Roger, I got the alert email for your new discussion.  I hope you'll get some responses from the Vernon Parish members.  There's not been much leasing activity in your specific area, so it's hard to compare what is "fair market" terms without some feedback.  I always prioritize the royalty fraction over the bonus and would gladly trade less bonus for more royalty if possible.  It is important to look at the size of the drilling unit to determine the percentage of the whole that your tract represents.  Obviously the more acreage you have, the better your negotiating position.  It is a good idea to understand the ramifications of some of the other lease terms.  For example, there is value in surface locations.  Tracts close to roads and located near the edge of drilling units may have value for surface use such as lease roads, pipeline (gathering system) pipelines and drilling pads.  I suggest that mineral lessors include a no surface use clause, just in case.  I would tell a landman seeking a lease that I won't necessarily deny surface use but I want the clause so I can negotiate the compensation for it and the damages or loss of use for the acreage.  I further suggest that you don't "warrant title" and that you stipulate a significant per acre price for any lease extension.  A three year primary term with a two year option to extend is common.  The five-two is less so and should come with a little better compensation.  After all those observations, I'll close with this:  the Austin Chalk in this specific area is not proven economic.  It is a tough nut to crack and for that reason I would be offering similar terms to Continental.  There is plenty of risk involved for all parties.  Good luck.

Adding to Skip's comments, considering the primary play in this area (i.e. the Austin Chalk), operators will try to put together a positive as inexpensively as possible as to up front dollars plus royalties given. Trying to get more term up front fits with the difficulties of this play concept - should need as much time as possible to see if this play may work out.

Ultimate Catch 22 here, i.e. mineral owners want best terms for them, but if mineral owners hold out for higher terms - the operator may just ditch the play in total.

Mineral owners get their big money once wells are drilled - leasing compensation is small compared to O&G production related revenues. And should consider this when dealing with operators in these tough play concept areas.

Interesting conundrum for sure.

I see there is a new permit for Vernon Parish #253160 dated today 12/22/21