever seen. Unless they’re re-fracking the wells or doing work on all of them at the same time, something feels off. At this point, it may be time to involve the attorneys.

I’d really like to know if anyone else in the DeSoto Parish Holly Field area has seen any recent activity — and more importantly, whether their checks have also dropped drastically. I don’t believe these current numbers are correct. Any help or insight from anyone would be greatly appreciated.

Skip, if this is not the proper place for this, please tell me where I should post this to get the most eyes on it that own minerals in that area.

Thank you

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on November 22, 2025 at 1:46

Hi, Birdsview.  Welcome back.  All the horizontal Haynesville wells decline rapidly.  They produce 75 to 80% of their lifetime volume in the first few years.  After about year three to five, they decline about 1% per year on average for the remainder of their lifespan.  You current royalties may indicate that the wells you have an interest in are older.  Not knowing what your percentage interest in each drilling and production unit is means it's difficult to provide an accurate answer to your question.  Your most recent wells are now three years old.  There has been a recent significant drop in production from August to September but the September production is still high enough to maintain the leases.  I'll post links to your unit surveys below that will show the surveyed acreage that you own in each unit.  Make copies and keep them for future reference. 

https://sonlite.dnr.state.la.us/dnrservices/redirectUrl.jsp?dDocnam...

https://sonlite.dnr.state.la.us/dnrservices/redirectUrl.jsp?dDocnam...

I have clients whose leases give them the right to access the well meters but that is unusual and means they owned enough acres to have strong negotiating positions and had experienced O&G attorneys draw up their leases.  If you do not have that right in your lease you do not have the ability to legally access the well meters.  Also the general public even those with minerals in the wells are not supposed to be on the well pads.  Many go anyway but it is not advised for those that don't know what they are doing.  Look at the unit surveys and let me know which tracts you own.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hale Yayuh on November 22, 2025 at 2:46

Hello, I have no idea what is going with your units, if anything, but I will say that it is the norm for mineral owners to complain about their checks becoming 'too low' when it may be nothing other than natural depletion. Or a crappy nat gas price. It can also be a reduction in production by the operator due to any number of factors. Some that you could agree are prudent and some you may not. It is wise to keep up with things but sometimes, even usually, there is nothing sinister going on. That can happen, yes, but it's usually not that. Good luck to you!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on November 22, 2025 at 7:25

I agree with Hale.  Sometimes unusual changes in monthly production can be caused by an adjustment in the well's choke setting.  This may occur when nearby new wells producing into the same gathering system would exceed the system's capacity.  Operators may use tighter choke setting when natural gas prices are below the break even price.  Wells can also be shut it temporarily for maintenance.  

GoHaynesvilleShale.com has a lengthy history of taking the industry to task when they do things that disadvantage mineral lessors and unleased mineral owners but also of explaining things that mineral owners might see as dishonest and defending the industry when attacks are not factual.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rock Man on November 22, 2025 at 7:40

Concur totally with all the comments by Skip @ Hale on your issue.

Additional points that can contribute to lower production / revenues is gas line pressure being high and reducing the ability of getting produced gas into the line without having compression installed.

I am assuming that you receive detailed production and pricing info with the monthly distributions - I would highly recommend that anyone receiving royalty payments pay close attention to these summaries and details.

I record / capture and graph all this info on my revenue yielding wells so as to see trends in production and pricing.

And to echo previous comments - nothing nefarious or criminal going on here. Just producing wells doing what producing wells do during times of low gas prices.

Side question - are production related charges being deducted from your revenues? Transmission, marketing, etc.

If you don't have a good "no cost" lease, your revenues will be dinged.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on November 23, 2025 at 5:35

Rock Man is correct in drawing attention to post production deductions.  Gathering and treating costs are often based on an mcf of gas.  As the price of natural gas decreases, the percentage of the mcf based deductions increases.  A 20 cent an mcf charge is about 6% of the gross natural gas price when it is $3.50 but 10% at $2.00.  As the price goes lower, the percentage deduction goes higher.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page