landowner

Is SWN behind the Brown Dense leasing?

A year ago I thought CHK was behind all of the BD leasing but it looks like I was mistaken. More and more the evidence is pointing to Southwestern energy.

 

http://www.swn.com/Pages/default.aspx

 

Below is a recent teleconf. transcript which is interesting. You can read the whole thing but on pg 4 Mr. Steve Mueller has some interesting comments on a new play.

 

http://www.swn.com/investors/Press_Releases/2011/2011-05-02.pdf

Views: 163

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


landownerPermalink Reply by North LA on July 8, 2011 at 10:33
I was a little confused. Did he say they were going to develop this play slowly over the next five years or is it a play a year over the next 5 years?

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on July 9, 2011 at 2:03
In the early days of the Haynesville Shale Play a number of smaller companies such as Cypress Operating, Camterra, Stroud Petroleum, Long Petroleum, Franks Operting and others formed HA units with no intention of drilling wells.  Others such as J-W and Samson Contour formed units and drilled a few wells but assigned the bulk of their unit rights to others.  At one time Samson had over 100 HA units and 6 wells.  These companies held drilling rights to the Haynesville because they had shallower existing production that HBP'ed the leasehold.  The unitization process was relatively simple, affordable and placed them in a better position to bargain with those companies who might wish to acquire their rights.  In LA. a unit order from the state allows the applicant to be the operator or to assign another company as the operator.  In these cases unitization for the Haynesville was a sales tool, not a genuine expression of intent to develop on the part of the applicant.  I suspect that AR. regs may allow for this same option.

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on July 9, 2011 at 3:19
If mineral owners got half as motivated in support of mineral code reform as they do over a modest bonus rental offer, they and the state would reap a huge benefit.  A 500% penalty is beyond punitive to the point of being ludicrous.   And in the case of unconventional reservoir development, any amount in excess of say 125% would be unreasonable.  The one factor that seems to be consistently overlooked by mineral owners is that each mineral acre out there is likely connected to a half dozen voters.  And lessor rights and the significant economic impact at stake should be of interest no matter whether that acre is rural, suburban or urban.

landownerPermalink Reply by North LA on July 9, 2011 at 4:30

Sorry Tony. Sounds like Arkansas is in need of serious reform.


landownerPermalink Reply by North LA on July 9, 2011 at 2:18
Great find Tony! Thanks for sharing. I hope they're right about the 650/day.

landownerPermalink Reply by obed w odom on July 9, 2011 at 5:52
Thanks Tony. Looking at the plats for these wells, it seems that J-W has proposed a total of 4 horizontal wells adjacent to each other in Sections 28, 29, 32, and 33 of T19S R17W.

landownerPermalink Reply by john ware on July 9, 2011 at 2:55
Y'all boys calm down! I know the East haynesville very well. Keep an I on sec6 and 7 23n- 5w! Allso sec 11-12 23n-7w tucker

landownerPermalink Reply by North LA on July 9, 2011 at 3:01
What do you mean john? You think they will drill wells there soon?

landownerPermalink Reply by john ware on July 9, 2011 at 3:18
Man It would be nice! Hard for Hunt not to be happy with Tucker in sec 12-23n-7w. Ass for sec6-7 23n-5w was told to watch.

landownerPermalink Reply by North LA on July 9, 2011 at 3:42
You're right Tony. I was reading 7W but 23n 5w sec 7/6 is where the TSDI well will be drilled in Claiborne parish Lick Creek field.

RSS

© 2026   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service