Samson Pre-App Hearing 11-19

I attended the hearing this afternoon for Samson's application for 10 units in North Shreveport. Samson did not have a specific company representative present but attorney Smelley presented along with geologist Joe Adams. Two or three independent landmen, working for Samson were there but did not answer any questions. I was not given a percentage for leased acreage but they did admit that some sections had 0% leased minerals. I questioned how they could apply for a permit without leasing any land or doing any test wells. Was told it was standard procedure. I objected to combining downhole production for CV and HA and was told it would be noted but Samson wanted to use the CV for shelf life for depleted HA to increase pressure. To the question of horizontal drilling experience the attorney and geologist was sure Samson had drilled horizontal wells but couldn't name any and stated that they were "just" the operator and would contract with experienced drilling companies. So, it appears that a company with limited horizontal drilling experience, few leased acres and no test well logs for geo info is applying for a permit for over 6000 acres. The meeting was well attended, standing room only and took over an hour.

Views: 182

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on November 20, 2008 at 8:36
We even let our wi owners come to the wellsite, see the mudlog as it going, look at cuttings etc..
Permalink Reply by The_Baron on November 20, 2008 at 8:47
From RS 30:10

"Should a notified owner elect not to participate in the risk and expense of the unit well or should such owner elect to participate in the risk and expense of the unit well and then fail to pay his share of such expenses within sixty days of receipt of detailed invoices, the owner drilling same shall, in addition to any other available legal remedies to enforce collection of such expenses, be entitled to own and recover out of production from such unit well allocable to the tract belonging to the nonparticipating owner such tract's allocated share of the actual reasonable expenditures incurred in drilling, testing, completing, equipping, and operating the unit well, including a charge for supervision, together with a risk charge, which risk charge shall be one hundred percent of such tract's allocated share of the cost of drilling, testing, and completing the unit well. "

Do you really want to be beilled for supervision without some form of written agreement?
Permalink Reply by Grice on November 20, 2008 at 8:53
to continue....

"The provisions of Paragraph 2(b) above with respect to the risk charge shall not apply to any unleased interest not subject to an oil, gas, and mineral lease."
Permalink Reply by The_Baron on November 20, 2008 at 9:04
I am under the impression that they are, if they participate. I would verify that with an an attourney. I was taught that they are treated like a working interest owner.
Permalink Reply by louisiana lady on November 20, 2008 at 11:42
Jeff Thompson where ever you are...I speak for this pre-app hearing that I attended yesterday and yesterday only. I will qualify that I am trained as an engineer and licensed as an architect. Although the profession is different than O&G, if I showed up for a building permit without plans, specs and expertise I would not be very successful in obtaining said permit. Yesterday, neither geologist or attorney could answer questions and didn't even have the right field (kept calling it Caddo Pine Island) which is farther north. Like a "dog and pony show". If the O&G "profession" wants to be recognized as such, then they need to act the part. In a ski town in Colorado I asked what contractor credentials were needed to build mult-family housing and was told; "they need a pick-up truck and a dog". Maybe the O&G need a pick-up truck and a hat.
Permalink Reply by insomniacnla on November 20, 2008 at 13:39
I don't know if this is the case for the Pre-Hearing Conference mentioned in the Discussion and I do not know the reason why Samson may do it this way... but it could be that Samson is not going to be the company that will be drilling and producing the units.

I attended a similar Pre-Hearing Conference in August, 2008 where J-W Operating was preparing to apply to unitize Section 11, 15n 14w for the Haynesville zone. Mr. Smelley was the attorney conducting the meeting on behalf of J-W Operating, and I think that the Hearing has already been held in Baton Rouge. BUT, even though J-W Operating did all the work to unitize the section and got it approved, another company, Palmer Petroleum, will be the operator and drilling company for the Haynesville unit, NOT J-W Operating.

It could explain why Samson did not have much information on the technical side of things and why Samson may not hold one single lease in some sections . Samson may only filing to unitize the sections and not planning on drilling and/or operating.
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on November 20, 2008 at 13:56
Why would Samson be applying for units and not be the operator? Samson has unit apps but no HS wells with their name on them. Not that I've run across as yet. I guess I'll have to keep looking.
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on November 20, 2008 at 14:32
In their name?
Permalink Reply by louisiana lady on November 20, 2008 at 14:34
The hearing will be held sometime in February in BR. I was told by the attorney that they would contract with a drilling company after I pressed about horizontal experience. And they were sure that the company would be competent. They also assured us that there was infrastructure in place but no specifics.
Permalink Reply by louisiana lady on November 20, 2008 at 14:56
Jim,

The attorney, geologist or landmen couldn't name any horizontal wells they've drilled and the attorney stated that they would contract with another drilling company to do the actual work. When asked first about the horizontal capabilities I was told of course they had experience but when pushed couldn't give specifics. Someone said they would object to the unitization and the attorney told him he needed to come up with an alternate plan for unitization.
Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on November 20, 2008 at 18:19
I'm still trying to figure out the sections covered by Sampson's permit. Am I correct when I say that it appears to cover: 18/15, Sections 1 & 12 and also 18/14, Sections 4,5,6,7,8,9,10, & 15?
If Sampson has no acreage leased, how can Sampson drill a well, permit or no permit? I would assume that Chesapeake, Goodrich and/or others have acreage leased in some or all of these sections. If so, why would they not fight Sampson's efforts to permit these wells and attempt to permit wells themselves in these sections? There is something here that I am just not understanding. I for one would want Chesapeake drilling a well in my section, as much experience as they have in the shale plays.
Permalink Reply by louisiana lady on November 20, 2008 at 19:22
You are correct with the sections covered. They mentioned that first drilling would be sections 7, 8, 9 and 15 in 2009. These sections showed promise (but no test wells) and section 10 was urban impact (many owners, includes North Highlands Subdivision). Some sections are leased but they did tell me that section 1 had 0% leased. Another attendee stated he had rights in section 1 and it was leased by Twin Cities. I know that Twin Cities was actively leasing in my section 10 until two months ago.

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service