landowner

Exxon Taking Over The Shale

Is this just the beginning?

 

They have taken a bunch of assignments in Shelby, San Augustine, and Sabine County from Paloma, and Encana.  See attachments.

 

Cash is king I guess!

Views: 203

Attachments:

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on January 31, 2011 at 5:29
Exxon Mobil signaled their intentions with the acquisition of XTO and although XTO continues to exist as an operating entity under the Exxon corporate banner, the parent company has been forming Haynesville Units in LA. under their own name.  IMO, the longer the depressed price environment continues the more majors will find shale gas reserves to their liking.  It will be interesting to see if the acquisition costs are publicized in a future report. The business time horizon for majors is very different from the independents.

landownerPermalink Reply by JHH on January 31, 2011 at 5:46
Do you have any information for Panola and Harrison Counties?

landownerPermalink Reply by ALongview on January 31, 2011 at 5:53
Nothing of significance in Panola.  I don't know about Harrison.

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on January 31, 2011 at 5:57
Alongview, at some point you might consider allowing the discussion to take a turn to the question of the pros and cons of majors controlling a majority of domestic shale gas reserves.

landownerPermalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on January 31, 2011 at 6:14
Encana has pretty deep pockets, but Exxon has the deepest pockets.  Looks like Poloma just kept an ORRI, but Encana apparently retained a 75% interest in the leases and assigned a 25% intertest to Exxon.  Remains to be seen what the terms were and looks to me that Encana just brought in a deep pockets partner to help pay for a portion of its Shelby Trough interests.  Probably a good deal for both parties.

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Robert on January 31, 2011 at 7:30
Shell looking at Petrohawks assets on the HVS as well.
Permalink Reply by RBH on February 1, 2011 at 14:38
all of Petrohawk's E Tx/La. assets?
StevewPermalink Reply by Stevew on January 31, 2011 at 9:25

I'm with Skip, I'd also like to hear a discussion on pros and cons of majors taking over the shale.

 

          PLUS to MAJORS IN SHALE

+  money to develop leases

+  money to lobby and do PR

+ possibly better protections for water

 

          MINUS TO MAJORS IN SHALE

-  it really is "Big Oil" and do we really trust them?

-  Personally, I'd rather see smaller guys in the Shale - but is it the best way?

 

Any other ideas?  Might not be a dam thing we can do about it, EXCEPT it is good to know that the Big Boys think our Haynesville is worth investing in.

 

 


landownerPermalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on January 31, 2011 at 9:37
Logger, I've seen no indication on this web site that there is a lot of trust in the "little oil" companies either.  Take a poll to see whether  Exxon or Chesapeake has the most trust among Shalers.  I think I know what the answer would be.

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on January 31, 2011 at 9:39
I'm still waiting for permission from Alongview to turn his discussion into the pro and con debate.  Don't wish to highjack his thread.

landownerPermalink Reply by ALongview on January 31, 2011 at 10:04
Go for it.
Permalink Reply by jffree1 on January 31, 2011 at 9:38
I wouldn't mind that discussion but, in light of the recent CHK announcement re: sale to CNOOC, I have to ask: Would you rather it be XOM or the Chinese?

RSS

© 2026   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service