Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on October 1, 2008 at 1:58

The link that follows is the SWEPI San Miguel Creek application, Docket # 08-1666 and 08-1667, for the Oct. 28 hearing. The last few paragraphs of page two should be of interest to all the land/mineral owners who are interested in taking an active part in this and all other hearings.

http://dnr.louisiana.gov/CONS/CONSEREN/hearings/2008/10OCT/08-1666&...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack Blake on October 1, 2008 at 7:52

Lady at Liskow and Lewis is real nice. I just emailed her and she sent me the list immediately via email.
About 300 names on the list. It is for everyone in T10N, R11W sections 7, 8, 16, 18, 21 & 27 and everyone else within 1/4 or 1/2 mile. I figured it would be more people than that.
She could not give me a list of those just in or within 1/4 or 1/2 mile of my section.
Basically she confirmed that this application can tie up the sections indefinetly.
A concern I have always had is if they do not drill they don't have to renew my three year lease for a big bonus because they got enough other people in my section to sign 3 yr with 2 yr option or maybe even longer term leases and they will hold the lease on the 640 acre section with the other peoples leases and not even need to resign me (only have 20 acres). I could concievably be sitting on HS for years and not get any more bonus $ until they are actually ready to drill.
I would like to see us form some kind of an organization to go to Baton Rouge to request they drill horizontals and drill within a certain amount of time.
We could hire an attorney to go as someone else said. We could not get everyone to help, but if enough of us ante up $500.00 each or something it would be a very very good investment. I don't want to be the leader of this. I'm actually typing this while I am on duty at my regular job and shouldn't be doing personal stuff. I'll be glad to be a helper. We may not want to tell the state we want a horizontal. If we tell them that and the state agrees then Shell may drill the other ninety something sections before us and they may hit a dry hole before they get to us and then we don't get drilled at all.
It's hard to know what to do. Maybe just be as accomidating as possible to Shell and hope we get any type of a well. The sooner the better. I just don't know.
The lady at Liskow & Lewis said seldom do landowners show up except and when they do show up they seldom say anything.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grice on October 1, 2008 at 7:59

http://www.gohaynesvilleshale.com/forum/topic/show?id=2117179%3ATop...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on October 1, 2008 at 8:39

Jack, Grice gave you a good option to explore with his link. I suggest that you follow through with a contact at your earliest convenience. The statement by the lady at Liskow and Lewis should be emblazoned across the top of the site's main page in all caps. "..... SELDOM DO LANDOWNERS SHOW UP .....AND WHEN THEY DO SHOW UP THEY SELDOM SAY ANYTHING"!!!!!!!!!! I know that all caps denote shouting so please forgive my emphasis and know that it is not directed at you personally. The 300 names on the Interested Party list that you received constitute ONE unit application of the FOUR COVERING THIRTY SIX DRILLING AND PRODUCTION UNITS that SWEPI will have reviewed on that ONE day, Oct. 28. I understand the difficulty involved in attending those meetings in Baton Rouge. There should be someone in attendance, preferably an experience O&G attorney, and there should be several hundred letters from landowners on those IP lists who are echoing what the attorney is presenting. The consequences, even for the owner of 20 acres, could be serious. And the reward for using the system to protect your interests could be significant. And last 30 years. Good Luck. Regards, Skip

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dick Shuford on October 3, 2008 at 23:09

msfva,

I my opinion this is a little misleading. When DOC issues permission on a 640 acre unit it appears to me they are setting the standard for drainage. I content that issuance is not properly engineered for the HS. It is a (oh, we've been doing this for years)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on October 1, 2008 at 10:47

Hi, Jim. I was hoping you would join in this thread. Thanks for describing the hearing process for the members. It makes sense that there would not be unrestricted comment from the audience. And it is a good idea that concerned mineral owners have an experienced attorney speak on their behalf. And as you point out, it helps to have a viable reason to oppose an application or request modifications. I am for involvement of mineral owners in the process but it must be informed and defensible. I understand your questioning of the concern for spacing/draining and the fact that these pooling standards are well established. Do you think that some of that concern comes from the past experience of mineral owners who have a basic grasp of how "conventional" reservoirs are understood to drain? I remind myself often that this shale play is "unconventional" and strive to understand the meaning and consequences of that term. It requires thinking about shale development in a different way. I believe that there are other issues that should be addressed such as definitions of pay zones and co-mingling of production just to name two. I am not suggesting any conspiracy on the part of the industry. I am suggesting that mineral owners should be aggressive in seeking knowledge and participating in the system to protect their interests. Skip

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack Blake on October 1, 2008 at 11:35

I don't know too much about drilling..learning more daily. I was looking at sonris on the Belmont well and they set a bunch of bridge plugs and perfed and fracked several times. I guess they were gonna produce the deepest then, go up to the next area and produce it. I don't know. I interpreted that now the casing is collapsed on the well. Perhaps more pressure than they planned for. If casing is collapsed that must be a very bad thing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack Blake on October 1, 2008 at 11:51

This is what I got off sonris. Maybe the CT collapsed.
It's the Olympia well.

09/17/2008 27 13555 SHUT IN
09/09/2008 27 13555 RAN COIL TUBING TO 12088 - STUCK. RAN WIRELINE TO 5500' - COLLAPSED. CUT RUBING @ 5485. SHUT IN
06/24/2008 27 13555 EVALUATING
06/17/2008 09 13555 SET BP @ 12830. PERFORATED: 12735-12750, FRACED. SET BP @ 12648. PERFORATED 12517-12532, FRACED. SET BP @ 12298. PERFORATED 12135-12150, FRACED. DRILLED OUT BP @ 12298 & 12698 - TESTED
05/27/2008 09 13555 FLOWING BACK
05/20/2008 09 13555 SET CIBP @ 13376. PERFORATED 13315-13330. FRACED. PERFORATED 13255-13271, FRACED. PERFORATED 13100-13115, FRACED. PERFORATED 12895-12910, FRACED.
05/13/2008 09 13555 FLOWING, TESTING
05/06/2008 09 13555 PERFORATED 13406 - 13416
04/29/2008 09 13555 COMPLETION OPERATIONS
04/15/2008 09 13555 WAITING ON COMPLETION
04/08/2008 09 13555 SET 5" TO 13547 W/532 SX. WAITING ON COMPLETION
04/01/2008 09 13555 TD 3-26-08. PREPARE TO SET PRODUCTION CASING
03/25/2008 09 13300 CORING @ 13210-13300
03/18/2008 05 11820 SET 7 5/8" TO 11815' W/800 SX DRILLING

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on October 1, 2008 at 11:49

Jim, I agree on the need to do homework. Especially in consideration of the expense you point out. I am not suggesting that the Haynesville Reservoir A Sand Unit A is the same across fields. I am referring to the different names that are attached to zones that appear to be the same or closely related. HA RA or other alpha designated Haynesville zones as opposed to Jurassic for example. I was not aware that the gas originating in the shale was capable of migrating upwards. As to co-mingling, efficient production is of benefit to producer and royalty owner and your comment on varying pressures in different zones is a good reminder of the technical expertise required to produce efficiently. If a lease covers "all depths", I do not see a problem for the mineral owner. Does the varying permeability of different pay zones co-mingled impact the portion of their reservoir that can be drained efficiently by a single well bore? Skip

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on October 1, 2008 at 12:18

Thanks, Jim. I had assumed that the impermeable (tight) nature of the HS did not allow for migration short of fracing. Skip

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on October 1, 2008 at 12:13

Dealt with a well that was drilled a few miles East of Belmont 7 or 8 years ago, this was in the Shamrock community. Had proposed well units set up all around the area at 640 acres. These well units had been created in the 70s around a well called the Christmas well, which was a good well. There was a cattle company that owned over 1200 acres in the area. One land owner thought the cattle man was somehow influencing the way the units were being formed, to gain the most acrage within each unit. The land owner hired a geologist turned lawyer to represent them at the commisioners hearing. When it was over the land owner had a unit formed that included their property, the unit was 820 acres. The land owner thought they cut a fat hog in the Ass by backing down the cattle man. Whats better 20 acres in a 620 or 20 acres in an 820?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on October 1, 2008 at 12:53

If I remember all the rest were dry holes. Dr. Christmas made out good along with all others in his unit. Dry holes cure title problems and that is where that project ended.

• ▶ Reply

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