Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bob Mottet on August 27, 2008 at 3:32

why aren't the companies(chesapeake) required to put the well ino online in a timely manner. The well in my section has been in operation for 60 days and the sonris lite still
does not showit complete. The gas has been flowing for 60 days and we do not know what is going on.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Danny F Driggers on August 27, 2008 at 3:55

I understand there is a possibility that the oil companies will set up their wells along a section line and do horizontal drilling across section lines, therefore, no royalties will be paid to the adjoining section landowners that are not in the section where the well is physically located.

My question is if it is a good idea to add a clause in the original lease that no horizontal drilling may be done on each landerowners land unless the well is located in their section so that the royalties will be paid on minerals harvested from their land? If this clause is in the original lease, would this be considered trespassing if they did go ahead and do the horizontal drilling as mentioned above?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DYST_JP on August 27, 2008 at 4:15

I understand that on the well permit application the operator has to give the coordinates for the horizonal bore. Who verifies the actual direction of this bore to make sure that a 3000' bore does not cross a section or unit line?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jon on August 27, 2008 at 4:35

I live in 17N, 14W, Section 33. There is a producing gas/oil well in my section near Cargill Park. It's owned by Goldsbury Oil Co. I called them to inquire about the well and was told that it was a VOLUNTARY well and that I would not be getting any royalties from it. It is part of the land leased by Shreveport 3 years ago for $1.00 per acre. Approx. 60-75% of my section is already leased to Shreveport for that $1.00 per acre deal. My questions are:
Why would I not get royalties from this well which is in my section?
What does it mean when they said this well was voluntary?

Goldsbury also owns another well close by which on the West side of Walker Road and is in Section 32. The DNR data has it noted as VU1 and the one in my section as VU2. I asked the lady at Goldsbury what those designations stood for and was told Voluntary Unit One and Voluntary Unit Two. Thanks for your help, Jon

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by reg on August 27, 2008 at 4:44

What is the relationship or hierarchy between local and parish governments and the department of conservation? Can our local authorities pass laws/ordinances as to spacing sound etc within their boundaries or is this a power reserved to the commission?

What discussions are going on right now to make sure this power struggle is solved before wells are drilled in the city limits?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by reg on August 27, 2008 at 4:48

What are these wells supposed to produce?

12 million cf day

3 million cf day

What should a properly drilled, perforated, fracted and completed HS well produce? If can't answer specifically, then what are the ranges?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by insomniacnla on August 27, 2008 at 6:31

Hey reg!

What I have read about the production rates are that initial production rates may be 5 to 15 million cubic feet per day but that there would be a decline after a few months, another decline after about 6 or 8 months and further decline after the first year. After the decline curve, the wells are supposed to level out at 1 million cubic feet per day.

One of the experts on here should chime in as I am NO expert.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by M. Mcwilliams on August 27, 2008 at 6:14

Journalist Lou Gehrig Burnett, in the August 13 issue of The Forum, addressed the issues surrounding these leases. According to his article, the city published the availability of the properties in the Baton Rouge Advocate, as the official journal of the state, and advertised them on the city's web site. Also according to the article, the $1.00 per acre offer was the only bid received.

You can read the article by going to http://www.theforumnews.com/, click on Archives, and choose the August 13, 2008 issue. The article starts on page 8.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rick on August 28, 2008 at 2:46

Naw, KB, we need to feel sorry for them. It was, "Oh well, we're just a poor lil' ol' city with hundreds of lawyers and former state officials at our disposal and we have tried every possible means we can think of and we just can't get over $1.00 an acre SO, we have absolutely no choice but to take it and fill the city coffers with a $2600.00 bounty.
It sounds to me like they did whatever the bare minimum was that the state required for public posting and feeling relatively sure that no one in BATON ROUGE, of all places, would want to come running to latch hold of Shreveport's land leases nor would the 5-6 people that frequent the city web site, whoever pulled this robbery pretty well didn't have to worry about holding up their side of the $1.00 bargain.
If they were serious about making money for the city from leases why wouldn't they use the Shreveport Times, Forum, SB mag, the Inquisitor, the Thrifty Nickel, oil & gas connected KSLA, or KTBS, KSHV, billboards, any of the various local websites; I understand that there are certain papers and other media that are considered official publications for the purpose of required posting, but that doesn't mean they can't run other ads in other media also, I mean, I'm not that media savey and I can name a few, so if they really wanted a better lease, you'd think that someone sitting down there drawing taxpayer dollars as their salary would have been responsible and accountable to persue other options rather than just meet the state required minimum and then play "poor, unfortunate us, we ain't worth but a dollar so we'll gladly take that.
Anybody that choses to can write this off however local politics will allow, but something just stinks here and it's not right and not the first one of us as individual landowners would want whoever pulled this to represent us on our lease deals!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by M. Mcwilliams on August 28, 2008 at 3:19

What struck me as odd was the fact that they did not use the Mineral Board to handle bids, as is done today. Was it simply because it was a pre-Haynesville Shale time, so that no one expected to get much for the lease of city property, or some other reason?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cillian on August 27, 2008 at 5:55

Well folks, it looks like we'll have to wait a little longer to get our answers. Just got a call from the Secretary's office saying the Governor has asked him to stay in town due to the threat of Hurricane Gustav. They have committed to rescheduling once the threat has passed. Please keep the questions coming in the meantime!

I wonder if this means Jindal has decided not to go to the Republican Convention, then? Since he said yesterday his plans would change depending on the hurricane's path. If he's asking Angelle to stay, doesn't seem right that he should go out of town...hmmmm...you heard it here first, folks :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Griffin R on August 27, 2008 at 11:54

Do you suppose the guvner has a spy reading this site and doesn't want to address the multitude (read, hundreds) of public grievances about how poorly his conservation and natural resources departments are representing (not) and protecting (not) his future voters? Well, do you? Perhaps he will offer to attend the meeting himself when/if it is ever rescheduled to express his personal regrets for postponing discussions about these immediate and critical concerns of landowners throughout the state. In the struggle of politics and big oil vs. people in Louisiana who always wins and who usually gets stepped on or ignored.? Arrrrgh!!!

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page