re: Haynesville Shale

this is accurate. The '10 year rule' is nothing but a rule that a mineral servitude prescribes after 10 years of non-use. So if they have been using it the whole time, there is no period of non-use. If the well stopped producing tommorow they would still own the mineral servitude for 10 years from today.

Down here in South Louisiana there are certain companies and families that still hold tens of thousands of acres through production because they severed the mineral servitude in one whole piece and hold it even though the land was sold off in a variety of parcels.

The one way this is not the case: if a state highway or navigable waterway cuts across. Lets say you reserved 20,000 acre servitude, 10,000 on one side of the Red River and 10,000 on the other. Since the state owns the bed of highways and rivers then this is not a contiguous 20,000 parcel, but instead two 10,000 parcels. They would need some production on each, because production on the west side would not count on the east side of the river.

Apart from this, as long as the tract is contiguous then any well anywhere on it will hold production.

Note I said state highway, because parish roads are often just rights of way or servitudes and don't change ownership of the underlying land.

hope this helps

quote:

---

was just checking this out. RICHLAND PARISH???

---

I know Clayton Williams is drilling an 18000' well in Richland Parish. Don't know if they are looking for the HS or not. It would be great if Franklin and Richland Parish has some producable HS.

Cadercole,
My property was once part of acreage that was owned by 2 families that signed a contract in 1955 and a gas well has been producing in their section (actually, it's right in their front yard) ever since then. It has been told to me that because of productivity in that section (which is on the opposite side of State Highway 171 and even 2 sections removed from mine) binds me from leasing anything. WTF??

There is a discussion concerning what happened to the neighborhood in Stonewall. The discussion is "Stuck in an Ancient Lease" on gohaynesville.com. Read Kassi's comments on what she found out yesterday while searching the records at the DeSoto Parish Courthouse.

It seems that 2 families owned almost 4,000 acres and the land was in several different sections. They signed a lease in 1955(?) with no pugh clause or language concerning units. There is one well in Sec. 28, 15n 14w that has been in production ever since. That one well is holding 4 or more sections by its production.

quote:

---

That one well is holding 4 or more sections by its production.

---

That may be legal, but it's silly.

A binding legal contract is just that. Notice that yesterday a federal court ruled that the US Government has to play by the same rules.

Government owes companies $1B USD

With no pugh clauses and no interruptions of production that would invalidate the lease it is still binding. The landowners at least sound like they actually own the minerals. Many people who own property on HBP lands have never owned the minerals.

sorry I should've read more carefully. I see the complain was the lessee company having the lease not another family having the mineral interests.

Yea, the isssue of contiguity isn't relevant to the lease. All they have to do is produce in paying quantities, which generally means it must (over a lengthy period) make enough money to pay the expenses of operation and enough of a profit that a reasonably prudent operator would keep operating the well. usually you wouldn't be successful trying to void for lack of paying quantities unless its loosing money for over a year.

You are stuck with this lease as long as its held by production, however look at the bright side, i'm sure there is at least a 1/8 royalty.

cpl, have not heard a specific rate, or if I have, I've forgotten it becuase I hear so many rates every day. All I know is that it is a good well that helped landowners to the south. Messenger will further help landowners in northern Natchitoches parish if it is a good well.

Cadercole,
I'm with the Stonewall group that was being held HBP by a 1955 lease. There are no wells in our section and there never have been. Someone has been researching how to break this lease and I found this posted today. Please explain....
"I have traced the land transactions and the mineral rights were never reserved so we have our mineral rights. The bad news is we are held in production from the 1955 lease and the RN Hall well. That means 12.5% royalties that costs can be deducted out of, no environmental and land owner protections and they can drill as close as 200 feet from our homes."