Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on November 1, 2012 at 6:17

http://sm-energy.com/

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JMan on November 1, 2012 at 6:17

SM Energy.  They used to be called St. Mary.  As Skip said, they are leasing more in Bossier but do have some in Webster.  It appears they are looking at the Pettit A formation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Aubrey C. Sanders, Jr. on November 1, 2012 at 6:41

Catfish, I am reasonably certain you are right about the liquids part. Good luck to all the landowners. Looks like good lease terms, but the devil may be in the details! Based upon my info looks like area in play includes nearly everything from Dixie Inn north to North Shongaloo Red Rock Field.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Catfish on November 1, 2012 at 7:13

I stiil havve not found out anything else myself. Sure hope they have some succes producing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carol Peevy on January 31, 2013 at 10:06

I OWN LAND ON DORCHEAT RD., MINDEN....WE HAD AN INDEPENDENT LAND MAN APPROACH US WITH A LEASE LAST WEEK.....SAID THE LEASE WAS FOR TEXAS OIL..HAS ANYONE ELSE IN THIS AREA BEEN APPROACHED?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on January 31, 2013 at 15:16

The State of Louisiana has no O&G operator listed as Texas Oil.  There is a Texas Oil & Gas Corp. which has no producing wells and no well permit since July 1981.  They are registered with the Secretary of State.  The full name of the land company offering the lease would be good to know.  Also the name of the operator on whose behalf they are leasing, if they will tell you.  Once you know the  company name that appears on the lease you can go down to the courthouse and get the staff to help you look up any leases they have filed in the public record. Ask questions, get as much information as possible and don't get in any rush to sign a lease.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Glenn Kadison on February 19, 2013 at 11:13

Whiting pre approached me with a phone call today. I have 282 acres, with some in four different sections. I am on the Lewisville Rd. from the big Kinder-Morgan east-west easement up to Leton, on both sides of 159. Approached in the past by NG ventures, no one wanted to lease all of my acreage, only the southern 80 acres. This guy said they desired the entire tract and told me it was a wet venture. He told me it was directional and he just got the go ahead for my tract as I was just north of the fault line. Seemed eager to work with me and I am curious to find out the details and will be seeing a legal type and my forester when I get the final proposal.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 19, 2013 at 12:10

Thanks, Glenn.  The landman probably meant that he was just assigned your acreage.  There has been leasing to your north and south for some months. In other words you are in the middle of leasing as opposed to being on the edge. Hopefully Whiting will apply for some units and permit some wells in the near future.  I hope you will share their lease offer.  We're not getting much information posted about Whiting's activity.  It would be good to identify the land companies that are leasing on their behalf.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Glenn Kadison on February 19, 2013 at 13:09

Skip, he started out with 400 and acre, three to four years, split lease percentage with target area and low ball start out percentage at the targeted area CV/Graysand. Think he said about 17000 ft.  He was from Whiting. I will share when I know. This guy knew a family friend and I called to verify. Seems he actually meant what he said, I am north of the fault. There will be some talk but I will share the final.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 19, 2013 at 13:30

Glenn,  IMO bonus is the least important of lease terms and $400 is actually pretty good for a first offer.  The thing that concerns me is the split royalty.  Did the landman say where the royalty was split?  Both the CV and the Gray Sand are reasonable target horizons but they are separated by a lot of other rock.  The Gray Sand is part of the Smackover Group.  17,000' would make sense as a Measured Depth (MD) for a horizontal well but not for a True Vertical Depth (TVD).  17,000' would be far too deep to expect any liquids.  And far deeper than the CV or the Gray Sand.  In your area the CV/LCV is around 8400 to 9400'.  The Gray Sand would be something like 11,900 to 12,400'.  For liquids the CV would be the much better target.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Glenn Kadison on February 19, 2013 at 13:43

It was all sketchy, just over the phone and no sit down. He told me it was deep. When I asked how deep he said 17000. He said it was directional and from the SE. When I know more will let you know. Started out 20%, period. Then higher for above the target, sounded like would not budge in target area. I have been approached before, never for wet. There always seemed to be resistance about leasing the whole tract. Yes, I know the percentage is important and in my case surface considerations. The striking thing was the whole tract being of interest.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 19, 2013 at 13:58

Glenn, small independent energy companies have been drilling on small tracts for decades.  Shallow formations may have spacing that allows a well to be drilled on 10 to 40 acres.  Deeper formations tend to be productive mainly for gas and gas can migrate over larger distances so spacing may be 80 per well and units up to 640 acres.  Times have changed and companies such as Whiting will want to lease large contiguous lease blocks.  In other words it's now the norm so don't place too much significance on the fact that the landman wishes to lease it all.  He's not doing you a favor.  And don't pay any attention to the fault talk either.  There are ways to drill and avoid the fault.  I think offers will get better if you are willing to be patient.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page