Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jaybird on July 27, 2008 at 11:03

Conference Calls!!!

How about the Landowners and Office of Conservation setting up a conference call between the three parties. Have a password for the conference call just like the O&G's have for their presentations.


Email or mail in requests 3-4 weeks in advance of the call for permission to ask questions from a specific land owner who does have doubts and questions about "redefining" or "Force pooling" or any other issue that may be going on with their property.

Let everyone listen in on the conference including the O&G's so we have an idea of what is going on.

I know my employer would not mind me having a 1-2hour telephone call vs. taking the entire day off and driving from where I live to Baton Rouge, LA.

It makes sense to try it and of coarse we would have to figure out the most sensible way to collect questions from all 3 sides of the fence. On the call the Office could state who the question is from
( landowner) just like they announce who is speaking on their presentations.

Landowner, Conservation Office, and the O&G's

We do this in our business practices everyday and I can't see why this wouldn't work here in this situation.

Unless someone doesn't want it to work.

If anyone else has a better solution, I would love to hear about it.

Jaybird

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by insomniacnla on July 27, 2008 at 11:19

Jaybird,

I think your idea is GREAT. But there is another solution before you have to go to Baton Rouge. It is the pre-hearing conference that can be requested.
The pre-hearing conference is for all the landowners to meet with the o/g company and ask all the questions the landowner wants to. The pre-hearing conferences are ALL IN SHREVEPORT.

If what the o/g company plans to do is something the landowner does not want, then the landowner objects at the Hearing in Baton Rouge.

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on July 27, 2008 at 14:43

KB, as I understand the redefinition would only impact a leased mineral owner still in primary term with a depth Pugh clause and with an existing producing LCV well and with Haynesville Shale potential. I agree that if these five conditions exist for a mineral owner then he has a very legitimite beef and should raise a complaint with the Commission. My use of the term "proof" was unfortunate as my intent was to say I have not seen a posting where a mineral owner was in that specific situation. A geologist is not required but I do agree it may be challenging for a land owner receiving such a notice to determine if there are any negative impacts. Although someone astute enough to have a depth Pugh clause may be able to make such a determination.

Redefinitions and also combinations of zones have occurred in North Louisiana in the past well before the Haynesville Shale was ever in the picture. As I have said previously there are many legitimate reasons for such changes so not every one of them should be viewed as a trick. The ones that are should be objected to and stopped by the Commission.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by insomniacnla on July 27, 2008 at 14:48

Les,

I have heard rumors that the Commissioner may already be questioning this process. Have you heard anything about it?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on July 27, 2008 at 14:57

Insomniacnla, no I have not heard anything. My assumption is if any leased mineral owner in the the effected units raises a concern then the Commission would probably not approve the filing.

Permalink Reply by insomniacnla on July 27, 2008 at 11:46

Gray Sands,

I believe that in time, they ALL will be doing it if possible. I think I have seen notices from Camterra, J & W, El Paso, Winchester. I know there is more, I just can't remember the other names.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mom A1 on July 27, 2008 at 14:40

Your right, Gray Sands. Benefiting from someone else's misfortune is wrong...in any legal terminology or in any place. Yet, since so many landowners don't know the business, the O&G get away with whatever they want. It goes back to the old saying "the squeeky wheel gets the oil." So, I guess we have to be squeeky to get the proper treatment. It's a sad state of affairs, that we have to fight hard to get what is rightfully ours. While it may be too late for my neighborhood, it doesn't have to be too late for yours. I can only urge everyone to push forward and demand to be heard!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jaybird on July 27, 2008 at 11:39

Insomniacnla,

Thank you for explaining that to me. I was confusing the 2 different meetings.

I suggest then having the availability for telephone and internet conferences for both meetings. It would make it possible for the far away landowners to be there via telephone and internet to understand what is going on.

I would like to see that happen. Will it? I don't know but I think it's a step in the right direction.

Jaybird

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by insomniacnla on July 27, 2008 at 11:55

Jaybird,

Internet and telephone conferences would be wonderful but probably a long time coming. I have only been to the Shreveport pre-hearing conferences but not Baton Rouge. The pre-hearing conferences that I have attended are very informal, although everyone is dressed in a suit. The o/g company attorneys are there, the geologists that compiled the information are there along with representatives of the o/g company. The attorney stands up front and asks if anyone has any questions and it goes from there. After the questions are asked by the landowners, everyone mills around and you can go up to all the o/g people there and just have a conversation about anything related to the unitization.

I think that the Hearings in Baton Rouge almost fall in an court proceeding format. That those present will be showing material evidence (maps, charts, etc.) and it would be hard to follow over the telephone.

Believe it or not, some of the actual Hearings have also been taking place in Shreveport. The first time I noticed it was a few months ago. I think they have them at the old Sheraton (I don't know what the hotel is called now) on 70th street.

If and when it happens to my section and it will have negative consequences for the landowner, I will be making the trip to Baton Rouge. I have already been informed that I will need to take an attorney and a geologist.

It may be that we all meet at some of these proceedings in the future. LOL

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mom A1 on July 27, 2008 at 14:55

From what I understand, they don't exactly advertise that they are having a meeting. How will anyone know that attendance could be required? If they start doing conference calls/internet then how will we find that out??? The lack of information with the landowner really emphasizes the O&G potential of getting what they want.

As I've said many times on this site, I reiterate: The laws for landowners need to be revised for the protection of the landowners. Many of the laws benefit O&G with little regard for the landowner. They say that the O&G accept all of the risk and I beg to differ. I took a risk upon accepting a lease. My risk was trusting a company to treat me fairly. My risk was losing out on money that could put my kids thru college. My risk was having financial security. My risk was my current state of mental health (this drives me nuts).

No landowner past, present or future should have to go thru this! If there is a way to prevent unfair practices that only benefit the O&G then we should do our best to stop what is happening.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on July 27, 2008 at 15:24

Mom, actually the effected land owners are supposed to be notified at 30 days in advance of the Commission meeting. In some cases the land-owner will also be notified regarding a pre-conference meeting also.

Permalink Reply by jim neely on July 27, 2008 at 12:07

at 10,000 mcf/d times 365 days times $10/mcf divided by 80 acres equals $ 456250 /yr/acre . 3/16 , 1/5 or 1/4 times $456250/yr for each acre is a lot of money .

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next ›
• Page