Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Snake Stewart on December 6, 2008 at 17:04

Hello G.L., (LOL)
From the view point of a novice, are you sure that you own the 80 under Toledo Bend ? If you own the minerals under the Lake, I dont see how they could change hands if they werent included in the sale. Did you sell the estate as a whole or pull out 10 acres from the estate to make the sell ? You would need to get legal advice IMO. There are several discussions on this site that deal with waterways and state or federal ownership of those waterways.I am sure someone with a much better understanding then myself will help shed some light on this subject before long tho. Have a good one.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Snake Stewart on December 7, 2008 at 15:38

Thanks Mr. Krow

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Greedy Landowner on December 8, 2008 at 1:53

Thanks a bunch

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on December 8, 2008 at 3:13

G. L.:

Just to clarify: did the owners sell of their own volition to the Sabine River Authority, or was the property expropriated as to the portion below the waterline?

If they sold voluntarily, and did not reserve minerals, they very well might have conveyed the minerals to the government entity. If the property was taken, most all of the suits that I have seen specifically excepted the minerals from the expropriation (as would be expected, since the SRA did not 'need' the minerals in order to create the lake).

Do you have a copy of the conveyance instrument?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on December 8, 2008 at 9:26

Not all of them went the expropriation/takings route, Jim.

Check the records. Some of the owners did not fight, and sold willingly, to the full pool line, without mineral reservation.

I repeat my question to G. L.: do you have a copy of the conveyance??

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on December 8, 2008 at 9:31

Dion, all the voluntary sales that I have looked at reserves minerals to the Vendor. Maybe the first ones done may have been different.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on December 8, 2008 at 9:48

Jim:

This is not worth arguing about. The terms of the conveyance will settle the issue.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on December 8, 2008 at 9:43

TD:

I wouldn't dream of disagreeing with you. That is by and large the case, at least as to those who sold of their own volition.

Those that went through the takings process had the surface conveyed to the SRA, with minerals reserved in favor of the various owners. And it may not have been advisable, but some folks did willingly sell without a mineral reservation. No suit. No taking.

I am aware of some state statutes that resolve the issue in favor of the private owner, but I do not know whether such statutory provisions were available (are were made available retroactively) at the time at the time of the creation of the SRA and subsequent transactions to create Toledo Bend.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on December 8, 2008 at 9:48

Dion, I know one thing the shalers will have a hell of a time leasing the lake. Thats when leasing will come down to slow going.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on December 8, 2008 at 10:47

TD:

One word: laterals.

Don't have to be in the lake to drill under it. And most of the mineral rights underlying the lake are being held by imprescriptible mineral servitudes.

As Ford Fairlane once said, "Money, money, money..."

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 8, 2008 at 11:30

TD. DW is correct about the laterals. In NW. LA. we see numerous laterals in the 4,000 to 4,800 foot range. But that is a length range influenced by drilling units based on sections. I have seen lateral lengths in other plays in the 5,000 to 6,000 foot range. I do not know what the practical limit may be in regard to lateral length but I am sure we have a member or members who can tell us. I can not think of a water body in NW. LA. that could not be fully developed by horizontal drilling.

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on December 8, 2008 at 12:16

Practically speaking, I wholeheartedly agree with Skip 'Norman Vincent' Peel's analysis of the limits of E&P using directional drilling and laterals.

But didn't Shell have all those commercials about the snake bit drilling? Wouldn't that be fun to try and implement in NW LA?! (' Course here it would be known as snake-oil bit drilling for gas... lol)

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page