Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Snake Stewart on July 5, 2008 at 14:23

Thanks , I guess I was just poking around trying to find some way out for some of my guy's.Oh well ! Hopefully someones going to get in there and drill a real well soon. One that actually pays royalties more than once every other year !

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by shelby on July 5, 2008 at 15:00

insomniacnla,
that sounds pretty good. so to clarify, if you are not leased, as opposed to pooled, your options may be open to negotiate to different depths with new o&g companies. i am surprised, that the oil companys don't go back and petition the state, to go to deeper depths; would'nt they have figured out a way to do so, or, do they need to renegotiate with the heirs of the original lessor. with all the money involved, what do you think the strategy will be (from o&g perspective) for all of those pooled property owners that will try to restake their claims to "my minerals".
shelby

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on July 5, 2008 at 18:51

Shelby, it would be difficult for a company to justify including multiple formations in a single unit. Occassionally it is done for adjacent formations for efficient development.

Permalink Reply by shelby on July 5, 2008 at 14:49

snakestewart,
that worries me a bit. the old leases would probably state that is was to the center of the earth, maybe to china. i think if we get some clear answers on this question, it would ease the fretting, and we can move on; at least I could. then again, i guess every lease, old or not, might warrant checking into the language, as this just does not seem fair. it sounds like some are saying, if the state stipulates a permit, and has identified a formation, then, the operator has only the rights to that depth; that sort of situation seems like it would open the door to new and future options.
shelby

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Snake Stewart on July 5, 2008 at 15:20

The silver lining in this set of clouds is the knowledge and experience of original leaser.A gentleman on the other side of the Lake actually had wording in his leases that allowed him to lease deeper zones.Many of the other leases done at the same time as his held no such wording. But it is still worth checking into if you are held by production.This gentleman ended up with well over a million dollars because of his forsight many years ago . Good Luck Shelby !

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by shelby on July 5, 2008 at 15:41

snakestewart,
thanks for the info. now i will try to find any leases that might be on record that hold my production. if i am pooled, perhaps that will open some options to deal in the future.
shelby

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on July 5, 2008 at 18:42

Shelby, I will clarify my earlier comments. Your 5 acre example stated your acreage was force pooled with larger tracts that had been leased. I assumed you meant your acreage had not been leased. This is the reason your acreage could be later leased. If your acreage is leased then the producing unit would hold your acreage. The specific lease would determine if the production of a single formation holds all depths included in your original lease.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by shelby on July 6, 2008 at 1:53

LesB,
Thanks for the comment, and you were correct in your response to my example. I am in a situation where many of our positions are going to be a "pooled" situation. We have other holdings, both real property and mineral right ownership, where an older lease will be in play, and I'm sure were going to be out of luck on some of these. We appreciate your insight regarding the status of rights as a pooled interest owner; now I need to figure out net acre percentage of ownership in these mineral right holdings, and the best way to future market. Thanks again.
Shelby

Permalink Reply by DrWAVeSport Cd1 on July 9, 2008 at 17:34

If you live in or near Southeast Caddo, T16N, R13W, Sections 17, 19, 20, 21; you are going to be force pooled by J-W Operating Company. I received notification on Tues., 7/8/08 per letter from "Hargrove, Smelley, Strickland& Langley," law corp. (ph#318-429-7200), at 401 Market Street, Sport. Questions are to be directed to a Tanya Allen @ 318-227-8191.

J-W Operating has applied for drilling units in the Hosston Zone,Reservoir A; Cotton Valley Formation, Reservoir A; and Lower Cotton Valley, Reservoir A. They are also asking to be the "unit operator of, and a unit well for, each of the proposed units..."

J-W Oper. is also asking the Com. of Conservation to "redefine the Lower Cotton Valley Zone, Reservoir A, in the Elm Grove Field, insofar and only insofar as to the additional units proposed herein,...as being that gas and condensate bearing interval encountered between the DEPTHS OF 10,030 ft. AND 12,100 ft. in the J-W Operating Co.-Cohort Energy et al. 22 No 1 Well located in Section 22, T16N, R13W, Caddo, Parish, La."

I am sorry about the length of this post, but I feel that this is a "land grab" deal. If anyone in zip code 71106 received this notice...please contact a Mr. Joe B. Adams, 21010 Vermont St., Livingston, La70754 or call Mr. Adams @ 225-686-2355. You can request data for inspection from Mr. Adams.

I do not believe that J-W Oper., et al...have the leased up land in these sections that can force pool these said sections. Anyone with any additional information, please post here...or on my page.

I have e-mailed this letter and map to "Haynesville," so I hope he will share it with this group. This is a lengthy letter/application for public hearing...and J-W Oper. is asking for everything in the book.

DrWAVeSport 7/9/08 p.m.

• ▶ Reply

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