Production Numbers: Sonris Versus Royalty Statement
Apologies if I've posted this before.
So I've never fully understood how gross production numbers on Sonris correlate with what's on my Comstock royalty statement.
Some months the numbers line up pretty similar. Other months Comstock's numbers are much higher than Sonris with no real mathematical pattern, formula, etc. I can see. I'm sensing there isn't such a formula, or at least one that owners aren't supposed to understand.
Anyway, I'd appreciate any enlightenment. I'm very mathematically challenged, so it's likely I'm missing something.
Thanks!
Views: 187
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on -
Merry Christmas, Jimmy. Unless all your wells are HC (multiple unit wells) you can not search for their individual production. Units show cumulative production for all the wells producing from that unit. There is a search for those HC wells although I'd have to search to find it in the new database system. I'll alert Carrie to your request if you will post the section-township-range that you want to access the well production for.
-
Permalink Reply by Jimmy Hamiter on
-
Merry Christmas to you, Skip, and thanks for the reply. There is only one producing well currently, with 4 new ones that started drilling about a month or so ago. The one that produces currently I was going by is Dugan 32-29 HC1 (serial 251370), Sec. 5, T: 011-N, R: 14W. The sonris production I was referring to I got from accessing via the serial number, if that helps. Thanks!
-
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on
-
The reported well production for Sept. is 23918 mcf. That would correspond to your November royalty statement. That is the production for the well but you need to multiply the total mcf by the % assigned to your section/unit. Section 32 is HA RA SUZ and is assigned 51.09% of well production. Section 29 is HA RA SUV and is assigned 48.91% of well production. Do the math and see if that more closely corresponds to what you are seeing between SONRIS and your statement.
-
-
Will do and report back soon as possible. Thanks!
-
-
Did the math and it makes sense. Sonris was about $130 less than Comstock's but almost apples to apples. Thanks again for your help!
-
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on
-
You're welcome, Jimmy.
-
-
Apologies, I have one more question. In going by each of the LUW codes for Sections 29 and 32, I noticed that the first year or two of production, Sec. 32 (my section) showed higher production numbers than Sec. 29 – sometimes significantly. As production numbers have dwindled, my section consistently shows lower numbers than 29.
Just curious since my section is assigned a slightly (but technically) higher % than 29. Or does the math work differently here? Thanks!
-
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on
-
Jimmy, I know of nowhere the answer to your question exists in the public record. Only Comstock could answer that question.
-
-
Okay thanks. I'll check with them.
Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com
Top Content
Groups
-
WESTERN HAYNESVILLE
12 members
-
Sabine Parish, LA
456 members
-
SMACKOVER LITHIUM GROUP …
10 members
-
Natchitoches Parish
405 members
-
Evangeline Parish
17 members
-
Bienville Parish, LA
248 members
-
SMACKOVER LITHIUM GROUP …
8 members
-
North LA Cotton Valley C…
67 members
-
Webster Parish
301 members
-
Cass County, TX
121 members
Blog Posts
Tuscaloosa Trend Sits On Top Of Poorest Neighbourhood For Decades - Yet No Royalties Ever Paid To The Community -- Why??
In researching the decades-old Tuscaloosa Trend and the immense wealth it has generated for many, I find it deeply troubling that this resource-rich formation runs directly beneath one of the poorest communities in North Baton Rouge—near…
ContinuePosted by Char on May 29, 2025 at 14:42 — 4 Comments
Not a member? Get our email.
© 2026 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
