Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by adubu on March 31, 2013 at 13:43

GD--yes 2008 was peak but CHK started offering $5000 acre leases early summer 2007 in Haynesville and did a lease with DFW for $6500 in Barnet shale July 2006 with 25%R as first part of gold rush. Yes Keith started this site in summer 2008 but rush and big leases had been on going for about one year then bottom fell out soon thereafter in Fall of 2008

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by GoshDarn on March 31, 2013 at 14:50

Ah, you know your stuff, adubu.  That timeline is telling, don't you think?  Yet for many, until the spring of 2008, the cat was still in the bag for many folks (in NW Louisiana, specifically), i.e., the big secret of beaucoup bonus wasn't being discussed by those not in the loop, so to speak.  So if you knew in 2006 or 2007, you were ahead of the game, adubu. 

Oh, some don't know it, but the bottom didn't actually fall out of all HA leasing in the fall of 2008.  There were still folks inking leases for $15,000 bonus (and possibly up), 1/4, and great clauses beyond the first quarter of 2009.

A fact that a few of us are quite familiar with.

Yet on GHS, there were also certain naysayers (wanting to continue to drive lease prices down even lower) . . . claiming (and posting on GHS) that the party was, in fact, over in the fall of 2008 and also claiming that no one would ever see beaucoup bonuses ever again.  Turns out those guys were absolutely wrong, huh?

Of course, in general, you're exactly right (as far as I understand it).  The consensus was that the party was indeed over.  Yet some don't realize that not all such deals are ever discussed by those getting the beaucoup leases.

The lesson learned is that not all the postings here are as totally truthful as some might think they are, even if such intel is posted by a well-intentioned person, i.e., some well-meaning folks think they know what they're talking about, but simply don't know all the facts.  But that's an honest mistake.  The true concern has always been about certain posters intentionally misleading landowners in order to make a buck off a lowball deal or off feathering their own nests by spreading disinformation so as to help their own bottom line.  

Yeah, well . . . when it comes to making money . . .

One shoe don't fit everybody.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by adubu on March 31, 2013 at 15:45

GD--I found out with lease of 80+ acres in Shelby May 2007 for 350 acre 20% and was happy since no activity since just outside of TP play in 1980s so was happy with lease until Lessee did not file for record until Sept in interval time after I signed lease my phone lines lite up with offers 500 up to $5000 acre by oct 2007. I did not know until later what the true News was. Got little sick to stomach but still was happy with dream of a shale well paying $8-14 mmcf that would have been life changing for family but not to be I am in marginal area of shale but maybe one day kids will benefit

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by GoshDarn on March 31, 2013 at 19:12

Thanks for sharing, adubu.  Sorry to hear about the ill timing of your lease.  I know that would've sickened my stomach, too.  

Your concern in regards to other landowners getting a "fair and reasonable" deal impresses per your honest intentions to help those who aren't "up to speed" as to what a fair value is via you doing such good deeds on GHS.

GHS members truly benefit per you investing the time and effort to share your knowledge.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by adubu on April 1, 2013 at 1:59

GD--- you have finally analysis me CORRECTLY. A lot of my knowledge has come from this site that causes me to do lots of research and reading literature, news, etc. Yes my intentions are honest to help others to be educated so as they can  make informed decisions. I don't like to see people ripped off. Thanks  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by david kenneth merritt on April 1, 2013 at 3:27

I RECIEVED AN OFFER ON 11 ACRES ON ATLANTA MIRA RD. IN RODESSA  IN AN 80 ACRE LEASE 150 PER ACRE AND 25% ROYALTIES THERE ARE 5 NEW WELLS WITHIN A 3/4 MILE WALK THAT HIT OIL .MY MAIN OBJECTIVE IS TO GET DRILLING IS THE 150 AN ACRE WAY LOW ?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on April 1, 2013 at 6:36

I don't see any producing wells around this property going by the map you posted.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on April 1, 2013 at 7:13

OK see some now was looking at wrong township.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by adubu on April 1, 2013 at 7:41

david--- since main objective is to get your minerals in unit and a well drilled then with 25% R get leased & signed so maybe they will drill because can not be sure to get in the unit unless signed lease.  I personally would not want to go ULMO. But that your choice.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by david kenneth merritt on April 1, 2013 at 15:51

WHAT IS ULOM

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on April 1, 2013 at 16:37

ULMO - Un-Leased Mineral Owner

Permalink Reply by adubu on March 30, 2013 at 10:12

Two Dog---operator need to have 80% under lease to drill I assume what you are saying but question was what % of unit minerals would mineral owner need (own)'to have any power to improve negoiatation power to get better lease terms and royalty agreement

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Next ›
• Page