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.
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: 368
- Attachments:
-
-
07-09-2008 04;01;55PM.pdf, 5.3 MB
-
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by DrWAVeSport Cd1 on
-
Thanks James. We need all the VOICES we can!!
-
Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on -
I don't know who the other OG/field guys are but Randy's previously friendly-helpful tone has changed in another discussion. Under "is it true when the landmen tell you, etc."
He wrote "he may or may not be bluffing. Are you poker player?"
He knows darn well most of us are not poker player or attorneys who understand all of the fine print. I have tried to look at all of this as a landman is just trying to do his job, the company is just trying to sell its stock, etc.
But with this "get along attitute" they will take everything they can.
-
Permalink Reply by KaylaCd1 on
-
So in my "trying to stay on top of things" mode I was checking out the wells that are in our sections (we have had leases for several years now). Camterra has a well serial #236496 Linam 23 #1 that is drilled, producing, and classifed as CV at a depth of 13145. Now....if the commissioner or whoever makes the decisions has already designated this depth as CV (and it clearly is not) in this section, how do you think this will affect these new requests???
-
Permalink Reply by CuriousKen on
-
I noticed the post on July 13 at 4:33pm from "sesport person". Did everybody read the link to the PHK Letter (PDF)? They are attempting to force pool and redefine the Haynesville. The attorney letter is dated July 2. The public hearing was scheduled for today (July 16) at 11am. Did anyone attend or get any feedback on this?
CuriousKen
-
-
I hate to be redundant, but J-W Oper. Co. et al, is requesting permission from the Commissioner of Conservation James H. Welsh to "redefine the Lower Cotton Valley Zone, Reservoir A, 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' and 12,100'...22 No.1 Well, located in Section 22, T16N, R13W..."
J-W Oper. Co. wants granted the right to combine production from the "Lower Cotton Valley Zone" (remember the above "redefined" LCV), Hosston Zone, or any combination thereof...of any well drilled on the proposed additional units for the "Lower Cotton Valley Zone..."
I am waiting on reply from letters I sent yesterday, per a clearly defined definition of the "Haynesville Shale" Zone and as to why "HE" is granting these changes? The purpose? Rational? Why? Who is this benefiting? Why does J-B Oper. Co. or any other O&G/E&P Co. need this "redefinition" to drill in said unit??????????
Please forward your calls, FAXs, letters to the Office of Conservation/Baton Rouge/Shreveport/Monroe...
J-W Oper. Co.'s application will be heard on TUESDAY, AUG. 19, 2008 in Baton Rouge, La. for the Elm Grove Field, 08-1209 thru 08-1217.
On the back page of this "order," quoting "The Lower Cotton Valley Zone, Reservoir A was defined in Order No. 361-E, effective July 16, 1996. So...why redefine it?
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
DrWAVeSport 7/16/08 p.m.
Thursday I will post "legal notice" letter that I received today.
Anyone with a reasonable answer, please reply. Thanks beforehand.
-
Permalink Reply by James CD1 on
-
I am still waiting on a reply to my email to the com. welsh-he said he would
get back to me asap. Again it seemed like he didn't know anything about
this-how could that be?
-
Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on -
I am not trying to anger anyone but just thought I should share some facts. Units can be formed for sands, zones or formations. Most of these units are established for a "zone". Under Louisiana unitization a zone is "a relatively large stratigraphic interval comprising a number of sands". A formation is a standard recognized stratigraphic unit. Zone names are somewhat arbitrary and is the reason that have to be defined. It is also the reason one company can form Haynesville Zone units and another company Jurassic Zone units in the same field for roughly the same interval.
I am not justifying the attempts to redefine but just suggesting how an operator can obtain approval from the state. I think it would be much more difficult if the units were "sand" units or "formation" units.
-
Permalink Reply by drillbit on
-
These discussions are getting too lengthy to read and what I am about to say may have already been covered....I would just offer the following with respect to redefinition of units. If you have not leased, but are asked to lease, you might want to specifically take exception to Section 7 of the Bath Form lease form that some of the lessees are using. This section says, in effect, that the lessee can "combine, pool or unitize" without lessor's permission. Read and understand your lease. If you are a lay person as most of us are....get objective, professional help before you sign a lease. Remember, preprinted lease forms are written in the very best interest of lessee.
-
Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on
-
I recently saw a lease that specifically stated they may only drill between 9702 feet and 11334 feet.
To the best of my knowledge a pugh clause typically only excludes 100 feet below the producing unit.
These folks own over 1000 acres (almost in town), so I'm sure they have a team of lawyers.
It brings up an interesting point, with technology changing, could previously unproductive shallow depts become feasible.
-
-
Still waiting on response per this discussion....
- Attachments:
-
-
FaxandLetterOofConservations.pdf, 316 KB
-
-
Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on
-
DWS, did you identify the names of the specific land-owners to the Commissioner? Did those people sign the letter?
-
-
Yes.
Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com
Top Content
Not a member? Get our email.
Groups
-
San Augustine, TX
386 members
-
Miller County, Arkansas
27 members
-
Sabine Parish, LA
455 members
-
South Caddo Parish Group
440 members
-
Natchitoches Parish
400 members
-
Bienville Parish, LA
244 members
-
Fayetteville Shale
149 members
-
North Caddo Parish
358 members
-
Central Texas Gas
63 members
-
Cass County, TX
119 members
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
