Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on March 20, 2009 at 3:37

I can think of one good reason that the landowner may WANT the larger unit.

Any owner who wants to sell their property but be assured that they would still retain the minerals would be in favor of a larger unit.

Just a thought for why the Hamel's may not be opposed to it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 20, 2009 at 4:28

The Hamels has long exhibited an aversion to selling off any parcels of their family property. In this case, I think they likely perceived the unique value of their land as it relates to the ability to develop the adjacent neighborhoods of SE Shreveport and received enhanced compensation in return for such in their lease to Petrohawk. The Hamels have also long been considered astute at managing their business affairs.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James CD1 on March 20, 2009 at 4:16

I was searching all over for your earlier post and couldn't find it. I Wonder what happened to it.
I know someone asked about well 238527 and was looking for your reply. Will be looking for
your reply in this discussion before it get's high jacked!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bob on March 20, 2009 at 2:20

Interstingly, HK (Petrohawk), opposed large units proposed around Toledo Bend, yet, here it seeks a large unit itself. The landowner should pull Petrohawk's and other companies' oppositions to those other large units and use them in opposition to this one.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andrew Walker on March 20, 2009 at 2:53

This is not good for the landowner as it will promote discriminations. For example, one landowner may suffer 100% of the surface damage and gas drainage in a unit, yet his royalty payments will be drastically reduced and divided with others whose gas bearing land is not...and may never be drained. Furthermore, that one well will "hold" all leases in that huge unit for as long as that one well produces. The subject landowner may benefit from production from only this one well while neighbors in an adjoining unit may benefit from multiple wells in their unit. This is all illegal under our state's drilling unit law, yet the Commissioner of Conservation is allowing these violations. I'm trying to motivate folks like you to push for a new type of compulsory shale unit - specifically for the Haynesville Shale - that will provide equal protection for property rights. The gas companies are simply being given way too much discretion at present in locating and producing their wells. It is the Commissioner's, not the landowners', responsibility to provide equal protection in fieldwide unitization. Gas production should be balanced amongst the various units. For details and further exlanation please read the attachd file.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andrew Walker on March 20, 2009 at 3:18

I'm trying again to upload that file...this is the article that some of you have seen before...it explains why these units are illegal. The Commissioner, by law, is allowed only to create drilling units that can be drained by one well. This was confirmed by the Louisiana Supreme Court. A new type of unit is needed to govern the Haynesville Shale that will allow multi-well units, while providing equal protection for property rights.

Attachments:

• FOR WHOM THE WELL TOLLS Final.doc, 1.2 MB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on March 20, 2009 at 2:56

Hamel Farms has a mineral servitude here that includes the Hamel memorial park and minerals under the parkway itself (which would not prescribe). Also, the also have the mineral s under the old amusment park, the newer subdivision behind the old dairy, and the new development on the parkway (Island Park?).

Looking at the plat, there is also a large tract that indicates its minerals still belong to the US government. I doubt the feds would bother objecting, they still lease land on the cheap.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 20, 2009 at 3:01

Baron. What is the approximate size of the federal tract?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on March 20, 2009 at 3:12

Looks to be all of the fractional section 15. I would guess (just by eyeballing) its about 40 acres.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on March 20, 2009 at 3:13

We are of course assumeing that the plat is correct, it may not be totally acurate.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 20, 2009 at 3:47

The Hamel's lease with Petrohawk is for 900 acres in five sections. I'm betting that the majority of those acres are contained in the four sections in the proposed HK unit. If HK has the government servitude or thinks they can acquire the right to develop it, they would require only one or two other lease commitments to surpass the 75% threshold. I understand the concern of some in regard to the holding by production of a tract larger than 640 acres with one well but IMO there is a more specific and serious potential impact. This 1286 acres represents the majority of conforming well site locations for much of southeast Shreveport. To the south of 70th. Street, the pattern of development is such that there are numerous conforming sites. Going north from the HK unit, the number grows quite small. As I have mentioned before, the city believes the old Holmes Honda site will qualify. The undeveloped parcel along the Parkway north of Wright's Island should also. Other than the old amphitheater site at Veteran's Park, that's about it. What the 1286 acres contained in the HK unit app represents is the qualifying well sites for the majority of residential and commercial tracts south of Shreveport-Barksdale Hwy/Kings Hwy., north of 70th. Street and as far due west as a horizontal wellbore will reach. Whatever operator controls these qualifying well sites effectively controls the ability to develop those tracts that are unreachable from any other location due to the density of development in southeast Shreveport.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 20, 2009 at 4:04

braveheart. The answer to that question is above my pay grade. I do suspect that we have more than one member who can answer that question. I hope that this discussion leads the ShreveCentre Coalition to research this issue. And for members living in SE Shreveport to take out their maps and confirm for themselves that there are precious few qualifying well sites west of E. Kings Hwy. Querbes Golf course qualifies. And there are some industrial tracts on the west side of I-49 but not much else. The land included in the HK unit app is the key to any future development of much of SE Shreveport.

• ▶ Reply

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