THE GHS HAYNESVILLE SHALE RIG TRACKER.

I'll update each week so we can follow the rig count.  I am only counting rigs drilling the Haynesville and Bossier formations.  Many industry rig numbers are for the "Haynesville Area",  however they may defined that, and includes wells drilling other formations.

Scroll down for each new weekly count.  I am deleting the January 26 rig count that I used to start this discussion and replacing it with a running list showing the rig count by state by week.

1/26.    LA - 26, TX - 14: 40

2/1.      LA - 27, TX - 14:  41

2/8.      LA - 25, TX - 13:  38

2/14.    LA - 25, TX - 14:  39

2/21.    LA - 26, TX - 14:  40

2/28.    LA - 24, TX - 14:  38

3/6.      LA - 27, TX - 13:  40

3/14.    LA - 24, TX - 15:  39

3/21.    LA - 25, TX - 15:  40

3/27.    LA - 26, TX - 11:  37

4/4.      LA - 25, TX - 9:    34

4/10.    LA - 26, TX - 9:    35

4/17.    LA - 23, TX - 9:    32

4/24.    LA - 23, TX - 10:  33

5/1.      LA - 23, TX - 10:  33

5/8.      LA - 22, TX - 9:    31

5/15.    LA - 19, TX - 10:  29

5/22.   LA - 21, TX - 10:   31

5/26.   LA - 19, TX - 11:   30

5/29.   LA - 20, TX - 11:   31

6/5.     LA - 21, TX - 10:  31

6/12.   LA - 20, TX - 10:  30

6/19.   LA - 21, TX - 11:  32

6/26.   LA - 21, TX - 12:  33

Tags: L

Views: 8122

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Steve P:

If memory serves, that court ruling does not allow for a surface location for a unit well unless the surface owner has contracted to provide one (so long as the mineral owner is either "paid" or his proportionate ownership in the well bears the costs specified in LA R. S. 30:10 to payout.  Otherwise this would be a trespass (IANAL).

At present, current regulations on well permits require an affidavit from the applicant evidencing an agreement with the surface owner and/or mineral owner to receive approval for a permitted location.  As to tracts where the mineral rights have been severed from the surface, the surface owner is also the owner of the subsurface - so long as the mineral rights are not being captured (e.g., wellbore perforated along its interval as same traverses the tract).  This is what allows E&P companies to drill wells off-unit through use of surface agreements and/or subsurface easements.

Functionally, I am not aware of a company at the moment that has routinely attempted to drill through and produce from mineral tracts not under lease.  In most cases, companies have tried to actively avoid doing so as to avoid the possibility of mineral trespass, opting instead to drill units with unleased mineral interests using wellpaths which specifically traverse and/or have perforated intervals only on leased property.  While the units may in fact have unleased interests force pooled within them, they form only a portion of the unit and are not "wellbore tracts".

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."  

Skip,

Where is the one CHK rig running? Well#?

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

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

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

RSS

© 2020   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service