Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on March 25, 2009 at 14:49

To hold a section they will have to drill deep and hit something with their vertical well. They may can hold stuff using the shut-in clause, but that can't last too long if they are not, in a good faith effort, trying to develope the unit into a producing prospect. I know lots of mineral owners that have the cut-off date circled on their future calender for the end of the 2 year extension. Are you in Sabine or DeSoto Parishes?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jerry on March 25, 2009 at 16:28

Natchitoches,

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on March 25, 2009 at 15:18

Jerry, my opinion is the well has to be capable of producing or in other words, the well had to be drilled and completed in a formation capable of producing oil or gas in paying quantities. Large parts of the Haynesville Shale area lies outside of existing producing field areas. So the probability of the the O&G company finding and completing a well in a shallow formation outside of these known producing fields would be low. Also, my opinion is the ability to hold a lease with a well waiting on a pipeline should be fairly limited in time (6 months to a year?).

The bigger concern is a small operator drilling a single vertical well in a Haynesville Unit (section) and producing at a very low rate.

Sorry if these points were already stated by others.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jerry on March 25, 2009 at 17:29

You are very correct on the lawyer part and will never trust another good old boy. And as far as you being offended, you don't seem to have a problem offending people. That is a fact because in the past I have been one of them.
Thanks for the 250.00 answer.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jerry on March 25, 2009 at 21:11

Ok Jim, Landmen and ethics, would you do this?
You, being a landman was confronted by a widow who is 71 years old. You have a chance on getting her to sign today on 300 acres at $100.00. Right before she signs she tells you that the number of acres on her lease is not correct. She states to you her land consist of 20 more acres then what stated on the lease. Ok would you tell her not to worry because no way will anyone drill until they survey and she will get credited with the correct number of acres. Only thing is there is a "more or less" in the acreage statement. You know the kind you put in all your leases. Have you ever done this? Do you feel this is the 71 year old lady’s mistake or was she taken advantage of? Because I was standing there when this took place. I should have told him to leave at that point but didn't. I blame myself. But when you want to tell me you are offended by what I imply. Please Jim all landmen aren't bad. Nor are they all good.
To your answer on why ask? I kind of wanted to what know each side's view was. Sorry folks kind of got off the subject I guess this should have been another discussion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on March 26, 2009 at 4:05

If I had preformed basic research into a tract, and I was confident that the acreage on the lease was reasonably correct, I would have her sign. Maybe there are errors in the assessors office, maybe there are errors in previous deeds, maybe the property has never been profesionally surveyed (reminds me of a tract in AR i worked with that the legal description went from the center of the old homestead, which was no longer there, to the old oak tree.....).

This is why my leases typically say that it is the includes all lands owned by the lessor in section x, wheather properly described or not. A landman can only be responsible for what can be found in public records.

If i was not reasonbly confident that my acreage was correct, I would make every attempt to verify through public records of her claim, I personally do not want to cheat any one.

This is also why I include the following For the purposes of calculating bonuses.

of determining the amount of bonus and the shut-in royalty payment hereunder, said land shall be deemed to contain _______ acres, whether actually containing more or less, and the above recital of acreage in any tract shall be deemed to be the true acreage thereof.

The true acreage would have to found/verfied by surveyors when the unit formed and/or in preperation of a division order.

The bottom line is, when you are in the leasing phase, it is only practical to use whatever information that can be found in the public records.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on March 26, 2009 at 4:12

All that being said, I would consider it unethical to delibriatly state a lower than accurate acreage on the lease.

If it was questionable, I would change the acreage to the lessors beleived acreage, and simply check my title work and do a deeper title iI haven't already., and pay based on the acreage as indicated in public record. This is why many use drafts to pay leases. This is why there is a warranty clause. They are used in case there are problems in title (especially important if only a quick title was done before signing, other heirs are discovered, acreage discrepensies, etc.)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on March 26, 2009 at 4:20

Ain't much you can do when the section is larger than 640 acres and decriptions are in quarter quarters. Take Section 4, Township 8 North, Range 11 West the quarter quarters are 45 acres.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on March 26, 2009 at 4:32

You can see on the Tobin that the section is bigger, the assessor has the quarter quarters as 40 acres. Landowners need to get a survey done and correct their descriptions to reflect the larger acreage figure. In the past it may have helped out with a lower tax rate but with shale bonuses at what they were it would pay to have a survey.

Permalink Reply by BirdDawg, plain ole' idiot on March 26, 2009 at 7:16

Jim,
The adjustment for curvature was made every 6 miles. In the townships in between all of the error in the original surveys was thrown into the northern and western tier of sections in each township, hence generally Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 18, 19, 30 and 31 are usually the ones that vary from 640 acres.
Then you get into the measurement descrepancies, errors and out and out fraud committed in some of the original government surveys. I have seen one section in Winn Parish that had a 660' measurement error. That made for some large acreage descrepancies and very strange shaped 40's.
A lot of times that is why you see unit surveys preformed prior to royalty payment especially in high volume situations.

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on March 26, 2009 at 4:27

You could go back to the original township survey, it might have the quarter quarters acreage on it. It will at least have the section quarters.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by alleyboy on March 26, 2009 at 4:20

In section 3 17n 15w there is three shallow wells. They show up on sonris lite as the wallace heirs wells. Can someone in this discussion please take a look at this and tell me if you think this section is held by production. Thanks

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page