Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on January 10, 2011 at 10:10

As i said, I would think it would still apply as long as the well is proposed under statute.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on January 9, 2011 at 11:25

Force Pooling is an indispensable regulation that allows reasonable means to develop minerals.  Some states structure it in a way far too advantageous to the industry and penal for the mineral owner.  I count AR. in that number.  The LA. Mineral Code does a much better job of recognizing the rights of mineral owners and allowing them options in the management of their mineral assets.  Forcing an unleased mineral owner to meet AFE requirements out of pocket or accept an arbitrary lease doesn't seem much short of piracy. 

 

Aubrey, my grasp of AR. mineral law is limited.  From the little I know, I agree with you and believe that reforms to the codes are in order.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arkansas Traveler on January 9, 2011 at 14:02

This one of several reasons that lease bonus in Arkansas will never approach the amounts in Louisiana along with the fact that you are not able to run title out of a courthouse in Arkansas, you have go thru an Abstract company and most of the companies in South Arkansas have been lock down by the oil companies.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on January 10, 2011 at 4:16

very true. Even with the Abstract Plants, title can be very difficult.

 

Leasing competition wil be very limited.

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on January 10, 2011 at 8:57

Tony,

 

Many of the Courthouses in AR have very poor indexes. It can be quite difficult to do title without help of the abstract plants. The main abstract plants have been bought out or closed down by some big companies with money to spend. This way they control the rocords and thus have a leg up on leasing.

 

Also, AR has perpetual minerals and there is a long history of oil and gas exploration, so you have to be sure to run full title on every tract before leaseing.

 

 

Permalink Reply by North LA on January 9, 2011 at 14:06

"If this well were to IP at 650 bopd that would be equal to an 16mmcf HA well as far as gross revenue.In the summer of 08' wasn't that about the avg IP in the HA .Wasn't the avg offer 10k bonus 25% royalty 3yr/3yr."

 

Tony,

 

Before any HA wells produced leases avg around $200/acre with a bonus of 3/16th. I know a lot of people in Red River parish and Desoto who signed for that amount. The amount picked up after the CHK announcement in March of '08 before that it was similar to what is happening now with everyone wondering what all of the land grab in previous non producing areas was all about.

FYI CHK estimated the best HA wells to be around 10mmcfd and they turned out to be 20mmcfd so I hope JW is underesetimating by a factor of 2 but then again 650bopd would be great:)  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on January 9, 2011 at 14:13

tony, re: "Force Pooling", the devils in the details.  Those on the front end of a potential Brown Dense Play are stuck without a yard stick.  And comparisons to any other plays are difficult to make.  What the Haynesville Shale had and what the Brown Dense does not have at this point is competition.  Competition drove energy companies to make lease offers of quarter royalties and escalating bonus amounts from the earliest days of the Play.  I doubt that we are the only interested parties following the Brown Dense development, if that is what it is.  Considering the value of oil and/or liquid plays currently, particularly those that require horizontal drilling and completion experience, I would expect a higher level of  activity representing interest by mid-major and major E&P companies.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by L Davis on January 10, 2011 at 4:05

Skip

The landmen working Union and Columbia Counties AR are telling the mineral owners that the brown dense is the target.  In western Union County most of the leasing is south of Hwy 82 but has gone north of 82 in places.  In the eastern end of Columbia county the leasing has not gone all the way north to 82.

Pinebelt (Union county) and Triad (Columbia County) appear to be the major players.  Rumors say that Pinebelt is buying for an unnamed major oil comapany. 

 

 

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on January 10, 2011 at 13:08

Baron, it may sound like semantics, and I frankly am by no means an expert, and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn  last night, but the question is:  Is a Substitute Unit Well the same thing as an Alternate Unit well?...........I don't profess to know the answer, but there are apparentlythose who think not.

Substitute would seem to infer. "instead of", whereas Alternate would seem to me to infer, "in addition to".

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Aubrey C. Sanders, Jr. on January 10, 2011 at 14:24

Spring Branch,

 

Your interpretation is correct, at least it is in LA.

 

 

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by obed w odom on January 8, 2011 at 21:28

Skip and Tony,

I think the proposed new unit is north of T23N R5W of Claiborne Parish rather than T23N R6W. The longitude of the proposed well is given as 92.8801298 W. The NW corner of T23N R6W is at 93.0337011 W and NE corner is at 92.9311222 W.  T23N R5W is between 92.9311222 W and 92.8275812 W.

Also, the Columbia Co./ Union Co. line is indeed north of Section 4 of T23N R6W so that part of the  proposed unit would actually be in Columbia County if it were north of T23N R6W.

 

 

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by obed w odom on January 9, 2011 at 6:29

Tony, thanks for the link. It works great!

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• …
• 25
• Next ›
• Page