Thanks, Buzz. My guess is that it will take quite a while before we see any real activity deeper into Culberson. The fear has always been that it is too gassy, but I wonder if that is still the thought with all the new info re. The Wolfcamp.
We have two tracts about 25 miles or so, south west of Orla and no contact as of yet.
Can anyone tell me what part of the county section 4 block 58 T&PR or of any activity close to there. Any information would be apreciated
I thought some of you might be interested: On our way back to Texas from Ruidoso, We stopped by our land to check things outâBLK 58 sec 20. Itâs leased by Petrohawk. Coming from Orla our land is 10 miles down on the right. About 9 miles down on the left a rig just went upâsmall oil company. We did see lots of oil industry traffic. Looks like BHP started a road on our land and then stopped when they decided they had enough info from another companyâso no need to drill developmental vertical. They said they plan on a lateral, but donât have a date or a permit yet. I guess they wonât do much until they divest. Iâm hoping things pick up aggressively with BHP/ Petrohawk after the sale/auction. Thoughts?
Yes Ralph, I spoke with the broker. he said the are selling acreage 15 miles south of Orla. Not selling anything north of that point. you can also read their Presentations on their website at BHP.com. There is a map of their focus area which they are keeping and a map of what they are divesting of. I cant remember which presentation, but i think it was the one previous to Dec. 6th.
Hello, I have been hearing about a lot of activity in Culberson county BLK 59, Has anyone received a recent âSurface lease agreementâ I am interested in finding out if these are standard contracts or negotiable.
Tom
Received a check for surface damages on section 4 block 58 T&PR twp1 patent 361 for surface damages. Two wells have a division order for the wheaterby 401H but unable to find production reports. For it or the 402H wich we have not received division order. I must not have the right information for the RRC site. Any information on these wells would be helpfull thank you
South West Sunsites Unit 21, Section 21, Block 82. SW sunsites Unit 231, Section 1, Block 81.
I own properties in both Sections, can anyone tell me of property values, or surface leases? I live in England, so any help appreciated, thanks.
We have inherited the royalty interest of 1.5 % to the mineral rights to section 4, block 58, township 2, 653 acres more or less, T & P Railroad survey. We have been offered $1000/net royalty acre/10 net royalty acres. We are trying to educate ourselves whether this is a fair offer or could we be missing out on an opportunity to see more potential. All in input is welcome and appreciated.
Eileen,
I think this approved permit is the 1 that Marcus T was referring to. It is to be drilled next door to the S/W of your A-20/Block 58/Section 4/T2: âTexas Two Stepâ
http://webapps2.rrc.state.tx.us/EWA/drillingPermitDetailAction.do?mâŚ
Clint Liles
Eileen - I donât see anything except a drilling permit for that well at the moment. The well has not been completed yet or even spud yet if my subscription service is accurate. That offer you mentioned last month was way too low, by the way.
How does one find someone who would pay a fair price per acre for leasing mineral rights in Culberson?
Title company or attorney in van horn that can do a title search to see if I have my mineral rights. thanks
Eileen,
I just now saw your asking for help with your minerals. Sorry I didnât see your post earlier. I will have to agree with Marcus T on the lowball offer that you received. Thatâs way out of the ballpark. I would say possibly $3000 per acre would be a fair price.
Am posting a GIS Map of Culberson County Section 4/Block 58/T2 with the oil wells and pipelines removed:
The next GIS Map will show the same area with oil wells and pipelines in place:
Clint Liles
If anyone has leased land in Culberson recently, please offer some insights here.
Stephen- I see leasing activity spreading south along the Reeves line and into the county a little further. Prices continue to go up. I think it will continue to spread from the established areas in northern Culberson and NW Reeves, but I doubt you are going to see many âleapfrogâ type tests into uncharted territory. A few of those were drilled in 2010-2012 and the results were spotty to poor. Also, because there are bigger blocks available in Culberson, as a general rule, there are longer and longer laterals being drilled. I think 2 section long laterals are going to become very common. In short, Culberson has been on an strong upward trajectory in the less developed areas.
A geologist appraisal report says the the El Paso Natural Gas No. 1 Montgomery, drilled in Section 17, Block 100 encountered the Bone Springs at 1510â, the Woodford at 4685â, Silurian System at 4770â, Montoya at 5820â, Simpson at 6190â and Ellenberger at 6480â. It was just drilled to Ellenberger, and says got no hydrocarbons, however, and Uncle who is in the oil business said they got no oil, but did hit gas, but not worthwhile in 1950âs as no pipelines. Anyway, my question is: Does the Bone Springs have a width from 1510â Top to 4685â Woodford top which is 3175â thick? It is on the East side of the Delaware Mountain range. I realize that most laterals are desired to be up to two miles, however, it would appear to be more cost efficient, to do laterals in surrounding the bore, and do so at multiple elevations, if a thick pay zone? Anyone done that? Thanks, as we are curious why it has not been leased?
Mike
Michael,
Bone Spring to Woodford includes the three Bone Spring members, the entire Wolfcamp section and the entire Pennsylvanian section (Canyon, Strawn, Morrow, Atoka, Cisco).
Nothing much potential wise below the Ellenburger so this well was drilled deep enough to tap all legitimate targets as perceived today.
Your term âwidthâ is really thickness of the section.
It is not possible with todayâs technology to drill multiple laterals in the same wellbore and frac each of them separately. Only way to have multiple laterals is in naturally fractured formations where no stimulation is needed (e.g. the Austin Chalk of South Texas). This type of system is not common in the Permian Basin for the most part.
Reason for not being leased? Not all formations and areas are productive. Unless there is very good evidence from old wells to support new drilling for unconventional targets, it is tough to support leasing and spending $6-$10 MM to drill a well.
Plus shallow depths of the formations in the well you mentioned may mean that this area is not a thermally mature as one would like to see.
If this is a gas only play, lack of pipeline and low gas prices are negative factors driving industry away from the area.