sb 259 and revealing prospectivity

Happen to have a good contact inbvolved.  259 will be repealed 97% odds.  All legisl;ators but one have admitted error and EQT PR has been harmed.  Terrible way to go about it, even if the industry wanted it.

Also it is NOT "forced Pooling" in the common sense.

 

We need forced intregation, of 80% is already included and non-surface. IT is the ONLy way to get back competition for expirng leases and teh few remaining unleased.  Bid in SE Bradford is 0 B and 15% R.

N tier is not being renewed.  With a 4-6& NG price horizon, C  grade is out, B- is circumspect.

You need 4 min, maybe 5 mmcf IPs. Too much competition in other new plays.

Talisman positon will not all be developable, Cabot Range and Anadarko look  very good.

 

Chesapeake is shedding non-prospective acreage by the droves.

Core of core, Auburn thru SE Brad N Sullivan and into center N Lycomning are Excellent.

Is what I pisk up fron serious sources. 

Views: 827

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by scott brion on August 20, 2013 at 1:12am

Melissa - Can you elaborate on your comment regarding lease bid in SE bradford?  Do you have any info about twp, acreage and bidder?

Permalink Reply by melissa humphrey on August 20, 2013 at 2:42am

know of 3 acres Terry Twp, 0 bonus and 15%. hearing of others in SE Bradford similar. Chesapeake

Clami is that is the area bid, am sure if you parcel lies under a planned bore you can get more.

Or bigger acres in theory. Thye think we have no choice.

3mo back did hear of Chief leasing 50+ in Wilmot for 1000 and 18%.

Permalink Reply by melissa humphrey on August 22, 2013 at 9:12am

Scott.. Important I know Chesapeake is giving 2k and 18% to leases where the owners are not found. A bank takes them over until the owners surface. That is a good sign.

 

I don't mena to be depressing with teh 0 and 15%, though that is common.

I have a pretty good handle on things in Bradford, if you can share your township I coukld add some extra insight. SE Twps are the most desired.

Permalink Reply by melissa humphrey on August 22, 2013 at 4:39pm

To clarify, the portion of SB 259 section 2.1 pertaining to the ability of a landowner to negotiate allowing pooling is what is in contention. Current shallow producing leases without pooling clauses cannot be included in unitized pool development, unless the lessor aggress to the change. Most will change but for compensation and a higher royalty.

 

Opinions vary but this add on legislation is seen as aggresses, totally gas company favored. Plus if you read it closely lessees could vary the proportion of a unit assigned to  various parcels.

Our source, no guarantee, says, it will be struck out soon after the legislative session resumes post labor day. Here is hoping.  

Permalink Reply by melissa humphrey on August 22, 2013 at 4:48pm

Lets review:

Does NY have any significant areas that will be pursued for Marcellus?

Does NE PA have Utica potential?

Is pressure the most important variable in prospectively? Does production lessen in eastern Bradford going north? Is there any new drilling near the PA NY border? Why not.

Is there interest in drilling the most NW part of Susquehanna County?

Is only a  small portion of Wyoming County prospective?

Is McClendon a good manager of exploration capital, how about the CEOs of Range, Cabot, Southwestern?

Does Clearfield and west have production potential? Why has drilling dried up in N Centre County?

Will Sullivan County NY ever see a lease bid?

What % of Chesapeake’s Marcellus acreage is prospective for gas?

Why is far, far NE Susquehanna dry?

Objective in life, create falsehoods to assuage unhappiness or try an get a handle on the truth and make better decisions.

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service