« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

‘Haynesville’, the Film

Turesday night, CNBC featured the broadcast premiere of Haynesville, a documentary film by Gregory Kallenberg. The film tells of the impact of the Haynesville Shale natural gas field on the residents of DeSoto Parish, Louisiana.

I’d recommend Haynesville to everyone.

According to its boosters, the Haynesville Shale contains some 230 trillion cubic feet of gas. To put that in perspective, that quantity is roughly equal to the current proved reserves of the United States, or about as much natural gas as the country will consume over the next 10 years. It’s the energy equivalent of about 40 billion barrels of oil.

Haynesville focuses on the impact on three Louisianians in particular.

Mike Smith was an appraiser who leased his property to a company called Petrohawk. He received a “bonus check” (the cash cnsideration for entering into a lease) in the amount of $1.28 million, or 1,000 times the largest check he’d ever cashed in his career. It’s like winning the lottery, but it’s happening hundreds or thousands of times across North Louisiana, Texas, Pennsylvania and elsewhere.

Reegis Richard is the pastor of the Temple of Knowledge, an African-American congregation in Mansfield, LA. Haynesville riches have allowed the Temple of Knowledge to build a $1 million sanctuary and to renovate and reopen a dilapidated church school. All of the church’s benefits are indirect — mineral income and better jobs have enabled its members to triple their offerings.

More troubling is the story of Kassi Fitzgerald, a self-taught community activist and mineral owner representative. Ms. Fitzgerald owns 3.5 acres, but managed to organize her community, eventually negotiating for some 800 acres. The drama of the documentary turns on whether or not Ms. Fitzgerald can demonstrate title to the minerals underlying her acreage and the acreage of most of her neighbors.

As it turns out, the minerals under the “Ramblin’ Farms” acreage was leased to the Carter Oil Co. back in the ’50s. Carter Oil is now part of what is known as the ExxonMobil Corp. The original owner of Ramblin’ Farms leased to Carter under a 1950s lease, but did not convey that lease to the new owners when the property was subdivided.

If you view the film, rest assured that the environmental and water concerns expressed by Ms. Fitzgerald are largely unfounded. The parties to a 1950s lease are bound by current state and federal environmental law, not lax 1950s standards as the film implies.

I must admit that I was quite dumfounded that Ms. Fitzgerald’s friends and neighbors entrusted the negotiation of their leases to her. She did a wonderful job in holding out for lease terms — $20,000 per acre and a 25% royalty (cost-free share of production revenue) was near the top of the market.

But this was a $16 million deal up front, with hundreds of $millions potentially payable in royalties over the next several decades.

There are good lawyers who handle these kinds of negotiations every day. You pay them by the hour.

And for a few bucks, a really good lawyer might figure out a way to break that Exxon lease.

Cross-posted at VladEnBlog.


Follow VladimirRS on Twitter

COMMENTS

  • rblack198

    Wouldn’t the held by production claim of Exxon be easy to get out of? I mean isn’t it simply a question of did you drill and produce in the 50′s of did you not?

    I know zero about minerals leases, but I believe these leases expire after a set time if nothing is done. I for one probably wouldn’t get my legal expertise via a community activist who knows how to Google.

    • http://vladenblog.tumblr.com Vladimir

      All mineral leases have this provision.

      It sounded to me that these folks bought their land from a large landowner who decided to reserve the minerals when he sold. This is a common practice and should have been explicitly stated in the sales contracts.

      An old style lease might have allowed for the lease to be held by production anywhere on the leased lands. As long as the production is uninterrupted, the lease stays in force and effect.

      Any modern lease would allow the lessee to “hold” only those acres placed in a producing unit (immediate vicinity of the well).

      Eventually, under Louisiana law the minerals will revert to the buyers, but only once there has been no drilling or producing activity for 10 years. This is called proscription, possibly the angle the ladies in the film are trying to prove.

      Most oil and gas companies have full time staff land men who are specialists in leases, contracts, title, rights of way, etc. I would no sooner let Ms. Fitzgerald perform a triple bypass on me than I would let her handle an eight-figure negotiation of a mineral lease to save a few bucks.

      • juumanistra

        I spent a few minutes today looking for Louisiana’s Dormant Minerals Act: Figures I can’t find it because the practice has a wonky name down there. I think I’ll blame Louis XIV and Napoleon: Most of Louisiana’s legal oddities derive from the influence of French Civil Law, and those are the two Frenchmen who’re most handy in this context.

        I concur wholeheartedly with you vis-a-vis Ms. Fitzgerald and O&G legal folk. They can be pricey — my O&G professor had to take a week-long sabbatical my last semester in law school to go work an arbitration and was, between mileage and billable time, pulling four-digits per hour — but are worth every penny given the amounts of money at stake. Of course, they can also screw up most royally: The phrase “take or pay” still haunts old industry legal hands, from what I understand.