Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 8, 2018 at 4:17

Interesting quote.  I agree with Mr. Briggs.  However this statement is at odds with the LOGA position in the recent Washington Examiner opinion piece which is being repeated across conservative, big business-friendly media.  This quote from that article is about energy companies declining to make investments in LA owing to Legacy lawsuits.

"That’s why outside of a little uptick in activity in the Haynesville Shale in the northwest part of the state, Louisiana is essentially missing out on the resurgence in the energy sector while Texas is booming."

I would take exception to the opinion that the Haynesville Shale is experiencing a "little" uptick.  $8B in acquisitions and investments over the last 2 years and an average monthly rig count of 40 is a "large" uptick to myself and anyone else who follows that play closely.  Add in the $50B+ in LA chemical, LNG and refinery investments spurred by cheap natural gas and NGLs and I find it curious how LOGA can continue to make claims that are absurd to even the casual observer.

Permalink Reply by Craig Wascom on February 8, 2018 at 4:35

Skip will the legacy lawsuits ever stop being a thorn in the side of potential investors, or are we stuck with that reputation forever? P.s. I'm not against the legacy lawsuits at face value those early guys really made a mess.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 8, 2018 at 7:29

Craig, allow me to describe legacy lawsuits from the land owners’ perspective.  The LOGA campaign against legacy suits is an attempt to keep private land owners from seeking mitigation of pollution of their property through the courts.  LOGA has spent years and millions of dollars attempting to create a public perception that the problem is greedy trial lawyers and that their actions run off business or prohibit companies from making energy related investments in Louisiana.  The amount of activity in the oil patch over the last ten years and the investment in LNG and chemical plants over the last five makes that argument ring untrue for those who are unwilling to swallow the propaganda whole.  So, legacy suits are not a thorn in the side of investors.  They are a non-issue for investors.  The next time you hear or read anything from LOGA or any industry PR firm or allied media outlet, listen for this.  After complaining about the cost of cleanup you will occasionally hear that cases decided in favor of the land owner don't always result in the polluted land being cleaned up.  After hearing that line a few times, the legislature changed the law to require clean up.  But now that the change is made, LOGA is till complaining.  Why?  They never cared in the first place about the cleanup, they cared about having to pay for it.

There are a number of legacy suits still winding their way through the courts.  I think most of us would be amendable to a discussion on the limitation of punitive damages above and beyond the cost of mitigation.  I don't think that would satisfy the industry.  They are used to getting their way.  Give and take are not their way.  Let's see if any legacy legislation pops up in the upcoming legislative sessions.  I do not think the industry is finished attempting to limit the rights of land owners.  Don't forget that those mean ole trial lawyers have no case without someone whose land has been polluted.

Permalink Reply by Craig Wascom on February 8, 2018 at 4:30

PetroQuest Energy Announces Sale of Gulf of Mexico Assets; 2017 Estimated Proved Oil and Gas Reserves and Production

In addition, the sale will increase our net liquidity by $6.5 million and allow us to focus our attention on developing our onshore assets in East Texas and in the Louisiana Austin Chalk trend," said Charles T. Goodson, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President. "

http://futures.tradingcharts.com/news/futures/PetroQuest_Energy_Ann...

Permalink Reply by Hydrocarbonite on February 9, 2018 at 3:52

Anyone has update on eagle ranch well?  EOG thoughts on what’s going on?

Permalink Reply by Craig Wascom on February 9, 2018 at 4:39

No updates on the well. The only thing I have to add is since we have been receiving offers to buy our minerals under eog lease I feel someone who knows more than me thinks permits are coming soon.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 9, 2018 at 4:48

That's a possibility, Craig.  However in my experience offers to purchase minerals more often than not come from individuals and companies that are making decisions based on public record information, not insider information.  EOG plays their cards close to the vest and I doubt at this point they would be sharing their plans outside the company.  It is a relatively easy task to review copies of leases filed in the public record to ascertain owner names, addresses and the location of their minerals.  I think a lot of speculators would be willing to follow EOG without knowing anything specifically about their development plans.  Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't.  I've seen several leasing and mineral acquisition attempts end up losing every cent invested.  In fact one was just to the north and east of this AC interest during the TMS play.  I won't mention the company name but they were discussed here on GHS.  I think they lost about one and half million dollars.  Chump change in the O&G biz.

Permalink Reply by Hydrocarbonite on February 9, 2018 at 8:10

Anyone know anything about Orbit Energy?  They are out to lease in Evangeline!

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 9, 2018 at 8:15

Looks like another Lafayette land company.

ORBIT ENERGY, INC.

Business Corporation

LAFAYETTE

Active

Previous Names

Business:	ORBIT ENERGY, INC.
Charter Number:	34878166D
Registration Date:	1/12/2000

Domicile Address
	400 E. KALISTE SALOOM RD., SUITE 1300
	LAFAYETTE, LA 70508

Mailing Address
	C/O MATT G. CHIASSON
	400 E. KALISTE SALOOM RD., SUITE 1300
	LAFAYETTE, LA 70508

Principal Office Address
	400 E. KALISTE SALOOM RD., SUITE 1300
	LAFAYETTE, LA 70508

Status
Status:	Active
Annual Report Status:	Not In Good Standing for failure to file Annual Report
File Date:	1/12/2000
Last Report Filed:	2/13/2017
Type:	Business Corporation

Registered Agent(s)

Agent: MATT G. CHIASSON Address 1: 400 E. KALISTSE SALOOM, STE. 1300 City, State, Zip: LAFAYETTE, LA 70508 Appointment Date: 1/12/2000

Officer(s)

Additional Officers: No

Officer: MATT G. CHIASSON Title: Director Address 1: 400 E. KALISTE SALOOM, STE. 1300 City, State, Zip: LAFAYETTE, LA 70508

Permalink Reply by Hydrocarbonite on February 9, 2018 at 8:21

Clerk of court told me landmen are here researching..  seems like all small independents.. 

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 9, 2018 at 8:31

There is leasing activity from Vernon Parish to St. Helena.  When the music stops, we will see which companies actually have economic AC rock.  There are plenty of "big players" in the AC Land Rush and some small ones too.  The prospective area is so large, there is room for a lot of players.  We should keep in mind that a large percentage of those leases may never be drilled and of those that are, some significant percentage will likely not be economic.  Such is the O&G biz.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 9, 2018 at 8:26

Keep in mind that companies, even large ones, do not maintain a land department with sufficient staff to execute a large lease acquisition effort.  They hire land companies to provide the warm bodies required to lease large acreage positions.  If the acquisition parameters require it, they may employ several.  The vast majority of land companies are private (independent) businesses.  There are many in Lafayette.

During the Haynesville Land Rush, if I wanted to know what was going on in Lafayette, all I had to do was visit the DeSoto Parish Clerk of Court's record room.  It was Lafayette north. 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• …
• 59
• Next ›
• Page