LANDMAN JUST STOPPED BY ABOUT 30 MINUTES AGO (CADDO 19-15-36)
TWIN CITIES DEVELOPMENT LANDMAN STOPPED BY ABOUT 30 MINUTES AGO. WANTED TO DISCUSS LEASING OUR LAND. I TOLD HIM I THOUGHT ALL LEASING HAD COME TO A HALT. HE SAID NO THEY WERE INTERESTED IN OUR AREA BUT LEASE BONUSES WERE WAY DOWN. HE OFFERED $2,000 AND 25%. I ASKED HIM ABOUT THE LETTER WE RECEIVED FROM SAMSON CONTOUR ABOUT THE REDEFINITON APPLICATION. I ASKED IF HE REPRESENTED THEM. HE DID'NT SEEM TO LIKE THIS VERY MUCH AND SAID THAT HE WASN'T SURE WHY SAMSON WOULD APPLY FOR THAT WHEN CHESAPEAKE ALREADY HAD 70% OF THAT LAND LEASED. WE THOUGHT WE WERE IN 19-15-36 ACCORDING TO PROPERTY TAX INFO BUT HE SAID WHEN HE PULLED OUR DEED WE ARE ACTUALLY IN 18-15-01 SOME TYPE OF GLITCH AT THE COURTHOUSE. ANY THOUGHTS...
Views: 232
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on -
I'm pretty familiar with what CHK is doing in 15/15, Caddo Parish. My observation has been that often times, after they have permitted a well and built a pad, but before they have drilled the well they will make an unsolicited bid (through M. C. Minerals) to purchase all the royalty interest in that particular section. This is typically when the first offer goes out to the royalty owners, but not necessarily the last time. They have made follow up offers after the particular well has been drilled, and I must admit, at rather attractive prices by my way of thinking ($16,000+ per acre of royalty). Before someone jumps on this, NO I wouldn't take the offer if made, but I can certainly understand how some would give it serious consideration given that 15% long term capital gain tax will probably be history after this year.
-
Permalink Reply by The_Baron on -
It sounds like Spring Branch is talking about selling royalty, no minerals KB.
I would look at the supposed reserves by acre, how much they think can be extracted, and how long it will take to produce the gas.
May be a winner, if you consider that it make take years to get the same amount waiting on a well to produce. Also, this is gauranted money now, not just hopeful royalties.
Just depends on your situation. -
-
Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on
-
16,000 x 5 (.20) = $80,000 per acre for 100% of minerals.
16,000 x 4 (.25) = 64,000 per acre for 100% of minerals.
COULD WE PLEASE BRING THE CONVERSATION TO MINERAL SALES - AS IT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE THERE. -
-
Permalink Reply by The_Baron on
-
KB
For buying royalty not mineral acres, The offer would made per royalty acre. A quarter royalty is = 2 royalty acres. Royalty acres are made based on a 1/8 royalty on one acre with 100% of the minerals as one royalty acre.
Hope this helps, it is a bit confusing. -
-
Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on
-
Actually the letters that I have seen recently were, I believe, for the purchase of minerals. In particular, the landowners had 1/5 royalty leases with CHK and were being offered $16,080 per mineral acre for their minerals which were burdened by 1/5 royalty leases to CHK. I would assume that if they had been 1/4 royalty leases, the offer would have been $20,000+ per net mineral acre.
-
-
Permalink Reply by BirdDawg, plain ole' idiot on
-
Harvey,
Believe me, I am not a big CHK fan right now. But I personally do not think that they are the next Enron. CHK has a lot of proven reserves, worth a lot of money. Enron didn't have diddly.
-
Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on
-
KB, the reserves were always there but just carried in the probable or possible categories. The revision in rules will allow a truer calculation of finding cost.
-
Permalink Reply by Aubrey C. Sanders, Jr. on
-
My thoughts: Don't take his word for it. Go to courthouse in person and check it out NOW! Or perhaps have regrets later. If he wants to pay you for lease on land you don't own, OK? Yes. Believe it or not, I know of a number of cases where this happened, one of which I was involved with Fina. For leasing oftentimes , perhaps most of the time they do not do exhaustive title opinions for leasing. Costs too much. I am a great fan of XTO, and also have working interests in several wells with them. They have always been very accessible to me. We have 3 wells to drill in North Shongaloo-Red Rock Field soon. Smackover "C' zone.
-
Permalink Reply by Grice on
-
In an effort to support your post, and to help MOMOF3, those records can be accessed from the comfort of your home.
http://www.caddoassessor.org/cgi-bin/pub_search.pl
-
Permalink Reply by Lightfoot on
-
>> In particular, the landowners had 1/5 royalty leases with CHK and were being offered $16,080 per mineral acre for their minerals which were burdened by 1/5 royalty leases to CHK. I would assume that if they had been 1/4 royalty leases, the offer would have been $20,000+ per net mineral acre.
SpringBranch & Jim Krow: Does this mean that MC Minerals might pay 5 times $16,080 for an unleased acre?
-
Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on
-
I'm not either,
But 1/5 x 5 = the whole acre.
So the answer would be no.
Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com
Top Content
Not a member? Get our email.
Groups
-
San Augustine, TX
386 members
-
Miller County, Arkansas
27 members
-
Sabine Parish, LA
455 members
-
South Caddo Parish Group
440 members
-
Natchitoches Parish
400 members
-
Bienville Parish, LA
244 members
-
Fayetteville Shale
149 members
-
North Caddo Parish
358 members
-
Central Texas Gas
63 members
-
Cass County, TX
119 members
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
