Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on October 14, 2015 at 6:02

I don't know the location, Fred.  The well was just permitted.  A rig will be assigned to it some time in the future.  It should be drilled from the same surface location as the #1.

Permalink Reply by Fred Baragona on October 14, 2015 at 6:23

OK, that makes sence as to being a #2 well(:>)

Nabors (rig that was drilling the Joe Smelley well) is drilling for WRM off Pipes Road about 1/2 mile east of the Taylor well.  

Permalink Reply by Davis on October 14, 2015 at 6:20

I believe the one being drilled now is the Ates, Fred.

Permalink Reply by Fred Baragona on October 14, 2015 at 9:19

OK, thank Davis.

Would you mind sending me what the average monthly production has been on the Taylor well Davis?

Thanks,

Fred

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on October 14, 2015 at 9:53

The WH-1 Final Completion Report for the Taylor 13-12H shows the following: 

Initial Production - 12 BOD, 4.920 MMCFD, 24/64" Choke, FTP and CP 7100#, TVD 10841'/MD 18521', date gauged 3/11/15.

This matches the State Potential Report from the same date.

There was another State Potential Report filed at a later date for ~ 11.0 MMCFD and 12 BOCD on a 38/64" Choke.  All the reports should be entered in the database in the very near future.  The pressure in the well has dropped significantly from the first test to the second.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on October 14, 2015 at 10:56

Davis, after speaking with the Office of Conservation staff, here is my interpretation of what you were told by WRM.  This is not the fault of the state or a limitation of the SONRIS databases.  This is WRM's failure to apply for and receive a unit order for Section 13 before drilling an HC well in both sections.  Section 12 has a unit order, CV RB SUC.  Section 13 does not.  It appears that WRM is way behind in unit applications as indicated by the names of their wells which do not include a unit designation.  The situation was different in the Terryville Complex where the vast majority of sections were unitized long ago when vertical wells were the norm.

So yes there is a problem with reporting production associated with LUW Code numbers however it is all of WRM's making.  They seem to be having serious internal problems that keep them from executing their required state paperwork in a timely fashion.  That should be a temporary situation.

Permalink Reply by Davis on October 14, 2015 at 11:11

Thanks Skip. Yes they obviously have problems. They have made many mistakes with my family's accounts over the past few months, and we are still waiting for answers. We are looking into hiring someone to check their figures simply because of the number of mistakes that they have made.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on October 14, 2015 at 11:17

I can refer you to a service that will handle that for you.  Just let me know and I will post the contact information on your personal page.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on October 14, 2015 at 13:35

Better late than never.  WRM has a lot of catching up to do.

http://ucmwww.dnr.state.la.us/ucmsearch_070611/UCMRedir.aspx?url=ht...

Permalink Reply by Davis on October 14, 2015 at 15:11

Is this something new or just paperwork that they are behind on? How does it affect those around the Taylor well?

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on October 14, 2015 at 15:23

It is the unit application that I mentioned was lagging behind the well.  There are a few non-unitized horizontal wells that I come across rarely but the vast majority of horizontal wells are drilled as unit wells.  Once this unit application is approved every mineral interest within the unit boundary will share proportionally in the production, from the #1 which will be designated the "Unit Well" and all others starting with #2 "Alternate Unit Wells"  Look at the Terryville Field for the model of what Choudrant will be like in the future.  Every section unitized and each section producing from multiple wells.

As to how it affects mineral owners, I'd have to see the Division Order and compare it to the interests pooled in the unit application. 

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on October 15, 2015 at 3:24

Davis, I need to correct my previous post concerning the unit for the Taylor 13-12HC #1.  The well is located in Section 12 & 13 of 18N -2W and the new unit application I linked above is for 12 & 13 - 18N - 3W.  The unit application for the Taylor well was approved 6-30-15 as Field Order #260-X-9 (CV RB SUC), link to order follows.  So the period of production and royalty payments in question would be from March of this year when first production occurred to the date of the Field Order.  My apology for misreading the unit application plat.

http://ucmwww.dnr.state.la.us/ucmsearch/UCMRedir.aspx?url=http%3a%2...

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page