Buzz, this is really interesting! Thanks for keeping our issue in mind. K
Kerry - making sure you realize, in this case, the successor-in-interest to Petrohawk was BHP; the successor-in-interest to BHP is Silverback.
Iâm sorry, I canât answer your question on the leases. Later - Buzz
Important news for those of us with leases held by Clayton Williams or who may be negotiating with them.
Ann, you might try a free trial of Rigdata. They have two options âpermits and playersâ rig locations. The trial is for thirty days. If there is new drilling activity on the lease it will be listed in the data. Oilfield Services Solutions | Enverus
Kerry, If one lessor is signed with Silverback, and an adjacent Lessor enters into a production sharing agreement, I donât see why they could not include language giving them the right to drill across lease lines. Also, on the older pipeline questions, eminent domain rights are used to leverage down prices, but I think there is a real question whether these pipelines going into Mexico qualify.
Any leasing activity in Block 4, west of Pecos?
Check out the new GLO lease form as of May 2015. It contains a lot of great provisions, especially new royalty clause which is very detailed.
Hereâs the link to the new GLO Lease form: http://www.glo.texas.gov/energy-business/oil-gas/mineral-leasing/leasing/forms/Form_Relinquishment_Act_Lease.doc
Just curious if things have totally stopped or if thereâs any continued interest. My parcel is:
AB 3460 BLK 58 SEC 19 PSLSW/4
Hope everybody is doing okay!
TennisDaze, sounds interesting. Where does one find the form on the GLO site? Iâve tried with no success.
Hereâs the new GLO Lease Form: Form_Relinquishment_Act_Lease.docx This link is not operable.
Hi Eric C. Camp-
Iâm not sure how to use the GLO site.
I do not know all of the circumstances. It seems that you and the landman had a verbal agreement about the extension. It is always advisable to request the landman provide written confirmation, whether by email or by letter, regarding the terms of any agreement - bonus, primary term, royalty rate and special conditions. If there is an intention to either add or alter the provisions of the lease form or to use your own form, then that should be noted. Mineral owner then has proof of the terms of the agreement, as well as the opportunity to note any disagreement. It is very easy for both parties to have different interpretations of a telephone discussion. Many landmen are good salesmen and really believe that a short conversation has bound the mineral owner to a lease agreement. They are anxious to get the job done. Or they have talked to several minerals in the same day and get the conversations mixed up. Good luck in getting new and better lease terms.
Elizabeth â youâre right, Noble Energy now owns Rosetta BUT Rosetta continues as an operating unit of Noble. Later - Buzz
My lease with Comstock expires in less than 2 months. Our minerals are located in W/2 of Section 23, Block C-7, PSL Survey, A-5072, Reeves County, Texas. More than a month ago, a guy from Rosetta (I assume, Noble now) called. We agreed to an extension for 3 years. He waited all this time, and sent the lease with a LOWER BONUS than I agreed to. After a couple of years of dealing with BOTTOM-FEEDER TYPES of Land Men, I am just wondering what drilling updates there are in that area. I will no longer deal with this individual, based on his attempted BAIT AND SWITCH offer. This is NOT my first rodeo with these guys. I would just like to hear what expectations are in that area. I have been told drilling is imminent. Thanks, everybody.
Thanks, TennisDaze. I am not ANTI-Landmen, as we have several in our own family. Sorry if that sounded like my perspective. Possibly, the downturn in the industry, or some other factor is at play, presently. However, in all our years of dealing with Leases, in Oklahoma AND Texas, it seems that I have had more than my share of negative dealings recently. My question deals with ACTIVITY in our area. I was informed that the area where we own minerals is quite promising. Hopefully, that is true. The landman in question had actually agreed to our Bonus Terms. Then, he called a week later and attempted to lower the term to 2 years, not 3, promising it would be a better deal if we did the math per month. Again, his goal was obvious. But we insisted on our previous agreement. He said that would be fine. But, of course, that changed. Thanks.
This is an update of my earlier inquiry about what would be a reasonable rate for a pipeline going across Section 37, of Block 56 PSL. Comanche Trail Pipeline, LLC (CTP) is constructing a 195 mile long pipeline going from the Waha Hub near Ft. Stockton in Pecos County to San Elizario near El Paso, Texas where it crosses over to Mexico.
See: http://www.comanchetrailpipelinefacts.com
The pipeline is 42 inch diameter and is to be buried 48 inches deep in a 50 ft. wide permanent easement. The new CTP will be laid just south and parallel to the existing El Paso Natural Gas pipeline. I have an offer from CTP for approximately $90 (fractionally lower) per rod. There are obviously hundreds of landowners with easement agreements pending in order to start construction of the pipeline. What are the terms other land owners are signing for?
In response from my earlier post on the Reeves County Forum, I got the following recommendation:
- Do not agree to a permanent easement. It should revert to the property of the land grantor upon abandonment.
I stated a suitable abandonment clause had to be included in the Permanent Easement Agreement and they agreed.
- Limit agreement to a single pipeline with additional payment due for any second pipeline in the easement.
I stated that the agreement had to be limited to a single pipeline with payment due for any additional pipelines be included in the agreement. They agreed.
-
I was told and I verified that the University of Texas, Lands System, Rate & Damage Schedule charges $90 per rod for pipelines over 24 inches for 10 years. Additional compensation due every 10 years at $65 per rod. Also charges for replacement.
-
I was advised to ask for multiple of $90 for a one-time payment for a permanent easement - (3 X 90 = $270)
Both #3 and #4 above are vastly better than the present offer with additional payments every 10 years or a larger upfront payment (multiple of $90) for a permanent easement. What realistically can I negotiate for a relatively short distance (89 rods), considering the 195 mile length of the pipeline. Can I get the University of Texas rate or the multiple rod rate? I have a meeting with the landman handling the Permanent Easement Agreement on Monday, October 26, so I would like to be sure I have all my âducks in a rowâ and know what my realistic negotiating options are. If some form of the #3 University of Texas schedule is negotiated, will it be a Permanent Easement Agreement (as now specified) or will it just be an Easement Agreement?
Eric, many thanks for the form link. I think I tried everything but the business link!
Want to find specifics on the route for the pipeline.
Donny - That would be great. I will send you a friend request and my email address.
I was searching on the internet and found a link to a pdf file with four images showing the route of the Comanche Trail Pipeline. For those interested in the exact route the link is:
http://www.comanchetrailpipelinefacts.com/assets/etc_comanchetrail_county_ams_20150714-r1.pdf
It comes up with a map of the entire route but if you click the page down arrow (or roll the wheel on the mouse) it will cycle three aerial images with the sections the pipeline is traversing â El Paso and Hudspeth County, Culberson County and Reeves County. It works best if you save the pdf file with the four images on your computer and use Adobe Acrobat to open it. Then you can change the size and zoom in more readily.