Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Grice on November 1, 2008 at 8:13

Jim, doesn't the mineral resource code, chapter 102, section 14, paragraph B already allow for force pooling? If so, is it possible that the RCC may have not enforced that law until now.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grice on November 1, 2008 at 9:07

102.014. PRODUCTIVE ACREAGE EQUAL TO STANDARD PRORATION UNIT.

(a) The commission shall not require the owner of a mineral interest, the productive acreage of which is equal to or in excess of the standard proration unit for the reservoir, to pool his interest with others unless requested by the holder of an adjoining mineral interest, the productive acreage of which is smaller than such pattern, who has not been provided a reasonable opportunity to pool voluntarily.

(b) If the conditions specified in Subsection (a) of this section exist, the commission shall pool the smaller tract with adjacent acreage on a fair and reasonable basis and may authorize a larger allowable for the unit if it exceeds the size of the standard proration unit for the reservoir.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Iris on November 1, 2008 at 9:16

As stated above not as law yet an article in Ft. Worth Star Telegram Friday, Oct. 31st--
www.star-telegram.com/business/story/1009773.html--try this didn't see your reply below KB thanks.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by intrepid on November 1, 2008 at 14:11

There is an article on www.barnettshalenews.com by Gene Powell regarding the Order in the Finley case.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by intrepid on November 1, 2008 at 14:06

You might want to review the Final Order in the Finley Resources request for formation of a unit. Case number 09-0252373 on the Oil & Gas Docket of the Texas RR Commission. It was signed by Carrillo and Jones. Williams did not vote for it.

I, for one, would be interested in your thoughts after you review the Order.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grice on November 1, 2008 at 14:14

Jim, just a few innocent questions;

Wouldn't the lease holder need to indicate "prohibition against nonoperators questioning the
operation of the unit" to disqualify the pooling order? If there is no opposition by the lease holder, or the operator and non-operator(s) form an agreement, then no further action would be required? Isn't this similar to the adoption laws in Louisiana?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by intrepid on November 1, 2008 at 17:23

Have you read the Final Order? I'd be very interested in your comments after you read it.

• ▶ Reply