Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dan on March 24, 2012 at 2:29am

I agree Hunter.  The gas companies, especially Chesapeake, have some pretty knowledgeable geologists working for them, and most likely have access to some better data than even ODNR.

Permalink Reply by scott jackovitch on March 24, 2012 at 2:36am

East of Cadiz !! We need to forward the new ODNR map to CHK . They obviously haven't seen it .

Permalink Reply by Steve Myers on March 24, 2012 at 2:48am

Question: Any proof of payment or just recently signed new lease? Any idea how many landowners? Just curious.

Permalink Reply by Al Cramblett on March 24, 2012 at 3:35am

I believe the new standard to be $2100 per acre at 24% gross royalty for acreage in Harrison County. Please do not ASK for further detail as it cannot be provided at this time.

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on March 24, 2012 at 4:42am

I like the idea of 24% gross in an area that is being actively developed. I know of a small-mid-sized producer who would like to to break into the Utica play in my area but doesn't have the cash to pay the huge signing bonuses for a lot of acres. He has the equipment and know-how through an interesting joint venture with a couple of partners from different facets of the O&G industry. He is willing to offer 25% gross royalties which is very, very interesting to me when others are only offering 12.5-17% in this area.

Permalink Reply by Al Cramblett on March 24, 2012 at 4:54am

Finnbear, you obviously appreciate the value of an increased royalty at the expense of the signing bonus. Folks should spend a little bit of time running a royalty calculator to determine how much increase there would be in a recurring royalty payment realized as a result of a 1% increase in royalty.

Permalink Reply by oildude on March 24, 2012 at 5:26am

Finnbear

Can you give the name of the company you are talking about. I am part of a group of neighbors that have about 1500 acres between us. All one piece of land. I would like to research this company. $2100 is WAY too low a bonus but the 25% gross makes it more interesting.

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on March 24, 2012 at 6:04am

oildude,

Where is your acreage located (what county)? I sent a friend request. 

Permalink Reply by Hunter on March 24, 2012 at 1:51pm

Al,

 

Is this due to shift in the map? What about RHino's announcement on the 1500 acres?

Permalink Reply by Al Cramblett on March 25, 2012 at 4:48am

Hunter, you have made several posts on this webpage that have helped landowners. I will answer your question to the best of my ability despite the fact that I asked folks not to ask any further questions. This is out of respect for you. The deal that I mentioned above really has nothing to do with recent events. It is all about a small group of landowners banding together, brainstorming a strategy, finding a knowledgeable individual to negotiate the lease, and inviting a new oil and gas company into the neighborhood. I understand the last lease is to be signed sometime next week, and the oil and gas company plans on drilling three wells yet this year. Everybody is happy- that includes the landowners, the oil and gas company, and the tax man.

Permalink Reply by Hunter on March 25, 2012 at 12:49pm

Thanks for the reply Al. 

Permalink Reply by Dan on March 24, 2012 at 2:01am

     SG, it does appear that they are using some new jargon (and what they consider to be better indicators) to define the boundaries.  The"1.4 Ro" maturity line you are referring to seems to indicate the transition from dry gas to any-oil-at-all formations including lean condensates (NG liquids), and the "1.1 Ro" is the transition to heavier condensates to the west.  It seems like they want us to interpret this as the wet/dry gas boundary, implied by similar color coding we have seen in the previous maps and the term "lean condensate" used in the band (See pages 22 and 36).

     It is a little confusing, because on page 30 they still show the old bands, but that map is from November 2011 and is really just trying to show acreage positions.

     So it's not 100% clear to me that they are saying that the 1.1 and 1.4 lines are to be taken as the new boundaries of the wet gas, but looking at all the maps in the report as a whole, it seems that is what they are trying to indicate.

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