I have a really basic question. Back when there was a scarcity of oil and the requirement to add 10% ethanol was added to our gasoline even though it is known that it is not good for automobile engines and even voids the warranty in small four-cycle engines. Now that there is a glut of oil why isn’t the oil industry and minerals owners campaigning to eliminate the requirement to add 10% ethanol to gasoline. Wouldn’t that stimulate the demand for more gasoline?
Why hasn’t the oil industry and mineral owners lobbied to get the requirement either dropped or at least let the market place determine if they want to purchase ethanol blended gas or straight gas to run in their engines. I for one would be willing to pay more for straight gas, but I wager the cost increase would be negligible or non-existent considering everything involved in producing the ethanol and blending it, and the fact that you get more miles to the gallon from straight gas than the ethanol blended gas.
Now I know that the average person likes the cheap gas but going back to straight gasoline probably would be just as cheap as the ethanol blended gas, possibly even cheaper. It would stimulate the oil industry and definitely improve the downward spiral on oil price and the loss of jobs across the country.
Why have we not heard any mention of this from our state and federal elected representative – especially those representing Texas?
It would improve the production of corn for food. Being from Texas, I have little concern for corn-growers in Kansa for the production of ethanol which has to be subsidized to make it profitable.
So, what’s wrong with my questioning the wisdom of continuing the requirement to add ethanol to gasoline during this period of an over-supply of oil? Or, am I over-simplifying the situation? If so, I would be interested in hearing the other side of the argument to continue the ethanol/gas blend requirement.
Donny, the price of gas would go down, I believe. Certainly the cost per mile traveled would go down. That alcohol is expensive and makers of the alcohol compete with corn as food market. Look at the main ingredient inside a spray can of Lysol next time you go to the market it’s ethanol.
Just got back from visiting relatives in Odessa. I had not been in the area since I was a baby (i live in CA). We have mineral rights in NW Reeves county. My granddad use to have a a cotton farm there, part owner in a gas co( mineral rights included with this) and savings/loan in the 50-60’s who got took by Billie Solestis sp? water tower scandal. Drove through Pecos, looked like a ghost town to me but lots of truck activity. Didn’t see much well activity until 5 miles east of Pecos towards Odessa, interesting! Getting into Odessa at restaurants and visiting a cousin who works for a small oil company, all the talk was the mass exodus going (people working oil losing jobs) on due to the drop in oil prices. People having difficulty selling homes, how the cost of living is high there due to the previous boom, teachers losing jobs because of how many students have left the area this past summer. So…seems to me that indications are that oil producing activity will be slow to recover, years??? Wonder how this all will effect future lease opportunities (ours is up in one year).
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. On University Lands website, download this schedule. Ask for multiple of $90 for one-time payment - 3 times is $270. Also, you do not need to agree to permanent easement. It should revert to you upon abandonment. Limit agreement to a single pipeline with additional payment due for second pipeline. Terms of agreement are negotiable. You do not have to sign the ROW form presented to you. You can add and delete things.
The Comanche Trail Pipeline Project is constructing a pipe line originating at the Waha Hub outside Fort Stockton in northern Pecos County and then it is going across Reeves County, Culberson County, Hudspeth County, and leaves the United States into Mexico at San Elizario, Texas in El Paso County.
The pipe line will be going through land my wife owns in Block 55, Section 37 PSL. Permanent easement or 50 feet is being sought, and an additional 75 feet temporary easement during construction of a 42-inch diameter pipeline buried 48 inches deep.
My question is twofold. What would be fair terms and compensation expectations for the 50 and 75 feet easement for a 42-inch pipeline? The project has eminent domain rights.
Put another way, what compensation will the State of Texas be expecting for a pipeline with these easement requirements that goes across state owned land?
Search for articles on the Trans Pecos Pipeline and it will tell you all you want to know about a similar line supposed to run through Alpine and the Big Bend to Presidio. People there are very up in arms about it. Basically, we are supplying Mexico with nat gas to alleviate their shortages. Not to tell these investors how to spend their money, but personnally I would be hesitant to invest in a pipeline like this when Mexico has just opened their markets to shale drilling and their nat gas deficit could disappear pretty quick with some Eagle Ford development into Mexico. As for per rod prices, this is a huge pipe. Depending on your land use, I could see starting at $5000/rod with a term.
Buzz, From all the information provided to me plus The State of Texas Landowners’s Bill of Rights, the Waha to San Elizario portion of this natural gas line is a state approved intra state pipeline. It becomes international once it enters Mexico at San Elizario. Thus the ROW authority to eminent domaine come from the state. One of the stated objectives is to "benefit air quality in the region by replacing Northern Mexico’s fuel source with clean burning natural gas. Donny Looking at 195 mile long route, it is going to invoke a lot of land owners. Anticipated start of construction is to begin January 2016. I had a recent telephone informing that a plat showing me the route across my wife’s land and I assume the offer would be forthcoming shortly. Donny
Donny – I understand. Eminent domain is a hot topic here in Kentucky and in nearby states where several interstate natural gas pipelines are proposing to re-purpose one of several parallel natgas P/Ls for natural gas liquid (NGL) service and claim eminent domain rights in doing so. Thanks – Later – Buzz
Just received forms for Oil and Gas division order from Apache Corporation for A-1367 Section 1 Blk C3 and A-1180 Section 12 Blk 3 . My 3 year lease signed with Evergreen expired end of July this year. The map shows two horizontal permits but no wells. There are both gas and oil wells in the nearby sections, most closer to Pacos.
I am wondering if a last minute drilling activity was done to hold on to the lease since it had no extension. I did include a 36 month maximum shut-in clause in my leases.
Wondering if anyone else has been contacted or done business with Apache Corporation. Not sure just getting a division order means there is any real production.
Apache drilled Evergreen 1 1H well in May 2015 - API 42-389-34804. Permit claims 960 acres in lease. Plat shows acreage includes portions of Section 1, Block C3 (A-1367) where wellhead is located and Section 12, Block C3 ( A-1180) where endpoint of horizontal well bore is located. Division order should clarify if well includes 960 acres. No idea when or if well has been fracked.
Thanks Buzz. The current RR map shows permits for both the drilled well and the one you listed. Both of them show as being completely on my sections, start to finish.
Of course the Division Order makes no mention of the total size of the acres involved, nor the clause prohibiting modification to original lease terms. By working backwards from the interest decimal shown I come up with 930 acres, which is close.
I do note that while I didn’t see any current shut-in wells on the RR map, doesn’t mean after a limited production period it could be invoked to hold on to the resources. Maybe I’m being too cynical. Never really thought there would be wells drilled this soon.
Question on making sure division order is correct. Since it doesn’t say anything about what source of production it is in reference to, just the royalty interest decimal and my section holdings.
Of the two permits located in my section, the one (42-389-34804) TennisDaze referenced lists 960 acres. This would correlate with the interest calculation of the division order.
The other permit, (389-34980) which got Approval on 9-10-15 shows 479.8 acres. Should I be expecting a different division order should this well go into production ?
Also where do I find the completed well information. So far I can’t duplicate what TennisDaze came up with.