Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Taylor on March 28, 2009 at 11:02

Saw that Skip. Here is my question, How close to I-20 or Hwy 80 can they put one of those mega pads? They have to be be N-S or S-N so there are only so many places the pad can go. Hwy 80 is on the North side and I-20 is on the South side of the sections. Plus traffic in Haughton is getting comparable to Airline--- what a mess it will be. I'm not too crazy about them drilling around there. It just makes me think about the ramifications of it all-- NIMBY but true!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 28, 2009 at 11:18

Taylor, there was a discussion in the past that addressed set back in the case of an interstate. It was some time ago and focused on the well that blew out adjacent to I-10 in the Atchafalaya Basin. I think KB participated in that discussion and probably remembers the outcome. Otherwise the state set backs apply. Off the top of my head I believe it's 300' from an uninhabited structure or roadway and 500' from an inhabited dwelling. I suspect CHK has identified their preferred pad sites prior to applying for the unit designation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Taylor on March 28, 2009 at 11:35

I bet those folks around there are thrilled----not. Many of them in section 14 (and some in the other sections) don't own their mineral rights. Folks tend to not notice the noise and inconvenience when they have a royalty check coming in the mailbox. I for one am not looking forward to the mess.

BTW...Thanks skip! Couldn't find the thread... might have been deleted.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Taylor on March 28, 2009 at 11:53

P.S. I'm assuming they will be S-N by I-20. Looking at the map there are too many businesses, churches, schools and other buildings along 80.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 28, 2009 at 16:37

Taylor. Sorry, I had to step out for a while. There was this steak at the Longwood General Store with my name on it. I am sorry to hear that many of the Section 14 landowners do not own their minerals. And yes, I can see how that could affect their capacity to put up with the development inconveniences. You may be right concerning the drill sites, I haven't looked at the sections in detail. I anticipated that there would be a number of members, including yourself, who would have an interest and might supply the rest of us with more details. One question I have is, are these units/sections in the area represented by the East 80 O&G Group?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric S. Clarke on March 28, 2009 at 19:39

Yes they are in our area and there are only 2 proposed well sites on in 18/12/15 and 18/12/16. We have many sections that are in our area tha are in unitizations and they have yet to drillin them. We have many UMI to the tune of 30+ % in 2 of those sections of the four sections. If they want to drill the people are now in the know and understand that it means 100% minus pro-rata cost for them if they remain unleased, which is a much greater profit than what is being offered with a very minimal lease. The people out here are remaining informed and we have said from the begining if the Gas Companies can not give us a good strong fair lease that gives us the protections we desire then let them drill. The people are the competion, because we have something they want. We attended the pre-app conference. I am sure you know that the "Force" pooling is nothing more than a unitization process required by the DoC. It does not mean the companies are going to drill anytime soon or that they are going to drill at all it is just giving a section of land an identifier and a driller the right to drill in that section. There are twelve section that were granted in 12/08 and have yet to be drilled or even permits pooled. We are happy to hear the unitization orders it just means we are going to make great money on the 100% sooner than later or they are going to sit at the neg, table. It is in thier court we have everything ready and in place its up to them whether they want to give up those royalties or lease us all.

The proposed well sites that are only in 18/12/15 and 18/12/16 are in the Souther corner of both sections, but according to K. McCarter of Chesapeake at the metting 3/20/09 there are not currently any proposed well sites for 18/12/13 or 18/12/14. He even went on to say that they are not sure if the drill sites will be where they are proposed in sec. 15 and 16. Also the proposed pipeline is just a proposal not a certainty that connect the two wells to production lines.

Also, the location order that was issued about putting a well close to an interstate was lifted to our understanding and was also stated in the pre-app conference by the speakers. However, they must notify the DoC of the site if it is in prox. to an interstate bridge over water.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on March 29, 2009 at 0:17

You GO, East 80! Who knows what the situation will be for O&G operators 3-5 yrs. from now, near lease expiration?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Taylor on April 13, 2009 at 10:53

This just popped up on Sonris today.

http://dnr.louisiana.gov/CONS/CONSEREN/hearings/2009/05MAY/09-542-5...

Tay

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on April 13, 2009 at 11:02

Tay. Dang. Samson Contour just isn't slowing down. This should put them right at 100 HA units (sections). I just wish they were moving to develop those sections but they are doing precious little drilling. The Curious Case of Samson Contour strikes again. Thanks.

Permalink Reply by Taylor on April 13, 2009 at 11:06

Skip, I don't know what to make of Samson! Just thought all those folks along 80 and 164 should know.

If someone out there knows Samson Contour's agenda, please feel free to enlighten the rest of us. Thanks!