Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on July 13, 2010 at 1:59

Yep. That's the reason I posted the original Blog. My initial reaction to the application was to be disgusted that Camterra was forming another unit period. I'm hopeful that this does not indicate their intention to act as the operator. I'd prefer to think that it facilitates attracting a capable operator.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on July 13, 2010 at 2:30

As there are no historic wells located in the section, I would say Yes. Do you think that the mineral owners in the proposed unit are unaware of the danger represented by the Camterra application?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on July 13, 2010 at 3:08

Jay, I know some of the mineral interests in the section as do some of your family members. I am assuming that they have received the notice letter and acted accordingly as they are intelligent folks with the ability to employ competent counsel.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DrWAVeSport Cd1 on July 13, 2010 at 10:15

Jay,

Thanks again for the four-alarm bell you are sounding! Most still DON'T get the concept of "redefinition" or the real value consequences of same. I speak daily with landowners/mineral owners and no surprise, a vast majority still don't have a clue about the La Office of Conservation's procedures and notices, lessors' rights or responsibilities, pugh clauses, no surface use agreements, etc., etc., etc. IMHO, old shallow vertically drilled wells should not be given a HS definition and O&Gs that "cite" grandfathered-in pre-LOC redefinition status for new work/new wells in the Haynesville or Bossier Shales as justification for a "redefine"/holding hostage lessors under ancient/lower royalty leases should be quashed upon the LOC's receipt of the application! The July 28, 2008 LOC memorandum is CLEAR:

Effective immediately, it will be the policy of the Office of Conservation that the defined interval in any order issued after THE DATE OF THIS MEMORANDUM creating one or more units for the exploration for and production of gas and condensate from PRIMARILY SHALE FORMATIONS, SUCH AS THE HAYNESVILLE AND BOSSIER SHALES, shall NOT include SANDSTONE, LIMESTONE, OR OTHER PRIMARILY NON-SHALE INTERVALS, such as the COTTON VALLEY or SMACKOVER FORMATIONS.........WITHOUT LIMITATION...

Obviously, Camterra (AND OTHERS!) doesn't read LOC MEMORANDA! These companies should be forced to new-lease mineral owners at HAYNESVILLE/BOSSIER SHALE lease terms! IMHO

These Mineral Owners need to contact the LOC/DNR/Scott Angelle/James Wesh immediately (phone, fax, mail) their objections and cite the LOC's OWN RULING !!!!! The answer is right there in black and white. The LOC has given mineral owners a legal notice they can stand on, SO USE IT OR LOSE IT!

Thanks again Jay!

DrWAVeSportCd1 7/13/2010

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on July 13, 2010 at 19:42

Jay,

Everyone who has paid attention to all that you have done are grateful. Your presence and help is what made this website what it is today. You were the main attraction for so long, and I know that I try to read everything that you comment on. I‘m sure that many others do as well.

I would even venture a guess that you brought more industry folks to the site. It sure as heck wouldn’t be a very interesting place if it were only landowners gripping to landowners.

I’m thankful for anyone who is willing to share their knowledge with those of us who care to learn.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on July 14, 2010 at 17:34

I would hope that if they do they would have a lawsuit on their hands.

I am not litigious, but wrong is wrong.

Like Les said just because you call something one thing doesn’t make it so.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on July 15, 2010 at 4:15

I am not really sur ethere is grounds for litigation here. granted IANAL, but even if this is a sleazy attempt to do as Jay suggests, everything is being done according to the due process of the law. As long as the mineral owners and interested parites are properly notified, they should be able to defend their rights fairly simply. It is interesting to see that no preconferance hearing was requested.

I am by no means defending Camterra, but do believe that a lack of opposition should be taken into account.

I make these comments with no knowledge of the mineral rights in this section and no knowledge of the current leases held by camterra in this section.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on July 15, 2010 at 6:05

Baron,

See James CD1's comments below. Many landowners don't know what is being done to them.

IF, any of these companies have been able to hold old leases that had Pugh clauses because of a faulty determination made prior to the Memo then the landowners should be able to have the situation rectified.

If it is producing from the Haynesville, the Haynesville IS NOT the Cotton Valley horizon.

I don’t know if any operators have actually held old leases this way.

A whole lot of folks have gotten wealthy getting Cotton Valley royalties. So if it has been done, I would imagine that a wronged party would “Lawyer Up”.

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on July 15, 2010 at 7:47

I am not disagreeing with you Jay, personally I believe that this was one motivation behind the "lower cotton valley" redefinitions, in addition to the fact that they might have been simply trying to hide their true objective from prying eyes back in the beginning of the play.

My point was simply that I, and again I have never been to law school, believe that since due process has been followed, that the "memo" would not be reasonable grounds for litigation, since there is a public hearing where a interested party could use said Memo as reason to oppose the unit or any redefinition of the unit.

I would like to assume, and have no reson to believe otherwise, that Camterra would properly notify the interested parties. The list of parties notified would be available... I would be willing to bet that the parties were notified, but either did not understand (hence the purpose behind a pre-conferance hearing, which no one took advantage of) or simply does not care.

I have would hope that the office of conservation will take these factors into consideration, but I do believe that the mineral owners should speak up, or forever hold their peace.

Permalink Reply by James CD1 on July 15, 2010 at 5:48

Jay, I can understand how you feel but we need you! Thanks for all you do
and have done. DrWaveSprort, Looks like Camterra and JW are trying again.
People need to call JJIM WELSH comm. of conservation
phone # 225-342-5540.
I did in jun of 09 and he sent me email that he was looking into it and I got
a copy of his memoranda via email.
I 'm like you-I don't think land owners have a clue what this will do to
them. If you have land in this area-Call, email, fax, write a letter-do something.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ur dern tootin' on July 15, 2010 at 10:15

Conservation's web site indicates that this Hearing has been set for August 17, 2010, in Baton Rouge (Docket No. 10-864). No pre-hearing conference was held because none was asked for, according to the web site. FYI.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Charlie Day on August 2, 2010 at 14:07

Looks like they filed for and have been granted a permit for a "non-unitized" haynesville well in this section.

Attachments:

• Camterra Permit 35.pdf, 134 KB
• Camterra Permit.pdf, 40 KB

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page