It was reported that Hilcorp assigned a significant amount of leases to Shell in PA.  Many of us landowners involved in leasing with these companies always speculated that Shell and Hilcorp were "buddies."  Shell never seemed to aggressively go head to head with Hilcorp in the obvious wet gas zone.  Hilcorp should be flushed with cash again, they are lead in the midstream infrastructure this far up north in the Utica, they have many permits on the northeastern part of the wet gas zone and they move fast.  Hilcorp like Gulfport maybe the mobile company that shows all of us what really lies under the northern part of the Utica.

 

My southern Utica friends, my bet is Hilcorp production up here will show us all that the Utica will give up an equal if not more wet gas as has the Gulfport wells.  The only wild card is that Gulfport had to show their cards since the stockholders demanded it, Hilcorp is private and we can only watch them dance. 

Views: 6798

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Fang;  the answer is that there is no "line" between wet and dry. It is a gradient that changes over varying distances in various areas.  Sometimes it is pretty sharp other times it various over many miles. The Utica get wetter as you go west. Ohio is wetter than along the border and it is drier east of New Castle. At least that is the current understanding which may change as more wells are drilled.

But you knew all that before.  You just like posting garbage as a way to denigrate your competition. You also knew that other companies were offering more in Ohio so Hilcorp had to offer more if they wanted land there. Both factors came into play in determining offer rates.

Jim,

To be clear, I have no dog in this race, therefore no competition.

New Castle is a long way from the border of OH and PA. My question is do you believe that the formation becomes wetter when you cross that imaginary state line ? Of course not.

If the competitors of the company, you name, forced it to offer more in OH what stopped those competitors from offering more across the street in PA ? Why did the competition end at the state line ?

Does the state line have magical powers ?

It just appears to me that your company helped keep offers low in western Lawrence County in order to get the company you named to accept all landowners in the group. A group which included land owners in less geologically desirable areas. In other words it appears to me your company was playing both sides of the street. In the end the actions of your company worked to the detriment of the land owner.

This again makes my point against large land owner groups. They don't help the individual land owner every time. The land owners along state line road should have received $5000 an acre and 20% royalty. Those in the group closer to the dry gas area should have received less. But this wouldn't have fit the sales pitch you and others made would it Jim ?

As you see I qualify everything I say ; as it appears to me , I leave it to the reader to decide if my perception is correct.

It appears to you that way because that the way you want it to appear. When the Mt Jackson group was negotiating, Shell was the only company in the area.  They were offering $1500/acre  15% with deductions and a poor lease. And they told us that since they controlled so much of the county that no other company would locate here.  They basically said....take or leave it.

The group grew to over 30,000 acres and got attention from a few companies.  Hilcorp was the company chosen at $3000/acre, 17% gross, and a good lease.  Now tell me how each and every landowner didn't benefit by getting double the bonus, a higher royalty with no deductions and a better lease????

So did Halcon say "take it and we'll leave it?"

Jim,

That was the first deal for your company and it's only success, sort of . Individuals on their own have negotiated better deals and abetter lease with the same oil and gas company.

Look at Mercer and tell me that was a success.

The reps of your company took leases along state line road in Lawrence on the sides PA and OH. The best the could get for land owners was the standard lease being offered by the company, not a negotiated lease, and $3250/17%. While land owners on their own were able to negotiate changes to the lease and get $5000/20%. Your people were taking leases in OH for less than individual land owners could get on their own.

The problem is that in order to get the company to take all the acreage in the group your company cost averages the bonus money and royalty. So some land owners lost $1500 an acre in bonus money and 3% in royalties by being part of your group.

Someone told me that your company is also compensated by the oil and gas companies you deal with, is that true ?

Jim, please explain how an individual can know how "landowner friendly" the cx lease is when they can't compare it to another lease. You stated "They don't get to see a lease because there is no lease at that point." Yet landowners must sign the agreement locking them in with cx. That was a question I had for cx attorneys and it was never answered.

Ragnars,

Have you noticed how silent Jim and Janice have become ? Doubt you will get an answer.

People, people, hold your horses!

Fang, please.........let us give these people a chance to establish themselves in this discussion.  With due respect, I am impressed with your line of questioning.  I believe we should cut through all these issues by offering to all  the fellow landowners a fair chance for Jim and Janice to give us their resume's relative to oil and gas, real estate, real estate law, land ownership and land.

So, Jim, Janice, before we go further here, kindly give us landowners here your expertise and history here in what I mentioned above?  Again with due respect, many landowners must know that you both were professionally qualified to lead your fellow landowners in the leasing of their minerals (probaly the most significant asset of our lives), your qualifications which established you both as "experts" in this field.

 

Ron; i have told my story on this site many times. It is there for people to read.  I and Janet both post under our real names and hide nothing.  But Fang, pump-jack, and others hide behind fake names. No one knows who they are, what motivates them, who there allegiances are with, what financial interests they may have.  Why don't you question them instead of blindly cheering them on? Why don't you question who they are and why they are constantly on the attack? Why don't you call for an open and honest dialogue?

Fair enough, everyone who wants to be a part of this discussion should stand by their credentials and expertise.

However, it is your land groups that are having serious problems here in the way your group has conducted themselves according to what we all read here.

So, Jim, are you disclosing that you and Janet have no experience in real estate, oil and gas and land management?  Any formal training?  Any past employment in this field?  Not to be disrespectful, but many fellow landowners need to know this, since from the beginning you both held yourselves up to be "experts."

Jim,

At least you are predictable, each time you find yourself unable to defend your position you resort to this nonsense about people using pen names.

But if will stop your whining I will reveal my identity, I am Milton Goldfarb, founder and CEO of the law firm Dewey, Cheatum and Howe. Satisfied ?

So how does knowing my name change the fact that large land owner groups don't get the best deals for all  the land owners in the group ?

Jim,

Nice way of reversing the heat...bravo!  Did you happen to work for the Clinton administration when he was in a bit of a pickle?

RSS

Local Groups

advertisements