Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Steve P on February 24, 2020 at 16:28

this is what I would have presumed the law to be, but the case I read wasn't in complete agreement.  However, as I said, the facts were unusual in that the unleased MO/surface owner had been an active participant in the unit designation, and the Court treated him more like a "partner" in the well as opposed to a landowner who's land was being the subject of a "trespass."  

Permalink Reply by Andrew on July 21, 2020 at 1:35

A landowner's claims for both surface and subsurface trespass are superseded when unit operations are conducted within a compulsory unit created by the Commissioner of Conservation. The basis for these holdings is that the Conservation Act (R.S. Title 30) is a valid exercise of the state's police powers in furtherance of a compelling interest to prevent waste (overproduction) of the state's mineral resources.

The original rulings on this issue came from the twin cases in Nunez v. Wainoco Oil and Gas.

Nunez I - claim for subsurface trespass denied by LA Supreme Court. 

Nunez II - claim for surface trespass etc also denied by Third Circuit in subsequent appeal, due to failure to prove actual damages from surface operations.

Nunez was a bizarrely unique fact pattern, for a host of different reasons, but it is sound law in principle. In practice, however, no reasonable company would utilize an unleased tract for surface operations, particularly in an era of pad drilling.

Also, Statewide Order 29-B only requires the operator to notify the owner of the surface at least 30 days prior to commencing operations, but there is no requirement of actually obtaining his consent to the operations. That would allow a spiteful surface owner to veto the use of the mineral owner's right to operate. The regulations also don't provide any apparent cause of action to the landowner for the operator's failure to give notice, though he may still recover actual damages from the surface use in absence of a contract.

Non-consenting owners are entitled to a proportionate share of the proceeds in accordance with La. R.S. 30:10. 

Permalink Reply by w.r. frank on February 28, 2020 at 7:46

Skip,

Where is the one CHK rig running? Well#?

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 28, 2020 at 7:49

Caspiana Field, DeSoto Parish, Sections 28&33 - 15N - 14W

Permalink Reply by James W Funk on February 28, 2020 at 7:51

Can you identify the sections for the three wells in Sabine Parish?
Thanks

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 28, 2020 at 12:37

Indigo in the Converse Field, sections 9&13 - 9N-14W.

Vine in the San Miguel Field, 28&33 - 9N-12W

GEP Haynesville in the Bayou San Miguel Field.  1 rig drilling 35&2 (35-9n-12w, 2-8n-12w), 1 rig 36&1 (36-9n-12w, 1-8n-12w)

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 1, 2020 at 4:07

Updated:  2/28

LOUISIANA (24 - decrease of 2)

Bienville:  Aethon – 3

Bossier:  Aethon – 2

Caddo:  Trinity – 1, Comstock – 1

DeSoto:  Comstock - 3,  Vine – 3, Chesapeake – 1, Indigo – 2, Goodrich – 1

Natchitoches:  Indigo – 2.

Sabine:  Indigo – 1, GEP Haynesville – 2, Vine - 1.

Webster:  Comstock – 1.

 

TEXAS (14 - no change)

Harrison:  Comstock – 1, Sabine – 1, Rockcliff – 2, Tanos – 1.

Nacogdoches:  BP America – 2.

Panola:  Rockcliff – 4, R Lacy – 1.

San Augustine – Aethon – 2.

Permalink Reply by James W Funk on March 7, 2020 at 3:33

Thank you for this info.   I was the unleased owner where GEP is located and cannot find any recourse.   I still wonder that if I can do nothing about the minerals they took under LA law, whether I can take an action for trespass since I also own the land and they are there without my permission.   Could make for interesting review.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 7, 2020 at 3:51

The Louisiana mineral code allows for the production of minerals owned by non-consenting parties under the force pooling provision in compulsory unitization.  So no grounds for mineral trespass.  If GEPH has used your surface without permission, then you would have a case for trespass.  Probably not the case as that would create unacceptable liability for GEPH.

Permalink Reply by waltcop on March 1, 2020 at 15:01

Skip, I'm also interested in the well locations in Sabine Parish. And if we are not friends consider this as a friend request also.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 6, 2020 at 15:44

Updated:  3/6

LOUISIANA (27 - increase of 3)

Bienville:  Aethon – 4

Bossier:  Aethon – 2

Caddo:  Trinity – 1, Comstock – 1

DeSoto:  Comstock - 3,  Vine – 3, Chesapeake – 1, Indigo – 2, Goodrich – 1, Aethon - 1.

Natchitoches:  Indigo – 2.

Red River:  Aethon - 1.

Sabine:  Indigo – 1, GEP Haynesville – 2, Vine - 1.

Webster:  Comstock – 1.

 

TEXAS (13 - decrease of 1)

Harrison:  Comstock – 1, Sabine – 1, Rockcliff – 1, Tanos – 1.

Nacogdoches:  BP America – 2.

Panola:  Rockcliff – 4, R Lacy – 1.

San Augustine – Aethon – 2.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 14, 2020 at 3:16

LOUISIANA (24, decrease of 3)

Bienville:  Aethon – 4

Bossier:  Aethon – 2

Caddo:  Trinity – 1, Comstock – 1

DeSoto:  Aethon – 1, Vine – 3, Chesapeake – 1, Indigo – 2, Goodrich – 1, Comstock - 3

Natchitoches:  Indigo – 1.

Red River:  Aethon – 1.

Sabine:  Vine – 1, GEP Haynesville – 2.

 

 

TEXAS (15, increase of 2)

Harrison:  Comstock – 1, Sabine – 1, Rockcliff – 2, Tanos – 1.

Nacogdoches:  BP America – 2.

Panola:  Rockcliff – 4, R Lacy – 1, Sabine - 1.

San Augustine – Aethon – 2.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• …
• 11
• Next ›
• Page