J-B Oper. Co. request to "redefine Lower CV Zone 10,030' to 12,100'..."

Question: Why would Commissioner of Conservation grant to J-B Oper. Co., et al, (or any other O&G, E&P) a "redefining" of the Lower Cotton Valley Zone (Reservoir A)"...(or any other Zone, for that matter)...."in the Elm Grove Field"...(or any other field, for that matter)..."as being that gas/condensate bearing interval encountered between depths of 10,030 feet and 12,100 feet (electrical log measurements) in the J-W Oper. Co.-Cohort Energy et al. 22 No 1 Well, located in Section 22, T16N, R13W, Caddo Parish, La...

Along with 10 additional requests...including application to drill in these sections in the Hosston Zone/Res. A, CV Formation/Res. A, and Lower CV Zone/Res. A... and somewhere they include the kitchen sink, I think...
J-W, et al., is force pooling all sections shown on their "map," to include Sect. 17, 19, 20, and 21...as these sections contain J-W's "proposed unit wells."

Again, I ask, why the "redefining of the depths" of the Lower Cotton Valley Zone in this application to the C. of Conservation? I understand the intend of the land grab of the sections, I am not quite sure if I understand the depth change request... Dare I say (imo) that these "requests" are NOT geared toward improving the lot of mineral owners in these sections.

Thank you for your responses. I do appreciate every bit of info that I have learned from all you fellow "shalers."

The letters are coming folks. So I hope we are all prepared to see life moving at an even quicker pace around the HS.

Views: 341


Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The main thrust would be toward the unitized zone but if they are successful you will be hearing this again and again.
They have already been successful. Many units in Elm Grove Field have already seen this happen.
The "Cotton Valley" is a zone that underlies much of Northwest Louisiana. It is so named becaus Cotton Valley was where it was first encountered.
Greetings to all, this is my first post. Have received a similar letter. I noticed that in our "Notes" section there is an article called "What is the Haynesville Shale". Written by Vickie Welborn of Gannett News Service, dated July 5. Below I quote the last part of the article:

"A similar play in the northwest Louisiana area is the Jurassic Zone Play, Kumar said, which involves the combination of several formations, the Cotton Valley, the Bossier, the Haynesville and the Smackover or combination of the Cotton Valley and one or more of these formations. The fields, the parishes and the units proposed or formed for the Jurassic Zone and the companies who are active in those areas are:

Trenton (DeSoto): eight proposed units, 640 acres each, Shell Western E&P.
Oxford (DeSoto): six proposed units, 640 acres each, Shell Western E&P.
Brushy Bayou (DeSoto): two proposed units, 640 acres each, Shell Western E&P.
Grogan (Sabine): 12 units (order 955-G), 640 acres each, Shell Western E&P.
Brackey Branch (Red River): two units Jurassic Zone, 640 acres (Encana).
Martin (Red River): five units, 640 acres (Encana).
Red River Bull Bayou (DeSoto/Red River): one unit, 640 acres (Encana)."
At 1:15 p.m. this afternoon, I hand-carried two copies of our "posts" on this discussion (on "gohaynesvilleshale.com) to Governor Bobby Jindal after his news conference on/and the signing of Health & Hospital Bill #287 @ LSU-Med Center. Governor Jindal spoke about the state's windfall from the "Haynesville Shale" and joked a bit about not selling your land or your home.

I waited to speak with the Governor about this "depth" clause switcheroo, but he was bombarded with the press and "dignitaries." So, I delivered them to his 2nd in command at this press junket and explained to him (very edited version) our concerns. This gentleman took my two copies (along with copies of the application letters) and assured me he would give this to the Governor. I explained that NWLa landowners would not stand for this deceptive practice and that this would not be the last our Governor would be hearing from "us."

Please contact your local State Representatives, Mayor Glover, your Parish Commissioners, send a certified letter to Mr. James H. Welsh, Commissioner of Conservation, State of LA, PO Box 44275, Baton Rouge, LA, 70804-4275. PLEASE PROTEST THIS PRACTICE BY THE O&Gs.

Call the local office of the Office of Conservation, send them your complaints in writing, also. And, per James (on this post), please:

Just a thought. Mr Madhurendu Kumar ,Director of Geology for
the Louisiana convservation Dept. should be called and check
out his thinking -as a geologist. Mr Kumar was at Mayor Glover's
meeting that was held in Shrevport and gave a presentation.
I think a geologists and if enough of land owners would question
this maybe it might make a difference. It did with the leg. tax
raise. His phone number 225-342-5501. THIS AINT RIGHT!!

If we need to begin a petition, find attorneys, etc., or head to Baton Rouge...then We Need To form a coalition and get down there and STOP THIS PRACTICE NOW!

I look forward to reading your comments per same.

We have done so well in "getting the word out" about becoming informed about the "Haynesville Shale Play." Please get the word out about this injustice that has now come to light.

I will not sign my mineral rights over to just be SWINDLED by O&G or by the State of Louisiana's Commissioner of Conservation.

The Gloves Are OFF!

DrWAVeSport 7/11/08 p.m.
DrWAVeSport is right. The only way this kind of thing will be defeated is if it is brought to the attention of the public and very loudly protested.
Just a thought, we already have 2 well organized & vocal coalitions in the Shreveport city limits. Would it help to get the word to their leadership so they can present it to their members to take back to their neighborhoods? Also, isn't there anyone at the Times that would run with it?
Besides the inherent problem of combining this many distinct zones into a single unit, there is the overarching problem that many geologists don't even consider the Cotton Valley to be "Jurassic." Rather, it is viewed by many as "Cretaceous."
DWS, if I understand the concern would be situations where an existing lease agreement had a vertical Pugh clause. For those existing lease agreements beyond primary term I don't think the redefinition would "grandfather" those deep rights. Those deep rights (ie 100' below the base of the original Lower Cotton Valley) would already be released and are free to be leased to someone else.

So is the concern more related to newer leases that are still within their primary term in sections with exising LCV production?

Thanks for any clarification.
Les B:

IMHO...This is way beyond my study of whether or not "existing lease agreements" or "new Haynesville leasing agreements" or "force pooled acreage," or lands "held under production," etc., etc., are going to be/or already are headed straight for the "graqndfathering-in" scenario. We need a CLEARLY DEFINED ANSWER FROM THE OFFICE THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EXPLAINING THIS "SWITCHAROO OF DEFINING LCV, ETC. (FIELD DEPTHS)"...

When NWLa homeowners/mineral owners/lessors are told time and time again by the O&G reps that all things in the Hayneville Shale are "set in stone" CONCERNING LEASES, ETC., then I say DEPTH DEFINITIONS OF O&G FIELDS IN NWLa NEED TO BE "SET IN STONE" ALSO!


My stomach has been churning every since I began to think "outside the box" as to why there would be ANY REASON WHATSOEVER for granting changes in the depth definition of these fields...I have only been able to come up with one reason...ATTEMPT TO DEFRAUD MINERAL OWNERS (LEASED OR UNLEASED)


If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck...you get my point?


This weekend, for me, is filled with letters that I will be forwarding on Monday a.m. to as many Local Officials, State Representatives, and our Sentators...

DrWAVeSport 7/12/08
I'm with ya' Doc !
DWS, I understand you are concerned. For what it is worth there are other reasons to redefine or redesignate. It simplifies allocation, measurement and accounting for the operator. This is the reason you also see companies apply to combine units of different formations or request permission to commingle production. This would normally happen when the units are the same size and the ownership is the same. I don't know the case here so can't say you don't have a reason to be concerned.

My previous remark about Pugh clause is so people would realize they may still be able to get a better deal.


© 2023   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service