Production in paying quantities, "insincere permits"
I own a small quantity of minerals in DeSoto Parish around Stanley. Purchased the property subject to an existing lease held by production many years ago, sold the land and reserved some of the minerals. Over the years, the mineral leases (1/8, of course, standard Bath form from more than 40 years ago) have been split into shallow and deep ownership, and the owners of both have changed hands several times. The shallow rights are currently operated by Amplify and held by several Hosston wells. Those wells have produced a total of 704 MCF in the past 12 months. Presumably these wells, drilled and completed in 2000, don't need much production to meet the paying quantities test, but 58 MCF per month? I know that there have been several discussions on paying quantities, but this one seems somewhat closer to meeting the test for a release.
Second issue is this: Comstock holds the deep rights. Over the past few years, they have taken out 7 six-month HA permits, all of which have expired. This month, they took out number 8. Comstock also holds the HA rights in 4 or 5 adjoining sections, with the same pattern. They have not applied for a CUL permit for any of these, although they are very active in drilling CULs a few miles west of these holdings. They hold the deep rights in the contiguous section to the north. I can't imagine that they intend to drill under any of the permits that they just obtained. So, my question to the experts here is why do they keep taking out 6 month permits when they clearly have no intent to drill a single unit well? It appears that their deep rights are the result of a farmout from BP, but i don't know any details about that, or the impact on this situation.
If I could make the case that the old lease has expired and demand a release, perhaps I could negotiate a new lease at some royalty better than the existing 1/8? There is a risk here since I am only a mineral owner, because I don't want to start the 10 year clock ticking. But it seems likely that this section will be in a unit for a HA well sooner or later. I prefer to NOT be an unleased mineral owner, but the revenue from this lease is so small that being unleased might not be so bad if an HA well is drilled.
thoughts?
Views: 947
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on -
A lot of early Haynesville Shale wells are becoming candidates for the production in paying quantities test. A lot of older, vertical wells would not pass the test but mineral owners rarely demand that a lease be terminated. I've seen a lot of expired permits over the last year also. Some wells or well groups had been permitted by an operating company that divested their interest before they drilled the wells and some newer operators permitted alternate unit wells and then allowed those permits to expire in favor of HC wells (Horizontal Cross). Comstock in particular has a problem with a lot of units that are in danger of losing the development rights. This is best illustrated by this very recent group of well permits, all unit wells permitted on the same date. A pretty rare occurrence but I wouldn't call them insincere. In fact I think they are urgent permits hoping to get a rig soon or face the prospect that they will receive a demand for a release of lease.
HA RA SUT;QUINN PINE TMB 25 HZ
001
13-OCT-17
025-12N-15W
HA RA SUZ;HODGES LND TBR 32 HZ
001
13-OCT-17
032-12N-14W
HA RA SUAA;W R BILLINGSLEY 2HZ
001
13-OCT-17
002-11N-14W
HA RA SUU;PROVOST ETAL 30 HZ
001
13-OCT-17
030-12N-14W
HA RA SULL;E C MCCOY 34 HZ
001
13-OCT-17
034-12N-15W
HA RA SUNN;WILLIAM J TODD 2 HZ
001
13-OCT-17
002-11N-15W
HA RA SUOO;MCM HOLLOWAY 1 HZ
001
13-OCT-17
001-11N-15W
HA RA SUMM;MILTON HARRIS 35 HZ
001
13-OCT-17
035-12N-15W
-
Permalink Reply by Steve P on
-
my minerals are in that group. I still can't understand why the would obtain a permit every six months at least on 6 of those 8 sections, all on the same day, and after they expire, go take out 6 new ones, and do that twice a year for 4 years. Comstock has been drilling steadily a few miles to the west in the Logansport field, and has recently shifted to getting new units for Cross Unit Laterals. That makes sense. I just can't fathom why they have been repeatedly taking out permits year after year in 6 of the units you list above. and all of these are for simple one-section units. That's why i suggest that they actually have no intention of drilling in any of the six.
I could put them and Amplify on notice and ask for a release, but my acreage is so small, I doubt they would care.
-
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on
-
Steve, if you need some help, let me know.
-
Permalink Reply by Steve P on
-
thanks. got a full work load over the next week (I'm partially retired, so how does that happen?). I'll likely start with getting a DeSoto tax assessors plat for the section, maybe even the surrounding sections, and see if I recognize any names (from 30 years ago). In that area, the landowner generally owns the minerals.
-
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on
-
You might even get lucky and the unit survey is in the database. A unit survey will list all the ownership interests, their acreage and percent ownership in the unit.
Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com
Top Content
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…
ContinuePosted by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on November 20, 2024 at 12:40
Not a member? Get our email.
Groups
-
San Augustine, TX
386 members
-
Miller County, Arkansas
27 members
-
Sabine Parish, LA
455 members
-
South Caddo Parish Group
440 members
-
Natchitoches Parish
400 members
-
Bienville Parish, LA
244 members
-
Fayetteville Shale
149 members
-
North Caddo Parish
358 members
-
Central Texas Gas
63 members
-
Cass County, TX
119 members
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
