Is the Smith - Goshen Group officially closed to the point that when/if they decide on a good lease, they will not under any circumstances accept more acreage? It seems like the oil and gas company would entertain contiguous acreage that would help their units. Also, there are a lot of people getting upset with some deals that haven't materialized as they were told. Thanks.
The obvious ones that were back in November and again in January from the the one and only....
Is the Smith - Goshen Group officially closed to the point that when/if they decide on a good lease, they will not under any circumstances accept more acreage?
Yes, the group is closed for mapping and due diligence of the properties by the S-G group committee. I would have to believe that the company who signs the group will want contiguous acres, possibly at a second signing? That has been the case for many of the other organized groups of the area.
Also, there are a lot of people getting upset with some deals that haven't materialized as they were told.
The process is moving forward daily and the landowners are fully aware of this.
This is a process which may affect landowners for a lifetime. We may not have a chance to "re-sign" in the future after we sign our formations away this time... who is to say?
Having read all the comments on GMS about "we were tricked" or "that's not fair" or "when will they drill" or "my lease doesn't say that"... now I ask myself.... "what's the rush in signing...I learn something new about this everyday?"
Yep, I want to sign just as everyone else does also... but I want to sign a lease that is "equally" beneficial to both company and landowner. Anything else is a mistake and not good thinking on our part, as in landowners. The S-G Group committee is doing its utmost to make things happen in a timely manner and I applaud them for their continued diligence and hard work!
Keep The Faith...
To be clear, I was not referring to the S-G Group with the deals not materializing.
I figured you were referring to the "other" group in Belmont, run by a landman, who has had numerous "deals" that never materialized.
Whether the group ever accepts more acreage really depends on the O&G company bidding. I suspect the unleased will come crawling out of the woodwork when S-G signs. At that time, the O&G company will have to decide whether they want more acres within the boundaries of the group acreage. If they want more, I suspect there will be a window of opportunity to be added in. If they don't, the group will remain closed.
Wouldn't it seem likely that any oil and gas company will be selective about the parcels that they sign, even for the S-G Group's members? If a 50-acre parcel is out on an island and the surrounding properties are signed with other o&g companies, it seems that the o&g lessee could deny some acreage in the group, unless the o&g company understands that it may HAVE to take unrecoverable reserves and try to swap the acreage. This leads to the obvious that the lesse must be a large company that already has a good amount of acreage in the Utica play.
With the amount of horse trading of leases that goes on between O&G companies AFTER they lease, I don't think this is a big concern. With the number of companies already leasing in Belmont, any oddball parcels that one company has will likely be adjacent to another's holdings and thus become trading fodder for building drilling units. The links below are to a couple of companies who facilitate that type of trading.
The S-G acreage is also far more compact and contiguous than ANY large land group that has signed to date in Ohio.
This is why being in a group this large is important . You will have a better chance of signing a higher amount and being signed rather than a small group or going it alone . With S-G it's all or none .
I'll bet you will be ok HB .
Has the Smith-Goshen group struck a deal with Murray yet on the coal situation?