Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on February 8, 2009 at 15:25

There probably is no Shale that far north, could be a moot point.

Permalink Reply by swoolley on February 15, 2009 at 5:16

The individual lease agreements within the waterflood will determine, not the pooling agreement. The pooling agreement only pertains to the zone that was waterflooded. Read the lease agreement for the land in which you have an interest. If there is no language that reserves the deeper strata for you, then the present operator probably holds the rights to the HS according to the terms of that lease agreement.

Permalink Reply by Sam Smith on February 15, 2009 at 9:10

Thanks to both Swoolley and Checkmatking - we will try to get this figured out (the leases that apparently are still in effect are from the 1930's).

Au contraire about the shale not being there! I've been living in Michigan, but on a recent trip there we performed an ancient Indian natural gas dance on the property, so I'm pretty sure we've got a gusher. (or the gaseous equivalent.)

Permalink Reply by Tom Bennett on February 15, 2009 at 9:18

I am in a simular situation as you Sam Smith, and the production is at 5500' in the Pettit. Our lease was also waterflooded. My lease gives me back everything below the Pettit, however that was after an amendment, and most but not all leases back then did tie the minerals up as long as produced to the best of my knowledge.

Permalink Reply by Sam Smith on February 16, 2009 at 6:21

Tom - thanks for you feedback. I would like to think that, if the shale is there, we can get somebody to go after it. Even if not the shale layer, it would be good to make better use of wells there now or strata that could be exploited. I noticed there is a bill being circulated having to do with marginal wells. While somewhat off-topic for Haynesville shale, this could be of interest to an leaseholders in North Caddo:

http://www.aesc.net/events/index.cfm?action=view&EventID=49

It would be good if this legislation forced some re-thinking of lease regulations that cause huge areas of land to be held up by a bare trace of production.

Permalink Reply by Tom Bennett on February 16, 2009 at 6:37

Sam, I don't know what your lease says, but.... you may approach at this angle. If your lease says (and most or many do) production lapse of 90 days makes the lease no longer HBP. Now if you get the meter number and go to the electric company, and they did not use electricity for 90 days, they may have broken the lease. If so you are in the drivers seat to at least get the lower than production rights back. It's worth a try. Good luck!

Permalink Reply by Grillin' - MmmMmm on February 16, 2009 at 7:01

Sam: read this link a bit more carefully. This legislation, I believe, makes it EASIER to keep very low rate wells producing by giving them some level of support. That, in essence, would allow acreage to be held even longer HBP. I did scan this pretty quick, so I may have missed something but mose Stripper/Marginal well legislation tries to allow producers tax breaks to allow the well to continue to produce.

Permalink Reply by Sam Smith on February 16, 2009 at 7:27

Mmmarkkk - Thanks - I've printed this out to review more closely later; a buddy will be at the conference so I'll ask him to listen closely.

Tom - thanks; that's pretty clever. Investigator Monk would be proud. I'll try that if I can, but they have been pretty consistent with monthly production reports.

Permalink Reply by Tom Bennett on February 16, 2009 at 8:42

Sam, sounds like your best bet is first ck your lease and see what it says. Most likely it is either HBP and doesn't have a depth clause, however it might. Someone correctly said earlier the individual lease not the pooling orders will be what determines your issue, and it almost always would not change.