Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on August 12, 2009 at 11:13

Leases are recorded in the parish where the minerals are located. You may view them free of charge as public records at the Clerk of Court's office in each parish. A number of Clerks of Court, including Ollie Stone in DeSoto Parish now offer remote accounts with a portion of their records available over the Internet. Charges vary by parish Clerk. Caddo charges $30/month plus copy charges. DeSoto $100/month plus copies.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by VSC DeSoto South on August 12, 2009 at 4:11

The list of the involved Townships and Ranges was clear thank you, but just to be sure, is 11N and 12W in the jettisoned group?
It looks like from the ST listed nothing in 11N has been assigned.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on August 12, 2009 at 4:24

Jettisoned? LOL! No, 11N-12W is not included. I would council that members not read too much into this or be concerned. As the time to develop a unit or area draws closer, the horse trading begins. Please keep in mind that all major shale players want to assemble development blocks. The more contiguous drilling units strung together in whatever shape, the better. Less expensive to develop and more efficient. Think of it as building the assembly line that will run for the next 25 years to produce the shale.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by buckmaster on August 12, 2009 at 5:03

Skip a friend of mine told me that he saw the 140000 acre figure on a stockholder report. I think it was probably the leases that shell and encana had and they could not figure out how to make it work so this was probably the best way to dissolve their partnership.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mattie on August 12, 2009 at 5:28

So, is the Encana/Shell partnership dissolved?? It makes no sense for SWEPI to sell this acreage to CHK unless they received a hefty bonus for the acreage and/or some decent carried WI or ORRI to recoup their acreage costs in this area. The only other thing that would make sense is if there was a swap of acreage (as Skip implied earlier in this thread) wherein Encana & Shell get a block in another area. This also seems somewhat impractical since from the latest news, this area appears to be quite promising with the Mid-Bossier development of late and recent good completions. Perhaps CHK did agree to pay a big price, but would like some insight from anyone who might have a better "inside knowledge" as to each company's rationale. With 140,000 acres within these mentioned townships, it would seem that Shell would not have a problem with "consolidation" or contiguous drilling units. That's quite a large acreage position in this area.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lee on August 12, 2009 at 13:46

The Swepi/Encana joint venture is not dissolved. Encana and Swepi did not release all of their leases in the identified townships -- just some in certain sections. They still hold a significant amount of acreage in that area and are preparing drill sites. I think Skip's explanation of assembling development blocks in particular sections -- horse trading -- is the most likely explanation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on August 12, 2009 at 5:29

buckmaster. Your friend may be correct as there are some large acreages amongst the leases listed. However there are duplications and multiple leases to different lessors that are in fact the same tracts with multiple owners. Whatever the total, it is a large leasehold position.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by VSC DeSoto South on August 12, 2009 at 6:07

Interesting that they released 10N, 12N, 13N and 14 N but not 11N. Maybe this means they own most of 11N? Guess it doesn't matter, as long as there is some progress. Interesting though that the ECA landman called a few weeks back and asked for access to the land to do a survey, then when I did not hear form them again, I called him back and he said, they decided to reroute the pipe they were considering laying, for now. SO I guess the shuffling of the cards was probably taking place then over that time and they wanted to wait until all the cards fell in place.

Who knows....I just want them to get this show on the road.
Not sure if I want ECA, RDS or CHK, but it really is not something I can control, now is it...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mattie on August 12, 2009 at 6:34

VSC,

If you can get any specifics on the proposed original pipeline route and/or the issue as to why it was rerouted, including various tracts affected, it would be appreciated.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by koda on August 12, 2009 at 10:57

I fine this enteresting in that i have 40 acres in s33 10n 11w and I just extened my lease to ECA for 3 years for $1500 / acre.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on August 12, 2009 at 11:02

koda. Please don't jump to any conclusions. So far I have not run across any leases in your section assigned to CHK. S33 - 10N - 11W is a Samson Contour Unit.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by koda on August 12, 2009 at 11:07

thanks Skip , was over there yesterday and saw that the rig for s4 9n 11w which is just below me had not moved in yet.

• ▶ Reply

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