Replies are closed for this discussion.
Dion, as I've posted numerous times before, I've always been impressed by your knowledge/professionalism and your wordsmithing ability. And I keep waiting for you to write that book that I first mentioned years ago.
Don't you miss KB?
Oh, since you tend come and go on GHS, you might need to reassess your thinking on cs (methinks). In other words, you may find that you've mis-categorized that avatar (or maybe I'm confused and wrong).
Carol, you'll get more specific information on the North Caddo Parish Group page. Join that group, read through all the discussions posted there and ask any questions you may have. As Jay stated the application seeks to dissolve existing units that were formed in 2008/2009 in order to form larger units that fit Anadarko's development model in North Caddo Parish. When you post your question in that group please include the plat that shows the five units or give the sections that make up each unit. They are likely 960 acres and include a whole section and half of an adjoining north or south section. Use this link.
I neither accused nor implied that you would run off advertising. I pointed out that it is a means for Keith to maintain a profitable website and that those who don't care to take the time to click on an ad occasionally could make a donation in an amount of their choosing. Nothing insecure about that.
Carol, my apologies for the hijacking of your discussion thread. The boys can continue to throw bombs in other threads which you may choose to follow, or not. If you wish to close this discussion you have the ability to do so. Just click on the "Options" button above your discussion title or contact Keith and request that he do so for you. See you in the North Caddo Group.
NW LA mineral owners, you're screwed. Gripe amongst yourselves, here, on this forum...
-- Geo. Immler.
Wouldn't leave much draw for input or advertisements, though.
I did not accuse you of the implication. Read the thread and the post of your vigilant contributors.
Off Thread: Come on Guys........ I think GD hit the nail on the head. As for as you, the pros, are concerned its get the leases at the lowest price, any way you can and then on to the next one. In a lot of landowner's cases its an emotional decision that might be the only one that person ever sees. If that person is taken advantage of by the industry personnel because of trust in what he was told by the pro and then finds that those statements and facts are not correct then he has to take that into consideration in any future dealing.
Now back to this thread: I find it interesting that the industry sees no problem diluting landowner's royalty with large (1000+ acre) units and thus HBPing as much acreage as they can when these wells have been proven to only drain 80-120 acres. It would seem to me to be more prudent for the State to require the industry to drill and produce more than simply allowing them to hold large acreage units with minimal drilling and production. But that is not my observation when it comes to the Louisiana Conservation Commission and their relationship with the Industry. It seems that anything the industry wants is allowed.
Joe, I don't take leases. I have however performed research and provided negotiation strategy for numerous mineral owners. I work closely with attorneys who represent land and mineral owners and have testified in court for plaintiffs. I have absolutely no incentive to get leases at the lowest price. As to why the state allows operators to form large units for horizontal development, I've given my opinion on a number of occasions. This thread has gone off course and is a disservice to the new member who started it. If you would care to rehash the large units/HBP issue by all means start a discussion on the subject and I'll participate.
I did not say you take leases. Nor did I reference anyone else that contributes on GHS.
You did answer Carol's question about what dissolving the units means. What I've been saying is an individual can't do anything to stop it or even amend the proposal. The industry has the Conservation Commission under its thumb.
Joe, my take on Carol's question is that she is seeking information on what Anadarko is up to in her back yard. The dissolving existing units part is simply boiler plate language in the first paragraph of the notice letter and does not represent the crux of what she is asking.
Maybe I misunderstood your statement, "As for as you, the pros, are concerned its get the leases at the lowest price, any way you can and then on to the next one."
Yes, the industry has great sway with the commissioner and the entire current administration and legislature for that matter. They worked hard and invested a lot to get that influence. Other than filing suit for specific performance issues I don't see any means to challenge that influence. And I understand qualms concerning HBP by large units but don't see any means for redress. The precedent is set. Continually bringing up the issue just makes me think of tilting at windmills.
Wow, when reading that post and what you wrote on 16 August about any action taken against a notorious player would be fought by the industry tooth and nail make me wonder why anyone would not have serious questions about dealing with the industry. Why should we not think the industry should be suspect by the landowner? How is making an entity honor their contract punishment?
Politically, I think O&G holds the winning hand. I don't think a pol could separate CHK from the herd. The rest of the industry would come to their defense because they could be next. Set a precedent for punishing CHK and it could be used against the rest of them also. I'd love to be proven wrong but I've been a lobbyist and seen how state government works up close and in person.