JUNE, 2011 LA. STATE MINERAL BOARD AUCTION RESULTS

Tract Bids for the area of the Haynesville/Bossier Play

 

1 42081 BIENVILLE, BOSSIER 17, 20, 21, 29, 8 T16N R10W 241.000 20619 CLASSIC PETROLEUM, INC. 241.000 241.000 $905,678.00 $3,758.00 $452,839.00 0.25

1 42082 BIENVILLE 33, 4, 5 T15N, T16N R10W 22.000 CLASSIC PETROLEUM, INC. 22.000 $93,676.00 $4,258.00 $48,338.00 0.25

 2 42082 BIENVILLE 33, 4, 5 T15N, T16N R10W 22.000 20620 MATADOR RESOURCES COMPANY 22.000 22.000 $216,055.40 $9,820.70 $108,027.70 0.25

 1 42083 BOSSIER 13, 14, 23, 24 T15N R11W .150 20621 CLASSIC PETROLEUM, INC. .150 .150 $233.70 $1,558.00 $116.85 0.25

 1 42084 RED RIVER 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 7, 8 T13N R09W, R10W 14.000 NO BID .000 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.0000000 0.0000000

1 42085 RED RIVER 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 29, 30 T13N R09W, R10W 14.000 NO BID .000 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.0000000 0.0000000

 1 42086 RED RIVER 19, 20, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 36 T13N R09W, R10W 11.000 NO BID .000 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.0000000 0.0000000

1 42087 RED RIVER 1, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 36, 5, 6 T12N, T13N R09W, R10W 2.000 NO BID .000 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.0000000 0.0000000

1 42088 DE SOTO, NATCHITOCHES 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 37, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 T11N R10W, R11W 108.000 SAMSON CONTOUR ENERGY E & P, LLC 5.000 $3,750.00 $750.00 $1,875.00 0.25 3 Rejected Insuff.Consideration

 42088 DE SOTO, NATCHITOCHES 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 37, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 T11N R10W, R11W 108.000 SAMSON CONTOUR ENERGY E & P, LLC 6.000 $4,500.00 $750.00 $2,250.00 0.25. 2 Rejected Insuff.Consideration

 42088 DE SOTO, NATCHITOCHES 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 37, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 T11N R10W, R11W 108.000 SAMSON CONTOUR ENERGY E & P, LLC 3.000 $2,250.00 $750.00 $1,125.00 0.25 4 Rejected Insuff.Consideration

42088 DE SOTO, NATCHITOCHES 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 37, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 T11N R10W, R11W 108.000 SAMSON CONTOUR ENERGY E & P, LLC 86.000 $64,500.00 $750.00 $32,250.00 0.25 1 Rejected Insuff.Consideration

42088 DE SOTO, NATCHITOCHES 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 37, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 T11N R10W, R11W 108.000 SAMSON CONTOUR ENERGY E & P, LLC 7.000 $5,250.00 $750.00 $2,625.00 0.25 5 Rejected Insuff.Consideration

4 - STATE AGENCY

1 42111 BIENVILLE 10 T16N R10W 1.000 20633 QEP ENERGY COMPANY 1.000 1.000 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $3,000.00 0.2500000 0.25

1 42112 BIENVILLE 34 T16N R09W 2.000 20634 QEP ENERGY COMPANY 2.000 2.000 $14,000.00 $7,000.00 $3,500.00 0.25

1 42113 BIENVILLE 5 T15N R10W .676 20635 QEP ENERGY COMPANY .676 .676 $4,732.00 $7,000.00 $2,366.00 0.25

 1 42114 DE SOTO 10, 15, 16, 17, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 T12N R13W 6.171 20636 CLASSIC PETROLEUM, INC. 6.171 6.171 $32,447.12 $5,258.00 $16,223.56 0.25

Views: 86

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Phillip Pruitt II on June 8, 2011 at 18:51

What does all of the bids for Bienville mean to landowners who are tied into leases around the tracts that received bids?

 

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 9, 2011 at 1:07
The state leases in Bienville (Lake Bistineau area in this case) mean that development is likely in those sections in the next 12 months.  State leases are for a term of one year and, if undrilled, must be renewed each year for a bonus payment of one half the original amount tendered therefore it doesn't make good business sense to obtain a lease under those conditions unless it helps complete leasehold that is on the schedule to be drilled.
Permalink Reply by The_Baron on June 9, 2011 at 3:28
looks like the landmen at Samson were smoking crack when they submitted bids
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 9, 2011 at 3:30
LOL!  I thought you would get a kick out of those bids, Baron.
Permalink Reply by The_Baron on June 9, 2011 at 8:09
I  would have liked to have been a fly on the wall in the bid review room... I have always wondered what is said when the staff reteats behind closed doors to discuss and make their recomandations.
Permalink Reply by BJ on June 9, 2011 at 7:08
Skip, Would one of the RRP renewals be S25T12R9W? Am I reading it right? The reason I'm asking is the  pad site that was started a while back is now being done away with at Union hall. We kind of heard that it was a group of people that didn't want the pad there, if so would this mean that they may still drill here? Since they have already paid for another  pad site in this section. Any info would be helpful. Thanks
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 9, 2011 at 7:48
BJ, I always assume a road right-of-way when I see a relatively small acreage, 2 acres in this instance, that lies in multiple sections.  It appears to me that the sections are 25,36 in 13N-10W; 29-32 in 13N - 9W; 5,6 in 12N-9W and 1 in 12N - 10W.  The format used can be difficult to read.  2 acres wouldn't make or break a decision to drill a HA well.
Permalink Reply by The_Baron on June 9, 2011 at 8:22

Its some bayou bottoms. There are some other leases in this area, Maybe there was a question as too whether or not these areas were included or not, or they may have decided that they weren't state water bottoms after all.

 

It was nominated by Mineral Resurces. the Operator in the section may just not have felt like bidding, or disputes that they are state waters. They may have better title, or just weren't paying attention.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 9, 2011 at 8:27
Bayou bottoms make more sense in this instance.  Thanks, Baron.
Permalink Reply by martin washington on June 9, 2011 at 7:49

Where does this leave S36T12R9W?

 

 

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 9, 2011 at 7:59
martin, by my calculation that section is not included in any of the bid tracts for this auction.  S36-9N-12W is under Haynesville Unit Order to Petrohawk.  There is no well permit for that section at this time.  However there is no production shown for the section (no existing wells of any kind) so if Petrohawk intends to drill or assign the leases covering that section they will do so before the current leases begin to expire.  The SWEPI well to the immediate south (S1-8N-12W) is a good well.
Permalink Reply by martin washington on June 12, 2011 at 9:52

Thanks Skip.

RSS

Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com

Top Content 

1 Looking Back At The Haynesville Shale - A Retrospective

Looking Back At The Haynesville Shale - A Retrospective
2 Pending Public Oil and Gas Hearings

Pending Public Oil and Gas Hearings
3 Arkansas Smackover Lithium Play

Arkansas Smackover Lithium Play
4 Comstock October Presentation

Comstock October Presentation
5 Aethon looks for Buyers of its Haynesville Assets

Aethon looks for Buyers of its Haynesville Assets
6 Notice Emails Are Back! Please review how they work.

Notice Emails Are Back! Please review how they work.
7 Arkansas O&G Commission unanimously denies royalty rate application for lithium extraction

Arkansas O&G Commission unanimously denies royalty rate application for lithium extraction

Blog Posts

The Lithium Connection to Shale Drilling

Shale drilling and lithium extraction are seemingly distinct activities, but there is a growing connection between the two as the world moves towards cleaner energy solutions. While shale drilling primarily targets…

Continue

Posted by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on November 20, 2024 at 12:40

Not a member? Get our email.

Groups



© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service