Hello, everyone. First time poster, glad to be here as owner of acreage, in Culberson County. First thing is first. I am a hotshot driver and have been out several times to the location above mentioned. There is a hot bed of activity in the whole area. I went to the appraisal district office in Van Horn and was told Chevron was moving west to this location. I need help finding a landman with experience in that area, believe it or not not all landman are ready or willing. If anyone could please provide me with a phone # to a fair and experienced landman, it would be greatly appreciated. Can anyone give an idea of what the going rate is for a landman. I will upload pictures of the area as soon as, I’m able to return to the area. Thank you!
JdWestTX,
Finally! Someone with some “ground truth” that I’ve been trying to get for a couple of months now.
We knew something was happening in our section, due to the ever-increasing offers for our minerals (we’re nearing $25,000 NMA now), but no one on the forum could/would provide information about what was going on, or the topic was shut down by moderators (prematurely, IMHO) within just a few days.
We own minerals and acreage in Block 59, Sections 40 and 46. In fact, the Street Sense 40 1H well is physically located on our property. The GIS maps show activity in all sections around our section, but nothing more than the line going to our well on our section. I’ve always thought the land was prime for development, which our landman agreed with.
Yes, we did hire a landman, to ensure that we were aware of what we actually owned, as he went back to sovereignty. We were very pleased with his communication skills (as we lived in Maryland at the time), as well as his expertise, timeliness and price for his services.
I highly recommend Charles Emery Tooke III as a certified landman. Charles was very patient and understanding with us new mineral owners, and if we had not engaged Charles, we would probably have been out-maneuvered of our minerals long before now. As it is, we know exactly what we own and are consistently getting offers of over $600,000 for our NMA.
Had it not been for the work that Charles did for us, I would not have known exactly what I owned and just how valuable it is.
Thank you for the contact info, I will keep you informed via pictures and what other info I run into on location.
Screenshot_20190315-224657_RigData|243x500
I got this image from Rig Data ,a program I use to locate the wells when I am going out there. This well I am sending you us very close to block 59, and it’s a relatively new well.I hope you can open it.
I have 50% minerals ownership of 21.5 surface I own in Section 46, Blk 59, T-1, T&P. Is it T-1 you are located at and referring too? I was not able to open the attachment, but If so am I understanding properly that a new well is going into production here. Do you have any specifics, well name etc. The present well I am getting returns from is Stone Street 46, Unit 3H Well. The royalties have greatly decreased, but the offers to purchase the minerals are now just over $30,000.00/nma. Any further info anyone can provide about this area is greatly appreciated.
Hi folks, I owned 21.5 net mineral acres out of 43 surface acres also in Culberson County Block 59 Section 40. Like Eugene_C_Flaute_Jr said the royalty checks I received now are greatly decreased but I know couple years ago there were planning to drilled more wells on the same blocks. I wander if the wells are completely drilled and if so, are there any productions going on?
Lou
Good Morning Lou…before we can help you we need to know which Block 59 your minerals are in. There are 3 Block 59 with Section 40. Block 59 T 7S, 59 T1 and 59 T2.
Clint Liles
Hi Clint_Liles Here is the address: NW, 1/4, NE, 1/4 Section 40, Certificate 3550, Block 59 Township 1 T & P Ry Co Survey 40+/-
Responding to a link that Clint Liles posted 4 days ago, providing a link to submitted and approved permits from Cimarex from January 01, 2019 through May 05, 2019/3 pages/the last 7 submitted permits on pages 2 & 3 are for wells to be drilled in Section 44 next door to Section 40.
Reading through some of the Cimarex applications, the RR Commission had included the following caveat on several of the applications. Perhaps someone with a legal background could interpret exactly what this means for us non-lawyers? On the surface, it sounds like a brewing fight to get royalties due for the folks who own leases on the properties:
“Commission Staff expresses no opinion as to whether a 100% ownership interest in each of the leases alone or in combination with a “production sharing agreement” confers the right to drill across lease/unit lines or whether a pooling agreement is also required. However, until that issue is directly addressed and ruled upon by a Texas court of competent jurisdiction it appears that a 100% interest in each of the leases and a production sharing agreement constitute a sufficient colorable claim to the right to drill a horizontal well as proposed to authorize the removal of the regulatory bar and the issuance of a drilling permit by the Commission, assuming the proposed well is in compliance with all other relevant Commission requirements. Issuance of the permit is not an endorsement or approval of the applicant’s stated method of allocating production proceeds among component leases or units. All production must be reported to the Commission as production from the lease or pooled unit on which the wellhead is located and reported production volume must be determined by actual measurement of hydrocarbon volumes prior to leaving that tract and may not be based on allocation or estimation. Payment of royalties is a contractual matter between the lessor and lessee. Interpreting the leases and determining whether the proposed proceeds allocation comports with the relevant leases is not a matter within Commission jurisdiction but a matter for the parties to the lease and, if necessary, a Texas court of competent jurisdiction. The foregoing statements are not, and should not be construed as, a final opinion or decision of the Railroad Commission.”
Thanks,
Traveler
This is the standard disclaimer RRC has been putting on allocation well permits, because of the uncertainty whether they are legal under most leases.
I tried to sign up a couple times the site would not let me
RRC site only requires log-in or sign-in for operators or others uploading data. Go to Data - Online Queries and you can find all kinds of well and production information and also search by the GIS map viewer.
In addition, some of the lands out in Culberson are relinquishment act lands. This means that the state owns the minerals and the land owner represents the state. Texas has formed a couple large drilling and development areas that are included in the state tracts. This keeps the lease in effect as long as the Operator continues to follow the guidelines set out on the formation of the DND.
That sounds like partially what they are trying to get at.