Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by psychosid on February 21, 2012 at 5:26pm

The obvious ones that were back in November and again in January from the the one and only....

Permalink Reply by Dan Warfield on February 21, 2012 at 6:08pm

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.

 

 

Permalink Reply by Dan Warfield on February 21, 2012 at 6:33pm

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...

Permalink Reply by psychosid on February 22, 2012 at 2:33am

To be clear, I was not referring to the S-G Group with the deals not materializing. 

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on February 22, 2012 at 3:47am

I figured you were referring to the "other" group in Belmont, run by a landman, who has had numerous "deals" that never materialized.

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on February 21, 2012 at 7:15pm

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.

Permalink Reply by psychosid on February 22, 2012 at 2:38am

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.

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on February 22, 2012 at 3:38am

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.

http://www.plsx.com/

http://www.energynet.com/

The S-G acreage is also far more compact and contiguous than ANY large land group that has signed to date in Ohio.

Permalink Reply by time will tell on February 22, 2012 at 3:57am

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 .

Permalink Reply by HB on February 22, 2012 at 4:37am

I asked just such a question of Larry Cain at one of the S-G meetings a few months ago: I have contiguous acreage in Belmont that runs over into Harrison county; can it be included in the S-G parcel list? His response: No, but at time of signing, ask the O&G Co. if they want it - they likely will take it.

So that's what I'm going to do; hope it works out.

Permalink Reply by time will tell on February 22, 2012 at 4:46am

I'll bet you will be ok HB .

Permalink Reply by BMR on February 23, 2012 at 7:34am

Has the Smith-Goshen group struck a deal with Murray yet on the coal situation?

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