Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by blueflame on October 29, 2008 at 2:17

Hello All...It's been a while since I've posted, however, I've been sitting quietly and using your post to educate myself. LL, I hope you don't mind, I thought I'd help you out and attach Samson's Preapplication form. Is #4 a common request? I've seen the previous input regarding types of information we should request....see anything else that we need to question/challenge?

Attachments:

• SamsonPreApp.pdf, 875 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Coonman on October 29, 2008 at 2:30

How do we start such a protest?.....where can we start?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by louisiana lady on October 29, 2008 at 3:38

Jay,

I have seen this request in other applications. Would you consider it standard? Joe Adams told me that there is no log info on these tracts and the last well permitted in my section was 1935.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by insomniacnla on October 29, 2008 at 4:27

Hey Jay and KB,

I attended a Pre-Hearing Conference a few weeks ago concerning J-W applying to be allowed for downhole combination production of 3 or 4 zones with the Haynesville in Sec. 15 or Sec 11, 15n 14w. A landowner from Frierson objected to it. Within a couple of days, J-W amended their application and withdrew their request for the combination downhole production and just unitized the Haynesville for production. The Frierson landowner stated that producing several zones is not in the best interest of conservation of the minerals.

I think that the landowners affected should attend their Pre-Hearing Conference and object if they wish to. They might get lucky and have the request withdrawn.

I can dig out my notes from the Conference if you think I need to and post it here.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by insomniacnla on October 29, 2008 at 6:30

I'll get it done. LOL I only have to work a couple of more hours today and then I can go through my box.

That's great that you knew the landowner. I was sitting about 10 feet from him but did not get his name. He said that he did work in the oil and gas industry but that geology was not his field. He was very well spoken and really seemed to know what he was speaking about. I wish I would have introduced myself but I chickened out.

I also received a list of the persons attending if anyone wants a copy. I just thought that it was great that a landowner objected to something and it was changed. AND that the landowner did not have to go to Baton Rouge to accomplish it.

I'll go through my box as soon as I finish up at work.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lee on October 29, 2008 at 3:38

I'm no expert, but I perceived this "redefinition of the LCV" to be a way to drill into the Haynesville zone w/o renegotiating leases on properties HBP by the LCV. If you have the protection of a Pugh clause in your original lease, that would be negated by a redefinition of zone depths. At least that's the way it seemed when it happened to me earlier this year. Maybe I'm just paranoid.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Iris on October 29, 2008 at 7:54

Y'all tell me what to do re: recent posts. Where, how to write this James Welch guy or phone him.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grice on October 29, 2008 at 8:00

This is from the LDNR website:

James “Jim” Welsh
225-342-5500

James "Jim" Welsh
P.O. Box 94275
Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9275
p 225.342.5540


Office of Conservation
Executive Division
P.O. Box 94275
Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9275
f 225.342.5540
f 225.342.3705
ooc-info@la.gov

James H. Welsh : Commissioner of Conservation

Gary Ross : Assistant Commissioner

Email: ooc-info@dnr.state.la.us

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Iris on October 29, 2008 at 8:14

Thx Grice, another item that concerns me
#2 To force pool & integrate all separately owned tracts, mineral leases, & other property interests within each of the proposed units in accordance with Section 10, Title 30, of the La. Revised Statues of 1950, with each separate tract sharing in unit production ON A SURFACE ACREAGE BASIS OF PARTICIPATION. What if we have more mineral rights than surface rights? Like exappropriated surface rights or homes too close for drilling or roads.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grice on October 29, 2008 at 9:30

Using surface acreage is standard procedure, and fully permissible by law. I do not foresee that being amended.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Iris on October 29, 2008 at 10:56

The statement sounded as if only surface acreage was important or applicable.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Iris on October 29, 2008 at 12:10

Ok I think I get it thanks......

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• Next ›
• Page