SWN passes up acreage renewal in this county in Ark. - GoHaynesvilleShale.com2024-03-29T09:59:06Zhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/forum/topics/swn-passes-up-acreage-renewal-in-this-county-in-ark?groupUrl=union-county-arkansas-shale&feed=yes&xn_auth=noInfo below is from Magnolia R…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2014-09-11:2117179:Comment:33839802014-09-11T14:40:45.472ZLerrethttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/Lerret
<p>Info below is from Magnolia Reporter<br></br><br></br><span id="ecxyui_3_16_0_1_1410145970529_2329">Posted:</span> 06 Sep 2014 05:57 AM PDT</p>
<div id="ecxyui_3_16_0_1_1410145970529_2321" style="color: #000000; line-height: 140%; font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Arial, Sans-Serif; font-size: 13px;"><p id="ecxyui_3_16_0_1_1410145970529_2327">Southwestern Energy apparently wants to take another look at its Lower Smackover Brown Dense well near the Walkerville community.…</p>
</div>
<p>Info below is from Magnolia Reporter<br/><br/><span id="ecxyui_3_16_0_1_1410145970529_2329">Posted:</span> 06 Sep 2014 05:57 AM PDT</p>
<div id="ecxyui_3_16_0_1_1410145970529_2321" style="color: #000000; line-height: 140%; font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Arial, Sans-Serif; font-size: 13px;"><p id="ecxyui_3_16_0_1_1410145970529_2327">Southwestern Energy apparently wants to take another look at its Lower Smackover Brown Dense well near the Walkerville community.</p>
<p id="ecxyui_3_16_0_1_1410145970529_2320">A letter on file with the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission says that the company will place a workover rig at the McMahen No. 19-21 No. 1-7 site in a wildcat field west of Arkansas 19.</p>
<p id="ecxyui_3_16_0_1_1410145970529_2326">At the time the well was first drilled last October, there were hopes that it would find a large quantity of oil in the LSBD. The well was drilled to a depth of more than 11,000 feet. But perforations between 10,976 and 11,305 feet produced only four barrels of 40.1 gravity oil daily. The well was completed on December 17.</p>
<p id="ecxyui_3_16_0_1_1410145970529_2325">A letter from Southwestern Energy production analyst Cathy Rowan to the commission, dated August 29, said that the well was shut in last December.</p>
<p id="ecxyui_3_16_0_1_1410145970529_2324">“We are currently moving a workover rig to the location and plan to perforate the same zone, but at a higher interval. At this time, we do not plan to fracture stimulate the well. However, if we change our plans to frac, proper notification will be provided,” the letter said.</p>
<p id="ecxyui_3_16_0_1_1410145970529_2350">Southwestern Energy has let go thousands of acres leased for mineral purposes in the Columbia County area since its initial interest in the Lower Smackover. An exception has been the acreage that includes the square mile around the McMahen well site.</p>
</div> This is Form 3 completion rep…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2014-09-08:2117179:Comment:33815722014-09-08T00:36:55.087ZRAZORBACKhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/JOHNDANIELSON
<p>This is Form 3 completion report for 46991 Lewark 1</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This is Form 3 completion report for 46991 Lewark 1</p>
<p> </p> I think the perforations shou…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2014-09-07:2117179:Comment:33815652014-09-07T23:43:48.779Zobed w odomhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/obedwodom
<p>I think the perforations should probably be 6559-7563 feet in the Lewark 1, as a Four R well in 8-20S-20W, completed as a workover 5/2/14 and reported 8/8/2014, shows perforations from 6346-7607 feet.</p>
<p><a href="http://aogc2.state.ar.us/WIPE/2014/WklyRep%208-8-14.pdf" target="_blank">http://aogc2.state.ar.us/WIPE/2014/WklyRep%208-8-14.pdf</a></p>
<p>I think the perforations should probably be 6559-7563 feet in the Lewark 1, as a Four R well in 8-20S-20W, completed as a workover 5/2/14 and reported 8/8/2014, shows perforations from 6346-7607 feet.</p>
<p><a href="http://aogc2.state.ar.us/WIPE/2014/WklyRep%208-8-14.pdf" target="_blank">http://aogc2.state.ar.us/WIPE/2014/WklyRep%208-8-14.pdf</a></p> Thanks, Razorback. There must…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2014-09-07:2117179:Comment:33812542014-09-07T22:54:15.709Zobed w odomhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/obedwodom
<p>Thanks, Razorback. There must then be an error in the completion report for this well filed this week with the AOGC, as it shows only 4 feet of perforations.</p>
<p>Thanks, Razorback. There must then be an error in the completion report for this well filed this week with the AOGC, as it shows only 4 feet of perforations.</p> Lewark well is a horizontal w…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2014-09-07:2117179:Comment:33811252014-09-07T19:18:04.720ZRAZORBACKhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/JOHNDANIELSON
<p>Lewark well is a horizontal well completed in May. <br/>See production figures from AOGC web site.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Lewark well is a horizontal well completed in May. <br/>See production figures from AOGC web site.</p>
<p> </p> The AOGC weekly permit/comple…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2014-09-07:2117179:Comment:33812102014-09-07T18:22:08.780Zobed w odomhttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/obedwodom
<p>The AOGC weekly permit/completion report of 9/5/2014 reports the 5/8/14 completion of the Four R Lewark 1 in 4-20S-20W (serial #46991) to flow 44 bbl of 38 gravity oil from perforations at 7559 to 7563 feet. Total depth is 7731 feet so this is a vertical well which was perhaps drilled before their horizontal well in Section 4. I have not seen a completion report for the horizontal well.…</p>
<p></p>
<p>The AOGC weekly permit/completion report of 9/5/2014 reports the 5/8/14 completion of the Four R Lewark 1 in 4-20S-20W (serial #46991) to flow 44 bbl of 38 gravity oil from perforations at 7559 to 7563 feet. Total depth is 7731 feet so this is a vertical well which was perhaps drilled before their horizontal well in Section 4. I have not seen a completion report for the horizontal well.</p>
<p><a href="http://aogc2.state.ar.us/WIPE/2014/WklyRep%209-5-14.pdf" target="_blank">http://aogc2.state.ar.us/WIPE/2014/WklyRep%209-5-14.pdf</a></p> Arkansas is all screwed up as…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2014-08-25:2117179:Comment:33725372014-08-25T00:23:54.095ZTwo Dogs, Piratehttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/ThomasRScarbrock
<p>Arkansas is all screwed up as to their mineral law. Lerret, if you can help change the way things are done up there then I would say much ablidged. </p>
<p>Arkansas is all screwed up as to their mineral law. Lerret, if you can help change the way things are done up there then I would say much ablidged. </p> I've never recorded a mineral…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2014-08-24:2117179:Comment:33724172014-08-24T21:15:33.334ZSkip Peel - Mineral Consultanthttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/ilandman
<p>I've never recorded a mineral deed in AR. Your questioning the mineral deeds filed with, "$100 or other valuable considerations", seemed to indicate that the language used is what is standard here in LA where the actual price paid is not required to be included. If you are finding multiple instances then you should ask your county clerk.</p>
<p>I've never recorded a mineral deed in AR. Your questioning the mineral deeds filed with, "$100 or other valuable considerations", seemed to indicate that the language used is what is standard here in LA where the actual price paid is not required to be included. If you are finding multiple instances then you should ask your county clerk.</p> You are dead wrong. In Arkans…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2014-08-24:2117179:Comment:33724052014-08-24T18:50:36.009ZLerrethttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/Lerret
<p>You are dead wrong. In Arkansas ALL deeds require documentary stamps including minerals unless than than $100 - I along with NARO-AR president Dwight Brown was personally responsible for seeing that this went to the Atty General for clarification back several years ago.</p>
<p>This is the Atty Generals opinion and in the Fayetteville shale counties it is the law although I realize S. Arkansas is a country to itself. Even when CHK sold to BHP the deed stamps in White county alone were…</p>
<p>You are dead wrong. In Arkansas ALL deeds require documentary stamps including minerals unless than than $100 - I along with NARO-AR president Dwight Brown was personally responsible for seeing that this went to the Atty General for clarification back several years ago.</p>
<p>This is the Atty Generals opinion and in the Fayetteville shale counties it is the law although I realize S. Arkansas is a country to itself. Even when CHK sold to BHP the deed stamps in White county alone were slightly more that $200,000 to the state coffers.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://ag.arkansas.gov/opinions/docs/2008-127.pdf" target="_blank">http://ag.arkansas.gov/opinions/docs/2008-127.pdf</a></p>
<blockquote><p align="left" style="text-align: left;">Question 2 - Do mineral deeds require document tax stamps when they are</p>
<p align="left" style="text-align: left;">recorded?</p>
<p align="left" style="text-align: left;">As previously stated, it is well established that mineral rights are considered real property in the state of Arkansas. The Arkansas Tax Code specifically defines</p>
<p align="left" style="text-align: left;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">“real property and lands” to include “the land itself . . .</font></font> <i><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">with all things therein</font></font></i></p>
<p align="left" style="text-align: left;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><i>contained</i></font></font><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">[.]” A.C.A. § 26-1-101 (emphasis added). Transfers of real property are</font></font></p>
<p align="left" style="text-align: left;">subject to state taxes, and the Real Property Transfer Tax Act is found at A.C.A. §</p>
<p align="left" style="text-align: left;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">26-60-101</font></font> <i><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">et seq</font></font></i><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">. Arkansas Code Annotated § 26-60-102 lists transfers excluded</font></font></p>
<p align="left" style="text-align: left;">from taxation under this chapter; however, transfers of mineral rights are not</p>
<p align="left" style="text-align: left;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">among listed among the exclusions.</font></font><font face="Times New Roman" size="1"><font face="Times New Roman" size="1">1</font></font> <font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">For these reasons, it is my opinion that</font></font></p>
<p>transfers of mineral rights are subject to the Real Property Transfer Tax Act.</p>
<p></p>
</blockquote>
<p>If you haven't been recording the sale price, you are violating the law and the clerk is violating the law for not requiring same, but I did note in many deeds (not OG LEASES, different animal) that there is a disclaimer disclosing that the amount of the sale was under $100 and Documentary stamps were not applicable. BTW, I authored an article in AAPL Landman Magazine some years ago to alert landmen of this law.</p>
<p></p> Mineral Deeds filed in the pu…tag:gohaynesvilleshale.com,2014-08-24:2117179:Comment:33724932014-08-24T18:14:37.435ZSkip Peel - Mineral Consultanthttps://gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/ilandman
<p>Mineral Deeds filed in the public record are not required to include the sales price. $XXX, and other valuable considerations is standard legal boilerplate language. It has been used in every mineral deed I've ever reviewed.</p>
<p>Mineral Deeds filed in the public record are not required to include the sales price. $XXX, and other valuable considerations is standard legal boilerplate language. It has been used in every mineral deed I've ever reviewed.</p>