ENCANA MAKES APPLICATION TO DISSOLVE 7 EXISTING 640 ACRE UNITS IN SLIGO AND 1 IN ELM GROVE AND REPLACE THEM WITH UNITS 815 TO 990 ACRES.
Views: 65
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by BirdDawg, plain ole' idiot on
-
WTF.
I can not believe interested people have not responded.
-
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on
-
Or maybe they have just become accepting of units in excess of 640 acres. Right! LOL!
-
Permalink Reply by Cheerleader on
-
GoshDarn,
Thanks for the comment and friend request.
C'est un sujet interessant. J'aimerais en discuter plus tard.
I haven't been accepting friend requests because I would like to think that I can be a friend to everyone on the site. Works in theory...
If you would like, just message me your email.
-
-
Not worried about it..... Just didn't want you to think I was ignoring you. Couldn't reply any faster...I'm in the basement you know and my reception down here isn't good....I've taken to composing an opera down here on the walls... not going to post it.....Jay may not like opera...
looking forward to that email or how ever the system works on this web site.....
-
Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on -
Lots of opposition was present at the pre-conference hearing.
Encana said that they didn't plan to pursue this new unit application UNLESS they secured drill site locations and would show plans to have maximum horizontal lengths. To the best of my knowledge, they have not secured said locations.
But then again, Encana told us that they don’t plan to develop these units. They said they are looking at the possibility of selling these units. At the hearing, Encana’s attorney said that Encana wouldn’t be moving forward with the new unitization plans if they didn’t intend on developing the tracts. The left hand doesn’t seem to know what the right hand is doing. Or, dare I say, someone is not being completely honest.
Several of those present at the pre-conference hearing were “LAWYERED - UP”.
-
Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on
-
Encana stated the reason for the application is they are unable to lease or force pool the Air Force base.
-
Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on
-
Jay,
Do you know if Encana has successfully drilled longer laterals in the HS?
-
Permalink Reply by DJG on
-
Have seen some long lateral horizontals by Encana in the Barnett in Texas. 5-6K', I think and some units as high as 1,000 to even 2,000 acres.
-
Permalink Reply by Sarah on
-
My minerals in Sabine Co. were going to be put in to a larger unit. I think it was 940 acres? I don't care as long as I'm not left out of the deal. I don't like that phrase Mac Davis used...gerrymander around.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on
-
OK, what are they trying to do here?
Get longer laterals?
Gerrymander around to cut out some uncooperative mineral interests?
I notice they're cutting out a lot of US government property. I wonder if the government has said they can't drill, or if they just negotiated better leases and Encana is trying to cut them out? Anyone got any US government contacts to see what's going on there?
It looks like the US government gets shafted if these units get approved. Their minerals in section 16 and 17 will be difficult to drill.
-
Permalink Reply by The_Baron on
-
As someone who deals with the US government in Oil and gas operations, I can plainly say that the MMS and is succesors, along with the BLM and whatever agency controls the surface creates a tangled web of beaurecratic roadblocks that not only discourage mineral develoopment, but many time preventit all together.
Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com
Top Content
Not a member? Get our email.
Groups
-
San Augustine, TX
386 members
-
Rusk County
97 members
-
Vernon Parish
59 members
-
Natchitoches Parish
399 members
-
Bienville Parish, LA
242 members
-
Sabine County, Texas
172 members
-
Sabine Parish, LA
455 members
-
Cass County, TX
118 members
-
Angelina County, TX
87 members
-
Titus County
10 members
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
