Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on March 31, 2009 at 2:55

KB, fracturing is not considered recovery by injection.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Catfish on March 31, 2009 at 2:16

Skip.
Chk has applied for units in 4 sections 18/12 as we have disscussed. East 80 is claiming to have over 30% of land in membership in 2 of those sections. If that is the case no unit would be granted. However looking at the unit map it appears i20 is included in those units which would be over 5% per section and all roads and right aways are part of the section. This leads to another question, whose minerals are they?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 31, 2009 at 2:30

Catfish. I can't speak to the East 80 Coalition claim. As to the interstate right of way, if memory serves, previous discussions on the site indicated an imprescriptible servitude was created. And the minerals would be the property of the surface owners at the time of the right of way acquisition. Unless they have sold or in some other way transferred that mineral servitude.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on March 31, 2009 at 3:01

Skip, I see KB has already noted this but there is no minimum % in the regulation for these type units. Now the Commission may have some informal guideline regarding the minimum leased acreage in the section but that would not necessarily apply only to the operator's leased acreage.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 31, 2009 at 3:09

Les. It is possible that I misunderstood but I don't think so. The difference may be as you state, the difference between a regulation and an informal guideline. I will double check as I am curious and think it an important part of the puzzle. I'll get back to this discussion this afternoon. Thanks for the input. You too, KB.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 31, 2009 at 10:22

KB & Les. I was mistaken regarding the 75% threshold for a compulsory unit application. I was confusing it with something similar. As it would seem to be logical that the state would require an applicant to be in a position to develop a drilling & production unit if they were to receive the order, I placed the following question to W. Stephen Walker, Senior Attorney, Executive Division, Louisiana Office of Conservation.

"Mr. Walker. Is there any requirement concerning a percentage of acres within a proposed D&P compulsory unit that an applicant must control by way of lease or working interest agreements?"

Mr. Walker's answer: "Not as far as I am aware. Of course, the fewer acres controlled by the operator may result in increased risks by that operator, in addition to lower revenues received by that operator over the long term."

As Mr. Walker is the "Senior Attorney", if there were such a requirement, I believe that he would be "aware" of it. Duh! And as to the increased risk and lower revenues that an operator might experience in a situation where they received the unit order but did not have a substantial percentage of acres under their control, ....double Duh! I really shouldn't say any more or I will be in violation of my member agreement. At this point, I will admit my mistake and go have a drink. Or two. Or ..................

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 31, 2009 at 10:49

KB. I don't think drinks alone are going to do it. Since I have wrapped up taxes and kinda caught up, I just need to get outta Dodge for a while. Come Thursday I will be seated in Galatoire's for lunch. Then off to the River Road for the weekend. Lodging at Oak Alley and dining at Hymel's in Convent and The Cabin in Burnside. I'll leave it up to my friend's which plantations they wish to tour and where else they would care to dine. I'm just looking for a little mental vacation. Then when I get back I think I should start a discussion topic titled, "Mineral Owner's Bill of Rights"! Or have we already had that discussion. Seriously speaking, I know of several legislators who are interested in the concept. I don't know if it will find traction in BR but I'd like to see an effort made. If every parish in the state had the HS, there might be a chance at success. As it is ......, well like I said, a few drinks seem in order.

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on March 30, 2009 at 5:00

Skip, attached is my updated version of the grid with the number of Haynesville Units for each T-R.

Attachments:

• Haynesville Units 3-29-09.pdf, 52 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tim Boyet R3 on March 30, 2009 at 9:47

I guess I being stupid but I have property in Red River Parish 14n 9w sec 10 & 11. By looking at the map is this included?? I have not received any paperwork on Hayneville activity in this area

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 30, 2009 at 10:07

Yes, Mr. Boyet, your township is included. The sections under HA unit orders at this time in 14N -9W are: S4 to Empressa, 5 to Will Drill, 6,7,17-20 to Forest, 30-32 to Samson Contour and8,26-28,34 to Encana.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 31, 2009 at 12:06

Thanks for the heads up Jay. I will check into it. I'd love to stay at Windsor Court.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page