Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on November 10, 2008 at 17:21

SoBoRes,

I'm not in any of the proposed units either. I will check the Clerk's records and see if a lease is recorded for the large landowner in your section. I have heard they leased and I have heard they haven't.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on November 10, 2008 at 17:26

SoBoRes,

I just checked and no lease is on file for that person. I think it would be polite to delete you comment with their name in it. I think they deserve their privacy. Just like the rest of us, they have to decide what to do with their property based on what they feel is best for their family.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bill on November 10, 2008 at 22:25

Well I guess my lease wont expire before they pop a well in sec 21...lol..Oh well, maybe some decent royalties in the future.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on November 12, 2008 at 8:07

It's possible the minerals are not owned by the surface owner. Or the lease may be older and HBP.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ken Ash on November 12, 2008 at 5:03

Encana also has applied for 7 Units to be created in the Sligo Field. Sections are 7,16,17,18,19,20,and 21.Township 17 North, Range 12 West. Units are for both LCV and HA.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by SharonB T18N R15W S8 on November 13, 2008 at 6:06

My friend is in one of these units. The most excitiing part about the notice that I saw is that the hearing is scheduled for 12/5 IN SHREVEPORT AT a hotel.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on November 13, 2008 at 6:36

I just received that one also. Thanks Ken.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on November 14, 2008 at 12:04

Ken,

A large landowner in this area filed suit against Encana requesting to be released for insufficient production. It shouldn't impact the unitization application, but may impact drilling for 16, 21 and 22, 17W, 12W.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on November 16, 2008 at 5:34

Sounds like they are trying to break a lease. These suits are difficult to win, espessially when the company is activly exploring.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on November 16, 2008 at 5:50

Hi Baron,

They were suing Fite for failure to maintain leases via production and various other violations of the lease. Encana purchased the deep rights and they notified them so that they could correct the problems. It looks like Encana didn't reply to their requests.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on November 17, 2008 at 4:23

The bossier suit is #128098.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on November 17, 2008 at 4:36

Sounds like quite a mess, Was suit started against Fite, and then expanded to Encana after they bought the deep rights?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page